Mr. Clarke.

Yes. Thank you, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKE

Dr. Gerdes, with regard to finding DNA on a steering wheel, is that unexpected?

Finding DNA on a steering wheel?

Yes.

Not necessarily. This is extremely sensitive technique. It might find it there.

In other words, someone might have driven a car and left DNA from driving the car; is that right?

That's correct.

Might have nothing to do with blood; is that right?

That's true.

And blood could, in fact, be deposited on top of the DNA that somebody left driving the car a week earlier?

That's true.

Your Honor, if I might, I would like to utilize--I just can't remember the number, but the Defense Bronco board. It was displayed earlier this morning.

Well, we'll trust Mr. Wooden to find it.

All right. This is 1309.

Yes. Thank you, your Honor.

Now, Dr. Gerdes, if I can refer your attention--and perhaps I can get the pointer. And in particular, with respect to this--shall we call it a yellow dot that's pointing up that says do you agree--oh, that's referring to the signal or the dot just to the right of the 1.3 allele, correct?

Correct.

And with regard to that particular dot, that was a part of the Department of Justice interpreting as minor alleles, in other words, not as strong as the 1.1 and 1.2 the type 1.3, 4; is that right?

That's correct.

Now, with regard to that--

And, your Honor, at this point, I would like to have marked as People's next in order--not the pointer.

573.

Perhaps I can do it this way.

Dr. Gerdes, do you have copies of the Department of Justice raw notes?

Yes.

And would there, in fact, be a one-page sheet showing the way that the Department of Justice viewed these strips and made notations about types?

Yes.

Okay. If I could then, what I think I'll do is show you this. Showing you what will be marked--I'm sorry--5--

573.

573.

573.

First of all, Dr. Gerdes, does that appear to be a Xerox copy of one of those typing sheets from the Department of Justice?

Yes.

And does that appear to be a document that you also have a Xerox copy of?

Yes.

Okay. And, your Honor, with regard to this exhibit, I would ask to place it on the overhead projector.

And, Dr. Gerdes, just from looking at the sheet from a distance, is item no. 31 what's labeled DNA 18; in other words, what would be the third row from the top?

Yeah. I'd like to double-check that--

Sure.

--just to--it's confusing with the numbers and--

Please do.

That's correct.

Okay. Now, if we focus on the third row down labeled "DNA 18," inside those boxes are a scoring system wherein the analyst looks at the strips and then assigns each of those dots a frequency--I'm sorry--an intensity, that is how dark it is relative to the C dot; is that right?

That's correct.

All right. Then, your Honor, if we could zoom in on DNA 18. A little bit more. That's fine.

And, Dr. Gerdes, if you could, could you tell us where the scoring for the 1.3 dot would be on this particular sample, which is DNA 18, but is LAPD no. 31?

Can I use the pointer?

Sure.

It would be under the 1.3 column. So it would be right here (Indicating).

So that particular 1.3 dot was scored by the analyst--actually analysts; is that correct?

Yes. There are two analysts.

Was Renee Montgomery the analyst in this particular instance?

Yes.

And who else read that chart--I'm sorry--read that script as well?

Confirming analyst I believe was Gary Sims. Yes. Over in the corner, gas, Gary Sims.

Now, referring to that particular interpretation, is it then correct that both analysts scored the 1.3 dot as the same intensity as the C dot?

They state that it's approximately equal to the C dot on their interpretation, yes.

Actually they note that in two different locations on this particular scoring sheet, don't they?

It's--yes. The arrow right now is pointing to that notation.

Okay. The first indication is where it's labeled c; is that correct?

On the strip squares themselves, yes.

That's to the left of the arrow?

Yes.

And perhaps if we could just point to the C.

You're talking about this C (Indicating)?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

And it's actually indicated here as well (Indicating).

So, in other words, off to the right, it is indicated 4, approximately the same as C, approximately the same as 1.3?

That's what's indicated.

Incidentally, was Dr. Blake present during this particular analysis?

It states that in the corner of the document. So apparently he was.

Now, going back to the user guide, the user guide in fact directs the user that any signal at an intensity of the C dot or higher is a positive signal that can be called, correct?

That's what they say.

That's what the user guide says, correct?

Correct.

And, in fact, the user guide is the same user guide that you described as containing accepted scientific procedures, correct?

It--yes. I've stated that I agree with parts of it and I disagree with others, yes.

With respect to interpretation of dots at the intensity level of the C dot or above, that's a correct procedure, isn't it?

Again, I disagree with that aspect of it because it's in the presence of a mixture, and when you have a mixture, the dot intensity question becomes confused because the C dot is really developed by the presence of the primary contributor. So using that as a relative gauge is no longer something that I would do.

It is, in fact, what Roche molecular systems describes as an appropriate way to interpret the presence of types, correct?

I believe if you read the user guide, they themselves state that in the presence of mixtures, you should use extreme caution.

And, in fact, they state that you should use caution in interpreting any mixture, correct?

That's correct.

But they also state that a signal that is equal to the C dot or greater is a positive signal that can be interpreted as present, correct?

That's what they state.

Now, I'd like to shift, if I could then, your Honor, to what I believe to be 1310, but it's a similar board dealing with the Bundy drop.

Now, Dr. Gerdes, showing you what's been marked exhibit 1310, you stated that you felt that it was arbitrary to call the 1.3 dot as present with regard to item no. 31, the Bronco console, correct?

Right.

When it's not called as part of item no. 52, which is the Bundy blood drop, as reflected on the typing strip on Defendant's exhibit 1310, correct?

That's my opinion.

Now, I have an additional page I would like marked as I believe People's 574.

Yes.

Dr. Gerdes, showing you what will be marked People's 574, does that appear to be a similar typing sheet from the Department of Justice that includes the DQ-Alpha typing of the Bundy blood drop no. 52?

This is the typing that was performed on 10-31, yes.

October 31st?

Yes. It was typed twice.

All right. Then, your Honor, with the Court's permission, may I display the sheet?

Yes.

Now, this was a typing--and I believe you described previously that there are actually two DQ-Alpha typing runs on no. 52 at the Department of Justice, correct?

That's correct.

Now, that is also referred to by the Department of Justice as DNA 55A?

Yes.

Then would it be correct that the second row down, that is the second row below the first row--

It's right here, yes (Indicating).

--reflects those typing results on the Bundy drop, LAPD item no. 52?

That's correct.

Now, with regard to the 1.3 allele, let's start with--and who was the analyst?

The analyst again was Renee Montgomery.

And was there a second reader or confirming analyst?

Gary Sims. Gary Sims.

With respect to their viewing of that original strip and the 1.3 allele, what did they note about that particular dot?

They state that there's a trace and that it's less than the C.

Actually under the 1.3 box, they state C minus slash trace, correct?

Correct.

Meaning that the intensity of that dot was less than the C dot, correct?

That's what they see. That's correct.

Now, turning to the far right under "Comments," there's actually some more notations that include C greater than 1.3?

Correct.

Meaning that the 1.3 dot was less intense than the C dot?

That's correct.

And then is there also a notation that appears to have Gary Sims' initials?

Yes.

And what does Mr. Sims note there?

He also indicates the C minus which is less than a C dot.

The intensity of that dot with regard to item no. 52 then was less than the C dot, correct?

Correct.

In comparison to item no. 31, the intensity of the 1.3 dot relative to the C dot was different, wasn't it?

Yes.

And the user guide prescribes appropriate ways of interpreting evidence when dots are either equal to or greater than the C dot versus less than the C dot?

Once again, I disagree with that, but they do.

Objection. Move to strike, your Honor. Nonresponsive.

Overruled.

The user guide provides that those are different interpretations to be made or suggested to be made to analysts, correct?

Yes.

So in reality, what you have called not real in this situation and real with regard to item no. 31 are two different situations, aren't they?

Well, the other aspect of this that you didn't mention is the fact that these 1.3's are showing up on the control strips.

Well, what I'm asking though, Dr. Gerdes, is, with respect to item 52, the 1.3 is less than the C, correct?

Yes.

With respect to QC877, the 1.3 is less than the C, isn't it?

Yes.

And with regard to the positive control, the 1.3 noted by the analyst is less than the C dot, correct?

Yes.

All of the samples in this particular series of 3 on Defendant's exhibit 1310 showed 1.3 alleles less than the C dot, correct?

Yes.

And, in fact, that C dot is very important in the interpretation of results, correct?

It's important when you know you don't have a mixture.

Incidentally, doctor--

And perhaps we can remove the board.

Incidentally, in your laboratory, these protocols that exist, you want your analyst to follow the protocols that you have in place in the lab, correct?

Yes.

Now, I'd like to turn your attention, if I can, to the area of the Bundy drops, no. 47 through 50 as well as 52, and in particular, the potential you raised of cross-contamination. Do you recall that testimony?

Yes, I do.

First of all, you've made no studies about cross-contaminating, that is contamination among forensic samples, correct?

I haven't done any of the studies myself, no.

You've had no training whatsoever in evidence collection techniques as used by police?

No.

You have no personal experience in evidence collection of any manner, correct, as far as forensic samples?

I believe I've answered that. Yes.

And you've collected--conducted absolutely no validation studies involving forensic samples, correct?

That's correct.

Do you believe you are as qualified as Gary Sims to offer an opinion to this jury about proper methods of evidence collection?

I think I've seen a wealth of evidence as it's been introduced, and with my experience in microbiology, I feel I'm adequately qualified to speak to those issues.

Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Is there a term called "Hypothesis testing"?

Yes.

What's that mean?

Well, you--"Hypothesis" is an explanation for something and then testing it would be involved setting up an experiment to test it.

In other words--and perhaps you could tell us, what is a "Hypothesis"?

A "Hypothesis" is basically a--an explanation and that is a possible explanation for something, and then testing it would involve designing, for instance, a scientific experiment to test how likely that explanation is the true explanation.

And that's part of the scientific method?

Yes.

As we're taught in elementary school and higher education?

Yes.

As far as this issue of cross-contamination of samples, because your lab is not a forensic lab, you don't conduct any investigations into that type of potential, do you?

In any scientific endeavor, scientific results are documented or should be if it's a scientific method so that an independent analyst who's trained in the science can look at--doesn't have to do the experiments. He can look at the data and do hypothesis testing based on the data, and it's frequently done in the scientific fields.

As far as your hypothesis, that is of the potential that these Bundy blood drops were cross-contaminated, you have conducted absolutely no testing to test whether or not that could occur in forensic samples, correct?

No, I haven't.

With regard to item no. 47, can you tell us how much DNA was in that blood drop when it was deposited when the person bled?

Before it degraded? No.

Is that also true of item no. 48?

That's true.

49?

Yes.

50?

Yes.

And 52?

Yes.

And, in fact, the levels of DNA in a bloodstain can be the level of DNA that was left there by the blood donor instead of from cross-contamination, correct?

It's--that's possible.

You don't know how much bacteria was present on any of these surfaces, do you?

Well, I know there was enough bacteria to cause substantial degradation.

You have conducted no tests to determine if the amount of bacteria, for instance, in item no. 47 was the same on through out to item no. 52 on the back driveway, have you?

As far as quantitating the bacteria, no.

Is it important--is it--well, let me rephrase that. Would it be a factor in determining how much degradation occurred, to know how much bacteria was present in each of those samples?

No. I think that the important--the critical aspect of this is how much degradation there is on the DNA, not how much bacterias there are.

Isn't it important to know how much DNA was there to start with?

There's no way of determining that.

Is it important to know that?

It would be--it would be--if you could determine that, it would be important.

Because that would tell you how much degradation actually occurred from bacteria; isn't that right?

Yes.

As far as item no. 117--and so we're clear, item no. 52 was a bloodstain on the back driveway, correct?

Correct.

Item no. 117 was a bloodstain on the back gate?

Correct.

Is it your testimony that the conditions where the blood was actually recovered from was the same for item 52 as it was for 117?

The exact--it wasn't the exact location. I think it was on the same general area. So I would anticipate the conditions would be approximately the same.

Well, wasn't one of them found on a driveway, a surface that is flat?

Yes.

Wasn't one of them found on a vertical surface or something at an up and down location?

Yes.

As far as the collection of items no. 115, 116 and 117, first of all, they're all from the back gate, correct?

Correct.

Can you tell us how long they were in plastic bags after they were recovered?

As far as I know, that's not known.

Is that an important fact in comparing relative DNA amounts and relative bacterial degradation?

It might have some bearing, but I wouldn't anticipate it would be a major difference in terms of the amount of time.

You have criticized the use of plastic bags in terms of collecting evidence and transporting it and storing it in plastic bags, correct?

Correct.

Wouldn't the amount of time that a wet bloodstain was in a plastic bag be very important in determining degradation?

It would be relevant.

It would be more than relevant, wouldn't it?

It would be important.

What time of the day were 115, 116 and 117 collected?

I think it was in the afternoon, but I'm not a hundred percent sure on that. I'd have to look it up.

Do you know how hot it was that day?

No.

Isn't that important?

It could have some relevance.

Well, it could have a good deal of relevance in terms of comparing relative degradation amounts, correct?

Yes.

Can you tell us how long 115 through 117 were in their plastic bags in the truck?

I haven't seen that written anywhere. I'm not sure--I'm not aware of that.

Wouldn't that be important to know also to compare degradation of those samples versus degradation due to bacteria of the original Bundy blood drops?

It would, but those are a month older to begin with too. So it's kind of hard to figure out what's going on here.

Well, a bloodstain on a gate isn't the same as a wet bloodstain in a plastic bag, is it?

No.

In fact, when blood dries, it becomes--well, let me rephrase that. Isn't dry blood a much better form to store blood in to preserve its DNA content than wet blood?

That's true.

In fact, dry bloodstains have--are capable of being typed after weeks, months, years or even decades in some instances, correct?

That's been claimed.

Well, hasn't that been demonstrated by the scientific literature?

Yes.

Aren't all of these factors, when an item was collected, how much DNA was present, how much bacteria was present, how the items were stored, temperature and each of the items that we have just discussed, aren't they all important factors in rendering an opinion about relative degradation in one sample and another?

Yes.

Not all of those are known, but the fact is, it's an older sample and my opinion is based on that.

May I have a moment, your Honor?

When you say that one of the samples was a month older, which one are you talking about?

They were collected later.

Is that the only comment you're making, is--as far as a one-month period?

Starting at a different starting point.

And by "Starting point," what do you mean?

In terms of how old the specimen was before it was collected.

Isn't it correct that you cannot testify that those samples weren't deposited at the same time or within minutes of one another?

I'm not talking about when they were deposited. I'm talking about when they were collected.

I'm referring to now when they were deposited. From your review of these materials, you cannot state that those two samples weren't deposited within minutes of each other, can you?

As far as when they were deposited, no.

Now, I believe, Dr. Gerdes, you described the fact that from your review of the materials--and I'm referring to the LAPD validation studies--that you could find no instance in which there was more than one run on the same day.

In the table that I looked at, yes.

Okay.

That I derived.

So you're going only by the chart that you made; is that right?

Yes.

As far as the materials that you have--and I'm referring to the validation studies--do you only have in your possession those particular records where you charted an event like contamination in your opinion?

No. I have the complete set of records.

Okay. Can I refer your attention then to the date of May 6th, 1994 in your records.

Yes.

And in particular, who was the analyst on the first run that you show for May 6th?

Collin Yamauchi.

Do you show a second run on May 6th by Erin Riley?

No, I don't.

All right. All right. Your Honor, I have two documents I would ask be marked People's next in order.

575.

Consists of two hybridization records, and I'll have the witness further authenticate it.

Dr. Gerdes, would you take a moment to look at those two documents?

Is the Court going to take a break at a particular time?

As soon as you finish.

With this area?

This is a relatively minor point.

I understand.

All right. Well, perhaps we can just shorten it. Do those appear to be two runs on the same day, one by Erin Riley and one by Collin Yamauchi?

They appear to be, but I--these particular cases involve casework, and I believe they weren't--I was not given these.

Well, weren't you allowed to see each of the testings in their books, that is the LAPD books including polymarker as well as casework?

Yes. But these were not--they were not provided as part of discovery and there were additional discovery that I obtained.

Weren't you allowed to look at the original records of those?

Yes.

I don't have much longer, but I have more than five minutes let's say.

Keep going.

Would it be possible to take a break, your Honor, to collect a few items as well? I assure the Court it will not be lengthy.

How much time do you need?

You mean how much further testimony time? Probably about 10 to 15 minutes, but I need to collect some items if I could.

Okay. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid-afternoon recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll stand in recess until 3:00 o'clock. All right. Dr. Gerdes, you can step down.