Well, this is the 7-14-93 proficiency samples, and on that particular date, the female reference sample no. 1 was typed by LAPD as a 1.3, 4 and the correct type is a 1.2, 4.
Now, what is the--what does it say? No. 8, negative control, what does that represent?
The control that's supposed to be a negative control, it should have no DNA whatsoever, in this case, showed the indication of DNA, and that DNA was typeable as including 1.2 and 4 alleles.
Well, the type--the LAPD type was a 1.3, 4. The alleles that were found on the negative control included a 1.2, 4, and from that, we can conclude that the 1.3 was not depicted on the negative control.
Now, in other words, you're saying this means that there was contamination that caused an incorrect type here that was not detected by the negative control?
Now, in your review of the LAPD lab in your study of contamination of runs and contamination of strips, in how many instances did you detect contamination that was not picked up by the negative control? In other words, the negative control was blank, but you nonetheless saw contamination.
Now, you remember Mr. Clarke asked you questions about what would you--did Erin Riley do the right thing when she typed it again, and you said yes, correct?
But at that time, you--could you please further explain what--the answer to that question?
Certainly. The correct procedure actually would be, the minute you see any indication of contamination, you need to shut down your operation, you need to clean up with bleach, you need to make new reagent, you need to identify the source of contamination, do a large number of negative controls to make sure they're clean and that you've gotten away from whatever the problem is, and only then do you repeat the test and go on.
KEY QUOTENow, should those steps, in terms of documenting the contamination and the efforts to correct it, be documented?
Just where--what is the significance in terms of contamination that these are proficiency test samples that come from an outside source and you see this contamination?
It simply means that the laboratory has introduced this contaminant into the specimen.
This is the rerun on 7-15-93 of that same proficiency test. And again, no. 1, female reference sample was once again typed as 1.3, 4, indicating that they did nothing to remove the contaminant. It's still there. It's still causing the same error. The correct type should have been a 1.2, 4, and on this particular occasion, the negative control was once again showing DNA and the DNA that was shown is a 1.2, 1.3 this time.
So between those two days, you can see how random this process is. What we have is a 1.3 has now appeared on the negative control strip and the 4 contaminant has disappeared.
Just briefly, Mr. Clarke asked you about other PCR base techniques. For example, he asked you about laboratories that can detect a single cell. Do you recall those questions?
When laboratories are amplifying up and doing a PCR base technique on a single cell, how many negative controls do they ordinarily use for that application?
When you're looking at something of that low a concentration, you need to be absolutely sure that you are not getting contamination.
And would it be a fair statement that depending on the application, different controls are necessary?
Now, you were asked a whole series of questions about not having done forensic samples in your own laboratory and not attending forensic meetings. Do you recall that?
And incidentally, you were asked some questions about attending forensic meetings at the FBI. Do you recall those?
Now, you have criticized here, have you not, the method that the Los Angeles Police Department personnel used in collecting the blood swatches wet in plastic bags. You recall that?
To evaluate the scientific merits of that procedure, do you believe that you're unable to do so because you have not attended forensic meetings?
I think the fundamental science here is basically microbiology because that's the science that deals with how to manipulate and handle samples in such a way to prevent cross-contamination and to prevent them from becoming degraded.
And your experience as a DNA laboratory director, does that have relevance here too?
In terms of the procedures followed on June 13th in taking the swatches out of the plastic bags from Bundy and Rockingham, not changing gloves, not changing papers when put into test tubes, do your criticisms of that depend upon, in your judgment, attendance of forensic meetings or doing forensic samples?
What about the methods used for taking those samples out of the test tubes by scraping and creating aerosols? Does your criticisms of that depend upon the attendance of forensic meetings or running forensic samples?
Once again, the fundamental issue here is understanding how those manipulations can cause cross-contamination. That's a microbiology issue.
In a DNA or molecular biology PCR lab. Those are molecular biology fundamental science issues.
In terms of handling Mr. Simpson's reference sample in the way that Mr. Yamauchi did along with the Rockingham glove and all the Bundy blood drop swatches between 9:00 and 11:00 o'clock on the morning of June 14th, in terms of your criticisms with that, do you believe that it is necessary to attend forensic meetings?
Do you believe that not having done forensic samples in your laboratory makes you unable to evaluate that?
Once again, it's a fundamental question of basic training in microbiology and molecular biology as to how to handle these items that contain very small amounts of material in such a way so that you don't have the risk of creating error and cross-contamination.
Mr. Clarke asked you about the fact that you once testified for a Prosecutor and on other times testified for Defense lawyers. Do you recall that?
I'm asked to evaluate the science as to whether the science is fundamentally sound and that's what I express an opinion about.
KEY QUOTENow, you were asked some questions about the money that you've been paid in this case and your salary. Do you recall those?
And do you recall the questions that you're being paid at what, the rate of $100 an hour here?
And that your salary at IAD is not at $100 an hour. Do you recall those questions?
Now, first of all, do you personally receive the money that you get from this case or any others where you testify as a witness?
And in terms of the amount of money that--you write grant proposals; is that correct?
And as part of that, do you have to make an assessment of how much it costs IAD to have you as an employee?
And is the expenditure of money that IAD pays you reflected merely in your salary?
All right. And when you're away from the laboratory, does IAD's--is there an opportunity cost for IAD? Could you explain what that term is?
Yes. Well, since I'm not at the laboratory, my function at the laboratory is to promote the work of that laboratory. So my productivity is lost. It's just not my time, but my productivity in terms of working in the lab and getting business for that laboratory is lost to the company.
Dr. Gerdes, you indicated that over a five-year period, you have testified in court about 23 times?
And you indicated I think at the very beginning of the cross-examination that there came a period of time--let's see. You indicated you got your Ph.D. in four years at UCLA?
Well, it was a personal decision. I had a small son, and I decided to play Mr. Mom for a few years, and so we went to Hawaii.
And you indicated--why did you--could you explain a little bit about why you had to be on television when you taught these classes at the community college?
Well, in Hawaii, there are a series of islands, and it's just the best way to communicate to remote sites.
And, finally, Dr. Gerdes, you were asked about working for the pineapple factory. Do you recall that?
Well, the pineapple company had a problem with their cans blowing up. In fact, they had--
Well, they would swell up and then just explode, and basically they had some of the workers injured in fact from this. So I was called in to track down why those cans were blowing up, and it turned out to be bacterial contamination.
28 percent of the times.
The correct procedure actually would be, the minute you see any indication of contamination, you need to shut down your operation, you need to clean up with bleach, you need to make new reagent, you need to identify the source of contamination, do a large number of negative controls to make sure they're clean and that you've gotten away from whatever the problem is, and only then do you repeat the test and go on.
Is this any way to run a railroad?
I'm asked to evaluate the science as to whether the science is fundamentally sound and that's what I express an opinion about.
No. All of the lab--all of the charges go directly to my laboratory.