Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir?
Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct?
Now, if what that--strike that. In the evidence stain, sir, you said you found EDTA in the levels of parts per million, correct?
I didn't find it. Mr. Martz did and I agreed that they are in the parts per million based on his analysis.
So the amount of EDTA found in the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right?
Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His detection limit is in the parts per million.
The answer is yes. The amount that was found in the gate and the sock were in parts per million, correct?
And the amount that should be found, the maximum amount that could be found in a person, a normal healthy person's blood is in parts per billion, correct?
And if that information is incorrect and the actual information is in parts per million, then the amount found in the gate and the sock are a normal person's maximum allowable amount; wouldn't that be true, sir?
We received a report I'm showing to counsel now. I ask it be marked as People's next in order.
No. I furnished a copy to you and to Mr. Martz. I mean, actually I furnished copies--let me see what I have.
And I'm going to ask if we can have it copied for counsel so they can keep it with them.
"Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion?
What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd.
It's absurd. This is the basis for the EPA report that you referred to, sir, this absurd thing here?
Let me show you another report. Now, the report that you just pulled out from your briefcase, sir, I'm going to cite you to a passage where it says, "Insight to amelioration AML, dredge undissolved solid." That's in your report, correct?
This is the EPA report that you used to base your opinion on that the normal amount of EDTA that you'll find in blood or the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person would be in the parts per billion, correct?
Now, with respect to this report, sir, on which you just said you based your opinion from the EPA, you read that to allow for the maximum allowable amount in a normal person to be two parts per billion?
Right. Now, is it possible, sir, that you have a typo here that caused you to conclude there were two parts per billion as the maximum allowable when in fact, it is 1,000 times less, two parts per million as the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person?
It's possible that this is a typo, but this is--a 2,000 parts per million is absurd as I told you. The people would be bleeding to death at that level.
KEY QUOTEWell, obviously. I mean, it's--obviously it's a typo in there because I can't imagine that the EPA would say that it's all right to run around with blood that won't clot.
Sir, you earlier just premised your person on the maximum allowable amount for a normal person on the EPA report, correct?
And so you determined that what the EPA was saying was the maximum allowable amount was two parts per billion, correct?
That they were saying what is consistent with their radioactive study, and that's what they say, yes. Sure. Makes sense.
It gave no lower trace amounts that it was able to detect or measure in blood, did it?
That report back in the 50's of radioactive EDTA did not state any specific amount for anything detected in blood resembling EDTA; isn't that correct?
The witness continues to refer to it. Then I'd ask the witness' references to be stricken.
You just testified that you based your opinion on this EPA report. Isn't that what you just did on direct examination, sir?
I didn't say--I didn't say I didn't base it on anything else. Yes, that's what I said.
Thank you, sir. And you interpreted that report to say that the normal amount you would find, a maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person would be two parts per billion, correct?
And that the amount that you found in the gate and the sock stains were in the parts per million, correct?
I didn't find it. The amounts that the FBI found were in the parts per million, yes.
And based on those differences on the parts per billion that you would find in the normal healthy person, which is far less wouldn't you agree, than in parts per million, correct?
Based on that, sir, you concluded that the amount of EDTA found in the gate and the sock stains could not have come from food, correct?
The question was regarding whether or not the EDTA in the gate and sock stains could have come from food.
Not from ingested foods being transferred into the blood of a person from whom that blood came. That in my opinion is so unlikely that I would not consider it.
Now, doctor, that is based on your interpretation--that is based on the report from the EPA that talks about the maximum allowable amount of EDTA in a normal person, correct?
And you also determined--then, doctor, if your interpretation or your reading of that report saying two parts per billion in the normal healthy person is based on a typo and in fact, they meant to say two parts per million, what they are stating there in the two parts per million is consistent with the amount of EDTA that was found by Agent Martz in the gate and the sock stains; isn't that correct?
I beg your pardon. It's 2,000 parts per million. Two milligrams per mil is 2,000 parts per million, the same that was--that's--or more so than you find in an EDTA tube. That is blood that won't coagulate.
Did you see the report on which it's based, sir? In other words, you're insisting that this EPA report is wrong. Is that your testimony?
I don't say that the report is wrong if that's what they put in. I think it's either a typo or a complete absurdity.
Now, I'm showing you the report faxed to us by the EPA on which the report you have is based, and that's the one just shown to counsel, People's 357. And it says the same thing, does it not, two milligrams per milliliter? Isn't that correct?
Your Honor, I still don't have a copy of this. Could we have a copy of this, please?
It is a--it is a--it describes the content of the paper. It is not a report. It says that: "Observation on the effect of the concentration of EDTA on the packed cell volume of various domestic animals confirm that in man, the concentration of EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." The citation is the British veterinary journal. So it--I mean, you know, I don't quite understand it if this is on animals or why this applies to man, and, secondly, if it is supposed to--this is not a report. This is an abstract of a paper--it's an absurdity.
But it does use the same amount; does it not, doctor? You see that you have 2 mg/ml, they have 2 mg/ml, and we have a report that conforms to the report on which it's based. I just had you read it, have I not, where it says--
Your copy of something else. This is not the same. Will you please note that these are different references from another base?
Yes. But the paragraph it applies to is word for word the same as yours; isn't that correct?
The paper on which--that was sent to us from the EPA, People's 536, says the same? 2--
That's what the paragraph says. I don't know that paper. I'd have to read it to give you an opinion on it.
Yesterday, doctor, you were willing to base your opinion on the parts per billion that you thought was actually written there earlier on direct testimony, correct?
Because--yes, because all it did was corroborate what the radioactivity studies showed, that they couldn't find any in their detection limit, it being one part per billion.
And, doctor, in these radioactivity studies, there is no amount shown; isn't that correct?
But it's clearly there. It's not written out, but it's clearly there. They used radioactivity--active labeled EDTA that they gave people by mouth. They could not detect it. They show you how many DPM's they can count at the various levels, and what is not detected is, it's no more than one to two parts per billion.
Doctor, what kind of equipment or facilities did they have for testing back then? Did they have the LC--did they have the liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer back then?
This has nothing to do with it. This is radioactive material fed to people, which is much more sensitive than any instruments that we have nowadays.
Doctor, let me ask you this. Have you done any studies to take blood from normal people that is not preserved and tested for trace levels of EDTA? Have you done that?
I guess so. I'll have to look at the date. It's the date that's on the report, whatever that is.
July 17th. And you got Agent Martz' reports back in the end of February, beginning of March, correct?
I don't remember the exact date, but probably in March sometime I think. I'm not even sure I got them in March. But never mind. I got them quite a while ago.
It's customary for you to do as you are instructed by the Defense counsel that hire you, correct?
Only instructed in terms of what he wants me to do and what he wants me to give them. That's his prerogative.
Okay. And when you wrote that report on July 17th, you had not yet spoken to Agent Martz about his testing, correct?
And after you wrote that report, you discovered that Agent Martz tested his own normal blood unpreserved for the presence of EDTA and found EDTA; did he not?
His results that he forwarded to me showed an EDTA peak in the blood that he processed, yes.
In fact, isn't it true, doctor, that his own unpreserved blood came up very similarly in results to the bloodstains found on the gate and the sock? Isn't that true, doctor?
All right. We're over at the sidebar. Miss Clark, I cautioned you to be careful earlier. Your commentary on the testimony, I realize you're enjoying yourself, but I'm warning you right now, warning you in no uncertain terms, if I see any more of that commentary, there's going to be severe sanctions, and I underline the word "Severe." Proceed.
Now, doctor, as you've indicated, you are interpreting Agent Martz' work; is that correct?
The only one that we do have is the ability to collect fractions and analyze them separately by the mass spectrometer, something which I've done.
Now, doctor, wouldn't you agree that the person that would be the most qualified to testify and interpret the results of the operation of a given machine is somebody who operates that machine on a daily basis?
He should be the most qualified person to determine what the limits of ability of his machine are since he works with it every day. Yes.
And in that regard, sir, you testified earlier that you thought retention time was a significant factor in determining whether or not these stains had the same qualities as those found in the reference blood samples with respect to the presence of EDTA; isn't that right?
And if an expert in the operation of this machine such as Agent Martz told you that retention time was an inappropriate factor to use because it is not discriminating for the presence of EDTA, wouldn't you agree that retention time should not be relied upon to determine whether or not a substance is or is not EDTA?
Well, if he told--if he were to tell me that, I would tell him that he's in error because retention time is a characteristic of a substance in a chromatography system provided there is some reasonable reproducibility of flow and other things, that's possible. It's independent of the detection system and all these other things and the variability may be greater in one than in another, but it is usable and it is used for that, yes. That's what I would tell him. He didn't tell me that it's not applicable. Retention time is always a characteristic of a substance unless you change conditions completely.
Well, let me ask you this, doctor. When you do testing to determine whether or not you think something is present, chemically speaking, wouldn't it be important to use factors that are as unique and as rare as possible in determining whether or not a compound is or is not a given chemical? Wouldn't you agree?
Only if you add the one other thing "And available." If you can do cer--within the framework of what you can do, are you doing all you can to get the most intimately characterizing property of the substance that differentiates it from others, yes.
Doctor, let me ask you this. If you are attempting to find women that look like me, wouldn't it be far more efficient to say you want a woman of this height and this weight--and I'm not going to say what that is--and this kind of hair and these kind of eyes and that kind of mouth and those kind of arms as opposed to just saying I want a woman five foot six?
What I'm getting at, doctor, is, if you use criteria that are very broad, then you will include a lot that does not belong in that category, correct, as a general proposition?
I will use all available criteria, broad, narrow, microscopic and assign to each one a probative value for what a scientist does, and that is applying what is called the null hypothesis.
All right, doctor. Let me ask you this. If you assign probative value, if an expert in the operation of this machine who uses it every day like Agent Martz were to tell you that retention time has very little probative value because all chemicals seem to pass through at almost the same time or within a minute, would you agree, doctor, that that is not a factor that should be given great probative value in your determination as to whether or not a compound is or is not EDTA?
Well, if you were to tell me that, I will tell you that you are grossly mistaken. And if you earnestly believe that all compounds will pass through in a short time when you have a column, you don't know what you're talking about.
But, doctor, you would agree, would you not, that someone who runs that machine every day would be a better expert, better able to determine what are the probative factors and are not than someone else who has never operated it? Wouldn't you agree, doctor?
Doctor, isn't it true that most compounds will pass through this particular, the electrospray in particular, in about one minute?
It will pass through the electrospray in one minute, but the separation occurs in the chromatography column.
That's right. And in the column, sir, how long does it take, if you know--do you even know how long it takes most compounds to pass through the column in the LC tandem ms?
That will depend on what column and what flow you use. He doesn't say how much time it takes. He has everything down in terms of scan numbers. So I can't tell you. It's a few minutes between runs, and that rather surprised me, that so little separation time is allowed and--but that's all. I still can't--I can't tell you a thing about it. If he knows what he's doing, then he's using a column to separate substances. As far as I know, he knows what he's doing and that's what he's doing. So he separates them.
Okay. And as a matter of fact, you've had his reports for--or his notes and the graphs for months, correct?
Was there anyone who prevented you from picking up a phone to ask him about these questions, sir?
It's not customary for me to do that. I asked the attorneys to get me additional information or to suggest that I call him up and talk to him on the phone. I got additional information, not all that I asked for, but I did not get their okay to call him. And although I realize I can do it, you know, I'm a free man, it's not a very proper thing if you--if you are going contrary to the wishes of the people that you talk to unless those wishes are an obvious crime or something.
And the Defense attorneys told you when to write your report and who you may call and not call; is that correct?
I do not wait for their permission. I asked them whether they have wishes, not orders. And if their wishes are reasonable, I'll comply with them of course.
KEY QUOTEIt's important for you to get as much data, as much information as you possibly can so your answers are all as correct and reliable as they can be; isn't that true?
And would it have been improper for you to ask Agent Martz to furnish you with information on the validity or the probative value of retention time, for example, in this particular piece of equipment in which he is an expert in its use?
Either ask that question specifically or ask it in a more general way, which I did, to the attorneys, and that is that I would like to see the validation data for all the perimeters that apply to this analysis. Retention time is one of the most important perimeters, and the validation data that I received contained retention times which put it exactly into the range that they were. So it worked fine.
In every chromatography, retention time or RF or RT, whatever they are called--it's the same thing. They just attach different letters to them--is one of the characterizing properties of individual compounds or sometimes the groups of compounds depending how you are doing the analysis.
And, doctor, in the use of the gas chromatograph, you will be able to detect items by how long they take to separate, correct, and some items take a great deal of more time than others?
Well, separated somewhere, whether they--by the time--they are measured by the time they get--at the end of the column, the time is recorded, and the time between one peak and the next peak has to be sufficient so that they are clearly two peaks.
And what is the amount of time, maximum amount of time that it would take an item to go through your column, the gas chromatograph column?
That is so variable. I have substances just go through the column, through one column in less than a minute. I have others which take 40 minutes in that or in other columns. It is as long as you want it to be. For instance, in the EPA studies, there are runs that are two hours long. So, you know, it's--it's what you're looking for and what you're doing. As long as you know what you're doing, you're all right.
All right, doctor. In your experience then with the gas chromatograph that you routinely operate, you can have items that run through the column for as long as 40 minutes, correct, that have retention time as long as that?
Yeah. I think in one of the types of analysis that we do--we do many different types--there is as much--it's a screen and it extends over something like 40 minutes.
Now, doctor, if Agent Martz were to tell you that because of the way the electrospray works, he's required to use very volatile liquid to push the material through the column such as pneumonia, and as a result of that, just about all substances go through in one minute, what in your opinion would be the probative value of retention time?
It would still be the retention time of a substance within 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds, 40 seconds, 50 seconds, 60 seconds. The last one is six times as long as the first one. So whatever the time is--I'm sure he isn't pushing it through a column for the fun of it because if it's so close that you can't differentiate, why use a column at all.
Nevertheless, doctor, if that were the case, then wouldn't you agree that retention time is not a very discriminating factor in the LC tandem and mass electrospray?
It is a discriminating factor. I don't want to assign to it very little--it's a discriminating factor. It's a property. It takes a certain length of time for EDTA to go through. So that's one of its characteristic. If he knows of 50 other substances not related to EDTA that have the same retention time and if you'll tell me, then I say well, then it still is a characteristic, but it is shared with other substances.
Now, if these substances are indeed things that you find in blood, then it's important. If they are substances that you only find in the Gulf of Mexico, then they are irrelevant because your test has to be something that has a meaning in terms of the analysis that you do. If they are cyanide and other horrible poisons, then in this case, it's irrelevant because there's none there.
All right. Now, doctor, then in that case--but in that case, if there were say 50 other compounds that pass through at the same retention time, the probative value would be less?
Well, doesn't the retention time to some degree depend on the kind of liquid used to push the material through the column? Isn't that true?
--isn't it true, doctor, that you're going to wind up with a lot of compounds with the same retention or very similar retention time as opposed to using different liquids?
I don't know that. You don't have to. You have a good separation or you don't. I don't know.
Well, whether you operate the electrospray or not has nothing to do with that, nothing whatever. If the whole retention on that column is one minute, then you're working with a separation within one minute. There are gas chromatograms which separate 200 compounds in one minute that you put in there. So I'm sure it's the same that you can obtain here although LC is less of a separator.
But you would agree with me, would you not, doctor, that if the retention time in the electrospray is very similar for many different compounds, then the retention time is not a very probative factor? Yes or no?
Well, didn't you just tell us, sir, that you determined how probative certain factors are?
All right. Then obviously, there is some variation between the importance of certain factors and others, correct?
All right. Now, with respect to Agent Martz' blood, you have testified, sir, that since you wrote your report, you determined, you found out that Agent Martz tested his own blood and came up with characteristics just like those in the gate and the sock stains which you determined were EDTA, correct?
Well, let me just show you a chart, sir. Now, while Mr. Blasier is reviewing that, I want to show you a chart which he showed you earlier.
All right. You were speaking earlier, sir, of the fact that EDTA is comprised of the parent ion 292 and one proton is added, correct?
And by the way, I think you indicated to counsel that the process of electrospray does not alter the ions. Didn't you say that, sir?
I testified that the electrospray does not change one chemical into another. That includes ions of one chemical into ions of another chemical.
They can be. They not all are. The main thing about electrospray is that it is capable of driving otherwise neutral molecules, lodge neutral molecules readily into the mass spectrometer. That's its great advantage.
Now, when you do the gas chromatograph in the work that you've done, you measure the straight weight, correct, the straight weight of the ion with no additions?
No, no, no. Positive, I also use m plus one, which is the molecular weight plus one. That's what you get.
And that's what you do here; do you not? You're adding one to the molecular weight?
All right. Now, you've testified, sir, that the parent ion 293 is one characteristic of the EDTA, correct?
And that other daughter ion, 132, was not present on the gate and the sock stains; isn't that correct?
Oh, no. That's not correct. Remember that Mr. Blasier showed me a chromatogram which included the--all three, the 293, the 160 and I think the 130 or whatever it was, and all three of them were there, although not in high concentrations. They were below the concentration at which the instrument prints out retention time, peak height and number. It is below what is called the reporting limit of the instrument the way it's set.
No, no. I can see it and so can the instrument. It just didn't label it. There's a big difference between that.
All right. Before we get to that chart, sir--we're going to try to locate that--are you familiar with the term "Noise"?
And are you familiar with the maxim that a scientist requires three times the signal to noise ratio before saying that something could even exist? Have you heard that?
I've heard some people claim that. Others, five, others, two, others, 10. It depends on the circumstances. This is not from Olympus. The important thing in determining the presence or absence of something is, can you see it above the noise in one way or another.
All right. And when you say "Can you see it above the noise," you mean that there may be kind of jagged lines like this, but in order to call a peak an identification of something or a detection of something, that one peak that stands out has to be three times higher than those other lower jagged peaks; isn't that correct?
No. Actually what is used is not that it has to be so much higher than the noise, but that it has to be higher by more than a certain number of standard deviations of the mean of the noise. That is what is used.
In which case, you would expect though to see on the graph one peak higher than the rest; isn't that correct?
Either that or a pattern which is clearly different and more like something there than nothing there.
1259-C. Now, you determined that on this chart is shown the other daughter 132 because at the same retention time--
Will you direct the arrow, sir, to where it was before? Tell the arrow where to go. See the arrow? Look on your monitor. Yeah.
Go to the left a little bit. Hold. That's one peak (Indicating). Go to the right a little bit. No. Less than that. Here's another part of that peak. Go to the right. Little more. Little more. That's it. Now, there's another one. Now, let's go to a valley. Go over. No. Go to a valley. That's it. Little bit to your left. Now, go another arrow--little bit to the right. Okay. That's good enough.
That this--the retention time of the first of these arrows is in one of the places where the retention time of EDTA has appeared. You have to bear in mind that this is a scan over an extremely wide range so that there's very little energy available to scan any one ion. So it is much less sensitive than if you do the same thing and always scan for 160 or for 293, but it's still strong enough to show a pattern which matches that scene in the parent ion and daughter ion chromatogram, which is a focus chromatogram.
All right. You would agree, would you not, sir, that the other random peaks there are not three times lower than the peaks that you've pointed out, correct?
Isn't it? And you see a very high peak where we've just put the magenta arrow? In fact, that's the highest peak on that graph, isn't it?
But you didn't call that--you did not identify that as the parent ion even though that does have a high peak, maybe three times as high as some of the other peaks on that chart; isn't that correct?
Then in fact, what this graph shows, sir, in your opinion, as the 132 is based solely on the fact that you see something at the retention time?
At the same--yes, at the same retention time where I see the 160 and the 292 and at the same retention time where in the more focused chromatogram that we looked at previously where you can see much better that 160 and that--that--it's in the same place and even the pattern is somewhat similar. So that's why I say that--you saw it before at 160. Now, if you're scanning the whole thing, even though it is so much weaker--I mean this is probably, I don't know, it could be as much as a hundred times less sensitive than the 160 ion--you still see it, and in the same place where the 160 is, you also see the footprints of the 132 ion.
And so are you willing to say, sir, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that based on this graph here of the 132 daughter ion, that it is present on the sock? Is that your testimony, sir?
The 130--that you have the full daughter spectrum on the sock based on this reading of your graph of 132?
This is the full daughter spectrum on the sock unless there are other smaller ones, you know, unless there are other little pieces around which I have not looked here. And that's--in general is the weakest--the least sensitive of the methods that he could use, but at the same time, it's more specific. You're trading off one for the other.
All right. Miss Clark, we're going to take our recess at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you. We'll take about 15 minutes for a break. And, doctor, you can step down.
Surprisingly, yes.
It's possible that this is a typo, but this is—a 2,000 parts per million is absurd as I told you. The people would be bleeding to death at that level.
I realize you're enjoying yourself, but I'm warning you right now, warning you in no uncertain terms, if I see any more of that commentary, there's going to be severe sanctions, and I underline the word 'Severe.'
I do not wait for their permission. I asked them whether they have wishes, not orders. And if their wishes are reasonable, I'll comply with them of course.