Now, Dr. Rieders, it's true, sir, isn't it, that there is no known study that documents precisely how much EDTA would be present in a normal and healthy person's blood on an average; isn't that correct?
On an average of how many people, the number of patients in the foreman and Trujillo study on the whole had less than couple of parts per billion.
No, doctor. First of all, in that article, it says nothing about parts per billion; isn't that correct?
It doesn't say parts per billion, but it shows you it's less than parts per billion. With the strength of the radioactivity used, the detection limit is a couple parts per billion and they have negative bloods.
Doctor, that is not my question. Could you listen to my question, please. To your knowledge, is there any study in which they take the blood of normal healthy people and test it for amounts of EDTA present? In other words, what would be present in an average person on an average day. Is there any such study?
Study with that title, I don't know of any in the literature. Blood EDTA determinations have been done in the course of other studies I've seen and I've found, but they were not designed to do what you asked, the large number of people and averages and all that, no.
There is no known study that indicates how much EDTA you could expect to find on the average in an average person, correct?
But in fact, when Agent Martz' blood was tested, a low level of what you call EDTA was indeed found; isn't that correct?
I don't think that that is necessarily correct. What was found is that the sample that he finally analyzed showed the presence of some EDTA in the parts per million range. I cannot conceive that that is what's in his blood, in his circulating blood.
Nevertheless, doctor, you found what you would call EDTA in the parts per million in Agent Martz' unpreserved blood, correct?
No. Incorrect. Absolutely untrue. I didn't find anything. He presented data which showed that when he analyzed a sample of his un-EDTA blood, that in the process, he ended up with a result that showed the presence of EDTA on the instrument. It doesn't prove that he had it in his blood, but what it does show, if he had it in his blood, he'd be an extraordinarily amazing, unusual person at that level.
Well, doctor, if other people's blood was tested, and I mean unpreserved blood, that gave the same results as did Agent Martz' blood, would that change your opinion any as to whether or not he was a highly unusual individual?
I didn't say he's a highly unusual individual. I have not seen the validation of those studies, so I can't tell you whether the analysis is correct. If you ask me to assume that an accurate, reliable analysis of blood from Agent Martz and from others showed the kind of pattern that I saw in the material that he submitted to me, then I would say, yes, these specimens under those conditions, what I see here in my opinion is EDTA.
And those results do seem to indicate, do they not, EDTA in the range of parts per million in his own unpreserved blood?
No. I have no reason to doubt that what he says is honest and true, that he took his own blood and tested it. But how he got the EDTA in there, I have no idea.
And that means that we have in our bodies certain low levels of chemicals which, if given to us in very high doses, would kill us, correct?
No, no. Endogenous substance is any substance which is normally present in a organism or body. It doesn't say anything about how much. We have a lot of iron in our body. We have a lot of histamine which sometimes kills us. So these are endogenous substances. Now, we also have substances in our body which come from the outside, but which everybody has in them. Just about everybody has a little bit of nicotine in them. It's not made by the body. It's from the environmental nicotine and other things. But endogenous substances are those that are generated by the body and not the traces of other things that get into it from the outside.
Okay. And those endogenous substances have certain normal levels in our bodies, do they not, levels that we can live with, correct?
All right. And then there are, for example, cyanide. Isn't there a certain level of cyanide that we all live with on a daily basis?
We don't live with it. We make it. Without it, we wouldn't have any vitamin B12 in our body.
Cyanide is produced and destroyed by the body on a regular basis. It's a normal biological, endogenous substance at very low levels, yes.
Yes. And yet if administered in high doses, it will kill you, correct, cyanide poisoning?
And what about ethyl alcohol, doctor? Don't we all have a certain low level of alcohol in our bodies at all times whether we drink or not?
That is something which the toxicologists have been kicking back and forth for nearly a hundred years. And it's still--it still is disputed by some that it is not present, but it's formed in the course of the analysis. So if true, ethyl alcohol, I suspect there is a little bit there, you know, sure.
Now, as opposed to that, there are subjects or items that we ingest on a daily basis.
Excuse me, doctor. Why don't you put the microphone just a little closer, sir. Great. Perfect. Thank you, sir.
Now, you testified earlier today, sir, that EDTA is a preservative used for food, correct?
Not so much a preservative as a substance to safekeep color of food, flavor of food, some degree of preservation. But most of its uses in food are for aesthetic purposes.
Now, you discussed this subject with Agent Martz about a week ago; isn't that correct?
And when you discussed it with him initially, you did not know EDTA was still being used in food, did you?
Well, I was--it's not that I didn't know that it was still being used in food. But that the latest thing that I read was that the only authorized deliberate addition to food is or the only authorized addition to food is an incidental addition which occurs when adhesive such as labels are used that have EDTA in them. And I said, aha, they have taken EDTA totally out of the food, and then Agent Martz showed me something that's from I think `93, I'm not sure, that means the actual regulation is from 1993, which gave a list of substances. As a matter of fact, I told him I think it's still used in pickles, but apparently it's used in a lot of other things. At least, it was at the time at which that regulation was made.
Your Honor, I have here--it's been shown to counsel. It's a document issued by the food and drug administration. I'm going to ask that it be marked as People's 359?
I'm going to put it on the elmo. Be easier. Oh, your Honor, before I forget, can I mark what we were formerly looking at on the screen People's--I'm afraid to guess--540?
I can read it to you, sir. "Title 21, food and drugs--food and drug administration, Department of Health and Services, subchapter B, food for human consumption, food additives permitted for direct addition to food for human consumption; subpart B, food preservatives." Do you recall reading this, sir?
All right. I'm going to drop down to the list. And do you recognize seeing the items listed here?
And you have--move down a little bit more--French dressing and mayonnaise at the bottom of the list, sir?
And you have dressings non-standardized in the middle there with a number 75 after it?
Next page. And on this page--drop down--you see mayonnaise, salad dressing and sandwich spread there?
And that shows how many parts per million are allowed as a maximum in those items, correct?
And the last page, and on this, it has dressings, non-standardized, French dressing and frozen white potatoes, including cut potatoes. Do you see that item, sir?
I don't think--I don't know whether French fries. Cut potatoes, could be cubes or anything. Maybe. You mean where it's cut into strips?
They have frozen white potatoes, including cut potatoes. Does that refer to what may be French fries, sir?
All right. And we have here mayonnaise, salad dressing, sandwich spread and sauces?
Probably they are and I know they have been for many years. I thought it was taken out of the food for some--I haven't followed that story, but that was my impression from what I saw in one of the national library of medicine publications.
Uh-huh. And are you aware that it has been estimated that people ingest as much as 50 milligrams a day of EDTA in the food we eat?
Well, let's see now. Could be even more than that. I think that the maximum allowable amount is something like two and a half milligrams per kilogram if I'm not mistaken.
Well, let's say--all right. I'll agree with you. Yes. There are people who eat 50 milligrams a day.
I have no idea about whether it would be unusual or not. I don't know where on the curve it is. I don't know.
Not all of the EDTA that we ingest is going to completely pass out of the body, correct? Some is going to go into the blood?
Well, it will go--about no more than five percent is absorbed of EDTA from a double dose and as soon as--it's excreted more rapidly than absorbed because about 70 percent is excreted in one hour.
But up to five percent of a substance is absorbed from the gut, from the intestinal--gastrointestinal contents over a period of time of something like I think two or three days--
--if you swallow something. By the time it works its way through, you know, a total of about no more than five percent absorbed.
All right. Now, we don't have any studies that tell us precisely how much on an average basis a normal person has in his blood on any given day, correct?
There has been--I know of no study. Not that we don't have any. I know of no study that you need a large number of people to get that figure, no.
And we do--but we do know that everybody eats food that probably contain EDTA on a daily basis?
Now, given all of those facts, sir, it would not be surprising if some level of EDTA were to be found in a normal person's blood such as Agent Martz', correct?
I'm sure that--I'm reasonably sure there is a little bit there, but minute traces only.
One, two, three, four. What's the one next to the big piece? What does it say under that?
Let me read them all to you, sir. Let's start from left to right as you face it. All right?
Now I can read it. If you enlarge it that, I can read it perfectly now. You have to keep moving it to the left however.
All right. And that certain amount of EDTA, would you agree would be attributable to the manufacturing process in which they added it for some--
I don't know what it's due to, whether it's detergent, manufacturing or what. I just don't know. But it could be from any number of sources. Fabric can contain EDTA from the laundry, from the manufacturing and from other sources too. Mayonnaise.
All right. And now, the next entry, K65, the dress, that is the swatch containing Nicole Brown's blood?
And you just testified, sir, that that was substantially higher than the measurement of the cloth of her dress that did not have her blood on it?
The picture makes it substantially higher. You can see that the riser is substantially higher on the 65 than on the 65C, enough that you can tell the difference with the naked eye without measuring.
Would it be your testimony, sir, that the interpretation of that greater amount shown for the portion of her dress that has her blood on it is that the blood that has been typed as Nicole Brown's blood on her own dress is her preserved blood?
No, I wouldn't say that because remember, that the way these analysis were done, you really have no idea of how much sample you have to start with. So you might have twice as much on the K65 to start with, blood, that you actually start pushing through the machine than you have in K65C. So all I said is that this one's more than this in quantity. I don't think you can say anything about concentration because you don't know how much blood was used to start with for the analysis. There's no way of telling.
All right. After the two dress items, you have the gate, the sock and Agent Martz' own unpreserved blood?
Then the two big blocks on the right-hand side of the screen as you face it are the reference blood samples of the Defendant and Nicole Brown. You're aware of that?
I knew it was one, the other or both. I didn't know which one, but all I know is, this is EDTA blood, you know, that's an actual LAPD top tube of blood.
Now, sir, I understood what you said about the difference in concentration that may apply concerning Agent Martz' method of cutting the samples in this testing that he did. Bearing that in mind, is it your testimony, sir--well, strike that. You would agree, would you not, sir, that looking at this chart, the levels, the difference between the level of EDTA shown in the reference bloods and all the others, Agent Martz' and all the evidence blood is very dramatic?
The--yes. The quantities shown are very dramatically different as much as what? Can you move it a little to the right so I can see the numbers along the--up and down?
Wouldn't you agree, sir, that the reference samples are at least a hundred times higher than the evidence samples?
In some of them, yes. Not a hundred times higher than the dress, but probably about a hundred times more. Not, you know, as high as mishmash of concentration, but there are more--there's a lot more in the reference sample in the big ones than down there and it's probably around a hundred fold different, sure.
A hundred times. Then, sir, are you aware that the cuttings used for this testing by Agent Martz were at the largest, two millimeter squares? Are you aware of that?
Yes. Yes, I know that. I mean, yeah, I think it was two times, two, something like that.
Uh-huh. Now, you described a dilution method that you would have used with pneumonia to determine exactly how much blood was present in any given swatch. Have you ever done that?
I don't recommend. That's what I would do. I say I would determine--get a good estimate for the mathematics in this case. I would not go for ion and the other things because that would take up sample. And I could take that little swatch into 25 microliters of slightly among the active blood and shake it for several hours or whatever, then transfer it to another vial and do the same thing. And then the first thing I would do is to take each one of the recovered fluids, put it in a spectrophotometric micro sell and obtain a spectrum that goes through the ultraviolet, the so-called sorey band, to where hemoglobin or hematin absorb and get an estimate against standards of how much hemoglobin is there in that 25 microliters, how much hemoglobin is in the second 25 microliters and perhaps a third and a fourth, you know, keep watching until it's negative. If there's so little that I say, gee whiz, I may be able to do my analysis, but I'd have to use all of that, so I'd bring it all back together and concentrate it, which is fairly simple. You see, we freeze dry it and then take the whole thing up in an amount that I need to inject and inject it, and then I would know that I started out with so many micrograms or milligrams of hemoglobin or of blood protein and I'm getting a picture, and then I can talk about concentration. Now, that little square, that could be any amount of blood that's on there, anything from a nanogram to a microgram, maybe even a milligram. I don't know. But the point is that there's no way, nowhere anything that gives me even an idea of how big the sample is. And if this is two drops, you know, the EDTA blood, which is--two drops is about 50 microliters and if that swatch down there gives me--instead of 50 microliters of blood, gives me--
I hate to interrupt, but this has gotten very nonresponsive. Let me ask you another question.
Doctor, assume for a moment the following hypothetical: That Agent Martz had made an effort in all cases to use a larger amount of sample of the evidence stains than of the reference stains and that in each and every case when he made a cutting, he made the cuttings of the evidence larger than the cuttings of the reference sample. And by that, I mean, not just a big piece of cloth, but more blood in each and every case.
I beg your pardon. I thought that the--do you mean the reference stain that he created? What do you mean by "Reference stain"?
Dr. Rieders, assume for a moment that Agent Martz took a larger area of blood for the reference stain than he did for any of the swatches created from the reference sample for his testing as to each and every evidence stain. Do you understand what I'm saying?
I want you to assume as a hypothetical that Agent Martz followed the following procedure: That he took the evidence of the sock and a swatch of the gate stain and with respect to every time he tested evidence versus reference, he made sure that the evidence stains were larger than the reference stains in order to compensate for any imprecision.
He took more blood, more sample, more OJ blood--I mean, you know, sock blood from the sock blood than he took EDTA blood out of the tube?
How does he know that? He doesn't know how much blood there was on the sock, the sample that he took.
Doctor, I'm asking you to assume the hypothetical. I'm not done. Okay? Assume that he cut a larger evidence stain from the sock and from the gate stain than he did from the swatch created for the evidence samples.
Given that fact, to the extent that there would be any discrepancy in the concentration amounts between the evidence stain and the reference stain, aren't those small discrepancies more than accounted for by the dramatic differences between the amount shown in the reference sample and the amount shown in the evidence stain?
No. Because all he did, he cut an area out of the sock and he doesn't give a clue of how much blood was in there. He took a swatch that had been wiped on the gate and he cut a piece out and he doesn't have a clue how much blood there is in that--what he cut out. He has not measured it. He doesn't have a clue whether it's a microliter, a nanoliter or what.
And the differences between the reference sample and the evidence samples are a hundred times as great; isn't that correct?
And it is your testimony then, you're telling us that whatever discrepancies in concentration may exist by a small difference in the size of a cutting to the concentration is not well-compensated for in the amount, the dramatic difference between the amounts in the reference and the evidence stains?
You have--no, it isn't because you don't have a clue of how much blood is on that sample square of two square millimeters. You just don't know. You haven't made any measurements. You extract it, you get a little bit of blood out. That may represent a microliter, a nanoliter. I don't know how much it represents. There's no--there's nothing that tells me what it does, what it is. You can't go by the area because one is a swab and the other one is--you don't know how many drops of blood or what are put on that sock or fell on that sock or whatever you have.
Well, doctor, how do you account for the readings that came up from Agent Martz' blood? How do you account for the fact that his blood unpreserved gave the readings that it did consistent with EDTA?
Well, I don't account for it. I think he would have to account for it because I think it's absurd to find that much EDTA in normal blood. Even if--all I can say, it's in the part per million range. It just seems totally absurd to me just like that 2,000 parts per million. You would be dead. I mean, you know, these absurd numbers.
--that shows a presence of EDTA in the parts per million, your answer--the way in which you account for that is to say it's absurd, you dismiss it?
Your Honor, I object. I think he's entitled to answer the question that she asked.
Is it your answer that the results obtained by testing Agent Martz' blood showing EDTA in the range of parts per million very similar to the range shown on the gate and the sock? Correct?
Very similar. And your answer to that is, it is absurd and you dismiss it; is that correct?
KEY QUOTEYes. I'll tell you--I'll give you a reasonable probability at how that can happen. Not that it did, but I'll give you a reasonable probability.
Now, doctor, isn't it true, sir, that you cannot tell us that the substance detected by you in the gate and the sock and--not by you--excuse me--by the testing done by Agent Martz as you interpret it, you can not tell us, sir, that those--that substance is EDTA to the exclusion of all other substances, correct?
You never can say. No, I can't and I can't say that for any analysis that you present me, even in Nobel Prize winning ones.
Then given--considering the EDTA results that Agent Martz got on his unpreserved blood, sir, is it your opinion that the bloodstains on the sock and the gate had to have come from the preserved blood to the exclusion of all other sources?
I didn't say that. I said that it's sort of like if you hear hoof beats, it's probably horses and that the most likely source for EDTA in a blood sample when you have a control that is negative is that it was EDTA blood to begin with. That's what I said. So it could be. I didn't say it was. I said could reasonably be considered that and doesn't exclude other possibilities, but I don't know what they are.
No, I do not. I deny that there's any reasonable probability that it could be from food or from the normal level of EDTA in the blood of a person.
Even though you also realize that there is no study indicating what that normal level would be?
Yes, there is, but it is not a study which was designed to determine the normal level in the world's population like has been done with blood typing and with other things. But from the study that is a very good study--
From the study that is an excellent study that the authors can be proud of, on the number of people that they tested, they didn't find any EDTA. I don't see any reason why they should find it now.
All right. Doctor, let me ask you something. You're familiar with the case of a Defendant by the name of sconce; isn't that correct?
And you were in that case, sir, retained by the Ventura County District Attorney's office; were you not?
I thought it was the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Mr. Giss. Wasn't he from here?
And you remember that Mr. Giss was a member of the District Attorney's office of Los Angeles County, correct?
And in that case, sir, you were told that there was a question as to whether the decedent had been murdered by the means of oleandrin poisoning, correct?
And was it your understanding at the time, sir, that no one had been charged with the murder pending your determination as to whether or not the victim had been poisoned to death?
Was it your determination, sir, that was sought as to whether or not the victim in that case had been poisoned to death?
My corroborative determination. Initial work was done by Dr. Basil in San Francisco on negating determination. He asked that I should do that, yeah.
And you were asked to analyze certain substances removed from the body of a decedent to determine whether there was present in those substances oleandrin, a poison?
Yes. Aut--fresh autopsy specimens by Dr. Lovell, who was the pathologist, who did the autopsy.
And as a result of your findings and based on your findings, isn't it true that you determined that there was oleandrin present?
And you appeared in court to testify concerning your finding that there was evidence of oleandrin or oleander poisoning as a cause of death, correct?
And those methods that you refer to, sir, were the tests of thin layer chromatography?
And as a result of all of that, you testified at the preliminary hearing for murder in that case that the thin layer chromatography test gave you results that were consistent with and corroborative of the results obtained by another, Dr. Basil, who you referred to here, which showed the presence of a substance with all the characteristics of oleandrin and not the characteristics of many, many other substances. Do you recall giving such testimony, sir?
And if I were to read those words to you from the transcript, sir, would it refresh your memory as to whether or not those were the words you used?
Sir, I'm showing you page 828 of the preliminary hearing and ask you to read to yourself and tell us whether the words that I've just read are in fact the words you stated on your testimony under oath in Ventura County.
Well, Miss Clark, I don't remember the words you said, but if you allow me to read it out loud, then I'll agree that that is what I said and is in the transcript.
"Consistent with the thin layer chromatography, gave results which were consistent with and corroborative of the results that Dr. Basil had obtained showing the presence of a substance with all the characteristics of oleandrin and not the characteristics of many, many other substances." That's what it says and that's--I said that, yes. I agree that those are my words.
In essence, doctor, then what that test gave you is that the result it gave you, as you've testified, was a pattern or result showing all the characteristics in your opinion of oleandrin, correct?
In the thin layer. But this statement deals only with the thin layer. I did other tests as you well know.
All right. Yes, I do. But that pattern that you found characteristics for oleandrin could have been shared by many, many other compounds, correct?
Thin layer chromatography is an analysis on the glass plate that has a thin layer of gypsum or some other material on it. You put the material on the bottom on a square plate and then just as if you had to put a dot on your handkerchief and put the edge into water or some solvent, the solvent goes up by capillary action and in the process, separates substances from each other and forms kind of a ladder thing, starts out with streak, and it moves and it separates them.
You then spray that with various--look at it under ultraviolet light or florescent--
Doctor, explaining what thin layer chromatography is I don't think is responsive. Next question.
And in that case as well, you testified that the pattern you obtained was consistent with and corroborative of oleandrin, correct?
Now, based on those two tests alone, at the preliminary hearing, you testified that those results were sufficient in conjunction with what you knew of the other facts in the case not related to the science to state that your results were consistent with and corroborative of the presence of oleandrin, correct?
That's misleading. I said there was another test, and that was the radioimmunoassay test which was done on it.
That's correct. But didn't you testify, Dr. Rieders, that those two tests alone were sufficient for you to form your conclusion?
And the beginning of that section, sir, begins with what we've already discussed, which was the results you obtained on the thin layer chromatography test, correct?
"And also florescent pattern which were consistent with that and corroborative of oleandrin." So thin layer and fluorescent spectrophotometry. In my opinion--
"--in my opinion were really enough in conjunction with the history particularly to corroborate the findings of oleandrin in this case."
I testified that these two findings were really enough in conjunction with the history to call this an oleandrin poisoning case.
They were really enough, but would you--you would agree, would you not, sir, that those findings may also have been consistent with other compounds?
I couldn't think of any. I couldn't find any. The pattern and thin layer and the color reactions are very characteristic of oleandrin and oleandringenen especially since you have both there.
All right. And then you did a third test called the radioimmunoassay test, correct?
And you basically corroborated again the presence of oleandrin with that test; is that correct, sir?
All right. And in essence then, what you said was that you had patterns with each of these three tests consistent with oleandrin, correct?
And those results caused you to conclude, sir, to a high degree of scientific certainty that this was in fact oleandrin?
And oleandringenen, the two components of oleander poisoning. I mean, oleandringenen is really the thing you get when oleandrin breaks down a little bit. Not much, but cracks into two parts.
And those results--as you testified at the preliminary hearing, sir, do you recall testifying: "The chances that a substance has all the properties and all three tests in common and is in actuality another substance from experience are so extremely remote that one then has a very high degree of scientific certainty that if one says that this is oleandrin, in fact, it is"?
"A hundred percent never. For a hundred percent, you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent. It is statistical and it is reasonably certain the chances are remote. And if you want to go over in the area of--in that area, the hand of almighty God can make anything happen. So possibilities, of course, are there. But it's a high degree of reasonable scientific certainty, and the operative word is `reasonable.' a scientist goes by reason and not by feeling. Do you recall giving that testimony, sir?
KEY QUOTEAnd Dr. Henyon became involved with the sconce case after you testified at the preliminary hearing as I've just indicated, correct?
It's your testimony that Dr. Henyon became involved with the case five years after you testified?
Objection. I think that mischaracterizes what he says. Five years after he got involved.
Do you believe that Dr. Henyon got involved five years after you testified or five years after you got involved with the case?
I know--no. What I was--I'm sorry. What I was referring to is from the time that I performed the analyses.
Uh-huh. And Dr. Henyon is a professor of toxicology at Cornell University, correct?
I don't know whether he is a professor of toxicology or whether he's still at Cornell. He has a private lab now, but he was a professor I think of veterinary toxicology and head of the veterinary toxicology laboratory that dealt along those lines with race horses mainly. Yes, I know him quite well.
No, no. I don't have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I have a doctor of philosophy degree, which is a Ph.D., in pharmacology and toxicology with minors in pathology and physiology. I have a bachelor's and a master's degree in chemistry.
All right. And Mr.--and Dr. Henyon has a Ph.D. in analytical organic chemistry. Are you aware of that?
Now, he obtained a split of the tissue that you tested in the sconce case, correct?
That is incorrect. If you will check, what Dr. Henyon obtained is, is specimen from the not exhumed body, but from the body of Mr.--of the deceased--I can't think of his name at the moment--that was in a mausoleum exposed--sitting there exposed to the air essentially for several years. I offered specimens which I had received from the autopsy and that were frozen, deep freeze. I showed them to the lawyer and they were rejected. He had the pathologist extern the body, you know, instead of taking it out, and cut a piece of tissue which, of course, by then was kind of dry, five years old and decomposed, and that is what he analyzed. His report says so.
So it's your testimony, sir, that he analyzed different tissue than you did. Is that your testimony?
But the tests that he ran on the same victim that you ran your tests on revealed that the oleandrin you found was not present; isn't that correct?
Isn't it true, Dr. Rieders, that Dr. Henyon ran tests on the tissue he received from the body of the same victim and that he determined, using his tests that were more sophisticated than yours, that oleandrin was not present? Isn't that true?
Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is not proper impeachment. They're two different tissue samples.
Sustained. Sustained. Also compound question. All right. Counsel, at this point, we're going to take our recess for the afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you and don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until 9 o'clock. Dr. Rieders, you can step down. Let me see counsel at the sidebar with the court reporter, please.
it's sort of like if you hear hoof beats, it's probably horses and that the most likely source for EDTA in a blood sample when you have a control that is negative is that it was EDTA blood to begin with.
A hundred percent never. For a hundred percent, you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent. It is statistical and it is reasonably certain the chances are remote.
I give you a scenario how that can happen very easily. May I?
your answer to that is, it is absurd and you dismiss it; is that correct?
These two together in my opinion were really enough in conjunction with the history particularly to corroborate the findings of oleandrin in this case.