All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, we ended the morning session with some objections regarding foundation for this photo chemical degradation of EDTA. The Court's question was whether or not the lab used in this case the ion the EDTA and whether or not there was--that study of water soluble EDTA is really relatable to EDTA in blood that has already bonded with the calcium element.
Actually, Agent Martz' first series of tests that he did were looking for the ion EDTA, and he found a substantial amount, enough to measure certainly. So it's there in the presence of the reference blood. My only point about this particular article is, there's no question it's a limited article, limited circumstances. I'm not going to use this to have him express an opinion as to how many EDTA are on the sock. What I'm going to do is elicit from him in order to make the determination of what you might lose from the sock, you need to do testing on conditions similar to the socks, but you would not rely on this study to make an assessment as to whether or not you are going to lose any data from the sock.
Aren't you asking the jurors to form an opinion by then bringing out the exposure to the infrared light and the microscope and high intensity light?
I'm going to bring out the fact that these things conceivably could result in some loss of EDTA and that was never checked, and that's another way of showing that the testing that was done here is not adequate to show you how much you should have there.
But if we only have one study that tests photodegradation in water, in river water, as nice a river as it is, it's not really relatable to blood.
Well, it's ion EDTA which we know is present in this blood. It's--it was in solution at some time. It photodegrades. I mean, the only information we have is that EDTA photodegrades under certain conditions. We don't have any studies that say it doesn't under other conditions. Our position is that this is something that would have been part of a validation study.
I think it's clearly enough for a scientist to be curious, but to say that EDTA under these conditions in blood photodegrades--
KEY QUOTEOh, no. I intend to have him say exactly what you just said, that this is something that should have been checked.
Your Honor, the problem I have is--and the manner in which the questions and answers have been going is that the deliberate impression being left is that EDTA will degrade. Not only is that--
Photodegrade, correct. I'm sorry. Will photodegrade. And the problem with that is, if it is not proven to be the case at all, then the testimony runs contrary to what we know about the stability of EDTA as a compound. And in the absence of this doctor having some experiment or expertise in that determination, then that's not shown. So instead of just bringing out the fact--and I think it's improper to cause a jury to speculate on that as well. There is no known literature or experimentation to document whether EDTA, especially in a dry stain, will photodegrade. And to cause the jury to speculate on that possibility when there's no showing of that--I mean, let's not forget something here. There's no proof that the blood was planted period. And this is an effort by the Defense on the defensive to take evidence of the fact that there was no planting, make it so confusing that the jury is going to go off the deep end trying to figure out what it is, and hopefully from them, from their side, conclude that there was.
I mean, that's really the bottom line here because we have a premise and it's never been shown and it can never be shown because it's not true. That's the biggest problem I have. But then--okay. They want to do this, that's fine. But then to deliberately confuse and mislead the jury to make them believe that there could have been more EDTA there which degraded because of the exposure to the sunlight is going way off the deep end in speculation. And that impression has definitely been left. And for Mr. Blasier to go any farther with this, asking the doctor about experiments concerning that--
So, Miss Clark, I take it the bottom line of what you're trying to say is, you're making a 352 objection?
Yes, your Honor. And just alluding to the fact there is none creates the impression with the jury. You know what I mean?
Uh-huh. Mr. Blasier. I really think her objection is well-taken. I mean, that's why I jumped in there to ask the question because I don't see the foundation to talk about this.
Well, again, I'm going to point out exactly what you said. My point is that the fact that there isn't any literature on--under these conditions shows that they never tested for that, so they can't say whether it would have degraded out or not. That's a deficiency in their experimentation where they try to make some sort of quantification. It's not a valid quantification. That's one of the reasons why, because they never tried to simulate the conditions we have in this case. That's certainly a valid point I would assume.
That point is addressed by the fact that we have results on the socks--the results on the socks and on the gate, number 1, do not give the full dotted spectrum. So to even call it EDTA is going out on a limb, but--
The gate is a little higher than the sock, but they're both dramatically lower by a magnitude of a hundred times below the preserved level. But yes, that's right. The result does not support the Defense contention of photodegradation.
Assuming that what the Defense wants to say is true, that there is such a thing as photodegradation, the gate should then be lower than the sock because the sock was not out in the sunlight for nearly as long.
KEY QUOTENow, the gate is a completely different set of circumstances which also should have been tested for and weren't. It's on metal, it's outside, it's subject to dust, to fertilizer, to other things. They can also chelate with EDTA. There are different circumstances. And the levels of ionization that we're talking about, you can't quantify. Their 50 parts per million test on the same run has a seven-fold difference from one run to the next. I mean, you cannot use these ion counts as a way to say there's five parts per million versus six. It's just not--
No, no. We're talking about the basis of the doctor giving opinions regarding photodegradation of EDTA. That's what we're talking about. I find it's not sufficient, and I'll sustain the objection. Let's have the jury.
Well, may I--a point of clarification, can I ask him about the lack of literature on photodegradation?
In that case, it would be asked and answered, and counsel is just trying to highlight the very point that the Court's ruled 352.
I think it's clearly enough for a scientist to be curious, but to say that EDTA under these conditions in blood photodegrades--
There's no proof that the blood was planted period. And this is an effort by the Defense on the defensive to take evidence of the fact that there was no planting, make it so confusing that the jury is going to go off the deep end trying to figure out what it is.
Assuming that what the Defense wants to say is true, that there is such a thing as photodegradation, the gate should then be lower than the sock because the sock was not out in the sunlight for nearly as long.
Our position is that this is something that would have been part of a validation study.