Agent Martz, at the break did I ask you to take a look at those 250 parts per million to compare the areas as you indicated?
What is the difference in the areas of the 250 parts per million charts that you ran on the 22nd?
Okay. You agree that the 50 parts per million, you knew that that is exactly what it was because you had prepared known EDTA in that concentration to put in your machine?
And when you put it through the second time and got a four-fold difference in your area output, it was still the same, 50 parts per million?
Now, would you agree that the substance that you found that had the consistent retention time, the parent ion and the daughter ion, that in your opinion the quantities that you found are in the parts per million range?
Okay. Which is--correct me if I am wrong--a thousand times more than the parts per billion range?
Now, I want to ask you some questions about the technique that you used at the beginning of your testing. Do you have that in mind?
When you got the stains in this case, when you got Q206 and Q207--actually, you assigned those numbers, didn't you?
When you got those samples, did I hear you say this morning that you mixed those two together for your first series of tests?
I knew it was from the sock and obviously it was blood-stained, but I didn't specifically know that it was cut out of that area. I mean, it was logical to assume that, but I didn't know that for a fact.
So you, as part of the first steps of your tests, combined two unknown samples, the source of which you didn't know?
Well, I knew they were both from the sock and I knew they were both bloodstains from the sock and my object was to determine whether or not there was EDTA present on the sock, so I combined the two to see whether or not EDTA was present on either of those particular cuttings and I took that into account by using twice as much of that particular sample as I did from the control that I prepared.
So you used twice as much in that run and that was using A--the negative ion mode that we talked about a little bit this morning?
The one that is much more specific. In this particular case it was less sensitive, but you got to remember here it has a lot more specificity and that is why I used it again. Negative ion mass spec is a very sensitive technique and in order to identify the EDTA present it has to react with iron. EDTA is a chelating agent. So I wanted to use a very specific test and that is why I chose that test on that day, because I not only had to have a compound with a particular molecular weight, it had to react with iron in order to give these results. And the only ones that gave results on that particular day were the controls that I prepared.
Now, but--but you determined yourself by your own experimentation that that was one/tenth as sensitive as the positive ion moved that we have been talking about?
It had less sensitivity, but sensitivity was not my problem. What I was asked to do was to determine whether or not the stains were EDTA-preserved or not preserved. I was able to answer that question in the negative ion mode very easily. These stains were not from preserved blood.
Well, we will talk about that later. When you ran the positive ion mode the next day, the more--the test that will detect the ions more sensitively than the one you did the day before, would you agree with that?
It was more sensitive, but sensitivity was not an issue. Specificity was my issue. I wanted to determine whether or not EDTA was present and if it was I wanted to make sure I could identify it, and as I mentioned, it was not present.
So you weren't concerned with whether it was there or not when you did the negative ion mode?
No. I was asked to determine whether or not EDTA was present and it was very easy to do in the negative ion mode. I was able to determine on the first day that EDTA was not present on those particular stains and those stains did not come from preserved blood.
Were you able to determine with the negative mode that there wasn't EDTA on those stains?
Agent Martz, please listen to my question. Were you able to determine with the negative ion mode that there was no EDTA on those stains?
Were you able to rule out the possibility that there was EDTA on those stains with your negative ion mode?
All right. When you did your testing the next day with a positive ion mode and found what looks like EDTA, where do you think it came from?
Well, you got to remember here, everyone is saying that I founded EDTA. I have never said that and I don't believe Dr. Rieders ever said that. There was indication that EDTA could have been present. There is a lot of other explanations for the ions that I got on the first day. I am not convinced that EDTA is present on that sock and I want to make that perfectly clear. There are many possibilities for those ion counts that I got. One is it could be from another compound that had similar results. That is why I performed the daughter ion experiment, to determine whether or not EDTA was present. I was convinced that EDTA was not present in those samples.
So you had made up your mind as to what you were going to find before you did the test?
KEY QUOTEI was asked to determine whether or not those bloodstains came from preserved blood and those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood. I was able to prove that on the first day.
What you saw in that bloodstain, both bloodstains the second day, you didn't see the first day, did you?
No. It was a completely different technique as I mentioned. In the negative ion mode the EDTA must react with iron.
The second day when I ran the test all I was looking for was a 293 ion and a 162. Iron was not a factor.
All right. Lets talk in terms of the 293 parent ion which EDTA has and the 160 daughter ion which EDTA had. Do you have that in mind?
Did you add anything that had a parent ion of 293 and a daughter ion of 160 between day one and day two?
Well, I don't quite understand that question. Of course I didn't, but the fact of the matter is on the first day I didn't even look for these ions.
Are you saying that that 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion weren't there the first day?
I detected both ion 162 and 293 on the second day because the experiment that I performed looked for those various ions.
Now, let me ask you this: Is your reason for saying that what you found, even though it has consistent retention time, consistent parent ion, consistent daughter ion, that the reason you are unwilling to say that that is EDTA is because you couldn't find the 132 daughter ion?
No, I didn't say that at all. The reason that I'm saying that it is not EDTA is several-fold. I conducted many experiments over several days. The first day I looked for EDTA in the negative ion mode. It was not present. On another day, the 28th, I looked for EDTA on another test in HPLC which was completely different testing than any of the other days. EDTA was not present on the sock or on the gate, so I have two tests that showed no EDTA is present. I have another test on another day which has ions that are similar or the same as EDTA. In order for me to identify EDTA, I have to have what's called a full daughter spectrum. When you just looked at several ions, you can make mistakes. Those mistakes have been made and because mistakes like that have been made, procedures have been changed. In order for me to positively identify a chemical to the exclusion of all others I need to have a full daughter spectrum, and in order to do that I have to set the scan, the instruments the way that I did. I was not able to identify EDTA in those particular stains.
Agent Martz, you agree that you did detect at the appropriate retention time the 293 parent ion, the 160 daughter ion on day two?
Objection. That assumes a fact not in evidence and contrary to the testimony that it is an appropriate retention time, your Honor.
Have you determined any compound--have you located or identified any compound other than EDTA that accounts for your findings?
I was just faxed another copy of another chromatogram that could possibly give similar results that I just got several minutes ago.
KEY QUOTEWell, that particular chromatography was probably gas chromatography and the mass spec type was electron impact.
Well, because mass spectrometry is a technique that I used for ions and that is mass spectrometry and you can make certain assumptions in mass spectrometry when you are dealing with ions. We are dealing with two ions here. That is not very many. This particular compound and many other compounds will have those two ions.
When you found what you did find, whether it is EDTA or something that just looks like EDTA, did you advise the Prosecution of what you had found?
And by the way, in your report--well, let me rephrase. How soon after you got the charts that we have seen here with the peaks at the appropriate times, parent and daughter ion, did you tell the Prosecution that you had found that?
I believe it was sometime the end of February, early March. I don't have the exact date.
No. I mean, it was not necessary because I had already answered the question, the fact that those stains did not come from preserved blood. There was no reason to try to determine what those ions came from.
But from February until this morning or last night, you haven't tried to find a compound that explains your findings, have you?
Yes, I have, because I believe that my data has been misinterpreted by somebody else and I wanted to prove that.
I want to ask you some questions about your--oh, incidentally, you said that you used twice as much on day one of the Q206/Q207 mixture than you used the next day?
Would you agree that if there had been EDTA in your mixture of Q206 and Q207 there would be one-half as much in the test that you ran the next day, the more sensitive test?
Not necessarily. I mean, as we have mentioned, the quantitation is not perfect on this instrument and I did not design this technique to precisely quantitate how much EDTA was present or if wasn't present. I was trying to determine whether it was there or not from preserved blood, so twice as much would not make that much of a difference in the results that I got.
Did you run any experiments with different amounts--well, let me rephrase that. Would you agree that in order to make any kind of an assessment of concentration of how much you get at the end of the process, you have to know how much you start with?
Now, the evidence that you received--let's talk about the back gate first. That was in the form of what?
It was blood that was I guess a cotton swab or some type of a gauze material was used to absorb the blood off of the back gate.
Did you make any effort to find out how that had been removed from the back gate?
Did you think that the in manner which it was removed from the back gate might have some influence on how much blood actually got onto that?
It was my opinion that that was very saturated, that piece of gauze. It was a very saturated bloodstain on that piece of gauze.
Agent Martz, were you concerned about the fact that different methods of removing that stain might result in different amounts of blood?
No. The only thing I was concerned about is whether or not the bloodstain was larger than the material that was collected, because I was using my technique by the size of the bloodstain and--
And I wanted to be satisfied that the bloodstain was at least as large as that cotton swab. And by asking, I was able to determine that the bloodstain was larger than the cotton swab itself and that was my main concern.
Yes. I had asked how large the bloodstain was and I was told that it was larger than the cotton swab.
Did you ever ask how much of that bloodstain had been removed and put on whatever you got it on?
No, I did not. I didn't feel it was necessary. When I looked at that blood swatch I could see that it was thoroughly saturated with blood and that was my concern.
Is that an acceptable means of determining how much you might have of blood in a solution?
Well, it is an acceptable means I think of determining how much hemoglobin is present and from that you could possibly calculate how much blood was present.
Did you use any method at all, other than just looking at it, to try and tell how much blood was in this swatch?
I did a visual examination also of the extract after I extracted the blood with the water and I got a very intense red color, which indicated to me that it was concentrated blood, and also I did a testing to prove that it was--or to indicate that it was blood.
Well, I think it does somewhat. I mean, I could visually see the blood on the swatch and I could visually see the color of the extract that I performed.
Agent Martz, is it your testimony that you can tell with any precision how much blood is in a solution by looking at it?
For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. I mean, I didn't need to be that accurate in order to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved blood or from non-preserved blood. I was very, very careful in the sizes that I cut and I always made sure that I took more sample from the questioned samples than the control samples. That is why I very carefully looked at the color as I extracted and I was convinced that I had at least as much blood on the control areas as I did on the questioned areas or as on the--I had at least as much on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas. I was very, very careful in this analysis.
Did I understand you to say that you weren't concerned with the quantity of blood that you got on the swatch?
I was concerned with the quantity. I wanted to make sure that I had at least as much blood on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas and I was convinced that I did. I was concerned, but even if there was a mistake of one, two, fifty, a hundred percent, I mean, I would still be able to answer the question whether it was from preserved blood or non-preserved blood. I was concerned. Yes, I was concerned.
Did you perform any tests, other than just looking at it, that was designed to find out how much blood was in the swatch that you started with?
I did a presumptive test on the blood and I got similar colors which would indicate I had similar concentrations of blood.
I mean not necessarily, but you do have a color reaction just like you have a color of blood. And everything I did, I did to make sure that I had at least as much blood on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas.
Now, the stain from the sock, did you do any kind of testing on that, other than looking at it to determine how much blood you got from the sock?
Did you examine the swatch material that you got on the back gate under the microscope?
The sample that you prepared, your known samples from the reference tubes that we looked at, where did you get the swatches to do this?
Well, on the sock, I actually cut a piece off of the sock because I wanted to use the same type of material, so what I had was a bloodstain on the sock, so I took the person's blood--
Excuse me. Excuse me. Agent Martz, the question was from the reference tubes where did you get the swatches to do this; not the sock?
Well, as I was explaining, I wanted to try to make things equal, so for the stain that I produced for the sock, I took a piece of the sock. I took some of the blood of Nicole brown, which was the one suspected or the one identified as being on the sock. I placed blood onto that sock. I let it dry naturally.
All right. Agent Martz, the question was what did you do to prepare the sample for the gate? Not the sock; the gate?
Okay. For the gate I took a similar type of cotton swatch in the laboratory and placed blood onto that swatch.
No. It was--it was too small. In order to put a bloodstain onto a fabric and let it dry naturally, I was using ten microliters of blood. I needed a better size swatch. The size that they submitted to me was not large enough to do that particular test.
Is it your opinion that the amount of blood in a swatch is not determined by the kind of swatch--let me rephrase that. Is it your opinion that if you used a swatch, let's say that had four layers of gauze rather than two, that it is still going to hold the same amount of blood?
I tried to use the same type of swatch that was used in the particular case is all I can say. Whether it is two or four layers, it would make a difference as to how much it would absorb.
Agent Martz, did you ever examine the swatch you got from LAPD to determine under the microscope what kind of a swatch it was, how many layers were there?
Did you ever look at your own swatch that you got from your lab to determine how many layers were in that swatch?
Now, do you recall--well, let me ask you this: Your eyeball estimate or the way that you did this, what was your estimate of how much blood was on the gate swatch?
I did not estimate the amount of mood on that. What I did was to take a swatch of the same amount and prepared it similarly. I did not attempt to determine how much blood was on the swatch except for the fact that the swatch appeared to be saturated with blood.
Well, visually I looked at it and the swatch was saturated with blood. Like if you were bleeding and would put something to it, it would absorb the blood. The swatch absorbed the blood. It appeared to be saturated with blood.
Do you remember telling me that you estimated the amount of blood from the back gate as two microliters?
I can't remember that, but it would be at least--I would say it was somewhere between two and five microliters would be my best guesstimate.
Do you remember me asking the same question about how much blood was on the sock stain that you cut?
Oh, I don't know. I don't--I don't do a lot of volumes with blood. All I know is I used ten microliters and five microliters and created some stains.
Let's assume hypothetically that 50 microliters of blood is one to two drops. Do you have that assumption in mind?
Your opinion is that there was one to two drops of blood on the cutting from the sock that you took?
Not that I took. I'm talking about the whole area of the sock that was stained. Probably 50 microliters. The area that I took was probably a couple microliters.
When you told me 50 microliters on that cutting, you misunderstood what I was asking?
Now, when you--you came up with a process that you used to extract the blood and EDTA, if there is any EDTA, from the swatch, correct, and from the sock cutting?
EDTA and blood are both very soluble in water, so I extracted the materials with 25 microliters of water, let them sit for approximately 40, 45 minutes, and they were in a tube which is designed to filter out a lot of the components of blood to clean up the extract a little bit as blood contains a lot of chemicals. And then I centrifuged it for maybe five or ten minutes and the liquid past through the filter and it was collected on the bottom of the tube and that is what I used for analysis.
Well, I mean I--I tried to remove as much as possible. The instrument, the way that it is set up, can take care of, you know, a very complex dirty sample, but if you shoot too much in you can clog up the system and cause excess damage to the instrument, so I tried to clean it up as much as possible.
Did you try to remove all the blood from the swatch, the evidence swatch and the sock cutting that you made?
I treated everything the same. All I tried to do was remove the EDTA. I wasn't concerned too much with the blood. I wanted to remove EDTA from the bloodstain was my purpose.
And did you have any testing done to determine whether that method that you devised was effective in removing all the EDTA from a bloodstain like the ones you used?
I determined that was effective to remove EDTA from my analysis to determine whether or not the bloodstain came from a preserved tube or non-preserved tube.
--did you do any testing to determine whether your system that you devised efficiently removed all of the EDTA from the evidence?
I didn't feel that this was necessary. All I felt was necessary was to remove the EDTA for analysis. It didn't make any difference if I got 99.9 percent of the EDTA or a hundred percent of the EDTA. I removed enough EDTA for the analysis.
Didn't you have some tests or weren't some validation studies performed at Quantico to answer that very question at how good your method was of pulling the EDTA out of the evidence if it was there?
Agent Martz, did you review the validation materials that Quantico prepared for you?
I don't know the specific time. I think it was before I had done any of my tests or it may have been about the same time. I really don't know, to be perfectly honest with you.
I believe the way they got involved is they were going to determine whether or not EDTA could be detected in trace quantities or in bloodstains to differentiate preserved from non-preserved blood. They were asked to do this and they were going to devise a procedure which then could be given to a laboratory to do the analysis. When this was all happening, it was determined that we would also try at headquarters to do the analysis ourselves, so I took it upon myself to do some preliminary tests and determined that I could do EDTA analysis. Quantico's testing was done to determine whether or not a procedure could be developed to give to another laboratory to do the testing.
Can we put that down as a yes, that their validation study was for purposes of this case?
You weren't interested in any of the work they did validating this methodology that you are using?
Now, during the lunch break would you--could you review that for us because I want to ask you some questions about it?
Well, let me show you 1269-A and B. And for the record, 1269-A is discovery page 8419 and 1269-B is 8422. Will you look at those. Are those chromatograms?
And let's assume hypothetically that tests were done to determine how efficient your method was of removing EDTA. Do you have that hypothetical in mind?
Can you check with your people at Quantico over the lunch hour to see whether they did that test and what they found?
I don't know what they will be there. I can call--what exactly do you want me to find out?
When the materials that you had put together were provided to the Prosecutors, is it your understanding that that validation study was provided as well?
Then is it fair to say that you didn't do any studies yourself to determine whether your methods for extracting blood or EDTA was efficient?
I think I did. I think I did. On February the 8th I extracted. I was given two samples by someone in the laboratory; one with EDTA and one without, and I was very easily able to determine which stain contained the EDTA and which one didn't.
Did you ever run a test where you did an extraction and then you did a second extraction to see if you had picked up all the EDTA in the first extraction?
Would you agree that if you didn't pick up all the EDTA in the first extraction, you are going to see less of it when you run the test?
Have you done any tests at all to determine whether the age of a bloodstain affects your ability to extract it with water alone?
And do you have an opinion on whether aged bloodstains can be extracted with the same efficiency with just water as new bloodstains?
I had conducted several tests on old blood and two from 1993 and I think the other one was from 1991. These were EDTA bloodstains. And I was convinced, based on the analysis that I did with those stains, that the age of the blood, at least over three or four years, had no effect in me determining whether or not the stains were from preserved or non-preserved blood.
Agent Martz, would you listen carefully, please, to the question and answer the question that is directed to you, sir.
Did do you any tests to determine whether an old dried bloodstain, not blood from a tube, but a bloodstain that is older can be just as efficiently extracted from that stain as a new bloodstain that has been put on the stain and just dried for an hour or so, with the use of plain water?
Yes, I did. I took two bloodstains from 1993 that had been on material since 1993. I extracted those and I got similar results for EDTA as other blood that was freshly prepared. I got similar results.
Did you make any effort in that particular test--by the way, when did you do that? Saturday?
Now, when you did that, did you make any effort to quantify the amount of blood that you were able to get out of that old blood stain?
Do you have any other base of experience vis-à-vis old bloodstains versus new bloodstains in terms of how efficient just using water is at removing all the blood?
Do you agree with Dr. Rieders that using an ammonia solution in water is a better way to make sure that you extract all the blood?
I want to ask you about the gate. Did you perform any tests or to your knowledge did the--your lab in Quantico perform any tests to determine whether or not a bloodstain, an EDTA bloodstain, placed on a metal gate and left exposed to the outside for, let's say, hypothetically a day to three weeks, whether there would be any degradation or loss of EDTA?
Did you ever make any effort to determine the type of paint that was on the back gate?
Did you do any tests at all to determine whether the type of paint upon which a bloodstain was deposited would attract some of the EDTA and remove it from the blood?
Well, I used one particular paint that we had in the laboratory, a metal surface. I don't know exactly which type of paint it was, but I was able to place a bloodstain on a painted metal surface and effectively remove the EDTA.
What effort did you make to find out whether the paint you used bore any similarity to the back gate?
Did you make any effort to find out whether there was any rust on the back gate where that bloodstain was deposited?
Well, but iron exists in different states. That is iron oxide and I don't know the property of iron oxide for attacking EDTA.
Did you make any effort to determine what other environmental things might--let me rephrase. Did you make any effort to determine whether there was any fertilizer that had been used in the area of the gate and may have gotten to the bloodstain?
Do fertilizers contain chemicals that are attracted to EDTA or that EDTA is attracted to?
Were you trying to, in your positive controls, design them in such a way that they mimicked as close as possible what you would have expected to find had EDTA blood been used and put on the back gate?
Well, I tied to do that to the best of what I had available and did that with the sock. I used the same sock. With the gatepost, I didn't have that gatepost. We are talking many months later when I got the samples. The gatepost is certainly in different condition now than it was then. I couldn't stain it on the same area of the gate. Based on the testing that I did, I didn't feel that it was necessary to duplicate exactly the conditions because EDTA is a very, very stable chemical.
Isn't it the purpose of a positive control to test the hypothesis--let's assume that EDTA blood was used under the conditions which these stains were deposited, preserved and collected and see what we find. Isn't that what a positive control is for?
The positive control is to determine whether or not you can identify the substance that you are looking for and the matrix that it is on.
Is one of the purposes of a positive control to try and simulate the hypothesis, let's assume that EDTA blood was used on these bloodstains and let's put it through the same type of conditions that the evidence was and see what we find at the end of the road?
Well, I mean you can't duplicate everything exactly all the time. What you try to do is to duplicate as much as possible and that is why I used a painted surface in the laboratory to duplicate the painted gate, to determine whether or not I could remove EDTA from a painted surface.
Now, other than--by the way, when you painted your can, how long did you leave--I'm sorry, when you put the bloodstain on the can, how long did you leave it there before you swabbed it off?
Did you make any effort to deposit a stain on that can and leave it for a period of one day to three weeks to see what you might find?
Did you ever make any efforts to determine what the whether was from July--I'm sorry--from June 12th to July 3rd, the period of time when that bloodstain may have been on that gate?
Did you make any effort to determine whether that particular bloodstain had changed in terms of being weathered from one--from the time it was deposited until it was collected?
No. You got to remember here, this bloodstain has been identified as human blood. DNA is a very fragile chemical. EDTA is a very, very, very stable chemical. So I felt that if it could be determined that it was blood, that I would have no trouble determining the EDTA content.
Is your reason for not doing any of those things that I have been talking about is because you made assumptions that they wouldn't make any difference?
Well, I don't know that I necessarily call them--well, you can call them assumptions. It was based on some scientific information that I had that I based that on.
Well, I think--I think it is in a way experiments that I performed over the last twenty years in the laboratory I think is based a lot on that.
Have you ever worked with--I think--didn't you say you had never worked with EDTA until this case?
Well, I have worked with chemicals that are similar and I know what the melting point and boiling points of EDTA is and its property and their solubility and there are certain assumptions that you can make.
Let's talk about the sock. Did you make any effort--let's assume that the sock was collected around June 13th, okay? And did you make any effort to determine how many times the sock had been examined under high-intensity lights or any other kind of lighting during the period of time June 13th until you got it?
No. Again I didn't feel it was necessary. EDTA, when dried, is a very, very, very stable chemical. The FDA would not use it as a preservative if it wasn't stable. It is a very stable chemical.
Are you aware of any study anywhere that looks at the effect of light on EDTA in a dried bloodstain?
Do you have any idea what the history of those bloodstains were in terms of how often they had been examined and under what conditions?
Well, it is part of the FBI's procedure to dry the bloodstains on the cloth. They were dried back in 1993 on the cloth.
So those weren't stains deposited on a surface like a gate or a sock at all, were they?
They weren't evidence stains from a crime scene of blood taken off of evidence, were they?
Did you do any tests to determine whether the effects of sudden temperature change or what the effects might be on EDTA in the sock of sudden temperature changes?
No. Again, I didn't feel it was necessary. EDTA is a very stable chemical that will decompose I think at about 290 degrees centigrade. That it is a very hot temperature. It is a very stable chemical.
So again, you are saying that you are making assumptions that it wouldn't make a difference, that is why you didn't check for it?
I'm making assumptions based on my twenty years of experience working with chemicals.
KEY QUOTEIs one of the reasons you didn't do some of these things is that you were kind of rushed on this?
No. I believe that I was able to answer the question which was put to me and that was my sole objective, to answer the question, and I believe I was able to do that without doing all the things that have been mentioned.
Would you agree that you have had time, since your testing in February, to do some of these validation type studies that I have suggested?
Well, I mean, you must realize I'm in charge of a unit at the FBI laboratory. I'm presently now in charge of the section until we get a new section chief. I am wearing a lot of different hats, I'm working cases, I'm reviewing the work of over twenty people, and right now I am actually in charge of over 200 people. I am in charge of the whole scientific analysis section of the FBI laboratory in the interim, until we get a new section chief, so I do have a lot of responsibilities at the FBI laboratory. And I believed that I answered the question satisfactorily. I did not need to do any other testing. Since the other day I have performed a few more tests, but other than that, I didn't feel that any other testing was needed.
I take it from that answer that it is a time problem? It would take a lot of time?
Well, it is that plus necessary. Was it necessary for me to do any other testing to answer the question? In my opinion it was not.
What is the appropriate method if you are going to use mass spectrometry to quantify the amount in an unknown sample?
Well, I don't know of whether it is the most accepted, but to me the best way in mass spectrometry is to use what is called a deuterated standard and that is what we routinely use at the FBI laboratory for quantitation. It is a very expensive means of quantitation, but I believe it is most effective in mass spectrometry for precise quantitation.
Now, correct me if I am wrong. An internal standard, that is something that is very close to the EDTA, but you know it is there and you know how much is there, correct?
And it is actually mixed in with the stain--with the liquid that you are going to look at, correct?
In other words, it is not run at one time and then your evidence is run at a second time?
And the reason why you run them together is you can get this wide variation from one run to the next in terms of what comes out of the run, correct?
It determines on your definition of "Wide variation." There is a some variation, but it is acceptable.
You would agree on getting a four-fold difference on two things that are identical is not terribly precise, is it?
Okay. Now, we talked about whether you used an internal standard or not in Washington, did we not?
Well, I told you I would have liked to use an internal standard and the deuterated standard is not available.
I would have loved to have one, then I wouldn't have had to answer so many questions.
I did not use one because one was not available for the type of testing that I did.
I contacted the manufacturer of one of the largest radion of deuterated standards. They told me that it would be at least three months to develop it. It was a very expensive price also. The price didn't matter so much, but it was the time limit, but it would be at least three months to develop that standard for me or to make that standard.
I checked with the one that we generally do business with, which is one of the largest producers of the deuterated standards.
I believe when I inquired with the one company I asked them if any other--if they knew of any other company that produced it and I believe their response was they didn't know of any other company.
Well, to have one developed is totally different than to buy one. Generally you can buy them for several hundred dollars, but to have one developed may be many, many, many thousands of dollars.
Would you agree if one were commercially available it certainly would be within the budget of the FBI?
Now, I want to ask you about your underlying data for the test that you did. Let's talk about the ones in February. I take it that these charts don't pop out of the machine, do they?
No. You have to--you have to request them or you actually tell the instrument to print out a particular chart.
Now, the data that is coming out of the machine, the raw data, what happens to that?
Well, generally what we do at the FBI laboratory is after the case is completed, we will erase the file, because we only have so much storage space, so after we have dictated the case, and all the review has been done, we will erase the files.
After you have completed the case? Now, where is the raw data that you did that formed the basis for all these charts right now?
Now, did you assume that when you had dictated your report that you were done with this case?
I was--I was done with those analyses. I had made my opinion, a very careful opinion, and I was convinced of this and I--as far as I was concerned, I did not need to look at that data again. I had made my conclusions. I had printed out the appropriate charts and I would not need to see that data again.
Weren't you expecting that you would be called as a Prosecution witness up until the day they rested?
Wasn't your state of mind such that you knew or you anticipated that you would be called to testify by the Prosecution in this case?
Would you agree that without your underlying data there is no way that some other person can review that data?
Well, obviously in this case someone has reviewed it, so I don't know how I can agree with that.
I'm talking about the underlying data that forms the basis for the generation of these charts, the digital data?
Would you agree that the fact that you have destroyed the digital data, which is the underlying raw data for these tests, makes it impossible for anyone to review that digital data, anyone other than you? Even you can't review it?
I mean, I can't even review it. I mean, that data is gone. Nobody can review that data any more, but the charts that represent the digital data have been printed out and those can be reviewed.
Would you agree that there are different ways to analyze your digital data with this kind of a test, other than the charts you produced?
I'm sorry. Do you know whether there are other ways to analyze digital data that comes out of the machine other than by producing just this kind of chart?
Umm, I'm sure that there are, but you know, at the FBI laboratory what we do is trying to make identifications and for that we have certain charts that we point out that represent whether something is there or not and that is what we do all the time. Whether someone can do something else with that digital data, I don't know. It is not something that we do at the FBI laboratory.
Are you not familiar with the other methods that you can use with your Finnegan system to generate--using the raw data to generate--to do different kind of analysis?
We are going to take a break. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to break for the noon hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And Agent Martz, you are ordered to come back at 1:30. All right. We will be in recess until 1:30. All right. Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.
All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present with his counsel, People are represented. The jury is not present and Agent Martz is present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?
All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, counsel, if you recollect, we will conclude today at 4:00 o'clock, at least as far as the jury is concerned. Then we have a number of legal arguments we can take up at 4:00 o'clock. And let me just ask as the jury is coming in, counsel, did both sides receive the letter from counsel at KNBC?
All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Agent Martz, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Roger Martz, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Agent Martz, you are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And, Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your direct examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER
During the lunch break, did you have an opportunity to call your folks at Quantico regarding the question of whether your method of extraction allowed you to remove all the EDTA?
And did you find--did you make a determination as to whether--first of all, did they test your method?
And did they determine that your method was capable or allowed you to remove a hundred percent of the EDTA from the sample you were extracting?
I want to ask you a couple more questions about destroying your data. Did you indicate that your criteria for when it's okay to destroy the data was when you thought a case was over?
Okay. How long after the report's left the laboratory in your mind is it okay to destroy the data?
Now, would you agree that using that standard, that never allows other scientists to review your data?
Well, I mean we provide the data like in this case, the printouts, but the electronic data is lost, yes.
And as part of your function as a criminalist, as an expert, you testify in cases and there are often times there are experts on other sides of the case, correct?
And is your understanding that it's common for one expert from one side of the case to look at the other expert's data to see if they made the right decision, right interpretations?
In the 20 years that I've been in the FBI laboratory, no one has ever asked to look at the digital data until now.
Is it your understanding that--well, would you agree with this? It would be relatively easy for you to save your data if you wanted to?
Well, not relatively easy. There's only a limited amount of space on the hard drive, and once that that is full, then you have to find another means of saving that data. And I wouldn't agree that it's that easy. It's certainly not complicated, but it's something that we don't practice at the laboratory.
Well, there are tape back-up systems for the kind of computer you have that are very easy to attach and use, aren't there?
Well, I don't know about easy to attach and use. But they are available, yes. The deck equipment is quite complex and attachments. It's not like a simple, you know, PC home computer.
Now, do you accept that with that underlining digital data, you could do some additional things such as averaging spectra?
And you could also do some further analysis by involving subtracting out background noise?
And these are things that you can no longer do because your data is gone, correct?
Well, you can't do it on those data. You could always rerun the same samples or similar samples. There is bloodstain left in this particular case. If someone wanted to analyze that stain, they could certainly analyze it.
But as far as the tests that you're testifying about, that can't be done, can it?
Now, you described to us how you made your positive control samples. And that's K67 and K68?
And that was taken directly from the reference tubes of Mr. Simpson and Miss Simpson?
Now, I want to ask you some questions about the tests that you performed on your own blood. You have that in mind?
Is it standard practice in your laboratory when you're performing tests like that that you don't write anything down?
Well, if you perform the test the same way you perform the other tests that are written, sometimes a person may or may not elect to write down the exact same thing that he wrote down before. In this particular case, I examined it the same way I had examined all the other samples and I did not write down how I did it.
So you performed these tests the same way that you did the other tests you've been testifying about?
Pretty much so. I made a cutting. I extracted with water, filtered, centrifuged and injected.
I went to the health service and I asked them to take two blood samples. I told them to take a non-EDTA sample first and then collect an EDTA sample. So they took a red stopper tube, collected blood and then took a purple stopper tube and collected blood.
I believe the one that they use was a serum collection tube, and I don't know if it did or not to be--I know it didn't have EDTA in it.
Now, from the point in time when you had your blood drawn into a red top tube, how long was it until you made a swatch?
Do you have any information indicating that the bloodstains in this case were ever put in a red top tube and allowed to sit for several days?
So would you agree that that particular set of conditions that you did isn't anything like the testing that you did of the evidence in this case?
No. I would disagree with that. EDTA is very soluble in blood, and in my opinion, it will be throughout the blood sample; and in preparing those samples, I don't believe that that would make a difference.
When you put this blood in a red top tube and let it sit for several days, where did it sit?
Have any indication that the blood that was used on these stains was clotted blood?
What's the stopper made out of on the red top tube that you had the blood in for several days?
Uh, the red test tubes that were used had a chemical in them. I don't know what it was.
Did you ever do any studies by putting plain water in a red top tube, letting it sit for several days and testing to see whether it had any EDTA in it?
So is it fair to say that you do not know the answer to the question of whether or not the EDTA or what looked like EDTA that you found in your blood came from the tube itself?
Uh, I don't know that EDTA has ever been used in anything other than the purple top tube. Other than that, I don't have any information.
Okay. I'm not talking about EDTA as a preservative in a liquid form in the tube. I'm talking about the tube itself containing materials that have EDTA. Did you do any research at all to determine whether or not what you found in the blood came from the tube rather than you?
And it had been sitting in--at that point, sitting in the red top tube for how long?
Was your purpose in running it again to determine whether you really had EDTA in your blood or not?
So you weren't trying to determine whether you had EDTA in your blood when you did the second run?
The purpose of all of my experiments from the beginning, as I mentioned, were to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved or nonpreserved blood and to differentiate between preserved and nonpreserved blood. I had--
The question was, the second run in July, what was the purpose of doing that, the second run?
To distinguish between preserved blood and nonpreserved blood to show that I can do that on blood that had aged for several months.
What would be the best way--if you really wanted to test whether you had EDTA in your blood, what would be the best way to do that in your opinion?
I don't know about the best way. I'm sure that I do have EDTA in my blood. The question is how much I have in my blood, and to determine how much I have would depend on which instrumentation I would use, and I would probably want to take a larger volume of blood and somehow or another concentrate the EDTA for analysis.
Well, you would agree, would you not, that the amount of EDTA you would expect in your blood from your diet is in the parts per billion range?
I don't know that I could agree with that. I don't know that there's any data that substantiates that.
All of the studies that we've looked at that you've provided to us indicate that, don't they?
But I believe in that particular case, they're referring back to the original study.
Well, I think what it has is references of the last work that was done in a particular area.
Is this a treaty--treatise that is used in pharmacology as a standard reference work?
I think there's been some other studies on ion EDTA and its absorption that may or may not conflict it.
I can't remember the exact articles, but there possibly was some other conflicting data on ion EDTA.
What I was trying to find in literature was how much EDTA would be present in a person.
But one of the things you looked for is how much is absorbed, for instance, with iron, right?
Well one of the things that would be critical to determine that would be how much EDTA would be absorbed.
Those studies, the ones that you are referring to, can you give me the name of one of them?
Now, when you pulled together the literature to prepare for your testimony, is it fair to say that you tried to get the articles that were the most relevant to what you were going to testify about?
Okay. Now, by the way, where is the underlying data when you ran your own blood, the digital data?
There was nothing to dictate. It was research that I had performed on my own blood.
I believe it was furnished to them at the same time it was furnished to you when you visited me on--about a week ago Tuesday.
Were you ever asked to conduct any kind of a study to determine taking other people than you, checking their blood directly rather than putting it in any kind of container to see if there's any EDTA?
Did the Prosecution ever ask you to test any of the samples, the other forensic samples in this case, bloodstains that may have come from Nicole brown Simpson, for instance, to see whether they showed EDTA?
Did they ever ask you to check any stains in the area of stains collected in Chicago to determine whether there's any EDTA in Mr. Simpson's blood from those stains?
Did they ever ask you to test any of the other evidence in this case to see if there was EDTA present?
I was just faxed another copy of another chromatogram that could possibly give similar results that I just got several minutes ago.
I never looked at it, no.
So you had made up your mind as to what you were going to find before you did the test?
I'm making assumptions based on my twenty years of experience working with chemicals.
Your painted surface, what was that? What kind of metal was that? It was a can.