Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK
All right, sir. Where we left off we were talking about the high pressure liquid chromatography test that you did on the blood samples. Do you recall that?
I believe you indicated that that particular test, the HPLC, was just a screening test that you would not rely on for any conclusion? Do you recall that testimony?
So there is a difference then between the kind of test that will give you some indication of what might be present versus a test that will give you a definitive answer that something can be identified?
You were present during Dr. Rieders' testimony in court the other day, were you not, sir?
And do you recall, when I began to question him concerning the work he did in the case that we called the Sconce case, People versus Sconce?
And in that case he was retained to answer the question as to whether or not the victim had been poisoned to death by the use of the oleander plant or died of natural causes. Do you recall that?
I'm going to object to this line of questioning without a foundation this agent has personal knowledge of any of this.
Sustained. It is a little premature, but I agree with on you foundational grounds, but it is premature at this point. Proceed.
Now, he testified that he used three tests to determine--he used three tests in analyzing the autopsy tissues of the victim; thin layer chromatography, fluorescent spectrometry and radioimmunoassay. Do you recall that?
And I believe that he testified that those were the best then available methods to test for the presence of oleandrin. Do you recall that testimony, sir?
Well, I will say absolutely yes or no. It would depend on the compound and the circumstances and you would have to review all the data. It is possible that they could under certain circumstances, but it would depend on the specific chemical you are trying to identify.
With respect to oleandrin, do you have an opinion as to whether or not those tests would be effective to positively identify that substance?
Have you ever performed any tests to detect the presence of poisons such as oleandrin?
Well, every chemical is a little different, but we have identified chemicals that are similar, but not that specific chemical.
Are there--are the same tests--for the purpose of identifying a particular poison and of the family similar to that of oleandrin, do you use the same kind of tests for that family of chemicals, poisons such as oleandrin?
And in that regard, sir, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the thin layer chromatography radioimmunoassay and fluorescent spectrometry tests are more or less effective than mass spectrometry for the purpose of detection of poisons?
They could all be used for determining whether or not it could be present, but for the identification, I would rely on the mass spectrometry to identify that chemical.
So for the purpose of identifying poisons, sir, would the tests used by Dr. Rieders be most appropriately characterized as screening tests?
For the compound known as oleandrin, sir, do you have any knowledge of the composition of that compound?
I've looked at the chemical and I know--basically I know what it looks like. I couldn't draw the structure or give you the formula for it.
If you, sir, were asked--if you were asked in the year 1988 to analyze autopsied tissues to determine whether or not you could identify oleandrin in those tissues, would you have used thin layer chromatography, radioimmunoassay and fluorescent spectrometry?
As a matter of fact, as of 1988 did the liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer exist?
Well, there has been many forms of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry in the FBI. We have used various forms since about 1986.
Now, you yourself at the FBI use the machine known as the liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer, correct?
The specific one that I used presently was not, but there were other forms of LC/MSMS available in 1986. The electrospray was not commercially available, the one that I am using in 1986.
Nevertheless, there were other forms of the LC/MSMS that were available in 1986, correct?
Would the LC/MSMS, as it existed in 1986 through `88, have been a more effective piece of equipment to use for the identification of oleandrin?
Were several types. One was a direct liquid injection. They had a moving belt. There were several different types. Probably thermospray was available then. There are many different forms of LC/MS.
Are you familiar with the in manner which they are operated and the substances that they can most effectively identify?
And would the LC/MSMS, the forms that existed then, back in 1988, would one of them or all of them have been a more effective means of identifying oleandrin than the tests used by Dr. Rieders?
Now, you talked, sir--just now you mentioned something about detection versus identification. Can you please tell us what you mean when you say something is detected?
Well, detecting is--is used in a general term in the laboratory. We have certain tests called spot tests, and for something like cocaine, you would do a spot test and you get a color and you could say cocaine was detected, but what you have to realize is there is many other chemicals that would also give similar results, so even though it was detected with that particular test, it doesn't mean it was identified. In order to identify something, you have to use a positive means of identification and in the FBI laboratory we use mass spectrometry as a positive way to identify something based on a full mass spectrum.
I notice that when you were being examined by Mr. Blasier he asked you specifically whether or not on one of the evidence stains there was ions consistent with EDTA. Do you recall that?
When you say "Consistent with," do you mean that you have identified the compound or do you mean that it has been detected, that is, it could be there but you have not identified it?
When something is consistent with something else, it is not a positive identification. It could be something else. With preliminary tests that you do in the laboratory, there is a lot of chemicals that could be consistent, but in order to identify something, you have to have something unique associated with that chemical before you can positively identify it and that is what a mass spectrum does. Some people will say that a mass spectrum, a full mass spectrum, is a fingerprint of a chemical and that is why we try to do a full mass spectrum, to identify a chemical.
KEY QUOTENow, in that regard, sir, when you discussed this issue with Mr. Blasier in Washington or over the telephone, did you inform him of the distinction between consistent and identified?
And in this case, sir, in the evidence stains and in your own blood, I believe you testified earlier could you not find the full daughter, the full daughter spectrum?
I would like to show you some graphs, sir. And you generated graphs as a result of those tests?
That is what I--yeah, thank you. 549-A will be the chart entitled "Operator blood, no EDTA added," red top with a start time of ten o'clock and 21 seconds. The second one 549-B, "Operator blood with EDTA." And the third one, "Operator blood, no EDTA added" time start, 10:19:55, that will be 549-C.
Sir, putting up on the elmo 549-A, first of all. Can you see--we can just show him the top label, Mr. Fairtlough, so you can make sure that is what--
All right. Pushing it over to the left, if you could see the start time, what does that mean?
We talked a little bit about the variation in quantification that will occur as a result of the sensitivity of the column. Do you recall that?
And in that way will you get an accurate ratio? In other words, they will all run in the same way so you will see them relate to each other in an appropriate more accurate fashion?
It is best to run the samples very close together in order to get the best quantitation.
By "Ratio" I mean relative peaks. In other words, if one is very high and one is very low, if you run them at the same time, would that relative height and depth be accurate?
Well, it depends on your definition of "Accurate." It is not going to be a hundred percent accurate, but the closer you can run your sample together, the better off you are.
All right. Now, is this the run that you did on May 11th of 1995 on your own blood that you put into a red-topped tube that did not contain EDTA?
This is the reconstructed ion of 160 which is an ion produced from the 293 parent of EDTA.
Does this bear any similarity, this test run on your own blood, without EDTA, does this bear any similarity to the results obtained when the evidence stains were run?
These are very similar results I got as to the stain from the sock and from the gate.
Now, I'm going to show you, sir--I'm going to show you the next one--I'm going to show you 549-C. If you can read that, is that again a test of your own blood with no EDTA added on May 11th?
Umm, this is just a chromatogram with one daughter ion; it is not a full daughter spectrum.
And for the full daughter spectrum, that would be that would allow you to identify EDTA, would you have to see the 132 daughter ion?
Showing you 549-B, sir, is this the graph that depicts the run in which you ran your blood with EDTA added?
The result--again, there is indications that EDTA could be present in this particular blood sample.
Now, does this have a different appearance than--excuse me--than the evidence stains that you had run?
So does this graph demonstrate that the blood, your blood when having EDTA added, gives a strong signal?
Then the random peaks that you call noise on the blood sample of your own blood, without EDTA, does that indicate that the signal for the 160 daughter ion was weak?
Your Honor, I have here additional graphs with the date July 22, 1995, "RMM blood, no EDTA." I would ask that it be marked People's 550-A.
Is that the graph that depicts the test you did on your own blood with no EDTA--no EDTA added on July 22, 1995?
And again does this graph also bear a resemblance or similarities to the evidence stains?
Now, does this graph again demonstrate the same difference that you saw when you ran the known reference samples that you knew to contain EDTA that were taken from the EDTA tube in this case?
Now, did you also attempt to conduct a test that would tell you whether or not you could find EDTA after a period of time?
Well, I took some old blood samples that we had in the laboratory and analyzed those.
Two more charts, your Honor. Entitled July 22, 1995, "EDTA blood from 1993," People's 5--
Showing you People's 551-A, is this the photograph that depicts your testing of a stain from 1993 that was known to contain EDTA?
And did that look--did that bear any similarity to the known reference sample stains that you created in this case taken from the vial of the Defendant and Nicole Brown?
And 551-B, is this--does this graph depict the other tests that you ran on 1993 blood known to contain EDTA?
Now, based on these--this finding, the blood from 1993 that was known to contain EDTA, did you form some opinion about how stable the compound is or how long it will last?
This pretty much beared out what I suspected, that EDTA is a very stable chemical and I didn't see any degradation of the EDTA over the two-year time period.
Now, as a general proposition, sir, are the chemicals found in blood more stable when blood is dried or when it is wet?
So for example, if you have blood that is deposited on a rear gate, that dries quickly on that rear gate, would the chemical in that blood be more stable and more easily detected after a period of time than if they--the blood was in a wet pool of blood?
Sir, are you familiar with the properties of chemicals found in blood and how they degrade?
And are you familiar with the conditions that will cause the chemical properties of blood to degrade or be preserved?
And in your experience and your opinion as an expert in this field, sir, will the chemical properties of blood be better preserved if the bloodstain is dried than if it is in a wet pool?
Most of the chemicals that I deal with, they are much more stable dry than they are in a wet condition.
Showing you People's 552, sir, can you tell us what you have depicted in this photograph, in this chart?
Generally between runs you will run a blank, just a solvent to show that there is no carry-over.
Not necessarily 50 parts per million; to show that it will detect EDTA in that it is fairly sensitive.
Those were the two bloodstains that were preserved in the FBI laboratory since 1993. They were extracted, they were known EDTA blood standards and they showed very high levels of EDTA.
Okay. Now, you have come to the section that says "RMM, no," and what does that stand for?
Now, is there some reading indicated on this that it is a little bit higher than the blank?
Yes, there was some reading and that was shown on the chromatograms we had seen earlier.
Could you show us now then the blank and then the last column showing your blood--thank you--showing your blood with EDTA added?
Okay. On this graph, sir, on this chart, can you tell us whether the results shown for your blood where it says "RMM, no," where you have not added EDTA and "RMM, yes," where you have added EDTA to your blood, bears any relationship or similarity to the comparison of the blood taken from the reference files of the Defendant and Nicole Brown and the evidence stains in this case from the gate and the sock?
Yes. There was a very clear comparison. My blood that was preserved and Mr. Simpson and Mrs. Simpson's bloods that were preserved all contained a large amount of EDTA and my blood that was not preserved and the stain from the gate and the sock all showed indications of the 160 ion, but in none of those cases was I able to identify EDTA.
Now, sir, in your job, is it unusual for you to discover new compounds, new chemicals?
I would say different, not necessarily new. They are chemicals that have existed and it is the first time that we identified them.
Okay. Now, does that--does the fact that you identify--would you say it is a routine thing to identify chemicals that you have not previously identified?
In that light, sir, in light of the fact that you routinely do identify new chemicals not previously identified, does that highlight the importance of refraining from identifying a compound until you see all of the characteristics that must be present, such as in this case the full daughter spectrum of 160 and 132 before you are ready to identify it as EDTA?
Yeah, it is very, very important. You don't want to jump to any conclusions because there are a lot of chemicals in the world. There are at least eleven million that are known and I'm sure there is more and a lot of those have similar properties, and you must be very, very careful before you positively identify one of those chemicals.
In doing so, in settling for two out of the three factors in this case, if you settle for the parent 239 and the daughter 160 without looking for the other daughter of 132, identifying EDTA when you see only two out of the three could cause a mistake to be made?
Now, sir, when you were asked the question by us as to whether or not--when you were asked by the District Attorney's office to look at the bloodstains in this case to determine whether or not EDTA was present, did anyone from our office tell you what test to conduct?
I think I had called rock up when I did the second test to make sure that I could use more sample, but that was the only time. When I initially conducted the tests I didn't ask permission from anybody, no.
The reason that you contacted Mr. Harmon was to find out if could you get more of the sample so you could run more tests?
You were not asking his permission as a scientist to allow you to perform tests that you felt were scientific?
If in your judgment, sir, there were tests that you felt were appropriate to be conducted, were scientifically appropriate to be conducted, would you await our permission before conducting that test?
If we asked you not to perform a test that you felt was scientifically proper and correct to do, would you accept that and not do it at our say so?
Well, I mean generally I never really talk to the Prosecutors; I just do the case. I work the case and give then the answer is the way that I routinely do analysis.
When you attempted to answer the question as to whether or not EDTA from a preserved tube was present in the evidence stains from the gate and the sock, did you then conduct all of the tests that you in your judgment thought were scientifically appropriate to conduct?
I was able to determine that the bloodstains on the sock and the gate did not come from preserved blood.
KEY QUOTEOkay. The charts that reflect the graphs that reflect the runs for the evidence stains for the full daughter spectrum, 543-E, which is a combination of 543 a and C.
Never mind, your Honor. I'm sure it will become germane again. I will conclude with this. Thank you.
I was able to determine that the bloodstains on the sock and the gate did not come from preserved blood.
When something is consistent with something else, it is not a positive identification. It could be something else.
In my opinion that could cause a mistake, yes.
You don't want to jump to any conclusions because there are a lot of chemicals in the world. There are at least eleven million that are known and I'm sure there is more and a lot of those have similar properties.
My blood that was preserved and Mr. Simpson and Mrs. Simpson's bloods that were preserved all contained a large amount of EDTA and my blood that was not preserved and the stain from the gate and the sock all showed indications of the 160 ion, but in none of those cases was I able to identify EDTA.