Redirect examination of Roger Martz (morning, part 1)

📄 Redirect examination of Roger Martz (morning, part 1) — Wednesday, July 26, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\26\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-ROGER-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 122 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Roger Martz (morning) Sidebar: exhibits ▶

Witness: Roger Martz
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, July 26, 1995 • Utterances: 251

Defense attorney Robert Blasier redirects FBI chemist Roger Martz, attacking both his claimed neutrality and his EDTA testing methodology. Blasier establishes that Martz consulted with prosecutors throughout Dr. Rieders' testimony and changed his demeanor after a midday break, that his digital data had been destroyed, and that a commercially available internal standard existed that he chose not to use. The examination methodically dismantles the scientific foundations of Martz's conclusion that EDTA was not artificially added to the blood evidence.

# 1 MR. BLASIER:

Thank you, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

# 2 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, you testified yesterday that you had no bias one way or the other either for the Prosecution or for the Defense. Do you remember that?

# 3 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 4 MR. BLASIER:

Is that your state of mind as you sit there today?

# 5 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 6 MR. BLASIER:

Now, yesterday morning do you recall my asking you questions and you answering the questions before the break?

# 7 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 8 MR. BLASIER:

And do you recall after the break you changed your demeanor, didn't you?

# 9 MR. MARTZ:

I think I did, yes.

# 10 MR. BLASIER:

And by the way, during Dr. Rieders' testimony you were consulting with the Prosecutors throughout the course of that examination, were you not?

# 11 MR. MARTZ:

I think--yes, I was.

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

You were providing them with possible questions or issues that they should raise?

# 13 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I did.

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

And you were providing them with--Miss Clark with instructions as to what questions she might raise and what technological issues she might raise?

# 15 MR. MARTZ:

Well, like with them, with you, anything that you asked and they asked, I provided.

# 16 MR. BLASIER:

During each break were you down there conferring with the Prosecutors in this case while Dr. Rieders was testifying?

# 17 MR. MARTZ:

I don't know about each break. I did confer with them when they asked questions, yes.

# 18 MR. BLASIER:

And you were conferring with them during the course of my questioning of Dr. Rieders, correct?

# 19 MR. MARTZ:

When they asked questions I answered them.

# 20 MR. BLASIER:

And during the break yesterday morning did you meet with the Prosecutors?

# 21 MR. MARTZ:

I stepped down and talked with them, yes.

# 22 MR. BLASIER:

Did you talk to them about your testimony?

# 23 MR. MARTZ:

Umm, somewhat.

# 24 MR. BLASIER:

And you decided after the break that you needed to be much more of an advocate, didn't you?

# 25 MS. CLARK:

Objection, argumentative.

# 26 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 27 MR. BLASIER:

Did you decide at the break that you needed to be much of an advocate?

# 28 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 29 MR. BLASIER:

Did you decide that you had to be much more aggressive?

# 30 MR. MARTZ:

I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers.

KEY QUOTE

# 31 MR. BLASIER:

So you decided to change your demeanor?

# 32 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I decided that I wanted to tell the whole truth.

# 33 MR. BLASIER:

You indicated that the only other time you testified in this case for the Defense is where two police officers were charged with murdering a civilian?

# 34 MR. MARTZ:

I won't say that is the only time. That is the time I remember. That is the only one I remember.

# 35 MR. BLASIER:

During the course of your 17 years experience with the FBI, you have never testified for the Defense other than that and other than yesterday and today?

# 36 MR. MARTZ:

I don't remember any other time.

# 37 MR. BLASIER:

When I met with you in Washington about two weeks ago did you have a conversation with the Prosecutors after that meeting?

# 38 MR. MARTZ:

I'm sure I did.

# 39 MR. BLASIER:

Did you discuss the content of the meeting that we had?

# 40 MR. MARTZ:

I'm sure that I talked to them somewhat about it. I don't remember the specifics of what I told them.

# 41 MR. BLASIER:

Did you--

# 42 MR. MARTZ:

I can't even remember the specifics of what we talked about, you know, all the specifics. I did talk to them after our meeting.

# 43 MR. BLASIER:

Did you talk to them about some of the issues that you thought I was going to raise and how you might confront them?

# 44 MR. MARTZ:

I may have mentioned something, but I was confused. As I told you when you came to Washington, I didn't know why you were calling me to testify.

# 45 MR. BLASIER:

Now, can you tell me one time in your 17 years where after you talked to the Prosecutors about a case that you worked on that you called the Defense to talk to them and explain the issues to them?

# 46 MR. MARTZ:

Could you repeat that question?

# 47 MR. BLASIER:

Can you tell me one time in your 17 years experience when you met with the Prosecutors about a case that you followed that up by conferring with the Defense to tell them what you discussed?

# 48 MR. MARTZ:

I've had occasions where I've talked to the Defense after I've talked to the Prosecution.

# 49 MR. BLASIER:

Do you make that a practice of letting the Defense know when you have conferred with the Prosecution about test results?

# 50 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 51 MR. BLASIER:

Do you make it a practice to let Defense counsel know what issues they might want to raise with you or with other experts?

# 52 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 53 MR. BLASIER:

Is it still your testimony that you have no prosecutorial bias here?

# 54 MR. MARTZ:

I have no bias whatsoever. Every question that you ask and they asked, I answer.

# 55 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you were asked a lot of questions about whether Dr. Rieders could have performed some of the tests that I was asking you about yesterday to validate what you might expect to lose by way of EDTA given environmental conditions. Do you remember that?

# 56 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I do.

# 57 MR. BLASIER:

Is it your understanding--whose responsibility--when you design a test like this, whose responsibility is to it validate it?

# 58 MR. MARTZ:

The test validates itself basically. You run standards and controls. In chemical analysis the instrumentation is all established. It has been validated. And in a chemical analysis that we do in the laboratory, we identify unknown chemicals on a daily basis and the instrumentation has all been established and the identification of a chemical has been established based on its mass spectrum and we routinely do that and that is what I did in this case. The validation is just to show that the chemical you are looking for can be extracted. The identification is based on mass spectrum which is well-established, but in order to get to the mass spectrum you have to extract it what so you have to do is show by using a control that you can extract that chemical and identify it.

# 59 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, your validation, your self-validation, how long did that take?

# 60 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I think I can't remember when I testified the other day, but I work certainly more than a day and probably less than a week in developing a procedure that would extract the EDTA out of blood.

# 61 MR. BLASIER:

And that validation concerned just determining whether taking blood from an EDTA tube, putting it on a swatch and then letting it dry for an hour and testing it, whether you could detect EDTA, correct?

# 62 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 63 MR. BLASIER:

You didn't do any validation study whatsoever to determine what sample preserved under the way these samples were preserved, collected, environmental factors, you did no validation study whatsoever to determine what if any loss you might have in EDTA, did you?

# 64 MR. MARTZ:

In this particular case I didn't believe it was necessary. What I had was the best scenario. I had--

# 65 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, your Honor. Move to strike.

# 66 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 67 MR. BLASIER:

You didn't--

# 68 THE COURT:

He has answered the question.

# 69 MR. BLASIER:

I'm sorry.

# 70 THE COURT:

Next question.

# 71 MR. BLASIER:

Now, when I met with you in Washington I had requested your digital data, hadn't I?

# 72 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 73 MR. BLASIER:

It had long since been destroyed, hadn't it?

KEY QUOTE

# 74 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, it had.

# 75 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you mentioned yesterday you were talking about the 1954 study and you felt that there were some problems with that?

# 76 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 77 MR. BLASIER:

One of the things you mentioned was that they found thirty parts per million EDTA in the bloodstream at some point?

# 78 MR. MARTZ:

That was my interpretation, yes.

# 79 MR. BLASIER:

Under what conditions did they find thirty parts per million EDTA in someone's bloodstream?

# 80 MR. MARTZ:

When they injected it into their--I think it was intramuscular or intravenous.

# 81 MR. BLASIER:

Injected directly into the blood?

# 82 MR. MARTZ:

Yes. One of the times it was, yes.

# 83 MR. BLASIER:

How long did it take to work its way out of the system, according to this study?

# 84 MR. MARTZ:

I can't remember specifically, but it was a short time period I believe.

# 85 MR. BLASIER:

Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Simpson or Miss Nicole Brown Simpson had injected EDTA at any time on June 12th?

# 86 MR. MARTZ:

I would have no knowledge of that.

# 87 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you referred to that study for the purposes of explaining that they found thirty parts per million, correct?

# 88 MR. MARTZ:

That is my recollection. They found thirty parts per million, yes.

# 89 MR. BLASIER:

But you are not prepared to accept the fact that the study found only five percent of EDTA taken by mouth gets into the blood?

# 90 MR. MARTZ:

I accept the fact that that is what they found in that study.

# 91 MR. BLASIER:

And do you accept the fact that that cite is in a textbook that is used in every medical school, that five percent of what you ingest gets into the blood?

# 92 MS. CLARK:

Objection, that assumes facts not in evidence.

# 93 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 94 MR. MARTZ:

Based on all the research that I did, all the latest literature refers back to the study.

# 95 MR. BLASIER:

1954 and that is where the five percent comes from?

# 96 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 97 MR. BLASIER:

You have no better literature other than that, do you?

# 98 MR. MARTZ:

That is the only literature that is available.

# 99 MR. BLASIER:

Do you have any--you don't have a degree in pharmacology, do you?

# 100 MR. MARTZ:

No, I do not.

# 101 MR. BLASIER:

Did you take any courses in your undergraduate in pharmacology?

# 102 MR. MARTZ:

Not specifically.

# 103 MR. BLASIER:

And your degree, is it in biology?

# 104 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 105 MR. BLASIER:

So you don't even have a degree in chemistry, do you?

# 106 MR. MARTZ:

I have a minor.

# 107 MR. BLASIER:

Do you have any kind of a degree in pharmacokinetics?

# 108 MR. MARTZ:

No, I do not.

# 109 MR. BLASIER:

Do you know what that is?

# 110 MR. MARTZ:

Oh, not specifically.

# 111 MR. BLASIER:

Do you know what pharmacokinetics is?

# 112 MR. MARTZ:

Not specifically.

# 113 MR. BLASIER:

When you read that particular study, did you have any--did you--did you recognize it, that it was a study in pharmacokinetics?

# 114 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I was looking at the paper because it was the study of EDTA. That was my interest in reviewing the paper.

# 115 MR. BLASIER:

Do you feel that you have the educational background top criticize that paper?

# 116 MR. MARTZ:

I didn't criticize the paper. The paper criticized itself and I was just bringing that up.

# 117 MR. BLASIER:

That was your interpretation of the paper?

# 118 MR. MARTZ:

Well, the last paragraph said that there were some problems.

# 119 MR. BLASIER:

What did it say the problems were?

# 120 MR. MARTZ:

It wasn't consistent with previous studies.

# 121 (Brief pause.)

# 122 (Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 123 MR. BLASIER:

Let me show you Defense 1268. That is the last page of that document that you are saying has contrary data to the absorption rate?

# 124 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 125 MR. BLASIER:

Could we look at this on the elmo again.

# 126 MR. BLASIER:

Tell me where in that paragraph says that there is contrary information about absorption rate?

# 127 MR. MARTZ:

It says: "The low absorption after oral administration is very surprising in view of the finding that the material is affected by the"--I'm having trouble. Can you focus that?

# 128 MS. CLARK:

The monitor.

# 129 MR. MARTZ:

Is that what it is?

# 130 MR. BLASIER:

"Yttrium and lead"?

# 131 MR. MARTZ:

"By the route of"--I can't read it on this monitor.

# 132 MR. BLASIER:

Let's try again.

# 133 MR. MARTZ:

"Is affected by the route in accelerating the excretion of yttrium and lead. There is no satisfactorily readily apparent explanation at this present"--

# 134 MR. BLASIER:

I'm sorry, were you done?

# 135 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 136 MR. BLASIER:

Which part of that says that there are different absorption rates?

# 137 MR. MARTZ:

Well, it says, the low absorption of an oral administration is very surprising because in another paper they were able to remove yttrium and lead and to remove that you have to get into the bloodstream.

# 138 MR. BLASIER:

What did that other paper say about the absorption rate?

# 139 MR. MARTZ:

It didn't say.

# 140 MR. BLASIER:

But it is your interpretation of that document that that says there is a different absorption rate than five percent?

# 141 MR. MARTZ:

It applies a different absorption rate because to effectively remove a chemical from the blood you have to get into the blood.

# 142 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you indicated yesterday, when Miss Clark was asking you about possible explanations for what you found that is consistent with EDTA on the back gate and the sock, you mentioned an artifact due to the matrix effect. Do you remember that?

# 143 MR. MARTZ:

Right, correct.

# 144 MR. BLASIER:

Did you try to check that out?

# 145 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I did, but--

# 146 MR. BLASIER:

Didn't pan out, did it?

# 147 MR. MARTZ:

I wasn't able to duplicate blood without it being blood.

# 148 MR. BLASIER:

So you tried to check that hypothesis and you weren't able to check it out, correct?

# 149 MR. MARTZ:

Well, in the time constraint I didn't have sufficient time to check that out.

# 150 MR. BLASIER:

You told me, did you not, that you didn't think that was the explanation at all?

# 151 MR. MARTZ:

It is a possible explanation. We have several explanations that I mentioned. That is a possible one.

# 152 MR. BLASIER:

You told me that you didn't think that one was likely at all, didn't you?

# 153 MR. MARTZ:

I don't think it is likely. I talked to some other experts that thought it was likely.

# 154 (Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 155 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, let me show you Prosecution 544-E. Incidentally, yesterday in the morning, before the break you testified that what you saw on the back gate and on the sock was consistent with EDTA, correct?

# 156 MR. MARTZ:

No, I didn't say that. I said one of the charts had an ion that was consistent, or if I didn't, that is what I meant to say.

# 157 MR. BLASIER:

Well, you set up the experiment. This is the evidence from the back gate, is it not?

# 158 MR. MARTZ:

Right.

# 159 MR. BLASIER:

There is an ion there and that is the same ion you would get with EDTA there and the parent ion is there, isn't it?

# 160 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 161 MR. BLASIER:

And the retention time is consistent even though, as you stated, your chromatography was not particularly definitive?

# 162 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 163 MR. BLASIER:

Now, the exhibit that we have on the elmo now is the gate chart, correct, when you were looking for the 160 ion, right, at the bottom?

# 164 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 165 MR. BLASIER:

Compared to the full daughter spectrum above it, correct?

# 166 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 167 MR. BLASIER:

Now, that is the same sample, isn't it?

# 168 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 169 MR. BLASIER:

In those two runs?

# 170 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 171 MR. BLASIER:

What happened to the 160 ion in the full daughter spectrum?

# 172 (No audible response.)

# 173 MR. BLASIER:

Is it no longer there?

# 174 MR. MARTZ:

It didn't show up.

# 175 MR. BLASIER:

Is it no longer there?

# 176 MR. MARTZ:

It didn't show up in the daughter spectrum.

# 177 MR. BLASIER:

Did you change the sample in some fashion that would remove the 160 ion?

# 178 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 179 MR. BLASIER:

So can you assume that it is still there in the full daughter?

# 180 MR. MARTZ:

No. As you mentioned with the camera with Dr. Rieders, if you are looking at one specific ion, it is easier to see, but if you are doing a full scan you may not see all the ions, but for me to identify it it has to be present.

KEY QUOTE

# 181 MR. BLASIER:

Are you saying the 160 is not present in the full daughter spectrum of the same sample?

# 182 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 183 MR. BLASIER:

That it is not there because you can't see it on the chart?

# 184 MR. MARTZ:

That's right.

# 185 MR. BLASIER:

So it is your testimony that if you can't see the ion, it can't be there?

# 186 MR. MARTZ:

I can't identify it if I can't see it.

# 187 MR. BLASIER:

Can it be there and you are just not seeing it?

# 188 MR. MARTZ:

Sure. You can always be below your detection limit.

# 189 MR. BLASIER:

And if you had really been looking for the 132 ion, you could have done the same kind of scan you did for the 160, couldn't you have?

# 190 MR. MARTZ:

Sure.

# 191 MR. BLASIER:

Did you?

# 192 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 193 MR. BLASIER:

You didn't want to find the 132 ion, did you?

# 194 MR. MARTZ:

No, it wasn't that I didn't want to find the 132 ion. I needed the full daughter spectrum. In finding the 132 ion, it would just be like finding the 160 ion by itself. It could be a screening test. In order to confirm I need all the ions together in a certain ratio.

KEY QUOTE

# 195 MR. BLASIER:

You said yesterday that you would have loved to have an internal standard, correct?

# 196 MR. MARTZ:

I don't know about love, but I would like to have an internal standard, yes.

# 197 MR. BLASIER:

You told me in Washington you would have loved to have one?

# 198 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, one or the other.

# 199 MR. BLASIER:

That would have made your test from a non-quantitative test to at least some measure of quantitation, correct?

# 200 MR. MARTZ:

I believe I do have some level of quantitation already.

# 201 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, you testified that this was not designed to be a quantitative test, didn't you?

# 202 MR. MARTZ:

It wasn't, but that doesn't mean that you can use it to quantitate.

# 203 MR. BLASIER:

What is the purpose of using an internal standard?

# 204 MR. MARTZ:

To get precise quantitation.

# 205 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you are aware now, aren't you, that there is an internal standard that is commercially available that you could have used?

# 206 MR. MARTZ:

Well, you showed me a book yesterday. I still haven't called the manufacturer to confirm that it is available, but did you do that? Is it available?

# 207 MR. BLASIER:

Did you look at the chemical description of what was in the book?

# 208 MR. MARTZ:

I looked at a very close--I didn't look at it very closely, but I saw something that you showed me that you said it was EDTA.

# 209 MR. BLASIER:

And would you like to look at it again?

# 210 MR. MARTZ:

If I could.

# 211 (Brief pause.)

# 212 (Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 213 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, let me show you--perhaps we could have a copy of this page as well as the cover marked as the next exhibit.

# 214 THE CLERK:

1270.

# 215 THE COURT:

1270.

# 216 MR. BLASIER:

12--

# 217 THE COURT:

What is the title?

# 218 MR. BLASIER:

"Cambridge isotope laboratories, stable isotopes, 1994-1995."

# 219 THE COURT:

Thank you.

# 220 (Deft's 1270 for id = article)

# 221 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Marks, let me show you from the bottom of page 49 of that catalogue, does that appear to be an internal standard available that you could have used with your testing?

# 222 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, it does.

# 223 MR. BLASIER:

How much does it cost?

# 224 MR. MARTZ:

Oh, $690.00.

# 225 MR. BLASIER:

How much would you have needed to use?

# 226 MR. MARTZ:

Oh, generally to weigh something you would like at least ten milligrams.

# 227 MR. BLASIER:

Ten milligrams?

# 228 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 229 MR. BLASIER:

How much did $690.00 buy?

# 230 MR. MARTZ:

Was it a gram? I can't remember. A gram. I could have bought the smaller standard, yes.

# 231 MR. BLASIER:

And what did the smaller standard cost?

# 232 MR. MARTZ:

I can't remember. $115.00.

# 233 THE COURT:

All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you have Mr. Lee make a copy for us, please. Mr. Blasier.

# 234 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you were shown quite a few charts by the Prosecution, the red bar charts, correct?

# 235 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct, yes.

# 236 THE COURT:

Mrs. Robertson.

# 237 (Brief pause.)

# 238 (Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 239 THE COURT:

Are you looking for 552?

# 240 MR. BLASIER:

Anyone of the red charts.

# 241 MS. CLARK:

I have one I'm sure, your Honor.

# 242 MR. BLASIER:

Let me show you 552. Agent Martz, you prepared this, as well as several other charts, in an attempt to compare quantities by ion count, did you not?

# 243 MR. MARTZ:

It was prepared to show the dramatic difference between preserved and non-preserved blood.

# 244 MR. BLASIER:

To compare ion counts between one sample and another, correct?

# 245 MR. MARTZ:

I used ion counts for the comparison, yes.

# 246 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you have indicated that your ion counts can fluctuate because of the vagaries of the instrument by four-fold, can't they?

# 247 MR. MARTZ:

They did over the period of--that one day, yes.

# 248 MR. BLASIER:

So you could adjust those either to you make them four times bigger or four times smaller and that would still be within the realm of the tolerance of your machine? Fair enough?

# 249 MR. MARTZ:

Well, that is a big variance. You generally don't get that large, but I would agree that that day it was four-fold.

# 250 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. Your Honor, may we approach about the exhibit?

# 251 THE COURT:

Sure. With the court reporter, please.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Roger Martz

I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers.

Martz's own explanation for his mid-trial demeanor shift undermines his earlier claim of total neutrality and implies his initial answers were incomplete or misleading.

Roger Martz

It had long since been destroyed, hadn't it? Yes, it had.

Confirmation that the digital data underlying Martz's EDTA analysis was destroyed, making independent verification of his results impossible.

Roger Martz

No. As you mentioned with the camera with Dr. Rieders, if you are looking at one specific ion, it is easier to see, but if you are doing a full scan you may not see all the ions, but for me to identify it it has to be present.

Martz admits the 160 ion did not appear in the full daughter spectrum of the same sample — a key concession about the limits of his identification.

Roger Martz

Yes, it does.

Martz confirms that an isotopically labeled EDTA internal standard was commercially available for $115–$690 — undercutting his prior testimony that the test could not be made quantitative.

Roger Martz

No, it wasn't that I didn't want to find the 132 ion. I needed the full daughter spectrum.

Blasier forces Martz to explain why he scanned for the 160 ion but not the 132 ion, highlighting a selective methodological choice that benefited the prosecution's theory.

Evidence (4)

Defense 1268

Last page of the 1954 EDTA absorption study Martz cited to challenge the five-percent oral absorption rate

displayed on ELMO; Blasier read paragraph aloud and challenged Martz's interpretation that it implies a different absorption rate

People's 544-E

Chromatography chart from the back gate blood evidence, showing the 160 and 132 ions

discussed; Blasier used it to demonstrate that the 160 ion disappeared in the full daughter spectrum of the same sample

Defense 1270

Cambridge Isotope Laboratories stable isotopes catalogue, 1994–1995, page 49, showing commercially available EDTA internal standard

introduced and marked for identification; Martz confirmed it could have been used and cost as little as $115

People's 552

Red bar chart prepared by Martz comparing ion counts between preserved and non-preserved blood

discussed; Blasier used it to elicit admission that ion counts can vary four-fold due to instrument vagaries

Notable Exchanges (4)

Robert Blasier•Roger Martz

Blasier establishes that Martz consulted with prosecutors during every break of Dr. Rieders' testimony, provided them with possible questions and technical issues to raise, and met with them to discuss his own testimony before changing his demeanor — all while claiming complete neutrality.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Roger Martz

Blasier walks Martz through the gate blood chart showing the 160 ion present in a targeted scan but absent in the full daughter spectrum of the same sample, forcing Martz to acknowledge the ion 'didn't show up' while also admitting it could be present below the detection limit.

revealing

Robert Blasier•Roger Martz

Blasier produces a laboratory catalogue showing a commercially available isotopically labeled EDTA internal standard, getting Martz to confirm it existed, it would have enabled quantitation, and it cost as little as $115.

devastating

Robert Blasier•Roger Martz

Blasier challenges Martz's credentials to criticize the 1954 pharmacokinetics study, establishing that Martz has no degree in pharmacology or chemistry (only a minor), does not know what pharmacokinetics is 'specifically,' and yet interpreted the study's final paragraph as undermining the five-percent absorption finding.

strategic

Light Moments (2)

Roger Martz

Martz quibbles with the word 'love' when Blasier reminds him he said in Washington he would have 'loved' to have an internal standard: 'I don't know about love, but I would like to have an internal standard, yes.'

Roger Martz

After Blasier asks whether the $690 catalogue item was available in a smaller quantity, Martz fumbles: 'Was it a gram? I can't remember. A gram. I could have bought the smaller standard, yes.' — then recalls it cost $115.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Roger Martz

bias / undisclosed prosecution consulting

Blasier establishes that Martz actively assisted prosecutors during Dr. Rieders' testimony, provided them with technical questions and strategies, met with them about his own testimony during a midday break, and then changed his demeanor — all while claiming complete neutrality. Martz also admitted he never reciprocally contacts defense counsel after prosecution meetings.

⚔ Roger Martz

credentials challenge

Blasier establishes that Martz has a biology degree with only a chemistry minor, no pharmacology coursework, and does not know what pharmacokinetics is — yet he offered criticism of a pharmacokinetics study and formed opinions on EDTA absorption rates in human subjects.

⚔ Roger Martz

methodological omissions

Blasier elicits that Martz: (1) destroyed the underlying digital data; (2) did no validation study for environmental conditions or sample degradation; (3) failed to scan specifically for the 132 ion the way he did for the 160 ion; (4) did not use a commercially available internal standard that would have enabled quantitation; and (5) could not replicate the 'matrix artifact' alternative hypothesis he offered.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.) — during review of the 1954 study paragraph on the ELMO

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) — multiple instances between Blasier and Clark during exhibit handling

(No audible response.) — when Blasier first asked what happened to the 160 ion in the full daughter spectrum

Objections

3 objections (2 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 7040 • 251 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103