All right. We are over at the side bar. And by the way, Mr. Blasier, we are going to go to 3:30 before we take a break.
Let me tell you what this is. We ran the paint from the metal can and the gate on the 28th. These are the two area ion counts that he got. He has just testified that this could be four times as big or four times as small. I have adjusted it four times as small. This is based on his statement that the quantity used in both samples is identical, is two microliters. I intend to show, and Dr. Rieders will testify, that that quantization is not reliable and it could be ten times less. I have made this four times--I have changed it by a factor of four to compare those two under those conditions. It is a hypothetical.
Your Honor, this is completely misstating the testimony. He--first of all, he never said he could adjust it to make it four times more or less. What he said was that there is variance at different points in the day and that there were two runs that Mr. Blasier showed, to which the People did not object, showing that this was a run in the beginning of the day, that was at one peak--at one level, and at the end of the day when there had been thirty samples run through that column it was four times less, and that is because, as the agent has already testified, the column becomes less sensitive because it gets dirty because of the all the constant runs being shot through it. And when you go from one day to the next it can be also a discrepancy in the quantitation. Nevertheless, what has been brought forth, and what this deliberately misstates, is that when you run the samples at the same time, and you must do that, you will get an accurate ratio. You will never get a situation where one sample is run four times less and one sample is run four times more than in the same run, you know what I mean, within minutes of each other, so this is in direct contravention to the evidence. It is miss misleading, confusing and it is deceptive because it is to the contrary of the testimony.
No. This is not based on--the gate sample here is not based on multiplying that by four because of variance in the machinery. That is based on his erroneous estimate of the quantity. If his quantity is wrong, if he says two microliters and it is really half a microliter, it is not going to do with the variation in the machinery. He has testified that he has much variation. She is free to come back and say that it could be four times higher than that, but that is what he has testified to. And Dr. Rieders will say also that that is not an unreasonable variation given electrospray and the way he did this testing, so this is a way of demonstrating that.
Your Honor, it is highly--this is actually in contravention to the testimony and it is a deceptive graph that is going to give to the jury an idea that has never been proven that Dr. Rieders really can't say because he doesn't operate that machine. And that is the limitations of his testimony. He can say a lot things, but he is not an operator and he is really not competent to make these assertions about the way this machine operates. This man is. Agent Martz is. And what this does is take and distort his testimony in a very graphic way so that the jury is deliberately deceived about what the nature of the quantitation issue is. Quantitation issue has to do with being--comparing runs at different times, not comparing runs at the same time when you will get the relative ratios in the appropriate amount.
I don't think that the Court can possibly appreciate how devastating that chart is and how deceptive it is.
KEY QUOTEI don't think that the Court can possibly appreciate how devastating that chart is and how deceptive it is.
This is based on his data.
What this does is take and distort his testimony in a very graphic way so that the jury is deliberately deceived about what the nature of the quantitation issue is.