Mr. Matheson, to your knowledge, was the purpose of the items that went out on February the 17th to allow the Defense to inspect those items?
And certain items on this say, "Return to evidence control unit on 2-29-95," item 6, 56 and 305; is that correct?
I have the notes on other items that were returned on 2-22nd. I'm having a difficult time locating these particular items.
Okay. That's all right. But when you reviewed this board initially, did you check some document to see that these particular items were returned to ECU on the 22nd?
I checked documents that were in a notebook at the D.A.'s office. I did not bring all the notes we had associated with. Just things I was directly involved with.
Okay. Now, with respect to the cell on no. 6 where it says, "DOJ, 6-29-95," does that reflect the date that it went out?
And the analyzed--the coin envelope on that particular cell is an original envelope or a transmittal envelope?
I would have to take a look at the picture. That particular envelope is one that was prepared by Mr. Yamauchi, not the original envelope.
Now, with respect to no. 7, did you go through the same verification process that you just described with respect to no. 6?
All right. And you also looked at the photographs to verify that they were in fact photographs that were prepared by the ana--items that were prepared by the analyst that actually did the shipping?
Now, with respect to the items that are no. 12 and 49 that say returned on 3-9-95 from DOJ, did you verify that those were in fact returned on that date?
Okay. But at any rate, you did verify that either yourself or one of your criminalists did that?
Okay. You verified that those were in fact returned on that date and rebooked into ECU?
Well, they were returned on that date. They were not rebooked into the unit or in the ECU at that time.
Okay. And with respect to 305, was that one of the items that you removed from the Bronco?
That is a procedure that we had in place regarding evidence that was submitted to outside agencies for analysis. Whenever--as I described earlier, there are types of DNA analysis that we don't perform in our laboratory. So when we want that work done, we send it out to cellmark diagnostics for them to perform the testing. It was our policy that the items would be sent out to the laboratory. Then what we received back at cellmark would be rebooked as a new item. We would not necessarily go through it, but retain it in a sealed condition from that laboratory, create a new item number for it and return it to our evidence control unit.
So when 305 rebooked as 401, once it came back from the Department of Justice, was sent out to the Department of Justice again on May the 9th, was it sent out under item no. 401 or 305?
Okay. And did you also check the icons on these to see that it was just swatches that were sent out on 6, 7, 12, 49, 56 and 305?
And you looked at the transmittal envelopes that are in the column that says "To outside lab" to verify those?
Now, with respect to item no. 13, there's an entry under the date "To Defense," the column "To Defense" on 2-16-95, SID. What does that reference?
That references a viewing of that item or inspection of that item within our laboratory. Didn't actually get sent anywhere.
So it didn't actually leave the laboratory on that particular--well, it didn't leave the laboratory to go to the Defense on that date?
And as to item no. 17, the envelope containing a vial of blood, was that entire envelope and blood vial sent somewhere on April the 3rd?
Now, on June the 29th of last year, did you participate in an inventory that was done at the Los Angeles Police Department of certain of the evidence in this case?
And did you look at the socks, item no. 13, bearing the DR number in this case during that inventory?
Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, I think it's 213, a page from the inventory sheet of 6-29. It's the second page.
And can you read what it says to the right of the socks? Is that "Navy blue/black"?
I made out the black, and as soon as you mentioned the navy blue, that is what is written there at the slash.
Okay. If we can see the other end of this column, 13. Can we get a little bit more--can we see the top of the document too?
And, sir, there are three columns that you can see in this frame. One is "Analysis performed." That's on the left as we're looking at the document now. What does that refer to?
That was an area where we could record what type of work had been done on that item up to that date.
And then there's a column that says "Comments" that's on the right as we're looking at this document.
Well, that was any sort of comment, either greater description of the item, miscellaneous information about it, potentially what additional work we would be doing with that item.
In quotes, I have "Dress socks" to give me an indication that they are, you know, a thin dress-style sock rather than heavy athletic sock or something like that. I have the words "Blood search" indicating that it's our intent to do that at some point and then I also have in parenthesis "None obvious."
Because that was not an analysis at that point. We opened them up, took a look at them and indicated that that's something that we'd someday be performing.
Seemed like a legitimate thing to do on that piece of item--evidence. It was an item of clothing. The quick inspection that was done in the office was insufficient, particularly due to its color and we were not there to do a scientific analysis. It was something that was planned.
How often in your experience as a serologist do you find blood on fabrics based upon testing that you did not see with your eyes?
Well, it happens occasionally. It's not a regular thing. You have to--the conditions have to be just right to make it difficult to see.
Most notably, black materials like a black leather jacket, very difficult to see blood on, black denim, Levis, that type of thing, difficult to see blood on and black material.
Okay. I'd like to mark as People's next in order a photograph depicting--one that says "Sock a" on the reverse, and it has a little writing up in the upper right-hand corner that says "13-A" as People's 2--
And as 214-B what appears to be another sock. It has various writing. Just for identification purposes, the writing contains the numbers 42-C, B, various other writing.
Sir, showing you People's 214-A for identification--maybe we can get a zoom in on the area with the writing near the heel. Do you recognize this item?
That whitish notation that's directly on the sock itself, there's an arrow that points--I was going to say left. Now down and now upside down. Adjacent to the left of the arrow is the designation 15-A or--excuse me--13-A. It's very hard to write on material with a pen, ink pen.
Directing your attention to the date of September the 18th, can you take a look at your notes pertaining to that date and see whether you did any work on the sock?
I'm referring to analyzed evidence report and associated notes. In particular, L-371, 372, 373 and then "L" partially cut off. It looks like 385.
Now, sir, what date did you look at this for the purposes of commencing the testing that you performed?
And when you saw this sock on the--September the 18th, at that time, did you see anything that stood out and you recognized as being blood?
Well, initially upon removing the sock from the bag, basically I was looking at the same thing as what I had seen on the 29th. Upon closer examination, with different lighting, I was able to discern that there were some stained areas on the sock.
KEY QUOTEOkay. Now, when you say initially before you used different lighting, you pulled it out and you saw the same thing as on the 29th, what same thing?
Well, the fact that they were black socks that did not have large obvious stains on it.
And then when you say that you took a closer look with different lighting, what did you see?
I don't know if you can see anything now. I can't make anything out. Maybe you--can you see anything on there?
Okay. And how long did you have to search when you were looking at it on the 18th before you could actually see something visibly?
Oh, it was probably--once I had them spread out and was down looking at them, initially I would say I started seeing something within a matter of a minute or so. The thing is, as you get to look at it or as your eyes become accustomed to what you're looking for, it became apparent that there were other stains on the socks.
Now, at that time, could you tell based upon your training and experience what you were looking at?
So you could not tell for sure that--well, did you form an opinion that it was blood or was it just you didn't know?
Did you form any opinions at that time as to what the stain was that you were looking at?
Okay. Now maybe we can see the other sock that's been marked as People's 113-B I think. 213. I'm sorry. It's 214-B.
Sir, directing your attention now to People's 214-B for identification, does that represent a photograph of one of the other socks as no. 13?
Now, when you saw this particular black sock or the other black sock, did you see any obvious staining on that?
Same thing. There was some small kind of darker areas on it that, as you allow your eyes to focus along with having seen the other one, started becoming apparent.
That's what I meant. And at the time that you took a closer look and your eyes adjusted, did you form any opinion at that time as to what the stain was?
It kind of depends what surface it's on. But as blood dries, it gets darker going from a reddish to a more reddish brown and eventually can look almost black.
Do you know how long it would take typically a dot of blood that's deposited outdoors on concrete say before it turns from a red to a brown?
Well, have you observed--ever had occasion to observe that--a dot that was red and later on turned brown?
And how long--is that something that you could predict or does it depend on the circumstances how long it takes?
And with respect to the stains that you've talked about on item no. 13, what color were those, if you could detect any color?
Now, directing your attention to the date of June the 27th of last year, did you begin to do some testing on that date on item no. 18?
Now, when you started to do some testing, did you take anything out of the vial?
I just take a--what's called a pipette. It's nothing more than a--kind of a glass tube that comes down to almost a point. You have a rubber bulb on the top. Insert that into the blood, draw out, oh, approximately a milliliter, which is not quite a teaspoon, something like that, and transfer that into a--it's called a centrifuge tube, a small plastic tube that has a cone shape on the bottom.
Well, during the course of the analysis--normally the way I set up my analysis on a whole blood vial like this, I have a--what's called a test tube rack, which is nothing more then a plastic rack with a bunch of plastic prongs sticking up. The tube is placed down in there so it doesn't fall over. I place a clean test tube alongside of it and then the centrifuge tube. When I'm not using the pipette, it just drops into the clean test tube to hold it.
Maybe I can show you Defense 1124 for identification again. Is this the same type of tube that the reference sample is in, purple top tube?
But that could be checked by looking at the photograph on our evidence disposition board?
Now, are these tubes, the purple top tubes that you work with in serology, graduated?
No. There's no sort of indication of the volumes. Graduated meaning that there's marks on it that show the different volumes. It's just a glass tube.
Okay. Now, how much of the blood did you actually use in the testing that you commenced on the 27th?
Can you give us an estimation as to how much you typically used or is consumed in the testing itself?
Normally, there's no records kept as far as it uses a small quantity. The approximate milliliter that I mentioned before, I may use for all the testing depending on whether I retain that centrifuge tube, return it to the blood vial or whether I discard it. I could use anywhere from, oh, a small portion of that to the whole milliliter, milliliter and a half.
What's actually consumed for the test is about three drops of the cells and about three drops of the serum.
So what do you do with the rest of the item that--the blood that you put into the micro centrifuge tube?
Actually I've been inconsistent with that. Sometimes I returned it back to the blood vial and sometimes I discarded it.
Do you know what the habit and custom is of other analysts in your laboratory who were working in serology?
Well, within serology? Some retain them, some discard them. It's--we're not consistent with that.
So if you assume in a given case that you poured out a milliliter of blood or pipetted out a milliliter of fluid into a micro centrifuge tube and only three drops or so were used in the testing and if you assume that you returned the remainder to the reference vial, how much blood if any would be left on the pipetter and on the micro centrifuge tube?
Well, you're going to have some clinging to the walls of both of those. Approximation, maybe a quarter to a third of the original volume that you've pulled out. Blood is fairly viscous. It will retain to the sides of containers.
Have you ever done any experiments or studies to try to figure out, using the technique that you usually use, how much blood is thrown away that was clinging to the sides of the micro centrifuge tube or the pipetter?
Now, do you make any documentation at or around the time that this is performed on the 27th to record specifically how much blood you used in the analysis or pipetted into the micro centrifuge tube?
Because it's never been an issue. We've never had to worry about how much was used during the course of the analysis.
KEY QUOTEIt's never been raised in an issue. We've never had to account for every portion of blood that was supplied to us. It--like I mentioned before, in the case of living individuals, we knew that we had a source to get an additional sample if it was needed. It just has never been an issue before.
So you don't have any written documents as to specifically whether you used the technique of pouring the micro centrifuge tube back into the reference vial or the technique of throwing the remainder away?
And do you make any recordation when you see the vial on the 27th as to how much was in it when you started?
I have done that in the past. I'd like to reference my notes, see if I did in this case.
There is a reference by Mr. Yamauchi as to how much he removed and used. I did not.
Well, I'm talking about the 27th when you did--when you did your--commenced your testing.
And why don't you make any recordation as to how much was in there when you started?
For the same reason. It's never been an issue before. I didn't feel that that was information that needed to be recorded.
So this has not come up previously in your--how many years of experience was it--17 at the Los Angeles Police Department?
Well, I haven't been in serology that long. But in my time in serology, I've never had to provide this information before.
Now, I'd like to look back for a moment at the document that we marked "The inventory," which was People's 213 for identification. And this is the same page that we showed you before from 6-29?
And on this page, did you write something out with respect to item no. 17 as to how much was in the vial at that time?
It was an estimate. We opened up the envelope, held up the tube and made a guess or an estimate as to what percentage of the vial.
So you didn't use any measuring technique in terms of a ruler or comparing it to another vial in order to come up with two milliliters?
Now, in your experience in serology, do you have a lot of experience in dealing with these purple top tubes estimating or guesstimating how much is in them?
Well, in that--no, I don't. I know the total volume of it, and that's what I base my guess on. But it's not something that we do on a regular basis and no, I don't have a lot of experience estimating the quantity.
Well, one would think that over the 13 years seeing these tubes over and over again, you kind of get a sense of what two milliliters looks like as opposed to three milliliters. Is that not true?
Well, you'd get a sense if you measured it. The way you get experience, the way you learn something is by doing it. And like I said, we have not measured the quantity of blood in vials on a regular basis within the laboratory.
So when you looked at occasion--did you have occasion to look at this vial again for the purposes of actually measuring it after the 29th?
And directing your attention to September--excuse me--September--excuse me--January the 4th of 1995--no. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. September the 21st of 1994, did you take a look at the vial again?
Referring again to my notes and a chronology page labeled L-521 for 9-21-94, yes, I did.
At that point, what I did is took a blood vial of similar shape and size, but empty, placing it alongside of the blood vial, item no. 17, filled up the empty vial with water to visually the same level as the other one and then measured the quantity of water that was equivalent to the amount of blood.
Do you know how long ago it was prior to September the 21st that you had last done that procedure?
Yeah. I don't remember any specific instance. But the fact that I figured out that that's how to do it in this case, I would assume that at some point, I must have done it before.
I determined to be present in the blood vial along with the centrifuge tube that was also in the package, for there to be 3.8 or approximately 3.8 milliliters of blood.
--June, you said that there was two milliliters, and then when you saw it again on the 21st of September, you said there was 3.8?
And do you think that you could be 1.8 milliliters off in making a guesstimate as to how much was in the tube?
Well, how accurate do you believe you are in making a guesstimate as to something in one of these purple top tubes?
How accurate do you think you are in estimating how much is in one of those tubes?
Well, because that, I used a--I used a legitimate technique to actually measure it as opposed to just holding a vial up and eyeballing it.
In that technique, I would say it's probably--fairly small. That's why I said approximately 3.8 milliliters. My guess is is that the error on that would be less than .1 or .2 milliliters.
Now, on the same date, on September the 29th--September the 21st rather, did you also measure the contents of the vial, no. 60 and also 59?
Yes. For item no. 59, the blood vial, I found 7--approximately 7.2 milliliters of blood and for item no. 60, approximately 5.5 milliliters of blood.
And then on September the 27th, did you give--release some blood to a Defense expert Mr. Ragle?
Again, referring to my notes, a handwritten receipt labeled L-309, yes, I did. I released approximately one milliliter of blood from item no. 59 marked "Brown Simpson, Nicole" and approximately one milliliter of blood from item no. 60 marked "Goldman, Ronald."
Did you give anything else to Mr. Ragle at that time in terms of reference blood?
At that time, I also cut out for him approximately a one-inch square section of each of item no. 72 and 82, which were the blood swatches that were provided to us from the two victims from the Coroner's office.
Referring to my notes, there is a handwritten receipt marked as L-310, and on that date, September 30th, 1994, I released approximately one milliliter of blood to Mr. Ragle from the tube item no. 17 marked "O.J. Simpson."
Now, how did you come up with the approximate of one milliliter for the 7--for the 27th of September and the 30th of September?
For doing that, I used a what--a pipetter as opposed to the glass pipette which is not graduated or not measured. I mentioned before, we have mechanical pipetters so you can set to withdraw and deliver a specific amount of a fluid, and that's what I used in this case, transferring it from the vial into the centrifuge tubes previously described.
Now, sir, directing your attention to the date of January the 9th of 1994, did you return some evidence on that date from serology to the evidence control unit?
And can you tell us with respect to the reference vials, item 17, 59 and 60 in this case, whether you returned those items in a sealed condition to the evidence control unit?
On that date, I returned--we had been storing up to that date many of the blood or biological evidence items in the serology freezer. And at that point, I inventoried and returned these items. I can go through the list if you'd like.
Is there a document that we can use instead for this purpose if there are multiple items?
I don't know if there is a document that doesn't have significant other writing on it.
In that same package, also contained item no. 82 through 85. There was one package that contained item no. 115 through 117, another package that contained item no. 170 through 175, another package to contain item no. 293 through 309, another package purported to contain item 118 through 120, additional package marked to contain item no. 78 through 80 and 86 and 87, another package marked to contain item no. 91, 93 and 94 through 102, a box that was marked to contain item nos. 1 through 9, 11 through 14, 20 through 34, 37 through 39, 41 through 45--
And when you returned those items to the evidence control unit, were they returned in a sealed condition?
Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence?
Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample.
Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion.
When you are doing your testing, do you have to decide what genetic markers that you're going to test for in a given stain?
Now, when you're going about deciding what kind of tests you're going to perform, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to include the suspect or exclude the suspect?
Well, the idea--if you have to limit your tests due to sample size or some other consideration, the idea is to try and find the test that is more likely to exclude a particular person.
Well, you want to get the most information possible. The idea is to find out whether or not a sample could or could not have come from somebody. And if you only have one shot on it, you want to do the one that's most likely to exclude somebody.
Can you give us an example of picking a genetic marker to test for the purposes of exclusion as opposed to picking one in order to try to include someone?
Yes. There's--we have a variety of markers that are available to us. Some are better at differentiating between two stains than other ones. Example might be an enzyme that goes by the initials of ADA. Approximately in the neighborhood of 94 to 97 percent of the population is a type 1. The remainder of the population is a type 2 1 or a 2. If you use that test, odds are, you know, 94, 97 of the time, you're going to get a type 1, and that doesn't give you a whole lot of information. There's another test that goes by the initials of PGM or PGM subtyping; that rather than having a choice of a 1, a 2 1 or a 2, you have 10 different possible combinations and your likelihood then of having--if a bloodstain in fact did not come from a particular person, the likelihood of excluding under that system is much better than the one I previously described.
So when you say that you're trying to pick out tests to exclude, what would that mean in reference to the--to examples that you gave us?
Well, it means I would choose the PGM subtype system as my best choice of--between the two of them. Odds are, if I choose ADA, I'm going to include them because most people are the same type. My odds are better of excluding using the other system.
Now, you've been using a term that you said--that you--a term called "Genetic marker." What do you mean when you're talking about genetic marker?
Well, genetic marker is something that exists within the human body. The term "Genetic" means it's deprived from your parents. You have to have a certain combination of types because of the genetic information that's supplied to you by your parents. A marker just means something that we can use to identify something within the system. An example of a genetic marker is the ABO blood typing system. You're a type A, type B, type O or type AB. Your type is determined by the types of your parents making a genetic and it's a way of distinguishing potentially two blood samples.
When you use this term "Genetic marker," are you implying in that that the tests that you have done are DNA type tests?
Well the term "Genetic marker" had been around for quite a bit longer than forensic DNA testing. Like I mentioned before, genetic merely refers to the fact that it's determined--you know, it's inherited, it's determined by your parents.
So could you view something like eye color, different people having different color eyes as being a genetic marker? Would that be an appropriate usage of the term?
As an analogy or an example, eye color could be considered a genetic marker. Your eye color is determined heredi--by heredity from your parents.
That refers to a situation where you have something within the body, let's say the ABO blood type system, that exists, performs the same function in every person but exists in different forms.
So again--I'm not sure if this analogy would be proper, but could you view eye color then as being a polymorphism in that different people have different color eyes, but all eyes hopefully perform the same task?
That's correct. An eye, you see through it, but the eye color is different, but doesn't affect the process.
Now, are these markers, these genetic markers that you're testing for, are they polymorphic?
Oh, I'm not sure of the exact number. I believe we within our laboratory regularly use seven or eight, something like that. I'd have to refer to some notes to remember exactly.
Are there many more genetic markers in people's blood in addition to those seven or eight?
Well, the choice as to what to use forensically is, you want something that gives you a good percentage breakdown of the population. In other words, the one I mentioned before, the ADA, is actually a poor polymorphic enzyme in that the majority of the people are exactly the same type. We use it for other reasons because it's very stable. You want a marker--it'd be perfect if you had one that had say four different types and each type was 25 percent of the population. You also need a stable--or a system in forensics that is stable because our samples by nature are outside the body. They are deposited in a variety of different places and begin to degrade. You want something that doesn't degrade very quickly.
When you say "Stable," is that what you're talking about, that they don't degrade as easily?
Do these blood type markers that you're testing for, do they change through someone's lifetime?
And is it possible when you've done a test of a variety of these markers to calculate some sort of a percentage of the population that has those markers?
Now, you used the term "ABO blood type system" and you gave us a description of that, and you said there are how many types?
And in addition to this ABO system, is there another set of systems that you're looking at when you're testing for genetic markers?
Well, there are a variety of one that are called enzymes, which is a chemical that exists in your body to perform * function to help keep you alive, and there are a number of these enzymes that are polymorphic, exist in different types and can be identified.
Well, an enzyme is something that catalyzes or makes a reaction occur. Simply, it performs a function with your body that your body needs to exist.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess, brief recess for the morning. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations or allow anybody to communicate with you. We'll stand in recess for 15 minutes. And, Mr. Matheson, you may step down, sir.
Obviously not very. I was far off.
It's never been an issue. We've never had to account for every portion of blood that was supplied to us.
In quotes, I have 'Dress socks' to give me an indication that they are, you know, a thin dress-style sock rather than heavy athletic sock... I have the words 'Blood search' indicating that it's our intent to do that at some point and then I also have in parenthesis 'None obvious.'
Well, initially upon removing the sock from the bag, basically I was looking at the same thing as what I had seen on the 29th. Upon closer examination, with different lighting, I was able to discern that there were some stained areas on the sock.