You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And, Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY Mr. GOLDBERG

Okay. We were talking about erythro acid phosphatase and the different phenotypes. Now, is there a particular pattern in which EAP type b--excuse me--type BA is known to degrade?

Yes.

What is that?

Well, in general, the a bands are more labile or less stable and next comes the B and the C. So in the case of the type BA--excuse me--the--they're all losing activity to some extent, but the a bands being the most labile, the most sensitive to degradation are going to disappear first before the B bands.

By the way, when a sample is deposited at a crime scene, when does the degradation process start?

It starts immediately as soon as the blood leaves the body.

So is it common in the Los Angeles Police Department to test samples in the serology section that have some degree of degradation in them?

I would say every sample to some extent has some degree of degradation occurring.

If the degradation is to the extent where one marker is no longer typeable, but you're still able to type another marker, say you can't type EAP, but you can still type PGM subtype, does the fact that one of the markers has been lost in any way undermine the confidence of the results and the PGM subtype?

No, it doesn't.

Your Honor, I--with the Court's permission, I wanted the witness just to show us how these items degrade by--

Yes.

--drawing on this diagram. Does the Court want a permanent record of that by using the acetate?

Yes.

Okay. Mr. Matheson, maybe you can step down and pull the acetate over and just--

I'm going to object without some further foundation as to how he knows this.

Just have him what?

Foundation as to his knowledge regarding the manner in which these things degrade.

Sir, have you read articles regarding this degradation issue with respect to the EAP?

Yes, I have.

When did you first become familiar with it, the issue?

I first became aware of it in a class that I mentioned I took at the FBI academy back in 1982, the degradation route of this particular system.

And was it well known in the forensic community in that time?

It was included as part of the curriculum. So I believe so.

Okay. In addition to that kind of study about this phenomenon on EAP, have you yourself personally witnessed it as a serologist working in the Los Angeles Police Department serology laboratory?

Yes, I have.

How so?

There--I've witnessed the phenomenon or this condition to occur in a couple of cases. One that comes to mind was a case in which a number of markers were run. The only difference in any of them was in the EAP system, a similar type of thing where had it been a BA, it would have been consistent with the party that we had reason to believe it came from. We got results in the rest of the markers. They matched. The EAP exhibited a type B which gave us concern about it knowing that that was the degradation route. That was one example of where we feel we've seen it in casework.

Now, I wanted to ask you about this degradation route, and maybe just using arrows, you could just write out what the degradation route is with respect to a type BA, how it degrades. Maybe you can just write out the letters BA and just show us with arrows.

I'm sorry.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

You said that a type BA can degrade into a B. And so I'll just write a little arrow down to B (Indicating).

A BA can degrade until it can be--look like or be confused with a b.

Okay. And maybe I may have been phrasing some of my questions inartfully. Does the type actually change or is it the appearance that changes?

Well, it's the appearance. It's what we are seeing as far as our development is what actually changes.

So is this phenomenon of BA to B one that you have seen in your work and also that's been noted in the forensic science literature?

Yes.

Okay. But does it happen the other way around? I mean, can you get it to degrade from the B to a BA?

No.

So there is a define degradation route with respect to this marker?

Yes. Like I mentioned earlier, the a bands are the least able, then comes the B and then the c.

Mr. Matheson, maybe you could just flip that acetate over for us.

And there are some magnetic strips. Can you tell us using the BA type phenotype on this diagram, show us how it would appear, how it would degrade to appear as a type b?

Well, as I mentioned, a bands in a degradation process would be the ones that would start disappearing first. So eventually you get to a point--you notice how this one is significantly larger. It's the most intense in the BA. Eventually you would have a loss of these two bands as it degrades and gets weaker. It also to some extent has some lessening in the intensity of this band (Indicating).

Let me just stop you for a second. Okay. The first two items that you put on where you put cover-ups over the a bands in the BA system--

Yes.

--can you tell us where the B bands in that system are in the B band?

The--it's a combination between these two, but this is the major B band (Indicating).

So you're referring to the diagram and you just pointed to the--started from the right side of the diagram, what would be the first block and the third block?

Yes.

And you've covered up the second and the fourth blocks?

That's correct.

And can you show us using this diagram the comparison between the B and the BA where the a bands are?

Again, using just the block diagram showing relative locations of it, once the a bands have degraded, these stay in the same position, which are in the same position as the B bands and you can see the relevant intensities are such that the upper band--

Your Honor, one of the jurors is having trouble seeing.

Maybe we could--

1492, are you having problems seeing that?

No.

Maybe we can kind of lift this a little bit. Can we move this over here, your Honor?

Move it up.

Maybe with the Court's permission, we could just go over this portion one more time, of his testimony.

Hold on.

Briefly since there's an indication that the jurors in the back row didn't see this.

Let's take the magnetic strips off. Now, there were two magnetic strips that you put on the type BA phenotype first. Can you do that again?

Okay. I'm going to be placing a block covering on the type BA covering over the two a bands.

And when you say "A bands," does this diagram indicate in some fashion that those are the a bands?

Yes. Right across the top of the diagram, it's indicated the different bands, AB, a and c.

All right. And once the a bands are covered on the type BA, does that then begin to look like any other pattern that's contained on this chart?

Yes.

What pattern?

Well, then you can see that the general location is still the same as the B pattern and the relative intensities between the two bands is consistent in that the third one from the right is more intense than the first one from the right.

And then you put on a third cover?

Well, this is merely to indicate--the degradation is occurring on all the items. So you're actually going to have some lessening of the intensity of this B band, but it's still--in relation to the other one, it's going to be brighter, more intense.

And when you see this particular pattern from a degraded BA sample on electrophoresis plate, can you tell that it's been degraded by looking at the plate or what does it look like?

Just by looking at the plate, as long as both bands are there, no, you can't. It still looks like a b.

And why is it that one of the bands for the type BA phenotype is under what appears to be c?

Well, the identification of either a type B or a C is independent of its location. In other words, if you have a band that shows up in the 1 or the 3 position, just the mere presence of a band doesn't indicate whether it's a B or a C or a combination of BC. It has to do with the intensity. The C, the band farthest to the right, is most intense in brightness and B, the one towards the left, is most intense in brightness.

Thank you. You can resume the stand. Okay. So if there is a slight decrease in brightness of what you're calling the second B band on the type BA in the degraded sample that you've created with the cover-ups, why would that still be called as a type b?

Well, it's just slight degradation. You'd call it a B depending on the intensity differences or relationship between the band on the far right and the third one. As long as the third one is more intense than the first one, then it's a b.

And is this the manner in which this phenomenon of mistyping a BA as a B can occur?

As far as my understanding, yes.

So what you are doing here is, you are looking at the relative intensity on the type BA phenotype between the B in comparison to the band that is under where it says c?

That's correct.

And the existence of those two bands?

Yes.

What two things--what things are you looking at other than intensity in calling the b--in calling the BA as a b?

You've looking at band location in the absence of the a bands. If the a bands are not present and you have a band in what's described up there as the C column and the B column and the B-1 is more intense, then it's going to be called a B. It looks like a b.

So if we're looking at the true B phenotype, which is more intense between the band under where it says C and the band under where it says b?

The one under b.

Is that why this is larger on the block diagram?

Yes. That indicates brightness or intensity.

Okay. And then if you compare the BA degraded phenotype to the B phenotype, is the relative intensities of the respective bands the same?

Yes, in that the one under the B column is brighter than the one under the C column.

In both of them?

That's correct.

Now, Mr. Matheson, if it is known that the EAP system has this problem, why is it used for forensic testing?

Well, it still has some value in that you can get information out of it. If you don't have a degraded sample, it's a very good system because of the way the different types break down like I mentioned before in the percentages and it is a reasonably robust system in that it is detectable in stains and that type of thing, plus it can be analyzed along with other enzymes. There is no problem with using something like this as long as you're aware of its limitations.

And what are its limitations?

Just what we've been discussing, in that you can get selected degradation that can cause one type to look like another one.

Now, when you're doing the EAP testing, do you have to consume any additional sample in order to run this test?

It depends on how you run it. There are what are called single systems where when you run your electrophoresis plate, the only thing that you analyze for is say the EAP system. In this particular case and with procedures that we have in place in our laboratory, we have a system that allows us to run PGM subtyping and EAP using the exact same sample, the exact same gel. So it doesn't use any more sample to get this information.

So in this particular case, were you able to get the EAP information without consuming any additional sample?

That's correct.

Over and above what you were using in PGM subtyping?

Correct.

And why is that of concern, as to how much sample you're using?

Well, that's always a concern when it comes to forensic serology. You don't want to use any more than necessary. You preserve as much of the sample for either retesting or confirmation at a later time.

All right. I would like to return to the serology results board.

Now, Mr. Matheson, what were the EAP results on the reference vials in this case?

The results on item no. 17, reference blood, marks coming from Mr. Simpson, EAP type BA, item number 59 from Nicole Brown, EAP type BA and item no. 60, Mr. Goldman, is an EAP type a.

Now, if the suspect in a case is a type BA and you have run the test and it looks like a B when you run the test, does that include or exclude the suspect?

It excludes.

Now, given the known degradation issue that you talked about with respect to the BA type, can you say that the suspect did not contribute that sample?

Well, in and on the face, if you know for a fact that it is a type B and cannot be a degradation product, then yes, it does in fact exclude him. If you can not totally eliminate the fact that a degradation did occur, then you can't use that as an absolute excluder.

So if you can not eliminate the possibility of degradation, is a type B result an exclusion of a suspect who is type BA?

Your Honor, at this time, I would like to mark a copy of the analyzed evidence report. It's People's 218 for identification.

All right. Analyzed evidence report.

What's the date on the report?

This is page 3 of the report that was dated September--September 18th.

September 18th.

And I'm going to put a 217 on the reverse side of that. Excuse me. October 18th.

This is 218? 218.

Have to lower the serology results board again. While he's doing that, Mr. Matheson, did you do some testing on the fingernail scrapings, some fingernail scrapings, item no. 84-A and b?

Yes, I did.

All right. And I want to ask you some questions about your report as to the results on those items. Can you see the paragraph that says 84-A and b?

Yes, I do.

And does that relate your findings with respect to the fingernail scrapings underneath the fingernails on 84-A and b?

It's a narrative explanation of the results, yes.

And can you tell us what you wrote there as depicted on this particular report, if you can read it off the screen?

All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?

Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.

What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?

The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.

That's fine.

Let us see the serology results board. Hold on.

Let's put the board up a little bit.

Okay. Now, you were saying that you could exclude, of the three individuals that we have the reference vials for, everyone except Nicole Brown as to item no. 84-A and B, the nail scrapings; is that correct?

Yes, it is.

Okay. Now using this chart, can you show us where the PGM subtype result is for the fingernail scrapings, 84-A and 84-B?

Well, if you go across from the column marked 84, 84-B, there's two empty squares and then you get a notation of a 1 plus. That is under the column marked "PGM subtype."

And why do you say that you can exclude Orenthal Simpson as being a donor of that particular material?

Because in the PGM subtype system, he is a 2 plus 2 minus and the result obtained on those was a 1 plus.

So in reporting that, have you looked at our chart and compared the 1 plus under 84-A and B to the 2 plus 2 minus under 17, Orenthal Simpson?

Yes, I did.

Maybe you can point with the pointer so we can all see where you're looking at, please.

Okay. The results on the two evidence items, 84-A and 84-B, are in this column right here like I described before, three over from the item description, 1 plus and 1 plus, and up in the top under the same column, PGM subtype opposite item no. 17 is the notation 2 plus 2 minus.

And can you tell us how it is that Ronald Goldman can be excluded as a donor of 84-A and b?

Well, it's in the same system. The two evidence items again gave us a 1 plus and a 1 plus. Mr. Goldman was a 2 plus 1 plus. So in the absence of the 2 plus here, he can be eliminated as a source of the blood.

And why is it that you can not eliminate Nicole Brown as being a source of the blood?

Again, on the nail scrapings, the PGM subtype is a 1 plus in both instances and she was bound to be a PGM subtype 1 plus.

Okay. But what about the difference in EAP type?

Well, as noted in the report, initially she is excluded. However, we also have to consider the fact that BA can degrade to look like a B. So on face value, on the results that were obtained, she can be excluded. However, taking into account the degradation route of that particular enzyme, I would not do a total exclusion on her.

I would like to mark as People's next in order an electrophoresis work sheet that contains a reference to 84-A and b.

All right. People's 219.

I'll just place a 219 on the reverse side of this.

Now, sir, what is the document that we're looking at now?

What you're seeing is kind of enlarged portion of a section of a work sheet that we have that's called electrophoresis work sheet.

And was part of this document filled out by you?

All except for a couple of initials is filled out by myself.

Now, with respect to the 85-A and 85-B results--excuse me--84-A and 84-B results. That's the fingernails scrapings we're talking about; is that correct?

Yes, it is.

Now, what did you write on the electrophoresis work sheet when you filled out this document with respect to those results?

Okay. Under the column that's marked EAP, there's two rows of letters. The one on the left is the row that I put in when I first read the plate, and opposite--you go from the left to the right reading--it's got the DR number associated with this case, 84-A and 84-B on those two lines. You'll notice that the first column under EAP has a B with a question mark on it.

Is that what you wrote?

Yes, it is.

What does the question mark signify, because I see you have it a number of places?

And why is it that you had that question in your mark--question in your mind that caused you to put the question mark on the electrophoresis work sheet?

Well, on this particular item, I believe the bands were on the light side and kind of defused, they were a little fuzzy. They just weren't good looking bands.

Maybe you can just put the EAP block diagram up again. It's not going to work. I'm going to have to learn how to work this easel.

Mr. Matheson, when you looked at the electrophoresis plate when you were testing item 84-A and B, with respect to the bands at the end that all of the phenotypes share in common, were those present?

I believe in the case of at least one if not both of them, that band was either very weak or not present at tall.

Can you show us what it looked like using the block diagram and the magnetic--

Well, basically it would have bands in the area consistent with the standards for the two B bands and then this area up here was--there was nothing present.

What are those bands called, the bands that all of the items share in common that are represented on the left side of the EAP phenotype work?

I've always understood them to be called storage bands.

And is there any diagnostic significance to them in terms of trying to figure out what the item in question is?

They have no bearing on what the type is, no.

But in this particular case, that band was not there?

I don't believe so, no.

What else about the bands looked strange to you or different to you that caused you to write the question mark?

Well, they were just not very distinct. They're on the light side and they were not very obvious distinct bands.

And when you wrote the analyzed evidence report, do you--why don't you just simply transpose whatever is on the analyzed--on the electrophoresis work sheet onto the analyzed evidence report and call it as a B question mark?

Well, like I previously mentioned, this is a work sheet. It's something that's created during the course of our reading the bands. These plates are never run or read alone. You always have somebody co-read it, and that's what this second column is for. And then the information that's put on the final report is the final conclusion of what is seen to be present.

Now, when you are testing a blood sample and you get a result from a known--if you got a result from a known blood sample that you knew to be type BA blood that was identical to the result that you got in 84-A and 84-B in this case, how would it be called?

If I understand the question right, you're saying I have two samples, one of which I know is a type BA?

Let's say you have one sample let's say from someone in your laboratory that you're using as a reference sample and they're a known type BA. Yet when you test it, you get the same result that you got on 84-A and 84-B.

It would be an indication that that blood has degraded, that we have a problem with it.

How would you call it though?

Well, in this case, I know what it's supposed to be and I would not call it a result from that.

But would it look the same in appearance or could it look the same in appearance as to what you saw in 84-A and 84-B?

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Could degraded blood, BA blood give the same appearance as what you saw?

Yes, it could.

Now, is there any--when you're making your call for the purposes of your report, do you consider at that time anything other than what you saw on the plate itself?

Not as far as the result that's put down, no.

And why is that?

Because that's the result. You know, when--when you have something that is present, particularly in the case of electrophoresis, on the plate, it is readable, it's giving a type, then that is the type that needs to be reported.

And what about the suggestion by some analysts that you should also take into account the history and the origin of the stain? Do you do that at that particular point in time?

To some extent. That's why the second part of that paragraph initially excluding, but then with the proviso of the fact that it is only exclusion if it's not a degraded sample.

So at the time that you wrote that paragraph, did you take the step of taking a look or trying to take a look at the history and origin of the sample in question 84-A and 84-B?

Well, the main fact that I took into account is where the sample came from, and that was under the victim's fingernails.

Okay. Did you take a look at any crime scene photographs at that time, the time that you wrote your report?

Not at the time I had written the report, but I have seen many photographs of the scene.

Since then?

Since then and prior to then, yes.

Now, in terms of looking at the history and origin of the stain from a forensic science standpoint, is there anything else that can be done in order to resolve the issue of 84-A and 84-B by looking at other samples at the crime scene?

There is some information that can be derived from that.

And specifically what?

Looking at other evidence items that were collected. Particularly those where we feel we know the source of the blood sample.

All right. And did you do that in this case prior to testifying today?

Yes, I did.

Just take down the--

I would object to this line of questioning, the scientific basis, on 352.

Overruled at this point.

Mr. Matheson, while we're putting it up, the date on the analyzed evidence report relating the findings on 84-A and B was what?

The date analysis completed on that report is October 18th, 1994.

Mr. Fairtlough, you have to be careful. You almost got no. 1 there. Juror no. 1, would it be better if we moved everybody down one seat? Would that be more comfortable for you?

It's okay.

You're okay?

That's fine.

All right.

Now, Mr. Matheson, directing your attention to the diagram we just put up that says "Bundy drive biological evidence," it's People's 165 for identification, have you looked at the photographs relating item no. 42, which is at the bottom, the third photograph from the right?

Yes, I have.

And was it your understanding from the crime scene photographs that this was the area in which Nicole Brown had been located prior to her body being removed?

Yes.

Now, did you also hear any evidence to the effect that when that stain was recovered, that Mr. Fung described it as being tacky?

No, I didn't.

Well, if I were to tell you that there was some evidence to that effect, would the fact that it was tacky have any significance from a standpoint of the amount of degradation you would expect in that area?

Well, using the term "Tacky" by him and given the time that it--well, first off, tacky to me would mean that it had not dried as opposed to some of the other samples that were present and that being a liquid is one of the worse conditions for biological samples as far as degradation goes. So if that sample was tacky at the point it was collected, it means that it had been damp for an extended period of time and potentially some degradation has been occurring.

Why is it that wet samples are more likely to degrade than dry samples?

Well, it allows the degradation process to occur much more quickly. That's the environment that it likes to occur.

Okay. And would it be proper to take into account testing that you did--well, first of all, did you do some testing on item 42?

Yes, I did.

And would it be proper to take into account test results that you got on that in resolving the issue of the fingernail scrapings, 84-A and b?

Objection. No objection.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

In the forensic science literature, is there any recommendation of looking at a pool of the victim's blood or blood on her clothing in resolving degradation issues?

Looking at blood that's known to come from a victim, yes, there is.

Why is that?

Because it is blood that leaves the body around the time that the event occurred. It is known to be that person's. It's kind of like a reference sample that enters the environment at the same time as the evidence samples.

To your knowledge, was item 42 collected as a circumstantial reference sample of the victim's blood?

Yes, it was.

And from a forensic science standpoint, would it be appropriate to look at test results on that blood for the purposes of resolving what was happening under the fingernails?

Well, it wouldn't resolve it, but it would allow some additional information to be obtained, yes.

And why is that?

Well, because it is blood that is believed to be the victim's given its location and quantity and like I mentioned earlier, entered the environment at the same time as the rest of the blood samples at the scene or relatively close to the same time, and thus it should reflect the types that we get in the exemplar samples, the reference samples that are taken from that person.

Would you expect the blood in item no. 42 to have been exposed to the same environmental conditions as the blood under the fingernails?

To some extent.

Objection. No foundation.

Overruled.

Obviously they're not in the exact same spot. There's going to be some slight variations, but the general temperature of the area is the same, the humidity and that type of thing.

And directing your attention now to item no. 57, which is described as being a label and the call out line is--that's been testified to as being in the area of where Nicole Simpson's body would have been, did you also do some testing on that?

Yes, I did.

And similarly if that were located in the area that contained pooling of what appeared to be the victim's blood, could you also take a look at 57 the same way that you described with respect to 42?

Not exactly the same. It's not in the immediate area. It's a little bit further away. We're starting to get a little more separated. The fact that it is directly connected or in relation to a pool would add some weight to being able to use it for some additional information.

All right. And with respect to item no. 54 for identification, which is in the area of the gate, there's a photograph of criminalist Mazzola in the lower right-hand corner and a call out line showing where that came from. Would that item--would you expect that to have been subject to the same environmental conditions as the blood under the fingernails and on the pool?

Your Honor, objection. No foundation that this witness has that knowledge.

Overruled. Overruled.

It appears that that sample is up on the gate. It's going to be subjected to the same general environmental as far as weather conditions and such. However, the fact that it is separated from the rest, it appears to be an isolated spot, probably dried faster would be an indication that the conditions were not exactly the same.

So the fact that it dried faster would mean what?

Less likely to have any form of--or the extended degradation as samples that were still wet.

At this time, I would like to mark the what we've called the fingernail or nail scraping board, your Honor, which had some graphic or one graphic photograph on it.

Maybe we can leave - Can we just put it up --

All right. The fingernail board we'll put over here.

I have 220, your Honor.

All right. No. 220.

Your Honor, I have an objection, foundational objection I would like to approach on.

As to the nail board?

Yes.

With the Court reporter.