Okay. For item no. 42 under the EAP on the electrophoresis work sheet, one reading that I made was of a B question mark inc or inconclusive. The secondary reading from another criminalist was a no activity. The--

Now--

The information that I transferred over to the summary sheet was of a B question mark and then the notation, very weak with an inc for inconclusive.

Okay. Now, why did you put both the question mark and an inc on this result?

Well, it's just--it's an indication to me that it is--it's a very questionable result.

What's the difference between a question mark and an inc?

Depends on where it's written. I mean, inc or inconclusive is sort of the final decision based on the other information. The question mark is put there as an indication to me that I'm not sure of what it is.

All right. Now, what did you see when you ran the sample, item no. 42? What could you actually see on the electrophoresis plate?

But were there in fact two perceptible although hazy bands in the area where you expect to see the two B bands?

Well, there was two something going on there. There weren't really bands, but there was something occurring in those two areas.

All right. And what did that indicate to you, Mr. Matheson?

Well, just like I said, I had the two bands or appearance of bands in the general area where B should occur, which is why I put the B question mark. But it was nowhere near something that I would call. That's why it became inconclusive.

Now, with respect to the reference sample on Nicole Brown's blood, that was a BA; is that correct?

Yes.

So when you tested item 42, did you see any evidence of the a bands?

No, I did not.

So what happened to them?

Well, going off the assumption that item 42 was in fact collected as a secondary exemplar reference sample, it should have come back to be a BA just like the reference sample that was received from her from the Coroner's office. So it appears that 42 degraded to the point where the a bands were no longer visible and almost degraded to the point where the--or, you know, lack of sensitivity where the b's were starting to fade away to nothing.

And what significance if any does that have in terms of understanding what was happening on 84-A and B, the nail scrapings?

Well, the significance is, is the phenomenon or the situation that is known to exist with the EAP system, and that is this degradation result of a BA to a B, did in fact occur in a--or it's possibly occurring because of the inconclusive in a situation regarding a sample at this scene.

Well, let me ask you this. If you have a situation at a crime scene where the victim is lying in a pool of her own blood and that blood, her pool of blood is shown to have degraded from a type BA to the point that it contains two very faint bands which are most consistent with a B and then you also have fingernail scrap--what can you say about the material underneath the fingernails that appears to be most consistent with a b?

Objection. Unintelligible.

Overruled.

Well, like I just mentioned, the fact that you do have what appears to be degradation occurring in a sample that we know came from a person of a certain type, this phenomenon has shown that, you know, it does appear it's existing even at this location, it applies some reason that you can carry this through potentially to other items in the--that were elected in the same vicinity at roughly the same time.

All right. Let's move on.

So let me just see if I can understand what you're saying.

I think we've asked this question in about eight different forms now.

I know. But it's--

About how it degrades.

It's a little complex, and I just want to make sure I understand what Mr. Matheson is saying.

Okay. Now, Mr. Matheson, with respect to the item number that's labeled 57 that was described as having come from the area just east of where the body was, what were your results on that?

Referring again to my report, the results for the EAP on item no. 57 were inconclusive.

And according to your electrophoresis work sheet, what were the results?

In the first column, has a B question mark inc, second column is just inc for inconclusive.

And on that particular sample, what did that one look like?

If I called it a B inconclusive or a B question mark, that means that there was something appearing in the two areas of the B bands or I expect to see B bands with one, the B region being more intense than the c.

Now, with respect to item no. 57, did you get a result off the PGM subtype?

Yes, I did.

What was that?

A 1 plus.

And is it proper to take a look at what was happening on that item, 57, in the EAP enzyme system to determine or to provide more information about what was happening on the fingernails?

Objection. Improper foundation. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

Sir, did you consider this result in providing more information in terms of what was happening under the fingernails?

Well, as far as item 57, it didn't come much into play but it came into consideration of the fingernail scrapings.

But the PGM subtype would be consistent with the victim, yet the EAP inconclusive would be inconsistent theoretically?

If that inconclusive result was a conclusive result, then there would be--would be not consistent with the victim in this.

Does that tend to show that at this crime scene, there is degradation of the EAP marker from a BA to a b?

Objection. No foundation.

Sustained. Leading also.

Does that tend to show that there was degradation on this particular sample, item 57, at this crime scene?

Objection. No foundation.

Sustained.

What does that show in terms of degradation on this sample, item 57?

Objection. No foundation.

Overruled.

Well, just the inconclusive in and of itself regardless of the type indicates that either some sort of degradation is occurring or there's just not enough sample to get a result.

And does the B provide any more information?

Not in and of itself, no.

Now, with respect to item no. 85, did you also do some testing on that?

Yes, I did.

And what testing did you do on item 85?

I did the same electrophoretic run as previously described. It included the PGM subtype and the EAP.

What was the result of the PGM subtype on item 85?

There are actually two separate stains that are marked 85, 85-A and 85-B. In both instances, the PGM subtype was a 1 plus.

And what did you write down not in the analyzed evidence report, but on the electrophoresis work sheets as to the result and the EAP?

This is for item no. 85-A and b?

Yes.

The column that recorded my initial results was a B with an a question mark, the column of the second read or the other criminalist was a BA.

So the second criminalist called that as a BA?

Yes.

Why were you not willing to call that as a BA?

Well, if you remember, the bands that we showed in the chart or the BA, we should have four bands of basically certain types of intensities. I've seen a number of these type of samples over the years, and the a bands were significantly weaker than I would have expected them to be in a classic BA given the intensity of the B bands.

Can you exclude this or could you exclude this as being certain other phenotypes of a common EAP phenotypes?

The EAP on 85-A and b?

Yes.

Well, the fact that there were bands in the a region, assuming it's not a mixture, it could not just be a B, it could not just be a CB and it could not just be a C, and given the intensities, it was probably not a ca.

And there are five common phenotypes? Was it five or six?

I believe there were six.

So could it be any of the common phenotypes other than--could it be any of the other common phenotypes other than BA?

Not if it's a sole sample, no.

Now, does this test result provide any additional information with respect to what was happening on the fingernail sample?

It could.

And why is that?

On this particular sample, I don't know for a fact what the original source of the blood is. However, I am getting four bands that are in the positions and relative sensitivities of a BA. The difference here is is that the a bands are significantly weaker. If it is blood from a single source, it had to have started out as a BA, but those a bands have started to degrade or lose sensitivity. If they had gone any further, we would have a situation where the BA would again start looking like a b.

So on this particular sample, if the a bands had in fact degraded somewhat more than they were, what would you have called it as?

Then I would have called it as a b.

And why would that have been called as a B if the a bands had degraded to the point where you could no longer detect them?

Because then all that would be left would be the two bands that appear in the region where you expect to see the B bands, one band being properly greater intensity than the other.

So, Mr. Matheson, based upon the totality of your results that you've discussed with this EAP enzyme and also the viewing of the crime scene photographs, do you have an opinion as to whether the fingernail scrapings were in fact a true B or more likely to have been a true B or more likely to have originally been a BA that degraded into a b?

Given everything, including the results, I would say it's more likely than not that that blood was in fact a BA, that it's the victim's blood, however, I can not totally exclude the possibility that it is a EAP type b.

And what is the basis of that opinion, that it's more probably the victim's blood?

Well, like I just said, looking at the photos, a lot of the victim's blood present. If we were just to look at that and not do an analysis on it, I think common sense would tell you that that's going to be the victim's blood under her own fingernails. However, that's not a terribly scientific approach. We still run the test. We don't assume what it is. The test came up with this type B. That is in fact what was seen on the gel. So it cannot be totally discounted. But I would say it's a very high likelihood that that is the victim's blood under the nails.

Now, given the results that you've discussed so far as to the fingernail scrapings and the other items that we talked about in terms of EAP, is there anything further that can be done from a forensic science standpoint in order to provide even more information on this issue?

Yes, there is.

And what's that?

Continue to run additional tests, find out if you can in fact exclude the victim under another system.

And are you talking about conventional or are you talking about DNA tests?

Well, you could do both. However, more information would be derived from subjecting it to DNA typing.

And to your knowledge, was this one of the samples that was in fact sent out for DNA testing?

Yes, it was.

Now, in the opinions that you've expressed in Court, have you considered any DNA results or are your opinions based exclusively on the testing that you did and the photographs that you viewed?

It's been strictly on the information that I have regarding my own testing and the photographs and conditions. I did not consider any sort of DNA results.

Okay.

All right. Mr. Goldberg, would this be a good spot?

It would be, your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a brief recess for the Court reporters. Please remember my admonitions to you. And we'll reconvene in 15 minutes. Mr. Matheson, you are to return in 15 minutes. Thank you.