All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Matheson, you are reminded again you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may conclude your direct examination.

Thank you, your Honor.

Mr. Matheson, does the serology results board that we have been discussing contain the results on every single item that you tested or just some of them?

Just some of them.

For instance, did you test an item 115 through 117?

Yes, I did.

And did you get any test results--did you get any results on that or was that an inconclusive from your analyzed evidence report?

If you are referring to my analyzed evidence report for item no. 115, 116 and 117, I got no activity for all three items in the PGM subtype system and inconclusive for all three items in the EAP system.

Those, to your information, were stains on the rear gate at the Bundy location or don't you know?

Yes.

All right. Now, in a stain that was--if we assume, for the sake of your testimony, that 116, 115 and 117, you can sort of see them on the left side of the Bundy board, were in fact located at the Bundy location but not collected until July the 3rd, would you expect there to be more degradation on the conventional markers of the kind that you typed than on other stains that were collected on the 13th of June?

Objection, no foundation.

Sustained.

Sir, do environmental conditions cause some degradation on dry stains as well as wet stains?

Yes. The best way to store it is frozen and dried.

And would you expect there to be some degradation on the conventional markers and those stains between July the 13th and--excuse me, June the 13th and July the 3rd?

If they were not stored frozen, yes.

Now, with respect to 117, when you tested that item, did you notice anything about the way that the swatches were contained inside the bindle?

Yes, I did.

What was that?

That when I first opened it up it appeared like there was just one swatch present in the bindle, but upon closer examination and peeling them apart there was actually, I believe, three.

Now, you testified earlier about an inventory that you did in June, I think it was June the 29th of last year; is that correct?

Yes.

And did you have 17--15, 16 and 17--excuse me--115, 116 and 117 for that interview--for that examination?

No, I did not.

Now, you have also--we have also asked you some questions about the reference vial, item no. 17. Over the noon hour did you fill up some reference vials with a colored liquid, some vacutainer reference vials?

Yes, I did.

And your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 2--

221.

221.

Maybe I can do it as a and b.

All right.

221-A appears to be the more full of the two vials.

All right. Have you shown those to Mr. Blasier?

Yes.

I have seen them.

So I have marked the less full of the two vials as 221-B.

Mr. Matheson, showing you 221-A and B, are these the vials that you filled with water at the noon hour?

Yes, they are.

Is there some kind of food coloring--is this a biological sample in here?

No, it is not.

Is there food coloring or something in it just to make it easier to see?

Yes.

All right. I would like to show you these two vials, and can you tell us, starting with 221-A, what you did in order to create that demonstration exhibit.

Objection, foundation as to these are the same size as 17.

Sustained.

Sir, are these--these are vacutainer vials; is that correct?

That is the brand name of them, yes.

Are those approximately the same size as the monoject vials that are also used, purple-topped vials?

They appear to be, yes.

Okay.

I object to further questions; lack of foundation.

Briefly, yes. I agree.

Let me just show you Defense 1124 for identification. Can you just take a look and compare the monoject with the vacutainer.

Just doing a visual comparison of the monoject brand to the vacutainer brand, the monoject appears to be maybe a 16th of an inch shorter and the diameter appears to be roughly the same.

Maybe you can just rest them on the--I mean stand them up on the counter just so that we can see the height comparison.

Placing them side-by-side on the counter so the glass is on the bottom, the monoject stopper is partially extended, it isn't all the way seated, but it appears that they are very similar in height and circumference.

Sir, when you looked at the vial, were you actually looking to see whether it was an vacutainer or as opposed to a monoject or are all these purple-topped vials, as far as you are concerned, the same?

Are you talking about when I looked at it on the 29th?

Yeah.

I wasn't looking at the brand name, just the fact that it was a purple-capped vial about this size.

So on the 29th did you make certain assumptions with respect to how large the purple-topped vial is?

Yes.

What is your assumption?

That it was a ten milliliter tube and that is that full it would hold ten milliliters of liquid.

What was the assumption based on?

I'm not sure. It is just an assumption I have held for many years.

Okay. Have you ever tried to test it by filling up a vacutainer or a monoject to see exactly how much it holds?

No.

Has that ever been a pertinent issue in any of your past case work?

No, it is not.

Now, with respect to the vacutainer tubes that you filled up, can you tell us what you did?

Okay. In both instances I took the caps off of them. I was supplied with from the laboratory a pipette, or like I described earlier, this particular one can deliver exactly one milliliter of fluid, so I set it to one milliliter. And in the one that was marked 221-A I delivered 3.8 milliliters of fluid, three thousands or--

Okay. Can you hold that up so the jurors can see the amount of fluid in there?

Basically delivering, you know, three one-milliliter portions and then one .8-Milliliter portion. In the other one, which is marked as 221-B I delivered two one-milliliter portions for a total of two milliliters.

Well, how do you know that the portions of water that you used in order to fill these vials were accurately measured?

I was using a pipetter that is calibrated to those amounts.

Are the dispo pipetters or disposable pipetters calibrated?

The glass one that I was describing earlier?

Yeah.

No, they are not.

Those are the ones that you use when you are actually doing your testing?

Yes.

Umm, now can you hold up those two vials next to each other so the jurors can get a sense of the difference between the two.

Mr. Matheson, as to the vial that is 221-B for identification--the--I'm sorry, A, the larger of the two vials, can you--let me ask you another question first. On June the 29th did you have an assumption as to where the five milliliter point would be on this type of purple-topped vial?

Yes, I did.

What was your assumption?

That if this is a ten milliliter tube, the five milliliter point would be at about the halfway point on the tube.

Can you write in the--maybe you can just make a mark in the area that you would have assumed to be the five milliliter point.

Well, just--

And--

Just doing an approximation, going from the top of the tube to about the halfway point, I would see it as right about where I have drawn that line, (Indicating).

I see you have just drawn a line across the tube.

Is that on the glass or on the label?

I drew it on the label.

All right.

And Mr. Matheson, based upon that assumption, if you were to assume it was correct, how much would you estimate is in that vial?

Looking at it right now, based on that, I would say about two and a half milliliters.

And in fact it has how much?

3.8.

So your assumption, based upon the halfway point, is 1.3 milliliters off?

Yes.

And why is it that you have never done any experiments like this before?

It has just never been an issue. I have never needed to worry exactly how much blood is in a tube.

Why don't you need to worry about that?

Haven't we covered this line already?

Okay. Perhaps we could pass the tubes around then so the jurors could get a better look at them.

All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you retrieve that, please.

So sir, based upon the assumption in 221-A as to the midway point, would you say that you could be off by at least 1.3 milliliters in estimating these tubes?

I thought we asked that.

Well, I think I asked it a little bit differently and it might have been ambiguous.

You asked him already.

Okay. Now, Mr. Matheson as a result of this little experiment that you did, have you come to any conclusions regarding the accuracy of trying to guesstimate what is in one of these non-graduated purple-topped tubes?

Object to the word "Guesstimate."

Strained. Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Well, when you looked at one of these purple-topped tubes on the 29th, would you describe what you were doing as being an estimate or a guesstimate?

Well, definitely a very rough estimate.

And have you come to any conclusions with respect to how accurate your estimate was?

Yes.

What?

Okay. Now, I would like to mark--we have already marked as People's 210 for identification an exhibit. Perhaps we could put that up.

I'm going to come back to these serology results so I don't know whether it is possible to put it over there.

While he is getting that chart, Mr. Matheson, I wanted to ask you about some testimony, though, from the preliminary hearing on page 39, line 25, through page 40, line 3.

Two seconds.

Page 39 through 40.

Do you have that?

I'm sorry?

Page 39, line 25, through 40, line 3.

Mr. Matheson, do you recall giving the following answers to the following questions at the preliminary hearing? I'm sorry, I'm going to have to back up to line 22 for the question. "Question: With respect to the sample of item no. 17, the blood vial of O.J. Simpson, did you similarly inventory how much of that sample you consumed? "Answer: The proportion that would be consumed would have been oh, a stain of, well, consisting of significantly less than one drop out of the vial which when I received it had about two milliliters of blood in it, so it would have been an insignificant quantity to the amount that was present. "Question: Thank you." Do you recall giving that answer to that question, sir?

Yes, I do.

And what did you mean by the portion that you consumed would have been significantly less than one drop out of the vial and describing it as an insignificant quantity?

At that point I would have been referring strictly to the electrophoretic work. The gels, that type of thing, uses a very small amount of blood, and either forgetting about it or not including the ABO typing.

Okay. Were you referring to any materials that were clinging to the side of the pipettes or the microcentrifuge tubes or were you even thinking about that at the time?

And where did the figure of the two milliliters, the about two milliliters come from?

That is consistent with the estimate that I made on that inventory.

Now, I would like to direct your attention to People's 210 for identification. What is represented on this board?

Let's start with the outside packaging. What does that represent?

That is a white analyzed evidence envelope that is used to store evidence items for freezer storage and these are marked to contain items 334 through 336.

Now, what is the package marked item 47, 50 and 78? What are those?

What is shown in those pictures are a coin envelope or a manila coin envelope that is used to hold an evidence item along with the bindle, a little white paper bindle that the actual swatch or evidence item is placed inside of.

And are all these items that are--are item numbers bearing the DR number in our case?

Yes, they are.

Now, with respect to the item numbers 47, 50 and 78, did you cause those to be released to someone from the Scientific Investigations Division?

Well, they were released in conjunction with a Court order. I happened to be present when they were released.

And when was that?

I would have to refer to some notes. Just a moment.

Wasn't that in October?

Stipulate to the date?

Do you know the date?

It was October 26.

Sounds right?

Sounds right.

All right. October 26. Let's move along.

That was the date of the Court order.

And you would have released them after the Court order in October?

Well, I didn't release them. They were released by our evidence control unit but I was present when they were signed out.

Who were they signed out to?

Mr. Ragle.

Is the same Mr. Ragle that you referred to earlier as a Defense expert?

Yes.

And at some point did those come back into the possession of the Scientific Investigations Division?

Yes, they did.

Can you give us the date on that?

That was on March 10th, 1995.

Thank you.

Now, getting back to the testing that you did on the remaining of the items that we haven't discussed, on this ESD enzyme, the three individuals here have type 1; is that correct?

Yes, it is.

And why did you use that for the purposes of testing item 49, since everyone has the same ESD type?

One of the electrophoretic systems that was used for that item is something that goes by the name of group 1. It is a group of three different enzymes; the ESD, PGM and GLO enzymes. They were all done in conjunction, all three of them potentially were available to provide information.

And we've already asked you about the results on 13-A in terms of the PGM subtype and the EAP result on that was a BA?

That's correct.

And are both of those types consistent with Nicole Brown?

She has the same types, that's correct.

What date did you do this test on 13-A?

Referring back to my notes. The testing on item 13-A, the sock, was on September 20, 1994.

Now, in order to calculate the frequency on that item, what did you do?

I would determine what the frequency of occurrence of 1 plus is in the general population and what the frequency of occurrence or percentage of a BA in the general population and multiply those two numbers together.

And is that how you arrived at the 16 percent?

Approximately 16 percent, correct.

And did you do any further testing on this in terms of genetic markers after then?

No, I did not.

And why?

Well, the conventional work at this point was being done strictly to screen certain stains to determine whether or not it would be appropriate to send them out for further DNA analysis.

When you are saying "At this point," are you talking about September of last year?

That's correct.

All right. Now, with respect to item no. 37, the glove, it has a through D. What does a through d signify?

On items, not swatches, but items that have some size, for example, a glove where there may be different bloody areas on it, we analyze the different areas that were present, and in this case I chose four different areas on the glove and designated them as a through d.

What technique did you use? Did you use the cloth swatch technique or some other?

Well, in this case I am running directly from the glove under the electrophoresis gel, so I would have taken a thread, I described earlier we showed how you take a thread and put it into the gel. I would have taken a thread and removed the sample directly from the glove.

Can you tell us which glove a through d, 37-A through d--are they all on the same glove or are they on different gloves?

Referring again to my notes. Okay. I chose two samples from the left glove and two samples from the right glove.

Excuse me. I took two samples from the front and two samples from the back.

Okay. Of one glove?

Yes.

And what were the results on the tests that you performed on item 37, the glove?

That I determined the PGM subtype on all four areas tested to be a 2 plus 1 plus and the EAP to be inconclusive.

And what is a 2 plus--who is a 2 plus 1 plus consistent with?

Of the three people that are mentioned here, it is consistent with Mr. Goldman or anybody else who is a 2 plus 1 plus.

And did you also calculate a frequency for that item?

Yes, I did.

How did you do that?

I determined off of our experience within our laboratory with the PGM subtypes about 20 percent of the general population has that type.

Okay. And now, directing your attention to item 44, let's just see where that came from if it is on the board. We can move that over a little bit.

Did you do some testing on item 44?

Yes, I did.

Do you see the photograph signifying 44 in the upper right-hand corner, one photograph to the left of 45?

Yes, I do.

Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough. You can put that back. I just wanted to--sorry.

And what were the results on item 44, your testing on that item?

I found the PGM subtype to be a 2 plus 1 plus and the EAP gave no activity.

Did you calculate a frequency?

Yes, I did.

What did you calculate?

That a 2 plus 1 plus exists in about 20 percent of the population.

And now let's skip over top item, 78-B. Did you do some testing on that item?

Yes, i.

And at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 222, a laboratory note that is L-381.

Marked 222.

All right. Thank you, counsel.

Next I'm going to show you this laboratory note and have you describe for us whether you recognize that document and what it is.

Yes, I do. That is a copy of a serology item description notes. That describes where items were taken off of item number 78, the boots.

And what items did you take off of the boots?

Well, I tested six different areas on the boots themselves. They were labeled 78-A through 78-E.

And does this chart show the relative locations of a through e?

Yes, it does.

Did you take swatches off of both boots?

Yes.

So a came off which boot?

78-A is from the sole heel area of the right boot.

And where did 78-B come from?

78-B is from the outer edge of the sole of the right boot.

Is that the same--same right boot?

Yeah--

I mean as the other one, same item number?

78-A, yes.

And I would like to show you some photographs that we have previously marked. Your Honor, I don't know whether--yeah. I think they are People's 98.

Does this appear to be consistent with or does this appear to be the boot that you took some of the items off, the left one, or the right one, rather?

I was going to say that looks like the right boot, yes.

Can you tell us using this photograph and your diagram where you took 78-A off of?

Yes. 78-A would have been collected from the lower heel area down in here, pointing to the lower left-hand bottom of the--

Maybe we can mark that.

Is the arrow in the right position?

Mr. Matheson, why don't you look at your monitor.

It could probably stand to go up a little bit and then toward the right a little bit. Right in that general area right there, (Indicating).

Can we mark that? Can we write a 78-A on that, too?

I'm sorry, 7--yeah.

So that was 78-A?

Correct.

Can we print that?

Can you see where 78-B came from on this?

Not directly, no.

Can you give us the general vicinity of it, using this photograph?

It would be--can you take the arrow up a little bit, down a little bit and then to the right. No. Go back to the edge. This sample is actually on the edge of the sole. You couldn't see it directly from the bottom. And in that general area, (Indicating), as it is being pointed to right now.

Maybe we can mark that and label that 78-A.

78-A?

I'm sorry, B. That's b.

Maybe we can mark the printout as 223 for identification.

All right. People's 223, printout of this photo.

Now, Mr. Matheson, continuing with the testing on 78-A--excuse me--78-B, the shoe, did you have any results on that testing?

Yes, on 78-B.

What was the result?

That in the PGM subtype system I found a 2 plus 1 plus and in EAP there was no activity.

What does "No activity" mean?

Well, it means that in that lane on the gel there was nothing visible, no reaction.

And you also calculated a result on that?

A frequency, correct.

Which was?

The same as the other, 2 plus 1 plus; it occurs in about 20 percent of the population.

Okay. Now, I would like to direct your attention finally to stain 49.

Now, on this particular stain you didn't test this in September but in June?

That's correct.

And that was on--when in June?

The testing was done on June 27 and 28, 1994.

I would just like you to look quickly at the Bundy drive board to see where stain 49 came from. In the left-hand corner, card no. 114. Did you test the stain 49 that bears the DR number in this case?

Yes, I did.

Now, at that time did it have--it had--did it have the item number on it and the photo number, 114, or don't you know?

Referring to my notes, I believe it did. As referenced by my notes that the item no. 1--correction item no. 49, did have photo i.d. No. 114 on it.

All right. Now, with respect to this particular stain, did you do ABO typing on that stain?

Yes. Yes, I did.

And what result did you get off the ABO typing on stain 49?

That the results were indicative of a type a.

What does the term "Indicative" mean?

When you are doing ABO typing, there is two different factors that can indicate what type or what your result is; one of them is antigen and one is the antibody. Normally we like to run both tests so that one can confirm another. If you only run one or if you only get conclusive results in one, we call it indicative of. In this particular case I chose to limit the amount of sample I used, only analyzed for what is called the ABO antigen, and thus got an indication of a type a.

Why do you want to limit the amount of sample that you used on item 49?

Well, again, because there are additional tests that could be performed in particular DNA testing which potentially could provide a much greater discrimination than ABO testing.

Now, are there any individuals of the three people that we have reference samples for that are consistent with the type a?

Yes.

Who is that?

Both Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown.

Is there anyone that can be eliminated as a donor of the stain based upon your testing of the ABO type?

Yes.

Who is that?

Mr. Goldman.

Now, his type is what?

The results I got is it is indicative of a type o.

And why is it indicative of o? For the same reason that you described indicative of a?

Similar reasons. One of the two tests provided a conclusive result; another gave an inconclusive result.

All right. Now, with respect to the ESD marker, what was the result on that on item 49?

Got an indication of a result of a type 1 in the ESD system.

That is consistent with everyone?

Yes.

At least our three individuals here?

That's correct. In relation to the population we are talking about here, the three people.

Did you also do a PGM subtype?

Yes, I did.

And based upon the PGM subtype were you able to exclude anyone from our population of three individuals based on those results?

Yes, I was.

Who?

And finally, on the EAP system, did you receive a result? Did you get a result on EAP for item no. 49?

I did not test it for that.

And why wasn't EAP tested on this item?

Well, we did not run a system at that time that included the EAP and we chose to do the PGM subtype solely by itself.

So if you had wanted to test EAP on this drop 49, would you have had to use more sample and made a separate run?

At this point, yes.

And why not do that?

The same thing, we don't want to consume any more sample.

All right. Now, with respect to the other EAP tests, did you testify that you didn't actually have to use additional sample in order to get those results?

That's correct.

Now, based upon the testing that you did on item no. 49, could that drop have been donated by Nicole Brown?

No, it could not.

Or by Ronald Goldman?

No, it could not.

Could it have been donated by Orenthal Simpson?

It could have.

Now, did do you a calculation of frequency on this blood drop?

Yes, I did.

And can you break it down for us starting with the ABO what the frequency is of that item?

I would have--on each individual marker?

Can do you that?

I can. I would have to refer to another chart that I made.

Okay.

I have a chart that breaks down the population frequencies as determined within our laboratory on samples that we have run on just the markers that we are interested in on the items in this case.

Now, with respect to the ABO type, what frequency simple did you apply to the ABO type on 49?

Type a in the ABO system exists in about approximately 33.7 percent of the general population.

So it is just a little over a third?

Approximately, yes.

Now, with respect to the ESD, the esterase d result, did you use any figure assigned to that number for the purposes of arriving at your final conclusion?

Yes, I did.

And what was the percentage there?

That the ESD one exists in about 79.6 percent of the population.

What about PGM subtype? Did you come up with a figure for the PGM subtype?

Yes, I did.

What was that?

That the PGM subtype of a 2 plus 2 minus exists in approximately 1.6 percent of the population.

So based upon PGM subtype alone, only 1.6 percent of the population have these same PGM subtypes as the Defendant in this case?

That's correct.

Now, in order to come up with your final conclusion in terms of the frequency, what did you do as to item no. 49?

I took those three percentages that were just mentioned and multiplied them together.

And you arrived at what?

Or .5 percent?

That's correct.

And .5 percent is one-half of one percent?

Yes.

Does that mean that 99.5 percent of the population can be excluded as having donated that sample 49 at the crime scene?

Approximately, yes.

Or that if you took 200 people and tested them, that you would expect that only one of them might have the same blood type as the person that donated that drop?

Objection, no foundation, your Honor.

Overruled.

That's correct.

Thank you, Mr. Matheson. No further questions.