Mr. Matheson, are you aware in this case that Dennis Fung conducted a pheno test on the three pedals of the Bronco with the same swab?
And the reason being, that you would not want to touch a second piece of evidence, potential piece of evidence with an item that you used to touch the first piece, correct?
I try and limit the use of a swab to one particular item, that's correct so you're not carrying it then over to another one.
Now, how is--how are the criminalists that work for you trained in the use of pheno testing? Is there any specific course on that?
Using the same--well, strike that. The criminalists have as many swabs as they need in their kits; do they not?
I don't know about as many. They do have available to them in the kit a packet or two. There should be some in the truck and there's plenty back in the laboratory.
Well, do you know whether or not Dennis Fung had and Andrea Mazzola had extra swabs when they did that to the pedals of the car?
Now I want to ask you--I want to talk about packaging and unpackaging materials for purposes of DNA testing or preparation for DNA testing. Now, there's been considerable testimony about the use of plastic bags to transport blood samples. Are you aware of that?
Now, is it your understanding that it is appropriate to transport wet blood samples in plastic bags prior to booking?
What is the--what can happen to blood if it's transport--or if it's kept in plastic while it's moist?
Well, the plastic doesn't allow any drying process to occur. So it stays moist, and as I mentioned before, a moist or damp environment leads towards degradation.
Would you agree that the proper procedure is, after collection of a bloodstain by using swatches, you should try to dry it as fast as possible or as soon as possible?
And the crime scene truck that your criminalists use has a refrigerator in it; does it not?
Now, you indicated on direct that that refrigerator is used for chemicals and is not used for evidence samples. Did I hear that right?
The--is it available to use for evidence samples if the criminalist wants to use it?
Would storing evidence in plastic bags, wet bloodstains if they were put in that refrigerator, would that retard any degradation that might go on?
Yes. If you can lower the temperature at all, it helps slow the degradation process. It doesn't stop it.
Is there any standard period of time beyond which you should not keep wet bloodstains sealed or in plastic bags?
Depends on the circumstances. I don't believe that's excessive. I would like if it was possible to get them back in the lab and dried before that.
Still I don't--if that's the condition in which they're working and that's how they had to be kept, I don't think that's unacceptable.
Have you done any studies to determine how fast blood degrades under those conditions?
In your view, is it a bad practice to store wet bloodstains for up to seven hours in a van in the sun?
Like I said before, I don't think it's a bad practice. I would like it to be avoided if there's some practical way to do it. We want to get those dried as soon as possible, but as far as being a bad practice, no.
Now, you testified on direct about taking some fabric samples from the carpet in the Bronco. Do you recall that?
And the carpeting that you took that sample from had been cut out of the Bronco; had it not?
Well, at some point, it was cut out of the Bronco, transported back to the evidence processing room where it was wrapped in white paper and stored in a box along with a variety of other items. That box was at some point transported into the serology freezer and stayed there I believe until in January.
Do you think that's an appropriate procedure to preserve possible bloodstains on a carpet, to remove the carpet and then fold the carpet up?
If the bloodstains were damp when that happened so it could come in contact with another part of the material in this transfer, some of the pattern, no, I don't think that would be appropriate.
How about if it was dry so that it could flake off of the purported blood stain? You wouldn't want to do it then either, would you?
Well, as far as the pattern is concerned, I don't think it would affect that. You would be using a little bit maybe with the flaking. That flaking process that you're talking about could then distribute blood to other parts of that same item.
If there was other cellular material elsewhere on the carpet other than where the apparent bloodstain is, that material could be transferred to the stain by folding the carpet up; could it not?
That is a bad procedure to use to preserve that kind of piece of evidence, isn't it?
It is not the best way. The evidence will still be there available to you. Probably the best way would be to sandwich it between two pieces of paper and then fold it if you had to.
KEY QUOTENow, I want to talk about the drying process back at the evidence processing room. Is it your understanding that the wet swatches are taken from the plastic bags and placed into open test tubes?
After I get back from a crime scene, I have a coin envelope with the one or two plastic bags that are in it with the swatches. I take the plastic bags out, cut along one side, cut along the bottom so I can open it up and then I lay the plastic bag with the swatch on it on top of the coin envelope that it came in and allow it to dry that way.
Now, when you take a--but have you tried it the way it was done in this case in some situations?
When you take a wet swatch and try to put it in a test tube, would you agree that it is likely to stick to the sides near the top of the test tube?
Well, if it's damp when it's put in there and it comes in contact with it, yes, it might stick a little bit.
And doing that, it might also deposit some of the blood near the top of the test tube, correct?
Now, when it is allowed to dry overnight in that condition, the next morning, there is going to be dried blood in that test tube near the rim of the test tube, correct?
Now, when these items are stored--I'm sorry--when they're put in the cabinet to dry, they are all set in the same cardboard box one next to each other, correct?
The items from Rockingham were put in open test tubes in the same cardboard box as the items from Bundy, correct?
When the swatches are removed in the morning, what's your understanding of the procedure that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola used?
I don't specifically remember how they got them from the test tube into a paper bindle, but at some point, they were transferred from the test tube, placed into the bindle, bindle folded and placed in a coin envelope and the test tube thrown away.
Would you as--if you were doing this procedure, take pipettes and scrape the swatches out of the tubes?
And if you took a pipette and scraped a tube that had dry blood around the rim, would you agree that you're taking the chance that some of that blood might flake off and get on other things like your hand, your clothing, the table?
If you were not being careful and just took the pipette and ran it around the inside and scraped a lot of the area and then allowed it to flake off, I suppose you could make that happen.
And do you think that if that were to happen, if blood were to flake off, you would always be aware of it?
If you are being so sloppy as to handle it as roughly as scraping the areas as opposed to just reaching in and flaking out the one little swatch, I suppose you could miss that.
And is that a good reason why, if you're going to use that method, you should change the paper on the table between each test tube?
Well, if you're not just randomly in there scraping around, if you're being careful with your pipette tip to just catch the swatch and flake a little bit of it out, I still don't see where it's necessary to constantly change the paper.
What about touching the rims of the test tubes with your gloves? Would you recommend that?
Oh, I think I'd tend to try and stay away from it. But if you're on the outside of the test tube and any sort of blood or residue is on the inside, you're not coming in contact with it. So it should not be a problem.
Is it a good procedure to take an item of evidence from one crime scene and take it to another crime scene if it has or could have biological material on it?
If that evidence is not brought in direct contact with the scene, if it's in packaging material or something like that, I don't see where that would be a problem.
If Detective Lange had asked you to bring the Rockingham glove for him to look at over the bodies at Bundy, would you have done it?
Is it a proper procedure in your view in this case to take the Rockingham glove from the crime scene truck, take it in, step over the bodies so the detective can look at it?
If I was not standing directly over the bodies or directly over in the evidence that was being collected, I would not have a problem with opening the bag up so he could see inside.
No. The evidence is down inside of a closed container. I'm not taking it out, not working with it over the evidence area. It would be preferable if I could get him out and away from the scene. But even taking it in under those conditions I don't believe would be a problem.
Would you prefer that if the detective asked you to do that, that you'd say, "no. Let's do it here over here by the truck"?
Oh, sure. It would be preferable to--to have him come out and step outside, but I still don't see where there would be a problem.
Now, if your criminalists are asked to do something like that and they have a feeling that maybe this is not so smart, what should they do?
If they have a problem with something that's being requested of them from the detective, they should advise the detective of that.
Now, you testified about control swatches being taken at the same time that swatches are taken from a bloodstain. Do you recall that?
And the purpose of the control is to conduct the same kind of testing on the control as you do on the swatch in order to see whether you'd get some sort of positive result on the control which would indicate something might be wrong with the test, correct?
And if you had a failure of controls, would you agree that you should disregard the test results or perhaps do them again?
You run tests on it and you get an indication that there's blood on it when you thought there was nothing on it.
Well, then the control in a way is serving its purpose. It's showing you that there's something there and alerting you to the fact that there's a potential problem.
It's a potential, yes. You would want to maybe look at your results and what was obtained.
Now, if you didn't take a control, what's your understanding as to the accepted scientific practice in the community of forensic scientists that do DNA testing about not using controls?
Well, you should whenever possible take a control nearby a bloodstain that you collect.
And if you don't take a control, should you report a test result? What's your understanding of the accepted practice or do you know?
In the case of conventional serology, I--I would still report the result. But you would have to understand that you don't have a substrate control to see it. It just--it gives you a little bit more information that maybe you have to be a little more careful about those results that are obtained from it because it is not always possible to get a control.
I would feel that the answer should be the same. That you are getting information from the sample, but you have to also be aware of the fact that you don't have a control as to that particular sample, because sometimes it just is not possible to get a control for every sample you do.
Do you agree that if you take a control that doesn't show anything when you run the test on it, that doesn't necessarily mean there is not contamination?
It is not a hundred percent indicator that there is absolutely no possibility of contamination.
Do you ever examine the control swatches that the criminalists that work for you collect to determine whether they are clean or dirty?
Well, when I was doing casework on a regular basis, I was seeing control samples regularly.
Do you have any kind of system to check on criminalists to make sure that they really are collecting controls as opposed to just putting a clean swatch in a bag?
Now, you indicated that in your DNA laboratory, there had been a problem with contamination at some point, correct?
Now, the validation studies that you do involve taking known blood samples, testing them, seeing if the test comes out the way you expect it, correct?
And you have run those validation studies in your PCR lab from the time you started doing casework through the doing of this case and after June, correct?
Well, it would have had to have been sometime from when we started doing PCR in October of `93 and I know it was before June of `94.
Do you monitor that kind of information for the PCR lab that you're in charge of?
I was advised that it occurred or was occurring at the time and then I was advised that it had been cleared up.
Are there any reports or any documentation of that outbreak of contamination that describes how it was detected, what was done about it, how it happened?
The contamination in your lab that you told us about, is there any documentation showing the nature of the outbreak, how long it lasted, what caused it and what you did about it?
Yeah. There was none generated at the time. It was verbally accounted to me.
KEY QUOTEIt's an organization that has been meeting for a number of years that has reviewed and suggested guidelines for doing DNA testing.
And that's an organization of representatives from various crime labs that do DNA testing and put together guidelines, correct?
I am advised by the people that do the work that the--these guidelines are followed as closely as possible, yes.
Now, it's your understanding that these guidelines are suggested minimum qualifications or minimum things that need to be done in a DNA laboratory?
Do you know what the guidelines are with respect to documenting contamination in a lab? Do you have any idea?
Do you know whether your lab complies with that aspect of the guidelines with respect to documenting outbreaks of contamination?
What's your understanding of the cause of the contamination in your lab when it occurred?
I was verbally advised that it--we believe that it was traced back to a lot of the commercial kits that we had purchased and that when we received one of the new lots, the contamination was no longer present.
Did you contact the man--or did your people, your representatives contact the manufacturer to determine whether or not they agreed it was a bad lot?
Is it your understanding that the manufacturer agreed that it was their problem and not yours?
Not that they had said it was our problem, not yours. Just that they were unable to duplicate what we had seen
When you are setting up the DNA laboratory, did you have occasion to review the TWGDAM guide lines?
I have seen the document, but I've relied on the people that were actually setting it up to review them.
Are you familiar with the procedures that TWGDAM sets for the--as a minimum for decontaminating a lab that has a contamination problem?
Other than this contamination that you've talked about--now, you can't tell us how long a period of time that took place?
I know it was not--that extended period of time, but no, I do not know specifically how long it was.
Do you have any procedures set up whereby you are advised when there is contamination found in your lab?
Have you ever become aware, other than what you've testified to, any problems with contamination in your PCR lab since it started?
The definition of the word "problems," we have had instances of contamination. It's the nature of the business in that occasionally you see types that you don't expect. If your controls are working and it is detected, I don't see where that is a problem. It's an existence. It occurs.
Now, Mr. Matheson, you were asked some questions about item no. 6. Do you recall those questions?
All right. Now, when did you first become aware that there was a hair in the bindle?
Off the top of my head, I don't remember. I--I would--I can try and look through my notes and see if I can come up with a date on that.
Well, it was when the items came back from Albany, correct, when item 6 came back from Albany?
Did you check with your representative that was present to determine whether that hair was present at the time that bindle got to Albany?
Now, I think you indicated that the--that particular swatch was sent to DOJ after you got it. Was that for the purpose of determining whose hair it was?
I believe the hair was removed after we located it and it was not part of what was sent.
I think the only thing that we had done is just a very quick attempt to determine whether or not we could determine race on the hair, but I'm not sure.
Are you aware that one of the lenses in the prescription glasses found between the two bodies is missing?
During the course of Dennis Fung's testimony, did you have any conversations with him about habits that he had formed in his testimony?
Did you have any discussion with Dennis Fung about the habit he had of saying that he did something when somebody else did?
Did you ever review any prior testimony that Dennis Fung had given in other cases with him to determine whether he has done that before?
In your opinion, is it important that criminalists get to the crime scene as soon as possible?
Now, you were aware at what time on the morning of the 13th that there was a crime scene?
Okay. I was made aware--excuse me--made aware of the fact that Mr. Fung was out on a crime scene at about 7:45, 7:50 on the morning of the 13th.
Did you become aware at that time that that crime scene had been discovered seven hours before?
What's the procedure in effect within the Los Angeles Police Department for calling criminalists to a crime scene in terms of when they should be called?
Well, whether or not a criminalist is called is left to the choice of the detective at the scene and it's up to them as to whether or not when they arrive, they call us right away. Sometimes they assess it. At some point, they may decide that they don't need a criminalist and then change their mind and call us later on. It's up to the detective.
Is it your understanding that that's the reason why they didn't call you for seven hours; that they didn't know whether they would use you?
Did that concern you at all, that you hadn't been called for seven hours to come to this crime scene?
Now, did you find out early in the morning, 7 o'clock or approximately when you say you found out, that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola had been sent to Rockingham as opposed to Bundy?
At that time, I believe he just advised me that they were investigating a scene involving or a crime involving a double homicide. I didn't get a lot of specifics at that point as to the number of scenes and all that was involved.
He advised me of what I felt I needed at the time. That's that they had arrived out at this crime scene and that it involved two victims. I inquired if they needed assistance and was advised not at this time.
Did he ever say anything to you to the effect, "gee, they sent us not where the bodies are, but to some other scene"?
Did he ever suggest to you that, "we need another team to get to where the bodies are"?
I asked him if he felt he needed assistance, and I was advised that he did not. So I did not suggest sending another team out.
When did you become aware that the Coroner moved the bodies before they were able to process the Bundy scene?
I don't believe it was that day. It would have been probably a day or two later.
Now, I think you testified on direct that it's a mistake to let the Coroner move the bodies before you process the scene. Am I--
What's your feeling on the Coroner moving the bodies before your people were allowed to process the scene?
From a Criminalist's standpoint, I would just as soon they left them there, allowed us to complete our work.
KEY QUOTEWould you consider it very important that you be allowed to do your work before the bodies are dragged over the evidence?
Yes. I would like it if they left them in place, and it is important that we be allowed to remove anything that is surrounding the bodies.
Do your criminalists have the authority to tell the Coroner, "wait until we're done"?
Not to my knowledge, no. I can request it, but I don't believe I can tell them if they--and stop them if they felt so.
Do you have the authority to process or collect any evidence that is on the body?
My understanding is no, not directly. I have done it in the past requesting it from the Coroner's investigators that were there, but we have the scene. Their jurisdiction is the body.
Now, do you know--when I use the term a "close in crime scene," do you know what I mean by that?
Let me define it for you. A crime scene where the bodies are very closely situated to the evidence. Do you have that in mind?
In your opinion, is it an appropriate investigative technique when you have a close in crime scene like that, to move the bodies before the evidence is processed? Does that make any sense to you at all?
Well, it's normally the detectives that call the Coroner's office. I know in normal circumstances, on crime scenes where I go to, I--more times than not, matter of fact, most of the times, the Coroner's office is not even called until we have a chance to go through. The detectives wait for us to give the go ahead, "okay, now we're done in this area and it's okay to call the Coroner's office".
And when you teach the detectives in the homicide division, the courses that you've told us about, you tell them that's the right way to do it, don't you?
Oh, I don't know if we specifically go into that, but I would if that was the subject raised, that we'd like to have as much time as possible to clear the evidence from around the bodies.
Did you know by 7 o'clock in the morning that this was going to be a very significant case with respect to the amount of resources it was going to take?
I did not know the extent of the scene as far as that goes. A double homicide is not an extremely rare occurrence in this city.
Did you become aware rather quickly though that this was a case that was going to require substantial resources?
At some point that day, on the 13th, did you become aware that this was a big case?
I was made aware of the nature of the victims and that it had the potential of being a high-profile case, yes.
Did you take any steps to see that additional resources were applied to this case other than asking Dennis Fung, "can you handle this yourself," or whatever words you used?
The only thing I did at that point other than the fact that we did have an assistant director out at the scene and a captain out at the scene, I did inquire again midday of Mr. Fung if he needed assistance, and he advised me that none was needed at that time.
Do you know whether he took any steps to see that extra resources were devoted to this case--
I don't believe he did assign any. He responded to the scene, spent some time there and then returned to the laboratory.
Do you know whether he actually participated in collecting samples or did he just kind of stand around and watch?
Perfect. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to recess as far as the jury is concerned for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until tomorrow, Thursday morning at 9:00 A.M. all right. We'll take a 10-minute recess to clear the courtroom, and we'll proceed to the motions.
That is not how I'd do it, no.
There was none generated at the time. It was verbally accounted to me.
No, they shouldn't.
From a Criminalist's standpoint, I would just as soon they left them there, allowed us to complete our work.
It is not the best way. The evidence will still be there available to you.