Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Yamauchi, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Scheck, you may conclude your cross-examination.

Thank you, your Honor.

Mr. Yamauchi, when you were taking samples from the glove, were you in a hurry?

No.

When you were cutting the Bundy swatches, were you in a hurry?

No.

Now, you mentioned on direct examination that you have one of these little badges that you put up next to the door, and that admits you into the evidence processing room?

Yes.

And you're familiar with computer printouts entitled "Card transaction reports" that reflect when somebody goes into the evidence processing room?

Yes.

Now, I would like to show you what's already been marked as People's 226, a serology transaction report and I'd like to also show you Defendant's next in order.

What would that be?

1187.

1187.

And I'd like you to compare 1187 to 226 and tell us if 1187 is a fair and accurate summary of all the different entries on the transaction report for the--for June 14th into the evidence processing room that bear your name? And just to help you out, it's page 1--

Your Honor, objection. 226 is hearsay at this point. It's not in evidence.

Overruled.

What's the door number on the evidence processing room?

18.

Umm, can we confirm that that's the evidence processing room?

Well, the--226 was introduced by the People as the transaction report of that room.

Your Honor, I have an objection to that.

That's testifying.

That's hearsay, your Honor.

That's testifying, counsel.

And I object that that document is hearsay and the witness is unfamiliar with it. No foundation.

Overruled.

Ask you to assume it's door no. 18 and that 226 is a--the transaction report, door no. 18 is the evidence processing room.

Okay. Then if I assume that, then I can go on.

Yes. Thank you.

Do you need a straight edge, Mr. Yamauchi?

Thank you, but I'm okay.

All right.

Goes on to page 4.

This one? Okay.

Okay.

Mr. Scheck.

Okay.

Is that accurate? Is 1187 accurate?

Under the assumption that this is from the evidence processing room for that particular date, yes, it is.

Objection, your Honor. There's no foundation. It's hearsay.

Overruled.

Your Honor, may I display 1187?

Yes.

Okay. Now, the transaction record would indicate--these are all entries, correct? That's how the system works?

Yes.

All right. So it shows you entering the evidence processing room at 8:17 and then presumably sometime between 8:17 and 8:31, you left because you entered again at 8:31, correct?

That's a good assumption.

Okay. Now, let's look at how many times you left between 9:00 and 10:00 o'clock, okay? At 9--we see you reentering at 9:15, correct?

Yes.

And we see you reentering at 9:27?

Yes.

So that would mean that sometime between 9:15 and 9:27, you left the evidence processing room and then reentered?

That's a good assumption.

And then between 9:27 and 9:49, you left and then reentered at 9:49?

Yes. That's reasonable.

And at 9:49--between 9:49 and 9:59, you left and reentered again at 9:59?

Right.

And all those exits and entries between 9:15 and 9:59 occurred during the period of time that you were manipulating and cutting samples from the glove?

Objection. That misstates the testimony.

Sustained.

All right. If we assume that you started manipulating and sampling the glove sometime after 9:00 A.M., would it be fair to say that you entered and exited the evidence processing room at the times indicated on 1187 during the period that you were manipulating and cutting the glove?

Objection. Calls for speculation, there's no foundation.

Sustained.

All right. Do you recall entering and leaving the evidence processing room while you were manipulating and cutting the glove?

Well, to begin with, we just went over that section of my notes, and, yeah, I'd say it was reasonable to assume that sometime between I guess--where was it--9:00 and 10:00 or so, that that's when that was analyzed. But I don't remember specific details as to what I was doing and what time I took samples and at certain points, I would have had to go get the photographer too and have him come by to photograph that item. So I don't know.

The photographer in question is who, if you recall?

It's either John Taggard or Mike Wilson.

Well, looking at the entries on 226, tell us entries you see on the morning of June 14th for Taggard and Wilson and the times.

Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation.

Overruled.

John Taggard, 8:24.

Okay. Hold on.

Uh-huh.

Given your reconstruction of the events of the morning of June 14th, do you believe that Taggard entered at 8:24 and took a picture of the glove before you manipulated and cut it?

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

As best you can recall, given your notes and records and recollection, do you believe--did Taggard come into the evidence processing room at 8:27 and take a picture of the glove?

Like I said before, I don't know if it was John Taggard or Mike Wilson.

All right. Would you look at the transaction report and see if there's--when the next entry for Taggard or Wilson is?

For Wilson, it's 8:47.

All right. Do you recall Wilson entering the evidence processing room at 8:47 and taking a picture of the glove?

I don't recall which one of them did it. I asked John Taggard to take the photograph and I'm not sure if he did or if Mike Wilson did.

So--but you are certain, are you not, that the photograph taken of the glove was after you had manipulated and cut it?

No. I had it photoed beforehand, before I did the cutting.

Didn't you testify on direct examination that the photograph of the glove was done after you initialed it, manipulated it and cut it?

No, I don't believe so.

Objection. Misstates the testimony.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Do you recall what you said on direct testimony with respect to when the glove was photographed; before or after you manipulated it and cut it?

On June 14th.

I'm sorry?

On June 14th.

On June 14th.

I believe I said before because the whole idea in the--behind photographing it before is because I was going to cut it. So I wanted to have a photo documentation of it as how it looked before I did the cuttings on it.

Have you ever seen a photograph of the Rockingham glove in a condition prior to the cuts you made on it?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled.

Seen quite a few photographs of that. I--I don't know if those were the ones or the set that I had requested.

You requested a set of photographs from the Prosecutors to review before you testified?

No, I didn't. I--for that particular issue, I would have to go back and check the records to make sure that this set that I've seen in the past is the set that happened on that date and time.

Where would you go to check?

Hmm, I'd probably have to talk to Mr. Matheson.

All right. And after talking with Mr. Matheson, do you believe you could determine whether or not there is in existence a photograph of the Rockingham glove taken at SID that reflects its condition before you manipulated and cut it?

There should be.

I would ask you if you could do that for us.

Right now?

Well, why not? Sometime after court today.

Okay.

Now, when you were--I'm going to bring up page 5 of your notes--I'm sorry--page 3 of your notes with respect to your cutting of the Bundy swatches. Now, you recall on direct examination that you took out some envelopes and paper and you demonstrated for the jury how you--the process that you went through in cutting the swatch, putting it in the bindle, putting it into the test--putting part of it in the test tube and packing it. You went from one to the other. Do you recall that?

Into the microcentrifuge tubes?

Yes.

Yes.

Do you recall standing in front of the jury here and taking out those envelopes and demonstrating?

Yes, I recall that.

Okay. Now, when you did that demonstration, didn't you leave out one aspect of your activities that you engaged in when you cut the swatches?

Well, what aspect is that?

Well, call your attention to your notes, page 3. When you were going through the process of unpacking the bindles, cutting the swatches with the scalpel in one hand, with that same hand putting it into the microcentrifuge tube and before you repackaged them and went to another bindle, didn't you make a drawing?

Yes.

So that was part of your activities as you went through the Bundy samples?

Yes.

You made the drawing that appears here as page 3 of your notes?

Yes.

And when you made that drawing, you tried to be as careful as possible in outlining the shapes of each swatch?

No. I just made an approximate rendition of what I saw.

Well, on some of these, for example, take 49, didn't you make little renditions to try to indicate folds?

Yes.

In particular, I call your attention to the--I think you can see it as item 49 if you travel along the top right-hand--the top of the line, all right, you see six little renditions of swatches, correct?

Correct.

And the fourth one over from the left is drawn in such a way to indicate a fold.

Yes.

And many of the other drawings here, you tried your best to indicate irregularities in the sizes and shapes of the swatches.

Yes. I try to do that approximately.

And you didn't take a picture of the swatches?

No.

That's not a practice in your laboratory?

No, it's not. It's never been an issue.

Okay. Now, this process of cutting the swatches and drawing them you did carefully?

Well, I took some care into it. But keep in mind, these are approximations. I don't want to say that they're exact duplicates of the exact size of them.

No. I'm not talking about the drawings.

Just to get a general idea.

I'm not talking now about the drawings. I'm talking about the process of opening the bindles, cutting the swatches with one hand, putting the swatches into the microfuge tube, making your picture, repackaging the swatches. You did all that carefully?

Of course.

You wanted to--you didn't want to rush through that, did you?

No.

Because you weren't changing gloves?

Well, if something got on my gloves, I would change it, or if I had inadvertently touched a swatch or something, then I would change it. But I do my manipulations with the scalpel blade. And so there isn't necessarily a need to change my gloves.

I thought it was your firm testimony--well, I'll rephrase it. I thought it was your testimony that you were sure that you had not touched a swatch with your glove when you went through this manipulation process and cutting process of the Bundy swatches.

You're right. I don't recall touching any swatches.

Okay. You're sure of that?

Yes.

Didn't change your gloves?

I wouldn't see any reason why I would have to. No.

And you actually told us I think this morning that with respect to sample 49, one of these--two of these swatches were actually stuck together and you had to pull them apart?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Sustained.

Now, you did these cuttings--well, let's see. 117, there was a total of four swatches?

No. There's two swatches and one control.

Well, two swatches and one control. So that would be three?

In total, yes.

And for sample 49, there was a total of six specimens and one control for a total of seven?

Yes.

And for sample 50, there were four specimens and one control for a total of five?

Yes.

And for sample 48, there were two specimens and one control for a total of three?

Yes.

And for sample 47, there were seven specimens and one control for a total of eight?

Yes.

And you went through this entire process of cutting the swatches with the one hand, putting it into the test tubes, drawing your picture, opening the bindles and closing the bindles, you did all that in one hour?

Yes.

And that would come down to, on an average, about 12 minutes per item?

Yes.

And you're certain that you didn't touch any of the swatches with your glove?

Yes.

And you weren't in a rush.

I wasn't in a rush.

Now, you testified on direct examination to--well, let me go back for just one second. And during this process of doing the swatches, you went in and out of the evidence processing room between 10:00 and 11:00?

Yes.

Yes. That the chart indicates an entry at 10:05, 10:54 and 10:59?

Okay. Yes.

Now, when you received these coin envelopes from Dennis Fung, each of them was closed. I'm talking now about the Bundy samples.

They weren't sealed.

But they were closed?

Yes.

And you opened them up?

Yes.

And you looked at the bindles?

Yes.

And you did not see one initial of Andrea Mazzola on any one of those bindles from the Bundy samples, did you?

Well, if it was there, I didn't note it. I noted the number down there.

And there was no count on the coin envelopes or the bindles indicating the number of swatches that had been originally collected?

No. That wasn't listed on there.

And the original packaging, that is the plastic bags that the swatches were initially put in, those were not preserved or present?

No, I don't recall seeing plastic bags.

All right. And we cannot test now the plastic bags, the blood on the plastic bags to compare that--any DNA typings from that blood with the typings from the swatches, can we?

Well, for one thing, if I didn't see the plastic bags, I really can't even testify as to their existence.

Okay. Have you ever used plastic bags to collect blood swatches?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained. Mr. Scheck, why don't you turn the podium towards the witness, please.

I'm sorry.

In your experience, in the evidence processing room, have you ever seen the plastic bags that the wet swatches are brought in?

Yes. I've seen--I've seen that in my experience and I've used that technique myself.

And invariably, do you not see bloodstains on those plastic bags?

There winds up with them--you know, residual amount of blood left on the plastic.

Now, in your training and readings as a criminalist, have you not been taught that all original packaging of evidence items ought to be preserved as the chain of custody of an item proceeds?

Objection. Argumentative, calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Well, that--that's up to an interpretation too because if you think about it, what's important is the swatch itself. That's what's going to be analyzed. This background piece of plastic that it's being placed on is just something that's supporting it. It's--it's not intended to be analyzed. What's intended to be analyzed are the swatches, and that's what initial--or not initially, but eventually gets dried and booked into evidence.

All right. "Chain of custody" refers to the practices of criminalists to ensure that the items collected are actually the items tested and presented in court?

That sounds reasonable.

And in the course of your training with respect to chain of custody, have you not heard that it is a standard practice to preserve all original packaging materials for an item?

Yes. And I think that's specifically designed to look at items of evidence such as a glove or something that's adamant, not--not something that's a blood swatch where you're collecting a stain on the wall or something like that. See, the reason why is, if--if say you have a glove, things can fall off of that, and you would want to preserve those pieces of trace evidence for further analysis. And that's one place where the trace people will look, would be inside the packaging housing that. But when we're talking about a blood swatch, what we're interested in are the types on that particular stain. If you consider that plastic, that's--all that's doing is acting as support to dry the stain and/or transport it. It's not changing any of the types that are on that particular stain. What's important, Mr. Scheck, is the stain itself and the information that can be gained by that.

Well, following through with what you just said, with respect to the original packaging containing traces of the item collected, is it not true that these plastic packages would contain blood from the original swatches?

Yes. But you've got to--

Is that true; yes or no?

Well, your Honor, I'm going to object. He's explaining.

Let him finish answering the question.

All right. Please finish.

You've got to understand--I mean, common sense will tell you this too--if you've got a bloodstain and you put it on the plastic, it's not going to be different on the plastic than it would be on the swatch itself. If you have--if you have a glove and you put it in a package and some of the, you know, maybe a hair or fiber or something falls off, then that's going to have evidentiary value. And so of course you're going to want to change or save that packaging because it's got stuff in it that's important. But the residual amount from a piece of plastic that's supporting a blood swatch is insignificant. What's important is what's on the swatch.

Let us assume, Mr. Yamauchi, that the swatches originally collected in the plastic bag are not the swatches that were put in the bindles. Are you with me?

Objection.

You can make all kinds of assumptions.

There's no basis for that hypothetical, your Honor.

Sustained.

Well, could you not scrape blood off the original plastic bags that contain these swatches and do a DNA test to find out what types would come from that blood on the plastic bag?

Yes. That's possible.

All right. And then one could compare the blood on the original plastic packaging to the blood types one got from the swatches?

That's possible. But why wouldn't you want to just go directly to the swatches themselves?

Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation.

Sustained.

Did it raise any concern in your mind that there was no count on either the bindles, the coin envelopes or any document you could find as to how many swatches were originally collected?

Objection. It's compound, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Once again, this has never been an issue before. And what's important on these swatches is the DNA or the genetic marker types that are going to be found through scientific testing. Number is not going to tell us the quantity and quality of DNA or the quantity and quality of any enzymatic typing or antigens that we would need to look at. So it's never been an issue.

All right. Evidence tampering as far as you're concerned has never been an issue in your laboratory?

Objection. That's argumentative, your Honor.

Sustained.

Has evidence tampering ever arisen as an issue in your laboratory?

That's argumentative. That's bad faith, your Honor.

Overruled.

No.

Were you ever questioned by investigators from the District Attorney's office, a Mr. Thompson, a Mr. Stevens concerning the handling of the blood swatches in this case?

Objection. It's irrelevant, calls for hearsay. There's no foundation for this, your Honor.

Sustained.

Were you aware of any investigation conducted by the District Attorney's office or anyone else--

Sustained. It's irrelevant.

Now, on direct examination--withdrawn. One more question. In your examination of the bindles, did you notice anything unusual?

No.

You said that you received--that when you received the blood vial, Mr. Simpson's reference sample, it was in the gray envelope.

Yes.

Got that from Mr. Fung?

Yes.

The envelope was not sealed?

No. It wasn't sealed yet.

You needed to look at your note to refresh your recollection on that?

Certainly. I want to be sure. I knew it was written there.

Do you recall testifying in some detail on direct examination about the envelope not being sealed?

On direct. I don't remember if that was asked or not.

Do you recall being asked whether it was normal in your experience at the SID to receive a reference sample envelope that was not sealed?

I might have been asked--you want me to just answer the question?

I'm asking if you recall saying that on direct.

Well, if I was asked that question, I would say it's not normal, but it's not out of the ordinary or extraordinary.

Well, my first question to you is, do you recall testifying--being asked that question, questions to that effect on direct examination and giving answers about whether it was normal to receive an unsealed envelope with a blood vial?

Somewhere along those lines, it sounds familiar, but I can't be sure if that was asked in exactly that fashion or not.

Do you recall discussing with Mr. Harmon or Mr. Goldberg or any of the Prosecutors the issue of the blood vial, the envelope not being sealed?

Yes.

How long were those discussions?

Not very long at all. They--they asked me if it was or was not, and I told them no, it wasn't. They asked me if--

Excuse me. You said no, it wasn't?

Your Honor, this is about the hundredth time today.

Yes. Mr. Scheck?

I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Your Honor, my apologies, but I'm--

Proceed.

I'm allowed to object when the answer is not responsive.

You are, but you're not allowed to interrupt the witness when he's testifying.

You go ahead, Mr. Yamauchi.

Okay. Where was I?

You were telling us about your conversations with the Prosecutors, and they asked you whether it was normal to see an unsealed envelope containing a blood vial, you gave them an answer that it wasn't, and then you were about to say something else.

Occasionally, we work on evidence items that have not yet been booked. And so for that reason, it's not completely out of the ordinary.

Is it your understanding of procedures concerning the taking of blood from a suspect that after the nurse draws the blood from the suspect and hands the vial to the requesting officer, that the envelope is then supposed to be sealed?

Objection. No foundation, calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Do you--have you examined the envelopes that contain the blood vials?

Well, obviously I looked at this one.

Okay. Your Honor, first I would like to put on the elmo People's 163-H, which is three envelopes, and I'll start with the gray one.

Yes.

Does that appear to be the analyzed evidence envelopes that you ordinarily receive after blood is drawn from a suspect?

Yeah. It looks like it.

All right. Now I would ask that we focus in on the middle there.

Now, with respect to the instructions, can you read here--you've read, "Officer requesting withdrawal of blood shall." You see that?

Yes.

"1, enter the date and subject's full name on the label of the vial from this envelope and give the vial to the person withdrawing the blood."

Yes, I can read that.

"2, instruct the person withdrawing the blood to; A, use no alcohol or other viable organic disinfectant on the subject's arm; B, completely fill vial in your presence; then C, initial the vial label; and D, complete the affidavit, the below affidavit." Am I reading correctly?

Yes.

"3, when the vial is returned to you, enter your initials on the label and shake the vial vigorously."

Yes.

"4, when the affidavit is completed, sign below--sign below it as a witnessing officer and seal the vial in this envelope using completed sealing evidence labels."

Yes.

All right. Now, could we--could we circle the word "Seal" and print this out?

Well, the jury will have it. Well, go ahead. Or do you want to put a check mark by no. 4 so you don't obscure all the small words?

Thank you.

Unless you have a highlighting function.

I think if he moves over to the very, very bottom, he can just underline "Seal." No. Actually in the line--and also in the line above where it says "And seal the vial in this envelope." Okay. Thank you.

Now, "Sealed evidence labels" refers to what?

I would take it that that refers to the seals that we use to seal our envelopes, although you're questioning me in an area that's not my responsibility, and--and I have no part in that.

Mr. Yamauchi--I understand.

Well, I'd like--I move to strike his last answer and maybe we can move on then, your Honor.

Overruled.

I'm just asking you for a definition based on your knowledge of LAPD procedures. "Sealed evidence labels," that refers to those red or yellow labels that we have seen on evidence items?

That's what I would take it to refer to.

Okay. Now--

Your Honor, I would now like to display People's 183.

All right. Let's clear the--

I think that's upside down.

That's upside down.

Now, let's move in on the bottom half from "Officer requesting withdrawal" down.

Now, do you recognize this to be a picture of the envelope that contained Mr. Simpson's blood vial?

It's kind of hard to read, but I recognize the name of the nurse that corresponds to the vial of blood and my notes.

And can you see now that this box we're focusing in on now refers to the affidavit of the person withdrawing blood?

I can read that affidavit, "A person withdrawing blood."

And it indicates that Thano Peratis, the nurse, gave the blood vial to Detective Vannatter?

Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is hearsay at this point.

Sustained.

Also beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Isn't it your normal experience, Mr. Yamauchi, that after a police officer gets a vial of blood from the Parker Center from the nurse and delivers it to you in one of these envelopes, that it is sealed in accordance with the instructions on the envelope? Isn't that what you normally see?

Objection. That's two questions, your Honor. It's compound.

Sustained.

Isn't it--I have to ask it again.

Would you mean not pointing at me like that?

I was pointing--I'm sorry, Mr. Yamauchi. I was actually pointing at the screen. I wasn't pointing at you.

Okay. Thank you.

My apologies. I'm pointing at the document.

All right.

Isn't it the normal practice--withdrawn. Isn't it your normal experience that evidence envelopes containing blood vials from suspects that have been drawn at the Parker Center and hand delivered to police officers and then brought to you are sealed in accordance with the instructions on the envelope?

Well, like I was stating before, usually we're getting these items out of our evidence--our ECU, that's our evidence control unit. It is kind of rare that we receive them in this fashion, but evidence is received before it's booked. It happens sometimes.

Your Honor, the printout I'd like to have marked as Defendant's 188.

1188 I believe.

1188. I'm sorry.

May I approach the witness?

Section 4 of your DNA protocol is the one concerning evidence handling?

Yes.

And does it not indicate that the only evidence items that will be processed on a walk-in basis will be those items that are received from a detective/officer that has completed the proper transfer of items into the evidence control unit, ECU?

That's what it reads there.

And if something goes through the--such as a blood vial were to go through the ECU, it would be sealed in addition at the ECU?

Yes. If it goes through the normal procedure. Keep in mind also that it does state at the beginning of that protocol and procedure manual that these are guidelines and not meant to be taken step by step and that--as we know, this type of business requires different situations and different ways to respond to the situations. And this was a special situation. So I would say it's slightly out of the norm, but it's okay.

Well, is it okay for a detective to receive a blood vial at 2:30 in an envelope that's unsealed, take it up to his office, have coffee and drive it out to the scene--

Objection, your Honor. It's argumentative.

Sustained. Beyond the scope of this witness' testimony as well.

Now, you were asked on direct examination about removing blood from Mr. Simpson's blood vial on June 25th. Do you recall that?

Yes.

Now, have you reviewed the records in the serology item description notes and the serology case summary sheets that refer to the withdrawal of blood from Mr. Simpson's blood vial for purposes of conventional serology testing?

I think I'm referring to that right now. I believe we're referring to the same note page.

All right. Are your note pages marked by l numbers?

No. Mine don't have l numbers on all of them.

Is this it?

Yeah, it looks like it.

And this one that's--okay. All right.

Your Honor, may I have these two pages marked as Defendant's--

1189.

All right. Maybe we ought to--1189-A will be the serology item description notes and 1189-B will be the serology case summary sheet.

Are you with me, Mr. Yamauchi?

Yes.

Okay. Now, the serology case summary sheets indicates--reflects conventional serology testing performed by you and Greg Matheson between June 24th and June 28th or let me put it--let me withdraw that. You were requested to do it on June 24th. You started the conventional serology analysis on June 25th and it was completed on June 28th. Please refer to the sheet if that would refresh your recollection.

Yes.

And this represents one conventional serology run done together by you and Mr. Matheson?

Yes.

And to perform these conventional serology tests, what do you do with respect to the blood from the suspect; in this case, Mr. Simpson?

Could you be more specific?

Sure. Is the actual way that you perform this test, to wet some threads in drops of blood and then use that for purposes of the electrophoresis that goes on in conventional serology?

Well, generally speaking, that's--that sounds about right.

Is that how it was done in this instance? And I'm referring here to 1189-B.

Well, when I did the reference bloods, I--I did pretty much in that fashion what you just described.

All right. And to your knowledge, did Mr. Matheson do a duplicate test on this or did you both just do one test?

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Well, he--he did all the ABO and duplicated anything I might have done. I did the screening of the bloods. When the evidence came in line, he did the samples and I loaded them on the gel and ran the gel.

So how many threads were created as reflected in 1189-B for the conventional serology tests between both yourself and Mr. Matheson from Mr. Simpson's blood vial?

I'm not sure because I wouldn't have created them all--you mean just the ones that I would have made?

Well, looking at the test results, how many threads would have to be created to generate the results that are reflected on 1189-B?

At least two I'd say.

All right. And so you did one and Mr. Matheson did one?

No. I--I would have done two. There's--wait. One, two--I would have used--excuse me--at least three for doing that analysis.

And how many threads would Mr. Matheson need to do his analysis if any additional were needed?

Let's see. At least one more.

All right. Now, you don't need three-quarters of a milliliter of blood to make four threads, do you?

No. But when you're doing the forward and reverse typing for the ABO, you need a decent quantity because you want to get separation between the blood cells and the plasma. So for that purpose, you need a little bit better volume.

You need as much as three-quarters of a mil?

That might be on the high side, but it's approximately.

Now, do you recall that--you know a criminalist named Mark Taylor; do you not?

Yes.

And you recall that he visited your laboratory at piper tech on January 18th, 1995 with myself, Mr. Blasier, and an individual named Dr. John Gerdes?

Yes.

And you recall that we took pictures that day of Mr. Simpson's blood vial?

Yes. I recall that.

And you recall that Mr. Matheson was present at that meeting when we took pictures of the blood vial?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Yes.

And at that meeting, did--was there not a review with you and Mr. Matheson with respect to each entry on the blood vial that reflected someone from LAPD entering into the blood vial and removing blood?

Objection. Calls for hearsay, speculation, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

They were discussing some things and pointing here and there at--I don't know for sure exactly what they were talking about.

You weren't part of that conversation?

Objection. It's vague as to those conversations.

Sustained.

You said there was conversation you didn't understand?

Yes. They were talking next to where mark had the camera set up, next to those hot lights.

There's an entry on the blood vial on--for June 25th that Mr. Harmon asked you about on direct examination, right?

As to June 25th, 1994?

Yeah.

Yes.

Your initials are on the vial as somebody that entered it and removed it?

Okay.

Is that true?

Well, I would have to see that. I--that's something I would do, but I mean, it sounds like you're making a statement of fact.

Well, I'm asking. Are there not--is there not a--on the blood vial itself, an indication that on June 25th you, as reflected by your initials, entered the vial to remove blood?

That sounds like something I'd do. I'd have to see the vial to make sure.

Well, Mr.--don't you recall Mr. Harmon asking you questions about that entry on direct examination?

Whether I initialed it or not?

Whether you removed blood from the vial on June 25th.

Of course I remember him asking me that, but you were talking again about my initials and stuff like that on there and the date.

When--do you recall Mr. Taylor, others in the room questioning you about how much you took out of the vial on June 25th when we visited the laboratory on January 18th?

Objection. It's hearsay.

Overruled.

I don't remember them specifically asking me, but if they did, I would have referred to my notes.

Do you have notes?

Yes.

Of the meeting?

Of the meeting, no. Of my notes for the serology item description notes.

Did you tell Mr. Taylor and the others in the room that you just took blood for threads, a drop or two, and you put back into the tube the blood that you didn't use?

You didn't say that?

Nope.

Did you say that you only used a drop or two that would be, at the most, .05 milliliters?

.05 milliliters. No.

You did not say that about the amount of blood that you withdraw from the tube on June 25th, that you just took a drop or two constituting at most, .05 milliliters?

If they were asking me how much I took to make the threads, I might have said that. But overall, I took more out because I had to do the ABO typing also.

My question is, did you tell Mr. Taylor and others in the room that you took just .05 milliliters to make threads when you went into the vial on June 25th?

Do you have as you sit here today an independent recollection of how much blood you took out of the vial on June 25th?

Looking back on my notes, I have approximately three-quarters of an ml.

All right. And there is nothing--you're looking now at the serology case summary sheet?

Serology item description notes.

Right. That's 1189-A, the one we were just talking--the one I just showed you?

Was one or the other.

And that note reflects one three-quarters of a milliliter being withdrawn, correct?

Yes.

But there is no notation in any notes of Mr. Matheson taking three-quarters of a milliliter on June 27th?

Objection. That calls for speculation, hearsay.

Sustained. Sustained. All right. Mr. Scheck, we need to take a comfort break for the jurors. We'll take a five-minute comfort break. All right. Any jurors that want to step into the jury room, feel free to do so. Don't go away.