Mr. Matheson, let me again show you--

Hold on. Let the Court reporter sit down.

Let me again show you 1136-A and I want you to look at the top of that vial between the purple-topped cap, the glass. Can you see that?

Yes, I can.

And do you agree that there appears to be blood smeared on the purple-topped cap in that position?

There does appear to be small quantities of blood on the cap, yes.

Now, when you withdraw blood from a reference tube such as that, you don't pour it out, do you?

No.

You take a pipetter and put it in the blood, take the blood up into the pipetter and then take it out, correct?

Correct.

And the proper procedure is to do that presumably without spilling the blood all over the vial, correct?

Of course you try and be as careful as possible.

And that is the standard procedure that is used any time a trained person like yourself removes blood from a vial like that, correct?

That's correct.

Your Honor, the elmo doesn't portray this very well. May I have the jurors view these pictures?

Yes.

If you will just hand them--as soon as you finish looking at them, hand them to the next juror so that we can speed this up just slightly.

All right. Mr. Blasier, would you collect those items from Deputy Smith, please.

Now, Mr. Matheson, I think you testified that from your measurements there was 3.8 milliliters as of what date totally remaining blood?

I believe that was September 21st. Yes, on September 21st, approximately 3.8 milliliters.

And that included the blood in the microcentrifuge tube, didn't it?

Yes, it did.

Now, on September 30th a sample of that blood was released to the Defense, correct?

I will confirm that in my notes.

Let me show you a record.

Yes, that's correct, approximately one milliliter was released.

And those are your notes made in the regular course of your work, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And when you released that one milliliter to the Defense, you used a graduated pipette, did you not?

Well, I used an automatic pipetter that draws up one milliliter.

So you can determine one milliliter from using a pipette fairly precisely, can't you?

Yes.

Now, when you measured the amount of blood left in January, that was around the time of our visit to the lab, my visit and Mr. Taylor's and Mr. Scheck's, correct?

Approximately, yes.

And you provided us with the total measurement of Mr. Simpson's reference sample at that time, did you not?

I believe I did. I seem to remember making a copy of something.

Okay. And I want you to assume hypothetically that there was 2.8 milliliters of blood left at that time. Do you have that hypothetical in mind?

Improper hypothetical.

Overruled.

Your Honor, I would like to use another exhibit at this time.

Not at this point.

May we approach?

No, we have already had our discussion on this. Proceed.

Mr. Matheson, between the taking of that reference sample on June 13th and the time that you measured it on--in early January, are there any other records, business records of your agency or the Los Angeles Police Department of withdrawals from that reference sample?

There are no records that I can recall in addition to the ones that we have talked about, other than what is implied by the testing that I did, and I did not specifically record that I had withdrawn a certain amount.

So that you are aware of no other withdrawals from the business records of--from that blood, other than the one you just alluded to?

As I'm sitting here right now, I would--to be absolutely positive, I would like to go through all of the pages and notes that were between that time frame.

But you reviewed all the notes in preparation of your testimony, haven't you?

I have reviewed many notes, yes, it is quite voluminous.

And you have known for quite some time that the issue of how much blood was taken out of that tube has been an important issue, haven't you?

Vague, argumentative.

Overruled.

Yes, I have been aware of the issue.

Your Honor, I would like to use the exhibit.

Foundational problem, as I indicated to you. You can use it when there is one more piece of the exhibit. Proceed.

May I have a moment, your Honor?

Mr. Matheson, every time something is taken out of that reference tube, initials are put on the tube; isn't that correct?

Whenever somebody uses that tube in some way, as far as testing or removal of a sample, they are supposed to initial it, that's correct.

Let me show you again exhibits 1136-A and B and 1137 and ask you to tell me each and every initial that is on that blood vial.

Okay. I see one as mentioned earlier that was L.M.F.

That would be for toxicology, correct?

That's correct. There is what appears to be an initial above that that I don't recognize. I'm not even sure I can read it. Above that on the tube are my initials with the date 6/27/94 and then there are--above that appear the initials of Collin Yamauchi of 6/25/94.

Mr. Matheson, let me stop you for a second. And would it help you to look at a record of all of those initials in your handwriting?

Sure.

I apologize. I think this might be easier. Is that a business record in your handwriting?

Yes, it is.

And that is a recordation by you of all of the entries or initials on that blood vial, correct?

No foundation.

Overruled.

Under business records exception.

Sustained on the business--are you going to use the record or using this to refresh his recollection? What are you doing?

Let me ask you: Did you make that particular document in the regular course of your business?

Yes, I did.

And you did that at the time when you were actually looking at the blood vial and the paperwork to determine what was on the vial?

Yes.

And you wrote it down as you did it?

That's correct.

Your Honor, could I--

No foundation.

You want to mark this as 1138?

Yes.

Objection, no foundation.

Overruled.

Now, let me show you 1138. And could you tell us from that record what withdrawals are indicated or what are all of the withdrawals that are indicated from that record?

Assumes fact not in evidence, that it indicates withdrawals.

Overruled.

Could list them in chronological order, please?

There is no information here that says when withdrawals were made. There are initials and there are dates. It doesn't specify what work was necessarily done on each of those times.

All right. Let me ask you a question: When someone takes blood out of that for purposes of doing work, they initial it at that time, correct?

That is one of the reasons, yes.

And they write down the date that they do that, don't they?

Normally. It is not required.

But if they wrote down a date there would be no reason why they would write a date different from the date they put their initials on this, correct?

Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Is that correct?

They shouldn't, right.

Okay. What are the recordations on that blood vial in terms of people having access to it and taking things out of it?

So I should--because there are references here that are not for when things were taken out.

Okay. Well, let's go through all of them and then we will pare them down.

The ones that I see on this record is the j-1477 L.M.F.

What is the date of that?

There is no date associated with that.

Okay.

G.B.M., 6/27/94.

That is you?

That's correct. C.Y. for Mr. Yamauchi, 6/25/94. And then a 6/14/94 C.Y. those are the markings that are on the tube itself, according to my record here.

Now, there are also markings on the envelope that the tube is contained in, correct?

That's correct.

And they also indicate when people initial on that envelope, correct?

That is some of the information that is here, yes.

And tell us what those entries are.

There is one that is C.Y. 6/14/94, a G.B.M., 9/30/94, followed with a notation "for split." then G.B.M. 1/4/95 followed by the notation "to determine quantity."

Is that in your handwriting--I'm sorry, that is the entry that you made, is it not?

Yes, it is. There is also a--as far as notations that appear on the envelope, also I have referenced here a note by Fung that says "received from Vannatter, 6/13/94."

Now, going back to the tube--your Honor, could I put that on the elmo, please?

Sure.

Now, Mr. Matheson--incidentally, your Honor, for the record, the highlighting is mine. I put that there. Mr. Matheson, the first entry for the vial is the--in terms of data is C.Y. on 6/14. That is Collin Yamauchi, correct?

That's correct, along with the no. 18.

And would you agree that that corresponds to the record that you've already identified as Collin Yamauchi's withdrawal on the 14th of approximately one milliliter for DNA testing?

Well, I believe that one milliliter was for swatching, yes.

For swatching, okay. And would you agree that the entry of C.Y., Collin Yamauchi, for 6/25 of 1994 corresponds to the record that you identified where he indicates three quarters of a milliliter taken for himself and the presence of the microcentrifuge tube with three quarters of a milliliter.

Calls for speculation, conclusion, opinion.

Overruled.

That entry is no longer visible on this screen, but yes, it corresponds to that time.

Okay. And the entry in your initials on the 27th, would you agree that that corresponds to the withdrawal that you made that you indicated you made no records of?

That I didn't record the quantity that was removed, that's correct.

Okay. And did you make any recordation at all about work that you did on the blood that you removed on that date?

There was an analytical notes, yes.

Do you have those notes here?

Yes, I do.

Could I take a look at them?

It is associated with a report that was written, completed on 6/28/94. There are--there is one blood analysis summary sheet, a blank or a not form page where I recorded some data, along with a serology item description notes and then some electrophoresis pages that actually cover a couple of different days.

Now, would you agree that that blood analysis work sheet was filled out by Collin Yamauchi, not yourself?

Actually we both have entries on here.

Okay. So you both did that same work at the same time?

Well, he started some of the work two days before on the 25th, and then I was involved and completed some of the work on the 27th and the 28th.

Then the three quarters of a milliliter he indicated on those records that you are referring to is what was taken out for the work that you and he did during that period of time, correct?

Misstates the evidence. It was--

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Is it correct that the three-quarters of a milliliter entry that you have already testified to about around that time, that is the work that you and he did that you just testified to?

It still misstates the evidence.

Sustained.

Is there an entry in the record indicating the withdrawal of blood from that vial for the work that you just testified to?

There is an entry of the work that he did, but there is no quantity mentioned for the work that I did.

So are you telling us that you took blood out of that vial to do work and made no entry anywhere of the withdrawal of that blood?

Asked and answered. Argumentative.

Overruled.

Do you agree that withdrawals of anything from evidence when you take something away from a piece of evidence should be fully documented?

Overbroad.

Overruled.

Not anything and fully documented, no. The fact that results were obtained on an item implies that we removed blood from that item. I described the item that is worked on and results are obtained from it. There is no reason to make exact notations of the quantity that is used, particularly in a liquid sample from a living individual.

Is there a reason to make any notation?

There is notation in that work was done on it and results were obtained.

Now, I think you indicated that that particular withdrawal was approximately one milliliter, correct?

I believe I gave a range, that it could have been from a half to one.

And how much actual blood do you need to use for the testing that you did? It is not very much, is it?

For the ABO test it would take about--the actual test consumes about six drops, the electrophoresis altogether probably doesn't even take a drop, but there are things such as a blood clinging to the sides of the pipettes and that type of thing, and that would be it.

Okay. Now, so the testing takes I think about six plus--six drops total?

Probably six to eight, somewhere in there.

And there are how many drops in a milliliter, approximately?

Approximately 20.

Now, you--the blood that you didn't use for that particular withdrawal, you put back, didn't you?

Not necessarily.

Do you recall talking to Mr. Ragle in about August at the time that he visited the lab about whether you put that blood back or not?

Yes, I do.

Do you recall telling him that you put the blood back?

I believe I said I thought I did, yes.

And so that if you put the blood back then all of it would go back into the tube, with the exception of the six or eight drops that you use, plus what might have clung to the tube?

That's correct.

And have you ever done any kind of test to determine how much would cling to the tube?

No, I have not.

Mr. Matheson, I want you to assume for purposes of a hypothetical that you started with eight milliliters of blood. Do you have that in mind?

Okay.

Your Honor, I would like to use the exhibit.

No. I still told you you have one piece of the foundation that is not there yet.

Your Honor, to save some time, may we approach?

Proceed. We've had this discussion, counsel.

All right. Mr. Matheson, for purposes of this hypothetical let's assume that eight milliliters of blood was drawn from Mr. Simpson on the 13th. Okay?

Okay.

And the toxicology records indicate that on 6/20 there was five .5 milliliters left, correct?

No foundation for the hypothetical.

He has testified on the record.

Assumes fact not in evidence.

Overruled.

Okay.

And the only withdrawal from Mr. Simpson's blood between the 13th and the 20th was Mr. Yamauchi's one milliliter, correct?

That's correct.

And would you agree that under that hypothetical with those figures, as of the 20th, there is approximately 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood unaccounted for?

Improper hypothetical, your Honor. Argumentative, no foundation.

Overruled.

Approximately that would be the difference between what toxicology approximated on their date versus what is being told to me and the assumption of starting with eight.

And approximately how many drops are in 1.5 milliliters?

Well, if we assume that there is approximately 20 in a milliliter, that would give us about thirty drops.

And one drop of blood, depending on the size of the swatch that you use, you can make at least five swatches, can you not?

Depending on the size of the swatch, sure.

You could actually make more than five, correct?

You can make four and you can make less, yes, or more.

So to--I'm sorry?

Depends on the size, yes, you could either make more or you could make less.

Given that hypothetical, yes.

Now, I think you testified on direct that blood that is collected in a vacutainer has a preservative in it called EDTA, correct?

In this particular tube, yes.

And that is a chemical that is put in there to keep the blood from coagulating, correct?

It is my understanding, yes.

And there are procedures that are available to determine whether that particular chemical is present, correct?

No foundation for this witness.

Rephrase the question.

Are you aware of procedures available called gas chromatograph mass spectrometry to determine the presence of that chemical?

I know that GCMS, which is the short version of the instrument you used, does exist, and it is used for identifying different types of chemicals and things. I don't know of any specific procedure and never been involved in testing for EDTA, but I would assume it can be done.

Now, hypothetically--

No foundation for any further questions along this line.

I haven't heard the question.

I'm sorry?

I haven't heard the question.

Hypothetically, Mr. Matheson, if blood from this case from an evidence item, such as from the back gate, showed the presence of a chemical EDTA, would you agree that that is consistent with it possibly coming from a reference vial?

That is improper hypothetical. It is inconsistent with the known facts.

Overruled.

As you stated it, if it was present and if it was able to be identified in it, it is possible that it could have come from some type of reference sample that previously contained EDTA. I don't know what the sensitivity limits are of the instrument or exactly how much EDTA is placed into a tube, but given the hypotheticals you just stated, it is possible.

And hypothetically, if there was the chemical EDTA found in the blood on the socks, would your answer be the same, that that would indicate that it may have come from a reference vial?

Your Honor, improper hypothetical. No facts, no foundation for it.

Overruled.

Argumentative.

Your Honor, I see Miss Clark is here. I wonder if we could handle that other matter now. I am getting close to that point.

Why don't you finish what you have here and we will take that up at our break.

Your Honor, may we respectfully request the Court's guidance on the use of an exhibit?

Counsel, we've had this discussion.

Mr. Matheson, do you have any information regarding the amount of blood that was originally drawn from Mr. Simpson?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

No personal knowledge.

Rephrase the question.

Do you have any personal knowledge of--do you have any information regarding the amount of blood that was drawn from Mr. Simpson?

As phrased, no foundation for personal knowledge.

Overruled.

The only information I have regarding that quantity was what I heard during the preliminary hearing.

And that was from the nurse who drew it, correct?

This calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

Do you have any reason to believe that the amount of blood drawn from Mr. Simpson was anything other than eight milliliters?

Your Honor, that calls for speculation and hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

All right. Let's proceed.

Your Honor, I am ready to move on to the next topic.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will take a 15-minute recess at this point for the jury. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We will see you back here in about fifteen minutes. Mr. Matheson, you can step down.

Thank you.