Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. The record should reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Blasier, you may continue.

Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, may I display the exhibit?

You may. Have we marked this yet?

I don't think we have.

1139.

1139.

Well, that may be the max there, Mr. Douglas, on this one.

Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you just a few more questions about the blood vial, and I want you to assume again hypothetically that there was originally eight milliliters of blood in that vial. Do you have that in mind?

Yes.

Now, your records indicate--the business records indicate that on June 14th, Collin Yamauchi withdrew approximately one milliliter, correct?

And I'm afraid this is much too high. Can you reach that, take off the one ml.?

Mr. Cochran, for the purpose of this presentation, I would suggest we move this over here so it's actually more--

Your Honor, actually that's the only one I can't reach.

He's seen it all already.

Let's put it here.

Thank you, your Honor.

It will be easier to work with.

Now, Mr. Matheson, do you agree that, following our hypothetical, that as of the 14th, after Mr. Yamauchi withdrew his approximately one milliliter, there would be approximately seven milliliters left if you started with eight?

That's correct.

Now--now, the toxicology records that we talked about indicated that as of June 20th, there was 5.5 milliliters remaining, correct?

Approximately according to the records, yes.

And there were no other withdrawals between Mr. Yamauchi's withdrawal on the 14th and when toxicology did their analysis on approximately the 20th, correct?

That's my understanding, yes.

So you would agree, would you not, that if that is the case, that there were approximately 1.5 milliliters of blood unaccounted for that Mr.--gone from Mr. Simpson's reference tubes?

Argumentative, unaccounted for, your Honor, calls for conclusion, speculation.

Rephrase the question.

Do you know where that 1.5 milliliters went, Mr. Matheson?

Assumes facts not in evidence, argumentative.

Overruled. Rephrase the question though.

Would you agree that, according to your own business records, that if there were 5.5 milliliters of blood remaining on the 21st and there had only been one milliliter taken out of that blood and you started with eight, there would be 1.5 milliliters unaccounted for?

Improper hypothetical.

Overruled.

Also argumentative as to unaccounted for.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

1.5 milliliters less in that tube than you would expect?

Now, the next withdrawal that your records indicate is on the 25th, and that would be--I'm sorry--the withdrawal for toxicology, would you agree that the records indicate that that micro centrifuge tube which holds 1.5 milliliters maximum was taken and some of that was returned?

I'm sorry. I don't understand. You mean some of the tube or some of the blood in the tube?

No. I mean--let me do that one again. The blood vial that you've examined that we saw in the picture has that micro centrifuge tube back in it, correct, with the vial?

And there's still some blood in that micro centrifuge tube, correct?

Yes, there is.

And that originally as a maximum would have held 1.5 milliliters, correct?

Correct.

And according to Mr. Yamauchi's notes, he estimated that there was approximately three-quarters of a mill left, correct?

That's what he recorded, yes.

Now, would you agree that, therefore, toxicology would have used approximately, at a maximum, about three-quarters of a milliliter?

At a maximum, yes.

Now, if we remove three-quarters of a milliliter, we're now down to roughly 6.2, 6.3; would you agree?

Approximately, yes.

All right. Now, the next withdrawal was Mr. Yamauchi on the 25th for purposes of ABO typing and other serological typing, correct?

Yes.

And his records indicate that he took approximately .75, correct?

That's correct.

Now, I'm going to take down .70 to be conservative, even though it was .75.

I object to that being conservative. That's an under estimation.

Sustained. Rephrase that.

Well--

That's argument, counsel. Just take it down.

Okay. I'm trying to figure out how to get to .75 here, your Honor.

This is approximately .05. Would that look like approximately .05? Very small amount, isn't it?

In relation to the rest of your bars, yes, it is.

All right. And if you remove .75, according to the business records that you've referred to, that would leave at that point approximately 5.5, correct?

Yes.

Now, you indicated at that point that you took--there was a small thread of just a couple of drops by Mr. Yamauchi on or about the 27th, correct? Correct?

That misstates the testimony.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

On the 27th or thereabouts, Mr. Yamauchi took an extremely small amount for a thread for electrophoresis, correct?

And that requires almost nothing, correct?

Well, the threads themselves require very little, but you do have loss in what's in the spot plate and what's in the pipetter.

Okay. Now, the Defense was allowed to take one milliliter in September, correct?

And that's in--and there are records of that; are there not?

They were given approximately one milliliter, that's correct.

Now, you indicated that at some point, you took out some blood, but the amount is not reflected in any business record anywhere?

That's correct.

So as far as the business records are concerned, in terms of what's written down and when there are withdrawals, when there is an amount indicated, under the hypothetical, if-- incidentally, have we taken off everything to account for all of the withdrawals where there is an amount written down?

I believe so, yes.

Okay. The only thing remaining is the one that you didn't write the amount down, correct?

That's correct.

Now, assume hypothetically again that on Sep--on January, when you measured the quantity of blood left in both the reference tube and the micro centrifuge tube, there was a total of 2.8 or--I am sorry--2.6 milliliters. Do you have that assumption in mind?

Going off that assumption, yes.

Would you agree that under that hypothetical, following just the business records of withdrawals, that as of January of 1995, there would be a total of approximately 1.9 milliliters of blood unaccounted for?

Object to the phrase "unaccounted for" as argumentative.

Sustained.

Unaccounted for by the business records.

Well, it's still argumentative.

Overruled.

If you're referring to only those that are specifically recorded and not taking into account what is left in pipettes, but actually what was delivered in certain areas, then that's an approximation, yes.

And by your earlier testimony, in terms of the number of swatches, if you could get 150 swatches out of 1.5 milliliters, you could get correspondingly more swatches out of 1.9. Would you agree with that?

Yes, given the hypothetical.

Now, the only other withdrawal that we know about that you've testified is the one that you did where you did not write down any particular amount, correct?

As I'm sitting here right now, right, that sounds correct.

And you indicated that you started with a half to one milliliter, that's your best recollection?

I would say I used a minimum of a half mill and it could be as high as one.

And according to what you had told us before, you don't recall it now, but you put it back?

Well, I remember making that comment.

I'm sorry. What you didn't use.

That's correct.

And you used approximately six to eight drops?

For--that is the amount that would actually be consumed in the test. That is not the amount that would not make its way back to the vial.

Okay. There are other amounts that were clinging to the side of the microcen--of whatever, pipette or whatever you used to remove the blood, correct?

Okay. And you--now, you indicated I think a couple days ago that rough estimate on what might have been caught on the side of the tubes was a quarter of a mill, .25?

It's a rough approximation. It's possible.

Now--and the seven or--six or eight drops accounts for approximately how much?

As far as--

How many milliliters?

Well, if we're using 20 as an approximation, the number drops per mill, that's a little less than half a milliliter.

Little more than a quarter?

Yes.

So if we say, therefore, then approximately a quarter to half is lost on the sides of the containers and is used up by you and you took out one to start with, that would reduce the total amount of blood in the vial by half a milliliter; would you agree?

In that instance, yes. That would be an approximation.

And if we remove a half a milliliter, we have now accounted for all of the known withdrawals that are recorded anywhere from Mr. Simpson's reverend sample, correct?

That's argumentative because it was based on the hypothetical.

Sustained.

Hypothetically. Under our hypothetical we've been talking about, we've accounted for everything that, under the hypothetical, was taken out of Mr. Simpson's reference tube, correct?

Well, you've accounted for everything except for--you know, we gave this situation of the approximate amount that would be left in the vial that I worked on or the centrifuge tube that I worked on. We have not taken into account--excuse me--every other transfer device or measuring device that is done by other people; example being, when we gave a milliliter to the Defense on the date of I believe it was September 30th, there is going to be some retained in that. We delivered approximately a milliliter, but there is going to be a little bit more. And every time you open the cap up, there's blood clinging to the inside of the cap. You set that down normally with a chem-wipe, blood is going to be lost into the chem-wipe at that point. So there's constantly little bits that are going out just in the process of handling, and that has not yet been taken into account.

And these are--when you say approximately one milliliter was removed, that means it could be less too, correct? All of those approximations could be lower?

Well, in relation to the one that Mr. Yamauchi did on my transfer of the amount that I provided for the Defense, that was done with a calibrated pipette. So one milliliter was delivered then plus whatever adhered to the tips and to the vials and that type of thing would have been not returned.

With the other entries, withdrawals that your people did, those are estimates and could be slightly less than a milliliter, correct?

They are approximations, yes. They could be either slightly less or slightly more.

So would you agree under the hypothetical that as of January, taking into account all of the other withdrawals that we talked about, there is still approximately 1.5 milliliters that is not accounted for from the records and from your recollection of the withdrawal?

Argumentative as to "accounted for."

Overruled.

I would say that it is probably less than that because the other factors I mentioned like losing it in the handling, opening the tube and the pipettes and that type of thing.

We can take this down.

Now, Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you some questions about the blood found under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails. Do you have that in mind?

Yes, I do.

Now, is it true that in homicide cases, particularly homicide cases involving some form of assault, physical assault, it is routine to collect the fingernails of the victims?

Yes, it is.

And the purpose for that is that the victim, possibly in an assault case, might fight back and might scratch someone and, therefore, get biological material like blood from the perpetrator under the fingernails, correct?

That's one of the reasons for collecting them, yes.

And there's even more reason to do that if you have a--an assaultive situation where the victim has defensive wounds on his or her hand indicating a possible struggle?

Argumentative, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

No foundation for this witness' opinion.

Sustained.

In any event, those are routinely taken for purposes of determining whether you can identify a perpetrator's blood under a victim's fingernails, correct?

Asked and answered.

Overruled. Is that correct?

Yes.

Now, as I understand it, that was done in this case and you conducted an examination of the scrapings from under the fingernails of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

That's correct.

And there were scrapings taken from both hands under all the fingernails on each hand, correct?

Yes.

And the numbers that we've used to designate those are 84-A and B, correct?

And that's the evidence item number that was used and the number that you've used in your lab for your testing purposes, correct?

Yes.

And 84-A is which hand?

Referring to my analyzed evidence report that lists those items, 84-A is the left hand scrapings, 84-B is the right hand scrapings.

And the test results that you got from running an EAP test were that the blood under those nails on both hands was a type B, correct?

That's what the results were, yes.

And there was no one in this case that you have identified that has an EAP type B, correct?

That's correct.

Mr. Simpson doesn't have an EAP type B, does he?

No, he does not.

So would you agree then that if your test results are accurate, that there is blood under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails from someone other than Mr. Simpson?

And that's the results that you reported out, was a B, correct?

Well, that misstates his reports and his findings.

Overruled.

Along--that's correct, along with an explanation alternative. (Brief pause.)

Mr. Matheson, let me show you Defendant's--I'm sorry--People's 218. Now, that was--you testified that that was your analyzed evidence report stating the results of your testing on the fingernails among other things?

No, it is not.

There's another document that is actually your report, correct?

No. This is a report on a completely different set of items.

Have you been shown your report on the fingernails?

I have that sitting in front of me in my notebook. It isn't what you handed me.

May I have a document marked, please, a three-page document titled "analyzed evidence report"?

1140, Mrs. Robertson?

Yes, your Honor.

All right. 1140, Mr. Blasier. Why don't you compare that with what Mr. Matheson has in his notebook.

Dated 9-8-94.

This was already introduced, your Honor.

What--

Let me--I thought that that was the other three-page report.

I think it was 218, your Honor.

That's what we just looked at.

Mr. Matheson has 218. He indicates that is the wrong report.

Well, no. What I have in front of me is two pages that are marked as 216 and a third page that is 218. It's a mixture of my two sets of reports.

All right. Why don't you take a look at that, Mr. Blasier. They appear to be paper-clipped together, an unusual clerical--

I think maybe probably accidentally we got reports mixed up yesterday or the day before.

Well, I think there's one report that has only one--

Your Honor, I would like to still have this marked as 1140.

All right. What is it, Mr. Blasier?

It is an analyzed evidence report dated 9-8-94.

All right. So marked. Proceed.

Mr. Matheson, let me show you a document titled "analyzed evidence report" dated 9-8-94. Is that--that is your complete report for the analysis of these items including the fingernails, correct?

It is a copy of it, yes, with some areas that have been blacked out.

Now, let me show you Prosecution exhibit 218. What is that?

This is the third page or a copy of the third page of that analyzed evidence report.

And that was not provided to you at the time you were asked to testify about your report by the Prosecution, was it?

It's vague and also not relevant.

Sustained.

Have you testified about page 2 of that document at all yet in this proceeding?

Not relevant.

Sustained.

Take a look at page 2, please, for me.

Okay.

Now--

When you say, "that document," are we talking about 1140?

Yes.

All right.

When you do a test such as the test that you did on the fingernails, you have what are called work papers, correct?

There are electrophoresis work sheets, yes.

And those are documents that you fill out while you're doing the actual bench work; you write down your observations of what you think the results are and how the test is done and that sort of thing, correct?

Yes, it is.

And after you do that, you prepare a final report from those bench notes, correct?

The--actually the bench notes of the--all of the different electrophoresis runs that are associated with the case then are placed onto what we call a summary sheet, which brings all the results from all the tests together into one place along with some of the observations, and the information from the summary sheet is then transferred onto the final report.

And the summary sheet is your final reading of typing for tests that you've done, correct?

It lists, yes, the final readings.

Your Honor, I would like to display this on the elmo. We need to--may I put this on the elmo?

May I just have one moment, your Honor, before--

Your Honor, I would like to object to the showing of this report as it is being done right now.

What's the basis, the legal basis?

It contains inadmissible evidence and--and inadequate foundation. I articulate it.

Let me see counsel at sidebar. Let me have--let me see the document.