Item no. 42 is the sample taken from the area under Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?
And one of the arguments that the Prosecution is using to say that your test results on the nail scrapings are something other than they are--
In your report that you prepared after your analysis, you determined that item 42 was inconclusive, correct?
Inconclusive to me means that there's not a conclusive decision or conclusive statement that can be made about the results.
Isn't it--doesn't it mean scientifically that you can make no statements about the source of the stain when it's inconclusive?
Well, I would not--I don't report an inconclusive result. So yes, I would not make a statement about the source based on an inconclusive result.
Now, but in this case, you're asking to make some conclusion about the source of the stain, of 42, even though it's an inconclusive, aren't you?
Now, on your final report, when you reported your findings on 84-A and B, does your report say B asterisk?
Now, do I understand that it's your position now from your testimony that you're asking that--or you're stating that the B is something other than a B?
I'm not saying that the B that I observed is anything other than what I am seeing, and that's the two bands in the B area. I'm merely stating that there is possible other explanations in addition to it being a type B.
Now, all of the other serological results that you've testified to, you testified that your results are accurate or you believe they're accurate, correct?
Is there any other tests that you did where you got a reading or a result that you reported that you're asking us to accept as being inaccurate except that one?
I'm not stating that this one is inaccurate. I'm just stating that there is an alternate explanation for what I'm seeing on the gel.
And what you're saying is that in your opinion, sometimes something else can look like a B that isn't a B, correct?
I believe that we have been running EAP as part of a system for--well, it was in existence when I started doing my testing, which was in 1982, and I believe it had been being used for a few years before that, two to four, six, something like that.
Can you give me just a real rough estimate of the number of cases that you've worked on where you've done an EAP test?
Okay. The chart that I prepared of tests that I run did not include the EAP. I can give you a rough estimate based on some of the other markers that I've done.
And I would say that I have run somewhere between, oh, probably 14-, 1500 and about 2,000 items for that marker.
According to our statistics that we use, it's approximately 50 percent of the general population.
And would it be fair to infer from that that of the approximately 1500 times you've done this test, roughly half of them would come back EAP B?
And have you testified in Court before about EAP results that have come back as a B?
And of course, in these approximately 750 cases, I assume you've written reports that have said, "I tested it. Looks like an EAP B to me," correct?
Not in all those reports, no. I do include that disclaimer when the EAP is a source of elimination or exclusion in a sample.
Have you testified in Court where an EAP B happens to be the type of the suspect and also the evidence you've tested, that it's an EAP type B without giving that disclaimer?
Like I just mentioned, I will put that it's a B unless it's an exclusion of some type.
Can I take that as a yes, you have so testified in cases that an EAP B result is a B when it incriminates a Defendant without saying that it could have been a BA?
Now, as I understand your argument that this B that you found is something other than a B is based on two things; one, scientific literature?
You testified yesterday that one of the reasons you're here to say that a b--that this B might have been a BA is because of the scientific literature, correct?
And one of the other things is that--that you're using--that you testified to is that because sample 42 has the same findings or similar findings as 85 and since 42 appears to have come from the victim, then, therefore, the fingernail--the blood under the fingernails may have come from the victim as well. Have I got that right?
No. I believe the other reason that I use is personal experience in both this case and other cases.
Have you ever kept track of your research or your case work on EAP systems where you have this phenomenon developed when you have a B that might be something other than a B?
So is it fair to say that your personal experience is based on anecdotal information?
And this will be 1141. This will be slide a and this will be a through G, your Honor.
Now, Mr. Matheson, when you conduct an EAP test, the final product of that test is what's called an electrophoretogram, correct?
And that's a picture of where the bands ended up on the gel after you did the test, correct?
Now, the EAP system, as you testified before, has three possible alleles or results that you can get in terms of the component that might come from one parent or the other, correct?
Now, if someone inherited the B characteristic from both parents, then they would appear as a B?
And if someone interpreted the a characteristic from both parents, they would be an A?
And that's basically how it works, and the same thing would apply if you got a c from one of your parents?
Now, the way you determine what an EAP type is is by looking at the bands on the gel to see where they stopped when you turned the current off, correct?
And you've seen--you've seen these slides before. We looked at these yesterday. Do you recall that?
And the slide that's up there now is a--is your electrophoretogram for run number 7310, correct?
Now, I might indicate that--we talked about this yesterday--sometimes the slides when you scan them in the computer don't pick up all of the nuances of the banding patterns, correct?
Well, that's correct, yes. Some things may not show up as well being projected like this and looking at the original photograph.
And we have the original photographs, so we can look at those at some point, correct?
Now, I've drawn a box around a band--or I'm sorry--a lane in the middle of this electrophoretogram, correct?
And this is what's called a standard. In other words, you knew what this was before you tested it, correct?
And the reason you do this is so that you can look at your unknown evidence that you're testing and--well, let me rephrase that. The reason you do this is because you want to see if the test worked okay. If this comes back the way you expected it to, that's a good indication the test worked?
Now, this particular lane in the middle, this BA standard, came back the way it's supposed to, didn't it?
Now, I've drawn boxes around the various bands in that standard, and there are four bands, correct?
Now, I've removed the picture from the background so it's a little bit easier to see. Those four bands are called b-1, a-1, b-2 and a-2, aren't they?
Now, I've colored them in so that they're a little bit easier to distinguish. Now, if someone is an A, they're going to have two bands located at a-1 and a-2, correct?
If somebody is a B, you would expect to see two bands, one at b-1, one at b-2, correct?
Now, you--would you agree that if you saw that particular banding pattern depicted on slide F, that's a BA?
It's a rough graphical demonstration of it. It has a little bit of a problem in that it doesn't indicate the intensity differences in the bands.
Okay. Well, let me ask you about that. The--you talked about how the intensity of a band might affect the reading, correct?
Now, c bands, which are not on this diagram, correspond in position to the B bands, don't they?
So that you can have a c with a banding pattern that--that is at the same space as is on the electrophoretogram as the B, correct?
And one of the ways that you tell the difference between a c and a B is by the differences in intensities of the various--of those two bands, correct?
--is to tell the difference--look at the difference in the intensities or brightnesses of the bands.
Now, if you're talking about comparing an a and a B, however, none of those bands overlap, do they?
So if your universe is limited to an a or a B, band intensity is irrelevant, correct?
What is the effect of band intensity on telling the difference between an a and a B?
Well, as far as telling the difference between the two--I'm sorry if I misunderstood your last question--it doesn't make a difference. It does make a difference when evaluating the sample and whether or not you call it, because--
Again, except for the fact that the b-2 is the more intense and would be larger and the b-1 is less intense.
All right. You need to, for the purpose of the record, let me know which one you're bringing up.
And correspondingly, the column on the right, that's what an a would look like in terms of the position of the bands?
Now, Mr. Matheson, this is a picture of the electrophoretogram that contains the fingernails; is it not?
Now, this has a lot of little dots and things on it that are extraneous results that sometimes come up in these tests, correct?
That's correct. The dots, the round dots that you see are not related to the EAP or the information from the samples.
I'm going to make it a little bit bigger so we can look at it a little more carefully.
Now, let me--let me back up a little bit. When we saw the picture of the electrophoretogram, it looked like it was a little bit bowed down at the sides, correct?
Quite a bit. And that happens sometimes as a function of the way the test is done, correct?
Because you can--you can adjust the bow to figure out where the bands are and essentially straighten it out in essence to figure out which bands you're looking at, can't you?
Now, the bands that I boxed there are slightly out of line with the standard because the electrophoretogram was bowed a little bit, correct?
And would you agree that the boxes that I've put around the bands are--are the bands that you read when you did this test?
In the case of 84-A and 84-B, those are two bands that are visible that are not the only parts of that area that are taken into account.
And next slide, please. Now, we've taken the background out to give it--so you can see it a little bit better. And that's N. Now let's do m.
Your Honor, I am going to object at this point on the grounds previously stated.
I've indicated that the bands from the fingernails are bands b-1 and b-2, and that's the bands that we saw on the electrophoretogram, correct?
For those items under the 84-A and 84-B, that's correct. They're--roughly where they are don't take into account the curve and they don't take into account the intensity differences.
Right. And if we adjusted the curve, those bands under 84-A and 84-B would line up with the standard B bands and the standard BA, correct?
Now--and as you read in your report, the fingernail--I'm sorry--as you reported in your report, your reading of that test was that the--both fingernails from both hands were a type B, correct?
And that was slide P. Let's go to Q. Now we're back to our standard BA in Q. Let's go to R. Let's go to s.
Part of your testimony the other day concerned the manner in which a BA can degrade, correct?
Now, if you have a BA, you would have the banding pattern that we have up on slide S, correct?
Again, not taking into account the intensity differences, but that's the locations of the bands.
Now, I want you to assume for purposes of the hypothetical that the degradation that occurs when a BA degrades involves bands disappearing from the top down.
Mr. Matheson, let me ask you about some of the scientific literature. You referred to an article by Grunbaum and Zajac in your direct testimony. Do you recall that?
And you were provided with a copy of a number of different articles the other day; were you not?
Oh. Are you familiar with an article by Dr. George Sensabaugh entitled "the utilization of polymorphic enzymes in forensic science"?
I have read this article and there is information in it that--regarding the EAP in general, is one of many references that I have referenced in relation to the EAP system.
Did you do any research at all before your testimony on the rate at which, according to the scientific literature, a BA degrades to a B?
Well, there was three or four articles that I read that related to degradation of EAP in general and many of them reference one particular way that it degrades.
As mentioned earlier, one of the ones that I've read is this article that you presented before me. I also read an article entitled "Erythro Acid Phosphatase and Bloodstains" by Wraxall and Emes.
Yes, it is. And I also referenced a book called "The Source Book," "Source Book and Forensic Serology, Immunology and Biochemistry," and I also read portions from a book called "Forensic Science Handbook" by Richard Saferstein.
Are you familiar with a technical note by a T.E. Yeshion, Y-E-S-H-I-O-N, titled "Thermal Degradation of Erythro Acid Phosphatase Isoenzymes in a Case Sample"?
And have you ever reviewed and considered an article by R.A. Fisher and Harry Harris titled "studies on the separate isoenzymes of red cell acid phosphatase phenotypes A and B"?
Now, other than the Grunbaum article--incidentally, let me show you a copy of that and ask if this is the article that you testified about the other day.
Other than the Wraxall article, the Yeshion article, the Grunbaum article and the Sensabaugh article, are there any other scientific articles that you have reviewed specifically to look for how a BA degrades?
I believe I mentioned two other references, something that is commonly called "source book" and another textbook by Saferstein.
Now, I was talking about articles devoted to that topic specifically rather than textbooks.
Most of the articles make reference to the fact that degradation does in fact occur and that as a rule, it tends to go from the anodal or the faster bands down towards the cathodal or slower bands.
Would you agree that those articles stand for the proposition that at the first stage of degradation, you lose the a-2 band?
Sensabaugh, Zajac, Yeshion and Wraxall, those four articles, would you agree that the results of their scientific tests are that the first thing to disappear is the a-2?
They do tend to point out or point out that the most labile or the first one to go is in fact that fastest a-2 band.
So after that first stage of degradation, your BA is going to look like the right-hand column of slide t according to the scientific literature, correct, this scientific literature?
Now, those articles also state, do they not, that the next stage of degradation is, you lose the b-2 band?
Well, it assumes that there's only one degradation route, a fact not in evidence.
So you would agree, would you not, that these articles indicate that the next stage of degradation you would see if you had a BA that was degrading, you would see two bands, the b-1 and the a-1 band?
Under the conditions that those studies were run in, yes, that is the general route of degradation.
Now, those studies further indicate, do they not, that the next thing to go when it degrades is the a-1 band, correct?
So, therefore, according to these articles, a BA that's degrading will ultimately, before the last band disappears, have the b-1 band there, correct?
Again, according to the conditions that those samples were treated and under the conditions they are run, that is the degradation route that's referred to.
Would you agree that under that degradation route, you never have the pattern of a BA that's degraded that has both the b-1 and the b-2 bands without the a-1 band?
Again, given the things I mentioned before, the conditions of the samples in those studies and the system they used for identifying it, that is true.
And in this case, your test results showed both the b-1 and the b-2 band without the a-1 band, didn't they?
So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?
If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.
Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?
KEY QUOTENow, none of those articles that we--that we've talked about--the reason cited in those articles for doing these studies is to find out how a BA degrades, correct? That was one of the purposes of all of these articles?
Well, it's known that it does degrade. So, yes, the purpose of those articles potentially among other things, because they include other bits of information, is to determine one of the ways that B or an EAP will degrade.
And all of those articles talk about, you could misinterpret a BA or b--I'm sorry--you could misinterpret a BA for a B if you made a reading based on just that b-1 band at the end, correct?
And they all say that, therefore, you shouldn't make any reading at all if all you have is one b-1 band, correct?
But they say that you will not have a mistyping where you have a b-1 and a b-2 band because that would not be a degraded BA, correct?
It's going to take me a few minutes to look. I believe they say that that are things that may happen, but--
They do say that you can accurately read a BA and a B as long as there are two bands present. In other words, you can read a B if there are two bands present accurately, correct?
Sustained. Actually when you say "they," I think you need to specify which articles.
Do any of the articles say that you should not call a B where you have both the b-1 and b-2 bands?
Do they all say that you shouldn't make any call at all if you only have one band?
Now, I wanted--you also testified that item 42 had the same appearance, the same reading as the fingernails, correct?
Now, you recognize slide a up there as being the one we were talking about with the standard?
--that the lane just to the right of the standard lane is item--I'm sorry. Actually it's--to the left of the box is item 42?
Now, let me show you a photograph. Does this appear to be a photograph of that same electrophoretogram?
And item 42 appears in that electrophoretogram as it does in the slide on the projector, correct?
Now, there is--you can pick up a little bit more in the photograph than you can on the slide, correct?
You can see some very, very faint banding patterns under 42 that doesn't completely show up in the slide, correct?
I think that's one we may have to have both up and have the jury look at the blow-up.
And would you agree that the lane for item 42 appears to have three very faint bands corresponding to b-1, a-1 and b-2, very faint?
Well, the b-1 and b-2, I believe I can see what are banding areas, very kind of fuzzy, difficult to read. There is kind of a brightish cloud in the a-1 region.
And the photograph of 1141-A1. Now, the very faint--can you see behind you on the screen up there? The very faint, fuzzy a-1 band is what I've got the light on, correct?
Well, there is some florescence in that area. It's not even really what I would call a band.
It's not--and that's one of the reasons that this was an inconclusive; is because those are not sufficiently well-defined bands to really make a type on, correct?
It was called inconclusive, right, because the bands that I visualized in there just were not what I would call clear-cut bands.
And let me show you a photograph of the fingernail slide. Does that appear to be a similar photograph?
And this would be 1141-J1. And I would like to put both of these on at the same time.
And the 42 again is the one that I have the laser light on now up on the big projector. Can you see that behind you?
Yeah. The light that I'm using on the large projector up above you is the 42 lane, correct?
Oh, good, we've got the arrow. Can we move the arrow over to 84-A and b? Right there.
Would you agree that the banding patterns for 84-A and B are much more distinctive than 42?
And that's why you read 84-A and B and did not report anything other than inconclusive for 42?
Now, your testimony the other day about 42 was to the effect that, since 42 was preserved under similar conditions to 84-A and B, therefore, you can draw some kind of an analogy between the results of 42 and the results of 84, correct?
I believe environmental conditions and the like was one of the things that we mentioned that is used in the total consideration of everything.
Now, one of the--the photographs that you looked at of Nicole Brown Simpson showed one of her hands under her body and one of her hands up exposed to the air, correct?
So those two were not under the same conditions in terms of drying or being in a pool of blood, were they?
And would you agree that if you follow the scientific literature that I've shown to you and that you've reviewed, that the blood under Nicole Brown's Simpson's fingernails cannot be a BA?
Would you agree that under the scientific literature that we've reviewed here, that the blood under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails cannot be a degraded BA?
If you look strictly at the literature and if the conditions under the fingernails are the same as the way those studies were done in the literature and the technique used to identify it was the same as I used in my testing, then it does not follow that degradation route, that's correct.
Given all of the considerations that I mentioned, they would all have to be the same, and if--like I said, in fact if it did follow that same degradation route, then it would have to be a B and it would have to come from somebody else.
Now, if you have test results that you think might be wrong or ambiguous, what are you supposed to do as a scientist?
Now, looking at EAP--well, if you do a PGM test or a DNA test, you're not looking at the same things as you're looking at in EAP, are you?
You're potentially looking at the same thing, but there are other factors, that's correct.
Nothing that you do other than an EAP test is going to give you an EAP reading, correct?
Well, that's correct, yes. I mean, only an EAP test is going to give you an EAP result.
So the only way that you could double-check that EAP test would be to do another EAP test, correct?
Well, theoretically, if they knew what caused the EAP type at the DNA level, you could do it that way. I don't believe there's a standard test for that right now. So the only way to reconfirm that result would be to run the exact same test again.
These fingernail scrapings were sent back to you by the Department of Justice for the purposes of doing another EAP test, weren't they?
Because it's our evidence. The evidence belongs back here when they're done completing it so it could become part of the rest of the case.
Did you ever consider doing a retest of those fingernail scrapings, an EAP test, to see whether your original results were wrong?
I felt that there was other tests that could give more information. I did not want to consume any more of the sample just to repeat the exact same thing again.
So you've done no retesting to demonstrate whether this EAP is anything other than a B or someone other than Mr. Simpson, correct?
There has never been any other testing I--excuse me. I have not repeated or done any other EAP testing, that's correct.
Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?
if it did follow that same degradation route, then it would have to be a B and it would have to come from somebody else.
I considered it, yes... I felt that there was other tests that could give more information. I did not want to consume any more of the sample just to repeat the exact same thing again.
And the scientific term for that is schmutz, isn't it? Actually, I don't think I've heard that term, but-- Mr. Scheck told me.