Now, Mr. Matheson, you were also asked about an article by the name of--by the authors of Zajac, Z-A-J-A-C, Grunbaum, G-R-U-N-B-A-U-M, and Crim, C-R-I-M; is that correct?
And is this an article that came out after the one that we just discussed, the Wraxall and Emes article?
And is this the article that previously you testified said that: "inherent characteristics of the EAP system give rise to the possibility of very serious errors in phenotyping on other than fresh blood, especially if the history of the sample is not fully known"?
--did they make reference to the Wraxall and Emes article that you were asked about on cross-examination that we just discussed?
And did they distinguish the Wraxall and Emes article as dealing with a different situation from the situation that they were discussing in their article?
Can you read for us what they said in order to distinguish Wraxall and Emes from their article?
Yes. In referencing the Wraxall and Emes article they followed that up with stating: "apparently the blood stains they used were prepared under laboratory conditions and the history and drying and preservation were well-known."
And in Grunbaum were they trying to give an idea as to what would happen to wet samples that were not prepared under laboratory conditions?
Well, in the article what did they say? What kind of stains were they dealing with here?
Okay. The comment they made is that: "the preparation of their blood samples were done in such a way to simulate the diverse conditions which may take place in actual case work submitted to a crime lab."
Now, with respect to the--their article, did they identify the same degradation route that you just described that was discussed in the Wraxall and Emes?
Did they say--how did they characterize--can you read for us how they characterized the problems of misidentification that occurred in this particular study with the samples that they created?
It states: "the problem with misidentification of the samples in this study was not due to weak or indistinct band patterns, rather, discreet bands were present and readable but they had been altered to indicate erroneous phenotypes."
KEY QUOTEWell, again, that the system has degradation problems and that multiple bands can be read still and misinterpreted.
Could I see 1141-G, Mr. Harris? Is that possible? And then I want to see h and i.
Okay. I want to go back to the Wraxall and Emes article and the degradation route that they discussed. What does this represent when we are looking at the BA block diagram?
It also represents the general location of the bands of a type B though in neither case does it give any sort of indication of the intensity differences.
And then let's see--let's see. This is H. Can we see u? When you said that they don't give an indication of the intensity differences, you mean what?
Well, that is one of the ways of determining the types, is particularly between a B and a C, is how intense certain bands are, and these are just all being blocked as approximately the same size, as opposed to the People's chart on EAP which does define the different intensities by the different sizes of the bands.
Now, can you tell us what we are looking at here in terms of the degradation route?
That you lose the bands from the anodal side or the positive side towards the cathodal side or the negative side, the low side.
Can you orient this just verbally in relationship to the People's chart, the six EAP diagrams on the block diagram just to show us how the two would interrelate?
If you--excuse me. If you were to turn the chart that is being projected up ninety degrees to the left so that the arrow would indicate the origin or the cathodic side.
It is the final step in the degradation route that is described in the Wraxall article where what originally started out as a BA, the only thing that is left is the b1 band.
But are you saying that this degradation route that you were asked about is not the only one that you have seen or that is in the literature?
Now, the--another one of the articles, the three articles that you were asked about, was the Yeshion--excuse me. Let me ask you about the Sensabaugh article first. Did the Sensabaugh article contain a broad base study of the phenomena of EAP disintegration or were they looking at only one stain when they discussed this degradation route, the one that we just saw on the Defense?
It appears by reading that article that when they are referencing that degradation route that has been described in the Wraxall article that just two bloodstains were used, one of a type B and one of a type BA.
All right. And then finally the Yeshion article that was referenced. Did the Yeshion article contain what purported to be a study of the phenomena of BA disintegration to B?
It was a technical note regarding the degradation of a B to a CB. I don't know if it then carried on to a C, but the a allele was not mentioned.
So Yeshion was not actually studying--did not purport to be studying the BA to B phenomenon to say--
Now, with respect to all four of the articles that we have mentioned so far, the Wraxall and Emes, the Grunbaum and Zajac, the Sensabaugh and the Yeshion article, considered together did you take those articles as some sort of a cautionary statement to the forensic analyst with respect to the EAP system?
And that is having--every one of them indicates that the EAP enzyme, unlike the other ones, does in fact degrade and that a degradation can lead to mistyping so you have to be careful about how you interpret EAP results.
Now, when you were asked about the Wraxall and Emes--well, let me ask you another question first. This book that you alluded to during your direct examination, what was the book?
And was there a particular portion of that book that you referenced in particular in forming the opinions that you expressed on the witness stand with respect to the BA to B phenomena?
Maybe you can give us a page number because I believe counsel may have a copy of that?
Well, it is chapter 8 that starts on page 338. The area that we are referencing, I believe the paragraph starts on 369, and concludes on 370.
And did Wraxall--did Mr. Sensabaugh, in this chapter that he authored, mention the Wraxall and Emes or what we have discussed as being the Wraxall and Emes degradation route?
Well, he makes reference to the stabilities of the isoenzymes, the different types. One quote here is that: "the a isoenzymes are the least stable and the c isoenzymes the most stable, thus one might expect the a bands in BA and ca types to be lost before the B or c bands are lost and this in fact has been observed."
"in typing aged type BA bloodstains, for example, only the major B band, the anodal B band, may be apparent and the temptation would be to type the sample as a B to avoid error of this sort. Empirical rules for typing interpretation need to be invoked since it has been observed that in aged BA bloodstains the slow B band is generally lost before the fast a band. The controlling rule is to withhold judgment on a putative B type until both B bands are apparent. If the sample is in fact a BA type, the major a band should be apparent by that time."
Now, did Mr. Sensabaugh identify any particular degradation route that is different from the Wraxall and Emes degradation route?
I feel that this article or this--excuse me--this paragraph actually mentions a couple of different routes or discrepancies between the possible ways the degradation can occur.
Well, in one sentence he states that: "in type aged type BA bloodstains, for example, only the major B band or the anodal B band," this is the anodal or the one closest to the anode side, as opposed to this band, which is the cathodal or the closest to the origin, "may be apparent." he is saying that at some point it is possible that only the major bands or the brightest band might be present.
In their study they saw the degradation route so that the cathodal band was the last one that was apparent.
Let's just cover up the a bands for a moment so that we can make them understanding. On the BA chart forward I have just put the covers back over on the a band on the BA phenotype.
So according to the Wraxall and Emes study, they are saying that which band would remain after the sample had degraded?
In that one portion there he makes reference to what he calls the major B band--excuse me--or the cathodal B band or--excuse me--the anodal B band may be apparent.
And does he say that these degradation routes, that it always occurs in either of these two ways?
Does he say that--that these are general ways that they happen, that this is how it generally happens?
So in interpreting that, did you, as a forensic analyst, take that to mean that this is the only path, degradation path, that this marker will take, or that this is one of the degradation paths that this marker will take?
How did you take that term, that this generally, generally take these two paths?
On reading that paragraph and the discrepancies between the different types, it indicates to me that there may be more than one way that degradation can occur.
And did you take the totality of the articles and the book that you just referenced, and also the source book that I think you referenced earlier in your cross-examination, as providing some sort of cautionary statement to the forensic analyst when trying to type a B and distinguishing it from a BA?
Again, in general, that this is an enzyme that has degradation problems and you just have to be careful about the interpretation of the results.
Did anything that you read in these articles, Mr. Matheson, cause you to change the statement that you made initially on your analyzed evidence report that you could not exclude the possibility with respect to the fingernail scrapings it was a BA that degraded into a B?
Did anything that was brought up during cross-examination by the Defense cause you to change the opinion that you have offered on direct that probably the samples underneath the fingernails were a BA that degraded to appear to be a B?
What was your opinion, your bottom line opinion, when you considered all of the facts of this case as you are aware of them, including the photographs of where the victim's body was, the pool of blood, item no. 42, and the other tests that you did? What was your opinion as to the fingernail scrapings?
Well, the result does not change. I did see a B, but in considering absolutely everything, I would have to say that it is a likelihood that the blood that was found under the fingernails were in fact from Ms. Brown and had degraded. But again, I cannot totally eliminate the possibility that it is a b.
Okay. Now, did anything that was brought up during cross-examination cause you to change that opinion or reevaluate that opinion?
Now, sir, with respect to resolving this issue, is it possible to look at a control study from the scene?
I don't know if it totally resolves it, but it does lend credence to the possibility that you have degradation occurring.
If--if you are typing or if you test another blood sample that is of a known source or that you believe to be of a known source from the scene and it shows a similar type of degradation that you have seen in the past and experienced and that that possibility exists in your sample, then I believe it is important to take that into consideration.
Now, is this idea of looking at a control study, such as a pool of blood underneath the victim, something that was reflected in science--in forensic science literature, that you considered prior to your testimony here?
Well, I had that opinion prior to this; however, I have read an article that enforces my opinion about that.
Okay. Specifically, sir, did you look at an article by Bruce Budowle and Robert Allen entitled "electrophoresis reliability, the contaminant issue"?
Now, sir is this dealing with the EAP issue, per say, or is this dealing more broadly with various contaminant issues in electrophoresis and problem resolving in electrophoresis?
It is dealing with electrophoresis reliability in general, not just with the EAP.
Can you tell us--can you read for us the portion of the Budowle article that suggests looking at a control study from the scene and trying to provide more information about what is happening at the scene?
It starts with: "furthermore, the competent and experienced forensic scientists do not work in a vacuum. It should be stressed that the analyst gathers as much information as possible regarding the case," then in parenthesis, "and potential influence such as contaminant" close paren, "to evaluate properly the data obtained from evidentiary material. More importantly, in reality, an ideal control study is naturally provided to forensic scientists. This is the electrophoretic analysis of victim's blood on victim's clothing and other substrata. The blood shed by a victim onto his or her own clothing and surrounding substrata is exposed to the same myriad of environmental insults as other questioned stains submitted to the laboratory for electrophoretic analysis. The accuracy of electrophoretic typing of the questioned sample can be independently verified with the victim's whole blood."
And sir, what was your interpretation of that in terms of using a control study to resolve issues as to what is happening in a crime scene?
Well, that confirmed a policy that we have had as far as collecting a known blood sample from the scene from each of the victims and that information from that can be used to consider information derived from other samples.
And sir, is that why in expressing certain opinions in Court on direct examination regarding this EAP issue, you considered test results on the pool of blood underneath Nicole Brown, item 42?
Now, Mr. Matheson, when you considered those test results on 42, were those test results inconclusive?
And were you reporting those test results--let me wait until we put the board up. Maybe it will make it a little easier.
Okay. Directing your attention to the item that says 42, "blood under Nicole Brown," under the EAP column it says, "inconclusive B very weak"; is that correct?
And were you reporting this inconclusive result for the purposes of suggesting that it was correct, in other words, that the blood was in fact a type B blood?
I'm sorry, my terminology was wrong. When you were testifying about this result, were you testifying about it for the purposes of suggesting that the inconclusive B was--was a direct result in the sense that the blood really was a type B?
So what was your purpose in considering this and testifying about this and giving your explanations about the EAP results under the fingernails?
Okay. The inconclusive, like I mentioned, no activity would be you are not seeing anything on the gel. A result that is reported is a definitive result, it is what you are seeing occurring on that gel. An inconclusive falls somewhere in between. It is a pretty broad range. It could be just almost possible to call but you are not quite sure, there is something about it, or it could be something that is very vague, just kind of a blurry occurrence. In this case I observed what I thought might be a B, it wasn't good enough to call. I am not going to say for a fact that it is a B, but it occurred in an area and on a sample that we are assuming to be from a particular person and thus of a particular type. We know her for a fact to be a type BA and the fact that this is an inconclusive B shows that there is something going on with this blood and with the sample and that the results should be interpreted carefully.
Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark two more exhibits and they are similar to--in fact, just smaller versions of the ones that the Defense marked.
When you were talking about item no. 42 just a few moments ago, what is the purpose of collecting that item again?
So sir, when you were saying that you were assuming that that is the victim's blood, that is based on what?
Sir, I would now like to show you People's 224-A and 224-B. Showing you 224-A first, what is that?
224-A is a copy of a photograph of my electrophoresis run, no. 7309, which contains, among other items, the fingernail scrapings, 84-A and 84-B.
224-B is another photograph of a photograph of electrophoresis run no. 7310 which includes, among other things, the results of item no. 42.
Now, on 224-B for identification, I would like to perhaps if I could put it on the elmo and then maybe pass it around, but I would like the witness to write something on it first.
Could you identify for us, just by writing on the bottom of the photograph, where 42 is?
It is in position 4 and putting an arrow up from the bottom above the number "42."
And is one of the reasons that you considered this, that logically a pool of the victim's blood should contain the victim's blood?
It gave a weak result that eventually ended up being called inconclusive, but I saw the two B bands very, very lightly, kind of fuzzy clouds in the areas where you would expect to see them.
Okay. You need to go up, move the arrow to the left, now to the right. It can lay right on top of that other band and that is pointing right into the lower B band. That is fine. Right there, (Indicating).
If you go directly above the arrow that was previously placed by two bands, go up, up, up, down a little bit, right about in there, (Indicating), is the other B band.
I know it is hard to see on the elmo, Mr. Matheson, but when you look at this plate, do you see any distinct band pattern in either of the two a regions?
I see something that has kind of a band-like appearance. It is not a good band. If it was, I would have had called it.
All right. Now, assuming this is in fact a BA, using the Wraxall and Emes degradation route, if we assume that were the only degradation route, would you expect to see this?
Because if this is in fact a BA, as you are assuming, then I would expect to still see that lower a band in addition to the two B bands.
Now, Mr. Matheson--by the way, how many years do you have of experience in total looking at these banding patterns?
And you are saying that there are only two distinct--I'm sorry. You didn't see two bands but only two band-like patterns on this object.
I'm seeing what appears to be two very weak band-like appearances in those areas. This is a very weak sample, difficult to read.
Your Honor, with the Court's permission could we show this to the jury, because the resolution on our elmo isn't that great?
And just before I show them, Mr. Matheson, so that the--so that we know what we are looking for, you wrote a 42 on the lane that represents 42; is that correct?
Pointing up? And the--well, maybe we can also pass around the printout, too, so that they can just compare.
I object to the printout being passed around. I have no objection to the photograph.
Your Honor, perhaps with the Court's permission, I might be able to ask a couple questions.
Your Honor, I would like to mark as People's next in order 225 and I may also be marking a 224-D later on, but as 225, a document that says "electrophoresis work sheet."
Mr. Matheson, while he we are waiting for the printout, can you just tell us what l-387 is?
L-387 is a photocopy that actually is slightly crooked, cuts off part of the left-hand column of one of my electrophoresis work sheets that corresponds to photo no. 7310.
And on this particular work sheet you called item no. 84, the fingernails, as a B what?
A B question mark inc for inconclusive. The second reading on that was a na for no activity.
I just want to perhaps put this on the elmo one more time, if I may, before I give it to the jury. This is 224-B. I'm not going to mark on it or make a printout.
Now, sir, between the--in the arrow--the arrow is pointing to an area that I guess on the photograph would be about a quarter to a half of an inch above it that is sort of a bright band. Where is the band that we are looking for in relationship to that?
Do you see these very, very bright hash marks that go all the way across the bottom part of the photograph?
And there is one of those hash marks--there is an arrow that has no. 42 and the arrow is pointing to one of the hash marks?
42 is directly above the arrow. It is a lane about three eights of an inch wide directly above the arrow.
Thank you. I'm sure hash mark probably wasn't the scientifically correct term, but--
Your Honor, could we approach for one moment off the record while the jury is looking at this?
I would have to say that it is a likelihood that the blood that was found under the fingernails were in fact from Ms. Brown and had degraded. But again, I cannot totally eliminate the possibility that it is a b.
We know her for a fact to be a type BA and the fact that this is an inconclusive B shows that there is something going on with this blood and with the sample and that the results should be interpreted carefully.
The problem with misidentification of the samples in this study was not due to weak or indistinct band patterns, rather, discreet bands were present and readable but they had been altered to indicate erroneous phenotypes.
The controlling rule is to withhold judgment on a putative B type until both B bands are apparent. If the sample is in fact a BA type, the major a band should be apparent by that time.