Sir, have you ever seen any evidence or indication in your entire work in this case of any of the evidence having been tampered with?
Have you ever seen any indication in this case that any report appears to have been altered or changed in a way so as to conceal the alteration; in other words doctored?
Have you ever seen any irregularities in any of the reports that you've come across in this case?
There have been some discrepancies that we've cleared up through proper channels with the issuance of what's called a 314, a report change.
Now, you were asked about whether detectives have kits to collect evidence. Do all the detectives in the department to your knowledge have kits to collect biological evidence?
To your knowledge, have all the detectives in homicide been provided with such training?
And you said that SID responds to only from 10 to 15 percent of the homicides in the city?
10 to 20 percent? So there would be nothing suspicious about a detective not calling SID, would there, to respond to a homicide?
Would there be anything unusual about a detective that decided not to call SID and simply collect the biological evidence himself?
Now, getting to the issue of crime scene processing a little bit, you were asked about a alternative light source. What's that for?
Well, the main use of it is similar to the laser. We particularly use it for looking for biological fluids such as semen.
Well, under intense light, which is what this provides, in certain waive length and wearing goggles to block out the background, semen fluoresces and allows you to detect it because it's basically, you know, colorless, it's hard to see just with your naked eye.
Would you have used an alternative light source in processing either the Bundy or Rockingham crime scenes?
Sir, based upon your training and experience and what you've heard of the evidence in this case, would it have been appropriate to use an alternative light source in the Bundy location?
I have not heard of a situation related to this where it would have provided any additional information.
As far as--it's available to criminalists to take out and use whenever they feel it necessary.
Now, at one point in the cross-examination, you were talking about putting a scale in photographs where there are bloodstain patterns. What does that phrase "bloodstain patterns" mean?
Well, it's a different evidentiary aspect of blood rather than just a stain. The pattern is how the stain or stains is deposited, the shape of them, whether or not there's what are called satellites, which is the part that drips off. It's the group of samples, the pattern that is created by the deposition of a blood--blood samples.
Well, is there a difference between a relatively symmetrical blood drop, round blood drop, I should say round bloodstain and a bloodstain pattern?
Sir, do you know whether there is a distinction between a symmetrical blood drop and a blood pattern?
What is your experience--do you have experience in terms of recognizing blood patterns in a field situation?
I have training and experience in recognizing patterns. I'm not trained to interpret them.
Are you also trained on how to photo document bloodstain or bloodstain patterns so that someone else can interpret them?
All right. And what is the distinction between a bloodstain, a symmetrical one and a blood pattern, as you understand it?
Well, blood pattern as a rule is several drops of blood forming a pattern or shape. A single drop can still have a pattern by its shape, but normally it's a scattering of drops or samples.
And is it more important when you're photo documenting a crime scene to put a scale where you have a pattern or just a symmetrical stain?
Well, the reason for the scale is to be able to interpret the pattern or give you an idea of the size and the shape of what's there. It's vital to the interpretation of a bloodstain pattern to have the proper scales in place.
Well, if there is never going to be any interpretation on it, then it can just be photographed.
Now, with respect to alterations that may occur at a crime scene, are those--can alterations be photo documented as well as documented in notes?
Well, there's a lot of different ways to document something. If you have two photos of a piece of evidence, the overalls to begin with, showing it one location and then a subsequent photograph before collection, it shows it in another location, it has been documented by that.
And, sir, if an alteration has been photo documented, in other words, if you have a before photograph showing what it looked like before the bodies were removed and you also have an after photograph showing any alteration that may have occurred after the bodies were removed, would there be any particular reason why it would necessarily--why you would have to also document it in the crime scene identification checklist?
Now, with respect to the glove that was found at the Bundy location, you did some testing on that; is that correct?
And are you aware of some evidence that has been introduced in this case indicating that the glove is in a slightly different location in the after the bodies were removed photographs as opposed to before the bodies were removed photographs?
And from a serology, forensic serology standpoint, does that present any problem?
You were also talking about collection of stains and initialing coin envelopes. Do you initial the coin envelopes in the field when you're collecting a stain?
When I get back to the laboratory and I've dried the samples out, placed the samples into a bindle and then the bindle is placed in an envelope, at that point, I fill in the rest of the information on the envelope.
And you were asked also about Andrea Mazzola's testimony. Was it your understanding of her testimony or did she say in her testimony that for collecting the stain, she uses non-serrated tweezers, smooth tweezers?
And is it your understanding, sir, that in the serology community, forensic serology community, it is acceptable at a crime scene to use clean instruments as opposed to sterile instruments?
Now, you also testified on cross-examination about a hypothetical, series of hypothetical involving a blanket. Do you recall that?
Are you familiar with the testimony in this case relating to a blanket having been placed over Nicole Simpson?
When you were giving your testimony as to the propriety of doing that, did you limit your answer to forensic, forensic reasons?
What would a non--just tell us generically, what would a non-forensic reason be?
Well, I'm strictly talking about the--the evidence itself as opposed to anything other--any other reason such as investigative.
"forensic" has to do with associating--like forensic science is science associated with the law.
Okay. Now, if you knew, sir, when you were--if you were processing a crime scene and you knew, in a situation like ours, that the detectives had in fact brought a blanket out and it was not original to the crime scene, would you have made any further inquiries about the blanket?
And do you have any personal knowledge as to what inquiries if any or what Dennis Fung's state of knowledge was as to the circumstances of the blanket being brought out?
Well, I probably wouldn't have collected it. It's just, you have a blanket that you know was placed over the victim. There's a lot of blood on it. All that blood is going to be coming from the victim. It was not there when the crime occurred. It was brought in from the outside. So for all of those standpoints, it has very little evidentiary value.
And you were also testifying about whether or not another team of criminalists could have been sent out to the Bundy location. Why wasn't that done?
Well, there's a couple of reasons. One is that I was informed by Mr. Fung that things were under hand, they did not need to have additional help out there. And also, as Dennis' supervisor and now manager, resources need to be allocated. This was not the only thing occurring in the city at the time. Our criminalists that respond to the field also have other casework responsibilities. And without some indication that help was needed, I think it would be inappropriate for me to pull people away from jobs they're doing on other cases to go out and assist on a crime scene.
Are there any advantages to having a team of two criminalists handling a single case if a crime scene--if two separate scenes appear to be related?
And that is continuity. You have--the same people dealing with both locations have an idea of what's going on.
Sir, is it your understanding--well, what is your understanding with respect to the advantages of conducting a crime scene investigation under daylight hours as opposed to nighttime hours?
Well, during the day, you've got daylight. You have natural light filtering in and around the scene. You're not having to limit yourself to artificial sources such as flashlights or spotlights or something like that. It's just better to see what you're doing.
In the case of the Bundy crime scene and the Rockingham crime scene, would a daylight search of the exterior be preferable to a nighttime search?
Well, like I mentioned, from criminalists' point of view, the evidence we're collecting from the scene, we want to get everything we can with the least disturbance. Having the Coroner's office come in and do whatever examination they're going to do with the body at the scene, wrap them up and remove it from the scene has the potential of disturbing evidence that's around that location. I would want--from my viewpoint, I want to get everything out from around it first.
Let's say assume hypothetically, sir, that you were processing the Bundy crime scene and you arrived at 7:00 A.M. how long would it take you to have collected all the evidence that was collected by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, if you can give us an approximation?
That would be a rough approximation. I--including location of the items, documenting the whole thing that's involved in the collecting process, I'd estimate somewhere probably between three and five hours.
So that means that if the Coroner were called after you completed your work, that would be sometime between 10:00 and 12:00?
So if there are two competing theories in this case, one that the Coroners weren't called fast enough, and, two, that the Coroners were called too soon--
Sir, do you subscribe to the theory that the Coroners weren't called soon enough?
Now, I would like to ask you a couple of questions that you were--related to topics of the Bronco. With respect to the collection of stains, if you're going to collect a stain--excuse me. If you're going to phenolphtalein a stain that you're not going to collect, that you've decided not to collect, you said you would not take a photograph or not necessarily take a photograph?
Not necessarily. If I have a stain that I don't know whether or not it's blood, I'm going to test it first. And if it's not, then it doesn't have any evidentiary value in relation to that. So there would be no reason to have a photograph of it, keeping in mind that we already have overalls of these items.
Okay. And as to the brake pedals, the phenolphtalein on the brake pedals, if you are not going to collect--if you've decided that you're not going to collect any stains from the brake pedals in the Bronco but you want to see whether there's any evidence that someone in the Bronco put their foot on the pedals, any of the three pedals, if that is the case, what problems if any would be presented by using a single swab for all three pedals?
Well, the problem would be, if you've got a positive--well, first, you're going to do a visual examination of it anyway. But if at that point, you're just doing a general swabbing, the problem would be, if you did get a positive, you wouldn't know what pedal it came from.
But if you were not interested in collecting it anyway, would that problem be as significant?
Well, it's still--it still would be a problem. It's a piece of information. It would be nice to know what pedal had blood on it so you can take a closer look and potentially collect something.
Okay. Would that be the same type of a problem as it would be if you decided that you definitely were going to collect something from the pedals?
Now, Mr. Matheson, is it your experience in the crime scenes that you have investigated and the ones that you've reviewed as a supervisor, that it is possible to do a perfect job of investigating a crime scene?
And, sir, is it your experience that using 20/20 hindsight, looking back at a crime scene, it is always possible to find areas of improvement or things that could have been done better?
Sir, when you're looking back at a crime scene, do you always find that there are things that could have differently--done differently or perhaps even better?
Yeah, there are many times on looking back I wish I would have done something different.
Now, with respect to Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung, their work in this crime scene as you heard about it during the testimony and from reviewing the reports, did they do a competent job in both crime scenes?
Well, sir, did you ever consider from a management perspective removing Andrea Mazzola as a participant in this case?
And did you ever have any questions as to the competence of the job that she performed on the crime scenes in this case?
Now, on the crime scene documentation, did you say that there were two areas where you felt that the crime scene documentation could have provided additional information?
Well, I believe I said there were two very distinct areas that stood out in my mind that I feel they very definitely should have filled out and didn't.
That the document was not signed and that it was not dated or timed as to when they left.
Because in my opinion, the evidence is the stain itself. As a matter of fact, my property reports used to always reflect, as you said, item number. The quantity in a bloodstain was always one. It said, you know, like item no. 4, one blood stain collected on cloth swatches.
And have the kind of accusations that are being made here, as to planting of biological evidence, been ones that you've ever--
Mr. Matheson, have you ever found it necessary or advisable to count swatches from the standpoint of being able to--be able to say that, "when we collected them, we had six and when we tested them, we had six"?
Because the idea of the number that was there to begin with versus the amount of the typing has never come up or been a problem.
Now, in terms of crime scene documentation, you were asked about a book called "Forensic Science" by Peter de Forest; is that correct?
And did you have the opportunity prior to your testimony to speaking to Dr. de Forest about crime scene documentation in this case?
And with respect to the use of a pencil for making sketches of the crime scene, does Dr. de Forest depose that?
Now, in terms of the ASCLAD book that you were asked about, when you were shown a portion that dealt with usage of pen versus pencil, do you know what the position of that organization is with respect to field notes?
Is there a difference between field notes and a lab report in terms of the degree of formality of the documents as they're used in your laboratory?
Well, field notes are just that. They are notes. They're what you are preparing out in the field as you're making observations. A formal report is the final product of--of the work that you've done.
Well, like I mentioned, we have been in the process for many years of trying to obtain ASCLAD lab accreditation. One of the things that's in there, and it's a good recommendation, is the monitoring of your employees and their Court abilities. One way to monitor a person's ability in Court is to go in and watch them. But for a supervisor to go to Court with every one of their employees and see how they do is just impractical. So the witness critique form was created so at those times that they're not observed directly, they can take them in and give them to the different parties and we can get some feedback in the laboratory as to what the different parties in the case felt of that person's performance.
Well, like I mentioned, we don't use the critique forms when, you know, supervisors--somebody goes to Court, in this case, we're being critiqued by many more people than even a from would provide.
And you said that you had watched some of the testimony in this case; is that correct?
Now, is part of the job of a criminalist, part of the job description, as it's used in your laboratory, that they are expected to provide expert testimony in Court on scientific issues?
Yes. As a matter of fact, it's part of our interview process so that the people know before they're hired that this is a part of their job.
And you talked about an interview that you and Michelle Kestler--I don't know if "interview" is the right word--but a discussion that you had where Andrea Mazzola was present and you gave--you talked about testimony and tips and the like. Do you recall that?
Do you have an independent recollection as to whether that was prior to when she started her testimony, during or after?
Did you or anyone in your presence ever try to put any pressure on her or suggest to her the substance of her testimony?
Now, you also testified on cross-examination about a team of Defense experts visiting the lab. Do you recall that?
Is that typical on a case, that a team of Defense experts gets to visit the lab half a dozen times?
Sir, was there one Defense visit that involved a Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf taking a look at evidence?
Sir, was there also an occasion on August the 26th that you've testified to that the Bronco in this case was searched again and certain items including the console were removed?
Now, you also testified about an Albany--about evidence that was shipped off to an Albany location?
Now, prior to that or on the same date that that started rather, was there a Defense visit on February the 16th in which Dr.--a Dr. Lee looked at certain items to your knowledge?
Now, was there also another incident where Dr. Lee looked at items including swatches from the Bundy trail in your presence?
And when he did that, did he use some sort of an instrument for the purposes of looking at those swatches?
Sir, is it your understanding that it is an accepted forensic practice to use clean--you've testified that it is acceptable to use clean, but not sterile tweezers; is that correct?
And you also testified that Dr. Lee is considered to be a widely known forensic expert; is that correct?
And when you saw him on this lab visit when he was examining certain items, did he use clean but not sterile tweezers?
Have you seen people who are well known within the forensic community, but not members of your lab using clean, but not sterile tweezers?
Now, with respect to the board that's just been put up, I believe it's People's 210 for identification, were these--these are certain items of evidence that were released also to the Defense, is that correct, that you released?
They were released to them. They were released in my presence. I didn't do the actual release.
And was this a--also in conjunction with a Defense visit or was this just an occasion where someone came, Mr. Ragle came to collect some evidence?
Sir, with respect to item no. 6, does the photo documentation that was done on the evidence, prior to it being sent to the Defense, indicate that there was no control--excuse me--that there was no hair in the control bindle?
And can you think of any way other than that hair having been deposited at Albany by someone from the Defense so it could have gotten in there?
Mr. Matheson, does the hair in that bindle constitute contamination as you first defined that term when you gave us your initial definition on direct?
And, sir, in this particular case, if the evidence were to show that 6 were tested and the control came back without any biological material on it, would that indicate that in this case, it didn't--the hair didn't have any effect on it?
Is there anything that can be done, sir, to determine whether this contamination in fact contributed biological evidence to the control?
Thank you. Now, as to the socks, you were asked whether photographs were taken before you did your cuttings. Did you find out that photographs were in fact taken before you did your cuttings?
Now, Mr. Matheson, how often is it in your experience as a criminalist that it has been difficult for you to recognize blood on either black or dark navy blue fabrics?
I'm not asking for a number, but is this something that happens, that does happen on occasion?
Well, there was a lot of work being done on this case and there were other items that we felt had a greater priority than something that on an initial, very brief examination, didn't appear to have any blood on it. So we sat that at a lower priority.
Now, sir, turning to another issue, different issue, with respect to PCR technology, you said that you are not an expert, do not consider yourself to be an expert; is that correct?
But just to get a sense of your level of expertise, do you know how to perform the test?
I have done it. It would take going back and rereading the procedures and, you know, trying to do it again. But I probably could.
In a classroom or learning context. I have never done it on casework or in our laboratory.
So you have some working knowledge of the technical mechanism of PCR although you do not consider yourself to be an expert in that. Is that a fair statement?
And what about with respect to the theoretical understanding of how this technology works?
And do you also have a theoretical understanding of genetics and DNA from your background as a serologist and the like?
The actual mechanics of doing it? I mean, I have read them during a classroom setting. I know how to in general do that, yes.
And have you read articles dealing with this technology in the scientific literature?
Now, with respect to the issue of contamination as it relates to PCR testing, have you read any studies--not studies at your own laboratory you did, but have you read studies dealing with that issue?
One in particular that comes to mind is one that was done by Dr. Budowle at the FBI.
Now, when you were testifying on cross-examination, at one point, you said that biological contamination, in other words, contamination of one type of blood with another type of blood would not change the type of the blood that was contaminated. What did you mean?
Well, you're not going to--the type of the blood isn't going to change. It will still be what it always was. That's the nature of the genetic markers that we deal with as a rule. So by introducing another one, it will not change it. It may overpower it or it may degrade it or something else as that, but it will not change it.
Okay. And you were talking about an incident in your lab in which there was a problem with you said "a lot of PCR kits." Did you mean "a lot" as in many or "a lot" as in one discreet series of kits that you received in a single shipment?
Well, I'm not even sure they came in a single shipment. "lot" in that term is used to indicate a series of items that are prepared at the same time using the same reagents.
And you said something to the effect that in this business or in the business of forensics, that contamination can occasionally occur. What did you mean by that?
Well, it is a reality. It's a sensitive test and contamination is a known situation that does occur in this sort of testing occasionally.
And you also talked about, you didn't consider it a problem because of the controls. I didn't understand your answer on that.
Well, contamination becomes a problem if it's occurring and you don't know it's happening. If you have controls in place that catch it, then, you know, that affects how you're going to read the samples or associated with that control. It becomes a problem, like I said, if it goes undetected.
And in this particular incident involving this "lot" of test kits, was it your understanding or to your knowledge was the problem in fact detected by the internal controls in the kits?
Now, is this a problem--maybe "a problem" isn't the right word. Is this issue with respect to the kits one that involved contamination in the laboratory as a whole or one that, to your understanding, involved an issue with respect to the reagents and the kits?
Just the information that was relayed to me by the criminalist that was doing the work.
Now, how many divisions within the Scientific Investigation Division deal with blood specimens? Are there any other than toxicology and serology?
Toxicology does and our blood alcohol unit deals with biological specimens and the serology unit does. As far as that go--you know, mostly criminal--at some point, if they're dealing with a field situation and occasionally narcotics will if they receive a bloody syringe or something. But as a rule, it's blood alcohol, toxicology and serology.
And are some of the procedures that are in place that you were asked about in cross-examination with respect to wearing gloves and the like for health reasons?
Are some of the precautions that you take for health reasons as well as preventing cross-contamination?
Mr. Matheson, to your knowledge, has anyone at the lab ever contracted any diseases from blood such as hepatitis or aids or any other type of disease?
Now, is it your understanding and from your testing that there is blood at the Bundy crime scene location that is consistent with Ronald Goldman, Nicole Brown and the Defendant?
And is there any principal of natural sciences that you are aware of that could somehow result in a situation where the Defendant's blood or the Defendant's saliva could selectively contaminate all five of the dots at Bundy, yet not any of the specimens that were identified as being consistent with Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?
And you were also asked about the evidence processing and drying that takes place. Based upon your understanding of that process, is there anything in natural sciences that would explain how flaking or chipping from the Defendant's--from a sample of the Defendant's blood, if it even occurred, if it were to occur hypothetically, could somehow selectively contaminate the five Bundy drops, yet none of the controls in those drops and not the victim's blood?
Sir, is there any magnetic or any other physical property that you're aware of that could be associated with the five drops from the Bundy location that would somehow cause the Defendant's blood to contaminate only those five drops, yet none of the controls nor any of the other biological specimens from the victims?
Can you think of, sir, any principal in natural sciences as to how the Defendant's blood could contaminate the five Bundy drops, yet not the controls?
And you were asked about wiping down counters between samples. Why is that not necessary in your judgment?
Because you are--if you're following proper procedure, your samples that you're dealing with are not touching the counters. It's--you know, they're being transferred--if we're talking about specifically as it's being packaged, they're being transferred from the package they come in into the final bindle and they're not coming in contact with the surface of the counter.
Now, sir, in terms of the drying process, is there any advantage that Dennis Fung's process of using the test tubes has as opposed to your practice of not using test tubes, but allowing the samples to dry only on the--on the plastic baggies?
Well, the way he does it, the swatches confined within a glass tube, if that glass tube is labeled in such a way and that there is some way that that box happen--if we had an earthquake or something and the box fell out of the counter or whatever, if the samples happened to get no longer placed on top of the package they came in, then his are trapped inside of the glass vial with a label on the outside, odds are, they're aren't going to fall out. With the way I do it, potentially if that box is seriously disturbed, the swatch is more open to the air and has a more likely chance of getting jostled around and mixed up.
I like my procedure because it opens the sample up more, allows air to get around it and, you know, through it and allows the samples to dry more quickly. So there's a trade off with either one of the techniques.
Is that your understanding generally with respect to evidence collection, biological evidence collection, that there are a number of different ways of doing it?
And that there are advantages and disadvantages to a variety of these different ways?
Now, with respect to--assume hypothetically, Mr. Matheson, that all the substrate controls with respect to the evidence in this case that was tested tested negatively. Would that demonstrate that not changing gloves between each sample did not create a problem?
And if you assumed hypothetically that all the substrate controls typed negatively, what would that demonstrate with respect to not changing paper between each item?
Well, if the controls all came out clean, it would indicate that the technique that was used was proper, there was not transfer between the samples.
And also assuming that hypothetically, those substrate controls type Back negatively, what would that say about using clean versus sterile instruments at the crime scene?
It would indicate to me that the process is sufficient, that it does the job it's supposed to do.
And what would it demonstrate with regard to the method of handling or processing the evidence for drying and packaging that was used in this case?
Same thing. The controls are there to try and detect any problem that might occur, and if all the controls are clean through the process, then apparently the process worked.
Now, sir, I'd like to turn to the issue of this vial of blood, item no. 17, that you've been asked about on cross-examination. When you were--you were given a vial of red colored liquid yesterday by the Defense; is that correct?
After pouring--I was supplied with the vial and with a graduated tube. After emptying the contents of the vial into the tube, I measured the quantity to be seven and a half milliliters.
Well, not with a real great vengeance, but I did tap it on the top and tried to get as much out as possible.
And what do you believe accounts for the difference between 7.5 and 8 milliliters when you measured it?
Well, if I can assume that they were accurate, that there was in fact eight milliliters in that tube to begin with, you could still see some left in the vial that was difficult to shake out to add to the measurement. And if there was a--I measured seven and a half. That means what couldn't be shaken out was about a half millimeter.
Actually a little bit higher than I would have thought. But there's always going to be some that is going to be retained.
Well, it is thicker and it is not as runny or as thin as water. It has some body to it.
And if a full milliliter of water would stick to the inside--I'm not sure "stick," but adhere to the inside of a vial when it's dumped out, would you expect that there would be more than a milliliter of blood that would adhere to the vial as completely dumped out?
Sir, would you expect that upon dumping out a vial of blood, that more would adhere to the sides than upon dumping out a vial of water?
So if we assumed that the vial did in fact have eight milliliters of water and that a milliliter adhered to the sides of the tube, you would expect that if it had been blood, it would be more than a milliliter?
Assuming there was eight, it ended up being seven and an half, if it was blood, I would anticipate there would be a little bit more.
Now, you were asked about items no. 59 and 60 and shown some photographs, the reference vials of the victims' blood and shown some photographs indicating that there was some smearing of blood on them. Is that unusual when you receive blood from the Coroner's office?
Okay. And when you are opening up a vial of blood yourself for the purposes of commencing ABO or electrophoresis analysis, how do you open it up?
Okay. The process that I use, first, I'm wearing gloves because I don't want to get any of the blood on me. I take a chem-wipe, which I described before, it's a kind of a scientific tissue, and wrap it around the stopper of the tube and then grab the stopper through the chem-wipe, lifting it out, popping it out. I normally put it away from me so if there's any chance of any of it splattering a little bit, hopefully the chem-wipe will catch it. And then I take and set the chem-wipe in the cap on the table and place the tube into what I described before as a test tube rack.
Do you always take your gloves off when you open up a vial of--a reference vial for the purposes of testing before you commence--after opening up the vial and before commencing the testing?
Well, if I'm working on that particular blood vial and I don't get much of a blood on my hands from opening it or actually if I don't get any that I can see, I don't change them at that point. If I do get blood on them, I'll change them before the testing.
Okay. And after you are entirely finished working with the vial but before you start your testing, do you change them, throw them away?
Now, do you know how much blood you get on the chem-wipe and/or gloves typically when you open up a vial of blood?
Well, sir, have you ever--do you routine spill as much as a half milliliter on the chem-wipe and on your gloves?
Sir, is this something that happens on a routine basis when you're working in serology?
Well, you don't spill it. It's a matter of--you know, as you're taking off--there is blood around the cap, you know, because when the blood is being stored, it's not always being stored vertically. It lays on the bottom or gets upside down, whatever. So blood gets around the cap. When you open it up, it does then get on to this chem-wipe many times and it does get on your gloves. And particularly when you lay it down, the cap of these tubes has a well up in the inside of it, and that tends to trap some and it's probably two or three-tenths of a milliliter.
Now, is this something that you keep track of as you're doing it? Do you make a mental note or an actual physical note, "I got two or three-tenths of a milliliter on my gloves and my chem-wipe"?
Because for our testing, there's plenty of blood left in the vial. I don't worry about that little bit other than the fact that I want to clean up after.
And what happens to that two to three-tenths of a milliliter on the gloves and the chem-wipe? Do you just throw them away?
Now, Mr. Matheson, I'd like to direct your attention to the Defendant's blood vial chart.
Is that about as high as that will go, Mr. Fairtlough? I need it higher. Thank you, Deputy Smith.
Sir, I'd like to go in reverse chronological order over the dates that you've already been asked about and testified to on cross-examination starting with September the 30th. On September the 30th, you said that you released one milliliter of blood to Mr. Ragle; is that correct?
Now, when you say one milliliter, are you confident in the precision of that number as being what you actually released?
Because for that incident, I used a calibrated pipette that draws out one milliliter and then delivers one milliliter.
Now, when you testified to the one milliliter figure, did you take into account any amounts of blood that would be adhering to the pipette--to the pipette that would just be thrown out?
But specifically with regard to pipetters and the tools that they use and the tubes that they use, I haven't heard that.
Well, I don't know the brand name. We have a couple of different ones that are made and calibrated to deliver one milliliter.
But do you use--your laboratory uses disposable pipettes and then also something called the pipette-man?
And was this one of the mechanical type pipettes or was it one of the disposable pipettes?
Yes. You put a tip on the end of it. The pipetter is reusable. You put a tip on the end. It's discarded after you use it.
And do you routinely use these mechanical pipetters in your work at the serology lab?
Approximately how large, if you can just indicate maybe by holding up your fingers, is the portion of the tip that actually goes into the blood?
Well, the tip itself is about, oh, approximately two inches. You would stick in maybe a quarter of an inch or so into the blood itself to draw it out.
And does the tip get totally--how far does the tip go in terms of being immersed into the blood?
Well, I think I just said, it goes--normally you try to go in about a quarter, half inch, something like that, but just into the surface of the blood. As you're drawing it out, the level is going down, you lower the tip.
And when you're drawing the blood into the tip, does the entire tip become full of blood?
Well, you don't want to fill it all the way up because then you're getting close to the part that is not disposable, but it would fill up probably three-quarters full or so.
And what happens after you deliver the blood to the vial for the expert? How does the delivery system work?
Well, you've got the blood now on the tip and you depress the plunger which delivers the blood that's inside the tip into--in this case, we put it into the small conical shape centrifuge tubes.
In your experience, is the delivery of the blood, what, with the mechanical pipetter more complete than the delivery of blood with a disposable pipetter?
Because you're applying a direct pressure. I mean it is instrument that is meant to draw precise amounts and deliver them.
So the amount that is adhering to the walls, is it relatively thick and viscous or is it relatively thin?
Okay. So how much would you estimate would be the amount adhering to the tip after the delivery takes place?
Your Honor, I'm going to object as irrelevant, but part of that one milliliter that would be relevant is what went back in the tube.
And do you know how much if any from your independent recollection blood you would have--you got on a chem-wipe and/or gloves in relationship to the September 30th transaction?
I don't have any independent recollection of this particular incident of what may have been left behind on the chem-wipe.
Okay. So conservatively, we could assume 1.1 milliliters of blood had been consumed in this transaction?
Every time the blood vial is open, you have the opportunity of a little bit of the blood that's around the cap or stored in the cap of being pulled off into the chem-wipe.
Could you conservatively assume that 1.1 milliliters may have been used during this transaction?
Well, there's a margin of--when we're trying to figure out how much you used in this transaction, is there a margin of error?
Well, because the amounts, you're not measuring the amounts. There is--in almost every time a blood vial is opened up, there is going to be some blood that is not going to be returned to the vial and some blood in this case that did not make it into the centrifuge tube.
And would you say that a conservative estimate as to the margin of error on the September 30th transaction would be .1 milliliters?
What would you say would be the estimate as to the margin of error related to this transaction?
The margin of error? You mean as far as what might have been consumed during this or--
I--the fact that some is going to be consumed, .1 millimeter does not seem that it would be excessive amount to say could have been not returned to the vial and not placed into the micro centrifuge tube.
No, I have not.
That's never been an issue or necessary before.
Not that I know of.
Objection. Bad taste.
It is an item that should not be with that bindle, that's correct.