Now, Mr. Matheson, would you agree that tests that are performed to determine whether something is present or not can only determine that if there's a certain amount of something present? In other words, if there's something less than the sensitivity of the test, you won't detect it, correct?
Well, your Honor, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Blasier. Is it possible for us to document in some way the way that the vial appears now before counsel--
Mr. Matheson, you were asked a number of questions about an experiment that you performed last night. Do you recall that?
Now, when you performed that experiment, did you videotape or take any photographs of what you were doing?
And a lot of the numbers that you've used for purposes of your demonstration are numbers based on your guess as to how someone else may have done withdrawals at particular times, correct?
You had no personal knowledge of how a number of the withdrawals that you testified about were actually done, correct?
Personal--personal knowledge, because I was involved with at least two of them. The other ones, no.
Now, when we visited the lab in January, Mr. Taylor did his measurements with a ruler. Do you recall that?
That was after you had done your precise measurement of 2.6 milliliters, wasn't it?
Were you asked any questions at all by me or Mr. Goldberg about any measurement that resulted from a photograph of the ruler?
When we were in the lab, were we permitted to open up the blood and take the blood out?
Now, you testified previously that your records indicate that as of June 20th, according to toxicology, there is 5.5 milliliters in that tube, correct?
And that's as of June 20th. At that time, there had only been one withdrawal from that blood vial that we know about, correct, from the records?
And assuming again hypothetically that you started with eight, Mr. Yamauchi indicated that approximately one milliliter was taken out for typing, correct?
Incidentally, you don't need nearly one milliliter to do the kind of typing you did, do you?
Well, actually, I believe the reference was that he used a milliliter for swatching, not just for his testing.
Okay. Now, for the type of swatching that he did, do you need a milliliter or do you actually use a lot less?
Well, my understanding is, you use a milliliter for those fitzco cards, the ones that we demonstrated before.
Okay. Now, would you agree that under the hypothetical, as of June 20th, there is 1.5 milliliters, Mr. Simpson's blood, that according to your records and assuming my hypothetical of starting with eight, that are not there at that point?
And as of that date, there's only been one pipetter that went into that tube according to the records, correct?
And did you--in the course of your experiment, did you determine how much you would have lost by putting a pipetter in one time to determine how much of that 1.5 milliliters would have been used up that way?
Would you also agree that the pipetters that are used--well, let me ask you this. How much do the pipetters that you've demonstrated to us hold?
The $300 pipetter that you showed us this morning has a plastic tip on it, correct?
No. It's called an art tip, a-r-t, but I don't know--I can't think of the manufacturer right now.
Are you aware that some plastic tips have a coating on it to prevent liquids from adhering to them?
But are you aware that plastic tips don't have--don't--that blood or other fluids don't adhere to plastic tips as they might to glass?
Well, the pipetter that I demonstrated here is a 1,000 microliter or one ml capacity. When you draw it up, there's a little space on top of it. So--but you don't want to--I mean, that's your maximum, is one milliliter, but it could hold a little more.
And the--the little plastic one with the bulb built into the top, how much does that hold?
Now, the dispo--the glass one that doesn't have the bulb on it, does that have any markings on it?
Would you agree that a trained forensic scientist who intended to draw one milliliter out of a blood vial would know the difference between one milliliter and two and a half milliliters?
Now, you indicated that when you take the tops off of these purple top vials, a lot of times you get blood that comes out of them, correct?
Well, I think I mentioned that there's some adhering to the cap, and when you remove it, some of the times, that gets transferred onto the chem-wipe.
Well, it's when you, you know, apply some force or something with the liquid, it forces it out in very small droplets.
Yeah. That's an aerosol effect too. You're taking, squirting a spray bottle and putting it into the air.
And you use the term in your redirect examination "splattering," correct? Do you remember using that term?
Now, when we were at the lab in January, Mr. Taylor, myself and several others, we asked you specific questions about the withdrawals from this reference tube, didn't we?
And you told us that when you did your withdrawal on the 27th, you put what you didn't use back, correct?
Yes, I did, but I believe I probably qualified it with, you know, to the best of my knowledge or something like that.
Do you remember doing that? Do you remember putting any qualifications on it at all?
Was your recollection better in January than it is today as to whether you put the blood back?
You wouldn't have told us that you put it back if that wasn't your recollection, would you?
When you talked to us, did you tell us to the best of your knowledge what you had done with the blood that you used?
Now, do you recall us having a discussion about how much was used in toxicology and where that .70 figure came from?
Now, the micro centrifuge tube, that's the tube that went to toxicology, correct?
And by your measurements, when it got back and got put back in the envelope, it had .8 left, didn't it?
Do you remember a discussion at that same meeting--incidentally, Mr. Yamauchi was present as well, wasn't he?
And do you recall a discussion at that time that involved him about how much he actually withdrew on the 27th?
Do you recall during that meeting taking any issue with anything that Mr. Yamauchi said about what he had done?
Well, my understanding of that would be is that "examiner" being the person that's doing the work, I can have a certain bias or slant or, you know, something along that line that exists within him.
Is it another way of stating that, that sometimes an examiner might come to the conclusion that he thinks he's supposed to come to, not necessarily fraudulently or--but just because you know the result and you tend to see what you think is supposed to be there? Do you understand what I just said?
I don't think I did either. Doesn't that mean that your preconceived idea of what the test results should be has been shown by studies to possibly affect the result that you actually see?
Well, if a person has a bias, then they have a preconceived notion or a leaning towards one particular idea or something.
And one of the techniques--and I think you testified about this--in terms of how much information you know versus not having any information, is to read test results in a blind sense where you don't know anything else about the rest of the case, so you don't have any preconceived idea what the answer is supposed to be, correct?
Now, you remember the cranberry juice we talked about, Mr. Goldberg asked you about a little while ago?
And I represented to you when we did that little experiment that there was--it started with eight milliliters, correct?
Now, when you look at a tube--we measured that in a little graduated container, correct?
And you recognize that as the type of container that you use if you want to measure quantities or one of the types, correct?
And when you pour something in there and you hold it up and you estimate how much is in there, you look at the liquid and you compare it to the markings on the tube, correct?
And when you looked at that, did you take your measurement from--well, withdraw. When liquid is in a tube like that, a relatively small tube, it tends to bow down in the middle, doesn't it?
So if you take a measurement from the bottom of the bow, it's going to be different from the top of the bow, isn't it?
Yes, if you take it from the top. You're supposed to take it from the bottom of the meniscus.
Now, if I indicated to you hypothetically that when I measured the eight, I took it from the top, that would have been an incorrect way to measure it?
Okay. Now, I want to ask you a couple questions about security at the lab. Now, the computer printouts that you identified and testified to on redirect only include lists of employees who may have entered those rooms by presenting their id card, correct?
And anybody who initially enters that unit that may have somebody else with them when they go in, that second person is not going to show up on any record anywhere, correct?
In fact, the times that we've been out there where you've shown us that room, our names don't appear on any computer printout as a result of going into that room, correct?
And that particular--and--for instance, on the morning of June 14th, if Detective Lange was in that room, he doesn't show up on any printout either, does he?
No, his name wouldn't show up. He doesn't have a security card for our facility.
KEY QUOTEIncidentally, the detectives that you work with in robbery-homicide, for instance, they know where the evidence processing room is, don't they?
And when you dry the blood swatches, they're always dried in that cabinet up on the wall, aren't they?
Actually, it only shows when somebody displays their card. It reads the card, then it unlocks it.
Now, does--is any record--is there any record in the computer when somebody who is inside the room goes out?
So those records, there's no way you can tell from those records how long people who went in at a particular time stayed there?
Now, the garage door that we've been referring to, the roll-up door, does that require any kind of card entry from the outside?
So if that door were opened, there would be no record, no computer record of who might have gone in that door or who might have gone out of it?
Well, to open that door, we would have a record of who was in the evidence processing room because that's where you open it from. Once it was opened, no, then we would not have a record of it.
Let's assume that you have Mr. Fung come into the evidence processing room with somebody with him. Now, that entry would show up and it would show up as Mr. Fung, correct?
And then the door is open and Mr. Fung leaves, but the second person stays. There would be no record that the second person was in there alone, would there?
Now, the documents that you testified to are only authorized entries into that room, correct?
If somebody was able to get into that room who was unauthorized without triggering the computer system, there would be no record of that, correct?
Now, you also indicated on redirect that--you were asked some questions about evidence possibly being moved from a crime scene. Do you recall that, in terms of whether there's full documentation by taking pictures?
Oh, as to whether or not it had been moved from its original location prior to collection?
And you recall stating that as long as you had a picture of it before it was moved and a picture of it after, then that would be sufficient documentation for you?
Well, do you recall making a statement about the fact that if you had a picture of it in its original position and a picture of it later when it may have been moved, that that in your view was sufficient documentation of that item?
Tells you nothing about what was done with it between the first picture and the second picture, does it?
Tells nothing about whether someone picked it up, took it someplace, held it and then put it back, does it?
Now, you were asked some questions on redirect about the blanket. And do you recall testifying that you wouldn't have collected that, and one of the reasons being that it appeared to have just the victim's blood on it? Remember saying that?
Do you recall the reasons why--tell us the reasons that you told us yesterday as to why you wouldn't have collected that blanket.
Well, I believe I said I probably wouldn't. You know, it depends. There is some variation in how we work when we're out in the field, and I think--the reasons that come to mind is that it is an item that was brought into the scene after the fact, it was not present when the crime occurred and that, you know, if you're visually looking at it and it is very heavily blood-stained, having being placed--having known to be placed over the victim, the assumption is that the majority of the blood on there is going to be from the victim and it is not--does not have a lot of evidentiary value associated with it.
Now, let's assume hypothetically that there were drops of blood on the victim's shoulder area from some source other than the victim and a blanket was put over the top of that. Could that blood transfer to the blanket?
So under that hypothetical, that blanket, if that indeed happened, could have contained the blood of someone other than the victim?
Now, you were asked some questions on redirect about getting to the crime scene before the Coroner. Do you recall those?
I believe there was some--yes. About when the Coroner should be called and the bodies removed.
Now, you also were asked some questions about whether it's preferable to process a crime scene during daylight hours or during nighttime hours, correct?
Do you have any information indicating that the reason the detectives did not call CID or SID for seven hours had anything to do with processing the crime scene in daylight hours versus nighttime hours?
Now, I think you indicated that at some point, detectives may decide to process a crime scene themselves?
Do you have any information indicating that the detectives that were at the Bundy scene between approximately 12:00 and when SID arrived later that morning processed any evidence that they recorded?
The jurors know what time--the time sequence. Any evidence of that to your knowledge?
Now, you were also asked on redirect examination if you had seen any evidence or indication of evidence being tampered in this case. Remember being asked that?
Now, would you agree that by your testimony, you don't know how many swatches were collected, so you can not tell us if the number of swatches that are in the evidence now is the same number as the number of swatches collected originally?
Now, you learned at some point that Andrea Mazzola's initials were not on many of the bindles that relate to the blood drops that were collected?
In fact, you became aware that her initials didn't appear on any of the bindles, correct?
And would you agree that--well, you were also aware of Andrea Mazzola's testified--or testimony at the so-called split hearing in August I believe?
You indicated you were asked some questions about contamination and an article by Bruce Budowle of the FBI. Do you recall those questions?
And do you recall making a statement yesterday in redirect to the effect that contamination becomes a problem if it's occurring and you don't know it's happening?
Yeah. In use of the word "problem," because contamination does occur, if it's going on, you don't know about it, that is a problem.
And if it's going on and you don't know about it, you have no way of knowing how it might affect test results, do you?
So if it--if there was evidence in your laboratory of persistent contamination that you were unaware of, would you agree that would be a serious problem?
Given that assumption, that something like that could happen, that would be a problem.
Now, you were asked some questions about the computer system and the fact that it's password protected. Do you remember that?
And a password is a secret word that you're given if you're allowed to have access to a computer so that you can actually get at the work foray, correct?
And what that means is, if you don't have that word, you can sit there and punch buttons all day, and you're not going to be able to get into the computer, correct?
Now, that particular protection that you described wasn't in effect for any of the evidence in this case until the 16th of June, correct?
Overruled. I think we're already established the date that these things were entered into the computer, correct?
Mr. Matheson, do you recall yesterday, you were asked about biological contamination in the context of whether having one sample contaminated with biological fluid from another sample could cause the first sample to change type? Remember that?
Now, when you're talking about actually changing the type, let me shift that just a little bit and ask you the same question about being able to detect--well, let me rephrase that. The only way we have of knowing what a type is is by the test, correct?
Now, is it your testimony that if you have a biological sample from one person and another biological sample is added to that from a second person, that the results of the test would never change?
Now, could we have slide--can we have--I need a number for the slide presentation.
Now, Mr. Matheson, remember yesterday we were talking about that you get--genetic markers come from our parents, don't they?
And we talked in the context of the EAP system, of there being A's, B's and C's and you get one of those from each parent, correct?
Same thing is true with other genetic markers that are looked at in DNA testing and other conventional serology testing, correct?
Each marker system has its own universe if you will of possible alleles they're called within that marker, correct?
And one of the marker systems that you--in fact you look at in your lab is called the DQ-alpha marker which is--that just identifies a particular part of the DNA that's looked at, correct?
And two of the alleles that happen to be in that system are called 1.1 and 1.2, aren't they?
Now, if you inherit that 1.1 from your mother and 1.1 from your father, then you're going to be a 1.1, correct?
And correspondingly, if person B up there inherits a 1.2 from mom, a 1.2 from dad, that person is going to be a 1.2, correct?
Now, if you take a little bit of blood from a and a little bit of blood from B and mix it together and run a test on it, you're going to get a type 1.1, 1.2, correct?
And the 1.1, 1.2 type is different from either of the two types that went into it, correct?
Now, would you agree that that is an example of where you could have a mixture of blood from two people that would type differently from either one that's in it?
Now, you also indicated yesterday that the nature of the genetic markers that you deal with, one marker might--I think the term you used was--overpower or one might degrade, correct?
Yeah. Let me--let me read your question and answer from yesterday and see if this refreshes your memory or let me show it to you.
And the concept you were talking about there was, if you have this mixture that we've been talking about, if you've got part of the mixture as either degraded or that you only got a little bit, it may be overpowered by the other component, correct?
Now, in my example, my hypothetical up there, would you agree that if person number a had been--that sample had been degraded or it was only a small sample and person number B had a lot there and you mix them together and did a test, person number B might overwhelm person number a, correct?
Would you agree that that--in my hypothetical, that would result in your final test of this mixture showing person b, but not person a?
Now, let's assume hypothetically that the blood from person a is put on a swatch and is put in a--while still damp in a plastic bag, is put in a truck in the middle of June for a period of time. Would you agree that that could cause that to start degrading?
Well, I think, like I mentioned before, as soon as blood leaves the body, degradation begins.
Okay. And the degradation simply means the little pieces of DNA are kind of breaking up and you lose the ability to detect them, correct?
And if hypothetically, blood from person B gets put on that swatch later on after a has started to break down, then you might get the hypothetical that's up on the projector?
Now, Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you a couple questions about the EAP testimony that you gave on redirect. Do you recall Mr. Goldberg asked you specific questions about the articles that I had referred you to? Do you remember that?
Now, let me ask you first of all, the only article that you referred to on direct was the Zajac, Grunbaum and Crim article, correct?
And you've given testimony on redirect about the manner of degradation of an EAP; have you not?
Would you agree that that particular article that you referred to, nowhere in it talks about how a BA degrades in terms of what happens to the bands, does it?
Did you ask whether or not it makes any reference to any form of specific type of degradation?
No. My question is, it doesn't tell you which bands you lose in what order when you degrade a BA, does it?
Now, you recall yesterday we had a slide similar to this to illustrate the path of degradation of a BA down to a b, correct?
Now, one article that you were shown by or asked about by Mr. Goldberg on redirect was the Yeshion article. Remember that?
And you testified that article said nothing about the manner in which a BA degrades in terms of which bands disappear first. Remember that?
Do you recall testifying that that article did not describe the path of degradation of a BA?
My understanding of the article is that I believe it describes a different--the focus of the article is a different degradation, the B to a CB or something like that.
Okay. Let me show you that article and ask you to read the first paragraph under "discussion."
Now, that article does describe the path of degradation in terms of which bands disappear first, doesn't it?
And it--and it--it refers to that as being an analysis of other literature on the topic, correct?
And it says that all of those studies describe the path of degradation the way I did on my cross-examination with you, correct?
Now, you were asked a question about the book that you had referred to, the Saferstein book. Do you recall that?
And the chapter of that book that you were referring to is actually written by Dr. Sensabaugh, correct?
And he--I'm sorry. And he's the same author that--of the article that I provided to you during cross-examination, correct?
And that article, the portion that you read from that article describes one other possible path of degradation for a BA, correct?
And could you read again the--starting at the "thus" which you started--which you read yesterday and read down to where it says "two."
"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." that's the end of the sentence.
"In typing aged type BA bloodstains, for example, only the major B band," and then in parenthesis, "The anodal B band may be apparent and the temptation would be to type the sample as a B type."
And would you agree that what that says is that you might also get a path of degradation that leads you to just seeing the b-2 band and nothing else?
"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 punitive 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."
Would you agree that what that says is that if you have both B bands, b-2 and b-2, that that cannot be a degraded BA?
No. I believe it says things like "generally" and "should." it's not an absolute.
Can you cite me to a single scientific reference that says that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands and nothing else?
KEY QUOTESo if you're doing a DNA test on a biological fluid that contains a lot of cells, you're only looking at what's in cells other than red blood cells, correct?
Now, Mr. Matheson, you--would you agree that our hands and fingernails are made up of cells?
And would you agree that if you took scrapings from under a person's fingernails, you would expect their DNA to be in it, wouldn't you?
If you scraped and picked up some of their skin or blood or whatever happened to be under there.
And if you did that kind of a scraping where you got cellular material from under the fingernails, if you didn't find the person's DNA, that would be unusual, wouldn't it?
Well, I haven't done DNA typing under fingernails. So I don't know if it would be unusual or not.
Now, you could also, could you not--let's assume hypothetically that you have a person with fingernails that scratches somebody else who has an EAP type B. Have that hypothetical in mind?
And a small amount of that--a person's B who has an EAP type B gets under the fingernails of person A. You with me so far?
And you took scrapings from under the fingernails and did a series of tests on them, would you agree that when you do the EAP test, you're going to detect the EAP type B from the person who was scratched, correct?
If there's sufficient blood present. It--excuse me. The detectability limit of the test.
Now, would you also agree that if you had a greater amount of material, cellular material from person a and you did a DNA test, that you would detect the DNA of person a in that mixture, wouldn't you?
And if the amount of DNA from person a overwhelmed the amount of DNA that might have come from the small amount of blood from person b, you'd never see person b, would you?
Yes. If the quantity of DNA provided by the tissue that was scraped was significantly higher than the or sufficiently higher than the blood providing the EAP, then yes.
And would you agree that you can do as many DNA tests as you want on that mixture and you're never going to be able to prove that person B isn't there?
KEY QUOTEI would ask that the jury be admonished to disregard the import of that question.
Now, Mr. Matheson, you talked about your control study that you used item 42 for, correct? Remember that?
And I think you indicated that according to the article by Dr. Budowle, that for that kind of control study to have any value at all, the sample that you're comparing it to has to have been subjected to the same myriad of environmental insults I think is the way you described it, correct?
I believe on reading that, it made reference to the fact that a blood sample collected from an area where the victim is that's known to be the victim's blood would tend to be involved in the same environmental conditions.
But if your control sample, in this case, 42 that you testified to about was subjected to different environmental conditions, then the fingernail samples--your control makes no sense. It doesn't work that way, does it?
In my example, the control is not a proper control, is it, if it's not--if that sample is subjected to different conditions than the one you're comparing it to?
Well, it still is going to provide information. It is blood that you know to come from a particular person. If the environmental conditions are not exactly the same, then that is something that might be considered.
Now, you were asked some questions on redirect about wet stains versus dry stains. Remember that?
Incidentally, is there a single reference in the literature or a single study that you can point to that says that the degradation pattern of a wet stain is going to be different than a dry stain?
Now, would you also agree that 84, the fingernails in this case, there were two samples, one from one hand, one from the other, correct?
And one of those samples appear to be damp because you can see the transfer of material onto the container it was put in, correct?
Well, the other one appeared to be drier. It had chunks of blood down the bottom, but the tip of the stick was a little damp. So--or a little red, which may indicate that it had a little bit of dampness in it. But there was a difference.
Would you agree that if your theory--if your testimony about a control study is accurate, it would only apply to samples that had the same condition, similar condition?
I think that has to be taken into consideration, but there's still information that can be obtained.
Uh-huh. Now, I would like to show on the elmo the--I'm not sure what exhibit this is. This is the one that the Prosecution did where they printed out with the arrows on it. Do you remember yesterday you were asked to identify the--I think you described them as band-like appearances?
Now, Mr. Matheson, you recall that you had two arrows put where you--where you saw what you described as something kind of like a band. Remember that?
Now, you also testified during cross that there is something kind of like a band or something that you can see between those two arrows, correct?
How about if we have it on opposite sides of the same lane so that we can determine who put what where?
I guess you need to go down a little bit, down. Right kind of in that area off to the left there, there's kind of a hazy cloud of something (Indicating).
And the technique I'm using is what you described earlier as reading it blind, correct?
No. Actually reading blind that I mentioned before is not having any information about the case. It's very difficult and really fairly inappropriate to read a plate without the controls and things present.
There's nothing on there that you as a forensic scientist will call a band, is there?
This is improper, your Honor. This is not a scientifically correct way of doing it, and also the resolution is not good enough.
Is there anything in that lane that appears that you would call--as a forensic scientist under your training that you would call a band?
I don't believe I've ever testified that I identified bands in that lane, but that there were things or band-like visible areas that were showing up.
And would you agree that your bank-like appearances are three areas of some sort of a cloudy thing that you've described, correct?
There's no foundation for this, your Honor. It's also vague as to "cloudy thing." it's been asked and answered.
I see areas on there of different intensities of a cloud-like type of appearance.
And that doesn't look anything at all like what you found under the fingernails, does it?
Does that look like the bands--does that have the similar appearance to the bands that you found under the fingernails?
No, it doesn't. If it looked the same, I would have called this with the same result, and I didn't.
Mr. Matheson, California Association of Criminalists has a Code of Ethics; do they not?
And do you agree that those highlighted paragraphs are two paragraphs from the code of ethics from the California association of criminalists?
Your Honor, I object to that because there was no foundation for a scientist looking at something that's covered up like that.
Mr. Matheson, would you agree that the code of ethics of your organization that you are a member of provide that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this--" I'm sorry. I got it backwards. Let me read the other one. Would you agree that one of those provisions provides that: "Where test results are capable of being interpreted to the advantage of either side of a case, the criminalist will not choose that interpretation favoring the side which he is employed merely as a means of justifying his employment"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?
Do you also agree that one of the provisions of your code of ethics is that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this respect, however--in this respect, he will, however, scrupulously avoid confusing scientific fact with investigative theory in his interpretations"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?
And do you agree that there is no scientific support for your testimony that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands remaining?
Isn't that what you're doing in this case, Mr. Matheson, is violating this code of ethics?
Can you cite me to a single scientific reference that says that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands and nothing else?
With all the assumptions in place, yes, it would be approximately 1.5.
No, his name wouldn't show up. He doesn't have a security card for our facility.
No, I did not. I was the only one left in the lab.
And would you agree that you can do as many DNA tests as you want on that mixture and you're never going to be able to prove that person B isn't there?