You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may conclude your redirect examination.
Now, Mr. Matheson, before we get back into the blood vial again, you were asked some questions regarding reporting of EAP results in general and you said something to the effect that if it is an inclusion, in other words, if you have an EAP type B and it includes the suspect, that you will report that generally as an inclusion. Can you explain that?
Yes, I can. As a matter of fact, it doesn't matter whether it was a suspect or victim or whatever. We are making a comparison to an individual and a stain. I made the differentiation as to whether or not I give that disclaimer about the potential degradation route of the EAP. I divide it between an inclusion versus an exclusion and the reason for that is, is as has been previously mentioned, particularly in conventional serological analysis, a result of that analysis is not conclusive, it does not say that this blood sample could have come from this person and nobody else. It is merely, you know, includes them in a certain percentage of the population that could have left a stain. And an exclusion is an absolute statement. If I am making an exclusion, I am saying this blood could not have come from that person. If the exclusion is based on an EAP b, then I have concerns with it because I am aware that it can degrade from a BA, that there is another possibility.
Sir, why is it that you would distinguish between an exclusion and an inclusion for the purposes of this EAP B type marker?
Well, because in the case of conventional serology it is not a definitive answer. An inclusion does not specifically say this blood came from this person and nobody else, as opposed to exclusion where it is an absolute statement. If I am saying this blood could not have come from somebody, that is my statement. It is an absolute.
Okay. And sir, during the course of your years at the serology unit in the Scientific Investigations Division, have you ever had any recitation of making exclusions when that is what you see on your electrophoretogram?
I'm not totally sure I understand. Do you mean have I hesitated making an exclusion if I see a B?
No. In other words, just in general, when something is an exclusion, do you report it as an exclusion?
Now, we were talking about the blood vial chart that the Defense used yesterday and some of the transactions involving item no. 17. Do you recall that?
Now, I was asking you about various pipetters that are used. Did you bring to Court the type of pipetter that we were talking about that I referred to as a pipette-man, a mechanical type pipetter?
Okay. This--what I'm holding in my hand happens to be a pipette-man brand, what we call a pipetter or reusable pipetter. It allows you to set the amount that you want to deliver and you draw it up into a disposal tip--
The unit is reusable because that is where you set the amount, but it has a tip on the end of it. That is what you are actually drawing the fluid into. They come in different sizes, you know, from very, very fine to this one happens to hold a maximum of one milliliter, and you depress the plunger, draw up your fluid and then press it again to deliver it. When you are done with that sample, there is another plunger on the back that releases the tip from the unit and then that is discarded.
So you discard those tips instead of autoclaving them or somehow sanitizing them to reuse them?
Because at that point they have another sample in it. It would be inappropriate to use a previously used item like that.
Well, the mechanics of it, like I said, is there is a plunger on it. We have biological waste, things on the different lab benches, and you don't touch it or anything. It is as simple as just, you know, sticking this towards the biological waste and then releasing it, and it is disposed of.
And do you calculate, when you do this procedure, the amount of blood that is left in and on the outside of the pipetter?
Your Honor, could we possibly take a picture of the pipetter and introduce that as an exhibit, because I don't want to introduce the pipetter itself?
Actually I think that particular model is about that or a little more. There are some cheaper, but they are quite expensive.
Mr. Matheson, in the pipette tube there is what appears to be a little white stopper. Maybe that is probably not the correct terminology, but you know what I'm referring to in the end of the--in the plastic portion of the pipette tip?
That is specifically in there, particularly when you are dealing with biological materials, because if you, as you are drawing the fluid up inside the tip, if you do it too quickly, the possibility exists, because you are actually forming a suction and pulling it, spraying small particles that can make their way up into the part of the pipetter yourself that you reuse, so that plug in there allows the air to pass through but does not allow any of the biological product to pass.
Now, Mr. Matheson, I would like to show you next what we have previously marked as 163-F for identification, and can you hold that up so the jurors can see it and tell us what that is.
What this is, is an example of two glass disposable pipettes that we use. One of them has somewhere along the line gotten its tip broken off, but I made reference to a type of disposable one. They are not calibrated. You don't know how much you are drawing up or how much you are delivering. You place a small rubber bulb on the top, depress the bulb, place it into the fluid and let the bulb up and it sucks up the fluid into it.
And the bulb attachment I take it just creates some suction type effect in the disposable pipetter to draw the blood into the pipetter?
Now, did you use any of these types of disposable pipetters, the glass ones, in the work that you did in conjunction with item 17?
And how much blood, if you are drawing a milliliter, say, is going to be filled into the pipetter?
Very roughly probably between a third and two-thirds. I believe a milliliter would fall somewhere around in there, but I'm not totally sure of that.
Well, can you give us your best estimate as to where a milliliter would be in this vial and just tell us the parameters of your margin of error?
Okay. And when you do this routinely, do you pay very, very close attention to exactly where it is?
No. Like I mentioned, this is not a calibrated instrument. It is just for removing some fluid and delivering it somewhere else.
Well, there is no marks on it to indicate different volume levels. It is merely a device to transfer some fluid from point a to point b.
Now, when you used this on the reference vial 17, can you give us an estimate, to the best of your abilities, as to how much of the disposable pipetter was actually occupied by blood from item 17?
I have no independent recollection of that particular moment and I don't pay attention to exactly how much is drawn each time.
Okay. So we have no way of then being able to reconstruct with any high degree of accuracy exactly what that amount is?
Is that correct? Now, Mr. Matheson, when you perform this function, what do you do with the amount of blood that is left on the inside and outside of the disposable pipetter?
And why don't you make some effort to try and recover that and return it to the blood vial?
Well, you are going to--there is no reason to. You have a blood vial that has quite a bit of blood in it in comparison to what we eventually end up using for our testing. There is plenty left for additional ones. You use that, draw some up. You don't throw it away full or something. You use your bulb, squirt out as much as you can, and discard the rest.
Now, I would like to put the pipette-man up on the elmo so that we can print this photograph. Apparently we need to do that mechanically. Do we have to lower the--
Now, Mr. Matheson, within the Scientific Investigations Division are there any type of other pipetters, other than the two that we have discussed today, which are used in taking blood from reference vials?
It is just another type of disposable pipette. It is made out of plastic rather than glass.
Your Honor, when we have the picture printed, can I mark that as People's next in order? I guess it is 226.
And Mr. Matheson, would there be any problem with us introducing the actual tip of the pipette-man as an exhibit?
Sir, did you bring an example of this other pipetter to Court with you this morning?
This is a sample of one of the other type of pipetters that are used by--in our laboratory. It is--all in one unit. As opposed to the glass one which had a separate bulb on the top, this one has one built into it and it works the same way as the glass one. You squeeze the top, stick it into the fluid, let it out, release the top, draws it up inside of it and then you squeeze it again to deliver it where you want.
And in using this item to draw blood, what is the procedure in the laboratory with respect to what you do with the blood that stays on the inside or clings on the outside during the transaction?
Well, similar to the glass disposable pipette and the disposal tips on the pipetter, once you have squeezed it and delivered as much as you can out of it, this is discarded in a biohazard waste disposal.
And why isn't any further effort tried to be made to retrieve whatever is clinging to the inside and outside of the pipetter in order to return it to its vial?
Again, it is not seen as being necessary to return every little microliter of blood that is being pulled out of a liquid blood tube.
All right. And do you have any personal knowledge with respect to the testing that was done in serology--in toxicology, I believe, on June the 20th, with respect to exactly how much blood was pipetted into one of these pipetters?
And do you know how much blood remained on the inside and outside of the pipetter after that transaction was complete?
So Mr. Matheson, we have no way of being able to reconstruct with precision exactly how much blood was actually tossed out during that transaction; is that true?
So all of these numbers that were placed on the Defense chart, were they exact numbers or approximations?
And did any of those numbers take into account the amounts that are lost during the transactions dealing with the blood? In other words, on pipetters, on gloves, on chem wipes and the like?
Counsel, that is an argumentative question. And which board are you referring to? Which exhibit?
Now, also, umm--well, I will get into that later. Let's start up again with the June--excuse me, the September the 30th transaction where you testified that you delivered one milliliter of blood to Mr. Ragle.
That rather than just estimating, I used a pipetter, either like the one I described--like I say, we have a couple other different brands that--they work basically the same. They just look differently--used that same type of tip, set the pipetter to one milliliter and transferred that amount from the blood vial into a microcentrifuge tube that we have talked about before, the small conical plastic tube.
And Mr. Matheson, could you place a one milliliter sticker on the Defense blood vial chart.
Now, Mr. Matheson, is the one milliliter that is represented there an exact measure or an approximate?
Well, as mentioned before, even though the pipetter is set and I believe that I delivered approximately one milliliter into this microcentrifuge tube, there is going to be a small amount that is going to be lost. When you remove the cap, it is going to be clinging to the sides of the tip that is going to be discarded.
Now, Mr. Matheson, in order for this to be accurate, therefore, shouldn't the chart reflect that it is an approximation as opposed to an exact precise figure?
Is there a symbol that you use in science when you are talking about measurements for the purposes of showing something is approximation?
And can you write that symbol on the one milliliter portion just to signify that?
1492 indicates she can't see. And Mr. Blasier, do you have any objection to the Prosecution marking on your board?
Again, you will be marking--it is just kind of a squiggle that is an indication of approximation.
Now, when the one milliliter was put on for this transaction on the Defense board, was that squiggle there?
Now, I would like to direct your attention next to the date of June the 27th when you did some testing--
--as to item 17. How much did you use? And when I say "use," I'm talking not only about what was consumed in the tests, but in total.
I believe you testified it was between .5 milliliters and one milliliter is that correct?
Let's take the higher of the two sums; one milliliter. Is that an exact sum or approximation?
Mr. Matheson, could you have used as much as one milliliter in total with respect to that transaction?
How much is the maximum amount you could have used in connection with that transaction?
And can you place another milliliter on the board and also place one of the squiggles on it to indicate approximation.
And when you use the term "conservatively," Mr. Matheson, did you mean that it could be slightly more than that or slightly less than that?
I believe the question was a maximum amount I could have used. I could have been a little bit higher than that which I why I said conservatively one milliliter.
Now, Mr. Matheson, at the time that you--there was a period of time when you spoke to Mr. Ragle about this transaction; is that correct?
At that time did you have a clear independent recollection as to exactly what you did in terms of removing blood from the vial for your testing on the 27th?
Now, directing your attention next to the date of June the 25th that you testified about, on that date Mr. Yamauchi did some testing; is that correct?
And according to the records that you previously read, did he state that he used .75 or did he have one of the squiggles in his notes?
Okay. Now, when the Defense put their sticker on the chart, did their sticker for that contain the approximation that Mr. Yamauchi wrote in his notes?
So was the sticker from the Defense an accurate representation of what was reflected in Mr. Yamauchi's records?
Sir, could you now place a .75 sticker on the chart and give us an approximation--one of the approximation signs.
Your Honor, could we have permission to lower the chart a little at this time for my next set of questions, since the bottom has become slightly less relevant?
Now, with respect to the next date, June the 20th, did you place a sticker on when the Defense was questioning you for .70, to your recollection?
Okay. Are any of your measures that you do in the laboratory accurate to within .1 milliliters, generally?
Well, measurements of blood from a vial in connection with transactions such as the ones that they do in toxicology?
Okay. So this .07, wherever it came from then, is not an exact figure; is that correct.
Sir, based upon your understanding of the practices in toxicology, is that an exact figure as in .70000?
So at this point we have no way of reconstructing or you have no way of reconstructing whether it was .7 or .8 or .9 or .5, do you?
The--what I know about the .7 is what was discussed here in the courtroom the other day.
All right. Well, let's just take the .7, if we have one, and put that back up on the blood vial chart.
And do you have any personal knowledge as to how much would have been lost in the transaction relating to this .7 milliliters, if it was .7 milliliters?
All right. Now, Mr. Matheson, going to the next date of June the 14th, according to your records that you looked at yesterday during cross-examination, did Mr. Yamauchi use one milliliter for swatching, approximately one milliliter?
And in his notes do you have one of the squiggles to indicate it was an approximation?
When you placed the sticker on the Defense chart did it contain one of those squiggles that was contained in Mr. Yamauchi's notes?
Now, Mr. Matheson, can you now place a sticker on the chart for one milliliter and again place one of the transaction symbols on it.
Now, Mr. Matheson, with respect to each one of the transactions that we have just testified to and that you testified to on cross-examination, the five transactions, did you duplicate those transactions last night when you went back to the laboratory after your testimony in Court?
I duplicated the actions that would be associated with that type of transaction as they have been described here.
Your Honor, I'm going to object to any further testimony on this as improper--doesn't mirror the conditions that we know.
I know. I haven't heard anything else so I will take that as a premature objection.
Now, Mr. Matheson, when you say you duplicated them, let's start with the September the 30th working our way down from bottom to top. September 30th transaction what did you do?
What I wanted to do was reproduce the way one milliliter of blood would be removed from the vial and then placed in another microcentrifuge tube and released. So I took a pipetter, set it to one milliliter, removed the cap of the blood vial like I would using gloves and a chem wipe, lay it on the counter, used the pipetter, removed one milliliter. And rather than delivering it to something else, I delivered it back into the tube and then discarded the tip, recapped the blood vial and that was the completion of that transaction.
Yes. Prior to doing any of this, I, like I described earlier, placed a similar blood vial next to it that was empty, putting them on a table, adding water to it until it was--you know, to the same height, capped that one and set it aside and marked it as a starting volume.
Still you are using your eye, even though you have it on a flat surface, using your eye to fill it up as close as possible to the same level, and there is a slight error associated with that.
I had really no strong idea of how much blood might be lost during the course of a number of opening and closing transactions with a blood vial and I was curious to find out if it was measurable.
And have any experiments been done, to your knowledge, previously to this to try to calculate what is lost in the transactions, the various transactions associated with the blood vial?
Now, Mr. Matheson, after you did this replication of the transaction that--well, let me ask you a few other questions first. In terms of the transaction that you replicated as to the September the 30th transaction, what did you do with the one milliliter of blood that was pipetted out?
Well, I didn't--what I wanted to do was capture the amount that would be used during the transfer process.
If I had taken that milliliter of blood, put it into another container and then returned at a later time or tried to measure that other container, it would have been additional error because there would have been something clinging to it that was not part of the transaction we are trying to duplicate. So I merely, like I said, removed the one milliliter, pulled the pipette out of the blood and then like I said, depressed the plunger and returned the blood to the same blood vial.
Well, at that point I didn't change my gloves because I'm working all with the same item. The pipette tip and the chem wipe that was used to remove the cap, put it back on again at that point, was just placed into a pile in front of me and eventually made its way into a biohazard container.
Okay. Now, let's go to the June the 27th transaction. What do you do to replicate the blood that you removed from the vial personally for your testing on that date?
Well, in that case, this is the testing that I did, and like I have testified, I don't really remember whether I discarded after removing a portion of the blood to spin down for the ABO test, putting it into a microcentrifuge tube, I don't know if I discarded that complete with all the blood in it or if I made an attempt to return it back to the blood vial. Wanting to be as conservative as possible, I assumed I returned it to the blood vial. So what I did again was took the vial, removed the cap using the chem wipe and gloves, like I have described, I used one of the glass dispo pipettes because that is the type I use, inserted it into the blood vial and transferred some of that blood into a microcentrifuge tube. I then capped that tube, put it into a centrifuge to spin it down. I wanted to actually start the process of running an ABO test. And placed the dirty disposable pipette, I think I testified to before, in a test-tube that was sitting also alongside. So now it is just being held there--
The tube was done centrifuging, brought it back to my work area, removed three drops of serum and three drops of cells, just as if I was running an ABO test. I then used the glass disposable pipette that I had before, sucked up as much of the blood in the centrifuge tube as I could, returned that to the blood vial, recapped the blood vial and discarded all the items that had been used during that process.
Okay. Now, when you say "all the items," you mentioned a microcentrifuge tube, a disposable pipette, a test-tube and a chem wipe. Have I missed anything?
Yes. There is one thing that I left out of that and that is a very small capillary tube that is used to deliver the small drops for the test.
All right. And the capillary tube and as to those five items, what did you do with those?
They were--again, they were just placed in a pile in front of me to be discarded.
Now, with respect to the June 25th transaction, where Mr. Yamauchi, according to his notes, used approximately .75 milliliters, what did you do to replicate that?
In that transaction I used a disposable pipette, rather than the calibrated one, because that is what is used in a situation like this. We are not removing an exact amount. Reopened the cap, again using the chem wipe and the gloves, removed a portion into the disposable pipette, pulled it out of the tube and then returned as much of it as I could back into the vial, recapped the vial and set it aside and then disposed of the disposable pipette.
Okay. Now, let's go through all of the items that you used here that were disposed. There is a disposable pipette, a, did you say, microcentrifuge tube?
Disposed of it. Put it on the pile of the stuff that was eventually going to get thrown away.
Did that still have some blood on it or residue of blood when you put it in the disposable pile?
Now, with respect to the June the 20th transaction in toxicology, what did you do to replicate that?
Basically the same thing that I just described as the one that Mr. Yamauchi was involved in, but rather than using the glass disposable pipette, I used the plastic one like I had shown to you before, because that is the implement that they used.
Did the plastic disposable pipettes have the same amount of blood clinging to them, after you are finished, as the glass ones?
It is hard to tell by just looking at them, but just visually it looks like it has a little bit more, but it is not measurable.
So what were the items--did you use the chem wipe again in order to open up the vial?
And then, sir, did you do something to replicate the June 14th--I'm sorry, as to those two items, did they still have some blood on them when you added them to the trash pile?
This is very similar to the first one that was described in the fact that it was mentioned that about one milliliter was used for swatching. I used a calibrated or repeatable pipette like we showed you, the pipette-man, probably used a different brand. I again set the vial up, used the chem wipe, removed the cap, set that down on the table, used the pipetter to draw up one milliliter of blood, pulled it out of the vial and then returned what was in the pipette tip back to the vial, recapped the vial and disposed of the tip.
What did you do with the chem wipe that you used for the purposes of opening up the vial?
Although--did you actually do it in the order that I went through or did you do it in the other order?
Well, when I was all done I removed them and added them to the pile that was going to be disposed of.
So by now you had a fair pile of disposable items that you had used in replicating these various transactions that had blood on them?
And was there some blood on each one of those disposable items that you threw away?
Now, as a result of this, Mr. Matheson, did you calculate how much blood was lost in the transactions, in other words, as a result of using these various things that were thrown away in the garbage?
Well, upon completion of all of these I repeated the measurement step that I did at the beginning, taking a second empty blood vial, placing it alongside of the vial that has the blood in it, filling it to where I could see looked like the same level, and I placed the blood vial--and now I had a before--beginning and a completed two blood vials that contained equivalent amounts of water to the blood that I saw in the tube at that time.
Now, sir, with respect to that figure, is that an exact figure or is that also approximation?
Now, Mr. Matheson, when you were doing these series of transactions, were you trying to be extra sloppy in order to spill as much blood as possible? I mean how were you doing it?
I was doing it as close to the way as I would normally do it when I'm doing case work.
All right. And when you are giving this figure, are you saying that that is the amount that would always be lost in this series of transactions or just your best effort to give us an approximation?
Now, Mr. Matheson, can you put up a five milliliter item onto our board and place one of the squigglys on it to indicate that it is an approximation.
Now, Mr. Matheson, with respect to the 2.6 milliliters itself, you took that measurement, didn't you?
And you used the method that you have previously described with filling up the vial?
So if we wanted to make this chart correct, we should also probably have a squiggly in front of that; is that true?
I don't want to write on the Defense chart, but can you just add a little squiggly on to the 2.6 milliliters.
Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order two photos. I have shown them to counsel yesterday. One is of what appears to be the blood vial and it is standing up with a person's finger on the top, as People's 2--
Mr. Matheson, directing your attention to the vial that has been marked--excuse me--the photograph of the vial that has been marked 228 vial--
229. Actually it is sort of hard to tell for some reason on the elmo, but in this picture is this vial actually standing up?
No. It appears it is standing on--well, it is. It is standing on the bottom part of it with the cap on the top.
Now, Mr. Matheson, was there an occasion where the blood vial was measured by someone else in your presence using a ruler?
Well, that particular ruler, like a lot of rulers, the measurement does not start at the end, it is actually inset three-sixteenths of an inch or a quarter--if you ding up the end or knock up the end, it doesn't affect the marker or beginning point. So an attempt was made, by using the note pads, to bring it up and account for that little bit of the, ruler so the bottom of the tube was at the same height as the bottom of the ruler or the beginning mark.
Mr. Matheson, doesn't that seem like an extremely inaccurate way of measuring the blood vial?
Is this the referable way, from a forensic standpoint, to measure the blood vial?
It was not my choice to do it that way. I preferred the equivalent amount of water.
KEY QUOTENow, Mr. Matheson, when you actually did your own measurement using the technique of equivalent amounts of water, did you actually have as to stand the blood vial up similar as is depicted in this photograph?
And when you measured that did you take into account the amount of blood that is clinging to the inside of the vial?
And if you look at the top of this vial there appears to be something a little less than--hold on for a second.
--a quarter of a--looks like it is a little less than a quarter of an inch or approximately a quarter of an inch of blood that is stuck up toward the top of the vial?
Well, sir, how much--let me take a look at the photograph. Maybe I can show the witness the photograph because it is hard to tell on the elmo. May I approach for a second?
Can you tell us how much the measure is or the approximate measure is of blood that is up toward the top of the vial?
And using the ruler, can you tell us approximately how much blood you can see in the darkened area at the top of the vial?
Well, when you saw the vial was there blood that was stuck up at the top of the vial?
Well, many times--well, usually when the blood vial is being stored it is in an envelope. A lot of times it is upright, sometimes it could be upside down or falling on its side. The blood comes in contact with all parts of the inside of the tube and some of it is going to adhere up around the stopper.
And did you do your measurement of the 2.6 milliliters after the mark Taylor measurement, to your recall?
Do you know whether there was any more removal of blood between the Mark Taylor measurement and your measurement?
When you measured the vial, did you take into account any blood that was up around the top of the vial?
And Mr. Matheson, are you willing to come to any estimate as to how much blood in this particular picture is at the top of the vial on the inside?
And is that because you have never made any scientific inquiry to try to find that out?
Because I'm not even sure how we would go about measuring that. It adheres to the vial or the cap when you pull it off the cap. It may adhere to the cap it may go down the side. I don't think you could do a good measurement of that.
As a forensic scientist testifying in Court under oath, would you be prepared to give what would just constitute a guesstimate of that amount?
Now, I would next like to show you the microcentrifuge tube, the photograph of which I have marked as 230 for identification. Sir, before I ask you about this, other than the incident in Court the other day where you were handed a vial of water that purported to contain eight milliliters, and poured it out and saw that it actually measured 7.5--was it 7.5?
Other than that, have you ever tried to make any inquiry as to how much blood will stick to the inside of a vial?
Now, with respect to the microcentrifuge tube, when you looked at the microcentrifuge tube did you attempt to measure the amounts of blood that are stuck to the interior portion of the vial or where the blood line itself is and also the portion up near the cap?
And again, as a forensic scientist, would you be willing to give us any estimation as to that amount?
Is that for the same reasons that you testified to previously with respect to the blood vial itself?
So there is some unknown amount in both vials that you did not measure; is that correct?
And in order to represent the unknown amount, can you just place the little white item that is in front of you onto the Defense blood vial chart.
Your Honor, perhaps we could pass around a picture of the vial and the microcentrifuge tube, because they are a little bit difficult to see on the elmo.
Now, Mr. Matheson, on the chart as it exists right now, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 numbers and all of those are estimations; is that correct?
So would it be fair to suggest that the total number of estimations that we have we know to be completely accurate?
What can you say with respect to the accuracy of the total number of these estimations?
Well, that they are all estimations. It is give or take a little bit of blood. We don't know exactly how much was used in each of those instances.
And do you agree, Mr. Matheson, that to try to reconstruct and account for every tenth of a milliliter of blood, or even quarter or half of a milliliter, would be a hard thing to do?
How hard would it be to try to go back and account for every half milliliter of blood?
I think it would be a very difficult thing to do, to try and--even if you were from the beginning trying to account for every little bit, there are aspects of this that are very difficult to measure and it would be hard to account for every portion of blood that is used in this type of testing.
And in any past case that you are aware of has SID ever attempted to do that, to account for every half milliliter of blood in a test-tube?
Now, Mr. Matheson, understanding that these numbers that you've provided are estimations, can you calculate the total estimated amount of blood on this chart under these--under these conditions?
The final figure that I have by adding up the numbers that we have up there is approximately 7.5 milliliters.
Okay. And Mr. Matheson, there is then, in addition to that amount of blood that is occupied by what we have on this diagram, is the white space which you have not provided us any number for; is that correct?
Now, Mr. Matheson, I want you to assume, hypothetically, that at the time that the blood vial was drawn that there was an estimation between 6.5 and 7 milliliters of blood being in the vial, or to keep the math simple, let's assume it was 7 milliliters of blood.
Sir, if you were to assume for the sake of this hypothetical that at the time the blood was drawn there were 7 milliliters of blood--
Is the Defense board accurate?
It was approximately .4 to .5 milliliters or about half a milliliter.
I think we have heard this now about six times.
It was not my choice to do it that way. I preferred the equivalent amount of water.
300 bucks for that thing?