PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 4, 1996 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1996 8:40 A.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) MR. LAMBERT: Morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: MR. PETROCELLI: Couple of housekeeping items. Mr. Lambert will address the court. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. One thing this morning, we intend to read into evidence some requests for admissions. And what I've done, Your Honor, is, I have them set forth in little packets, one each for a question and an answer, which I'll read to the jury. And I would ask the Court to also let us mark those as exhibits so they can become part of the record of the case. Secondly, Your Honor, in regard to presumptive blood tests, I know we've set a hearing for that before tomorrow morning on our two points of waiver and, if necessary, Kelly Frye. I just want to alert the Court to the fact that one of the witnesses who will testify today, Dennis Fung, is the person who would ultimately testify to doing some presumptive blood tests. So I would simply ask the Court to allow me to reopen with Dennis, if the Court decides tomorrow morning that presumptive tests will be allowed into evidence, and I'll put him back on for that limited purpose then. It is also my understanding from the defense's position, that the only thing they object to are positive presumptive tests where there is no subsequent confirming test; that is, any other evidence relating to presumptive tests is acceptable if they're agreed, that is. MR. BLASIER: That's correct. MR. LAMBERT: Finally, Your Honor, I want to put -- I'm going to put on Greg Matheson before Dennis Fung. It's slightly out of order, but Mr. Matheson has some scheduling problems, and so I'll put him on, and then Dennis Fung. THE COURT: Can I get a witness schedule? MR. LAMBERT: Pardon me? THE COURT: Aren't you supposed to be providing opposing party with a schedule of witnesses 48 hours ahead of time. MR. LAMBERT: I've given them all the witnesses. THE COURT: You gave me the first list; you didn't give me one after that. MR. PETROCELLI: I didn't provide one to the Court. I will do so. THE COURT: All right. Anything else? MR. LAMBERT: That's it for me. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry; one other thing while they're coming in with regard to the end of the day Friday with Detective Vannatter. There were two exhibits that had been stipulated as to their admissibility already. I just want to move those in. And they were 387 and 721. THE COURT: They're received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 387, Coroner's Report, was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 721, Coroner's SID Sign-in sheets, was received in evidence.) MR. GELBLUM: The first witness will be a minute and a half. He is tow-truck driver named Bernie Douroux, who is unavailable. We intend to read a portion of his criminal trial testimony. I'd like to have Mr. Foster read the answers and I'll read questions, and that way -- if that's acceptable to the Court. THE COURT: Okay. If there's no objection. MR. BAKER: I'd like something showing that he's unavailable. I haven't seen any showing that he's unavailable. MR. GELBLUM: I have a declaration. MR. BAKER: Let me see it. (Pause in proceedings.) THE COURT: Which witness? MR. GELBLUM: Bernie Douroux, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: The only thing I don't see in here, he was apparently served with a subpoena when he was supposed to be here. MR. GELBLUM: The subpoena, I believe, was possibly for the first day of trial: MR. BAKER: A body attachment ought to issued for this man. This is not -- MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, this is literally a minute and a half, chain-of-custody witness. I don't think there's any doubt about any of his testimony. We ought to be able to read it in. MR. BAKER: I see. The form, since it's short, we can disregard the law; that's a good idea. MR. GELBLUM: I think we established his unavailability, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, if he's going to read that, we want to read the cross-examination. THE COURT: I haven't even finished reading this thing -- MR. BAKER: I'm sorry. THE COURT: -- you know. (Pause in proceedings.) THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. BAKER: A body attachment ought to issued for him if he's unavailable, if he's been served with a subpoena, in violation of the subpoena. MR. GELBLUM: We're prepared to go ahead today. We did what we could do. I think all the law requires us to do is serve him a subpoena, try to get him here. As the declaration established, we couldn't get him here. That makes him unavailable under the code and allows us to bring him in under the hearsay rule for prior testimony. We have no objection to them reading in anything, as long as it's not objectionable. THE COURT: All right; you may do so. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. JUROR: Good morning. THE COURT: I appreciate the fact that you all get up so early and get to the court building on time. As often happens, the attorneys want to discuss some things out of your presence, and they generally deal with matters of law, and they are matters that should not be discussed in your presence. For that reason, we occasionally have to start late, like we are starting late today; so I apologize for that. All right. Plaintiff may proceed. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, as you know, we are going to begin by reading in some trial testimony from the criminal trial, of a man named Bernie Douroux. To make it a little easier for the jury to follow, we're going to ask our associate, Mr. Foster, to take the stand and read the responses. THE COURT: You may. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, he was -- Mr. Douroux obviously was sworn in at the criminal trial. I don't know if you want to do that with Mr. Foster here on the stand. THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, this is testimony given at the previous trial; it was given under oath, and you're to treat it just as though that person was called, sworn and testified. Go ahead. (The following testimony of Bernie Douroux was read into the record, with Mr. Gelblum reading the questions, and Mr. Foster reading the answers.) "Q. Can you spell your first and last names for the record. A. Bernie Douroux, B-E-R-N-I-E D-O-U-R-O-U-X. Q. Mr. Douroux, who were you working for on June 13, 1994? A. Rheuban Motors. Q. And Rheuban Motors is a towing -- automobile towing company? A. It's a police impound, yes. Q. And what do you do for Rheuban Motors? A. Impound vehicles at LAPD, to request have impounded or private towing. Q. On the afternoon of June 13, at around 3:06 p.m., did you receive a radio call from your dispatcher? A. Yes, we did. Q. And after receiving that radio call, did you go somewhere? A. Yes, I did. Q. Where did you go? A. 360 Rockingham. Q. Why did you go to 360 Rockingham? A. We were asked by LAPD to pick up a vehicle. Q. And what time did you arrive at 360 North Rockingham? A. Approximately 3:30. Q. And did you speak to a police officer at that location? A. I spoke to a couple of them, yes. Q. Were you given any instructions? A. Yes, I did. Yes, I was. Q. What instructions were you given by the officers? A. Not to touch the vehicle, not to open it, and to take it downtown. Q. And were you directed toward a certain vehicle? A. Yes. Q. To a certain vehicle? A. Yes, I was. Q. And what vehicle was that? A. Ford Bronco. Q. Okay. The Ford Bronco that's been on -- A. Yes. Q. Mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you tow that Ford Bronco? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you touch it prior to hooking it up to your tow truck? A. Not prior, but after I hooked it up, I did touch the front right tire, to make sure it was locked -- the steering column was locked. Q. Can you tell whether or not the Ford Bronco was locked? A. Yes, it was locked, because it had little -- the buttons were down on the Bronco. Q. It was locked when you first saw it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you unlock that vehicle? A. No, sir. Q. And did you tow that vehicle? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Where did you tow the Ford Bronco to? A. To Parker Center, to the print shed, over here. Q. To Parker Center, over here on Los Angeles Street? A. Yes, sir. Q. To the print shed? A. Yes, sir. Q. What time, sir, did you leave Rockingham with the Bronco? A. Approximately 3:40. Q. And what time did you arrive downtown at Parker Center, if you know? A. Took me about an hour to get there. To probably -- probably about 4:40, 4:30." MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further. THE COURT: Cross. (The following testimony of Bernie Douroux was read into the record, with Mr. Gelblum reading the questions, and Mr. Foster reading the answers.) MR. P. BAKER: Page 26269, line 9 -- we're at line -- through line 13. "Q. With regard to your towing of this vehicle, as I understand it, this took place on or about June 13, 1994 in the afternoon; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what time you received a call in response to this, sir? A. We received a call in the mike room -- LAPD mike room at approximately 3:06. Q. Then you responded to that call and arrived at the location on Rockingham? A. Yes, sir, around 3:31. Q. All right. Around 3:31 in the afternoon? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when you got to that location, was the media present at that time, sir? A. Yes, they were. Q. And did you see a lot of media there? A. Yes, there was. Q. While you were there at Rockingham, did you ever see a lady walk up or run up and touch this vehicle while you were there? A. I -- not myself, no. Q. You never saw that personally? A. No. Q. Did you become aware of that at some point? MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. So you learned about it afterwards; is that correct? A. Yes. MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. With regards to this particular vehicle, prior to the time that you started preparing it for towing, did you have occasion to look at that vehicle -- exterior of that vehicle at all? A. No, I didn't. Just after I hooked it up, just to make sure it was nothing -- there was nothing -- there wasn't full-time four-wheel drive. Q. You described for us that you touched I guess the front wheel part of the vehicle; is that correct? A. Yes, sir, the front right tire. Q. Did you have occasion to look at any of the doors of that vehicle at all? A. No, I didn't. Q. And you didn't notice anything on the exterior of that vehicle that you can recall presently; is that correct? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have occasion to look at the driver's side door down by the sill, down at the bottom of that particular vehicle? A. No, sir. Q. You never looked at that? A. No, sir. Q. Did you look -- Did you see what appeared to be any coffee-cup stains on the hood of that vehicle? A. No, sir. Q. You didn't see that, either? A. No. Q. All right. So I understand, this is a fairly routine tow for you at this time; is that correct? A. Yes, sir; it was. Q. The only different (sic) missing (sic) from this scene from other scenes is that there was a lot of media present; is that correct? A. That was it, yes. Q. You were working that day -- by yourself that day, sir? A. There was -- there was three other drivers that day. I was the only one that got dispatched to the call. Q. When you say "three other drivers" three other drivers who responded to the call? A. No, no, just on the shift. Q. Working for Rheuban's that day? A. Yes. Q. You responded to a call, and when you got there at Rockingham, at or about 3:30 in the afternoon, you were the only driver there; is that correct? (sic) A. That's correct. Q. All right. You talked to a police officer once you got to the Rockingham location, did you? A. Yes, I did. Q. And you know the name of that police officer? A. I can't remember his name, no. Q. Was this police officer in civilian clothes, or was he in uniform? A. He was in civilian, the one who instructed me where to take the Bronco was. Q. He was in what? A. In civilian clothes. Q. You don't know his name? A. No. No, sir, I don't. Q. All right. At any rate, you then proceeded, as I understand your testimony, to hook this vehicle up and then to transport it downtown; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it was your understanding that you were going to meet a detective somewhere in or about the print shed? A. That's correct. Q. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then you described for us that it took you perhaps an hour or more to drive easterly, downtown to Parker Center to the print shed; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Where is the print shed located, sir, downtown here in LA? A. Directly behind Parker Center, on San Pedro Street. Q. All right. You went to that location, and did you see any detective when you first went there? A. No, I didn't. Q. All right. So how long did you wait at that location? A. Approximately ten minutes. Ten, fifteen minutes. Q. All right. And what time was that by now? A. I would say about 3:30, 3:40, somewhere around that time. Let's see. No, no. That's about 4:30, 4:40 around that time, about an hour after I left Rockingham. Q. All right. So 4:30, 4:40? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Did you talk to anybody at the print shed when you first got there? A. There was nobody there. Q. All right. Nobody. It was like locked? A. Yes. Q. All right, sir. So you waited about ten minutes. And then thereafter, as I understand your testimony, you drove around to Parker Center; is that correct? A. That's correct, to the front of Parker Center. Q. And you were by yourself at that point, so when you went in to try to locate the detective, you left the vehicle on the street; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And so how long were you away from that vehicle when you left it? A. Approximately three minutes, just to go inside. Q. All right. Now, what street did you park the vehicle on, sir? A. Los Angeles. Q. On Los Angeles Street? A. Yes, sir. Right. Q. And is that in front of Parker Center? A. That's correct. Q. Out on the street. So you would be heading northbound on Los Angeles? A. I thought it was eastbound. Q. Well, you're on Los Angeles Street, right? A. Yeah. I was directly in front of Parker Center, in front of the doors. So I thought it was eastbound, maybe. Q. All right. You headed toward Union Station, did you? A. That's correct. Q. Towards Olvera Street? A. Yes. Q. So let's call that north, now. A. Okay. Q. All right. And you parked the car -- parked your vehicle there and your vehicle; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you left it and then you went inside Parker Center, in the front doors of Parker Center? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you left the vehicle to go inside, the media was outside, also? A. Yes, they were. Q. Can you approximate for the Court and jury how many members of the media were there, sir? A. It was a group. I couldn't -- maybe 10, 15 more. Q. A group, like a pack of media? A. Yeah. They're all hanging out on the lawn. Q. A Pack? How about a swarm, a swarm of media, Your Honor? So how many would -- how many would -- A. I would say probably about ten, maybe more. Q. All right. So ten -- about ten different cameras and that sort of thing? A. Yes, exactly. Q. And how far away were they from you at the time that you went inside when you left the vehicle to go inside Parker Center? A. It was about 15 yards. Q. Fifteen yards away? A. Yes. Q. And then -- you then left the vehicle and went inside is; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you went inside to try to find a detective; is that correct? A. I went inside and I asked the desk sergeant there, the person in charge, I had a Bronco with me from 360 Rockingham. He called upstairs and told me that a detective was on his way down. Q. All right. And then that's kind of at the front desk when you walk inside Parker Center; it's at the front desk there inside? A. That's correct. Q. And during this time while you were inside, there was nobody outside with the Bronco at this point; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. So your best recollection is, you stayed inside for -- how long did you -- strike that. Did you wait for the detective inside? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. All right. After you talked with this desk sergeant and you were told that a detective would be coming down, did you go back outside then? A. That's correct; I did. Q. All right. And then you walked back outside to the vehicle? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. And I presume it was still parked at the same place; is that right? A. Yes, it was. Q. And did you wait outside on the sidewalk at that point? A. Yes, I did. Q. When you went back outside to wait for the detective, how long did you wait before a detective came out? A. About three minutes. Q. All right. And -- A. Less than five minutes. Q. Less than five minutes? A. Yes. Q. During that period of time, Mr. Douroux, did you have occasion to look at exterior of the Bronco at all at that point? A. No, sir. Q. So up to the time that you left that particular vehicle on June 13, 1994, you never had occasion to visually inspect the exterior of that vehicle. Is that a fair statement? A. Yeah. Just, I mean, took a quick glance, see that there was no damages, and that was it. Q. Did you have to log on any particular form whether or not there were damages at any place on that particular -- A. It's usually marked on this when we look. We can look over the vehicle, make sure there's no damages on the vehicle. If there are, we mark them down on the impound sheet. Q. That's called some sort of inventory, this sheet that you have before you? A. Yes. Q. And in completing this particular inventory form, for instance, there are -- the form is called inventory in the middle of the particular form; is that correct? Inventory? A. Well, right. Right here it says remarks that's where we put all the -- all the damages down. Q. Okay. And you have a "Y" column. I presume that's for yes and an (sic) "N" column for no; is that correct? A. That's correct. (Counsel hands document to witness.) Q. Did you fill this form out? A. No, sir; that was already filled out by the LAPD. Q. It was filled out by the LAPD -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- when you got the form? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you get that form? A. From the LAPD, on Rockingham. Q. When you first arrived there? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. So that we're clear. MR. P. BAKER: Then he offers to approach. If we can look at the exhibit, this would be next in order. It was criminal Exhibit 234. MR. BAKER: Why don't you put it on the -- THE CLERK: 2112. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, it's already been marked on that list as 271. THE CLERK: 271. Thank you. (The instrument herein referred to as LAPD investigation impound report was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 271.) THE REPORTER: Excuse me; does that mean it's not 2112? THE CLERK: Correct; it's 271. MR. P. BAKER: 26281, Line 11. (The following testimony of Bernie Douroux was read into the record, with Mr. P. Baker reading the questions, and Mr. Foster reading the answers.) Q. These were filled out by someone else; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Did you fill out any portion of this form at all? A. Just the part here, where my signature and the tow fee and the storage fee. Q. All right. You filled out just the part where it indicates, 'Garage employee complete this section,' and where it says 'Garage employee signature?' A. That's correct. Q. That's your signature, and your name is Bernie Douroux? A. Douroux, yes, sir. Q. All right. All right. Anything else filled out? A. No. That's it. Q. All right. And so with regard to the inventory on the vehicle you quickly looked at it; is that correct? A. That's correct, just the exterior, just to make sure there were no damages, which there were none. Q. You mentioned also, sir, that at some point, you had occasion to glance inside the vehicle; is that correct? A. Yes, sir, just the front, the window, just to look to see if -- four-wheel drive vehicles sometimes are full-time four-wheel-drive vehicles, so we have to make sure they're not engaged, which I didn't see anything when I glanced, so I didn't bother looking. Q. And where were you when you glanced inside the vehicle? A. On the right-hand side, passenger side. Q. All right. And more specifically, what location were you at? A. Oh, in the front. Q. No. What where were you, at Rockingham or -- A. Oh, yes. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, Rockingham. Q. So as I understand it, then you looked inside the vehicle while you were still at 360 Rockingham? A. Yeah. We just glanced in and looked. Q. You did this from the passenger side of the vehicle? A. That's correct. Q. Pardon me. And you did this from the passenger side of the vehicle; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you don't recall seeing anything that you noted inside that particular vehicle; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. This would have been shortly after you arrived, about 3:30 in the afternoon? A. Yes, sir. Q. So you looked inside. All right. Now, when you went back outside, after talking to the desk sergeant, you waited for a period of time, perhaps less than five minutes, and a detective came out; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. You know the name of that detective, sir? A. No, I don't remember it. Q. And you talked briefly with that detective? You had a conversation with that person? A. Yeah. Weather. Q. You talked about the weather? A. Yeah, weather, and how -- because it was a nice, warm day. Other than that, no, no conversation. Q. June 13 was a warm day? A. It was. Q. All right. After you had that conversation with the detective, did you then take the vehicle back over to the print shed? A. Yes, we took it over there. He got in the truck and we went down to the print shed. Q. So the detective rode with you? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. You went back to the print shed. And at that time, you gained Entrance into the print shed; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you, I presume, took the vehicle inside and parked at some location? A. That's correct. I backed it in and parked the vehicle. Q. About what time was it at this time, sir? A. Oh, maybe a quarter of five, maybe almost five, by that time. Q. Somewhere around 5 o'clock in the afternoon? A. I believe it was before five. Q. All right. And then -- and you then left the vehicle; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. While you were there, did you ever see any -- any person get inside that vehicle at all? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever get inside it? A. No, sir. Q. By the way, do you carry -- in the course of your work as a tow-truck driver, do you have one of these things called a slim jim? A. Yes, sir, I do. MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. (READING) Q. That is the kind of instrument that works to open vehicles; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. With regard to that slim jim, you could open that vehicle real quickly, couldn't you? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague, "real quickly." THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes, I could. Q. In other words, you're an experienced tow-truck driver? A. Yes. Q. How long would it take you to -- using your slim jim, to open a vehicle like that Bronco? A. Couple of minutes if I had to open it. Q. If you wanted to open it, couple of minutes? A. Yes. Q. Did you see whether or not the detective who rode back over with you to Parker Center, did you see whether or not he had a slim jim with him? A. I didn't notice one, no. Q. And did you ever see the detective open the vehicle while you were there? A. No, sir. Q. And you then left the vehicle and that ended your involvement with the vehicle on that day; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. With regard to the form that's before you, again, Defense 271 -- Exhibit 271. You were asked whether or not there was any indication on the form of whether or not this vehicle was locked and you indicated there's no -- there was no indication one way or the other; is that correct? A. That's correct. I really didn't even notice the part of -- up there. Q. So look at it now for me, will you? A. Yes. I'm looking at it. Q. And the area called stolen, lost or embezzled, there's an indication, the right part of that lock that -- or whether or not the ignition was locked, right? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. This call is not stolen lock or embezzled. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. P. BAKER: (READING) Q. There's an indication whether the doors are locked. There's nothing indicated, right? MR. GELBLUM: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. P. BAKER: (READING) Q. You then left the print shed and it was about 5 o'clock or so that afternoon? A. About 5 o'clock, yes, sir. Q. And what time did you check out that day from your -- terminate your employment that day, if you recall? A. 7 o'clock. Q. And did you pick up any other vehicles on that day before you -- on that day that you recall? A. Before or -- And there's an objection. THE COURT: Sustained. (READING) A. Before -- a few cars before. MR. P. BAKER: 26289, line seven. (READING) Did you write any other notes with regard to any of your observations on that -- on that particular day other than your signature on exhibit 271 for identification? A. No, sir that's it. Just that -- Q. Pretty much it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And with regard to your observations or lack thereof of things either outside the Bronco or inside the Bronco that you saw? Did you write those down anywhere at all? A. No, sir. Q. And you never saw anything inside the interior of that vehicle; is that correct? A. No. Q. Never saw any blood inside that vehicle? A. No, sir. Q. Never saw any blood on the outside of that vehicle? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see anything in the rear of the vehicle at all that you recall? A. No, sir. MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further. MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing, Your Honor. MR. LAMBERT: With the Court's permission, we'd like to read from "Requests for admissions." THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, in a civil case, there are several ways that non-courtroom testimony comes in. One of the ways is when one party serves upon another party a request for admissions; and the other party responds. And in that instance the question and the response is received just as though it was given here in court and it's given to you just as though it were evidence. Everyone -- everybody understand that? THE JURORS: Yes. MR. LAMBERT: (Reading:). Plaintiff Fredric Goldman first set of admission. It's directed at Defendant Orenthal James Simpson to 22033 of the California Civil Code of Procedure. Fredric Goldman requests that defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, admit the following matters of fact: Request No. 196: Admit that your ABO blood type is A. Defendant's response: Admit. Request No. 194: Admit that your EAP blood type is EA. Defendant's response: Admit. Request number 213: Admit that you have an ESE blood type 1. Defendant's response: Admit. Request No. 195: Admit that your phosphoglucomutase, here and after, PGM blood type 2 plus 2 minus. Defendant response: Admit. Request number 205: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 49 contained human blood that had an ABO type A. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request number 203: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 49 contained human blood that had an EAP blood type of BA. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting that request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection for any other point in time. Request number 212: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 49 contained human blood that had an ESE blood type 1. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point of time. Request number 204: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 49 contained human blood that had a PGM blood sub type of 2 plus, 2 minus. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request No. 199: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 47, contained human blood that had an ABO blood type A. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection for or any other point in time. Request No. 198: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 47, contained human blood that had a PGM blood sub type of 2 plus, 2 minus. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request number 202: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 48 contained human blood that had an ABO blood type A. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request number 201: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 48, contained human blood that had a PGM blood sub type of 2 plus, 2 minus. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request number 208: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 50 contained human blood that had an ABO blood type A. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request number 206: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 50 contained human blood that had an EAP blood type BA. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to time of collection or any other point this time. Request number 207: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item number 50, contained human blood that had a PGM blood subtype of 2 plus, 2 minus. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request number 211: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 52, contained human blood that had an ABO blood type A. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request number 209: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 52, contained human blood that had an EAP blood type of BA. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. Request No. 210: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 52, contained human blood that had a PGM blood sub type of 2 plus, 2 minus. Defendant's response: Admit. In admitting that request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time. MR. LAMBERT: And I would ask Your Honor that these requests for admissions be marked exhibits 2112 through 2129 and be received into evidence. MR. BAKER: I would object to them being received into evidence. THE COURT: Is there anything in them aside from what you've just read? MR. LAMBERT: No. It's the same thing. THE COURT: Okay. They'll be received. (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 196 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2112.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 194 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2113.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 213 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2114.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 195 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2115.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 205 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2116.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 203 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2117.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 212 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2118.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 204 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2119.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 199 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2120.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 198 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2121.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 202 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2122.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 201 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2123.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 208 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2124.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 206 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2125.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 207 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2126.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 209 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2127.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 210 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2128.) (The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 211 was marked for identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2129.) MR. LAMBERT: At this point, we call Gary Matheson to the stand. GREGORY MATHESON, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Goldman, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Please be seated. And sir, if you please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Gregory Matheson, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y, M-A-T-H-E-S-O-N. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. By whom who are you employed Mr. Matheson? A. By the city of Los Angeles. Q. And what is your occupation? A. My current position is Chief Forensic Chemist, Assistant Laboratory Director of the criminalistics laboratory of the Los Angeles police department. Q. Is that part of the scientific investigation division? A. Yes, it is. Q. Were you employed on June 13, 1994? A. Only June 13, 1994, I was not in my current position. I was the supervisor of the serology trace and field units of the scientific investigation division. Q. And you've since then been promoted? A. Yes. Q. When did you first join the scientific investigation division? A. I was hired by the city as a criminalist in June of 1978. Q. And have you worked as a criminalist with the city through various positions since that time? A. Yes, I have. Q. When did you first become aware of an investigation into the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson? A. Sometime approximately about 7:45 on the morning of Monday, June 13. Q. Did you play any role in the work of the scientific investigation division in that investigation? A. Yes, I did. Q. What role did you play? A. Well, initially my role, as I mentioned earlier at this time was -- I was supervisor of the serology trace and field units within the laboratory and as supervisor of the field units in particular. I was assigned to oversee the field work, the evidence that was brought in, working a little bit of triage; determining what items would be analyzed, initially overseeing and coordinating the case. Q. And as part of that initial role that you played, did you assign anyone within the serology department to do any work on the investigation? A. Yes, I did. Q. And who did you assign? A. A criminalist by the name of Collin Yamauchi. Q. And when did you assign him to do that work? A. I believe that was the afternoon of Monday, June 13. Q. And what did you direct Mr. Yamauchi to initially do in the case? A. Well, initially he needed to get together with the criminalist that had checked the evidence out at the scene. And as a group, we went through and looked at the items to determine which would be most appropriate to analyze. He worked in the serology unit, so he was going to be dealing with the biological evidence. The initial task was to look at some of the items and see if we could exclude the parties that were associated with the case at that point. Q. Okay. And a decision was made to do certain test to see if parties could be excluded? A. That's correct. Q. What tests did Mr. Yamauchi do to see if parties could be excluded? A. Well within -- MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: -- Serology unit. We chose to go with a type of DNA testing utilizing PCR. PCR is a preparation technique for a marker that goes by the initials of DQA or DQ alpha. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And those are the initial tests that you did on these blood samples? A. Yes, it is. Q. Let me show you what's been marked as exhibit 216 in this case. Do you recognize that exhibit, sir? MR. BLASIER: May I look at that? MR. LAMBERT: I gave it to you. (The instrument herein referred to as a posterboard entitled "LAPD Evidence Disposition" was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 216.) (Witness reviews exhibit 216.) THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And we put the first page of it up on the television set here. I don't know if you can see that very well, or you might be able to see it better with the exhibit in it. THE COURT: Is that the best you can do? MR. LAMBERT: It's a little vague. There we go. No, we won't be on it too long. Q. Have you had an opportunity to review this exhibit prior to your testimony today? A. Yes, I have. Q. Would you please describe what this exhibit is? A. What it is, is a summary of a number of the evidence items that were collected associated with this case; listed out by item number, LAPD item number, a brief description of it, when the item was collected and then the dates that it was submitted to one of three outside agencies. Q. And is that summary, summarized? Does that summary summarized other reports and documents which underlie this exhibit? A. Yes, it does. Q. And what kind of reports in -- and other documents are in that group of this that this document summarizes? A. There are several different types of documents. They're all prepared during the course of this case. They're S.I.D. documents that are both typed and handwritten letters of transmittal of the items to agencies, property reports, serology description, notes, variety of different types of documents. Q. And are these documents that are generated by the S.I.D. personnel as part of their routine business? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And have you had an opportunity to compare the underlying documents to this summary to ensure that the summary accurately reflects the underlying documents? A. Yes, I do. Q. Does it do so? A. Yes. I went through each of the items, found the documents to support it and the dates and information as accurate. MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I move exhibit 216 into evidence. MR. BLASIER: I object on foundational grounds, subject to a motion to strike since this witness is out of order. THE COURT: Received as business records. (The instrument herein described as a posterboard entitled "LAPD Evidence Disposition" was received in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 216.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, you mentioned before that, part of your role in this investigation was to sort of supervise some of the activities. In that connection, did you participate in a meeting on June 29, 1994 in connection with this case? A. Yes, I did. Q. And who else participated in that meeting? A. Well, present during it was myself, criminalist Yamauchi and my supervisor, one of the assistant directors at the time, Michele Kestler. Q. And what was the purpose of that meeting? A. The purpose of it was to look at the evidence items that we currently had within S.I.D., to inventory them and determine the quantity of each of the evidence items that were there. Q. And at that point in time, did you have a fairly substantial number of evidence items? A. Yes. Q. Was any actual examination of the evidence done at that meeting? A. No. No malice was done, that's correct. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike, nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MS. LAMBERT) Was any testing of any of the evidence done at that meeting? A. No. Q. Like to show you -- why don't you take this off, please, Steve, and put on -- is this 1302? Like to show you exhibit 1302. (The instrument herein referred to as notes of summary analyzed evidence was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1302.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Put the first page of that up. (Mr. Foster complies.) Q. Do you recognize that document, sir? A. Yes, I do. Q. Is that a document that you generated during the course of the meeting? A. Yes. The writing on it is mine. Q. And what was the purpose of the document? A. Well, again, it was to summarize the items that we currently had in evidence. You can see the item number on the left, a brief description of it. To determine the quantity and then either the analysis types that we expected to perform on it, what had been performed, whether or not there was enough to do a split and then just miscellaneous comments. Q. Like, take for example, item number 4 here and perhaps you can tell us what this item is? A. Well, as it's described, it's a swatch which I described as medium to dark red. One of them being about 8 millimeters squared. Q. If you could move it over for me, Steve. And all the way over. (Indicating to TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) In the comments section here, what is it you said about item number 4? A. That it appeared from that one swatch, that 8 millimeter square that there would be enough for the PCR analysis that I mentioned earlier and conventional serology, but that if we went onto RFLP, that would totally consume the sample. Q. So your purpose in going through these various evidence items at this meeting was to make determinations as to what you could do with them in the future? A. Right. It was to determine how much was there, and give a quick idea, maybe a triaging of what some of the more important items are and what the -- what analysis may eventually be formed on them if it had not already been started. MR. LAMBERT: Let's go to the second page now, Steve? (Mr. Foster places on view screen second page). Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you take a look now, Mr. Matheson, item number 13, what is that item? A. Item number 13, I've described as socks. I believe I put down here navy blue or black. Q. Um-hum. If you can move it over a little Steve. (Mr. Foster complies.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) To the final column, what did you write in the comments section? A. In the comment section, I have in quotes dress socks, just another description for them as opposed to athletic or something along that line. That a blood search should be performed and also that no blood was obvious or nonobvious. Q. That's what this says nonobvious? A. Yes. Q. And so you're decision at that meeting was to later have someone do a blood search? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: That's correct. Q. Was there a blood search later done on the socks? A. Yes, there was. Q. And do you know whether that was done? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Lay a foundation. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Was that blood search later done under your direction, sir? A. Yes, it was. Q. And did you direct some particular person to do it? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And do you know when it was done? A. I don't remember the exact date. Q. Okay. It was done -- Do you know who it was done by? A. Yes. Q. Who was it done by? A. Criminalist Yamauchi. Q. Did he report back to you after he had done the blood search? A. Yes, he did. Q. And did he tell you whether he had discovered any blood during the blood search. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) During the time period after this meeting of June 29, 1994, and the time that you later had discussions with Collin Yamauchi about his blood search, where were the socks kept? A. In a box inside of the freezer which is located in the serology unit of the laboratory. Q. And during that time period, who had access to the evidence in the serology room. MR. BLASIER: Object. Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. A. The laboratory has an electronic access system. That the doors are all locked all the time and if you are allowed to have access to a location or to the laboratory, you're given an electronic card of which a computer has entered into it the number on that card, who it's assigned to, where they're allowed to go within the laboratory at any particular time or day of the week. I'm explaining this because the access changes. During normal working hours, all of the criminalists within the laboratory have access to most of the areas within the lab. In other words, they can get into narcotics, serology, blood, all the different laboratories within the laboratory itself. They have to have a card to have the door unlocked for them. Off watch, the access becomes limited to a criminalist to their own unit plus our stock room and our evidence room. So during the day, during Monday through Friday, Friday normal working hours excluding holidays, any of the criminologists that work in the laboratory have access to serology. Obviously the administrative management personnel do. There's a student working assigned to serology that also has access to it. Off watch, it would be limited to the criminalists that are assigned to the serology unit and or management or -- and our management or administration. Q. Did any of the Los Angeles police department officers investigating this case have access to the socks and the -- in the serology unit during the time periods we're talking about. MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WTTNESS: They cannot get into any of the facilities without being accompany by an S.I.D. personnel. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And have you reviewed the records to determine whether anyone did have any access to the socks during the period between the time you looked at them on June 29 and when Collin Yamauchi later did his search? A. The people that I mentioned have access to the room, would have access to the freezer. There was no indication that any were or any viewing was done on the socks during that time period. Q. Was there any indication that any Los Angeles police department officer had access to the socks at all during that time period? A. Not that I can find. Q. Now, let me put up another board, here. You can take that off Steve, yeah. (Mr. Foster complies, removes item from view screen.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) I don't know how well you can see that, Mr. Matheson. You may have to get down to take a look at it. (Indicating to board.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) My question to you, sir, were you, yourself, involved in an examination of some portions of the Bronco that was towed away from Mr. Simpson's property? A. Yes, I was. Q. And when did your examination take place? A. I believe it was September 1, 1994. Q. And where was that examination conducted? A. It was conducted within the serology unit of the laboratory. Q. Calling your attention to this exhibit, in particular to this photograph on the bottom right corner here, would you tell us what that depicts, please. (Indicating to photo on board.) THE WITNESS: What this photograph shows is the console unit that was taken out of the Bronco. It's sitting on an examination table that we have in the center of our serology unit. Papers underneath it to protect it from the surface itself. As you can see, there's also numbers that are on the console indicating areas where material was removed off it or blood was removed off of it. Q. And did you in fact, take blood samples from these areas that are marked with the little numbers in the photograph? A. Yes. I collected blood from four separate areas on what would be the right hand side of the console. Q. Now, in collecting that blood, sir, did it appear to you that any of that blood had previously been swatched as part of a collection effort? A. Yes, it did. Q. Which portion appeared to you to have been previously swatched? A. It was in the area on the console here as marked 303, and I believe in the same area of 304. Q. So you could tell by looking at those that someone had previously wiped across the blood splatters there? A. That's correct. You can see where a portion of them was -- you've collected a number of samples. You can see when it's done there's like a white mark. It doesn't completely remove the blood. It's apparent that something else -- Q. Was it apparent to you that although this blood had been checked in the past, there was sufficient left for you to do another collection? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes, there was. Q. And that's what you did? A. Yes. Q. Now, let's take a look at this picture while we're out here. Did you also, on that same day, collect any further blood evidence from another portion of the Bronco? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what was that from? A. The carpet area that had been removed from the Bronco. Q. Okay. This carpet area, is it -- it was sectioned out of the bottom part of the Bronco? A. Yes, it was cut out from the driver's floor board area. Q. And do you know when that was cut out? A. I believe it was on June 14, 1994. Q. Was that by Dennis Fung? A. Yes. Q. And where had that piece of carpet been after it was cut out by Dennis Fung before you did your work on September the 1st? A. It was also maintained in a box in the freezer of the serology unit. Q. So on September the 1st, did you take that out of the box, out of the freezer unit and in from your lab to do the work that you did on it? A. Yes. Q. What was it that you did precisely? A. I went and I removed some additional blood stain area of the fibers in the carpeting by clipping them out and placing them in a what's called a paper bindle to protect them. You can see there are some clippings already in a bindle that's folded up, taped and marked and initialed as to where it came from. In addition to a stained area always collect what's called a control or an unstained area of the same surface that the blood is on. So that later on in the testing, you can find out whether or not this surface itself is contributing to the result. So what I did is collect a portion of the blood stain area here and a control area that was in a as close as possible, but visually unstained area of the carpeting. Q. Those things that you checked there, did you give them item number 293? A. Yes. Q. So item number 293 is in fact pieces of the carpet that you cut out that day? A. That's correct. Q. And do you know the item number of the carpet itself that was taken from -- that was cut out? A. Yes I believe it was 33. Q. And these item numbers here 303, 304, 305 and 306, those are the items numbers that you assigned to the blood that you checked off the console? A. Yes, it is. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we're having technical difficulty with this TV. Might we break shortly to see if he can fix it. THE COURT: All right. Let's take ten minutes. Don't form any opinions about the case. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: You may proceed. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. Why don't you put that back up, please. (Mr. Foster complies.) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Mr. Matheson, we were talking before about this console in the Bronco that you collected blood on. I wanted to be sure, because of our technical problems, that we made this point clear. Would you point out on this television screen here the items of evidence which you collected from this Bronco console. A. There are four separate areas where I collected blood off the console: This one was marked 303; 304, which is a stain that covers this area here; 305, down in the lower right-hand corner; and then 306, which appears it could be an extension of this stain, but went ahead and collected it as a separate item. Q. Of these items that you collected, which were the ones that appear to you to have previously been swatched in a prior collection? A. What I have marked as 303, the area up on the console lid here, and 304 on the right-hand rear side. Q. And could you tell from looking at them that someone had previously collected from those items? A. That's correct. Q. When you did this collection in your laboratory in serology, who else was present? A. I don't have the complete list with me. I was present; there were people that were coming and going, some of the attorneys, that type of thing. But in addition, as far as technical-type staff, there were a Mark Taylor and Larry Ragle that were working for the defense that were observing and assisting on this. Q. Those were Mark Taylor and Larry Ragle were experts look working for Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. They were there watching you do this collection? A. That's correct. Q. And the evidence items that you took off this, you then did what with them, sir, the things that you took off the Bronco console? A. Well, they were collected on swatches, which is the way we collect blood samples, are allowed to dry, package up in the bindles like what you saw in one of the previous photographs from the carpeting area. You do the same thing with any small type of evidence. The items placed in the bindle; the bindle's closed up, sealed, marked as to where it came from, the time and the initials of who did it. They're then packaged and booked into -- or placed into our property division. Q. Now, you mentioned when you were talking about the June 29 meeting where you made the list of all the evidence items and what you were going to do with them in the future, you mentioned the word "triage" in connection with that. Can you explain to us what you mean by "triage?" A. Well, I believe it's mainly a medical term. It has to do with doing the most important things first. Best example would be if there's a big accident where you have a number of victims, obviously not all of them can be dealt with at the same time; they go through what's called a triaging program, where they decide who is the most injured, work them first, and then go on down the line. I used it -- There were many evidence items associated with this case. We don't have the resources to analyze every item first, so you do a triaging system; you go through, figure out -- or make the best guess as to what you think are the most important items there that are going to yield the most important information first. Eventually, as time and resources become available, you come in and finish up the rest of the items. Q. And that's what you were doing that day with these evidence items in this case? A. That was part of it, yes. Q. Now, let's talk a little bit about serology at SID. You have been involved in serology there for some time? A. Yes, since August of 1981. Q. And prior to joining SID, what was your educational background? A. Well, I got a degree, bachelor of science degree in criminology from the California State University at Long Beach, and at the time completed the course requirements for a bachelor of arts degree in chemistry, though I never received that degree. Q. And since the time that you joined SID, have you been actively involved in serology work, at least since the time you went into the serology department? A. Yes. Like I said, I started in June of 1978. In August of 1981, I was transferred into the serology unit as a criminalist. At that time, I started learning the techniques that are specific to our laboratory, and worked as a criminalist within that unit doing case work: Homicide, sexual assaults, analyzing body fluids, until about May of 1989, when I was promoted to supervisor of that unit. Q. And for how long were you the supervisor of the serology unit? A. Well, of just the serology unit, I was a supervisor for about three years. At a point approximately three, three and a half years later, one of our other supervisors resigned and I was given a couple of additional units. Like I mentioned, at the time in June of 1994, I not only supervised serology, but our trace comparative unit, which does hairs, fibers, that type of thing, and the field unit, which is the criminalists who go out and collect evidence from the scene. Q. In terms of serology, what type of testing is done in the LAPD serology department? A. Well, there's a number of different type of techniques. They can be broken down into two main groups that we've started calling conventional serology and then DNA analysis. To touch real quick on the DNA, there's a couple different types of analysis there, an awful lot of initials: One of them goes by the initials PCR, one by RFLP. Our laboratory only does PCR-type of DNA analysis. Q. In terms of conventional serology, could you describe a little bit more what you mean by that? A. Sure. Conventional serology is what I mainly worked as a criminalist, or did work as a criminalist in that area. It's the conventional or the serological type of test that's been used in a variety of different disciplines for many, many years. The best example of conventional serology would be ABO blood typing used in hospitals a lot for transfusions. Everybody has an ABO type; they're either type A, type B, type AB or type O. You fall into one of those four categories. That is one of the systems or genetic markers that we use in conventional serology to try and make an association or an elimination between a person and a blood stain or a semen sample. In addition to the ABO, which has been around for decades, there are techniques that involve enzymes. Enzymes are nothing more than another chemical that's in your body similar to the ABO type, of which you have certain types that we can put into groups. An example of that is one of the enzymes that we look at goes by the initials ESD -- it's a fairly long name; that isn't particularly important. But you are either an ESD type 1, type 2, or type 2/1; you fall into one of those groups. And you are the same type from the time you're born until you die. Q. Is there also a conventional serology typing called the PGM type? A. Yes, there is. That's one of the other enzymes that we look at. Q. Okay. Is it similar to the ESD type? A. It is similar in that it's an enzyme; it performs a function in your body. We can break it down either into a type 1, type 2, or type 2/1. Then you can do one additional step which breaks those three down into what are called sub types, or about ten different possibilities, rather than just three. Q. So all of us have one of those ten different sub types? A. Yes. Q. Is there also an EAP type that you're familiar with? A. Yes. Q. And what is that? A. Again, it's just another enzyme that performs a function in your body, exists in a few more types. The examples being you're either type B, A, C, A, BC, A. I mean, it's a combination of letters. But each one of those designates a type, just again like in the ABO blood-type system, you have a type from --throughout your life. Q. And are all these conventional serology systems separate and apart from DNA testing? A. They're separate, in that you're testing for the enzyme itself, or in the ABO group the antigens and the antibodies. They are different tests and you get typed. They are connected in a way, and all of them are based on your DNA. Q. But if a person has a particular one of these types, that doesn't necessarily mean what their DNA profile is going to be, does it? A. They are independent from the DNA markers that we look at in forensic science. Q. Okay. Looking at these -- These four conventional types that you've described, is there any way of determining how common or uncommon a particular blood type is in the population, generally? A. Yes. Q. And how do you do that? A. Like I mentioned, you have a blood type that is yours from the time you're born till the time you die. By analyzing samples, you can find out how much of a percentage of the population has a certain type. For example, going back to the ABO blood typing system, approximately half of the population -- a little bit less than that -- but approximately half of the population is ABO type O. The next most common is A, then B, then AB. Within our laboratory, we've been doing this conventional type of serology since we started the enzymes, I believe in 1977, but we've been doing the ABO a lot longer. We store the information on all of the victims and suspects that we've gotten. We do a blood sample that comes in on somebody; we record what their types are. And over the years, we've kept a chart and we know what percentage of the population in the City of Los Angeles, among victims and suspects, is a type O, type A, type B, or type AB. Q. And is it possible that if you know all four of these different blood types we've been talking about for a particular person or evidence sample, to determine how common or uncommon it would be in the general population to have that combination of all four types? A. Yes. Q. And how do you go about doing that? A. Well, it's something called a product rule. It's just as simple as you take the percentage of a type in one marker, like, let's say an ABO type, we know that possibly half of the people in this room would have that type; that is type O. Then you go on to another marker and say -- let's see: We've used ESD -- excuse me -- as an example. Let's say approximately 50 percent of the population is a type 1. It's actually higher than that, but for simplicity, let's stay with that. If we have a stain that I know is ABO type O and ESD type 1, we'd multiply 50 percent by 50 percent and come up with about 25 percent, so we'd know now that approximately 25 percent, or one out of every four people in this room, would have a combination of a type O ESD 1. And you just keep doing that with each additional marker. You get a little bit more information, it narrows down the pool of people that could have left a stain. Q. So if a person has an ABO type A, an ESD type 1, a PGM type 2 plus, 2 minus, and an EAP type BA, could you tell us how common in the population would be the combination of those four blood types? A. By taking each of those pieces of information, determining the population or the percentage for each marker, and then multiply them together, that combination of four comes out to about .17 percent of the population. Or to put it in a little bit more understandable terms, approximately one out of about 550 to 570 people would have that complete combination of types. Q. So in this case, evidence on the item 49, which was one of the blood drops found at Bundy, had an ABO type A and ESD type 1, a PGM type 2 plus, 2 minus an EAF type BA, how many people out of the population could have been the person that left that blood drop there? A. Given the information you gave me, again, it would be about .17 percent of the population, or approximately one out of every 550 to 570 people. Q. And if Mr. Simpson had those same four blood types, would he then be one of those, one out of 550 people who could have left that blood type? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: He would be included in that group that could have left that stain, yes. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. I have no further questions. THE COURT: Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Morning, Mr. Matheson. A. Morning. Q. How are you today? A. Good. Q. We've had quite a few discussions, you and I, during the course of the last two, two and a half years, have we not? A. Yes, we have. Q. Since Mr. Simpson was acquitted on October 3 of 1995, can you give me a rough estimate of the total amount of time that you have spent on the Simpson case? A. Well, it's interspersed with an awful lot of other things. Of the total time, oh, gosh, I don't know; probably 40 to 60 hours. Q. And of that 40 to 60 hours, how much of that has been at the request of the plaintiffs in this case? A. And all of that includes just my personal preparation time and that type of thing, where I was dealing specifically just with the plaintiffs. Q. Or doing work that the plaintiffs requested that you do? A. Well, no additional work was done as far as analytical type of work. I don't know. I'd say probably 10 to 15, maybe. It's hard to estimate. Q. You say that there's no additional analytical work. You mean there was no additional testing or experimentation that you did on behalf of the plaintiffs? A. There was no additional testing as far as analysis on evidence items. Q. Experimentation? A. Yes. Q. There was no additional experimentation? A. No. I'm sorry. There was an additional experiment that I ran. Q. How much time did you devote to that experiment? A. Actual work time, possibly a couple hours. Q. Did you do that during the course of your county time? A. Actually, I work for the city. Q. City? A. Some of it was, some of it wasn't. I came in on my own time, just to check the results on something. Q. And a think you said 10 to 15 hours you spent working with the plaintiffs. Did I hear that correctly? A. Well, no. I think again, these are very rough estimates. It has to do with, you know, like, meeting with them, also things like that, experiments that I'm talking about, performing a variety of just organizational type of tasks. Q. And let me ask you, have you ever, in the course of your career, done an experiment for a private party to a civil action? A. It's kind of an interesting thing. I mean, there's a question there that needed to be answered. I'm not sure I did it just for the plaintiff in this case. To answer your question, I have not ever performed an experiment specifically at the request of the plaintiff in a civil case. Q. And this experiment that you performed was at the request of the plaintiffs, correct? A. It was a -- we brought up in my mind -- it was a question I wanted to answer during the course of the criminal case, and never had the time to do it. And during the course of discussions, I was reminded of it and chose to perform it. Q. There were many questions other than the one that dealt with that experiment that were raised during the course of the criminal trial with respect to the operations at your lab, were there not? A. Yes, there was. Q. Have you done any experiments, since Mr. Simpson was acquitted in October of 1995, on any of those other issues? A. No, I have not. Q. How many meetings have you had with the plaintiffs' attorneys? A. Are we talking solely with them, defense not being present? Q. Correct. A. Being spread out over the last many months, I'd have to say three to five, something like that. Q. And did you meet with them last night or this morning? A. Not last night; this morning I did, yes. Q. And how long did you meet with them? A. About an hour and 15 minutes, something like that. Q. Did they explain to you the parameters of your testimony? A. Well, we did discuss the areas that we'd been covering, yes. Q. Now, you did quite a bit of testing, yourself, in this case, did you not, of conventional serological testing? A. Yes, I did. Q. Now, Exhibit No. 216, which was the chart -- do you have that in front of you? A. Talking about the summary of -- Q. Correct? A. -- items? Q. Yeah. A. Yes, I do. Q. Now, you prepared that; is that correct? A. No, I did not. Q. Who prepared that? A. It was provided to me by the plaintiff. Q. So this is not a document generated by the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division? A. I did not generate it; that's correct. Q. So this is not a business record; this is not a record that was prepared by your agency, correct? A. This particular document was not prepared by our agency, yes. Q. When were you presented with this document? A. I believe that was last Tuesday. Q. And did you spend time going over the document and determining whether it was accurate or not? A. Yes, I did. Q. How much time did you spend doing that? A. Probably, if I added up all the little bits and pieces that I spent in between other tasks, I don't know, maybe three to four hours, something in there. Q. And I take it you reviewed documents that were generated within your lab to determine whether the information on the document was accurate, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Looking at page 2, number 17, that indicates number 17 is Mr. Simpson's reference blood vial, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Is it your understanding that that was the reference blood sample taken by Nurse Thano Peratis at the jail hospital? A. Yes, it is. Q. That document indicates that Mr. Simpson's reference vial was given item number 17, correct? A. Yes. Q. Before I show you these documents, let me ask you a couple questions about procedures for booking evidence into SID, or into LAPD in general. What is a DR number? A. DR number, I believe it stands for division of records, something like that. It is a case number. It's something that is assigned and follows a case from beginning to end. Q. Now, when is a DR number assigned in a case, generally? A. Well, it's rarely involved in SID. I believe it's assigned when a detective calls up, either records or the local station, and requests the next number in line. Q. And that's something that they can do, basically, from any location at any time, once they start working on a case, correct? A. Well, mechanically, I believe they can. I don't know what their procedures are as to what time -- at what point it's supposed to occur. Q. I mean, all they need to do is call up on the phone and ask for the next number that becomes the case number for that case? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Lay a foundation. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You're aware of the procedure where DR numbers are assigned to a case, as just indicated? A. General procedures, yes. Q. That involves calling up and saying, give me a number; this is going to be the number for the case that I just started working on, correct? A. Yes. Except for I don't know what information they need to convey when they get it. Q. Okay. And once they get a number, all of the evidence that's collected in a case is tied to that number; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, once they have a DR number, if a detective collects a piece of evidence in the field that he wants to have booked, it goes in under that number, correct? A. That case number, yes, the DR number. Q. If they have an item of evidence that he wanted to bring to SID, what's the procedure for doing that? A. Well, if he wanted the item analyzed, they would book it into property division and normally request that somebody, in whatever unit is going to pick up the evidence from property and bring it in and analyze it. Q. And that's done all the time, isn't it? A. That's a regular procedure, yes. Q. Now, when your criminalists are collecting and booking evidence in the field, or collecting evidence in the field, there's a certain amount of documentation that they're required to fill out as they do their job, correct? A. There's documentation, yes. Q. And that documentation includes listing items that they collect or observe, correct? A. Correct. Q. And writing down information about those items' location, who collected them, that sort of thing? A. The "who collected them" isn't necessarily done at the scene; but, yes, a location, a description. Q. And items are given what are called item numbers as they are collected, correct? A. Not necessarily. They're given photo numbers. The item numbers aren't assigned until after all the items are brought back to the laboratory and the booking process or the packaging process occurs. Q. Well, item numbers can be assigned in the field, as well, can they not? A. They can be, yes. Q. Now, with respect to the evidence that was collected that's reflected on this chart at the Rockingham location, the item number that is listed in the left-hand side of the chart, here, 4 through 17, those were all items numbers that were assigned by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola at the Rockingham crime scene, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You've reviewed the records that form the basis for this chart, have you not? A. Yes, I have. Q. And that includes property records that correspond -- that have the same items that correspond to the items that are described, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you reviewed records that relate to the items that were picked up at Rockingham, correct? A. Yes. Q. And let me show you what's previously been marked as Exhibit 212. MR. BLASIER: Put this on the Elmo. Let me give you a copy of it. THE WITNESS: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That document is in Dennis Fung's handwriting, is it not? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. Excuse me. Lay a foundation. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You are familiar with Dennis Fung's handwriting, are you not? A. Not to the point if I was given a lot of different handwriting, I could pick it out. Q. Does that appear to be his handwriting? A. It appears. Q. You've seen that document before, have you not? A. I believe I have, yes. Q. Now, that document case -- that item number 17 -- MR. BLASIER: Can we get that in better focus? There you go. Q. --is a pair of tennis shoes, correct? A. That's what it reflects, yes. Q. Those tennis shoes were collected, were turned over at a meeting that you had on June 14, in the morning, by Detective Lange, correct? A. That's possible. I don't specifically remember when we received those. Q. But you remember that you received those from Detective Lange the morning after the crime scene was processed? A. I believe so, yes. I don't know if I received them. They were received in the laboratory. Q. You were aware that Detective Lange had taken those tennis shoes home overnight, correct? A. I had subsequently heard that. Q. Now, item number 18 on that document indicates that Mr. Simpson's reference blood was given item number 18, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it was listed there after the tennis shoes that were turned in on the morning of the 14th, correct? A. That's what this list shows, yes. Q. I have this -- MR. BLASIER: This is a new exhibit. Could I have a number, please? THE CLERK: 2130. MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. 2130? THE CLERK: (Nods affirmatively.) (The instrument herein referred to as Serology item description notes was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2130.) Q. Let me show you 2130. I'll give you a copy; maybe you can see it a little bit better. A. Thanks. Q. Now, you recognize that document, don't you? A. Yes, I do. Q. That's -- its title, serology item description notes, why don't you tell me what that document is for? A. This is used in a lot of different instances when a criminalist in the serology unit is working on a case, where they receive the evidence prior to analyzing it, this is one of the forms that's filled out. It merely has the item number on the left-hand side, a brief description of it, and then whether it was in a sealed condition when they received it, those types of things. Those are notations and boxes toward the right-hand side. You can't see them on the screen. It's also kind of generally used as a note pad or a place just to record notes within the serology unit. Q. Now, directing your attention to the bottom, that is number 18 and refers to Mr. Simpson's reference vial, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it was being referred to by that number on, according to that document, June 14. MR. BLASIER: Can we back out on that a little, Phil? (Mr. P. Baker complies.) THE WITNESS: That's correct. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's indicated by the dates on the right, correct? A. Yes. The day received is 6/14/94. Q. Let me give you another exhibit, which I'll number 2131. (The instrument herein referred to as document entitled Serology Case Typing Summary DNA Analysis was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2131.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you -- MR. BLASIER: Phil, can we back out on that a little bit? (Mr. P. Baker complies.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, that is a document entitled Serology Case Typing Summary DNA Analysis, correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. And you recognize that document, as well, do you not? A. Yes, I do. Q. And tell us what that document is for. A. Okay. When a criminalist in serology unit is doing a DNA analysis, this is the sheet in which they record their results. And normally, it is one of the sheets that's used to write the analyzed evidence report from. Q. Okay. MR. BLASIER: Can we zoom in on the left-hand column, lower column now. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The last entry on that form indicates number 18 as Mr. Simpson's reference vial, correct? A. Yes, it does. Q. That document is as of what date? A. I believe it was started on June 14, 1994. Q. Is there a completion date on that? Do you have that in front of you? A. It has a day completed, which refers, I believe, to the analysis of June 17, 1994. Q. So as of the 17th, according to that document, Mr. Simpson's reference vial was still number 18, correct? A. I don't believe that's what this says. Q. What does the No. 1 indicate? A. The item number 18 that's on there would be the item number which the -- when the evidence was received by Mr. Yamauchi, when the analysis was started. Q. At some point in time, the number on Mr. Simpson's reference vial was changed from 18 to 17, was it not? A. Yes, it was. Q. That's because had it been number 18, that would have indicated that it was booked on the morning of the 14th, after the tennis shoes, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained` Q. BY MR. BLASIER: That was done because the records indicated, as item number 18, it was booked -- it was collected by Dennis Fung after the tennis shoes on the morning of the 14th, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. You may ask the question. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Why was 18 changed to 17? A. On this specific item, I don't know. Q. You have no idea? A. No. Item numbers and photo numbers do regularly get changed for a variety of reasons, including simplicity of putting things in order. If you notice, also on this page is two other item numbers, I believe 107 or 109 turned out to be in the 40 range. Q. Those numbers refer to photo I.D. numbers, do they not? A. Yes, they do. Q. You're talking about the first two comments that say looks like 107 and maybe 109? A. Something like that, yes. Q. That wasn't the item number they were given; that was the photo I.D., correct? A. At this point, it was the number that was indicating that item, but it was not the property number, because they are not necessarily related. Q. So that's why those numbers became a different number, because they were given a different item number on the property report, correct? A. From the photo number, yes. That was an example I gave as to how it can change. Q. Now, item 18, however, was given that number in sequence after the tennis shoes, which were item 17, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Lay a foundation. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) We looked at the document before that showed item 17 as the tennis shoes and item 18 as the blood sample, correct? A. We saw a document that had that on it, yes. Q. That's document number 212, correct? A. It's the one we looked at earlier, yes. Q. All right. This is done by Dennis Fung at the time he receives the items, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that a document prepared in the regular course of business in your agency? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: It's a plain white piece of paper that has three lines of text written on it. I don't know specifically when it was filled out by Dennis. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So now is it your testimony that you have no idea when that item number was changed to 17? A. I do have some idea. I know it was changed sometime from when Criminalist Fung received it and when the property report was filled out. MR. BLASIER: Let me mark a new exhibit next in line. THE CLERK: 2132. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of a follow-up investigation report was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2132.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you Exhibit 2132. MR. BLASIER: Can you zoom in on that a little bit. (Referring to TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's a document that's called a follow-up investigation report, correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. And that's a document that was prepared specifically to change the item number of Mr. Simpson's reference blood from 18 to 17, correct? A. No, it isn't. Q. What is it for? A. This was the form in general that is used to correct information that appeared on a previously submitted form, department form. This particular one was prepared by Mr. Yamauchi, not to change the item number on the item itself, but rather, to reflect a change of the item number on his analyzed evidence report that he prepared. Q. It says "change item number 18 to item number 17," correct? A. On his analyzed evidence report, correct, not on a property report or anything that Mr. Fung had prepared. Q. And why was that necessary? A. Because when Mr. Yamauchi started the analysis on these items, he was under the belief that the blood was going to be item number 18, so to have a number, follow it through, that's what he recorded all the way through. At some point, it was determined that the whole blood would become item number 17, which became the official number for that title on the department property report. At that point, it would have been very confusing for Mr. Yamauchi's report to reflect 18, when the actual item number or property number was 17, so he put through an official change to make that correction. Q. Now, the date of this change was what? June 28, was it not? A. This form, or the report was dated June 28, that's correct, 1994. Q. And it was signed by you, was it not? A. Yes. Q. Why was it necessary to change the blood in item number 18 for item number 17? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the testimony, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. I don't understand your objection. THE WITNESS: I don't know. That's something that Mr. Fung will have to answer. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you tell me whether there is any other item in these several hundred items that were collected, that were given an item number by the criminalist that was later changed? A. By the criminalist or by SID? As I mentioned earlier, there were many other items that received an initial number that eventually ended up getting changed on the property report. Without going through all 450 or 500, I can't answer specifically if there was ones that were given an item number and then given a different item number. To me, an item number occurs when the property is booked. Prior to that, it's some sort of reference number, be it one in order or a photo number. The item number is what appears on the property report. Q. Are you aware of any single document, a checklist that gives items numbers as filled out by the criminalist when they collect the evidence, where it's assigned a number and that item number was changed? Can you give me a single example? A. Are we talking about this -- Q. This case. A. I have not gone through and reviewed all of the stuff in the notes. At this point, I can't remember if there was one or not. Q. Do you remember seeing any other follow-up investigation report like 2132 in this case, changing an item number? A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I filled one out that changed because I made a typographical error, filled out a 314, which is what this report is called, making a correction to one of my reports in an item number. Q. Which one was that? A. Had to do with, I believe, the property report I filled out, collecting items associated with the Bronco pieces taken to the laboratory. Q. And which item are you thinking about? A. Well, in the body of the report -- if I can refer to the report, I can give you the exact numbers. Q. Sure. A. Okay. In the property report, I refer to item No. 306 as a hair fiber collected from the same location as 306/30. That's a typographical error. Obviously, the item that it can become couldn't have come from itself. I filled out this exact same form correcting the item, this number that appears in the description, so it reads item 306 hair fiber collected from the same location as No. 303/30. This form is used for corrections like that. Q. Okay. But that was because there had already been the number 30 assigned to that; you just wrote it down correct. You had to conform what you wrote to what the item number that had already been assigned to that item, correct? A. That's correct; it was a correction. Q. Are you aware of any instance where an item number that was assigned by a criminalist for an item that was collected at any of those crime scenes was changed, other than Mr. Simpson's reference vial? A. Well, again, we're getting into a discussion of when it becomes an item number. The item number is what's on the property report. I don't believe any of them were changed after the fact, once it made into a property report. I know of no other ones, other than the photo I.D.s that I mentioned earlier, that got changed, again, between the description number and eventually the item number on the property report. Q. Well, that's the chart number 216, again, the summary chart prepared by the plaintiffs. You see on the left-hand column of that where it has LAPD item number? A. Yes, I do. Q. Isn't it accurate that every single item number, with the exception of 17, Mr. Simpson's reference vial, has a number assigned by the criminalist in their original paperwork as the item that was collected? A. No. Q. Point to one that is not. A. All the items that were checked at Bundy were given an item number or descriptor number based on the photo numbers that were eventually changed to put them in order in a logical position on a property report. Changing numbers is not a terribly uncommon situation. Q. Well, the items that refer to the blood drops that were collected at Bundy, they were given photo I.D. numbers, correct? A. Yes. Q. That's because of the order in which the photographs were taken; when they put the little cards on the ground, they give it that number, correct? A. That's correct. Q. When evidence was started to be collected at Rockingham, Dennis Fung started numbering item numbers sequentially as he collected items, correct? A. The photo numbers and eventually they made it -- they happen to match when he did the property report. Q. Is there a photo number for Mr. Simpson's reference vial? A. I don't believe so, no. Q. So we're not talking about a photo I.D. number that had been changed with respect to Mr. Simpson's vial, are we? A. No. Q. Now, on that chart, I want to direct your attention to number 84. Number 84 refers to fingernail scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson, correct? A. Yes, it does. Q. This is done as a routine procedure by the coroner, collecting scrapings from under a victim's fingernails, correct? A. That's correct. Q. That's to determine whether there might be blood or skin from a person that was scratched, correct? A. I believe that's the reason, yes. Q. You did serological testing on those samples, did you not? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Were you told by the plaintiffs that you weren't going to be asked any questions about any testing you did? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Hearsay, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, let me put on the Elmo, a picture that's previously been marked as 992. (The instrument herein referred to as a Picture of the blood in the vial that was drawn from Mr. Simpson's arm by Nurse Thano Peratis on the 13th of June, 1994 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 992.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You see that picture, Mr. Matheson? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you recognize that to be a picture of the blood in the vial that was drawn from Mr. Simpson's arm by Nurse Thano Peratis on the 13th of June, 1994, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. Q. There are records, are there not, within SID, that demonstrate any time that that blood vial is opened to have blood removed, correct? A. Well, when each person analyzes it, they record that the vial was open, yes. Q. And they actually write their initials on the label and the date, correct? A. That's correct. Q. That's required procedure? A. To mark the item, yes. Q. And that's so that you can at any time determine who opened the vial at any particular time, correct? A. That's one of the ways, yes, to be able to check the markings that are on it. MR. BLASIER: Now, can we zoom in on the stopper. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you see the blood on the stopper in that vial? A. Yes, behind the glass. Q. Do you have any idea when this particular picture was taken? A. I don't remember the date. I believe it was one of the times when representatives of the defense team were in our laboratory, looking at evidence items. Q. Do you know whether there are any pictures that exist of that blood vial prior to June 25 of 1994? I'm sorry. Let me give you June 14. A. Not to my knowledge, no. Q. So you have no way of knowing whether there was blood on the stopper in that vial as of June 13, do you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what's been marked as 225. (The instrument herein referred to as outside of a gray analyzed evidence envelope was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 225.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you tell us what that is? A. That's the outside of a gray analyzed evidence envelope that we used to book either blood or urine samples in. Q. And can you see that closely enough to determine whether that's Mr. Simpson's reference vial envelope? A. I did see the item number 17, which is the property item number for Mr. Simpson's blood. I don't know if it mentions from the bottom part his name or not, but that is the item number that was associated with that item after it was booked. Q. Okay. MR. BLASIER: Why don't you back that off, Phil. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That number 17 is written in red, correct? A. Appears to be. Q. Do you have any idea when that number was put on that envelope? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Now, what is the correct procedure when blood is collected with respect to how that envelope is used? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: You can take that off, Phil. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you again, 2130 serology description notes. MR. BLASIER: And I want to zoom in right there. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you see that entry, Mr. Matheson? A. (No verbal response.) Q. Let me give you a copy of that. A. I thought I had one. Okay. Q. And that entry that we've zoomed in on indicates that on June 13, approximately one milliliter was removed from Mr. Simpson's reference vial for swatching, correct. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, no foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: It's their business record; they used it to formulate this chart. THE COURT: I know. It's beyond the scope of their examination. You may do it on your portion of your case. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, do you have 1302 in front of you? A. Which one is that one? Q. That's the document you prepared on the 29th of June. A. Yes, I do. MR. BLASIER: Could we have page 2 please. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, I believe it was your testimony that the purpose of examining evidence on the 29th was -- there were actually a number of different purposes, were there not? A. Yes, there was. Q. And one of those was to determine whether there was biological evidence or biological material on evidence that should be shared with the defense -- from the defense desires to do testing on their own, correct? A. Part of it, yeah. That's the reason for the column that says "split." Part of it was to determine whether or not we felt there was sufficient evidence to perform a split of the evidence, or to give the defense part for their own testing. Q. And so each item of evidence was examined to determine whether it had biological material on it, blood stains, et cetera, that might be split with the defense, correct? A. No, it wasn't. Q. When you were examining these items, were you looking at them to see whether or not they had evidentiary value? A. Generally, yes. We weren't doing an examination; we were looking at it and doing an inventory. Q. You looked at each item, did you not? A. Yes, we did. MR. BLASIER: Let's zoom in on number 13. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you got to number 13 -- By the way, did you fill out this form as you did your examination? A. Yes, I did. Q. And when you got to number 13, you were in the room with Mr. Yamauchi and Michele Kestler, correct? A. That's correct. Q. You were all looking at the items of evidence, correct? A. Yes. Q. And number 13, pair of socks, you looked at those items, correct? A. Yes. I pulled them out of the bag; that's how I determined the color of them. Q. Now, let's go over to the far right-hand column. Under comments, you wrote "blood search," correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. And that's because you looked at them to see if there was any blood on them, didn't you? A. No. If I had done that -- If I had performed an analysis, it would have appeared on the column 2 before that, that says "analysis performed." It doesn't appear in that column. It does appear in the comments, indicating that is something that we needed to do. MR. BLASIER: Well, let's go to the left a little bit, Phil, and go out, Phil, and go out of it on the "analysis performed" column. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You have on the "analysis performed" column for number 12, you have PCR, correct? A. At the top of the page? Yes, I do. Q. You didn't perform that analysis that day, did you? A. No. Q. But it had been performed? Well, number 17, Mr. Simpson's blood again, you indicate RFLP. That had not been performed, had it? A. It had not yet been performed, but I believe it had been submitted out for analysis and that it was in progress. Q. So the analysis performed was -- that column was for things that had already been done and some things that were going to be done in the future, correct? A. No, I believe it was for the things that had already been done or things that were in progress. Q. Now, when you wrote "none obvious," you obviously examined the socks for blood, didn't you? A. I brought them out, gave them the color -- Or the color description, took a general look at them. I did not examine them. It was just appearance. There was no blood obvious on those socks. Q. Did Ms. Kestler or Colin Yamauchi say to you, when you made that notation, that they saw any blood? A. Not that I recall, no, or I would have indicated that. Q. And going to page -- or the page that has item number 84 on it, please. The number is 84 A and B, and C referred to nail clippings from Nicole Brown Simpson, correct? A. 84 A and B refer to nail scrapings. Q. Scrapings? A. 84 C is the nail clippings. Q. And you don't have any indication there about any analysis that's going to be performed, do you? A. I believe I do. In the comments, I indicate possible PCR conventional for 84 A, and that carries through to the other items. Q. That was done, was it not? A. Yes, it was. THE COURT: You're not going to be through with this witness for what? MR. BLASIER: Not for a little while. THE COURT: Take ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) CROSS EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Matheson, did you review records from the lab to determine how many other times between June 29 when you looked at the socks and August 4, when Mr. Yamauchi looked at the socks that they were looked at by other people? A. I made a quick check, yes. Q. And how many times were they looked at by other people? A. It's a quick check I said I did -- I performed. I didn't find that they had been taken out and looked at during that time at all. Q. Were you present when Drs. Boden and Lee examined the socks? A. No, I was not. Q. Now, on August 4, is it correct, then, that is the first time that Mr. Yamauchi looked at socks and determined there were blood stains visible to the naked eye? A. That was the first date that blood was located, yes. That's correct. Q. Now, you indicated that there was a piece of carpeting that was cut out of the Bronco and was put in a box. Remember that? A. Yes, I believe it was item No. 33. Q. And that was a piece of carpeting from the floor board area of the driver side, correct? A. That's correct. Q. What else was in that box? A. That particular box contained most, if not all of the freezer storage items or -- Yeah, freezer storage items that were collected initially in the first couple of days of the investigation that were booked by Mr. Fung. Q. And that would include the gloves, the knit cap, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, I want to ask you about the stains on the console that -- you indicated you swatched those stains on September 1, I believe, correct? A. Yes. Q. That's the stains represented on the lower right hand part of this picture, correct? A. That's correct. The numbers that are on there are the different stain locations. Q. And one of those stains is No. 305? A. Yes. Q. Are you aware of any picture at all taken prior to the time this was taken in the lab that shows blood stain 305? A. No, I did not. (Referring to large board entitled "Bronco Evidence.") Q. Is it accurate to say that the total amount of blood on this console is actually an extremely small amount of blood? A. I'm not sure what you mean by extremely small. Q. Less than a drop is enough to create smears that size, correct? A. I'm not so sure less than a drop would be enough to do that. I have not performed any test. That seems small for the amount of blood that was there. Q. Have you heard any other estimate that people have given for the amount of blood on that? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Hearsay, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You say when you collected those stains, you swatched them with a swatch, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Is there a procedure that you have within S.I.D. for collecting blood swatches? A. There's an informal procedure, yes. MR. BLASIER: Could I have a new number, please? THE CLERK: 2133. (The instrument herein referred to as instructions included in blood sample kits was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2113.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you what's been marked as 2133 and could you tell me what that is? A. Actually these are a couple of different documents. One of them is a set of instructions that was prepared for detectives when they collect blood samples. We supply homicide detectives in particular with small blood collection or evidence collection kits so that if they're at a scene that doesn't require a criminalist, other than to pick up one or two items of blood, they can perform it themselves. The last of the three pages you gave me were the instructions that are included with that kit. The other two I don't have any specific LAPD footer or notation on that. I believe they have been used during training sessions but I'm not totally sure. Q. The last page is instructions that are given to homicide detectives and all detectives carry or permitted to carry kits that allows them to make blood swatches at crime scenes, correct? A. Well, not all of them. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. LAMBERT: Irrelevant and beyond the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll permit that question. THE WITNESS: Not all the detectives have them or even would be provided with them. We do provide them to homicide detectives when they request it. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And homicide detectives are trained on how to collect swatches. MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. THE COURT: That is sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, does scientific investigation division at LAPD have a field procedures manual that tells people, criminalists how to collect their evidence? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you tried to collect a sample such as on the console, the proper procedure is to collect as much as possible, correct? A. We want to collect as much of the blood as possible, that's correct. Q. That's because if you want to do particular kinds of tests such as RFLP tests, it takes a certain amount of blood? A. That's correct. It takes a certain amount. Q. You can't tell from looking at a smear as we see on the console, whether there's going to be enough there or not to do RFLP tests, correct? A. Just from looking at it, or you can have kind of a guess, no, there's no specific test or anything you can perform. Q. When your criminalists are there when they see a smear like that, they're going to be potential DNA tests, do they collect all of it? A. We ask them to collect as much as possible, up to a quarter size stain. Q. When you say a quarter size stain, what do you mean? A. Well, for -- With a stain that's about the size of a quarter either when it has been dropped on a sidewalk or on a surface, or you have about a quarter size stain worth of swatches, you can pretty much perform all the different types of serological test that's needed to be performed. We give that as a rule of thumb, if you can collect about a quarter size stain. Q. Does it say that anywhere in any document they provided to your criminalist? A. No. Q. Now the stains that you've indicated on the console were actually discovered on August 26, were they not? A. I believe two of the stains were previously collected by Mr. Fung. The one that's in the lower back, right corner of the console, I don't believe was noticed until that date. Q. While there were inspections of the Bronco, now, the August 26 date, that was an event, were you present when the Bronco was searched at this time? A. No, I was not. Q. You were aware of that search taking place, were you not? A. I was aware of it, yes. Q. That was a search that was done at the direction of Michele Kestler, the head of the lab, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Prior to August 26 and after stains 31 and 30 were collected, are you aware of anyone who saw or reported any additional blood on the console? A. I don't believe they were -- we were involved in any sort of searching or searches or anything at that point. I don't recall anybody else specifically saying something. Q. Did Dennis Fung, at any time, tell you that he only collected part of the stains, number 30 and 31? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you indicated that the procedure you used, you put a swatch on the stain and then you take the swatch and put it through a process to allow it to dry, correct? A. Yes. It's a set on a bindle or on a small piece of plastic under the conditions that I collected these. Q. Okay. And, well, describe that procedure to me in a little bit more detail? A. The collection process like I did in the laboratory? Q. Yeah. A. It's simple. You have a stain on a surface we collect on small clean cotton swatches or prepared in our laboratory. You pick a swatch. Say you have a very small stain, you pick a swatch that's roughly the same size of your stain dampen it in water, shake off the excess water, apply the stain, rub it around. The whole idea you're trying to take the blood or whatever it is off of the surface and take it into the swatch. If you have a larger stain, then you may use 3, 4, 5, 8, whatever it takes to collect a representative sample of that quarter or that quarter size sample that I'm talking about. Once you feel you have as much as you want to on the swatches, you take an -- in this particular case, 'cause I was in a laboratory setting, place the swatches on top of a plastic -- little plastic bag that I had to allow them to dry; just air dry in the room. After they're dry, they're taken off of the plastic and put into the bindle like you've seen before. Q. And the bindle, all that is a little piece of paper. Like a piece of scratch paper folded into a square, correct? A. That's correct. Just a piece of white paper we have around the lab, three-folded in on itself to capture the evidence inside so it doesn't get lost. Q. The proper procedure calls for drying the swatch before it's put in a paper bindle, correct? A. It's supposed to be, yes. Q. And you said that you date and you initial the bindle, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the purpose for doing that is to be able to track, to make sure that the bindle that you initialed and dated, if it's looked at later on down the road, you can tell it's the same bindle that you prepared? A. That's correct. Q. If you date and initial a bindle and sometime later you pull what's supposed to be that same bindle and there are no initials or dates on it, you know then it's not the same bindle you initially put in there, correct? A. I'd be concerned if -- like in these cases, if I dated and initialed it when I made it and those were gone, yes. I would be concerned. Q. Now, it's correct that all of the biological evidence, all of the blood stains and other pieces of evidence that might have blood on them were processed through LAPD prior to the time -- S.I.D. prior to the time they were ever sent to any outside laboratories, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the chart has information about being sent to other labs on here. THE COURT: Let me see counsel on that issue. (The following proceedings were held at the bench:) THE COURT: This is 216? MR. LAMBERT: Yes. THE COURT: I'm on 216. I think there was an objection, wasn't there? MR. LAMBERT: There was -- THE COURT: Well, I overruled it on the ruling -- apparently I think I overruled it on erroneous grounds. I think if my recollection serves me correctly without going back through the computer to find it, I ruled that it was a business record. MR. LAMBERT: What it is, Your Honor, it's a summary, voluminous business records. It's a 12 -- I think its 1209, the summary of voluminous records exception. MR. BLASIER: It wasn't prepared by him. MR. LAMBERT: Doesn't have to be. This is the same exhibit introduced at the criminal trial. THE COURT: Doesn't make it any better. MR. LAMBERT: No. No, I'm saying it's obviously standard, compiled of underlined records. THE COURT: There is no 1209. MR. LAMBERT: I must be wrong. It's the summary of voluminous records. Exception is -- MR. PETROCELLI: If it's in sequence. MR. LAMBERT: Maybe it's 14 -- MR. PETROCELLI: It might be in the 14 hundred sequence, Judge. THE COURT: Is it 1340? MR. LAMBERT: Its actually called summary or voluminous records. MR. PETROCELLI: It's 1509, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. The court sets aside its previous ruling that it was a business record exception. I'll receive it under section 1509 of the evidence code. Okay. (The following proceedings were resumed in open court in the presence of the jury:) THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I'm reading the question and frankly I can't make sense out of the question because the record hasn't been edited by the reporter sufficiently that I can decipher it. MR. BLASIER: Let me try it again. THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, on chart number 216, every item on here that was sent to Cellmark or department of justice or to the FBI was collected by criminalists working for S.I.D. and was processed through the S.I.D. division, correct? A. Well, they were all processed through at some point. In other words, I packaged and prepared it to be sent out. Some were analyzed, others were not. As far as collected, a notable example would be item number 17, Mr. Simpson's whole blood, we do collect that. That was received and then booked. But at some point, all of these other items listed on this chart were processed through our laboratory. Whether they were analyzed or not -- Q. And indeed, everything you mentioned, are there any things that are -- went out to other labs that are not on this chart? A. I didn't go through to check to see if there were additional items that went out that don't appear here. I was checking the accuracy of the chart. Q. Isn't it accurate that everything that went out to other labs was processed through S.I.D. first? A. That's correct. If we submitted it to an outside laboratory, we'd prepare it and process it and present it to them. Q. Now, the booking process involves -- well tell me what that involves; whether an item is booked. What does that mean? A. Basically as it's -- you have an item. You have basically scientifically prepared it to be forwarded, whether it's a blood item that needs to be dried and then processed or another item that needs to be bindled or put on the shelf. They're prepared -- collected, prepared, packaged, sealed within an envelope or a box or a larger container of some type. Information is placed on the outside of the package that reflects the case number, the case, what is inside of that package. It is then taken to one of the department's property rooms. It happens that S.I.D. has a part of our division which is property facility called our evidence control unit. So if a criminalist books something, normally it just goes into this evidence control unit or part of our property division which is located adjacent to us. If an officer collects something, normally they book it in or deliver it to a property room that's out at the location that they work in. It's then stored at that location, if it's appropriate for it. If not, it's taken someplace else. An example being, if a homicide detective collects a blood sample at a homicide, they'll take it to their local property room where it's temporarily stored in a freezer until one of our couriers brings it downtown to the evidence control unit alongside of S.I.D. where we have a very large freezer to properly store biological evidence. Q. When an item is booked, it's entered into the LAPD computer system for tracking, correct? A. Not when it's booked. Sometime later it is, yes. Q. Isn't it correct that none of the items in this case were booked until June 16? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: I'll allow it. THE WITNESS: I believe that would be the first date item No. 1, I think was actually booked into the system on June 16. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So the computer system that LAPD has for tracking items would not show activity on any of the evidence items collected on the 13th and the 14th until the 16th, correct. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: I'll sustain it. I didn't hear any foundation with regard to this witness expertise on the computer. Q. Well, we've gone through this before, have we not, Mr. Matheson, about the computer system and how it works? You're familiar with that, aren't you? A. I have a general knowledge of the department's computer system and a little bit more; but still, general knowledge regarding the divisions evidence tracking system. Q. And you're aware that the computer system allows you at any time you can make a printout of any particular evidence item and you can show exactly where it's been from the date it was entered into the system until today, correct? A. Not necessarily 'cause there are two different systems. The property system records, when it's entered in and its general location, such as evidence control unit, not exactly where it is within that area. And then when it is logged out by non S.I.D. personnel, if a police officer checks something out of property or if it goes over to court, it's recorded in the department system. Q. And in those two Systems, none of the evidence was tracked or accounted for in those two Systems until starting on June 16, correct? A. Assuming the 16th is the proper date, I don't have the property report in front of me, I believe it is. Our property division would have had no record of those items until they were physically booked into it on that date. MR. BLASIER: We have 1025 on the board with -- can you back out a little bit. Mr. Matheson, you testified on direct about EAP tests, correct? (The instrument herein referred to as Printout of sample blood cells - EAP vs. DNA was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1025.) THE WITNESS: A little bit, yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That stands for a erythro acid phosphotase? A. Erythrocyte acid phosphotase. Q. And that is a genetic marker, as you described, other than ABO typing and some of the others that you mentioned, correct? A. It is a genetic marker, yes. It's located on the red blood cell. Q. And -- THE COURT: Excuse me. That's on the TV screen? MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, on the screen. THE COURT: I just want to keep the record straight. Okay. No problem. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, it's true, is it not, when you look at the genetic marker EAP, you're examining something that's in the red blood cells, correct? A. I -- probably on the surface of it. But it is associated with the red blood cell that's correct. Q. When you do DNA testing, you're not looking at something in the red blood cells, correct? A. That's correct. The red blood cells have no DNA in them. Q. You're looking at two different things. Those are apples an oranges in the sense that you've done an EAP test and get a particular finding that has no relationship whatsoever to any DNA profile that might be in that sample, correct? A. If it is possible to totally separate the different cells within a blood sample, that's correct. If you're testing just the red blood cells like you do an EAP, then it is not correct to the DNA. That's in the white blood cell. Q. Now you indicated that you did testing, initial testing to determine whether you could exclude anybody, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Well, the nature of serology analysis is to try and exclude, that's correct. To -- Q. I'm sorry? A. To get more and more information, narrow the scope of a sample to try and exclude all the people that could not have left a sample. Q. And you performed testing in this case on the finger nail clippings or scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson in an effort to try an exclude, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, none of these tests, none of the tests that you talked about, including the DNA tests are tests that are used to establish unique identification, correct? A. That's correct. They're not like fingerprints. Q. When you say a fingerprint, we're talking about fingerprints from your fingers that are called dermal fingerprints? A. I don't know about the dermal, they're fingerprints or your fingers, that's correct. Q. That is one forensic technique that does allow you to identify somebody uniquely, correct? A. That's correct. And none of the tests in this case, other than -- well, none of serological test or DNA tests conducted in this case have the ability of establishing uniqueness, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, all of the tests that you talked about require the use of what you said is the product rule, correct; to establish what it means when you say that one person or one sample appears to be the same as another sample? A. Once you start looking at multiple markers, that's correct. You use the product rule, multiply them together to make the number small and smaller. Q. And in order to use that particular rule, there must be what's called independence between one marker and another marker, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And a good example of that, if you were trying to figure out how many people in the population had blond hair and blue eyes, if you counted up the percentage that had blond hair and multiplied it by the percentage that had blue eyes, it wouldn't work in that case, would it? A. That's correct. I believe there is an association between the -- Q. The reason you can't use that formula is because there's some connection between blond hair and blue eyes? A. Like I said, I believe there is, yeah. Q. So that only works where there is absolutely no connection between one marker and the other marker? A. Where they're genetically independent, that's correct. THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, 10. Don't talk about the case; don't do form or express any opinions. (At 12:00 p.m a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1996 1:39 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE. (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: (Nods to Mr. Blasier.) MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. GREGORY MATHESON, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Matheson, let me show you a photograph that's previously been marked as 1420. (The instrument herein referred to as Photo of the Bronco taken on August 10 of 1994 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1420.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Take a look at that, sir, and tell me if that appears to be a picture of the Bronco taken on August 10 of 1994. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. No foundation, Your Honor. MR. BLASIER: That's what I'm asking him for. THE COURT: Okay, overruled. (Witness reviews photo.) THE WITNESS: There are two photographs on this, the top one showing an identification photograph that the photographer takes, showing a C number, which is nothing more than a catalog number within the department that lists the date, August 10, 1994, the photographer's location of Virtelli's Towing. On the bottom part is a photograph of a Bronco looking in from -- I guess it's a Bronco -- from the right-hand side, with a handwritten number 15 on the corner, with no other designator. I never saw the whole vehicle. I don't know if that's that vehicle or not. Q. Do you recall testifying this morning about the carpeting that was removed from the Bronco? A. Yes, I do. Q. That was actually removed on the 14th of June, was it not? A. It's my understanding, yes. Q. And can you see from this picture that the carpeting in this car has already been removed over in the area of the driver's side? A. Yes, it appears to be. Q. And that's consistent with the appearance of the Bronco with the carpet having been removed as of June 14, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for a conclusion. THE COURT: Sustained. This witness said he never saw a photograph of the complete vehicle at any time. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you examined the console on September 1, it was removed from the car, correct? A. That's correct. MR. BLASIER: Can we zoom in on the console. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you see any evidence of any blood whatsoever on that console? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. No foundation. Calls for conclusion, speculation on the part of the witness. THE COURT: Sustained as to foundation for the photograph. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of any photographs of the Bronco taken between June 14 and September 1 -- Strike that -- August 26, that shows blood on the console? A. I don't know of any, but I hadn't seen all the photographs. Q. Now, could you take a look at 216 that I have in front of you there. (Witness reviews Exhibit 216.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, reference blood samples -- reference blood sample from a suspect, that's an extremely important piece of evidence, is it not? A. All the evidence that is associated with the case can be important. The reference samples are, yes. Q. The reference sample from -- that sample that -- everything else that's found at a crime scene might be compared to that reference sample, correct? A. That's correct. Q. If that becomes compromised in some fashion, that can affect the validity of anything that's compared to it, correct? A. If there's a problem with a particular reference sample, yes, it's correct. Then comparisons to that sample would be difficult; it would be a problem. Q. On that list there, number 59 and 60, those are also reference samples, are they not? A. Yes, they are. Q. And those are reference samples for Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, correct? A. That's correct; they're the blood vials. Q. Those are the EDTA purple-type vials, as we saw with Mr. Simpson's vial, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Those are directed at the time of autopsy, are they not? A. Excuse me. That's my understanding, yes. Q. And your chart here, or the plaintiffs' chart here, indicates that the Los Angeles Police Department collected those sample on June 15, 1994? A. That's correct. Q. That accurate? A. It is the date that they were booked into property as those items. Q. Is says it was collected by LAPD. Was it? A. Those particular items were prepared by the coroner's office. They were collected by, I believe, one of the detectives associated with the case. Q. And it indicates on there that the blood was sent to Cellmark on what date? A. For both of these items, on June 23, 1994. Q. Between June 15 and June 24 of 1994, where were the victims' blood samples? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you know where it was? A. Yes. Q. Where? A. In the refrigerator located in the serology unit. Q. We've already discussed that Mr. Simpson's reference vial on this chart is indicated as number 17, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Is there any way for blood to get from Mr. Simpson's reference vial into the reference vials of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman through any mechanism other than tampering? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Improper, hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence. MR. BLASIER: We'll tie it up. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I would say for the blood to get from one to another, somebody would have to open the vials up and pour them together or something. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. THE COURT: Redirect? MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Now, Mr. Matheson, there was some discussion during your cross-examination about the evidence items being packaged in a box in the serology department, the various evidence items from this case. How were those items contained inside the box? A. Okay. What we were talking about are the items that have the biological evidence on them that are freezer storage, and they were kept in one large box for simplicity. But each item inside is packaged individually or independently. To give you an example, I've described before the process of doing the swatches and placed inside a bindle, and the bindle placed inside an envelope, just a small manila envelope. Then all of those envelopes, because they were going into a larger box, were placed into another envelope, not sealed, but just placed there so that they could be easily found. And items like clothing items that are a little bit larger, they are put into closed paper bags. And items such as the carpeting, because it's kind of large and won't fit into a paper bag, a large piece of butcher paper is used to enclose it or wrap the evidence inside of it. Q. So is each item of evidence separately wrapped -- A. Yes. Q. -- in its own container? A. Yes. Q. Also, you were asked some questions about the examination by Colin Yamauchi on August the 4th of the socks. This was after your June 29 meeting. When you inventoried the items, did you, yourself, after June 29, ever do an examination of the socks? A. Yes, I did. Q. And about when was that; do you remember? A. I believe that was in mid-September. Q. Okay. And on that occas