Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Kelberg. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we take up the next witness?

MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. I am down here not as a result of anyone else's efforts, but of my own accord, because I couldn't help on Friday but review the Court's ruling with respect to Mr. MacDonell's testimony and then to review Dr. Rieders' report, my understanding being that Dr. Rieders will be the next witness called by the Defense. And it struck me as ironic, if nothing else, that in the Court's ruling regarding Mr. MacDonell, the Court, on page 2 of its ruling, noted near the end, just before the section dealing with discovery violations, the previous evidence code section 352 objection by the Defense: "The phenolphthalein based presumptive tests for human blood is still well taken for all the reasons previously advanced." And what struck me from that in the Court's order is Dr. Rieders' report concerning his analysis of the test results of Mr. Martz from the FBI because on page 2 in the concluding paragraph of Dr. Rieders' report he says: "Thus the finding of EDTA in a micro blood specimen, such as in the present ones, is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for the blood having originated from a specimen which has been placed into a usually lavender top blood collection" and handwritten in is "EDTA tube such as is commonly used to draw blood from a living person and keep it from coagulating." What I believe the evidence would show, your Honor, with respect to the analysis by Dr. Rieders, is there can be, among the eleven preliminary organic compounds known in the universe, hundreds perhaps that would give a reading, a pattern, to use a shorthand version, of findings consistent with what Dr. Rieders in his report is only willing to say is a pattern which is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for EDTA. It seems to me that for all the reasons expressed by the Defense to keep out phenolphthalein testing, because it is misleading, confusing to the jury of the real issues, and so forth, the same applies with respect to Dr. Rieders' testimony, proposed testimony, with respect to the EDTA testing of the two bloodstains. This is not evidence that in fact shows there is EDTA, according to Dr. Rieders' own report. It only reflects that the result is presumptive of EDTA, and we can go into the technicalities about basically the full spectrum that you need to see in order to say I identify EDTA is absent, that it is not a full spectrum, and only what is present can be used to say in the opinion of Dr. Rieders it is indicative of, consistent with, presumptive for. What is good for the goose, your Honor, I submit is good for the gander. Now, why is this important? Because if there is only one other compound in the universe which besides EDTA could give the pattern which is the pattern found in the stains from the gate and the socks and from--I will get into that, Miss Clark, in just a moment--if there is only one other compound that could give that pattern, then the evidence may have far more probative value than if hundreds of other compounds could provide that result. But we don't know which hundreds could provide it because as the evidence would show, Dr. Rieders, no. 1, has never done this test for EDTA using this equipment. His laboratory does not have this equipment. And the laboratory that he has to go to when he wants to use this kind of equipment does not have electrospray which is in fact the process used by the FBI, but it is the FBI's report and analysis which Dr. Rieders is going to come in here and talk about supposedly. Now, I find it most curious that a man who has never been testing for EDTA using this equipment who doesn't have the equipment in his laboratory and who has to go to a lab to do this kind of laboratory test but can't do it on that equipment because it is not previously the same kind is going to come in here and start talking about is this EDTA or is this not EDTA. And what is important, all he is going to say is about his own admission in his own report is it is presumptive of. Let me give the Court a further understanding of why I think it is so potentially misleading and it is an example from Dr. Rieders' past, recent past. A very well-known case in the southern California area, the sconce, s-c-o-n-c-e, case, oleander poisoning. The history, a gentleman was found dead in 1985, death attributed to cardiac arrest, a young man, a very overweight man and a man in the funeral business, a competitor of Mr. Sconce's. There was an informant who in about 1990 suggested that Mr. Sconce or that the victim, had been poisoned by oleander poisoning. As a result of which the Ventura County District Attorney's office retained the services of Dr. Rieders to perform an analysis of various substances preserved from autopsy to determine the presence of something called oleandrin which is part and parcel of the oleander plant and is a toxin. Let me read the Court just very briefly Dr. Rieders' testimony at the preliminary hearing in 1990, October 4th, regarding his findings. "In this case three independent tests were done; thin layer chromatography, fluorescent spectrophotometry and radioimmunoassay. These are physiochemically different things. The chances that a substance has all the properties in all three tests in common and is in actuality another substance," and his opinion was that these tests showed it was oleandrin, "From experience are so extremely remote that one then has a very high degree of scientific certainty that if one says that this is oleandrin, in fact it is. A hundred percent, never. For a hundred percent you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent, it is statistical, and it is reasonably certain that chances are remote. And if you want to go over into the area of, in that area, the hand of all mighty God can make anything happen, so possibilities of course are there, but it is a high degree of reasonable scientific certainty and the operative word is `reasonable' a scientist goes by reason and not by feeling." Well, the Defense attorney for Mr. Sconce didn't think going by feeling was a very good way to go either, so he proposed having additional and more sophisticated tests performed. And guess what? The Prosecution, which included Mr. Giss of our office as a specially designated Prosecutor for Ventura County, agreed to split the $20,000 bill to have the sophisticated testing done using LCMS/MS equipment at Cornell University, incidentally, where Mr. MacDonell, I believe, makes his headquarters, Cornell, New York, and that the testing was to be done to determine the presence or absence of oleandrin and another metabolite product. And guess what? Wasn't there. The testing by Dr. Henion demonstrated that what Mr.--Dr. Rieders was willing to say to reasonable scientific certainty, not to a hundred percent because he is not God, it wasn't there. And guess what happened? A man charged with a potential capital offense saw his case dismissed as a result of Dr. Henion's findings.

And guess what further happened, your Honor? Because I'm sure the Court understands that before the Prosecutor is going to dismiss a potential capital murder offense based upon an expert's finding he is going to want to go back to the original expert, Dr. Rieders, and say explain, please, where is Dr. Henion wrong? Tell us. Dr. Rieders--I talked to Mr. Giss in Miss Clark's office on Friday--basically gave a rambling nonresponsive answer, but a newspaper account of the story is succinct and to the point. From the April 4th, 1991 Los Angeles Times. "Henion reported last week that he had found no signs of oleandrin but he said he was still looking for substances created when oleandrin breaks down in the body. After trial recessed, when Henion testified with his results, no evidence of poison. Rieders, reached at his home near Philadelphia, said he could not account for the difference between his finding and Henion's.

"In science' Rieders said, quote, `nothing is unquestionable,' unquote. Now, your Honor, I submit that this is exactly why presumptive test results should not be given to this jury under 352, because they are so misleading. They are not probative. Dr. Rieders cannot say what other compounds could produce the findings that the lab reports from Mr. Marks indicate, and to allow Dr. Rieders to give presumptive testing when the Court sustained Defense objections to presumptive testing is not to be fair to both sides in this case using basically the same rule of law applied to the same general aspect of the case. Now, as the Court will recall when I was last here arguing the admissibility of Mr. Simpson's statement on the exercise video, I argued something on the assumption the Court may not accept my position that the statement was admissible. That is, I wanted the tape played to show the physical movement. I make the same statement now that I made then, your Honor, that I believe this motion should be granted, but I also feel it incumbent on myself to raise additional points in the event the Court feels that the motion is not well taken. No. 1, the oleandrin incident is a clear mistake by Dr. Rieders, which using the rationale of the Defense with respect to Dr. Golden--and of course that is really why I'm done here because I have some familiarity with the evidentiary issues on this issue where the issue is the competency of the expert witness--the Court found that these specific examples of mistakes become admissible. And here, unlike Dr. Golden with gunshot wounds versus knife wounds, here we have the very same process taking place. Are we looking at something which is indicative of, consistent with and presumptive for the chemical or are we identifying the chemical in the substance? Big difference. And that is exactly what is at issue here, because I believe--I submit to the Court the evidence will show that in fact this is not EDTA. Agent Martz' unpreserved blood gave the same result as was found on the stains from the glove and from the gate, not a quantitative result, but showing the same pattern, unpreserved. That is a pretty interesting finding with respect to whether we carry EDTA in our systems, if it is EDTA, or whether there is some other compound that gives the same pattern. So no. 1, the issue of does he get cross-examined if he testifies about his mistake, I submit to the Court using parity of reason he gets cross-examined. No. 2, and I mentioned this to Miss Clark is really why I thought it important that I come down and argue this point, because the Court will recall in cross-examining Dr. Golden Mr. Shapiro wanted to cross-examine Dr.--I'm sorry--cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan, wanted to cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan regarding the legal implications from the mistakes in the Gaye Phillips case which Dr. Golden acknowledged making. The Court will recall that area of proposed cross-examination, and I objected to it on, among other grounds, that it is irrelevant and that was because the issue for the mistake went to the competency of Dr. Golden. But I submit to the Court that it is proper cross-examination of Dr. Rieders to show the legal implications from his failure and refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong, because now we are not talking about his competency, we are talking about his bias. Dr. Rieders put his professional standing, his ability to get future business, his ability to retain his position as director of a laboratory, above the liberty rights of Mr. Sconce, rather than acknowledge that Dr. Henion's more sophisticated test proved that in fact there was no oleandrin poisoning. He takes the position in science "Nothing is unquestionable."

Goes to bias, the legal ramifications. So I submit to the Court that if Dr. Rieders gets to testify, he gets cross-examined not only about the mistake, but he gets cross-examined regarding his response to that mistake and the legal implications from his failure or refusal to acknowledge it as a mistake because he needed to place his selfish interests above those of Mr. Sconce, the criminally charged Defendant. So again, your Honor, I raise these two points not because I believe our motion to preclude his testimony in its entirety is not well taken; I raise these points because I don't know how the Court is going to rule and I want to give the Court the full picture of what I believe are issues related to Dr. Rieders' proposed testimony.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just one moment, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Let me talk about the second issue first. I think it is just absolutely outrageous that Mr. Kelberg would come in and read from a newspaper and argue that there has been some determination that Dr. Rieders made a mistake in the sconce case. If we want to litigate the sconce case, we can, but it is going to take us about a month. The testing that was done by Mr. Henion was done on a five-year old autopsy, a different autopsy, different tissue than the testing done by Dr. Rieders earlier. Dr. Henion in his reports, my understanding, acknowledges that perhaps what Dr. Rieders saw might have been there when he saw it, but because the second autopsy five years later might not show the same thing. The case was dismissed. There were other reasons for its dismissal. We can litigate that from here to Sunday. And it is absolutely ludicrous to say that they should be able to cross-examine him on that kind of a case where there has been no legal determination that any mistake was made. In fact no mistake was made. These are contrary opinions on scientific evidence which happens all the time. And the notion that Mr. Kelberg would come in and raise his voice because a scientist would say he is not certain about something is outrageous. No scientist is going to get up there and tell you he is absolutely positive about anything if he's a real scientist. So I make a motion that they not be allowed to cross-examine on that issue at all. On 352 grounds, certainly, and a lack of showing that there is any legal basis to cross-examine. As to the first issue, on whether this is a presumptive test or not, first of all, Mr. Kelberg has not read Dr. Rieders' report carefully. His report states that the testing done by the FBI does show the presence of EDTA in the bloodstain from the sock and from the gate. There is no language about "Presumptive for" in that part of his report. The second part of the report where he tries to attribute a source as to where this could have come from is where he uses the term "Presumptive" not in the sense of a phenolphthalein test where the phenolphthalein test we know that there are a lot of common-occurring substances that can give the same response as blood and therefore it is only a test that narrows it down somewhat, could have been something else, so they have to do follow-up tests to confirm it. These are not presumptive tests. I find it fascinating that Mr. Kelberg would use Mr. Henion's LCMS/MS test to go prove that Dr. Rieders made a mistake when he is claiming now that LCMS/MS is just a presumptive test. That is the same testing that was done in this case. They might say that there are hundreds of compounds that could give this pattern. They can't name a single one. I asked Agent Martz. He can't name a single one. They have not looked at all eleven million organic compounds. There may be eleven billion in the universe, we don't know. So you can't absolutely say that there isn't something else out there that we have never seen before that might give this same pattern. That doesn't make it a presumptive test. I'm assuming that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office has been prosecuting people for years based on LCMS tests or GC/MS tests which has less information than the tests run by the FBI in this case. Those tests have been used since the seventies to demonstrate that you have a particular substance in your blood, for instance. They are not presumptive tests. There is no case that says they are a presumptive test. They are determinative tests. They can make arguments that maybe there is some other compound out there somewhere, the name of which we do not know, that might give the same result, and Agent Marks will say that and Dr. Rieders will say that also, but they will say the only compound they know that gives everything we see, the right retention time, the right parent ion and the right daughter ion and the right characteristic you must have before something can even be tested, is EDTA. And Dr. Rieders will say in his opinion this is EDTA because it meets every one of those characteristics. On the electrospray issue, electrospray is a process by which you move from the chromatography stage to the mass spec stage. With liquid chromatography you are working with a liquid that has to be converted to a gas before you can do the mass spec part of it. All electrospray does is change the liquid to the gas. It doesn't change the ions. It doesn't change the compound. It doesn't change the measurement system. You still wind up with chromatograms that you look at and you analyze.

Saying that this should be determinative of whether an expert testifies is like saying that Julia Childs can't tell you anything about cooking because she doesn't use a Cuisinart. It is one technique that is used as one step in the process. It doesn't change anything. You wind up with a chromatogram that is interpreted just like they all are. So I would submit that this is clearly not a presumptive test, and further, that the Prosecution should not be allowed to cross-examine on the sconce case or any other case that they may not have mentioned, unless they present it beforehand, so that we can litigate that as well.

MR. KELBERG: May I just briefly respond, your Honor?

THE COURT: Briefly.

MR. KELBERG: No. 1, just for consistency, it is Dr. Henion; it is not Mr. Henion. No. 2, it is a more sophisticated test than any of the tests that Dr. Rieders used. No. 3, the evidence is clear Dr. Rieders--in fact, we have his article "A quest for oleandrin in decayed human tissue"--noted his findings showed it wasn't there and he doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Dr. Rieders having been possibly correct in the past with respect to his analysis. If that were the case, this case might still have been prosecuted. We are not inclined to lightly dismiss capital murder cases, your Honor. That is dismissed because of the overpowering and overwhelming and compelling nature of Dr. Henion's results. Last thing is, who is the proponent of this evidence? The people at the left side of counsel table to my left. It is their responsibility to show no other compound. It is not our responsibility to say, oh, gee, you know, there is only one or two others or maybe a couple hundred. It is their responsibility when they are talking about it is presumptive of, and that is really what the conclusion is. The issue for this jury is, hey, where does this stuff come from? If it is EDTA, where does it come from? And that is this issue that the jury is being asked to decide when in fact the expert, the best he is going to say is it is presumptive for. If he is using the language, I didn't put words in his mouth, I didn't put the words in this report; he wrote them. He should have to live by them. I submit for all the reasons previously expressed, your Honor, he should be precluded from testifying.

But if the Court feels differently than I on this, that the two areas of inquiry that I have indicated are appropriate, Dr. Henion's--I asked Mr. Hodgman to make sure he is available to clear the air should there be any air need clearing regarding what the test results were and I have every expectation that he would be available.

THE COURT: All right. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Blasier, do we have Dr. Rieders' report marked as an exhibit at this point?

MR. BLASIER: I don't think we do. We provided it to the Court last week.

THE COURT: I think we should have--I think for the purpose of the appellate court I think we need to have a copy here.

MR. BLASIER: I will submit my copy, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The 352 objection as to Dr. Rieders' testimony regarding his testing for the presence of EDTA, the objection is overruled. I will allow his testimony. The cross-examination as to other testing in other cases done by Dr. Rieders appears to be a fair game for cross-examination. Legal ramifications, however, of scientific testing, appears to the Court to be a 352 problem because there are many explanations as to why things are done legally. It is an apple and oranges argument. So the objection by the Defense as to legal ramifications is sustained. All right. For the purposes of the record we will mark a copy of Dr. Rieders' report as Court's exhibit 18.

(Court's 18 for id = Dr. Rieders' report)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, with that, I think I'm going to take leave of the Court.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury g morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: All right. The Defense may call their next witness.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the Defense calls Dr. Fredric Rieders.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

Fredric Rieders, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. 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.

DR. RIEDERS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

DR. RIEDERS: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, doctor. Could you state and spell your name, sir.

DR. RIEDERS: My name is Fredric, F-R-E-D-R-I-C, Rieders, R-I-E-D-E-R-S.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, when and where were you born?

DR. RIEDERS: I was born in 1922 in Vienna, Austria.

MR. BLASIER: What is your occupation?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm a forensic toxicologist and director of a toxicology laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Could you tell us what toxicology is?

DR. RIEDERS: Toxicology is the study of chemical substances and of presumably biological systems in terms of focusing on the harmful effects that the chemicals can produce in the biological system. Simplified version, toxicology is the study of poisoning, and I deliberately say poisoning in quotes, rather than poison, because everything is a poison in too large a quantity. The definition of a poison is that it is too much.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, could you please tell us about your educational background.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Doctor, would you pull the microphone down, please.

DR. RIEDERS: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: There we go. Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Blasier.

DR. RIEDERS: I studied--my undergraduate studies were at New York University's Washington Square College, at Columbia University, at the University of Indiana in Bloomington, at Houston University and a little bit on courses while I was in service overseas by correspondence from the University of Wisconsin. I received a bachelor's of arts degree from New York University's Washington Square College in New York in 1948. My major subject was chemistry. My minor subject was biology. I then went on towards--I went to a master of science degree in chemistry in which I specialized in toxicological analysis chemistry, in the analysis that is used at that time, essentially in autopsy specimens. After I received a master's degree and became eligible to be a doctoral candidate at New York University, I was offered a special fellowship at the Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia, which is part of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia in their school of graduate studies, not towards an MD degree, but towards a doctoral, Ph.D. degree. And there during the following, oh, two years of work and one year of this, that and the other thing, I received the degree of doctor of philosophy, not medicine, Ph.D. degree, my major subject was pharmacology, toxicology; pharmacology being the study of the effects of chemical substances from no effect to through toxicology to a lethal effect, as well as what the body does to the chemicals as it is in toxicology. And my minor subjects were pathology, the study of disease and physiology, the study of the function of organisms, essentially the functions of the human organism of man. That was my formal education. Of course I did research and presented a thesis on the toxicology of a substance called acrylonitrile and I was granted a degree in 1952.

THE COURT: Spell acrylonitrile for the court reporter, please.

DR. RIEDERS: Sir?

THE COURT: Can you spell acrylo--

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. A-c-r-y-l-o-n-I-t-r-i-l-e.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Could you describe your other academic experience and affiliations.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. While I was a graduate student at Jefferson, I was also a graduate assistant and I did laboratory demonstrations in toxicology for the medical students. I did work for the clinic because I had some techniques from my previous work experience in EDTA determination in blood and other toxicological analyses, which were very rare at the time, not many had them, so assisted in this sort of thing. I also participated in other research besides my own doctoral research. After I received the degree, I was appointed an instructor in the department of pharmacology and in industrial medicine as an assistant instructor and I taught medical students, second year medical students, toxicology, both in the laboratory and at lecture. I worked with graduate--other graduate students and I conducted research in various areas of pharmacology and toxicology. And I lectured, of course, as I mentioned. This went on until 1956, at which time I had been promoted to assistant professor and had done research in pharmacology, toxicology and industrial medicine, and that, incidentally, included a lot of research with EDTA at the time, which had just come into use for the treatment of certain types of metal poisons. In 1956 the city of Philadelphia changed from a coroner system to a medical examiner system and the first medical examiner, Dr. Joseph Spellman, asked me to apply for the position of chief toxicologist upon the recommendation of my former chief, Dr. Alexander Gettler, who is sort of a granddaddy of American toxicologists, whom I had worked for in Belleview. So I became an instructor and then I left the employ of the city. I took an examination with several other people. I scored appropriately and was selected for the position of chief toxicologist for the city of Philadelphia and director of--well, started a poisoning information center and directing it.

MR. BLASIER: Let me back up just a minute before we get into your employment history if we can. Have you told us about all of your teaching experience or academic experience with respect to professorships?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, only up until that I remained on the faculty at Jefferson. I still am. I am a full professor now. I became associate professor and a full professor in the course of time on a part-time basis, of course, and when the money crunch came, I agreed to forego my salary, which was minimal, which was a stipend, and I'm still on the faculty pro bono, which means I don't get paid for it. Now for the last few years I have not lectured to medical students, but I have worked with graduate students, continue to work with graduate students, and I am starting a whole new course where we will start lecturing in the fall and in the spring.

MR. BLASIER: Now, before we get into your employment history, could you tell us whether you have any affiliations with professional associations?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. The first professional association which I joined was American Chemical Society of which I am still a full member, as well as several of its divisions, including the division on analytical chemistry. Then later on I joined several other societies that were particularly involved in pharmacology; American Association--American Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. I am a full member of that.

Some local societies, which since I no longer stayed active, I dropped from, but I became a member of the American Academy of Forensic Science. I am now a fellow. In particular of the section on toxicology on forensic toxicology of which I was the--was one of the chairmen for one of the sessions some years ago and had various other official capacities in the academy since about 1958 or `59, since I have been a member there. I am a member of--and I am one of the founders, one of the charter members of the International Association of Forensic Toxicologists which was formed, I think it was around 1960, at a meeting in England. I was the first editor of its bulletin, which is after finding somebody with a printing press made himself available, I ran on a Xerox machine for a couple of years. I am a member of the--well, of several other organizations. I am a member of the American Association of Forensic Toxicologists, which is called society of forensic toxicology, which is somewhat similarly composed and somewhat similar to the activities of the toxicology section of the academy of forensic science. And I am--I got certified by the American board in forensic toxicology, which is part of the academy, as a fellow, as a board certified forensic toxicologist. I am also a member of the association--American Association of Clinical Chemists. Those are the chemists who work in hospitals and in other places mainly to help in the diagnosis of disease. There is a section, an area, and it is a specialty of toxicology, of toxicological chemistry, and I am board certified in toxicological chemistry by the American Association of Clinical Chemists. I am a member of an International Association on Risk Analysis and several others, but these are my main professional background organizations.

MR. BLASIER: Now--now, could you tell us a little bit about--briefly about your employment history prior to the time that you started your own lab.

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I won't trouble you with all the different jobs I had--jobs I had when I came here as an immigrant, from stevedore to glass blower to anything you could do in 1939, but my first related position developed in 1941 when I became an assistant chemist, of all things, in a soda factory in preparing flavors and doing preparatory analyses. After that I worked for another chemical company that made detergents and a variety of other things as an assistant chemist and then I went into the service.

I was in the military during world war ii as a surgical technician and then as an interpreter because of my various language skills. That was towards--the interpreter was toward the end of the war, and then for a year or so afterwards in military government. When I returned to the states I continued under the GI Bill with my college education, but after one year all I had left were some rather easy courses, so I sought employment and I received a job through the employment service as a junior toxicologist, a trainee in toxicology in the office of the chief medical examiner of the city of New York and under the chief toxicologist, under Alexander Gettler and Dr. Charles Hamburger. I was there for approximately two, two and a half years being trained there and actually performing service work, of course. I then, as I mentioned, went to Jefferson and I took you through the time that I left my full-time status as--at that time assistant professor and became chief toxicologist for the city of Philadelphia. My job at that point in time was to organize a laboratory in the division of toxicology. I was not in the medical examiner's office because the medical examiner had just been established. And also to organize and direct the poisoning information center for the city. After that, what I did is the medical examiner's office was in the health department of the city. I conducted toxicological analyses on autopsy cases for the medical examiner, assisted hospitals in the differential diagnosis of poisoning. At that time that is about the only source they had for laboratory work is to avail themselves of the medical examiner's toxicologist. I did some consultive work for a variety of city agencies and I started to train and conduct research in toxicology as well. I did that from 1956, when I became chief, and I--and I organized and directed the poisoning information center. I did that until 1970 for fourteen years and--

MR. BLASIER: Is chief--is office of the medical examiner, that is similar to what we call a coroner?

DR. RIEDERS: Very similar, yes. I--we--the operation that was here, the toxicologist that was here was a colleague of mine that I knew very well for many years, and the medical examiner--the coroner I knew very well, and I still know all the people quite well in the ME's office here. It is very similar. I think you have a coroner's medical examiner or a coroner's chief or forensic pathologist, so it adds up to the same thing. It is just politically a different issue. The medical examiner is appointed upon examination.

THE COURT: Excuse me, doctor. This is not your employment history. Ask another question, please.

MR. BLASIER: Can you tell us from 1956 to 1970, when you were with the medical examiner's office, approximately how much of your work involved working with law enforcement agencies?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it all related to law enforcement agencies. We had a weekly conference with the chief of the D.A.'s homicide division, with the chief homicide detective in the city of Philadelphia going to all the homicide cases, but the office was independent of the law enforcement agencies, is a very important part of its function, and that is to be an ombudsman in cases for the medical examiner, not the toxicologist, to determine the manner of death, whether or not criminality might be involved.

MR. BLASIER: Now, from 1970 to now what has your employment been?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, in 1970 I left the employment of the city and started an independent laboratory and consultative (Sic) company, national medical services, in which at that time I continued to do a lot of postmortem toxicology for the surrounding counties--

MR. BLASIER: I will get into the specifics of that, but how large is national medical services now?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, now it has 120 people in it. It is not my doing; that is my son's.

MR. BLASIER: And does that--does that company do business with law enforcement agencies?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, indeed.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately what percentage of the work is done for law enforcement agencies?

DR. RIEDERS: The forensic work that we do is perhaps as much as twenty percent of our work.

MR. BLASIER: Could you give me just a real rough list of some of the law enforcement agencies that you work for.

DR. RIEDERS: Well, we work for many of the police departments in the surrounding counties, for the District Attorney's office, for cases that they bring to us in the surrounding counties. We occasionally work with the police department and the courts in the city of Philadelphia, too. We are scientists, so we assist there. Well, either the courts themselves or sometimes the Defense attorneys. You know, it makes no difference.

MR. BLASIER: Do you work with--

DR. RIEDERS: We also do work for police departments at times in new jersey, in as far away--well, we have done work for the Los Angeles Police Department at one point or we may have done some more recently that I don't know of.

MR. BLASIER: Do you work--

DR. RIEDERS: So we do it for all over the country.

MR. BLASIER: Do you do work for any foreign police agencies?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Occasionally we did some work for the medical examiner and the Prosecutor in Brazil in one of the countries. Puerto Rico of course, which is part of the United States, we have done work there. We have received specimens in three criminal cases, potential criminal cases, from Australia, one of which is specifically from a police department, the other one is from a medical examiner, the third one a private party, recently.

MR. BLASIER: Does your lab do work for other labs?

DR. RIEDERS: It is--a major part of our work is reference work. That means work that large laboratories, which do a lot of clinical analysis, get and there are specialized toxicological tests and they send them to us, we are their reference lab.

MR. BLASIER: Can you give us an estimate as to how much of your work is--other labs have sent to you?

DR. RIEDERS: I can only do it for the time in which I was administratively involved in the shop, which stopped about three or four years ago, and at that time it was about thirty percent or forty percent was from reference work from other laboratories.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have an ongoing working relationship with the FBI?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I don't want to mention any specific cases, but are you currently working with agent Roger Martz of the FBI on some criminal cases?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, we are looking--not actually working on them, but we are discussing how to work on them that we have, yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Does that work involve detecting or developing methods to detect the presence of poisons in tissue?

DR. RIEDERS: In one case it really involved the development of methods. In the other case it will be what analysis will the FBI do or has done already and what analyses will I do because of my capabilities.

MR. BLASIER: And this--special agent Roger Martz is sitting right behind me, right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could you tell us, very briefly, when you started doing work with chromatography?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I started doing work with paper chromatography, which was the first form of chromatography that came out, while I was still a graduate student, so that I was in still--let's say 1950. I started doing thin layer chromatography, which is a more modern method and used it extensively following a Gordon research conference in which I participated in 1959 or `60. Same year started working with gas chromatography; 1959, 1960. I started to work with gas chromatography coupled hyphenated--you know, the hyphenated systems with a technique called mass spectrometry, oh, in the seventies.

MR. BLASIER: Now, was that around the time when that technology actually started?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, the technology started earlier as an academic research technology, but it is around the time where they were beginning to be some bioanalytical applications for real life situations.

MR. BLASIER: Now, have you done work in what's called HPLC or high pressure liquid chromatography?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Since about what time?

DR. RIEDERS: 1973--I think 1973 is when we got our first instrument after I had familiarized myself with it for sometime prior thereto and so that is about when I started to actually hands-on do a lot of work on it and then supervise a lot of work.

MR. BLASIER: Do you currently in your lab do mass spectrometry?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, yes, we do.

MR. BLASIER: And how many--how many instruments do you have that do mass spectrometry?

DR. RIEDERS: Seven or eight.

MR. BLASIER: Now, we will get into the details of what that is in a second, but have you done what's called tandem mass spectrometry?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many times?

DR. RIEDERS: A few times, hands-on only.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

DR. RIEDERS: Again, that is a relatively new not commonly available technique, in toxicology labs at least.

MR. BLASIER: Could you tell us briefly what is EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, EDTA is the name of a chemical substance which in full is called ethylenediamineacetic, e-T-H-Y-L-E-N-E, diamine, D-I-A-M-I-N-E, acetic, A-C-E-T-I-C, acid. Ethylenediamineacetic acid.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we put up slide no. 1 in my--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: This will be the 1257 series. This will be 1257-A.

(Deft's 1257-A for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, can you see the monitor right there to your right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that what EDTA is, what you just spelled?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Could you tell us what a purple or lavender-topped tube is?

DR. RIEDERS: That name is in medicine and in laboratory medicine or anyone who uses human blood for testing, the name for an evacuate tube which has a stopper that is--some call it lavender, some call it purple in color, and that makes you recognize it clearly as a tube which has EDTA in it.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to have a photograph marked as next in order.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: 1258.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 1258 for id = photograph)

MR. BLASIER: I would like to have this put on the elmo, please.

THE COURT: This is a photo of tubes?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: 1258, Mrs. Robertson, a photo of tubes.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, could you look at your monitor and tell us if that appears to be purple-topped tubes?

DR. RIEDERS: That is the typical appearance of the purple-topped tubes, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the relationship between EDTA and a purple-topped tube?

DR. RIEDERS: EDTA, either a potassium or a sodium salt, is put into the purple-topped tubes which have a vacuum in them so that when blood is drawn and mixed with them that that blood won't coagulate. That is the sole purpose. It has some preservative purposes for certain types of cells and other things, but what the EDTA does, the EDTA is what is called in English a claw compound like a lobster's claw, a chelating agent. And what the excess of EDTA does that is in the tube is combine with all of the calcium in the blood and tie it up. Without calcium blood won't clot. If you don't do that, then the blood will clot in five, seven minutes, you know.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you had experience in your background working with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Great deal, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And approximately when did do you your first work with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: In the early fifties.

MR. BLASIER: Just briefly, what was the nature of that work?

DR. RIEDERS: The first thing that I became involved in is to study its properties as to whether or not it could be used for treating acute lead poisoning in small children who were at the Jefferson hospital and then in working with one of the physicians in administering and designing doses, administering, collecting blood in urine and measuring the EDTA that is coming out of the child. Then this was expanded to working with it in occupational employment cases where people are exposed to lead, battery workers and others, both in treating this kind of lead poisoning which is different from what is in children, but also we developed a diagnostic test for somebody to determine whether or not someone had an excessive body burn of lead and therefore should be treated even before they got really sick. So all that was published work and then I did a substantial amount of test-tube work with EDTA and also experimental work with animals. I also did experimental work, or rather studies, it wasn't really experimental, it was clinical work, in determining how EDTA mobilizes and causes the excretion of other elements besides lead, again with published work for copper, for zinc, for a number of other metals that EDTA can chelate. In the process--well, there was the biological work. The invitro work was measuring the strength of the way that EDTA holds onto metals, how easily will it rip it away from some part of the body, how it will redistribute the lead and whether it is absorbed, fed in animals; not in man. I did not need--we did not need any people because we came to the conclusion that oral EDTA can only do harm rather than good to people of metal poisoning.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you have--some of that work involved analyzing biological samples for the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Some of it did, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Starting about when?

DR. RIEDERS: I made some attempts at analysis of EDTA as early as 1954 or `55. They were successful for qualitative tests in urine but not for anything test. They were color tests of a sort. I did a lot of tests--not a lot--some testing for EDTA while I was toxicologist for the city because every so often I would receive a blood specimen and I needed to know what was the preservative, and the pathologists couldn't help me, didn't remember whether he had dumped this blood from a reagent from a lavender-topped tube or from a gray-topped--a gray-topped tube has fluoride and oxylate in it--or whether he didn't put anything in it. After death blood stays fairly liquid, it clots, but then it liquefies again, so you can't really tell. If you get a tube of clotted blood, you know that is blood that has not been preserved with anything usually. That is why it clots quickly.

MR. BLASIER: Have you worked on chromatography techniques to detect the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah. That came later.

MR. BLASIER: That started about when?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, I did--started to do some of that around 1976 or `77, but it isn't for detecting EDTA at ultra trace levels. It is to determine whether a blood specimen is an EDTA specimen, has a lot of EDTA in it, or whether it is a fluoride oxylate specimen, whether it has been preserved with that. More recently I am able to determine whether heparin was used. I couldn't do that until recently.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, I didn't ask you about your publications before. Have you published articles and made presentations in your area of expertise?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many?

DR. RIEDERS: Over a hundred.

MR. BLASIER: And do you know approximately how many of those--how many of your articles are in peer review journals?

DR. RIEDERS: Are what?

MR. BLASIER: How many of your articles appeared in peer review journals?

DR. RIEDERS: I would say well over half.

MR. BLASIER: And did some of those articles include articles about EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many?

DR. RIEDERS: A dozen or so.

MR. BLASIER: Now, were you asked to review results of a study performed by the FBI to determine whether there was EDTA present on bloodstains found on a pair of socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom and from a bloodstain found on the back gate of Nicole Brown Simpson's condo?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And have you examined test results produced by the FBI on those questions?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Have you also examined a validation study that the FBI performed in February of this year?

DR. RIEDERS: To the extent to which they were submitted, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, at one point were you consulted by the Los Angeles Police Department during the course of this case about methods to detect EDTA in bloodstains?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember who that was?

DR. RIEDERS: Mr. Henkhaus, H-E-N-K-H-A-U-S.

MR. BLASIER: And did you provide him with some materials to assist them in developing a method to detect EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have an opinion as to whether the method used by the FBI to detect the presence of EDTA in bloodstains is a valid method for detecting the presence of EDTA in blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, the method is valid. It is capable of detecting EDTA, of identifying it, of measuring it. Even if not the way it is done, the measurement, you can't really make any quantitative measurements too readily.

MR. BLASIER: In terms of determining whether it is there or not?

DR. RIEDERS: Whether it is there and whether it is there in a range, a very wide range of amounts.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when we talk about parts, do we use the term parts per million?

DR. RIEDERS: No, that is concentration.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Tell us briefly what is--when you use the term "Parts per million," what does that mean?

DR. RIEDERS: It means one part, in the case of EDTA, in a million parts of blood. This would mean, for instance, one microgram per milliliter which is one gram or a million micrograms of blood. That is one part per million.

MR. BLASIER: Did the method developed by the FBI that you reviewed, in your opinion is it capable of detecting amounts of EDTA in blood in the parts per million range?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah. In the range of maybe ten parts per million and higher, perhaps somewhat less than that. Perhaps five parts per million and higher.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is parts per billion one thousandth of parts per million?

DR. RIEDERS: It is one billion and a billion is a thousand million.

MR. BLASIER: If you are relating parts per million to parts per billion, you are talking about 1000 as much of something?

DR. RIEDERS: Right. There are a thousand parts per million in one part--I mean there are a thousand parts per billion in one part per million. They are the same. A thousand parts per billion or one part per million.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, I want to ask you some questions about EDTA and what characteristics the FBI was looking for. Could we have slide C.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: 1257-C.

(Deft's 1257-C for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, do chemical compounds like EDTA have what is called a molecular weight?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, sure.

MR. BLASIER: And is this--this isn't in pounds or ounces, is it?

DR. RIEDERS: It is in units. The molecular weight is how many hydrogen atoms you can cram into a molecule to get the same weight. That is the unit. The weight of hydrogen is nominally one. So something that weighs--has a molecular weight of 200--292, as we have here, and 292 is the molecular weight, is as big, weighs as much as 292 hydrogen atoms.

MR. BLASIER: So what is the molecular weight of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: 292.

MR. BLASIER: And I assume different compounds have different molecular weights?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. There are other compounds with 292 weight, but they are not terribly many.

MR. BLASIER: Is 292 a relatively high molecular weight?

DR. RIEDERS: Relatively high, yes. As you go higher, fewer and fewer compounds will have exactly the same weight.

MR. BLASIER: Now, looking at the chart on the screen, the chart indicates adding a proton to 292, gives you a--gives you what?

DR. RIEDERS: 293.

MR. BLASIER: And--

DR. RIEDERS: The proton is the same as a hydrogen atom with a charge on it, positive charge of hydrogen atom.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the--why do you need to have a charge on it?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you need a charge on an atom in order for the principle of mass spectrometry to measure it. The mass spectrometer measures charged atoms, you know, measures the charges. And what it does, it gives you a number which is the ratio of the mass, the molecular weight over the charge. In this case it would be 293 over 1, so that the ion that you then have, which is EDTA with a positive charge hooked on its head, is--has a weight of 293, and the charge--that is the mass, 293. The charge is called z, like zebra, over 1, so it is 293.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that if you were looking for EDTA in a substance, one of the things would you look for is whether you had something that weighed 293?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that called, 293?

DR. RIEDERS: That is called the parent ion. It is the molecular--it is the whole molecule plus a charge on it, so it is an ion. The whole molecule doesn't have a charge on it, but it gets a charge on it and it is called a parent ion because from it can come fragments.

MR. BLASIER: Now do we have the next slide, slide D.

(Deft's 1257-D for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, please look at your monitor, and the bottom part of that diagram now indicates that the parent ion is broken into pieces; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That is the function of the mass spectrometer. The first thing it does, it weighs the ions that--it weighs the molecule. The molecule, in order to be weighed, has to have a charge so it adds a proton and then weighs it, so it gets 293, which is the molecule plus one. The molecule, remember, is 293. Then it breaks that molecule into pieces, but not the way that you break a bottle of beer, but the way that a jeweler cuts a diamond. It breaks it along certain planes and not others so that the pieces that result are somewhat predictable from the structure of the compound. If you apply energy to it, it will break up into certain kind of pieces. Now, what it does, it weighs the pieces to see what weight do they have. In this case one of the pieces, one of the daughters, you might say, of that 292 after it was broken up, has a weight of 160 so that you now have--you have two identifying characteristics. You have--there is a substantial amount among all of the ions of the 293, enough so you can weigh it, and there is enough of the break-up product, 160, so you can weigh that.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to talk a little bit about chromatograph. Could we have slide F.

(Brief pause.)

(Deft's 1257-F for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the last side was 1257-D.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: This is 1257-F.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the process that was used by the FBI in this case involved a step called chromatography and then a step called mass spectrometry, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, chromatography, could you describe briefly, looking at the chart up there, what is the principle of chromatography?

DR. RIEDERS: The principle of chromatography is the separation of compounds that are mixed together by having them go for a walk, so it is characteristic--for instance, you take a group of people, a whole bunch of people, and you say now I want you to walk from here to a mile from here as fast as you can. You all start at the same point. Gradually over that mile it spreads out until the EDTA person is somewhere there and all the others are also spread out. Good chromatography separates a mixture into all of its components, or all of the components that you are interested in at least, and then at the end of the mile there is someone with a camera who takes a picture of the person coming through the end gate and determines how long it took from here to the mile from here, and says that is the retention time. That is how long that person was retained on the road to the goal.

MR. BLASIER: Let me go to the next slide and see if we can illustrate that, which will be G.

(Peo's 1257-G for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, in my example I have used a red square as an EDTA compound molecule and two other ones, one green and one yellow. The column that is indicated on the diagram, what is that?

DR. RIEDERS: That is actually a glass or a metal column which is filled with a material that the person can lean on, so to speak, if you make it parallel to this, so that there are things along the mileway where you can stop and lean on, if you want to, for a little before you go on. What is driving the material through that column is a liquid. In this case, in the illustrating case of people moving as fast as they can, the drive is more inward, you know, if you want to win or you just want to make it to the other end, but what is moving you is your muscles to gravitate and some people lean longer and others lean less long and so they start spreading out. So the column is packed with a material and it is--the mixture is pushed through the column with a liquid. That is a steady rate. As the mixture goes through the column, it leaps on and releases from the column the different compounds different number of times, so that again by the end of the column they have separated from each other. In this case the EDTA is the slowest that I have here. It is the last one out of the column. Other things before it came out before.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the diagram, I have a clock at the top and a clock at the bottom. Is that to represent the amount of time it takes the EDTA to get from the start, go through the column and come out the other end?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That is the stopwatch and what it measures is the retention time.

MR. BLASIER: And is that one of the things that you look at to determine whether you have EDTA in a substance?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. In a good system you can repeat that. You can take another sample of the mixture and throw it on the column and push it through and the retention time is going to be pretty much the same, close to it, within what you allow as experimental error. It won't be the same to ten decimals in time but it should be close enough so that you can say, well, when I see something coming up at that time, I better think of EDTA, and that--you know, that is what EDTA does, so it could be EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: Now--

DR. RIEDERS: It is consistent with it.

MR. BLASIER: --the--can you also put known EDTA into the system to see how much time it takes to get through so you have some sort of a benchmark to--

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you start out with known EDTA just to determine its retention time, but since from day-to-day and actually from run to run you can see differences, what you like to use is another substance, which you also put in yourself at the same time, which also has a known retention time, but more importantly, is closely enough related to the EDTA so that if there is going to be a change in retention time for the EDTA, there will be a similar shift for your--for your known substance that is called an internal standard.

So now instead of saying it took two minutes for the EDTA to come out, you say it took twice as long as it does for the--for the control substance, for the internal standard, which took one minute. The next time maybe you really have a very different column and it takes three minutes for the EDTA to come out, it will take one and a half minutes for the internal standard, so the ratio will remain the same. It is a very important part of reproducing your value as closely as you can.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. We will talk more about that in a few minutes, but now the technique that was used by the FBI is called liquid chromatography, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MR. BLASIER: And does that mean that it is a liquid that they push through the column that might have had EDTA in it?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: The next stage is the mass spectrometry stage, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, actually the next stage is getting it from the end of the column to the mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: To be put through the mass spectrometer does it have to be a liquid or a gas?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it has to be either particles that are so fine that they are virtually no bigger than gas molecules or that they can move or it has to be a gas.

MR. BLASIER: And now using liquid chromatography, if it comes out at a liquid, how do they get it to a gas or to a small misting particle?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, originally what I--originally what you did is you watched the liquid chromatograph and the detector when the peak started to come out--you know, when one of the molecules or of course a lot of it, because you put in not just one molecule of each but whatever came out, you caught it in a net in a fraction collector and then you took that fraction and then you put it into a tiny glass vial and evaporated off the liquid part of it so that you have a solid in it. Then what you did is you shoved that vial into the mass spectrometer and you heated it up until the material in the little vial on the probe evaporated, formed a gas, and then it could react in the mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: What technique did the FBI us?

DR. RIEDERS: The FBI used a method where the liquid goes into a very tiny, tiny, but moderately long piece of glass capillary. It has a tiny--it is a glass tube with a tiny, tiny opening and a tiny run. That is heated and has applied to it a very high, very high voltage and a moderate amount percentage, a high electricity. That is why it is called electrospray. At the same time a gas passes over it, a sheeting gas and a separating gas, and what happens is that the liquid at the end of the capillary is sprayed out and in minuscule form and dry form, the water is removed by the sheeting gas, goes into the mass spectrometer, so it is one way and it is the most recent ways and one of the most efficient ways of getting the sample in there. Before that you turned it into a gas in a chamber and then you put the gas out through a small opening which was partly opened to the open air, so that much of it--much of the carrier gas would go out into the area and the stream of vapor of the molecules that you wanted would go in and that is a much less efficient way of transferring from the column to the mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: As the electrospray process, does it change any of the ions?

DR. RIEDERS: No, it doesn't. If it changed the ions, then you basically wouldn't know where you stand.

MR. BLASIER: Now, electrospray, do you use that technique in your lab?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: And is that a fairly expensive piece of equipment to use?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, yes, of course all equipment is expensive. All of this type of equipment is expensive, but it is of relatively recent origin. It is the host up-to-date transfer of molecules in the Hewlett Packard instrument. And as a commercial laboratory we have to wait until something has proven itself before we put out three quarters of a million dollars, so we are not the first ones but also not the last ones to get in and in time we will now,

MR. BLASIER: I would like to move to slide I and get into the mass spectrometry part of this process.

(Deft's 1257-I for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, does the mass spectrometer have a way of looking to see whether the 293 part ion is there?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And how does it--just very briefly how does it do that?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, basically what the mass spectrometer is, is a--is a piece of equipment, which to characterize it, weighs the particles that are in there, sorts them out into groups, into 293's and others, and then measures--weighs how many of those particles are there, what is the intensity of that ion. Then that is a regular mass spectrometer, single-stage mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the kind of testing that was done here is a filtering system set up so that only 293 part ions get through?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, then in this case, what you do is you set up a filter and you set it so that only the 293 will get through. That is done both in terms of the mass, but also in terms of charge, and such a filter works quite nicely, so you isolate from the others the 293 ion. Now, what you can do is put it on a detector and say it is present period or you can put it into a second mass spectrometer, but in fairly pure form. You just have 293 moleculars. All the other stuff that is in there is not going with you.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Let me put up slide J.

(Peo's 1257-J for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that an indication of--just in chart form, of the parent ion getting through the filter and other ions not getting through?

DR. RIEDERS: Right. That is what a filter does. It keeps the other particles out and the 293's go into the next place which is either a detector which says I'm seeing things and the filter is taking out everything except the 293, so what I'm saying is 293.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we have chart K.

(Deft's 1257-K for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, is there a second step in order to look for the daughter ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

DR. RIEDERS: Instead of going to a detector only it goes--it is detected but it also is then put into another mass spectrometer by the system, then that mass spectrometer again breaks the 293 the way a jeweler breaks a piece of a diamond. It starts out with a ten karat, he breaks it down to three, two, et cetera, then takes one of the three karats and cuts that further.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide l, please.

(Deft's 1257-L for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, does this chart indicate what happens when it passes through the second filter, it is broken and then the 160 daughter ion is measured?

DR. RIEDERS: Right. Again, there is a filter which focuses, it is a focusing mechanism which filters out other things and pushes them aside and looks for 160 masses. Those 160 masses I gathered together and one by one they hit a detector, so the detector says I see things, I see things, I see things, and they are 160 because the others have been filtered out.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we go to slide m, please.

(Deft's 1257-M for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: So if you were trying to determine whether EDTA was present in a substance, what are the three things that you would look for with this kind of testing?

DR. RIEDERS: The first thing that you look for is if I extract something with water and put it through my column that I am using in this experiment the way I have tested EDTA and found that it comes out in five, six minutes or whatever, will I see--will something come out at six minutes? That is the retention time, or whatever the retention time is. Then what I will do is to have a mass spectrometer look at what comes out at that retention time and tell me whether I will focus on the 293, whether there is any 293, which is also a characteristic of EDTA, so the retention time is one characteristic. The 293 that I am looking at, that means I am only looking for orange-eyed people you might say. If I see orange-eyed people, I count them; others I don't count. I take all the orange-eyed people after I have counted them and throw them in the next mass spectrometer and it breaks them up and only leaves the orange eyes which eight--weigh 160 let's say.

MR. BLASIER: So we are looking for those three things?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, retention time--no. We look for more than that. We look for water solubility because that is how we got it. We look for it going through the column at all because a lot of things don't go through that column. And also that if it does go through the column, that it takes it as much time and no more and no less than the window that I know will contain EDTA, so that is really in a sense the third parameter. Then comes the--does it contain enough molecular ions, 293 masses, you know, are they enough guys in there with--or gals--with 293 on their shirts so that I can actually count them, because if it is less than a certain number I can't really count them so can I see them? Are they there in any other detection--we know my detection limit? Then after breaking those up, the third parameter is the pieces that have 160 tattooed on them and that is what we are looking for, so that we have essentially five parameters.

MR. BLASIER: Did you want to take a break?

THE COURT: Five minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Now, also one of the other things that is measured in this system is what's called ion count?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that is--is that essentially counting the number of ions that are getting through to the 160 stage there?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it is counting the number of ions that the detector can see and see--where it can separate the counts, one from the ion, where he can really count, one, two, three, four, and that means that the detector has to snap at an ion and record it before the next ion gets there, otherwise it will record two as one, so it depends open how quickly it is scanning what is coming in. And if it scans a thousand times a second, it is not going to miss many particles, many 293's, but if it scans it 50 times a second, then it will count 10 as one, you know, like a bunch. So--but that is what it does. It gives you a measure of the amount of that particular 293 or 160 that has come into the mass spectrometer, has been ionized in the first one seen and counted as 293 ions, and then the second one, how many did the detector--how many counts did the detector make.

MR. BLASIER: Now, can we go to the next slide, please, slide N.

(Deft's 1257-N for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: In the testing done by the FBI, did you review material indicating that they had tested a swatch from the back gate representing stain no. 117?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what number did the FBI assign to that stain that swatch?

DR. RIEDERS: I would have to see the numbering system. I think I have it here. May I refresh my memory?

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

DR. RIEDERS: (Witness complies.) Okay. From the back gate? Umm, they gave--they gave that the number Q204, I believe.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the sock stain, is it your understanding that the sock stain that was examined was a cutting from the edge of a large stain on the sock?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what number was that given?

DR. RIEDERS: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Was that given number Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, Q206.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we switch to slide p, please.

(Deft's 1257-P for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Well, is it your understanding that--well, there we go--on slide p, what is your understanding from the paperwork prepared by the FBI as to where Q206 came from on the sock?

DR. RIEDERS: Q206 was cut from the edge of a stain.

MR. BLASIER: Could you look at the monitor. Does that appear to be a chart showing the approximate location of that cutting?

DR. RIEDERS: It is similar to what I had on a piece of paper, yes. It is a good reputation.

MR. BLASIER: And the green area is represented--that is a large cut-out on the sock, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That was presumably already there and Q206 was a cutting taken from the edge--

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: --of that large a cutting? Was there also a swatch submitted that had been taken from the large swatch that had been cut that was called Q207?

DR. RIEDERS: You mean that was taken from the swatch that didn't have the stain on it?

MR. BLASIER: No, that was taken presumably from the large cut-out piece and sent to the FBI along with the sock or are you aware of that?

DR. RIEDERS: The 207?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: I don't think--I don't think so. I don't see it in my papers here, the Q207. It may be. I would have to look through the pile. You know, it is a big pile and it wasn't submitted in a good order, so I would have to look through the whole thing, but I don't recall it.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you this: Did you see any testing done using the method that we have described looking for the 293 parent ion, the 160 daughter ion on any sock stain other than Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We will stand in recess for about 15. Dr. Rieders, you can step down. Come back in fifteen minutes, please.

DR. RIEDERS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present with his counsel. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. That Dr. Fredric Rieders is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Blasier. And Mr. Blasier, you may continue.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, what is a chromatogram?

DR. RIEDERS: A chromatogram is a depiction of what at various times is seen by a detector looking at the end of the column where in this case the liquid comes out and where the liquid itself does not elicit a signal from the detector, but anything that comes out that is not moving liquid, that is not the air stream, that is one of the people, anything that is one of the people walking down the road a mile, comes out, it detects or shows its presence and some measure of how much of it, how many molecules or how high--how large an amount, not concentration, but how large an amount is passing in front of the detector. And depicts that by a peak along the line and every time something comes out there is another peak, if it is seen by the detector.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could I have marked as a group exhibit 2 diagrams, two chromatograms?

THE COURT: 1259.

MR. BLASIER: 1259-A and B.

(Deft's 1259-A and 1259-B for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: For the record, 1259-A has D.A. discovery no. 4088 and is a chromatogram on sample Q206. 1259-B is D.A. discovery no. 4094 and is also a chromatogram of Q206.

THE COURT: All right. Q206. Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, let me show you 1259-A and B. Can you tell me if those are chromatograms?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I would like to--we scanned those and could we have 4088.

DR. RIEDERS: Sir?

MR. BLASIER: We are going to show you something on the monitor, doctor. Doctor, could you look at the monitor and compare what is up there with 4088 that you have in your hand, and other than one being a positive and one being a negative do they appear to be the same?

DR. RIEDERS: Looks like--looks like it is. What is on the monitor is from that same chromatogram.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that is a chromatogram produced by the FBI on the sock stain, correct, the Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: That is correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you about just a couple of things on this form. I'm going to zoom in a little bit up in this corner, try to here anyway. What does the 160 up in that corner there where the arrow is indicate?

DR. RIEDERS: 160? Where is that? In the upper right corner?

MR. BLASIER: The upper left.

DR. RIEDERS: Upper left, I'm sorry. Okay. I see, on the chromatogram itself. It means that what is being monitored by the detecting device is the daughter ion, 160 that has been isolated in the second mass spectrometer and filtered and now filtered and isolated from the other ions and is now impacting on the detector as the liquid is flowing out of the column being transformed into the electrospray, entering the first mass spectrometer and going into the next one where it is converted into a daughter ion so that means that is the ion that is being monitored.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what does that tell you about whether the parent ion--what does that tell you about the 293 parent ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that in and of itself only tells me that one of the daughter ions of whatever it was, that went into the second mass spectrometer and which was the 293 daughter ion, broke up and gave off one piece that is a 160.

MR. BLASIER: So we know that this had to have come from the 293 parent ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me go up a little bit where this peak in the chart is. Can you tell me what the number 37 means?

DR. RIEDERS: The no. 37 is the--you see a line on the bottom. What it does, it counts the number of--the scans that go on. This is scan no. 37 that the detector scans the gas as it comes past, and on the 37th pass it has this particular peak.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that--

DR. RIEDERS: So that is the retention time of the substance, in terms of number of scans, rather than minutes, but it is the same thing. It is along a movement axis. The liquid flows past and the earliest things are on the right and the current, the latest things, are on the left.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the other two numbers right below the 37, what do those mean?

DR. RIEDERS: The first of these is the detector took in the signals that it got and it added them all up and it measured how big--how high a peak was generated from it in counting units, and the height of that peak was 24 through 223 counting units. The next line, what it does, it makes measurements of all the points in that peak that it can and gives you an area of that peak, because as you can see, that peak has a height and it has an area. You can see it right on there. And the area is 98,443 counts. In short, the area in counts is four times--takes four times--roughly four times as many counts to cover the area than to cover the height.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does the size of the peak--let me withdraw that. How does the machine know where to draw a triangle? Does that depend on what the operator tells it to do?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it can be that the operator says I want you to count everything that is between a certain space or it can be termed to select that, pick two points that are on a line of where this substance is coming to, because you know, walking past a detector, you don't move past it instantly, nor do all the molecules. At first fewer appear and more and more and more and less and less and less, and so you get this kind of a peak. It is the appearance, the presence and the disappearance that is shown, so you can program how wide a base you want or you can program, draw a line from a point of a certain height. You see on the left the counts are 50, a hundred, up to where the m over Z160. There are these count numbers and so these are height number really in a sense. So it says draw anything that has a height, less than what some of the noise might be, to the next point where you have that same, so you can do it in a variety of ways, but the instrument is instructed over what range to draw the line in the peak.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me--let me blow up the top of the part of the chart where it says "Mass is 158 to 1--162." What does that tell you?

DR. RIEDERS: That means that the eye of the mass spectrometer--the way that it is counting is that it will count anything that comes past it that has a 158 or a 159 or a 160 or a 161 or a 162 m over Z. If it is a high resolution instrument, then it would stop counting 158.1, 158.2, et cetera, but ordinarily it just counts these unit masses, so that anything in that range is seen by it and this way you can actually get peaks in various places. In some places in some retention times there may be some things that have a moderate amount or more of 159 than in others, 160, but that is all within the mass range in which the daughter ion sits right in the middle.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if you set the machinery to just look at the 160 rather than a range from 158 to 162, are you likely to have a higher peak?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah, because it can--I told you, it depends--the number that it gets will depend on how rapidly it is checking off. You know, I see one, I see one, I see one. If it is show than it has got two or three that it sees at the same time, then you get a lower number, a lower number of counts. If you focus just on the 160, then that same counts per minute is counting just 160's. Right now it is counting anything between 158 and 162, and so if they are stuck together, it just counts one count rather than separate counts.

MR. BLASIER: Is it the same kind of thing that you might have if I was taking a picture of you with a video camera, if I was scanning it from the Judge over to the bailiff, back and forth like this, you are going to be on the screen less time than if I just put it right on you?

DR. RIEDERS: Right. And so if you needed to sum all those pictures that were taken of me, you would have fewer pictures if it scanned than if you just sat it right on me during that time.

MR. BLASIER: And if you do an even broader scan, the peak would be equivalently less; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Less and less, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you might not even see it at some point?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: This will be 1257-Q.

(Deft's 1257-Q for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, could you take a look and tell me if the two charts that are on the screen now are the same as the two that I handed to you, 4088 and 4094?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. They are what appears to be an accurate reproduction of what I have in front of me.

MR. BLASIER: And are those two different tests that the FBI ran on Q206, the sock stain?

DR. RIEDERS: They are two separate tests it looks like on the stain.

MR. BLASIER: Could we go to R.

(Deft's 1257-R for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, I have highlighted the peaks on those two charts. Does the chart up on the screen there correlate to the peaks that appear on those two chromatograms?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is the retention time on those two charts consistent with the retention time that the FBI determined you would have with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do both of those charts demonstrate not only the presence of the 293 parent ion, but the 160 daughter ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion as to whether, based on those chromatogram from the FBI, whether the presence of EDTA has been demonstrated on the bloodstain from the sock, Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: Just on the basis of the 160 or the entire picture?

MR. BLASIER: The entire picture.

DR. RIEDERS: On the basis of the entire picture, this has been at these concentrations presented as strongly as it can with present technology.

MR. BLASIER: As what?

DR. RIEDERS: As EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: Now, EDTA is what's called an organic compound, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. It has carbon in it and therefore it is organic.

MR. BLASIER: Anything that has carbon in it is called an organic compound?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do we know how many there are in the universe, organic compounds?

DR. RIEDERS: No, we don't know how many organic compounds there are in the universe, obviously not, because we are discovering new ones. We are making new ones, but we are also discovering new ones everyday.

MR. BLASIER: Is it possible that there might be some other substance in the universe that gave the same pattern as we see here as EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, of course. You know, there might be anything in the universe. We don't know all the things that are in the universe, so of course there could be.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any specific compound, other than EDTA, that has 293 parent ion, the 160 daughter ion, the appropriate retention time and the other characteristics that you described about solubility, other than EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, as far as retention time is concerned, I have not seen any chromatography. This is the first time that it was done under these conditions, so I can't relate it. There is no internal standard, so I can't assign a relative amount to it, but as far as the parent ion, the estimated retention time, that means under the conditions that they use a short retention substance, relatively short retention substance, a parent ion of 293 and a daughter ion of 160, I don't know of any such substance and I have not been able to find any in the search of the Merck index of substances. I have looked and I haven't found any.

MR. BLASIER: Could I have another document marked, let's make it c of that last series because it goes together, which would be 1259-C?

THE COURT: All right.

(Deft's 1259-C for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, take a look at this first and then we will put it on the elmo. Does this appear to be what is called a full daughter ion scan chromatogram for Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. It scans all the masses from 130, which I think is one of the lowest daughter ions of the 293 ion, all the way up to 295, which is just--which is the molecular ion plus three.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I take it what this is, it is looking for the other pieces in addition to the 160?

DR. RIEDERS: That is correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can we put this up on the elmo, please.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, could you look up at the top right-hand corner and tell us what range was being scanned with that chromatogram?

DR. RIEDERS: From mass 130, which is one of the break-up pieces of the parent ion, when that breaks up, it gives rise to 130 among others, all the way up to 295, which, as I said, is a piece larger than the molecule.

MR. BLASIER: Now, using my analogy of a television camera, is that--are we talking about a very long range of scan?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that any particular point that is being looked at is not being looked at very frequently because of the broad range of the scan?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in this particular one there are no peaks or triangles identified, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, they are not identified by being drawn as triangles or numbered; that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Do you see any things on there that could be potential indications of the presence of these ions at around the right retention time?

MS. CLARK: Well, objection, your Honor, under 352, as previously stated.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Can we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, indeed. We have, within the same range within which we determined before, a countable picture, because it was more focused, remember than in the previous one. We do have the highest peaks in that chromatogram fall into the same retention time range for all of the ions as they did for the ones that were clearly recognized as being 160 ions because of the focus on them.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I'm pointing my pen to the top one, which is the 132 daughter ion. Is that what you are talking about as the peak right in here, (Indicating)? Right in there, (Indicating)?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, except that the way that this--in the electrospray you get movement; you don't get that clear a definition. There are several points in here which you would find with 160 daughter ions.

MR. BLASIER: And now the 160 chart right below that, is that what you are talking about there, that peak is a possible indication of the presence of that?

DR. RIEDERS: Right, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you will acknowledge, will you not, that these peaks aren't nearly as well-defined as the ones we have looked at before; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course they are much smaller. The area is smaller and the peak is smaller because all of the energy for counting is spread over the range of 130 to--

MR. BLASIER: 295?

DR. RIEDERS: --to 295, whereas in the other one it is concentrated. All the energy of counting is to individually count each 160 fragment along with the other ones next--close next to it.

MR. BLASIER: Does this mean that the EDTA that you saw in the earlier two charts has somehow disappeared?

DR. RIEDERS: No. You have a less sensitive method, so the same amount of EDTA will show up as a peak that is not as tall and that doesn't have as much of an area. It looks fuzzier. It is looking at it through a somewhat darker glass than you looked at the 160, but you get more information in this run.

MR. BLASIER: I have two other charts.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Could we have these marked as next in order, a and b?

THE COURT: Is this 160--1260.

(Deft's 1260-A & b for id = slides)

MR. BLASIER: 1260-A and b?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, for the record, 1260-A has D.A. discovery no. 4084 and is a chromatogram from a testing from Q204, the stain from the back gate, and 1260-B is D.A. discovery no. 4049, is a second test on the same stain from a different day.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, let me show you 1260-A and 1260-B. Does this appear to be two chromatograms from two different tests on two different days of the stain from the back gate at Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I can't see the dates. They are different times, but the date is not apparent.

MR. BLASIER: Now--

DR. RIEDERS: That is what you have on the side, 2/22 and 2/28.

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: Is that the date?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, when you were provided with the materials from the FBI the first time, were you able to tell what dates the tests were done on them?

DR. RIEDERS: On these papers?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: And why was that?

DR. RIEDERS: They weren't shown. They were cut off or they weren't shown.

MR. BLASIER: Were they in the order in which the tests had been run?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Were they somewhat mixed up?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1257-Q. I'm sorry.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what is 1257-S.

(Deft's 1257-S for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Does this appear to be an accurate depiction of both the chromatograms, 4049, 4084, two tests on the back gate stain on two different days?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Next slide, please.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, do the peaks shown on those two chromatograms have a retention time consistent with the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, they do. They have the same retention time range. They have a retention time well within the range shown by EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: And do they also demonstrate the presence of both the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, because without the 293 you can't get the 160 in the ms/ms mode.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether, based on those chromatograms, there is EDTA present in the stain from the back gate?

DR. RIEDERS: In my opinion, yes, it demonstrates that there is EDTA present in that stain.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what are negative controls?

DR. RIEDERS: Negative controls are samples put through the same procedure as your sample at issue and samples which are known not to contain any added substance that you are looking for. And if run in the appropriate sensitivity they are negative controls because by the method used they will give a negative test result if the--if, a, there is in fact no more or if there isn't any there, and b, that the method that has been applied has worked as well there.

MR. BLASIER: Did Agent Martz of the FBI test an area of the sock that did not have any apparent blood on it?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That is what he states he did.

MR. BLASIER: Is that what is meant by negative control?

DR. RIEDERS: I believe so. That is what he meant, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And did that indicate the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: No, it did not.

MR. BLASIER: And what does that tell you about the bloodstain?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that means since it is my opinion that the bloodstain contained EDTA, that that came from the blood and not from the sock.

MR. BLASIER: Does that rule out any contribution from laundry detergent or something else that might be throughout the entire sock?

DR. RIEDERS: Reasonably certainly, yes, unless of course the blood was dotted with laundry detergent, you know, and nothing else on the sock was.

MR. BLASIER: Now, as to the back gate, did Agent Martz run any negative control on the back gate?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And were those from a swatch taken from an area just away from the blood but had no blood on it?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And how many of those negative controls did he run?

DR. RIEDERS: I recall four.

MR. BLASIER: What were the results of his testing on those four?

DR. RIEDERS: Three were negative and one was positive.

MR. BLASIER: When you get a mixture like that, what is the interpretation?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, the interpretation is that you better run four more or do something like that, because you have something there which doesn't make sense.

MR. BLASIER: But the fact that you have three negative controls coming back negative, what does that indicate?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you know, if you want to put it on a majority basis that there is a 75 percent probability that it is truly negative and that the fourth one is something that happened, either contamination, you know, an accident, or you know, something happened to that sample or that it got mixed up. I can't tell you what, obviously, but--

MR. BLASIER: Does the fact that three of the negative controls are negative indicate that there was no EDTA on the control swatch taken from the gate but not from the blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Now, were you asked to consider the question of whether the FBI's methods were capable of reliably determining the amount of EDTA that the test detected to any degree of analytical certainty or accuracy?

DR. RIEDERS: The amount, no, I really don't think that it is capable of doing a reasonably acceptable quantitative analysis job at all, which is inherent not in what the FBI did, but in the electrospray method.

MR. BLASIER: Were you asked to determine whether the FBI methods were capable of reliably determining concentrations of EDTA in the evidence sample?

DR. RIEDERS: No way, and not only because of what I said before, but in order to do concentrations you would really have to know how much sample was in that swatch that you analyzed, how much got wiped off there, how much blood was in there that you have, and there is no way that you can really tell that from the tests that were done.

MR. BLASIER: Now, again by concentrations we are talking about parts per million?

DR. RIEDERS: Or paths per billion or whatever, yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Was the FBI's testing methodology capable of determining parts per billion, in your opinion?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it--no, it was not, not at all.

MR. BLASIER: Now, with the technique that the FBI used we had talked previously about ion count, in other words, how high the peak is. Do you recall that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: With this testing methodology, when they don't use an internal standard, can you relate one peak height to the peak height of a test done on a different day?

DR. RIEDERS: Only saying that this is much bigger than that, but which is right, which is wrong or where is right or wrong, you can't say.

MR. BLASIER: Well, does the peak height vary depending on the day that you do the test, or can it?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, even with the same day you have as much as a seven-fold variation between two runs each on a 50 parts per million known sample.

MR. BLASIER: And did you examine--did Agent Martz run several known EDTA stands, 50 parts per million, to see what kind of peak heights he got?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: And was there a lot of variation in those peak heights?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, seven-fold.

MR. BLASIER: Does that indicate to you as to whether you can use peak height to accurately determine concentration?

DR. RIEDERS: Not individual peak height, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let's say if you wanted to use this method as a way of quantifying how much EDTA you found, what would be the appropriate procedure?

DR. RIEDERS: You could do it if you used an internal standard that I had mentioned before where the ratio of the area or of the peak heights is constant at a given concentration, and where the two behave in a very, very similar manner.

MR. BLASIER: Now, with the--an internal standard, is that a substance that is very close to the EDTA, but enough difference so that you can tell the difference?

DR. RIEDERS: That is the ideal, that you can tell the difference, but that otherwise the behavior is not significantly different. The properties are sufficiently different so you can separate them either with the liquid chromatograph or with a mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: And are those kind of compounds available commercially?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, sure.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you would use an internal standard, do you actually put the internal standard with the evidence that you are testing or do you do it in a different run?

DR. RIEDERS: No, no, you do it right in the sample. The ideal thing is to--if you have a swatch like he had--is to put the internal standard on the swatch, known amount, and then extract it, really put it on the swatch, let it dry, let it age a while because you didn't just prepare it. You know, it has been around a while, and then extract it. You know how much you should find from that. Now, of course you run also control where you just put neatly the internal standard into the machine and see the amount that I'm going to put on the swatch would show up. If I get a hundred percent of it back at certain height and certain area and then I put it on the swatch, then I put it in the water and so that eventually you end up with a chromatogram like this with two peaks close to each other but far enough apart so that you can tell one from the other.

MR. BLASIER: And does that allow you, since you know how much of the internal standard you put in there, does that allow you to then quantify how much was in the evidence?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, but taking the ratio of, let's say, the height of the known over the height of the unknown or visa versa and comparing that with the standard, because that ratio is going to be reasonably constant.

MR. BLASIER: Did Agent Martz use an internal standard in his testing?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is using an internal standard very common practice when running mass spec tests?

DR. RIEDERS: It is a standard procedure wherever one is available, not only for quantization, but also for retention time characterization. If one moves to a different retention time, so does the other, so again, that relative retention time is kept much tighter that way. And it is almost--it has almost become a requirement of chromatography, in quotes of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let's assume hypothetically that the stain from the back gate was put there using blood from a reference tube that had EDTA in it and let's assume also hypothetically that the stain in the sock was placed there using blood with EDTA in it. Were you asked to consider the question of how much EDTA you would expect to find if you then tested those bloodstains eight months later?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I was asked.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it important, when you are running a sample, if you want to determine how much of something like EDTA is present, that you know how much you start with?

DR. RIEDERS: How much sample you start with?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if you had a blood swatch, let's say, from the back gate or a piece of the sock from the sock that appeared to have blood in it, can you tell how much blood is there by just looking at it?

DR. RIEDERS: I can't.

MR. BLASIER: What are the standard procedures used to determine the quantity of blood that might be in a swatch?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you bring it into a water solution, preferably with a little ammonia, because old stains are hard to get out, and you read that in a spectrophotometer for the hemoglobin content or for the hematin content, which is a fairly selective method, or else for the soret band absorbing proteins as you call them.

That is one way. It is a simple way because you don't do anything to the sample. You can handle it afterward, do anything you want to with it. You just put it in a light spectrophotometer and you get the spectrum and at certain wavelength standards you determine how much hemoglobin, which is really what the blood has most of, or if you are dealing with serum or plasma, how much protein based on the soret band which is also an absorption in the ultraviolet region there is.

MR. BLASIER: Are there any other?

DR. RIEDERS: There are other ways of doing it. I mean, you know more about this probably than I do, because you have been so well-educated in this. You can determine the amount of DNA in it and that tells you how much blood there was, because blood has a fairly known amount of DNA in it. You can also determine other substances in there that are characteristic of blood. For instance, if your background material doesn't have any iron in it, the measurement of iron in a sample like this is a good measure of hemoglobin because most of the iron in blood come from hemoglobin. Again, assuming that this is blood, not serum or plasma. What I usually do is spectrophotometry and/or iron determination and/or copper and zinc, if the--you know, if I have a sample that is diluted blood and I want to know how dilute it is or how much there is, so you can do it, you know.

MR. BLASIER: Is that equipment that you would expect to find in any well-equipped lab?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sure that is available.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether the FBI has that kind of equipment?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I don't know what their lab has, but if they have got an incident, I'm sure they couldn't do without the others.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in agent Matheson's work papers indicating that he used any method other than just looking at a stain to determine how much blood he started with from the evidence?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I only saw in his papers here on--he made stain sizes on a--on a cloth and said when I put a drop on I get so much stain and when I put--you know, on another one, I get such an area and the area that I have is--comprises of a fraction of that, which I don't think is a workable way of doing it, unless you do it to exactly the same material, do it many, many times, do averages, standard deviations and other things, so--because what he had wasn't a drop of blood placed on the kind of material he was testing or on anything, for that matter, but in the case of the gate it is something that got wiped off again.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you evaluate or look at the method that he used to attempt to extract the blood that was in the evidence, the sock stain and the back gate swatch to extract the blood from that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I looked at it.

MR. BLASIER: And what was that method, briefly?

DR. RIEDERS: Essentially he took a--he took what he had, you know, what was available, a portion of it, and he put it into 25 microliters of water.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is all hearsay. This witness wasn't present.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you--

THE COURT: The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard the answer.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you, hypothetically, if you took, let's say, first of all, an old stain that had been on a swatch for eight months and put it in water, plain water, let's say 25 microliters, and let it soak for 45 minutes and centrifuged it, is that an efficient way to remove all of the blood from the stain?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical, no facts this evidence, no foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: It is a way but you won't get a hundred percent, you will get a relatively low recovery from an old stain. You know, a dried stain where it is dried for all that period of time, is bone dry, it won't all dissolve in the water, much less than all, just a small portion or just a small--

MR. BLASIER: What would be an acceptable technique to remove all of the blood from the evidence item?

DR. RIEDERS: It is--to remove all the blood really what you would have to do is if you could only use water, you could only use water, is to repeat that. You put it in 25 microliters, you let it sit for an hour, you shake it for an hour, you centrifuge it, you take it out, put it in another 25 microliters and every time you run some kind of a non-destructive test to see are you still getting blood out, are you still getting blood out, until you don't see any more coming out, then you are pretty sure you have gotten it all out. You can even change that by using, for instance, dilute ammonia, which is a better solvent for dried blood than plain water, but it, too, you have to establish that this will all come out by doing sequential extractions and mesh in each one the amount of the sample--blood that is in it in one way or another.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if you were testing an old bloodstain to determine how much EDTA was present and you did not extract all of the blood from the stain, you are going to find a smaller amount of EDTA than might actually be there?

MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: If you don't--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: If you don't remove all of the blood from the evidence swatch are you going to--and the blood has EDTA in it, are you going to find less EDTA than is in the whole stain?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical and also calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Of course. I mean that is very self-evident. If you don't get it all, you have less than if you get it all, whatever it is.

MR. BLASIER: Now, incidentally, are you aware of any other case or any published literature on the issue of determining levels of EDTA in bloodstains in forensic cases?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I am not. I don't think there is anything published. I have asked around. I don't know of anyone who has done it.

MR. BLASIER: Would you say that this is brand new ground in terms of that particular test I told you about?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, sure. For EDTA in a blood swatch of this type, it is--it is brand new ground. EDTA has been determined in blood, but not in a blood swatch in a forensic case, et cetera, et cetera, to any published extent or anyway I know.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the chromatography and the mass spec techniques, those are all techniques that have been around for a long time, haven't they?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Well, they have--the mass spectrometry and chromatography is fairly old.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in the paperwork that you reviewed indicating that the FBI did any studies to determine the differences between extracting blood from an old stain versus a new stain?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: By the way, if you have a swatch that is made from a bloodstain, for instance, on a back gate, can you tell from looking at that swatch how much blood is in it?

DR. RIEDERS: I can't, no.

MR. BLASIER: Can that vary from one swatch to the next?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sure it will, greatly.

MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the context of the testing done by the FBI, what is a positive control?

DR. RIEDERS: A positive control in that context, as in other contexts, is one in which the substance at issue has been added in a known quantity and preferably not only in a known quantity but to a known concentration. That means a situation where you know how much sample you have and how much you are adding. That is concentration. If you don't know how much sample you have and you put it on a microgram, then you know you've put one microgram in, but you don't know what the concentration is because you don't know one microgram per what.

MR. BLASIER: Hypothetically, if you had a bloodstain on a metal gate that was not collected, in other words, was out in the outside environment subject to the weather and other environmental factors for a period of from a day to two or three weeks, what effect would those conditions have on the presence of EDTA in the blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Now--

MR. BLASIER: Assuming that the original stain had--

DR. RIEDERS: You put a wet stain on and let it sit there dry and be exposed for a day or more?

MR. BLASIER: With EDTA blood, yes.

DR. RIEDERS: With EDTA blood? There would be some degradation from environment factors. How much should really be determined experimentally, but I'm reasonably sure there would be because it has been done.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation, lack of expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed literature on a study that is called the photodegradation of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what did that article tell you?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, basically that article tells us that if you have EDTA solution, in this case the EDTA in the German river called the Neckar, N-E-C-K-A-R. And if you sample that with EDTA in it on a sunny day in Germany, that the amount of EDTA that is in that solution is going to break down half--half of it is going to break down in less than ten minutes from the sunshine itself. So that is photodegradation. It is because of the energy of the sun rays interacting with the EDTA in the water. The material that was used for that was iron EDTA--was an iron chelate of EDTA. Degradation of EDTA is described for sludge, it is described in the literature for bacterial degradation, so-called biotic, by living organism, and a biotic, by the presence of oxygen and absence of oxygen, so it is known it degrades. If you take a sample of EDTA in blood and freeze it, it will stay there.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is outside of scope of expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Also, the article is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: If you were trying to determine how much EDTA you would have in an EDTA bloodstain that had been subjected to one day to two or three weeks outside environment on a particular type of metal fence, how would you determine that?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I have done things like this, and in this case it is obvious, you get a material which is as alike as possible to the metal fence, maybe a piece of the metal fence, and you put ten dots of EDTA blood on it and you put on it ten drops--ten dots of blood in other places, of blood that doesn't have any EDTA in it, that is not in an EDTA tube, but it is normal human blood. Normally it contains virtually no EDTA. Then what you do is you analyze the control or more than one control. That means you take a little bit of an area where there is no blood and you take that and try to know how much you have and analyze it. Then you wash off one of the spots that has EDTA and another spot that doesn't have EDTA, you analyze all three and you repeat that everyday for a week or something like that, for a portion of the time. If it just for a few hours that you are interested in, then you repeat it during a period of several hours. You analyze it and you see whether it is broken down, you know, whether the one that was put there an hour ago has less in it than the one that you took off right away and analyzed or the one that you took--was there for a week. And if during that whole period there is no breakdown, then you say, well, I don't know whether it would break down in eight months like you are--or eight weeks or whatever, but at least I know that during that period it is stable. Usually in a substance, my experience is, that a substance that does break down, within a week you will be able to tell that it does. Then carefully can extrapolate say that in eight months there is going to be nothing there or I think there may be some there, but that becomes somewhat speculative.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that what you have described as a possible method to determine that, is that part of what should be a validation study on the method?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that is what I would call a validation of the method for this purpose.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in the paperwork from the FBI indicating that they did any test at all to determine how much EDTA would have been lost under the conditions that we described?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you about the sock. Let's assume hypothetically that EDTA blood was put on the sock at some point in time and let's assume further than between the time that blood was put on there and the time it was analyzed by the FBI it was examined several times using high intensity lights involving physical manipulation in the process of examining it. Can you tell us whether or not that would result in the degradation of the EDTA that was originally in that blood?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical, assumes a fact that has not been proven.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MS. CLARK: And calls for--I'm sorry. Calls for speculation, outside the expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, photodegradation, does that work when you shine a light on something?

DR. RIEDERS: That is what photodegradation is, from light energy.

MR. BLASIER: And the one study that you have cited looked at photodegradation and found that it can occur with EDTA, correct?

MS. CLARK: Objection, that article is irrelevant.

THE COURT: What form of EDTA was used--is used in the purple vials?

MR. BLASIER: Well, actually it is--do you want me to answer?

THE COURT: Yes, I would like to know.

MR. BLASIER: It can be there in several forms; iron EDTA, calcium EDTA, several others.

THE COURT: What was used here?

MR. BLASIER: I don't know. I mean it can--it picks up iron is what it does.

THE COURT: I understand that, but the one article you have talks about the water quality in the Neckar Valley River.

MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: A delightful place. That is why the Germans call it the romantic highway, but it doesn't tell me a lot about this case.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask a different question.

THE COURT: Approach the side bar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: I'm just a little concerned about the basis of his expert opinion. Is this one study of water quality in the Neckar river regarding photodegradation of EDTA that if we don't know that it is the same form of EDTA, I don't know that it is valid to base an expert opinion on it.

MS. CLARK: Let me add to that, please, because there is another issue of concern which I've conferred about with the FBI which is that this shows the degradation of EDTA when in water. There is a dig difference between the breakdown of chemicals in water versus in dried state, and the stains we are talking about here are in dried state, so you have a complete irrelevance between the article and this.

THE COURT: Well, you have a dried state, plus you have it bonded with calcium, so it is a different situation.

MR. BLASIER: Let me--

THE COURT: The point being I'm concerned about your foundation. Let me let the jurors go.

MR. BLASIER: Let me tell you where I'm depending with it. He is going to say exactly the same thing as the other study on photodegradation, that there aren't any studies on high intensity lamps, and the FBI should have done that because there isn't any literature.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Other point is my recollection of the EDTA study and the water quality of the Neckar river is that was UV light that they tested for.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Not other spectrum, so I think you need to--I think the light we used here was infrared; is that correct?

MS. CLARK: Yeah. When the socks were visualized, yes.

MR. BLASIER: The high intensity light is not--

MR. COCHRAN: High intensity light.

MS. CLARK: What high intensity lights? They used infrared and natural light.

MR. BLASIER: Every time they looked at it under the microscope there were high intensity lights. I was there when it was done.

MS. CLARK: You mean the microscopic?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: What period of time?

THE COURT: I think there are some foundational items--

MS. CLARK: He is going to ask a series of speculative questions, say we don't know when it breaks down, we don't know--

THE COURT: I'm sure you will bring that out on cross-examination.

MS. CLARK: He is going to do that in order to raise the spectre of something that there is no evidence for.

MR. BLASIER: They should have tested.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand the foundation.

THE COURT: All right. Just so you understand what my concerns are at this point.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Having traveled extensively in the Neckar river valley.

MR. COCHRAN: We can tell.

(Discussion held off the record.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I wasn't paying attention to the clock, otherwise I would have taken a recess at this point, so we are going to take our recess for the lunch hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. doctor, you can step down. You are ordered to come back at 1:00 P.M.

DR. RIEDERS: Thank you.

(Recess.)

(At 12:03 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 24, 1995 1:00 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at sidebar with the court reporter.

(Pages 38481 through 38484, volume 192A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, we ended the morning session with some objections regarding foundation for this photo chemical degradation of EDTA. The Court's question was whether or not the lab used in this case the ion the EDTA and whether or not there was--that study of water soluble EDTA is really relatable to EDTA in blood that has already bonded with the calcium element.

MR. BLASIER: Actually, Agent Martz' first series of tests that he did were looking for the ion EDTA, and he found a substantial amount, enough to measure certainly. So it's there in the presence of the reference blood. My only point about this particular article is, there's no question it's a limited article, limited circumstances. I'm not going to use this to have him express an opinion as to how many EDTA are on the sock. What I'm going to do is elicit from him in order to make the determination of what you might lose from the sock, you need to do testing on conditions similar to the socks, but you would not rely on this study to make an assessment as to whether or not you are going to lose any data from the sock.

THE COURT: Aren't you asking the jurors to form an opinion by then bringing out the exposure to the infrared light and the microscope and high intensity light?

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to bring out the fact that these things conceivably could result in some loss of EDTA and that was never checked, and that's another way of showing that the testing that was done here is not adequate to show you how much you should have there.

THE COURT: But if we only have one study that tests photodegradation in water, in river water, as nice a river as it is, it's not really relatable to blood.

MR. BLASIER: Well, it's ion EDTA which we know is present in this blood. It's--it was in solution at some time. It photodegrades. I mean, the only information we have is that EDTA photodegrades under certain conditions. We don't have any studies that say it doesn't under other conditions. Our position is that this is something that would have been part of a validation study.

THE COURT: I think it's clearly enough for a scientist to be curious, but to say that EDTA under these conditions in blood photodegrades--

MR. BLASIER: Oh, no. I intend to have him say exactly what you just said, that this is something that should have been checked.

THE COURT: I heard it a little more conclusionary than that.

MR. BLASIER: So I'll clean it up.

THE COURT: All right. I want you to know I'm concerned.

MR. BLASIER: No. I understand. I'll do that first thing.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the problem I have is--and the manner in which the questions and answers have been going is that the deliberate impression being left is that EDTA will degrade. Not only is that--

THE COURT: Photodegrade.

MS. CLARK: Photodegrade, correct. I'm sorry. Will photodegrade. And the problem with that is, if it is not proven to be the case at all, then the testimony runs contrary to what we know about the stability of EDTA as a compound. And in the absence of this doctor having some experiment or expertise in that determination, then that's not shown. So instead of just bringing out the fact--and I think it's improper to cause a jury to speculate on that as well. There is no known literature or experimentation to document whether EDTA, especially in a dry stain, will photodegrade. And to cause the jury to speculate on that possibility when there's no showing of that--I mean, let's not forget something here. There's no proof that the blood was planted period. And this is an effort by the Defense on the defensive to take evidence of the fact that there was no planting, make it so confusing that the jury is going to go off the deep end trying to figure out what it is, and hopefully from them, from their side, conclude that there was.

I mean, that's really the bottom line here because we have a premise and it's never been shown and it can never be shown because it's not true. That's the biggest problem I have. But then--okay. They want to do this, that's fine. But then to deliberately confuse and mislead the jury to make them believe that there could have been more EDTA there which degraded because of the exposure to the sunlight is going way off the deep end in speculation. And that impression has definitely been left. And for Mr. Blasier to go any farther with this, asking the doctor about experiments concerning that--

THE COURT: So, Miss Clark, I take it the bottom line of what you're trying to say is, you're making a 352 objection?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Based upon the lack of a scientific basis for photodegradation, EDTA and blood?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. And just alluding to the fact there is none creates the impression with the jury. You know what I mean?

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Mr. Blasier. I really think her objection is well-taken. I mean, that's why I jumped in there to ask the question because I don't see the foundation to talk about this.

MR. BLASIER: Well, again, I'm going to point out exactly what you said. My point is that the fact that there isn't any literature on--under these conditions shows that they never tested for that, so they can't say whether it would have degraded out or not. That's a deficiency in their experimentation where they try to make some sort of quantification. It's not a valid quantification. That's one of the reasons why, because they never tried to simulate the conditions we have in this case. That's certainly a valid point I would assume.

MS. CLARK: That point is addressed by the fact that we have results on the socks--the results on the socks and on the gate, number 1, do not give the full dotted spectrum. So to even call it EDTA is going out on a limb, but--

THE COURT: Do we have any way to compare the results sock to the gate?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: And what's the relative comparison?

MS. CLARK: The gate is a little higher than the sock, but they're both dramatically lower by a magnitude of a hundred times below the preserved level. But yes, that's right. The result does not support the Defense contention of photodegradation.

MR. BLASIER: I don't know how she can say that. They didn't test for that.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Assuming that what the Defense wants to say is true, that there is such a thing as photodegradation, the gate should then be lower than the sock because the sock was not out in the sunlight for nearly as long.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the gate is a completely different set of circumstances which also should have been tested for and weren't. It's on metal, it's outside, it's subject to dust, to fertilizer, to other things. They can also chelate with EDTA. There are different circumstances. And the levels of ionization that we're talking about, you can't quantify. Their 50 parts per million test on the same run has a seven-fold difference from one run to the next. I mean, you cannot use these ion counts as a way to say there's five parts per million versus six. It's just not--

THE COURT: No, no. We're talking about the basis of the doctor giving opinions regarding photodegradation of EDTA. That's what we're talking about. I find it's not sufficient, and I'll sustain the objection. Let's have the jury.

MR. BLASIER: Well, may I--a point of clarification, can I ask him about the lack of literature on photodegradation?

THE COURT: You can ask him if there's anything in the literature about that.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: Other than this one article that we've already talked about.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MS. CLARK: But that's already been done, hasn't it, your Honor?

THE COURT: It has.

MS. CLARK: In that case, it would be asked and answered, and counsel is just trying to highlight the very point that the Court's ruled 352.

THE COURT: That's true. It's already in the record. So we'll proceed.

MR. BLASIER: May he retake the stand, please?

THE COURT: Yes, please. Doctor.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Tuesday at 4:00.

THE COURT: Tuesday at 4:00.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Frederic Rieders, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Frederic Rieders is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Blasier. And good afternoon, doctor.

DR. RIEDERS: Good afternoon, sir.

THE COURT: Doctor, you are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, I think we were talking at the break about environmental conditions with respect to the gate. Let me ask you if--and you described one way that you would do some testing to determine what effect that might have on the amount of EDTA that you started with versus what comes off the stain taken several days or weeks later. Do you recall that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I recall.

MR. BLASIER: To answer that question properly--

THE COURT: Excuse me, doctor. Would you pull the microphone closer to you, please. Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Confronted with that set of circumstances, to answer the question, mainly how much EDTA might you lose under those environmental--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see any evidence that the FBI did any studies whatsoever to determine what would be the difference in the amount of EDTA in a stain put on a gate with EDTA blood--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Same objection.

MR. BLASIER: --subjected to whatever environmental conditions it was subjected to and then collected from a day to three weeks later?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, that there would ever be any evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not see anything along those lines.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you hypothetically about the sock. Did you see any indication in the FBI reports that you were given indicating that any testing was done to determine what, if any, loss you might have in EDTA if you put EDTA blood on the sock at one point in time subjected to changes in temperature, inspection under various different kinds of lighting and multiple handling to determine how much EDTA might be left at the end of all that process?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not see.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: If you were doing a validation study to determine that question--well, let me ask you this. If you were trying to make some sort of assessment on the quantity of EDTA that you would expect at the end of that process when you do the testing, would you do those kinds of studies to answer those questions?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Would you--would you just assume that it's not going to make any difference and--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in the FBI reports indicating whether they did any studies whatsoever to determine whether there might be any oxygen or bacterial degradation of EDTA?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Same objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in the FBI paperwork indicating that they looked at the question of what might happen to the amount of EDTA in a stain if an EDTA--some EDTA blood was mixed in with some non-EDTA blood?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you reviewed charts that the FBI produced of their positive controls for EDTA, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your understanding of how those positive controls were made?

DR. RIEDERS: The positive controls were made by taking the material, for example, on the swatch or just taking plain blood and adding to it EDTA or taking known EDTA blood and see how it behaves.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see--

DR. RIEDERS: But it was all fresh blood.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see any indication of how long they waited from the time they put the blood on a stain until they actually tested it?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Would that be significant? Would that be important to you?

DR. RIEDERS: Only if it were to exceed a normal laboratory period; you know, you start something, you continue that day or next day. If it was any length of time, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if you were trying to simulate what might--what you might expect to find under the conditions which we have with the sock and the back gate, in your opinion, would it be adequate to just take a bloodstain that's dried for a period of an hour let's say and testing it right then?

DR. RIEDERS: It does not at all reproduce the conditions of the specimen. So in that rare extent, it does not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, the charts produced for the positive controls had relatively large peaks; did they not?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And--I would like to have a chart marked, please.

THE COURT: 1261.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry? 12--

THE COURT: 1261.

MR. BLASIER: 1261?

(Deft's 1261 for id = chart)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what's been marked as 1261. Did you receive a bar chart like that in the material from the FBI?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And let me put that on the elmo. Now, doctor, does this appear to be a bar chart produced in the FBI paperwork? Can you see it?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm trying to read the one next to the large numbers. What is it? Yes. I've received that.

MR. BLASIER: And the up and down access, the left access there is the ion count, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the various different bars indicate EDTA or what matches EDTA found from various samples, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does that particular chart in representing ion counts--let me rephrase this. Did they run positive controls more than just those two times?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did they get large fluctuations in the ion count for different positive controls?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did they get different ion counts for their known standards as well?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Let me have two other charts marked.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, can we ask that counsel identify what's on this chart?

THE COURT: It's his examination, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you one question about the chart before we mark the next set. The two columns on the left indicate dress. Do you see that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And they indicate approximately the same amounts from a sample called K65 and K65C. Do you agree with that?

DR. RIEDERS: No. The one on the right is substantially thicker than the one on the left. No. 2 is substantially thicker than no. 1 as far as the height is concerned.

MR. BLASIER: You're talking about the two on the left?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Are you aware that that was Nicole Brown Simpson's dress?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what substance that was made out of?

DR. RIEDERS: I think it's one of the artificial fibers that includes EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: Does rayon include EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: In the process, yes.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me have two other charts marked 12--

THE COURT: 1262 is next in order.

MR. BLASIER: 1262-A and B.

(Deft's 1262-A and b for id = charts)

MR. BLASIER: For the record, 1262-A is discovery no. 4077 and is labeled 50 parts per million EDTA and 40--I'm sorry--1262-B is discovery page 4070, also indicated at 50 parts per million EDTA. And these are both from February 22nd, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, let me show you two charts, 1262-A and 1262-B, and ask you if those appear to be charts testing 50 parts per million EDTA.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what are the times on those two charts in terms of when each sample was run?

DR. RIEDERS: One at 9:32 and 25 seconds in the morning and the other one at 1:48 and 11 seconds in the afternoon of the same day.

MR. BLASIER: Now, for the chart that has the no. 4077--

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we have slide v, 1257-V?

MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, could you tell us for chart no. 4077 what was the ion count for 50 parts per million on that particular run?

DR. RIEDERS: For the area? Is that what you want?

MR. BLASIER: No. The peak height.

DR. RIEDERS: The peek height? 319,561.

MR. BLASIER: Now, look at chart 4070, the same standard, the same amount run later that day. What was the ion count later in the day?

DR. RIEDERS: 49,393.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that, assuming the chart is properly labeled, those two should be the same thing? Well, let me rephrase that. The same thing is being tested in both of those runs?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do you find it unusual at all that the ion counts would change so much from one test to the next on the same day?

MS. CLARK: Outside the scope of this witness' expertise. He doesn't run this machine.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, do you interpret chromatograms all of the time?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you look at peak heights and peak areas and retention times all the time?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether ion counts under the conditions of the FBI's experiments can vary that much, as much as is shown in the chart, from run to run in the same day?

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation. Exceeds the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: What's your opinion?

DR. RIEDERS: Easily, because with the electrospray system, you get numbers that go pretty much all over. So that's consistent with electrospray analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is this a--if you ran an internal standard with each of those, what--if the equipment is working properly, what would you find?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you'd find that the ratio would be the same if it's the same sample. Mind you, if it's a different sample, it could be, you know, different blood, different thing. But if it's the same sample or the same batch for the analysis, then you would find the ratio is similar, provided everything went all right, even though the numbers are greatly different.

MR. BLASIER: Now, have I asked you to--have you reviewed some material provided by Mr. Martz concerning the amounts of--well, let me rephrase this. Is EDTA appear or allowed to be present in food?

DR. RIEDERS: In food? Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What kinds of foods is it allowed to be in?

DR. RIEDERS: In some of the dried vegetable type things like in peas and beans according to the one FDA release that I have, in pickles, in a variety of foods. I don't recall any what you call basic foods that are eaten in huge amounts like bread or something. But it might be. I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed the federal requirements in terms of the maximum amounts of EDTA that can be put into various foods?

DR. RIEDERS: I looked at them, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And have you determined from those materials what you would expect to find in a person's natural blood who is eating materials with EDTA in them?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Is that foundation?

MS. CLARK: Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, are you called upon to make calculations of how much of a particular substance might be in the bloodstream based on what you ingest by mouth?

DR. RIEDERS: If I have any idea of what the absorption is, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And is there a study you reviewed in this case provided by Mr. Martz that talks about the absorption rate of EDTA into the system?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what study is that?

DR. RIEDERS: That is a study by Trujillo and--now the second name slips--in the 50's using radioactive labeled EDTA and fed to people.

MR. BLASIER: And what did that study determine was the absorption rate of EDTA into the bloodstream when it was taken by mouth?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. That study has no relevance to this.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: I need to approach at this point to explain.

THE COURT: With the court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar.

MS. CLARK: This is a study going back to 1954 with equipment nowhere near the sensitivity that we have today, no. 1. No. 2, what they did is, they injected them. They couldn't take it by mouth. I believe they injected them. It was one-thousandth of a dose that we're talking about to produce--can I get Agent Martz to help me with this.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. The conditions under which the testing was done bear no resemblance to what we have here neither in terms of sophistication of the equipment nor in terms of what they were able to detect. There were plenty of detectable levels that were unstated in the article. We don't even know what they were beyond knowing they certainly didn't have a test for the trace levels that we have now. I think all they were able to do is attempt to trace it in the urine and the feces and they were unable to. They were unable to detect from blood given the equipment and sensitivity that they had back then. The fact they could or could not detect was not--the conditions were not substantially similar and their equipment was not as sophisticated as we have today to render those findings of any amount in 1995.

MR. BLASIER: Actually the study at an amount two parts per billion rate is much more sensitive than what we've used here. It shows what the absorption rate is of EDTA. It shows that based on absorption rates, five percent is not absorbed in the bloodstream at all. Agent Martz told me that himself.

THE COURT: EDTA is not absorbed in the bloodstream? Is that what you're saying?

MR. BLASIER: It is, but very small amounts. It's excreted very quickly, passes out of the system very quickly.

MS. CLARK: What is the doctor's testimony going to be concerning the maximum level, amount that would be tolerable?

MR. BLASIER: That given the CFR papers that she gave me showing the most you are allowed to put in various types of substances, it's in the parts per billion range if you ate 100 percent of the daily requirements every day and if you were tested immediately afterward and if everything was absorbed instantly.

MS. CLARK: What does he base the opinion it would be parts--what, one or two parts per billion would be the maximum we could tolerate?

MR. BLASIER: It's not a matter of toleration. It's a matter of what you have in your system given complete ideal circumstances.

MS. CLARK: What does he base that on?

MR. BLASIER: Calculation of how much, parts per million is allowed to be put in food.

MS. CLARK: What calculation did you do? I have no paper work to indicate it's done anything like that.

MR. BLASIER: I gave them to Agent Martz. I tried to fax them to you. The machine wasn't on. It's an easy calculation. You take a certain quantity of EDTA you start with and you can calculate how much you get in the system.

MS. CLARK: Is this some other article he bases it on?

MR. BLASIER: No. This is the main article and the calculation is easy. I mean it's easy for him. It's not easy for me. It's based on the article they gave us. This is the only article that talks about EDTA passing out in the bloodstream.

MS. CLARK: The problem is, the article does not talk about--

THE COURT: Did the doctor produce a report yesterday?

MR. BLASIER: No. I had somebody else do the calculations which I gave to Agent Martz, and I believe--

MS. CLARK: I don't believe that's true. And I haven't seen them. So I don't know--we're going to have him extrapolate from an article back in the 50's on testing done--

THE COURT: Counsel, you are repeating yourself.

MS. CLARK: All right. They're extrapolating from that calculation I haven't seen to determine that the normal amount you would find in the blood would be in parts per billion.

MR. BLASIER: One other thing, Judge. We have that document from the Environmental Protection Agency that says that the most you would expect in humans is two parts per billion.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to sustain the objection on 352 grounds; also, discovery violation grounds since you didn't turn this over.

MR. BLASIER: I did. Judge, I did.

THE COURT: Yesterday.

MR. COCHRAN: So the agent--he misunderstood. Tell him again.

MR. BLASIER: I have another expert I'm working with that I probably will not call, that I've asked to do some calculations. I gave them to Roger Martz yesterday.

THE COURT: Yesterday, did you give it to counsel?

MR. BLASIER: I tried to fax it to them. I've got the proof here. Their machine was turned off.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: You didn't give it to me yesterday.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask the jury to step back in the jury room, please.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Blasier, tell me about this report.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, we got discovery from the Prosecution on Thursday of what the code of federal regulations allows by way of EDTA in food. I asked Dr. Ballard, who is present in court, he's one of our experts who is not on our witness list to calculate for me how much would that would result in terms of parts per million, per billion, whatever if you ate the maximum dosage in one day that was completely absorbed into your system and all sorts of other conditions which aren't terribly realistic.

THE COURT: Isn't yesterday a little late to be doing these calculations?

MR. BLASIER: I was doing them over the weekend, your Honor, and I provided them to Agent Martz. I tried to fax--

THE COURT: Wait, wait. If EDTA in the blood is an issue from opening statements back in January, isn't this a little late to be doing this?

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz told me when I went to Washington last week that he had performed--a week before last I guess it was--that he had performed some experiments on his own blood that showed the presence of EDTA. He also told me that he hadn't saved any of the data, that he had thrown it all away, that he had not produced the charts for us. I had to ask him for them, and he didn't turn them over. So I assumed at that point that they were going to make some kind of argument that maybe the EDTA in his blood is based on what he eats. And at that point, I decided to use their material and calculate what you would expect to find in your blood if you ate what you're allowed to eat in terms of EDTA.

THE COURT: Isn't that something that's pretty obvious as an avenue of inquiry?

MR. BLASIER: Our experts had told us that you're never going to get above parts per billion from your diet. To me, that was never in issue until he says that he tested his own blood and found some.

THE COURT: All right. Well, the point here though is that you're attempting to elicit testimony from Dr. Rieders concerning a report that was not turned over to the Prosecution, correct?

MR. BLASIER: It was a calculation that I attempted to turn over to the Prosecution as soon as I had it. They didn't have their machine on yesterday. I gave it to Agent Martz last night. I told him, "If you talk to Marcia, please give her this stuff because I couldn't get it through on their fax."

MS. CLARK: As far as I know, our fax is always on.

MR. BLASIER: I got the proof in my file if you want it.

MS. CLARK: I mean, this is the first I've heard of this calculation. I don't know what counsel is talking about. That's why I'm attempting to confer with Agent Martz now to find out what they did.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Well, I must say that the issue--I mean, it does peak one's curiosity since we know that EDTA is allowed in certain food stuffs. It does sort of peak your interest whether or not it's naturally occurring in the blood. I mean, that's an inquiry that, you know, either side should have made a long time ago.

MR. BLASIER: We know that all the literature tells us, that if it's there, it's going to be in the parts per billion range period. I mean, that's what the literature says. And we provided them with material from the Environmental Protection Agency that also says you shouldn't see more than two parts per billion in humans.

THE COURT: All right. At this point, have you handed to the prosecuting attorneys a copy of this report?

MR. BLASIER: No.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, can I refer to the Environmental Protection Agency material that I gave them last week?

THE COURT: It's in the public record, correct?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you.

THE COURT: Let's have the jurors, please. Doctor, you may stay seated. And, Mr. Blasier, we'll go to 2:30.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. I'm almost--yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: You mean before we break.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Doctor, you may remain seated. All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, have you reviewed materials from the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to how much EDTA you can expect to find in human blood from diet?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the range that would be in the human blood from diet?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: That is exactly what we--

THE COURT: Overruled. EPA records from FDA records that are in the public--part of the public record, he can testify to.

MR. BLASIER: What range are we talking about for net--EDTA in the blood from diet?

DR. RIEDERS: Normally, from--in normal individuals, four part--no more than four parts for billion, per billion.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the amounts of EDTA found on the sock and the back gate, what range are they?

DR. RIEDERS: It's in the parts per million. So a thousand times more.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether the EDTA found in the sock and the back gate could have come from food?

DR. RIEDERS: From food eaten by the person whose blood it is; is that it?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: No. In my opinion, that is so unlikely that I wouldn't even consider it.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what other sources of EDTA in blood could there be?

DR. RIEDERS: Well--

MR. BLASIER: Let me clar--qualify that a little bit--in the amounts shown in the back gate and the sock.

DR. RIEDERS: Well, basically, in blood from an individual who had intermuscular or intravenous EDTA or EDTA preparations for one or another either diagnostic or therapeutic purpose--I mentioned it's used for that--within a short time, because within a day or two after such administration, all of the EDTA is out of the body. It's 90 percent in a couple of hours that it leaves the body.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see any indication in the FBI paper work that either Nicole Brown Simpson or OJ Simpson had EDTA injected into their systems on June 12th?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: What other sources of EDTA are there in blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Accidental outside contaminations. For example, a syringe that is used to draw blood from someone could have been washed in detergent, and detergents have EDTA in them. EDTA could have been put right on that spot. I mean, it could be put on the whole sock, but then the control would also show it. So really, there's no likely introduction of EDTA into circulating human blood other than its diagnostic or therapeutic injection, not orally. It's not given orally. It's bad for you given by mouth.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether the EDTA found on the sock and the back gate in the quantities which they were found, if that could have come from a purple top tube?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Of course it could.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Cross.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. May I have one moment?

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, your Honor. May I have a minute?

MS. CLARK: Both have a minute?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders, good afternoon.

DR. RIEDERS: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That normal is no more than four parts per billion. Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's what the EPA says and I accept that. I have nothing better.

MS. CLARK: And that's based on the report that you had; is that correct, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: It's an EPA publication, the ONTADS, which is one of their publications.

MS. CLARK: Now, if what that--strike that. In the evidence stain, sir, you said you found EDTA in the levels of parts per million, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I didn't find it. Mr. Martz did and I agreed that they are in the parts per million based on his analysis.

MS. CLARK: So the amount of EDTA found in the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His detection limit is in the parts per million.

MS. CLARK: The answer is yes. The amount that was found in the gate and the sock were in parts per million, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the amount that should be found, the maximum amount that could be found in a person, a normal healthy person's blood is in parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, according to the best available information.

MS. CLARK: And if that information is incorrect and the actual information is in parts per million, then the amount found in the gate and the sock are a normal person's maximum allowable amount; wouldn't that be true, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: If the best information is it's parts per billion, then yes.

MS. CLARK: I have a report to show you, sir.

MS. CLARK: We received a report I'm showing to counsel now. I ask it be marked as People's next in order.

THE COURT: I'm sorry? 534.

MS. CLARK: May I see a copy of the EPA report you referred to, sir? Do you have it with you?

DR. RIEDERS: No. I furnished a copy to you and to Mr. Martz. I mean, actually I furnished copies--let me see what I have.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, the evidence number, will be 537 on this.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: What's the source of this report, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: The source of that report is--

(Peo's 537 for id = report)

MS. CLARK: Excuse me.

DR. RIEDERS: Yep, I have a copy.

MS. CLARK: You have it, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Miss Clark, may I have a copy?

MS. CLARK: The source of this is EPA, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you what's now been marked as People's 537.

MS. CLARK: And I'm going to ask if we can have it copied for counsel so they can keep it with them.

THE COURT: How many pages is that?

MS. CLARK: One page.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the relevant passage at the bottom, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I see the problem.

MS. CLARK: Yes, you see the problem, sir. Is that what you said?

DR. RIEDERS: No. I see the paragraph.

MS. CLARK: Oh, I see. And what does it say here?

MR. BLASIER: Objection to the comments by counsel.

THE COURT: Sustained. Jury is to disregard. Miss Clark.

DR. RIEDERS: I said clearly "Paragraph."

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

DR. RIEDERS: I said clearly "Paragraph," not "Problem."

MS. CLARK: "Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion?

DR. RIEDERS: What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd.

MS. CLARK: It's absurd. This is the basis for the EPA report that you referred to, sir, this absurd thing here?

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Is that a question?

DR. RIEDERS: I beg your pardon.

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Is that a question, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: It was foundational to a question. I wanted to show him the report.

THE COURT: Be careful, Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you another report. Now, the report that you just pulled out from your briefcase, sir, I'm going to cite you to a passage where it says, "Insight to amelioration AML, dredge undissolved solid." That's in your report, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's part of their report. That's part of the copy that I gave you.

MS. CLARK: This is the EPA report that you used to base your opinion on that the normal amount of EDTA that you'll find in blood or the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person would be in the parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: This and the paper by Trujillo and foreman is--foreman is the other author.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to this report, sir, on which you just said you based your opinion from the EPA, you read that to allow for the maximum allowable amount in a normal person to be two parts per billion?

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: Right. Now, is it possible, sir, that you have a typo here that caused you to conclude there were two parts per billion as the maximum allowable when in fact, it is 1,000 times less, two parts per million as the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person?

DR. RIEDERS: It's possible that this is a typo, but this is--a 2,000 parts per million is absurd as I told you. The people would be bleeding to death at that level.

MS. CLARK: In other words, if this is the correct EPA report, you disagree with it?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, obviously. I mean, it's--obviously it's a typo in there because I can't imagine that the EPA would say that it's all right to run around with blood that won't clot.

MS. CLARK: Sir, you earlier just premised your person on the maximum allowable amount for a normal person on the EPA report, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in your report, it says two mg/ml?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you interpret that to mean two nanograms per milliliter?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That's the only one possible.

MS. CLARK: That's the only one possible from an ng as oppose to an mg, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And so you determined that what the EPA was saying was the maximum allowable amount was two parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That they were saying what is consistent with their radioactive study, and that's what they say, yes. Sure. Makes sense.

MS. CLARK: But the radioactive study, sir, was not able to pick up EDTA in the blood, was it?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: It gave no lower trace amounts that it was able to detect or measure in blood, did it?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sorry?

MS. CLARK: That report back in the 50's of radioactive EDTA did not state any specific amount for anything detected in blood resembling EDTA; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's not correct.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. I thought we weren't going into this. I mean I'm happy to.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: I can't--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: What was the objection?

THE COURT: Court's previous ruling on this regard, that report. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: The witness continues to refer to it. Then I'd ask the witness' references to be stricken.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: You just testified that you based your opinion on this EPA report. Isn't that what you just did on direct examination, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: I didn't say--I didn't say I didn't base it on anything else. Yes, that's what I said.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. And you interpreted that report to say that the normal amount you would find, a maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person would be two parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that the amount that you found in the gate and the sock stains were in the parts per million, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I didn't find it. The amounts that the FBI found were in the parts per million, yes.

MS. CLARK: And based on those differences on the parts per billion that you would find in the normal healthy person, which is far less wouldn't you agree, than in parts per million, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Based on that, sir, you concluded that the amount of EDTA found in the gate and the sock stains could not have come from food, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: It is reasonably certain that they did not come from food. Could--

MS. CLARK: And that is based on the maximum allowable amount that you determined--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Counsel, you need to allow the doctor to finish his answer.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, did you finish your answer?

THE COURT: The question was regarding whether or not the EDTA in the gate and sock stains could have come from food.

DR. RIEDERS: Not from ingested foods being transferred into the blood of a person from whom that blood came. That in my opinion is so unlikely that I would not consider it.

MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, that is based on your interpretation--that is based on the report from the EPA that talks about the maximum allowable amount of EDTA in a normal person, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: And on the foreman and Trujillo paper.

MS. CLARK: And I'll object. The latter part is nonresponsive under 352.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: And you also determined--then, doctor, if your interpretation or your reading of that report saying two parts per billion in the normal healthy person is based on a typo and in fact, they meant to say two parts per million, what they are stating there in the two parts per million is consistent with the amount of EDTA that was found by Agent Martz in the gate and the sock stains; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I beg your pardon. It's 2,000 parts per million. Two milligrams per mil is 2,000 parts per million, the same that was--that's--or more so than you find in an EDTA tube. That is blood that won't coagulate.

MS. CLARK: Did you see the report on which it's based, sir? In other words, you're insisting that this EPA report is wrong. Is that your testimony?

DR. RIEDERS: I don't say that the report is wrong if that's what they put in. I think it's either a typo or a complete absurdity.

MS. CLARK: Now, I'm showing you the report faxed to us by the EPA on which the report you have is based, and that's the one just shown to counsel, People's 357. And it says the same thing, does it not, two milligrams per milliliter? Isn't that correct?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I still don't have a copy of this. Could we have a copy of this, please?

DR. RIEDERS: It is a--it is a--it describes the content of the paper. It is not a report. It says that: "Observation on the effect of the concentration of EDTA on the packed cell volume of various domestic animals confirm that in man, the concentration of EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." The citation is the British veterinary journal. So it--I mean, you know, I don't quite understand it if this is on animals or why this applies to man, and, secondly, if it is supposed to--this is not a report. This is an abstract of a paper--it's an absurdity.

MS. CLARK: But it does use the same amount; does it not, doctor? You see that you have 2 mg/ml, they have 2 mg/ml, and we have a report that conforms to the report on which it's based. I just had you read it, have I not, where it says--

DR. RIEDERS: No, you haven't. You have not made me read it.

MS. CLARK: You haven't seen this, doctor?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I haven't seen this. No.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, "This" that Dr. Rieders has is what?

MS. CLARK: People's 358.

THE COURT: You mean 538.

MS. CLARK: 538?

THE COURT: 538. You have your numbers transposed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Let me write this down.

(Peo's 538 for id = document)

MS. CLARK: Don't you recall us just reading this together, Dr. Rieders?

DR. RIEDERS: No. You read it to me. I didn't have a chance to look at it

(Brief pause.)

DR. RIEDERS: This--

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Have you read it, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah, I've read it.

MS. CLARK: All right. So in my copy, it says 2 mg/ml, doesn't it, for the same--

DR. RIEDERS: Your copy of something else. This is not the same. Will you please note that these are different references from another base?

MS. CLARK: Yes. But the paragraph it applies to is word for word the same as yours; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Except for that, that's correct.

MS. CLARK: So it's referring to the same thing, isn't it, doctor?

DR. RIEDERS: I expect so. But I don't know that.

MS. CLARK: Well, you just read it.

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I don't know that it refers to the same thing, but--

MS. CLARK: Let's read it together, doctor. Tell me where the words are different.

DR. RIEDERS: It doesn't except for that one little thing. This is absurd, what's in here.

MS. CLARK: All right. All right. Here it says two 2 mg/ml.

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: The paper on which--that was sent to us from the EPA, People's 536, says the same? 2--

DR. RIEDERS: Excuse me. The paper does not say that. They are abstracts it says.

MS. CLARK: So exactly the same; is that correct, doctor?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, these are based on animal studies; are they not?

DR. RIEDERS: That's what the paragraph says. I don't know that paper. I'd have to read it to give you an opinion on it.

MS. CLARK: Yesterday, doctor, you were willing to base your opinion on the parts per billion that you thought was actually written there earlier on direct testimony, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Because--yes, because all it did was corroborate what the radioactivity studies showed, that they couldn't find any in their detection limit, it being one part per billion.

MS. CLARK: And, doctor, in these radioactivity studies, there is no amount shown; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: But it's clearly there. It's not written out, but it's clearly there. They used radioactivity--active labeled EDTA that they gave people by mouth. They could not detect it. They show you how many DPM's they can count at the various levels, and what is not detected is, it's no more than one to two parts per billion.

MS. CLARK: Doctor--

DR. RIEDERS: If it's more than that, it's detected.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, what kind of equipment or facilities did they have for testing back then? Did they have the LC--did they have the liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer back then?

DR. RIEDERS: This has nothing to do with it. This is radioactive material fed to people, which is much more sensitive than any instruments that we have nowadays.

MS. CLARK: Well, let me--

DR. RIEDERS: You can't just feed it to people anymore.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, let me ask you this. Have you done any studies to take blood from normal people that is not preserved and tested for trace levels of EDTA? Have you done that?

DR. RIEDERS: I have done no such experiments. No.

MS. CLARK: Now, you wrote your report on July 17th of this year?

DR. RIEDERS: I guess so. I'll have to look at the date. It's the date that's on the report, whatever that is.

MS. CLARK: July 17th. And you got Agent Martz' reports back in the end of February, beginning of March, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Which report?

MS. CLARK: The graphs and the notes by Agent Martz?

DR. RIEDERS: I don't remember the exact date, but probably in March sometime I think. I'm not even sure I got them in March. But never mind. I got them quite a while ago.

MS. CLARK: And you didn't write a report documenting your findings until July 17th, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's when I was asked to write one, yes.

MS. CLARK: Otherwise, you wouldn't have written one at all?

DR. RIEDERS: I only write reports if I'm asked to write them. It's customary.

MS. CLARK: It's customary for you to do as you are instructed by the Defense counsel that hire you, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Only instructed in terms of what he wants me to do and what he wants me to give them. That's his prerogative.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And when you wrote that report on July 17th, you had not yet spoken to Agent Martz about his testing, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: You had just read what he had done; is that right?

DR. RIEDERS: Most of it, not all. I received some after that.

MS. CLARK: And after you wrote that report, you discovered that Agent Martz tested his own normal blood unpreserved for the presence of EDTA and found EDTA; did he not?

DR. RIEDERS: His results that he forwarded to me showed an EDTA peak in the blood that he processed, yes.

MS. CLARK: In fact, isn't it true, doctor, that his own unpreserved blood came up very similarly in results to the bloodstains found on the gate and the sock? Isn't that true, doctor?

DR. RIEDERS: Surprisingly, yes.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: It did not came--excuse me.

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

DR. RIEDERS: The numbers came out the same.

THE COURT: Hold on.

DR. RIEDERS: Excuse me.

THE COURT: Hold on. Wait.

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Wait. Let me see counsel at sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We're over at the sidebar. Miss Clark, I cautioned you to be careful earlier. Your commentary on the testimony, I realize you're enjoying yourself, but I'm warning you right now, warning you in no uncertain terms, if I see any more of that commentary, there's going to be severe sanctions, and I underline the word "Severe." Proceed.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed. Miss Clark, 2:30.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, as you've indicated, you are interpreting Agent Martz' work; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: His results, yes. His results, yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not do any testing yourself; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: None whatever.

MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact, your lab doesn't even have this equipment, does it?

DR. RIEDERS: We don't have the equipment that Roger Martz has. That's correct. Not yet.

MS. CLARK: Do you even have the liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MS. CLARK: Let alone one that has the electrospray?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that's just one interface. No. We don't have any.

MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact--

DR. RIEDERS: The only one that we do have is the ability to collect fractions and analyze them separately by the mass spectrometer, something which I've done.

MS. CLARK: You yourself have never operated the electrospray; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, wouldn't you agree that the person that would be the most qualified to testify and interpret the results of the operation of a given machine is somebody who operates that machine on a daily basis?

DR. RIEDERS: He should be the most qualified person to determine what the limits of ability of his machine are since he works with it every day. Yes.

MS. CLARK: And in that regard, sir, you testified earlier that you thought retention time was a significant factor in determining whether or not these stains had the same qualities as those found in the reference blood samples with respect to the presence of EDTA; isn't that right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And if an expert in the operation of this machine such as Agent Martz told you that retention time was an inappropriate factor to use because it is not discriminating for the presence of EDTA, wouldn't you agree that retention time should not be relied upon to determine whether or not a substance is or is not EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, if he told--if he were to tell me that, I would tell him that he's in error because retention time is a characteristic of a substance in a chromatography system provided there is some reasonable reproducibility of flow and other things, that's possible. It's independent of the detection system and all these other things and the variability may be greater in one than in another, but it is usable and it is used for that, yes. That's what I would tell him. He didn't tell me that it's not applicable. Retention time is always a characteristic of a substance unless you change conditions completely.

MS. CLARK: Well, let me ask you this, doctor. When you do testing to determine whether or not you think something is present, chemically speaking, wouldn't it be important to use factors that are as unique and as rare as possible in determining whether or not a compound is or is not a given chemical? Wouldn't you agree?

DR. RIEDERS: Only if you add the one other thing "And available." If you can do cer--within the framework of what you can do, are you doing all you can to get the most intimately characterizing property of the substance that differentiates it from others, yes.

MS. CLARK: Yes?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, let me ask you this. If you are attempting to find women that look like me, wouldn't it be far more efficient to say you want a woman of this height and this weight--and I'm not going to say what that is--and this kind of hair and these kind of eyes and that kind of mouth and those kind of arms as opposed to just saying I want a woman five foot six?

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

MS. CLARK: By Miss Clark: Wouldn't you agree?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Is it because of the weight thing, your Honor?

THE COURT: It's too oblique for me.

MS. CLARK: All right.

MS. CLARK: What I'm getting at, doctor, is, if you use criteria that are very broad, then you will include a lot that does not belong in that category, correct, as a general proposition?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: I will use all available criteria, broad, narrow, microscopic and assign to each one a probative value for what a scientist does, and that is applying what is called the null hypothesis.

MS. CLARK: All right, doctor. Let me ask you this. If you assign probative value, if an expert in the operation of this machine who uses it every day like Agent Martz were to tell you that retention time has very little probative value because all chemicals seem to pass through at almost the same time or within a minute, would you agree, doctor, that that is not a factor that should be given great probative value in your determination as to whether or not a compound is or is not EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, if you were to tell me that, I will tell you that you are grossly mistaken. And if you earnestly believe that all compounds will pass through in a short time when you have a column, you don't know what you're talking about.

MS. CLARK: But, doctor, you would agree, would you not, that someone who runs that machine every day would be a better expert, better able to determine what are the probative factors and are not than someone else who has never operated it? Wouldn't you agree, doctor?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: He should be, but if he says that, he isn't.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, isn't it true that most compounds will pass through this particular, the electrospray in particular, in about one minute?

DR. RIEDERS: It will pass through the electrospray in one minute, but the separation occurs in the chromatography column.

MS. CLARK: That's right. And in the column, sir, how long does it take, if you know--do you even know how long it takes most compounds to pass through the column in the LC tandem ms?

DR. RIEDERS: That will depend on what column and what flow you use. He doesn't say how much time it takes. He has everything down in terms of scan numbers. So I can't tell you. It's a few minutes between runs, and that rather surprised me, that so little separation time is allowed and--but that's all. I still can't--I can't tell you a thing about it. If he knows what he's doing, then he's using a column to separate substances. As far as I know, he knows what he's doing and that's what he's doing. So he separates them.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, he conferred with you on at least one occasion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: We talked about this on at least one occasion, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And as a matter of fact, you've had his reports for--or his notes and the graphs for months, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Was there anyone who prevented you from picking up a phone to ask him about these questions, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Who?

DR. RIEDERS: It's not customary for me to do that. I asked the attorneys to get me additional information or to suggest that I call him up and talk to him on the phone. I got additional information, not all that I asked for, but I did not get their okay to call him. And although I realize I can do it, you know, I'm a free man, it's not a very proper thing if you--if you are going contrary to the wishes of the people that you talk to unless those wishes are an obvious crime or something.

MS. CLARK: And the Defense attorneys told you when to write your report and who you may call and not call; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MS. CLARK: You wait for their permission; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Not their permission.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: I do not wait for their permission. I asked them whether they have wishes, not orders. And if their wishes are reasonable, I'll comply with them of course.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, you're a scientist; are you not?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: It's important for you to get as much data, as much information as you possibly can so your answers are all as correct and reliable as they can be; isn't that true?

DR. RIEDERS: If I can obtain that information properly, yes.

MS. CLARK: And would it have been improper for you to ask Agent Martz to furnish you with information on the validity or the probative value of retention time, for example, in this particular piece of equipment in which he is an expert in its use?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative, vague as to what's improper, what that means.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Either ask that question specifically or ask it in a more general way, which I did, to the attorneys, and that is that I would like to see the validation data for all the perimeters that apply to this analysis. Retention time is one of the most important perimeters, and the validation data that I received contained retention times which put it exactly into the range that they were. So it worked fine.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, you operate the gas chromatograph, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the gas chromatograph, retention time is a very important factor, isn't it?

DR. RIEDERS: In every chromatography, retention time or RF or RT, whatever they are called--it's the same thing. They just attach different letters to them--is one of the characterizing properties of individual compounds or sometimes the groups of compounds depending how you are doing the analysis.

MS. CLARK: And, doctor, in the use of the gas chromatograph, you will be able to detect items by how long they take to separate, correct, and some items take a great deal of more time than others?

DR. RIEDERS: Not how long they take to separate, but how well separated they are in the run.

MS. CLARK: By the time they get to the end of the column?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, separated somewhere, whether they--by the time--they are measured by the time they get--at the end of the column, the time is recorded, and the time between one peak and the next peak has to be sufficient so that they are clearly two peaks.

MS. CLARK: And what is the amount of time, maximum amount of time that it would take an item to go through your column, the gas chromatograph column?

DR. RIEDERS: That is so variable. I have substances just go through the column, through one column in less than a minute. I have others which take 40 minutes in that or in other columns. It is as long as you want it to be. For instance, in the EPA studies, there are runs that are two hours long. So, you know, it's--it's what you're looking for and what you're doing. As long as you know what you're doing, you're all right.

MS. CLARK: All right, doctor. In your experience then with the gas chromatograph that you routinely operate, you can have items that run through the column for as long as 40 minutes, correct, that have retention time as long as that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah. I think in one of the types of analysis that we do--we do many different types--there is as much--it's a screen and it extends over something like 40 minutes.

MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, if Agent Martz were to tell you that because of the way the electrospray works, he's required to use very volatile liquid to push the material through the column such as pneumonia, and as a result of that, just about all substances go through in one minute, what in your opinion would be the probative value of retention time?

DR. RIEDERS: It would still be the retention time of a substance within 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds, 40 seconds, 50 seconds, 60 seconds. The last one is six times as long as the first one. So whatever the time is--I'm sure he isn't pushing it through a column for the fun of it because if it's so close that you can't differentiate, why use a column at all.

MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, doctor, if that were the case, then wouldn't you agree that retention time is not a very discriminating factor in the LC tandem and mass electrospray?

DR. RIEDERS: It is a discriminating factor. I don't want to assign to it very little--it's a discriminating factor. It's a property. It takes a certain length of time for EDTA to go through. So that's one of its characteristic. If he knows of 50 other substances not related to EDTA that have the same retention time and if you'll tell me, then I say well, then it still is a characteristic, but it is shared with other substances.

MS. CLARK: And so--

DR. RIEDERS: Now, if these substances are indeed things that you find in blood, then it's important. If they are substances that you only find in the Gulf of Mexico, then they are irrelevant because your test has to be something that has a meaning in terms of the analysis that you do. If they are cyanide and other horrible poisons, then in this case, it's irrelevant because there's none there.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, doctor, then in that case--but in that case, if there were say 50 other compounds that pass through at the same retention time, the probative value would be less?

DR. RIEDERS: Of course.

MS. CLARK: Correct?

DR. RIEDERS: If you can tell me that's less than if you only know of two others.

MS. CLARK: Well, doesn't the retention time to some degree depend on the kind of liquid used to push the material through the column? Isn't that true?

DR. RIEDERS: Among other things, of course.

MS. CLARK: And if you routinely use the same liquid repeatedly--

DR. RIEDERS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: --isn't it true, doctor, that you're going to wind up with a lot of compounds with the same retention or very similar retention time as opposed to using different liquids?

DR. RIEDERS: I don't know that. You don't have to. You have a good separation or you don't. I don't know.

MS. CLARK: And you don't know because you don't operate the electrospray, do you, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, whether you operate the electrospray or not has nothing to do with that, nothing whatever. If the whole retention on that column is one minute, then you're working with a separation within one minute. There are gas chromatograms which separate 200 compounds in one minute that you put in there. So I'm sure it's the same that you can obtain here although LC is less of a separator.

MS. CLARK: But you would agree with me, would you not, doctor, that if the retention time in the electrospray is very similar for many different compounds, then the retention time is not a very probative factor? Yes or no?

DR. RIEDERS: It's a probative factor. Very--I don't know what is very, how much.

MS. CLARK: Well, didn't you just tell us, sir, that you determined how probative certain factors are?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: All right. Then obviously, there is some variation between the importance of certain factors and others, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Sure, there is.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, with respect to Agent Martz' blood, you have testified, sir, that since you wrote your report, you determined, you found out that Agent Martz tested his own blood and came up with characteristics just like those in the gate and the sock stains which you determined were EDTA, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: There are two many questions in there. Let's take one at time. Would you mind?

MS. CLARK: Is that an objection, compound?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Compound.

THE COURT: Yes, it is. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Well, let me just show you a chart, sir. Now, while Mr. Blasier is reviewing that, I want to show you a chart which he showed you earlier.

MS. CLARK: Did you mark this one or just show it?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: I'm putting up Defense--which Mr. Blasier will tell me in a moment.

MR. BLASIER: 1257-C.

MS. CLARK: 1257-C, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: No. I'm sorry. D.

MS. CLARK: D.

MS. CLARK: All right. You were speaking earlier, sir, of the fact that EDTA is comprised of the parent ion 292 and one proton is added, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And by the way, I think you indicated to counsel that the process of electrospray does not alter the ions. Didn't you say that, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: It doesn't change one chemical to another.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the testimony, whether they change them.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Didn't you testify to that sir? Tell me.

DR. RIEDERS: I testified that the electrospray does not change one chemical into another. That includes ions of one chemical into ions of another chemical.

MS. CLARK: Okay. But the ions are changed in some respect; are they not?

DR. RIEDERS: They can be. They not all are. The main thing about electrospray is that it is capable of driving otherwise neutral molecules, lodge neutral molecules readily into the mass spectrometer. That's its great advantage.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you do the gas chromatograph in the work that you've done, you measure the straight weight, correct, the straight weight of the ion with no additions?

DR. RIEDERS: No, no, no. Positive, I also use m plus one, which is the molecular weight plus one. That's what you get.

MS. CLARK: And that's what you do here; do you not? You're adding one to the molecular weight?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah. You're adding a proton, a positively charged hydrogen atom.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you've testified, sir, that the parent ion 293 is one characteristic of the EDTA, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that there is a daughter ion, 160, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: But that is not the full daughter spectrum that you see there; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Not here. The full daughter spectrum is all the daughters.

MS. CLARK: And the other daughter, which is not shown on this chart, is 132?

DR. RIEDERS: That's one other daughter.

MS. CLARK: And that other daughter ion, 132, was not present on the gate and the sock stains; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, no. That's not correct. Remember that Mr. Blasier showed me a chromatogram which included the--all three, the 293, the 160 and I think the 130 or whatever it was, and all three of them were there, although not in high concentrations. They were below the concentration at which the instrument prints out retention time, peak height and number. It is below what is called the reporting limit of the instrument the way it's set.

MS. CLARK: So what you're saying is, although you can't see it, it's really there?

DR. RIEDERS: No, no. I can see it and so can the instrument. It just didn't label it. There's a big difference between that.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. I want to go back to that chart.

DR. RIEDERS: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) (Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Before we get to that chart, sir--we're going to try to locate that--are you familiar with the term "Noise"?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And are you familiar with the maxim that a scientist requires three times the signal to noise ratio before saying that something could even exist? Have you heard that?

DR. RIEDERS: I've heard some people claim that. Others, five, others, two, others, 10. It depends on the circumstances. This is not from Olympus. The important thing in determining the presence or absence of something is, can you see it above the noise in one way or another.

MS. CLARK: All right. And when you say "Can you see it above the noise," you mean that there may be kind of jagged lines like this, but in order to call a peak an identification of something or a detection of something, that one peak that stands out has to be three times higher than those other lower jagged peaks; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No. Actually what is used is not that it has to be so much higher than the noise, but that it has to be higher by more than a certain number of standard deviations of the mean of the noise. That is what is used.

MS. CLARK: In which case, you would expect though to see on the graph one peak higher than the rest; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Either that or a pattern which is clearly different and more like something there than nothing there.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you're looking at this graph again, sir.

MS. CLARK: Did you mark it, counsel?

MR. BLASIER: 1259-C.

MS. CLARK: 1259-C. Now, you determined that on this chart is shown the other daughter 132 because at the same retention time--

MS. CLARK: Move over.

MS. CLARK: Will you direct the arrow, sir, to where it was before? Tell the arrow where to go. See the arrow? Look on your monitor. Yeah.

DR. RIEDERS: How do I do that?

MS. CLARK: Tell it to go right or left.

DR. RIEDERS: Go to the left a little bit. Hold. That's one peak (Indicating). Go to the right a little bit. No. Less than that. Here's another part of that peak. Go to the right. Little more. Little more. That's it. Now, there's another one. Now, let's go to a valley. Go over. No. Go to a valley. That's it. Little bit to your left. Now, go another arrow--little bit to the right. Okay. That's good enough.

MS. CLARK: And it's your contention that that proves what?

DR. RIEDERS: That this--the retention time of the first of these arrows is in one of the places where the retention time of EDTA has appeared. You have to bear in mind that this is a scan over an extremely wide range so that there's very little energy available to scan any one ion. So it is much less sensitive than if you do the same thing and always scan for 160 or for 293, but it's still strong enough to show a pattern which matches that scene in the parent ion and daughter ion chromatogram, which is a focus chromatogram.

MS. CLARK: All right. You would agree, would you not, sir, that the other random peaks there are not three times lower than the peaks that you've pointed out, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: They certainly are not.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, look down at the--down at 293.

DR. RIEDERS: All right.

MS. CLARK: There is a very high peak in the very beginning, isn't there, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: What?

MS. CLARK: The 293 is the parent ion; isn't it?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Isn't it? And you see a very high peak where we've just put the magenta arrow? In fact, that's the highest peak on that graph, isn't it?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: But you didn't call that--you did not identify that as the parent ion even though that does have a high peak, maybe three times as high as some of the other peaks on that chart; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not because I have nothing to go on to call it a parent ion.

MS. CLARK: Then in fact, what this graph shows, sir, in your opinion, as the 132 is based solely on the fact that you see something at the retention time?

DR. RIEDERS: At the same--yes, at the same retention time where I see the 160 and the 292 and at the same retention time where in the more focused chromatogram that we looked at previously where you can see much better that 160 and that--that--it's in the same place and even the pattern is somewhat similar. So that's why I say that--you saw it before at 160. Now, if you're scanning the whole thing, even though it is so much weaker--I mean this is probably, I don't know, it could be as much as a hundred times less sensitive than the 160 ion--you still see it, and in the same place where the 160 is, you also see the footprints of the 132 ion.

MS. CLARK: And so are you willing to say, sir, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that based on this graph here of the 132 daughter ion, that it is present on the sock? Is that your testimony, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: That what is present on the sock?

MS. CLARK: The 130--that you have the full daughter spectrum on the sock based on this reading of your graph of 132?

DR. RIEDERS: This is the full daughter spectrum on the sock unless there are other smaller ones, you know, unless there are other little pieces around which I have not looked here. And that's--in general is the weakest--the least sensitive of the methods that he could use, but at the same time, it's more specific. You're trading off one for the other.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, we're going to take our recess at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you. We'll take about 15 minutes for a break. And, doctor, you can step down.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, counsel, we are going to break today--Deputy Jex?

DEPUTY JEX: 3:45.

THE COURT: Can't squeeze 4 o'clock? Are you sure, Deputy?

DEPUTY JEX: Sure.

THE COURT: Positive?

DEPUTY JEX: Positive.

THE COURT: Even if I call? Even if Deirdre calls?

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, in that case, can we approach on scheduling?

THE COURT: Miss Clark. Let's have the jury, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, you may resume your cross-examination of Dr. Rieders.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: Now, Dr. Rieders, it's true, sir, isn't it, that there is no known study that documents precisely how much EDTA would be present in a normal and healthy person's blood on an average; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: On an average of how many people, the number of patients in the foreman and Trujillo study on the whole had less than couple of parts per billion.

MS. CLARK: No, doctor. First of all, in that article, it says nothing about parts per billion; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: It doesn't say parts per billion, but it shows you it's less than parts per billion. With the strength of the radioactivity used, the detection limit is a couple parts per billion and they have negative bloods.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, that is not my question. Could you listen to my question, please. To your knowledge, is there any study in which they take the blood of normal healthy people and test it for amounts of EDTA present? In other words, what would be present in an average person on an average day. Is there any such study?

DR. RIEDERS: Study with that title, I don't know of any in the literature. Blood EDTA determinations have been done in the course of other studies I've seen and I've found, but they were not designed to do what you asked, the large number of people and averages and all that, no.

MS. CLARK: There is no known study that indicates how much EDTA you could expect to find on the average in an average person, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: None that I know of.

MS. CLARK: But in fact, when Agent Martz' blood was tested, a low level of what you call EDTA was indeed found; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I don't think that that is necessarily correct. What was found is that the sample that he finally analyzed showed the presence of some EDTA in the parts per million range. I cannot conceive that that is what's in his blood, in his circulating blood.

MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, doctor, you found what you would call EDTA in the parts per million in Agent Martz' unpreserved blood, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No. Incorrect. Absolutely untrue. I didn't find anything. He presented data which showed that when he analyzed a sample of his un-EDTA blood, that in the process, he ended up with a result that showed the presence of EDTA on the instrument. It doesn't prove that he had it in his blood, but what it does show, if he had it in his blood, he'd be an extraordinarily amazing, unusual person at that level.

MS. CLARK: Well, doctor, if other people's blood was tested, and I mean unpreserved blood, that gave the same results as did Agent Martz' blood, would that change your opinion any as to whether or not he was a highly unusual individual?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: I didn't say he's a highly unusual individual. I have not seen the validation of those studies, so I can't tell you whether the analysis is correct. If you ask me to assume that an accurate, reliable analysis of blood from Agent Martz and from others showed the kind of pattern that I saw in the material that he submitted to me, then I would say, yes, these specimens under those conditions, what I see here in my opinion is EDTA.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, you saw the test results for Agent Martz' own blood, didn't you?

DR. RIEDERS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Is that yes?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And those results do seem to indicate, do they not, EDTA in the range of parts per million in his own unpreserved blood?

DR. RIEDERS: No. In the sample that he analyzed.

MS. CLARK: In the sample that he analyzed, yes.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any reason to doubt that he was testing his own unpreserved blood, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: No. I have no reason to doubt that what he says is honest and true, that he took his own blood and tested it. But how he got the EDTA in there, I have no idea.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, you are familiar with the term "Endogenous substances"; are you not?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, sure.

MS. CLARK: And that means that we have in our bodies certain low levels of chemicals which, if given to us in very high doses, would kill us, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No, no. Endogenous substance is any substance which is normally present in a organism or body. It doesn't say anything about how much. We have a lot of iron in our body. We have a lot of histamine which sometimes kills us. So these are endogenous substances. Now, we also have substances in our body which come from the outside, but which everybody has in them. Just about everybody has a little bit of nicotine in them. It's not made by the body. It's from the environmental nicotine and other things. But endogenous substances are those that are generated by the body and not the traces of other things that get into it from the outside.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And those endogenous substances have certain normal levels in our bodies, do they not, levels that we can live with, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that holds for everything. There are levels we can live with with anything.

MS. CLARK: All right. I'm talking about the ones that naturally occur in our bodies.

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: All right. And then there are, for example, cyanide. Isn't there a certain level of cyanide that we all live with on a daily basis?

DR. RIEDERS: We don't live with it. We make it. Without it, we wouldn't have any vitamin B12 in our body.

MS. CLARK: Right.

DR. RIEDERS: Cyanide is produced and destroyed by the body on a regular basis. It's a normal biological, endogenous substance at very low levels, yes.

MS. CLARK: Yes. And yet if administered in high doses, it will kill you, correct, cyanide poisoning?

DR. RIEDERS: Sure. Anything will.

MS. CLARK: And what about ethyl alcohol, doctor? Don't we all have a certain low level of alcohol in our bodies at all times whether we drink or not?

DR. RIEDERS: That is something which the toxicologists have been kicking back and forth for nearly a hundred years. And it's still--it still is disputed by some that it is not present, but it's formed in the course of the analysis. So if true, ethyl alcohol, I suspect there is a little bit there, you know, sure.

MS. CLARK: Naturally. And if you drink alcohol, you will become inebriated, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: You will. I won't. I won't drink that much.

MS. CLARK: Assuming anyone drinks a great deal.

DR. RIEDERS: A great deal, sure.

MS. CLARK: They will become inebriated?

DR. RIEDERS: Of course.

MS. CLARK: You would and I would, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, yes. Eventually if I drank enough.

MS. CLARK: And if you drink enough, it will kill you; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: If you drink too much, it will kill you, yes. It can, and it often does.

MS. CLARK: Now, as opposed to that, there are subjects or items that we ingest on a daily basis.

DR. RIEDERS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And some of those items will enter our bloodstream; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

THE COURT: Excuse me, doctor. Why don't you put the microphone just a little closer, sir. Great. Perfect. Thank you, sir.

MS. CLARK: Now, you testified earlier today, sir, that EDTA is a preservative used for food, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Not so much a preservative as a substance to safekeep color of food, flavor of food, some degree of preservation. But most of its uses in food are for aesthetic purposes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you discussed this subject with Agent Martz about a week ago; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: And when you discussed it with him initially, you did not know EDTA was still being used in food, did you?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I was--it's not that I didn't know that it was still being used in food. But that the latest thing that I read was that the only authorized deliberate addition to food is or the only authorized addition to food is an incidental addition which occurs when adhesive such as labels are used that have EDTA in them. And I said, aha, they have taken EDTA totally out of the food, and then Agent Martz showed me something that's from I think `93, I'm not sure, that means the actual regulation is from 1993, which gave a list of substances. As a matter of fact, I told him I think it's still used in pickles, but apparently it's used in a lot of other things. At least, it was at the time at which that regulation was made.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have here--it's been shown to counsel. It's a document issued by the food and drug administration. I'm going to ask that it be marked as People's 359?

THE COURT: 539.

MS. CLARK: I keep doing this. 539.

THE COURT: This is a FDA article?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Actually it's a regulation by FDA.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 539 for id = FDA article)

MS. CLARK: I'm going to put it on the elmo. Be easier. Oh, your Honor, before I forget, can I mark what we were formerly looking at on the screen People's--I'm afraid to guess--540?

THE COURT: And that was what?

MS. CLARK: The chart, your Honor, that we printed out.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

(Peo's 540 for id = printout)

MS. CLARK: All right. People's 539. Do you recognize what I'm showing you here, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: I can't read it through my monitor. It's too--

THE COURT: Do you have an extra copy to show the doctor?

MS. CLARK: I can read it to you, sir. "Title 21, food and drugs--food and drug administration, Department of Health and Services, subchapter B, food for human consumption, food additives permitted for direct addition to food for human consumption; subpart B, food preservatives." Do you recall reading this, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. I'm going to drop down to the list. And do you recognize seeing the items listed here?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And these are items in which there's a certain maximum level of EDTA permitted?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. And they have things such as canned carbonated soft drinks?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you have--move down a little bit more--French dressing and mayonnaise at the bottom of the list, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you have dressings non-standardized in the middle there with a number 75 after it?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Next page. And on this page--drop down--you see mayonnaise, salad dressing and sandwich spread there?

DR. RIEDERS: I can see the--I can see the names, but I don't see the PPM's.

MS. CLARK: Don't see the numbers?

MS. CLARK: Can you move it over so we can see that? Move it over to left.

MS. CLARK: Right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that shows how many parts per million are allowed as a maximum in those items, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the last page, and on this, it has dressings, non-standardized, French dressing and frozen white potatoes, including cut potatoes. Do you see that item, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Like French fries?

DR. RIEDERS: Do I like French fries?

MS. CLARK: No. No. Is that--does that look--

DR. RIEDERS: I don't think--I don't know whether French fries. Cut potatoes, could be cubes or anything. Maybe. You mean where it's cut into strips?

MS. CLARK: Right. Frozen.

DR. RIEDERS: I don't know.

MS. CLARK: They have frozen white potatoes, including cut potatoes. Does that refer to what may be French fries, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Could be. I'm not an expert. I really don't know.

MS. CLARK: All right. And we have here mayonnaise, salad dressing, sandwich spread and sauces?

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: Whole lot of things there. And ready to eat cereal products?

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: All right. So people can potentially be eating EDTA every day?

DR. RIEDERS: Probably they are and I know they have been for many years. I thought it was taken out of the food for some--I haven't followed that story, but that was my impression from what I saw in one of the national library of medicine publications.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. And are you aware that it has been estimated that people ingest as much as 50 milligrams a day of EDTA in the food we eat?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, let's see now. Could be even more than that. I think that the maximum allowable amount is something like two and a half milligrams per kilogram if I'm not mistaken.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So even more than that would not surprise you?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, let's say--all right. I'll agree with you. Yes. There are people who eat 50 milligrams a day.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And that that would not be unusual?

DR. RIEDERS: I have no idea about whether it would be unusual or not. I don't know where on the curve it is. I don't know.

MS. CLARK: Not all of the EDTA that we ingest is going to completely pass out of the body, correct? Some is going to go into the blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it will go--about no more than five percent is absorbed of EDTA from a double dose and as soon as--it's excreted more rapidly than absorbed because about 70 percent is excreted in one hour.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

DR. RIEDERS: But up to five percent of a substance is absorbed from the gut, from the intestinal--gastrointestinal contents over a period of time of something like I think two or three days--

MS. CLARK: Okay.

DR. RIEDERS: --if you swallow something. By the time it works its way through, you know, a total of about no more than five percent absorbed.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, we don't have any studies that tell us precisely how much on an average basis a normal person has in his blood on any given day, correct?

THE COURT: I think we asked that question now about five times.

MS. CLARK: It's foundational, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall agreeing with that, doctor, earlier?

DR. RIEDERS: There has been--I know of no study. Not that we don't have any. I know of no study that you need a large number of people to get that figure, no.

MS. CLARK: And we do--but we do know that everybody eats food that probably contain EDTA on a daily basis?

DR. RIEDERS: Probably, yeah.

MS. CLARK: Now, given all of those facts, sir, it would not be surprising if some level of EDTA were to be found in a normal person's blood such as Agent Martz', correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sure that--I'm reasonably sure there is a little bit there, but minute traces only.

MS. CLARK: I have a chart, your Honor, I'd ask be marked People's 541.

THE COURT: 541.

(Peo's 541 for id = chart)

MS. CLARK: Showing you this chart, sir, if you could--

MS. CLARK: Can you get the glare out?

MS. CLARK: Have you seen this before?

DR. RIEDERS: Not on my monitor.

THE COURT: I think you need to back out just a little for the--

DR. RIEDERS: I can't read it on my monitor.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Let me help you because the writing is small.

DR. RIEDERS: If you can show it to me. But maybe you can tell me from the left.

MS. CLARK: Yes. From the left.

DR. RIEDERS: One, two, three, four. What's the one next to the big piece? What does it say under that?

MS. CLARK: Let me read them all to you, sir. Let's start from left to right as you face it. All right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Sure.

MS. CLARK: K65C--

DR. RIEDERS: Now I can read it. If you enlarge it that, I can read it perfectly now. You have to keep moving it to the left however.

MS. CLARK: K65C is the dress--

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: --that Nicole was wearing.

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: That shows some amount of EDTA, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: An amount, yes. The swatch that was analyzed had an amount of EDTA.

MS. CLARK: All right. And that certain amount of EDTA, would you agree would be attributable to the manufacturing process in which they added it for some--

DR. RIEDERS: I don't know what it's due to, whether it's detergent, manufacturing or what. I just don't know. But it could be from any number of sources. Fabric can contain EDTA from the laundry, from the manufacturing and from other sources too. Mayonnaise.

MS. CLARK: All right. And now, the next entry, K65, the dress, that is the swatch containing Nicole Brown's blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: And you just testified, sir, that that was substantially higher than the measurement of the cloth of her dress that did not have her blood on it?

DR. RIEDERS: The picture makes it substantially higher. You can see that the riser is substantially higher on the 65 than on the 65C, enough that you can tell the difference with the naked eye without measuring.

MS. CLARK: Would it be your testimony, sir, that the interpretation of that greater amount shown for the portion of her dress that has her blood on it is that the blood that has been typed as Nicole Brown's blood on her own dress is her preserved blood?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I wouldn't say that because remember, that the way these analysis were done, you really have no idea of how much sample you have to start with. So you might have twice as much on the K65 to start with, blood, that you actually start pushing through the machine than you have in K65C. So all I said is that this one's more than this in quantity. I don't think you can say anything about concentration because you don't know how much blood was used to start with for the analysis. There's no way of telling.

MS. CLARK: Let's put it all--show the whole chart.

MS. CLARK: All right. After the two dress items, you have the gate, the sock and Agent Martz' own unpreserved blood?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: See those?

DR. RIEDERS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Then the two big blocks on the right-hand side of the screen as you face it are the reference blood samples of the Defendant and Nicole Brown. You're aware of that?

DR. RIEDERS: I knew it was one, the other or both. I didn't know which one, but all I know is, this is EDTA blood, you know, that's an actual LAPD top tube of blood.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, I understood what you said about the difference in concentration that may apply concerning Agent Martz' method of cutting the samples in this testing that he did. Bearing that in mind, is it your testimony, sir--well, strike that. You would agree, would you not, sir, that looking at this chart, the levels, the difference between the level of EDTA shown in the reference bloods and all the others, Agent Martz' and all the evidence blood is very dramatic?

DR. RIEDERS: The--yes. The quantities shown are very dramatically different as much as what? Can you move it a little to the right so I can see the numbers along the--up and down?

MS. CLARK: Sure.

DR. RIEDERS: That's all right.

MS. CLARK: No. Back out.

DR. RIEDERS: That's fine.

MS. CLARK: Wouldn't you agree, sir, that the reference samples are at least a hundred times higher than the evidence samples?

DR. RIEDERS: In some of them, yes. Not a hundred times higher than the dress, but probably about a hundred times more. Not, you know, as high as mishmash of concentration, but there are more--there's a lot more in the reference sample in the big ones than down there and it's probably around a hundred fold different, sure.

MS. CLARK: A hundred times. Then, sir, are you aware that the cuttings used for this testing by Agent Martz were at the largest, two millimeter squares? Are you aware of that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Yes, I know that. I mean, yeah, I think it was two times, two, something like that.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. Now, you described a dilution method that you would have used with pneumonia to determine exactly how much blood was present in any given swatch. Have you ever done that?

DR. RIEDERS: Sure.

MS. CLARK: For as small as a two-millimeter square?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you would have recommended he do that here?

DR. RIEDERS: I don't recommend. That's what I would do. I say I would determine--get a good estimate for the mathematics in this case. I would not go for ion and the other things because that would take up sample. And I could take that little swatch into 25 microliters of slightly among the active blood and shake it for several hours or whatever, then transfer it to another vial and do the same thing. And then the first thing I would do is to take each one of the recovered fluids, put it in a spectrophotometric micro sell and obtain a spectrum that goes through the ultraviolet, the so-called sorey band, to where hemoglobin or hematin absorb and get an estimate against standards of how much hemoglobin is there in that 25 microliters, how much hemoglobin is in the second 25 microliters and perhaps a third and a fourth, you know, keep watching until it's negative. If there's so little that I say, gee whiz, I may be able to do my analysis, but I'd have to use all of that, so I'd bring it all back together and concentrate it, which is fairly simple. You see, we freeze dry it and then take the whole thing up in an amount that I need to inject and inject it, and then I would know that I started out with so many micrograms or milligrams of hemoglobin or of blood protein and I'm getting a picture, and then I can talk about concentration. Now, that little square, that could be any amount of blood that's on there, anything from a nanogram to a microgram, maybe even a milligram. I don't know. But the point is that there's no way, nowhere anything that gives me even an idea of how big the sample is. And if this is two drops, you know, the EDTA blood, which is--two drops is about 50 microliters and if that swatch down there gives me--instead of 50 microliters of blood, gives me--

MS. CLARK: Excuse me, doctor.

DR. RIEDERS: A nanoliter of blood, then, you know, of course you find--

MS. CLARK: I hate to interrupt, but this has gotten very nonresponsive. Let me ask you another question.

MR. BLASIER: I object to the commentary, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, assume for a moment the following hypothetical: That Agent Martz had made an effort in all cases to use a larger amount of sample of the evidence stains than of the reference stains and that in each and every case when he made a cutting, he made the cuttings of the evidence larger than the cuttings of the reference sample. And by that, I mean, not just a big piece of cloth, but more blood in each and every case.

DR. RIEDERS: I beg your pardon. I thought that the--do you mean the reference stain that he created? What do you mean by "Reference stain"?

MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders, assume for a moment that Agent Martz took a larger area of blood for the reference stain than he did for any of the swatches created from the reference sample for his testing as to each and every evidence stain. Do you understand what I'm saying?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I don't. I honestly don't understand what you're saying.

MR. BLASIER: I also object. Assumes facts not in evidence that that was done.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: I want you to assume as a hypothetical that Agent Martz followed the following procedure: That he took the evidence of the sock and a swatch of the gate stain and with respect to every time he tested evidence versus reference, he made sure that the evidence stains were larger than the reference stains in order to compensate for any imprecision.

DR. RIEDERS: I still don't--what do you mean "Reference stain"?

MS. CLARK: I'm talking about blood from the EDTA tube, doctor.

DR. RIEDERS: He took more blood, more sample, more OJ blood--I mean, you know, sock blood from the sock blood than he took EDTA blood out of the tube?

MS. CLARK: Correct.

DR. RIEDERS: How does he know that? He doesn't know how much blood there was on the sock, the sample that he took.

MS. CLARK: Doctor, I'm asking you to assume the hypothetical. I'm not done. Okay? Assume that he cut a larger evidence stain from the sock and from the gate stain than he did from the swatch created for the evidence samples.

DR. RIEDERS: Okay. Now, I understand.

MS. CLARK: All right?

DR. RIEDERS: Okay.

MS. CLARK: That's your hypothetical.

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: Given that fact, to the extent that there would be any discrepancy in the concentration amounts between the evidence stain and the reference stain, aren't those small discrepancies more than accounted for by the dramatic differences between the amount shown in the reference sample and the amount shown in the evidence stain?

DR. RIEDERS: No. Because all he did, he cut an area out of the sock and he doesn't give a clue of how much blood was in there. He took a swatch that had been wiped on the gate and he cut a piece out and he doesn't have a clue how much blood there is in that--what he cut out. He has not measured it. He doesn't have a clue whether it's a microliter, a nanoliter or what.

MS. CLARK: But, doctor, these are two millimeter squares; are they not?

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: And the differences between the reference sample and the evidence samples are a hundred times as great; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: And it is your testimony then, you're telling us that whatever discrepancies in concentration may exist by a small difference in the size of a cutting to the concentration is not well-compensated for in the amount, the dramatic difference between the amounts in the reference and the evidence stains?

DR. RIEDERS: You have--no, it isn't because you don't have a clue of how much blood is on that sample square of two square millimeters. You just don't know. You haven't made any measurements. You extract it, you get a little bit of blood out. That may represent a microliter, a nanoliter. I don't know how much it represents. There's no--there's nothing that tells me what it does, what it is. You can't go by the area because one is a swab and the other one is--you don't know how many drops of blood or what are put on that sock or fell on that sock or whatever you have.

MS. CLARK: Well, doctor, how do you account for the readings that came up from Agent Martz' blood? How do you account for the fact that his blood unpreserved gave the readings that it did consistent with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I don't account for it. I think he would have to account for it because I think it's absurd to find that much EDTA in normal blood. Even if--all I can say, it's in the part per million range. It just seems totally absurd to me just like that 2,000 parts per million. You would be dead. I mean, you know, these absurd numbers.

MS. CLARK: So given the fact that we have a test result from someone's unpreserved blood--

DR. RIEDERS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: --that shows a presence of EDTA in the parts per million, your answer--the way in which you account for that is to say it's absurd, you dismiss it?

DR. RIEDERS: I give you a scenario how that can happen very easily. May I?

MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders, would you answer my question, please?

THE COURT: Answer the question.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. I think he's entitled to answer the question that she asked.

THE COURT: No. That's proposing an answer, not to a question. Ask a question.

MS. CLARK: Can you answer the question I have asked?

DR. RIEDERS: You want to repeat it?

MS. CLARK: Is it your answer that the results obtained by testing Agent Martz' blood showing EDTA in the range of parts per million very similar to the range shown on the gate and the sock? Correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Very similar.

MS. CLARK: Very similar. And your answer to that is, it is absurd and you dismiss it; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I'll tell you--I'll give you a reasonable probability at how that can happen. Not that it did, but I'll give you a reasonable probability.

MS. CLARK: Then, doctor, I would like you--

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

MS. CLARK: Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. BLASIER: May he be allowed to explain his answer?

THE COURT: You can ask the question, not in that manner though. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, isn't it true, sir, that you cannot tell us that the substance detected by you in the gate and the sock and--not by you--excuse me--by the testing done by Agent Martz as you interpret it, you can not tell us, sir, that those--that substance is EDTA to the exclusion of all other substances, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: You never can say. No, I can't and I can't say that for any analysis that you present me, even in Nobel Prize winning ones.

MS. CLARK: Then given--considering the EDTA results that Agent Martz got on his unpreserved blood, sir, is it your opinion that the bloodstains on the sock and the gate had to have come from the preserved blood to the exclusion of all other sources?

DR. RIEDERS: I didn't say that. I said that it's sort of like if you hear hoof beats, it's probably horses and that the most likely source for EDTA in a blood sample when you have a control that is negative is that it was EDTA blood to begin with. That's what I said. So it could be. I didn't say it was. I said could reasonably be considered that and doesn't exclude other possibilities, but I don't know what they are.

MS. CLARK: You don't know what they would be?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I do not. I deny that there's any reasonable probability that it could be from food or from the normal level of EDTA in the blood of a person.

MS. CLARK: Even though you also realize that there is no study indicating what that normal level would be?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, there is, but it is not a study which was designed to determine the normal level in the world's population like has been done with blood typing and with other things. But from the study that is a very good study--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. I'm sorry. That's nonresponsive.

THE COURT: No. He can finish the answer.

DR. RIEDERS: May I finish?

THE COURT: You may.

DR. RIEDERS: From the study that is an excellent study that the authors can be proud of, on the number of people that they tested, they didn't find any EDTA. I don't see any reason why they should find it now.

MS. CLARK: Except that it was found, isn't that correct, in Agent Martz' blood?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Asked and answered, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: All right. Doctor, let me ask you something. You're familiar with the case of a Defendant by the name of sconce; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you were in that case, sir, retained by the Ventura County District Attorney's office; were you not?

DR. RIEDERS: I thought it was the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Mr. Giss. Wasn't he from here?

MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders, can you answer my question?

DR. RIEDERS: As far as I recall, it was Los Angeles County.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall working with a District Attorney by the name of de nose?

DR. RIEDERS: No. Giss is the one that I remember.

MS. CLARK: And you remember that Mr. Giss was a member of the District Attorney's office of Los Angeles County, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's my recollection.

MS. CLARK: And do you recall testifying in a courthouse in Ventura County?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah. That's right.

MS. CLARK: And in that case, sir, you were told that there was a question as to whether the decedent had been murdered by the means of oleandrin poisoning, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Oleander or oleandrin, yes.

MS. CLARK: And was it your understanding at the time, sir, that no one had been charged with the murder pending your determination as to whether or not the victim had been poisoned to death?

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Was it your determination, sir, that was sought as to whether or not the victim in that case had been poisoned to death?

DR. RIEDERS: My corroborative determination. Initial work was done by Dr. Basil in San Francisco on negating determination. He asked that I should do that, yeah.

MS. CLARK: And you were asked to analyze certain substances removed from the body of a decedent to determine whether there was present in those substances oleandrin, a poison?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Aut--fresh autopsy specimens by Dr. Lovell, who was the pathologist, who did the autopsy.

MS. CLARK: And you recall conducting certain tests on those tissues, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Sure. Yes.

MS. CLARK: And as a result of your findings and based on your findings, isn't it true that you determined that there was oleandrin present?

DR. RIEDERS: Oleandrin and oleandrigenen (sic) both were present.

MS. CLARK: And you reported those results to the District Attorney, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you appeared in court to testify concerning your finding that there was evidence of oleandrin or oleander poisoning as a cause of death, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. By the best then available methods, which were pretty good I thought.

MS. CLARK: And those methods that you refer to, sir, were the tests of thin layer chromatography?

DR. RIEDERS: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Fluorescent spectrophotometry?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And radioimmunoassay, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And as a result of all of that, you testified at the preliminary hearing for murder in that case that the thin layer chromatography test gave you results that were consistent with and corroborative of the results obtained by another, Dr. Basil, who you referred to here, which showed the presence of a substance with all the characteristics of oleandrin and not the characteristics of many, many other substances. Do you recall giving such testimony, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: The words, no. But the content, yes.

MS. CLARK: And if I were to read those words to you from the transcript, sir, would it refresh your memory as to whether or not those were the words you used?

DR. RIEDERS: More so than just a quote from them, yes.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you want to give Mr. Blasier a reference?

MS. CLARK: Yes, I do.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: Sir, I'm showing you page 828 of the preliminary hearing and ask you to read to yourself and tell us whether the words that I've just read are in fact the words you stated on your testimony under oath in Ventura County.

DR. RIEDERS: Well, Miss Clark, I don't remember the words you said, but if you allow me to read it out loud, then I'll agree that that is what I said and is in the transcript.

MS. CLARK: Please do.

DR. RIEDERS: That--all right.

MS. CLARK: That's fine.

DR. RIEDERS: "Consistent with the thin layer chromatography, gave results which were consistent with and corroborative of the results that Dr. Basil had obtained showing the presence of a substance with all the characteristics of oleandrin and not the characteristics of many, many other substances." That's what it says and that's--I said that, yes. I agree that those are my words.

MS. CLARK: In essence, doctor, then what that test gave you is that the result it gave you, as you've testified, was a pattern or result showing all the characteristics in your opinion of oleandrin, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: In the thin layer. But this statement deals only with the thin layer. I did other tests as you well know.

MS. CLARK: All right. Yes, I do. But that pattern that you found characteristics for oleandrin could have been shared by many, many other compounds, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I don't think so. May I explain?

MS. CLARK: Why don't we ask another question, sir.

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

THE COURT: I don't think so. That sounds like a complete answer.

MR. BLASIER: He said, "May I explain?"

THE COURT: Please.

DR. RIEDERS: Thin layer chromatography is a separation--

MS. CLARK: I thought, your Honor, the--

THE COURT: No. I'm allowing him to explain his answer.

DR. RIEDERS: Thin layer chromatography is an analysis on the glass plate that has a thin layer of gypsum or some other material on it. You put the material on the bottom on a square plate and then just as if you had to put a dot on your handkerchief and put the edge into water or some solvent, the solvent goes up by capillary action and in the process, separates substances from each other and forms kind of a ladder thing, starts out with streak, and it moves and it separates them.

MR. BLASIER: Again, your Honor, could we have the chart taken off?

THE COURT: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: You then spray that with various--look at it under ultraviolet light or florescent--

THE COURT: Doctor, explaining what thin layer chromatography is I don't think is responsive. Next question.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: The second test you did was florescent spectrophotometry, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in that case as well, you testified that the pattern you obtained was consistent with and corroborative of oleandrin, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, based on those two tests alone, at the preliminary hearing, you testified that those results were sufficient in conjunction with what you knew of the other facts in the case not related to the science to state that your results were consistent with and corroborative of the presence of oleandrin, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's misleading. I said there was another test, and that was the radioimmunoassay test which was done on it.

MS. CLARK: That's correct. But didn't you testify, Dr. Rieders, that those two tests alone were sufficient for you to form your conclusion?

DR. RIEDERS: I don't recall that at all.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you page 829, sir, and ask you to read it out loud.

MR. BLASIER: May I?

THE COURT: Let Mr. Blasier see it.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. I had one brought down for Mr. Blasier.

DR. RIEDERS: May I go back to read the whole thing?

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: And the beginning of that section, sir, begins with what we've already discussed, which was the results you obtained on the thin layer chromatography test, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's on this page.

MS. CLARK: Yes. That's just before and then it goes over to page 829, doesn't it?

DR. RIEDERS: Okay. Right.

MS. CLARK: And do you recall--

DR. RIEDERS: No. Let me, please--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Let him read, counsel.

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah. That's what I said. Let me read it.

MS. CLARK: Please do.

DR. RIEDERS: "And also florescent pattern which were consistent with that and corroborative of oleandrin." So thin layer and fluorescent spectrophotometry. In my opinion--

MS. CLARK: Wait. And you skipped the words, doctor.

DR. RIEDERS: "And these two together--

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

DR. RIEDERS: "--in my opinion were really enough in conjunction with the history particularly to corroborate the findings of oleandrin in this case."

MS. CLARK: Then you did so testify as I've already indicated; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I testified that these two findings were really enough in conjunction with the history to call this an oleandrin poisoning case.

MS. CLARK: They were really enough, but would you--you would agree, would you not, sir, that those findings may also have been consistent with other compounds?

DR. RIEDERS: I couldn't think of any. I couldn't find any. The pattern and thin layer and the color reactions are very characteristic of oleandrin and oleandringenen especially since you have both there.

MS. CLARK: All right. And then you did a third test called the radioimmunoassay test, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you basically corroborated again the presence of oleandrin with that test; is that correct, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: In conjunction with the other tests, yes, and with the history, yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. And in essence then, what you said was that you had patterns with each of these three tests consistent with oleandrin, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And those results caused you to conclude, sir, to a high degree of scientific certainty that this was in fact oleandrin?

DR. RIEDERS: And oleandringenen, the two components of oleander poisoning. I mean, oleandringenen is really the thing you get when oleandrin breaks down a little bit. Not much, but cracks into two parts.

MS. CLARK: And those results--as you testified at the preliminary hearing, sir, do you recall testifying: "The chances that a substance has all the properties and all three tests in common and is in actuality another substance from experience are so extremely remote that one then has a very high degree of scientific certainty that if one says that this is oleandrin, in fact, it is"?

DR. RIEDERS: That's what I said, yes.

MS. CLARK: "A hundred percent never. For a hundred percent, you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent. It is statistical and it is reasonably certain the chances are remote. And if you want to go over in the area of--in that area, the hand of almighty God can make anything happen. So possibilities, of course, are there. But it's a high degree of reasonable scientific certainty, and the operative word is `reasonable.' a scientist goes by reason and not by feeling. Do you recall giving that testimony, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, you are familiar with a man by the name of Dr. Jack Henyon, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And Dr. Henyon became involved with the sconce case after you testified at the preliminary hearing as I've just indicated, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I think five years later, yes.

MS. CLARK: It's your testimony that Dr. Henyon became involved with the case five years after you testified?

DR. RIEDERS: It was several years. I think it was five years.

MS. CLARK: Doctor--

MR. BLASIER: Objection. I think that mischaracterizes what he says. Five years after he got involved.

THE COURT: Overruled. He's clarified it.

MS. CLARK: Do you believe that Dr. Henyon got involved five years after you testified or five years after you got involved with the case?

DR. RIEDERS: I know--no. What I was--I'm sorry. What I was referring to is from the time that I performed the analyses.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. And Dr. Henyon is a professor of toxicology at Cornell University, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I don't know whether he is a professor of toxicology or whether he's still at Cornell. He has a private lab now, but he was a professor I think of veterinary toxicology and head of the veterinary toxicology laboratory that dealt along those lines with race horses mainly. Yes, I know him quite well.

MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, you have a Ph.D. in philosophy, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No, no. I don't have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I have a doctor of philosophy degree, which is a Ph.D., in pharmacology and toxicology with minors in pathology and physiology. I have a bachelor's and a master's degree in chemistry.

MS. CLARK: All right. And Mr.--and Dr. Henyon has a Ph.D. in analytical organic chemistry. Are you aware of that?

DR. RIEDERS: I have no idea what his CV is. I've never looked at it.

MS. CLARK: Now, he obtained a split of the tissue that you tested in the sconce case, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That is incorrect. If you will check, what Dr. Henyon obtained is, is specimen from the not exhumed body, but from the body of Mr.--of the deceased--I can't think of his name at the moment--that was in a mausoleum exposed--sitting there exposed to the air essentially for several years. I offered specimens which I had received from the autopsy and that were frozen, deep freeze. I showed them to the lawyer and they were rejected. He had the pathologist extern the body, you know, instead of taking it out, and cut a piece of tissue which, of course, by then was kind of dry, five years old and decomposed, and that is what he analyzed. His report says so.

MS. CLARK: So it's your testimony, sir, that he analyzed different tissue than you did. Is that your testimony?

DR. RIEDERS: Totally different. From the same body, but totally different tissue.

MS. CLARK: But the tests that he ran on the same victim that you ran your tests on revealed that the oleandrin you found was not present; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Absolutely that's misleading. No, it was not.

MS. CLARK: Isn't it true, Dr. Rieders, that Dr. Henyon ran tests on the tissue he received from the body of the same victim and that he determined, using his tests that were more sophisticated than yours, that oleandrin was not present? Isn't that true?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is not proper impeachment. They're two different tissue samples.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Also compound question. All right. Counsel, at this point, we're going to take our recess for the afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you and don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until 9 o'clock. Dr. Rieders, you can step down. Let me see counsel at the sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Doctor, what's your schedule tomorrow? When are you planning on leaving?

DR. RIEDERS: I have to go back to--I have to get a good night's sleep because on Thursday, I finally got a medical appointment, thorough heart examination. I've had two angioplasties, one in December, one in April.

THE COURT: When are you available next?

DR. RIEDERS: I can--I am sorry. I will make it a point if there's a flight on Thursday after the examination I hope unless, of course, I'm hospitalized, which I doubt that, I will fly out here and I'll make myself available Friday. The following Monday, I and 14 others, family members, are ticketed to fly to Vienna for a week meeting and for a family reunion. I'm from Vienna. And I would be very, very upset if I could not hold that because this is the only chance I will have to take my family to where I was born. I also have some meetings scheduled at General Hospital at the university for presentations.

THE COURT: How long are you going to be out of town?

DR. RIEDERS: And I'll be back on the 9th or 10th of August.

THE COURT: The problem is, we're going to be quitting Friday at 11 o'clock sharp because I have a plane to catch as well. How much more?

MS. CLARK: About an hour.

MR. BLASIER: I don't have a lot of redirect.

MS. CLARK: We could finish this tomorrow morning.

MR. BLASIER: He can't get back in time and do what the doctor told him to do to prepare for this test.

THE COURT: Yeah. How about if on Friday we started at 8 o'clock?

MS. CLARK: Huh?

THE COURT: We start at 8 o'clock.

MS. CLARK: When?

THE COURT: Friday.

MS. CLARK: I can't.

THE COURT: You have to, Marcia. You have to make arrangements. We've made a lot of accommodations for you. The reason we have to quit at 11 o'clock is for my reasons. I would like for you to accommodate me in this situation.

MS. CLARK: I--Judge, I would love to, but--can we seal this?

THE COURT: Yeah. Off the record.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

THE COURT: Okay. Friday morning, 8 o'clock.

MS. CLARK: Can we make it 8:30?

THE COURT: Marcia, 8 o'clock, I want to finish this guy.

MS. CLARK: We will. 8:30. From 8:30 to 11:00. We will finish him. We'll be done.

THE COURT: Promise?

MS. CLARK: Promise.

MR. BLASIER: 8:30?

THE COURT: 8:30 on the dot. Tomorrow we'll have Martz?

MR. BLASIER: We'll put him on. Then we're going to have hearings on MacDonell.

MR. COCHRAN: We think we can fill the time although we're leaving at 4:00 anyway and--4 o'clock tomorrow?

THE COURT: Tomorrow is 4 o'clock.

MR. COCHRAN: I think with Martz, Peratis and MacDonell.

MS. CLARK: What else are we going to do on MacDonell?

MR. COCHRAN: Our guys will be here and ready.

MS. CLARK: We don't have a report from him indicating what he will testify to. So we need a 402 on that. And given the fact that I believe that the blood drying experiment to be clearly inadmissible, that leaves us with no admissible testimony in any report or notes to which he can testify. So we have no idea--

THE COURT: I thought I ruled that he could testify to what he observed.

MR. SCHECK: Actually whatever Gary Sims testified to. That looked like blood is what Gary--you said he could say.

MS. CLARK: I don't think Gary said that. I don't want to get into that right now.

THE COURT: He didn't say it looked like blood. He didn't say that. He didn't say that. He said it looked like a red powdery substance is all he said.

MR. BLASIER: Somebody else said--

MR. SCHECK: I think I did.

MS. CLARK: Doesn't matter for our purposes right now. That's 10 minutes of testimony. He's done. That's all they want to call him for. So--

THE COURT: Okay. Doctor, we'll see you Friday. Be here at 8 o'clock, doctor.

MR. SCHECK: We have the glove motion.

(At 3:55 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Tuesday, July 25, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

The People of the State of California,) plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Monday, July 24, 1995

Volume 192 pages 38371 through 38611, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

index for volume 192 pages 38371 - 38611

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Monday July 24, 1995 A.M. 38371 192 P.M. 38480 192

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Rieders, 38392BB 192 Fredric (Resumed) 38495BB 38521MC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Rieders, 38392BB 192 Fredric (Resumed) 38495BB 38521MC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

COURT'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

18 - 2-page report 38390 192 by Fredric Rieders

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

537 - 1-page document 38523 192 entitled "Aliphatic Acids"

538 - 5-page document 38533 192

539 - 3-page report 38572 192 entitled "FDA Regulations"

540 - Graph 38572 192 with arrows (Computer printout)

541 - Chart 38578 192 entitled "EDTA Analysis"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1258 - Photograph 38408 192 of two purple-topped tubes

1257-G - Slide 38421 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-I - Slide 38427 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-J - Slide 38428 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-A - Slide 38408 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-C - Slide 38416 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-D - Slide 38418 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-F - Slide 38420 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-K - Slide 38429 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-L - Slide 38429 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-M - Slide 38430 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-N - Slide 38433 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-P - Slide 38434 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1259-A and 1259-B - 38439 192 diagrams - District Attorney no. 4088 and 4094 respectively

1257-Q - Slide 38445 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1257-R - Slide 38446 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1259-C - Chart 38448 192 District Attorney no. 4100

1260-A and 1260-B - 38452 192 charts - District Attorney no. 4084 and 4049 respectively

1257-S - Slide 38454 192 presentation entitled "EDTA" (Computer printout)

1261 - Chart 38499 192 entitled "EDTA analysis"

1262-A and 1262-B - 38502 192 graphs - District Attorney no. 4077 and 4070 respectively

1257-B - Slide 192 (Not marked on presentation entitled "EDTA" the record) (Computer printout)

1257-E - Slide 192 (Not marked on presentation entitled "EDTA" the record) (Computer printout)

1257-H - Slide 192 (Not marked on presentation entitled "EDTA" the record) (Computer printout)

1257-O - Slide 192 (Not marked on presentation entitled "EDTA" the record) (Computer printout)

WITNESS: Fredric Rieders-forensic toxologist