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. The Defendant is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Harmon and Miss Kahn. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we heed to take up before we--

MR. BLASIER: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: --proceed to Mr. Martz?

MR. BLASIER: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor. May I ask for a point of clarification?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MS. CLARK: When did we set the MacDonell motions?

THE COURT: We are going to launch into motions today at four o'clock and see how far we get.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: And today we have another early ending time at four o'clock, so take up some motions and see if we can get some of that extraneous stuff out of the way.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, one--

THE COURT: And tomorrow's schedule we will not convene until 1:30 on Wednesday.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, as to the scheduling matter--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --the issue that you had put on the back burner about the RFLP testing being conducted by the Department of Justice on the combined stains from the console of the Bronco.

THE COURT: I'm trying to recollect.

MR. SCHECK: That was the one where there was A--they asked for permission to combine all the stains and then waited for a month and a half, two months, and you said I don't have to reach that issue because we don't have any results yet. I was informed that they have completed two probes and they might call one of them and I'm going to get some pictures maybe back at my hotel today, and I've discussed a little bit with Mr. Harmon, but I think that we just have to schedule a time to hear that sometime before the end of the week since we heed to know what the Court's ruling is going to be on whether they can introduce that so then we can structure how these Defense witnesses can testify.

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

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And counsel, we'll start, the Court will explain that Dr. Rieders had a medical appointment in was it Philadelphia?

MR. BLASIER: Philadelphia.

THE COURT: That he will be returning to complete cross-examination on Friday.

MR. COCHRAN: Right, depending on the schedule, obviously.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And what is Agent Martz' first name?

MS. CLARK: Roger.

THE COURT: Roger.

MS. CLARK: Roger.

(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. The record should reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Before we get started, I just needed to explain to you that Dr. Fredric Rieders, who was undergoing cross-examination by Miss Clark at the conclusion of the day yesterday, had a medical appointment back in his hometown of Philadelphia and he has returned back east for that purpose and will be back here on Friday morning to complete his testimony for you. So we are going to present some other witnesses to you in the interim so we can use the Court time, but you should just know that we will conclude Dr. Rieders' testimony on Friday. We will start early on that date at 8:00 A.M. and will be concluding early on Friday at eleven o'clock in the morning. All right. And Mr. Blasier, you may call your next witness.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. We call Roger Martz.

Roger M. Martz, 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.

MR. MARTZ: I do.

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

MR. MARTZ: Roger M. Martz, m-a-r-t-z.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, Mr. Martz.

MR. MARTZ: Good morning.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, what is your occupation, sir?

MR. MARTZ: I'm a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

MR. BLASIER: Do you prefer to be called Agent Martz or Mr. Martz?

MR. MARTZ: Mr. Martz is fine.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, as special agent for the FBI, the term "Special agent," does that have any particular meaning?

MR. MARTZ: No, it is actually just a job title.

MR. BLASIER: All agents are special agents?

MR. MARTZ: With the FBI, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your occupation--within the FBI, what is your occupation? What do you do?

MR. MARTZ: I am presently assigned as the unit chief in charge of the chemistry toxicology unit at the FBI laboratory in Washington D.C.

MR. BLASIER: Could you please describe briefly your educational background.

MR. MARTZ: I have a bachelor's degree of science from the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. I received that in 1974. After that I joined the FBI and received extensive training with the FBI laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: So you have a bachelor in science?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a master's degree?

MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a Ph.D. degree?

MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any advanced degree whatsoever?

MR. MARTZ: No. I have taken some advanced courses, but never attained a degree.

MR. BLASIER: Now, are you a member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry?

MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.

MR. BLASIER: What is that?

MR. MARTZ: It is just an organization that a lot of people that perform mass spectrometry belong to.

MR. BLASIER: Are you a member of the Canadian Society for Mass Spectrometry?

MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.

MR. BLASIER: Are you a member of the American chemical society?

MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.

MR. BLASIER: Are you a member of American academy of forensic science?

MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.

MR. BLASIER: Are you a member of any professional organization that has as one of its principle subjects of interest mass spectrometry?

MR. MARTZ: The one that I am in is the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists and a lot of the work that most forensic scientists perform is mass spectrometry.

MR. BLASIER: Are you an officer with that organization?

MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.

MR. BLASIER: Have you published any article on the area of mass spectrometry or chromatography?

MR. MARTZ: I guess probably beginning the early 1880's I published numerous articles pertaining to mass spectrometry used in forensic science.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a list of those articles?

MR. MARTZ: Not with me, no.

MR. BLASIER: How many articles are there that you published?

MR. MARTZ: There is probably four that I have published over the years and then there is three that are in print right now.

MR. BLASIER: So four that have been published up to this point in time?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And you started doing mass spectrometry in what year?

MR. MARTZ: 1975.

MR. BLASIER: Now, has your entire employment history been with the FBI?

MR. MARTZ: Well, since 1974.

MR. BLASIER: Since college?

MR. MARTZ: Since I received my degree from college, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And during that period of time has it all been devoted to working with mass spectrometry?

MR. MARTZ: Pretty much. After I joined the FBI, for the first four years I was a chemist assigned to the FBI laboratory. When I initially joined the FBI my aspirations were to become an agent with the FBI laboratory--or with the FBI. When I joined the FBI in 1974 I did not have the sufficient qualifications to become an agent, so I was assigned to the laboratory because I had a degree in science. After four years I was qualified to at least take the test to determine whether or not I could become a special agent. I passed the test and became a special agent with the FBI in 1978. And I was assigned to the Chicago division, so for approximately two years I spent investigating in the Chicago division. In 1980 I was then transferred back into the laboratory as an examiner in the FBI laboratory. For approximately the next ten years I was an examiner, assigned cases in the laboratory and worked those cases. Approximately 1989 I was then promoted to the unit chief in charge of the chemistry toxicology unit and I have held that title since then.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, did--does the FBI work on cases for state Prosecutors?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, we do.

MR. BLASIER: The FBI also handles federal cases for federal agencies, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Does the FBI take Defense cases from private Defense attorneys?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, there is exceptions to every rule, but my understanding we'll accept a case from any duly authorized government agency.

MR. BLASIER: And that would not include defense attorneys, would it?

MR. MARTZ: That would not, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, how many times have you testified as an expert in the field of toxicology?

MR. MARTZ: In toxicology I don't know specifically, but I have testified approximately 78 times in forensic chemistry, including toxicology.

MR. BLASIER: Can you tell us for toxicology approximately how many times, give us a rough estimate?

MR. MARTZ: Probably not very many, to be perfectly honest. I don't have the exact number.

MR. BLASIER: Umm, have you ever testified as an expert on the electrospray process?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know that I understand that question. That is not generally what you ever testify to in court. You testify to the identification. The electrospray is used in that identification, but to the process, I don't quite follow the question.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Electrospray is one step in a particular process to analyze the presence of chemical in a substance; is that fair to say?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Umm, the times that you have testified in court, how many of those times have been for the Prosecution and how many have been for the Defense?

MR. MARTZ: I believe, if memory serves me correctly, that I have only testified for the Defense on one other occasion.

MR. BLASIER: So it is unusual for you to be called by the Defense?

MR. MARTZ: It has been, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you are acquainted with Dr. Fredric Rieders who was here in court yesterday?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Are you working on or consulting with him on some other criminal cases?

MR. MARTZ: There are two other cases that we are communicating on.

MR. BLASIER: Do those involve devising methods for detecting the presence of poisons in body tissue or in body tissue?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could you tell us what is EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: EDTA is a preservative, in this particular case, used to preserve blood. It has many other properties. I believe about ninety million pounds--the last time that I saw reference to was in 1975, ninety million pounds of EDTA were produced that year, so it is a very common chemical that is used extensively in preserving foods. It is used in a lot of other--it is actually used almost in all manufacturing in this country. It is a preservative. It is used in fabrics, it is used in laundry bleaches, it is used in foods. It is a very common chemical. When ninety million pounds are produced, you know that a lot of it is used.

MR. BLASIER: And its purposes for use in blood vials, what kind of blood vials is EDTA put in?

MR. MARTZ: It is put into the lavender or purple-topped test-tubes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we display People's or Defense 1258 on the elmo?

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, could you please look at the monitor and tell us is what is depicted there are pictures of two purple-topped EDTA blood tubes?

MR. MARTZ: Yeah. Those are purple-topped tubes that I received in the laboratory on February the 19th, I believe.

MR. BLASIER: And you provided this picture to me, did you not?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your understanding as to where those purple-topped EDTA tubes came from?

MR. MARTZ: One came from OJ Simpson and the other from Nicole Simpson.

MR. BLASIER: And the one that came from Nicole Simpson, what is your understanding as to when that was collected?

MR. MARTZ: I assume it was taken at autopsy.

MR. BLASIER: After death?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MR. BLASIER: Now, at some point in time were you contacted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney regarding this case?

MR. MARTZ: Umm--

MR. BLASIER: Or representatives of the Prosecution in this case?

MR. MARTZ: I was certainly contacted. I don't know exactly how--how it worked, whether they contacted me or they contacted me through Quantico, our research facility, but we did make contact at one point.

MR. BLASIER: About when did that occur? When was the first contact that they had with you?

MR. MARTZ: With me it is hard to say. I first did my test on February the 8th, so I certainly had contact before February the 8th.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether you are--are you--have you been following this trial at all?

MR. MARTZ: You know, working, you can't follow it very closely, but news at night, you certainly see it on the news and in the newspaper.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether when the Prosecutors contacted you it was before or after the opening statement in this case?

MR. MARTZ: When was the opening statement?

MR. BLASIER: In late January.

MR. MARTZ: I probably didn't become involved until after that. Whether the FBI was contacted before that on the EDTA, I don't know, but I don't think I was contacted before that time period.

MR. BLASIER: Now, once you were contacted were you asked to perform certain tests?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what did they ask you to do?

MR. MARTZ: They asked us to determine whether or not we could determine whether the bloodstains, the two bloodstains in question, originated from purple-topped test-tubes or test-tubes that were preserved with EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: Well, do you have the--the letter with you that describes what it is they asked you to do?

MR. MARTZ: I think I do have that letter.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have it handy or do you want me to give you a copy?

MR. MARTZ: If you can give me a copy, that would make it a lot easier.

(Brief pause.)

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

MS. CLARK: May we approach, your Honor? We have an objection to the letter.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MS. CLARK: There will be an objection. I think the Court needs to see this.

THE COURT: I can't hear you.

MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant. I would like to approach so the Court can see what I'm objecting to.

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

MS. CLARK: The objection, your Honor, is on the ground of relevance. I do not see what the letter to Agent Martz has to do with anything concerning his testing results. I'm sure that--well, I'm not going to put words in Mr. Blasier's mouth. I'm sure that he can articulately frame his reason for wanting to get it in, but I do not think it is appropriate.

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

MR. BLASIER: Well, this explains what he was asked to do. Obviously it is relevant as to what he did, whether it shows bias, if did he what he asked to do, if he did something different. It frames his whole testimony as to what he did and why.

MS. CLARK: He was asked to conduct certain tests. It was framed in the mind of the attorney this way. But I think that the appropriate question would be whether, you know, what he felt. What he felt he had to do, not what words Mr. Harmon used. Whatever words Mr. Harmon used, the appropriate and relevant question is what did he think he was supposed to do and how did he think he was supposed to go about it.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. All right. The objection is overruled.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, have you had a chance to read that paragraph?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: Is that the paragraph that tells you what they wanted you to do?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What does that tell you to do?

MR. MARTZ: Do you want me to read it?

MR. BLASIER: Can I put it on the elmo?

THE COURT: Put on both pages.

MR. BLASIER: Both pages.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I was only going to refer to the last page.

MS. CLARK: Objection under 356, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, then you can go into that under cross-examination, counsel.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Back it out just a little, Mr. Harris.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, could you read that from there?

MR. MARTZ: "We would like you to test these items for the presence/absence of EDTA in order to refute the possibility that the stains on the sock, item 13, could have come from Nicole's reference sample, 59 or 72. Similarly, we would like you to test item 117 to refute the possibility that it could have come from Simpson's reference sample, no. 17."

MR. BLASIER: Now, actually I'm going to show the first page.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Did you interpret by the way that request was made as a request to do some testing and they wanted a particular result?

MR. MARTZ: I didn't--I didn't infer that, no.

MR. BLASIER: Did you, when you approached the testing that you did, did you do it with an idea that you were trying to get one result as opposed to another result?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you the first page of that letter and could you read just the first sentence.

MR. MARTZ: "This letter is to describe the items we are sending to you in order to detect the presence or absence of EDTA in specific bloodstains which are of significance in this case."

MR. BLASIER: Now, were you ever requested by the Prosecution by way of this letter to try and quantify the amount of EDTA should you find it?

MR. MARTZ: I didn't interpret it that way.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, up to the time that you were contacted by the Prosecutors in this case, have you ever worked in any manner or fashion with EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I have certainly worked with it, but I have never tried to analyze for it.

MR. BLASIER: Had you ever been asked to determine whether it was present in blood or any other substance?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Had you ever been--ever attempted to design a test to extract EDTA from dried bloodstains?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is the technique that you used that we have been talking about yesterday, the--I want you to tell us what that technique is called.

MR. MARTZ: Well, the technique that I primarily use was electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.

MR. BLASIER: You used chromatograph as well, did you?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What form of chromatography did you use?

MR. MARTZ: I used liquid chromatography.

MR. BLASIER: Are there other forms of chromatography?

MR. MARTZ: The more conventional chromatography with mass spectrometry would be gas chromatography.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you hear yesterday Miss Clark asking some questions about the effect or the relationship between electrospray and chromatography?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that electrospray has nothing to do with chromatography?

MR. MARTZ: Well, conventionally you use chromatography with electrospray.

MR. BLASIER: But does chromatography--I'm sorry. Is electrospray involved in the chromatography stage at all?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it is a precursor to chromatography.

MR. BLASIER: A precursor?

MR. MARTZ: Right. That is the way that we do electrospray at the FBI laboratory with liquid chromatography.

MR. BLASIER: That you do the electrospray before you do the chromatography?

MR. MARTZ: No, the chromatography precedes the electrospray. They work in conjunction. You need--in order to do electrospray you need a liquid, so to get the liquid you use liquid chromatography.

MR. BLASIER: But the method of chromatography--the electrospray happens after the chromatography is done; isn't that right?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you use liquid chromatography--you indicated that gas chromatography is a more commonly used procedure?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And could you have done gas chromatography in this case?

MR. MARTZ: Not without manipulating the chemical EDTA. EDTA will not gas--work on the gas chromatography.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what the technique derivatizing samples is?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that the technique that you would use if you wanted to use gas chromatography?

MR. MARTZ: It is a technique that could be used. I have not tried it with EDTA. I don't know how successful it is.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that that form of chromatography is much better than the form that you used?

MR. MARTZ: No, I would not agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: Now, are you familiar with the method of liquid chromatography called gradient elution?

MR. MARTZ: It sounds something familiar.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Have you ever used that?

MR. MARTZ: Not per se.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know whether that is a better chromatography procedure for what you were trying to do than what you did?

MR. MARTZ: I wouldn't say that it was or wasn't, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did--were you listening yesterday when there were questions being asked about the efficiency, if you will, of your chromatography method that you used?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MR. BLASIER: And could you tell us whether your method does not effectively separate compounds by retention time?

MR. MARTZ: It does not. It--the way that I used it, it is not very effective in separating compounds. I can give you an analogy. If everyone in here was to run a marathon, people would finish at different times. Very few people would finish at two hours. Some people may take six hours. Well, with the type of chromatography that I used it would be more like a 50-yard dash. We would all run a 50-yard dash. We would all finish about the same time.

THE COURT: Agent, the world's best is 2:06.

MR. BLASIER: You are familiar with other methods of chromatography that work better than the one you used, aren't you?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That is vague. For what?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: My purpose in chromatography was not for identification. I did not even consider that in the identification of these compounds.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I move to strike that answer as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, are you familiar with other techniques of chromatography that would provide better information in terms of separating compounds than the one you used?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, and I did use a better one on the 28th which gave separation for EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: All right. The 28th of February?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: What was the difference in the method that you used from the 22nd to the 28th?

MR. MARTZ: The one did not involve mass spectrometry. I was able to use a compound which is not very friendly to the electrospray.

MR. BLASIER: Now, so the first step that you tried on February--February 22nd is where you tested for the first time under the method that we have been talking about, the sock and the gate stains; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: Well, not necessarily. I mean, the 19th I did a method of electrospray mass spectrometry.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, go ahead.

MR. MARTZ: That test we have failed to mention so far.

MR. BLASIER: Let's mention it. What method was that?

MR. MARTZ: It was the same thing. It was electrospray mass spectrometry using LC.

MR. BLASIER: That is using what is called the negative ion mode; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct, which is more selective than the positive ion mode.

MR. BLASIER: Did you find that that was much less sensitive than the positive ion mode?

MR. MARTZ: It was less sensitive.

MR. BLASIER: About how many orders of magnitude?

MR. MARTZ: It was approximately ten, ten times less sensitive.

MR. BLASIER: All right. So it was after you used that method that it was ten times less sensitive that you used the positive ion mode that we have been talking about that is more sensitive, correct?

MR. MARTZ: In this particular case it ended up being more sensitive, yes.

MR. BLASIER: You knew at the time that you did the negative ion mode, once you saw the results, that it was not a particularly sensitive test; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: It certainly--I would agree with that. It was not that sensitive of a test.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that you decided that you needed to do something a little bit more sensitive?

MR. MARTZ: No, that is not fair to say at all.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. But you did?

MR. MARTZ: I did, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if the method that you chose for the liquid chromatography was not particularly good, what was the purpose of doing it?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I have a very expensive instrumentation that has unique capabilities. One of those is to separate out by masses. This is a tandem mass spectrometer. I can get much better separation using the mass spectrometer than I can the chromatography and I elected to use the chromatography for the introduction of the sample to the mass spectrometer or the first quadrupole.

MR. BLASIER: You introduce sample directly into the mass spec?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, you can.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you again, was there a reason why you used the chromatography stage if you didn't really need to and it wasn't a particularly good method?

MR. MARTZ: I didn't say I didn't need to in this particular case. With EDTA it is needed for it to ionize, otherwise it would have to be derivatized. Using--you cannot do direct injection of EDTA through solid probe or you cannot do it through GC/MS. The technique that I had available was the LC/ms using electrospray.

MR. BLASIER: How much time did you spend designing the method that you were going to use in this case?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, that is difficult to determine. I mean, it includes twenty years' experience that I have with mass spectrometry, knowing all the things about the instruments, what is available, what will work, what won't work, it would be very difficult to put a time on how long it took to develop this procedure, because it encompasses twenty years' of experience or eighteen years' of experience with the instrumental technique. The actual hours performing the EDTA analysis was probably in the order of maybe a week would be a good estimation.

MR. BLASIER: And you had never done this kind of work before with EDTA, had you?

MR. MARTZ: No, I have never analyzed for EDTA in the past.

MR. BLASIER: And when you were requested to do this testing for the District Attorney, did you--was it your understanding that you had to develop a method that would work?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I wouldn't necessarily develop a method. The method is already developed for the identification using electrospray. All I had to do was identify a different chemical. There is no really method development.

MR. BLASIER: So you spent a week doing that?

MR. MARTZ: In order to get a procedure that was--was sensitive enough, in order to distinguish between a blood that was preserved with EDTA and blood that wasn't.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: By the way, is the method that you used--any of the methods that you used quantitative methods?

MR. MARTZ: I did not specifically use these methods to quantitate the amount of EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: So the purpose of the test, the way you at the time set it up, is it fair to say that what you were trying to do is just determine is EDTA there or isn't it?

MR. MARTZ: No. I was trying to determine whether or not the stain came from EDTA-preserved blood.

MR. BLASIER: And the method you chose was a method that would identify it but not quantify it? Is that accurate?

MR. MARTZ: That would easily distinguish between whether or not it was preserved or non-preserved.

MR. BLASIER: Was your method designed to determine whether it was there or not, as opposed to telling you how much was there?

MR. MARTZ: No. My method was designed to determine whether or not it was preserved blood with EDTA.

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

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, let me show you first chromatograms 1262-A and 1262-B. And do you recognize those?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: What are they?

MR. MARTZ: These were 50 part per million standards that I had run of EDTA on--I don't see the date here, but was this on the 22nd?

MR. BLASIER: Let me check.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: I believe that was the 22nd.

MR. MARTZ: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we have slide 1257-T, please, or I'm sorry, V.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Martz, would you look at the chart, please, and tell me if that accurately charts the ion count that you got for 50 parts per million on two separate runs on February 22nd?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, no, I don't think--I don't believe that it does.

MR. BLASIER: What is inaccurate about it?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think a more accurate representation of ion count is the area and not the peak height.

MR. BLASIER: Does your electrospray method result in ionization that widely or fluctuates from a large extent from one test to the next?

MR. MARTZ: I think it would depend on which--what adjective did you use?

MR. BLASIER: I said "Wildly," but I will say to large extremes?

MR. MARTZ: It would depend on your definition of "Large extremes." It will fluctuate.

MR. BLASIER: So as I understand your testimony, you think that my chart is misleading because I have it based on ion counts?

MR. MARTZ: Well, you have it based on the peak height and not the peak area.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. MARTZ: The area would be a better depiction of the ion count.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Is it misleading that way?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it depends on what you are trying to prove. If you want to say that the instrument fluctuates, you wouldn't use the peak height, you would use the peak area because it is a better representation of the total ion count.

MR. BLASIER: But looking at the peak height also demonstrates that it fluctuates quite a bit, doesn't it?

MR. MARTZ: It fluctuates quite a bit in peak height, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And would it be unusual, as we have here, as we have a seven-fold difference looking at the same thing, the same day?

MR. MARTZ: It depends. From injection to an injection it would be somewhat unusual, but at the beginning of the day versus the end of the day it may not be that unexpected. And again, if you really want a true depiction of the good fluctuation, you would want to look at the peak area; not the peak heights. And the areas--

MR. BLASIER: Does the peak height in your opinion bear any relationship to the quantity of EDTA that you are looking at?

MR. MARTZ: Not a very good one.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Let me show you People's no. 541. Have you seen that chart before?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make it?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

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

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, this is a chart that you prepared, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: It is a chart based on ion count, isn't it?

MR. MARTZ: It is based on the peak area, as I mentioned, that you should have done.

MR. BLASIER: Look on the left side of that. Can you see what the scale says?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MR. BLASIER: What does it say?

MR. MARTZ: Ion count. It is in peak area, which is the better way to depict the ion count.

MR. BLASIER: Why is the labeled "Ion count" if it is peak area?

MR. MARTZ: It is the ion count of the peak, the whole peak.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you agree that if you look at area or ion peak your method of electrospray causes--you would expect that it would cause substantial variation from one test to the next or could?

MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: That is not unusual, is it?

MR. MARTZ: It can happen.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I have a minute?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you Defense 1259-B and 1259-A. And ask if you recognize those?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. Those are runs that I had done on my question 206.

MR. BLASIER: And Q206 was what?

MR. MARTZ: I believe that was the sock.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide 1257-P, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, would you look at the monitor and tell us if that appears to be not to scale, but an accurate depiction of where you got Q206 from?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And you actually had the sock itself?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And when you got the sock was the green area indicated on the chart already cut out?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.

MR. BLASIER: And you then took a cutting from the edge area of the stain?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were also sent A--another swatch inside a little aliquot tube, were you not?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: That is what you call Q207?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: You never ran a test on that in the positive ion mode, the mode that we have been talking about, for Q207, did you?

MR. MARTZ: I don't believe I did. I only ran that on the first day.

MR. BLASIER: And Q207, so--is it pair to say you made no estimate on Q207 as to how much blood might be on that?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, by looking at it, it appeared that it was covered with blood, but how much, other than it was covered, I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: Now, why didn't you test Q207, which was from the large stain, in the positive ion mode?

MR. MARTZ: Because I had tested it on the negative ion mode.

MR. BLASIER: You remember when we talked in Washington about a week and a half ago?

MR. MARTZ: Yeah.

MR. BLASIER: And do you recall my requesting you about Q207 about why you didn't test it?

MR. MARTZ: I can't remember, to be perfectly honest with you.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember telling me that you didn't know what Q207 was?

MR. MARTZ: I did mention I didn't know what Q207 was at the time, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I have a photograph marked?

THE COURT: Yes. 1263.

MR. BLASIER: 1263.

(Deft's 1263 for id = letter)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, could you take a look at 1263 and tell me if that is a picture of Q207?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I think that last document was 1263, a two-page letter.

THE COURT: Was never marked.

MR. BLASIER: No, it was marked, because I wrote it down.

THE COURT: It wasn't marked on the record, counsel.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. 1263 will be the letter and 1264 will be a photograph of Q207. 1263, what is the date on the letter, counsel?

MR. SCHECK: February 16, 1995.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Deft's 1264 for id = photograph)

MR. BLASIER: I would like to put Q207 on the elmo.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is a picture of what was sent to you, Q207?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And you now know that that came from the stain area that had been cut out of the sock?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Once you found out what that was, did you ever request to have it sent back so that you could run tests, positive ion tests on that?

MR. MARTZ: No.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1257-R.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is the chart that is now on the screen an accurate depiction of the two tests that you ran on Q206, the stain from the--the cutting from the edge of the stain?

MR. MARTZ: Two of the tests that I ran, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that the peaks demonstrated on the chart were peaks that you found in your testing?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that you detected the presence of the 293 parent ion which is the parent ion for EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, I detected the 160 ion which came from the parent ion of 293.

MR. BLASIER: Well, isn't it true that the machine is set so that it only let's through the 293 parent ion?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So is it accurate to say that you can conclude from that chart that you have found both the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Now, Agent Martz, would you agree that the pattern that you got on the sock, Q206, is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, it certainly warrants further testing. It responded like EDTA responded, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it consistent with the presence of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1259-C.

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

MR. BLASIER: And could you tell was that is, please?

MR. MARTZ: That is A--the daughter ion spectrum or chromatogram that I had run for Q206.

MR. BLASIER: And let's put that on the elmo.

MR. BLASIER: When you run the full daughter, what is it that you are looking for?

MR. MARTZ: Well, in this particular case I'm looking for the 160 to be the base peak, the 293 to be the second largest peak and the 132 ion to be about a third the size of the parent ion, so I'm looking for three ions in certain ratios.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. And one of those is the 132, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you have already detected the 160 in the parent ion and in this sample, have you not?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the range that you scan in looking for the 132 daughter ion with this chart?

MR. MARTZ: In this particular experiment I set up scanning mass 130 to mass 295.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you--were you following the analogy that we were talking about yesterday of a TV camera panning back and forth?

MR. MARTZ: Do I understand that analogy?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that a fair analogy?

MR. MARTZ: Sure, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that if you scan from 130 to--what did you say?

MR. MARTZ: 295.

MR. BLASIER: --to 295, you are looking for a lot of things other than 132?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree also that under that particular method it is--if 132 is there you are not going to be looking at it very much at all?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it is relative. I mean, every 1.5 seconds I am looking at it for a considerable amount of time. It is all relative.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what selected reaction monitoring is?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: What is that?

MR. MARTZ: That is where you look for one ion coming from another ion.

MR. BLASIER: And is that more sensitive than the technique you used?

MR. MARTZ: It was similar to the first technique that I had used. It is certainly more sensitive than this technique that I use for the confirmation.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you were looking for the 160 daughter ion, the scans that you did were generally from what range to what range?

MR. MARTZ: I generally scan on two masses to either side; 158 to 162.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it your experience that your machine drifts that much so that you need to have that wide a range?

MR. MARTZ: Oh, no. No, no. That is not the purpose for that at all.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. MARTZ: Every now and then you will have what is called a dynamic mass spectrum where everything comes out and you will get every ion, so to avoid the possibility of a misinterpretation I scan on either side to ensure that the mass that comes out is the mass that I'm looking for. In other words, if mass 160 came out along with every other mass I wouldn't be able to distinguish that was the 160 only. I'm very interested in detecting 160 and no other ions, so I always scan on either side to ensure that a mistake is not made.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that you wind up with lower peaks than if you were scanning just at 160 and it happened to be at 160 where it is supposed to be?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: So that particular method that you used, you sacrifice peak height for a little bit more range that you look at to make sure that you are not making a mistake?

MR. MARTZ: Well, for specificity you want to be correct.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. And now, selected reaction monitoring is where you just look at 160, right?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MR. BLASIER: Now, of those three methods, the full daughter that we had on the chart, scanning a range two to either side of 132, or selected reaction monitoring, that is looking just at 132, which is the least likely to find 132?

MR. MARTZ: The full scan.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you decided that you wanted to determine whether the 132 was present in what you found from the blood on the back--on the sock, why did you pick the method that was the least likely to find it?

MR. MARTZ: Because it is the most or the best way to positively identify a chemical. You've got to remember here you don't want to misidentify a chemical. If I identify something, I want to identify it to the exclusion of all other chemicals, and for me to do that I have to do this experiment.

MR. BLASIER: Were you interested in finding out whether the 132 was present?

MR. MARTZ: Of course I was.

MR. BLASIER: And of the three methods we described, you used the one that was least likely to find this, correct?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know that I agree with that. I mean, my purpose was to identify a chemical and this is the only means that I had to identify that chemical, and that is why I selected that particular--it had nothing to do with sensitivity. This is what I need to do to identify a chemical.

MR. BLASIER: When you say that is the only means you had to identify the 132 ion--

MR. MARTZ: To identify EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Was that the only method you had to identify the 132 method that you knew would be there if it was EDTA?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That is argumentative and also calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: Could you repeat that question?

MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure I can.

THE COURT: Was this the only method that you had to identify the 132 ion that you knew would be there.

MR. BLASIER: That was it?

MR. MARTZ: There is many methods to identify a 132 ion. This is not the only way to identify a 132 ion, I would agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever run a scan that looked at two sides from 130 to 134 to try and find the 132 daughter ion?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever use selected reaction monitoring to look just at the 132 to see how much might be there?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1260-A and 1260-B. I show you 1260-A and 1260-B and ask you to tell us what those are.

MR. MARTZ: Those were analysis that I had done from the stain from the gate, my Q204.

MR. BLASIER: And using the positive ion mode that we have been talking about, you looked for that twice?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Hold on to that. Now, it is your understanding that this stain came from a bloodstain found on the back gate in Nicole brown Simpson's condominium?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Numbered 117?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: May we have 1257-T.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, would you agree that the chart on the screen accurately portrays the two tests, the two positive ion tests that you did of the stain, the blood from the stain from the back gate?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that you identified peaks in those two charts?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know if the word is "Identify peaks." I found two peaks.

MR. BLASIER: You found?

MR. MARTZ: Yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. And by the way, the retention time on these two charts and the retention time on the sock charts, are they consistent also with EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that the two charts that are up on the screen from the gate demonstrate the presence of the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that those charts--that what you found in those charts is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever in these two samples look for the 132 daughter ion using a scan of 130 to 134?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever, with these two samples, look for the daughter ion by doing selected reaction monitoring, that is, looking just at 132?

MR. MARTZ: No.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we go back to the elmo and I would like to mark another picture.

THE COURT: 1265.

(Deft's 1265 for id = photograph)

THE COURT: This is a photo of what, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: It is a photo of the sock.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, let me show you what has been marked 1265, Defense exhibit, and could you tell was that is?

MR. MARTZ: That is a picture that I took of the sock when I received it in the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Could we put this on the elmo, please?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Can you zoom in a little more on that.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, can you look at your monitor. Is that an accurate picture of the sock after you did your cutting?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, it is a little difficult to see on the big screen, but could you direct the arrow to the part that you cut out yourself?

MR. MARTZ: Down, a little bit more. Right there, (Indicating). Right there, (Indicating).

MR. BLASIER: Now, that is what you called Q206, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And the hole there is where Q207 came from; is that right?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you examine--did you examine the sock to determine the outer edge of the bloodstain that had been in that area?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And did your cutting there go past the outer edge?

MR. MARTZ: Not to my knowledge.

MR. BLASIER: So it is your understanding or your recollection that the bloodstain came out further than the edge of your cutting?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Could we go back to 1257-P.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: 1257-P again.

MR. BLASIER: Now, this is what you were just describing as the cut-out on the sock that you made?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Except turned upside down?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you do any testing at all to determine whether there was more blood in Q207 or less blood than there was in Q206?

MR. MARTZ: No.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate, Agent Martz, that--let's assume hypothetically that Q207 had more blood in it than Q206. Do you have that in mind?

MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if that stain had been made with EDTA blood that you would likely find more of it in Q207 than Q206 if Q207 had more blood in it?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Improper hypothetical and assuming facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Well, when you are trying to detect EDTA, would you agree that the amount you are likely to detect, if it is there, is going to be dependent on how much you start with in your testing?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if you start with less blood that has EDTA in it, would you agree that you are likely to find or have a lower likelihood of finding EDTA than if you had a larger quantity of blood with EDTA in it?

MR. MARTZ: Well, certainly it would depend on the size we are talking about. If we are talking very small differences, you may or may not, but if we are talking large differences, then you will find differences.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Did you do any testing whatsoever to determine whether the amounts of blood in the sock--let me rephrase. Did you do any testing to determine whether the concentration of blood in that large stain varied from the outer edge to the center?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Impossible.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: Well, I didn't even have the center, so it would have been a difficult test to determine.

MR. BLASIER: Well, you had Q207, didn't you?

MR. MARTZ: Right, but that still isn't the center.

MR. BLASIER: If you wanted to you could have extracted the blood from Q207 and compared it to Q206, couldn't you?

MR. MARTZ: I saw no reason to, but I certainly could have done it.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Well, is the reason that you didn't do that is because you didn't know what Q207 was?

MR. MARTZ: 207, I didn't know exactly what it was. That is why the first day I combined 207 and 206 and treated them as the same, because I didn't know the origin of 207.

MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, do you agree that in order for EDTA to be detected in your method, it must be water soluble?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In other words, a compound that might have the same molecular weight and the same daughter ions as EDTA, if it wasn't water soluble, you wouldn't be able to measure it under your system?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it depends, too. I mean, when you are talking about parts per million, parts per billion, in literature a lot of time they will report things as not soluble in water and yet in reality you can identify things and trace quantity. It would depend on the individual chemical.

MR. BLASIER: But it would have to be water soluble, wouldn't it?

MR. MARTZ: Well, not necessarily. I mean, when you are talking parts per billion or million, and you are talking about a complex mixture, we put in solution things that literature says that are insoluble in water and identified them. I mean--

MR. BLASIER: There are a lot of things that aren't soluble in water, too?

MR. MARTZ: When they say soluble, in referring--they are not referring to parts per million, parts per billion.

MR. BLASIER: There are a lot of things?

MR. MARTZ: There are a lot of things that are not listed as not soluble in water that will dissolve in water.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that for a compound to have the characteristics of EDTA that you found it would also have to be heat stable?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know--it depends on your definition of heat stable. It is--

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what that term means?

MR. MARTZ: Well, yeah, but what heat? Are we talking about? Are we talking about a hundred degrees, 500 degrees, a thousand degrees? I don't understand--I mean, that is a broad term.

MR. BLASIER: Must the chemical that you are looking at, in order it to--to go through your system, be soluble in the specific mobile phase, that is, the liquid that you use to send it through the column?

MR. MARTZ: It certainly helps.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, have you run tests on any other compound, other than EDTA, that gives you the results you got in this case for the gate and the sock; namely, the retention time that you got, the presence of the parent ion, the presence of the daughter ion?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, I ran in other chemicals with this testing.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever tested, in the course of your 17 year's experience with mass spectrometry, any chemical that has those characteristics other than EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know right offhand.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any that you have run that have those characteristics?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, I don't think that I have.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you have in the--I think yesterday been attempting to find some compound that might look like this?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I have been attempting to find--locate other chemicals that could possibly give similar results, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. And you handed me a picture of a chemical this morning?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me have this marked next.

THE COURT: 1267--1266.

MR. BLASIER: 1266?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Deft's 1266 for id = chart)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1266. Is that a chart that you handed me this morning?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that for?

MR. MARTZ: It is a mass spectrum of a chemical.

MR. BLASIER: What is it called?

MR. MARTZ: Benfluralin.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any idea what it is?

MR. MARTZ: I believe it is an environmental contaminant.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know?

MR. MARTZ: That is what I was told on the phone this morning. I don't have any other knowledge other than that.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know where it is found?

MR. MARTZ: Evidently in the environment.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know where in the environment?

THE COURT: How about if you spell it for the--

MR. MARTZ: B-E-N-F-L-U-R-A-L-I-N.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know where in the environment?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the parent ion for that compound?

MR. MARTZ: 335.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you haven't tested that compound to see if it looks like EDTA, have you?

MR. MARTZ: Today is the first time I have seen this chemical.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. And the mass spec that was generated there was done with a different method from your electrospray; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: What method was used?

MR. MARTZ: This is the standard electron impact ionization.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any way of knowing, without estimating whether if you have run the same tests on that, whatever it is, that you would get the same pattern as EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I have no way of knowing other than testing. The purpose for this chemical is it had some properties similar to EDTA in its mass spectrum, but the only way to prove whether or not it would give the same result or not would be to actually analyze the chemical.

MR. BLASIER: Once you got the results that you got in this case in February did you make any effort to find some compound other than EDTA that would account for what you found on the back gate and the socks?

MR. MARTZ: No.

THE COURT: 10:30.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall the testimony yesterday about the EPA documents that were presented by Miss Clark to Dr. Rieders?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 12--I'm sorry, People's 537. Is that the reference that you are thinking of?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that is not an article, is it?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: It is a description of what--of an article?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And where did that article appear?

MR. MARTZ: In the Brit Veterinarian Journal, I believe.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, which?

MR. MARTZ: The--

MR. BLASIER: Do you know which journal?

MR. MARTZ: It is Brit, so I don't know if it is the British or the Britain, but "Vet" is evidently veterinarian and "J" is obviously journal.

MR. BLASIER: Did you recall yesterday Miss Clark asking Dr. Rieders questions about that document as it relates to the maximum daily allowance of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know if it necessarily had to do with maximum daily allowance or what you would expect to find in a person. I think it was more relating to how much you would expect to find in a person's blood.

MR. BLASIER: Does that abstract indicate that you would expect to find 2000 parts per million in anybody's blood?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: And umm--

MR. MARTZ: It states that it should not exceed 2000 parts per million.

MR. BLASIER: What is the concentration of EDTA in a purple-topped tube?

MR. MARTZ: Somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if someone had 2000 parts per million EDTA in their blood they would be dead?

MR. MARTZ: Well, for any sustained period of time. I think they use it also for transfusions. I don't know the exact amount that they use. It would not be a good idea, I don't think, to have that amount in your blood, I agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: Does that number bear any relationship at all to what the FDA allows in terms of EDTA as a food additive?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, no. No, I don't believe it does.

MR. BLASIER: And it is your understanding that particular study was a study on fish?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And it was to determine the toxic level that would kill fish?

MR. MARTZ: No. I did some further research and actually the whole reference has to do with how much EDTA is used to preserve food. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with how much you would expect to find in fish or humans. It was completely out of context.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, I want to ask you about EDTA that you might expect in your blood from food. And you have provided us several articles that you found related to that topic, have you not?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you an article--can we have this marked, I'm sorry, 1260--

THE CLERK: 7.

MR. BLASIER: 1267.

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

(Deft's 1267 for id = article)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1267. Do you recall Miss Clark yesterday mentioning the figure of 50 milligrams per day as a possible amount of EDTA that someone might take into their system?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And is that the article that that came from?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Why don't you just give us the name of that article.

MR. MARTZ: It is the "Food iron absorption in man. The effect of EDTA on absorption of dietary non-heme iron."

MR. BLASIER: Now, you also were shown yesterday some excerpts from the code of federal regulations. Do you recall that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could we--I don't have the exhibit number on this one, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: I found it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: I show you People's 539. Take a look at that again. Is that the document that describes what the FDA says is the allowable maximum amounts of EDTA in food preservatives or food substances?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And I would like to put that on the elmo again. Now, this is a document that you provided to us as well, is it not?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, it is your understanding that the 50 milligram per day figure that is in that article that you provided to us was based on what the FDA says are the maximum levels of EDTA you can put in food?

MR. MARTZ: I would say that had most of the basis for it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we move that up just a little bit, Mr. Harris.

MR. BLASIER: Now, this regulation talks about parts per million, 220 parts per million, 33 parts per million. That bears no relationship to parts per million in food, does it?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: That is what you can put in the food?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That then gets eaten and greatly diluted?

MR. MARTZ: Right, yes, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you also provided us a study from 1954 concerning the metabolism of EDTA in humans, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, I don't think it primarily dealt with metabolism. It was an article about EDTA being injected in humans. I think--

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. MARTZ: --I think they did mention it was not metabolized, but I don't think that was the purpose of the article.

MR. BLASIER: Right. This was an article that you provided to us?

MR. MARTZ: Right, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And an article that you relied upon in forming your opinions in this case?

MR. MARTZ: No, I don't believe so.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, it is an article that you reviewed and we have discussed, haven't we?

MR. MARTZ: It is an article reviewed. I reviewed many articles on EDTA. That was one of them.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your understanding as to the body of literature on EDTA, such as it is, in terms of how much EDTA that you eat in food actually gets into your blood?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, it is unclear. The best is that paper there from 1954, but even in that paper it mentions some data which is conflicting and there hasn't been a whole lot of data since then. Most of the other papers even today refer back to that paper in 1954. I believe it is not well-known.

MR. BLASIER: What does this paper say?

MR. MARTZ: In that one, the absorption?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MARTZ: It says five percent is absorbed.

MR. BLASIER: There is other literature that says that as well; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: I think all the other literature is based on that, to my knowledge. There is no other independent study that I could find.

MR. BLASIER: Well, what is--you provided us some other literature that says the same thing, didn't you?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, yes. I mean, it was mentioned in a lot of articles that that was the absorption, I agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: Did you provide us with some excerpts from a textbook called "The pharmacological basis of therapeutics by Goodman and Gilmans?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that an accepted text in the field of pharmacology?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What does that indicate in terms of the absorption of EDTA that you take in by mouth into the blood?

MR. MARTZ: I assume it says five percent.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, would you like to look at that to confirm it?

MR. MARTZ: No I'm sure it says five percent.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when we talk about absorption into the blood, when you eat something, it doesn't just go into the blood, does it?

MR. MARTZ: No, no.

MR. BLASIER: What happens to it in the stomach in terms of how it gets to the blood versus how it gets excreted in other ways?

MR. MARTZ: Well, we are trailing a little bit out of my field, but certainly in order to survive things have to be absorbed into the blood stream. If you eat everything and nothing gets absorbed, you are going to die.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the studies indicate, the `54 study indicates that the vast majority, ninety percent or more of the EDTA that you might eat gets excreted through the feces and never gets to the blood, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That is what that one paper showed, yes.

MR. BLASIER: When we talk about a five percent absorption rate, we are talking about of the, let's say, of the 50 milligrams that a person might eat in a day, only five percent of that actually gets into the blood at some point?

MR. MARTZ: Yeah. Approximately two and a half milligrams, according to that paper.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that paper also talks about when it gets into the blood stream that it also gets into other extracellular fluid, in other words, other fluid in the body, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Right, correct.

MR. BLASIER: And the total volume approximately of this other fluid in the body is what?

MR. MARTZ: I think the paper there may have used forty liters. It would depend of course on the size of the individual, so that would be probably an average.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that it is a relatively easy calculation to figure out if you had 2.5 milligrams in forty liters how much parts per million, billion or whatever that is?

MR. MARTZ: Right, yeah.

MR. BLASIER: What is that figure?

MR. MARTZ: I believe it was sixty parts per billion, approximately. Approximately sixty parts per billion.

MR. BLASIER: We are talking in the range of parts per billion rather than parts per million, correct?

MR. MARTZ: According to this study, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, under that set of conditions that I just described to you, that assumes, does it not, that whatever gets absorbed into the blood is all there at the time that you take the measurement?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what does the literature indicate in terms of how quickly EDTA that does get into the blood stream gets out of the blood stream?

MR. MARTZ: Well, its half-life is very short. It leaves the blood stream very quickly, according to that paper.

MR. BLASIER: Are we talking in terms of minutes or hours?

MR. MARTZ: I think it is hours.

MR. BLASIER: Would you like to look at that article to refresh your memory?

(Brief pause.)

MR. MARTZ: Its half-life would be an hour.

MR. BLASIER: And by "Half-life" does that mean that once this, let's say, sixty parts per billion gets into your system, one hour later there is only going to be half as much?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And one hour after that there is going to be half again as much?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: So that it is quickly very quickly eliminated from the system?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct. That is according to that paper in 1954.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that under those circumstances that we have described that is consistent with the literature, that the amount of EDTA that you might expect to find in a person's blood after they ate something with EDTA in it is likely to be very, very small, in the range of parts per billion?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think if you take everything into account it would be difficult to say that. I mean, you are looking at one study in 1954 and it mentions at the end of that that there its some conflicting data based on iron and yttrium being eliminated very quickly from the body when it is ingested, when EDTA is ingested, and that paper only mentions one of the salts that the FDA permits to be used in the food. There is two other salts. So relying totally on one paper in 1954 with a lot of other conflicting information and information that is not available, I--to be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe that anyone knows exactly how much EDTA is present.

MR. BLASIER: Well, when you say a lot of conflicting information, what conflicting information are you talking about?

MR. MARTZ: Well, conflicting information with iron studies, the fact that it indicates that more is absorbed than the five percent.

MR. BLASIER: What paper says that?

MR. MARTZ: This particular paper here, the last paragraph.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have that in front of you?

MR. MARTZ: Second to last paragraph.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have that in front of you?

MR. MARTZ: No. You took it back from me, I think.

MR. BLASIER: I think I did.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Is that what you are referring to, (Indicating)?

MR. MARTZ: Right, yes, exactly. Would you like me to read it?

MR. BLASIER: Let me put it on the elmo and then you can read it.

MR. MARTZ: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Perhaps we should mark this.

THE COURT: 1268.

MR. BLASIER: 1268.

THE COURT: 1268 and we will wind it up with this one.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Wind it up.

(Deft's 1268 for id = article)

MR. BLASIER: Now, the paragraph you are referring to is the one that has the little asterisk in front of it; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Why don't you read this.

MR. MARTZ: "The low absorption after oral administration is very surprising in view of the findings that material"--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Could we ask Mr. Martz to speak into the microphone. I can't hear.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MARTZ: "The low absorption after oral administration is very surprising in view of the finding that the material is effective by that route in accelerating the excretion of yttrium and lead. There is no satisfactorily readily apparent explanation at the present time" or "At this present time."

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that what that says is that EDTA is able to help remove yttrium and lead from the blood very quickly?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, well, yes.

MR. BLASIER: That is another indication?

MS. CLARK: Objection. It does not say "Very quickly." Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Is that a fair characterization, what I just said?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't agree with you a hundred percent on that.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. But there is no data there, is there?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: And that doesn't say that EDTA is absorbed more than five percent in blood, does it?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it kind of implies that to me.

MR. BLASIER: It doesn't say that, does it?

MR. MARTZ: It doesn't say that.

MR. BLASIER: What it says is it is very effective of getting things out of the blood quickly?

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. MARTZ: The only way to get it out of the blood is to get it into the blood first of all.

MR. BLASIER: And then get it out quickly?

MR. MARTZ: It is a chelating blood. Once it goes in the blood it chelates and gets in the body and will be excreted.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will be in recess for fifteen minutes. And Agent Martz, you can step down and we will be back in fifteen minutes.

(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. Let's have the jury, 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. The record should reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Special agent market is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Blasier. And Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, at the break did I ask you to take a look at those 250 parts per million to compare the areas as you indicated?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: What is the difference in the areas of the 250 parts per million charts that you ran on the 22nd?

MR. MARTZ: It is about a four-fold difference.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. You agree that the 50 parts per million, you knew that that is exactly what it was because you had prepared known EDTA in that concentration to put in your machine?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And when you put it through the second time and got a four-fold difference in your area output, it was still the same, 50 parts per million?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that the substance that you found that had the consistent retention time, the parent ion and the daughter ion, that in your opinion the quantities that you found are in the parts per million range?

MR. MARTZ: That would be the most, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Which is--correct me if I am wrong--a thousand times more than the parts per billion range?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you some questions about the technique that you used at the beginning of your testing. Do you have that in mind?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: When you got the stains in this case, when you got Q206 and Q207--actually, you assigned those numbers, didn't you?

MR. MARTZ: Well, they were actually assigned by special agent Doug Deedrick.

MR. BLASIER: That is an FBI; not an LAPD number?

MR. MARTZ: Right. That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: When you got those samples, did I hear you say this morning that you mixed those two together for your first series of tests?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And you did not know what Q207 was?

MR. MARTZ: I knew it was from the sock and obviously it was blood-stained, but I didn't specifically know that it was cut out of that area. I mean, it was logical to assume that, but I didn't know that for a fact.

MR. BLASIER: So you, as part of the first steps of your tests, combined two unknown samples, the source of which you didn't know?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I knew they were both from the sock and I knew they were both bloodstains from the sock and my object was to determine whether or not there was EDTA present on the sock, so I combined the two to see whether or not EDTA was present on either of those particular cuttings and I took that into account by using twice as much of that particular sample as I did from the control that I prepared.

MR. BLASIER: So you used twice as much in that run and that was using A--the negative ion mode that we talked about a little bit this morning?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: The less sensitive testing?

MR. MARTZ: The one that is much more specific. In this particular case it was less sensitive, but you got to remember here it has a lot more specificity and that is why I used it again. Negative ion mass spec is a very sensitive technique and in order to identify the EDTA present it has to react with iron. EDTA is a chelating agent. So I wanted to use a very specific test and that is why I chose that test on that day, because I not only had to have a compound with a particular molecular weight, it had to react with iron in order to give these results. And the only ones that gave results on that particular day were the controls that I prepared.

MR. BLASIER: Now, but--but you determined yourself by your own experimentation that that was one/tenth as sensitive as the positive ion moved that we have been talking about?

MR. MARTZ: It had less sensitivity, but sensitivity was not my problem. What I was asked to do was to determine whether or not the stains were EDTA-preserved or not preserved. I was able to answer that question in the negative ion mode very easily. These stains were not from preserved blood.

MR. BLASIER: Well, we will talk about that later. When you ran the positive ion mode the next day, the more--the test that will detect the ions more sensitively than the one you did the day before, would you agree with that?

MR. MARTZ: It was more sensitive, but sensitivity was not an issue. Specificity was my issue. I wanted to determine whether or not EDTA was present and if it was I wanted to make sure I could identify it, and as I mentioned, it was not present.

MR. BLASIER: So you weren't concerned with whether it was there or not when you did the negative ion mode?

MR. MARTZ: No. I was asked to determine whether or not EDTA was present and it was very easy to do in the negative ion mode. I was able to determine on the first day that EDTA was not present on those particular stains and those stains did not come from preserved blood.

MR. BLASIER: Were you able to determine with the negative mode that there wasn't EDTA on those stains?

MR. MARTZ: There was not EDTA present in the amount that you would find in preserved blood.

MR. BLASIER: Agent--

MR. MARTZ: I proved that on the first day.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, please listen to my question. Were you able to determine with the negative ion mode that there was no EDTA on those stains?

MR. MARTZ: I was not able to identify any EDTA on those stains.

MR. BLASIER: Were you able to rule out the possibility that there was EDTA on those stains with your negative ion mode?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. In my opinion EDTA was not present on those stains.

MR. BLASIER: All right. When you did your testing the next day with a positive ion mode and found what looks like EDTA, where do you think it came from?

MR. MARTZ: Well, you got to remember here, everyone is saying that I founded EDTA. I have never said that and I don't believe Dr. Rieders ever said that. There was indication that EDTA could have been present. There is a lot of other explanations for the ions that I got on the first day. I am not convinced that EDTA is present on that sock and I want to make that perfectly clear. There are many possibilities for those ion counts that I got. One is it could be from another compound that had similar results. That is why I performed the daughter ion experiment, to determine whether or not EDTA was present. I was convinced that EDTA was not present in those samples.

MR. BLASIER: So you had made up your mind as to what you were going to find before you did the test?

MR. MARTZ: That is not correct.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. MARTZ: I was asked to determine whether or not those bloodstains came from preserved blood and those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood. I was able to prove that on the first day.

MR. BLASIER: What you saw in that bloodstain, both bloodstains the second day, you didn't see the first day, did you?

MR. MARTZ: No. It was a completely different technique as I mentioned. In the negative ion mode the EDTA must react with iron.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz--

MR. MARTZ: The second day when I ran the test all I was looking for was a 293 ion and a 162. Iron was not a factor.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. MARTZ: So the possibility exists--

THE COURT: Hold on. Next question.

MR. BLASIER: Agent, did you add anything to the samples from day one to day two?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you added EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: No, I added water.

MR. BLASIER: Did you add--does water give you a pattern like EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: As I told you, I did not identify EDTA in any of the samples on any day.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Lets talk in terms of the 293 parent ion which EDTA has and the 160 daughter ion which EDTA had. Do you have that in mind?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you add anything that had a parent ion of 293 and a daughter ion of 160 between day one and day two?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't quite understand that question. Of course I didn't, but the fact of the matter is on the first day I didn't even look for these ions.

MR. BLASIER: Well your Honor, I move to strike everything except "Of course I didn't."

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken as being nonresponsive.

MR. BLASIER: Are you saying that that 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion weren't there the first day?

MR. MARTZ: I didn't look for them the first day.

MR. BLASIER: Then you don't now whether they were there or not, do you?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it is difficult to determine if I didn't look for them.

MR. BLASIER: The second day you found them, didn't you?

MR. MARTZ: The second day--

MS. CLARK: Objection, this is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Did you find them the second day?

MR. MARTZ: I detected both ion 162 and 293 on the second day because the experiment that I performed looked for those various ions.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you this: Is your reason for saying that what you found, even though it has consistent retention time, consistent parent ion, consistent daughter ion, that the reason you are unwilling to say that that is EDTA is because you couldn't find the 132 daughter ion?

MR. MARTZ: No, I didn't say that at all. The reason that I'm saying that it is not EDTA is several-fold. I conducted many experiments over several days. The first day I looked for EDTA in the negative ion mode. It was not present. On another day, the 28th, I looked for EDTA on another test in HPLC which was completely different testing than any of the other days. EDTA was not present on the sock or on the gate, so I have two tests that showed no EDTA is present. I have another test on another day which has ions that are similar or the same as EDTA. In order for me to identify EDTA, I have to have what's called a full daughter spectrum. When you just looked at several ions, you can make mistakes. Those mistakes have been made and because mistakes like that have been made, procedures have been changed. In order for me to positively identify a chemical to the exclusion of all others I need to have a full daughter spectrum, and in order to do that I have to set the scan, the instruments the way that I did. I was not able to identify EDTA in those particular stains.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, you agree that you did detect at the appropriate retention time the 293 parent ion, the 160 daughter ion on day two?

MR. MARTZ: Well, you are making a great deal of the retention time.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: You found that, didn't you, 293, the 160, at the appropriate retention time?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Have you identified anything other than EDTA?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That assumes a fact not in evidence and contrary to the testimony that it is an appropriate retention time, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Have you determined any compound--have you located or identified any compound other than EDTA that accounts for your findings?

MR. MARTZ: I was just faxed another copy of another chromatogram that could possibly give similar results that I just got several minutes ago.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you know what that is?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. I can get it for you if you would like.

MR. BLASIER: What is it?

MR. MARTZ: It is a steroid type chemical--it is right there.

MR. BLASIER: What method was used to perform this chromatography or mass spec?

MR. MARTZ: Well, that particular chromatography was probably gas chromatography and the mass spec type was electron impact.

MR. BLASIER: So that is a different method also, isn't it?

MR. MARTZ: Well--

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is a different method?

MR. MARTZ: Well, because mass spectrometry is a technique that I used for ions and that is mass spectrometry and you can make certain assumptions in mass spectrometry when you are dealing with ions. We are dealing with two ions here. That is not very many. This particular compound and many other compounds will have those two ions.

MR. BLASIER: When you found what you did find, whether it is EDTA or something that just looks like EDTA, did you advise the Prosecution of what you had found?

MR. MARTZ: I had prepared a report, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And by the way, in your report--well, let me rephrase. How soon after you got the charts that we have seen here with the peaks at the appropriate times, parent and daughter ion, did you tell the Prosecution that you had found that?

MR. MARTZ: Umm--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, again object to the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: I believe it was sometime the end of February, early March. I don't have the exact date.

MR. BLASIER: Did they ever ask you to try and find what that might be, other than EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: No. I mean, it was not necessary because I had already answered the question, the fact that those stains did not come from preserved blood. There was no reason to try to determine what those ions came from.

MR. BLASIER: But from February until this morning or last night, you haven't tried to find a compound that explains your findings, have you?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have, because I believe that my data has been misinterpreted by somebody else and I wanted to prove that.

MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you some questions about your--oh, incidentally, you said that you used twice as much on day one of the Q206/Q207 mixture than you used the next day?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So you used half as much sample when you used the more sensitive test?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I--in every case that I did this--

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: You used half as much with the more sensitive test?

MR. MARTZ: I used half as much of the 206 versus 207 on the 22nd as I did on the 19th.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if there had been EDTA in your mixture of Q206 and Q207 there would be one-half as much in the test that you ran the next day, the more sensitive test?

MR. MARTZ: Not necessarily. I mean, as we have mentioned, the quantitation is not perfect on this instrument and I did not design this technique to precisely quantitate how much EDTA was present or if wasn't present. I was trying to determine whether it was there or not from preserved blood, so twice as much would not make that much of a difference in the results that I got.

MR. BLASIER: Did you run any experiments with different amounts--well, let me rephrase that. Would you agree that in order to make any kind of an assessment of concentration of how much you get at the end of the process, you have to know how much you start with?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, sure, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the evidence that you received--let's talk about the back gate first. That was in the form of what?

MR. MARTZ: It was blood that was I guess a cotton swab or some type of a gauze material was used to absorb the blood off of the back gate.

MR. BLASIER: Well, do you know--do you know how that was taken off the back gate?

MR. MARTZ: No, I don't know, but logically it had to have been dissolved in order to be--

MR. BLASIER: Did you--

MR. MARTZ: --saturated onto the cloth material.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to find out how that had been removed from the back gate?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you think that the in manner which it was removed from the back gate might have some influence on how much blood actually got onto that?

MR. MARTZ: It was my opinion that that was very saturated, that piece of gauze. It was a very saturated bloodstain on that piece of gauze.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, were you concerned about the fact that different methods of removing that stain might result in different amounts of blood?

MR. MARTZ: No. The only thing I was concerned about is whether or not the bloodstain was larger than the material that was collected, because I was using my technique by the size of the bloodstain and--

MR. BLASIER: Did it come to you--

MR. MARTZ: Can I continue answering the question?

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. MARTZ: And I wanted to be satisfied that the bloodstain was at least as large as that cotton swab. And by asking, I was able to determine that the bloodstain was larger than the cotton swab itself and that was my main concern.

MR. BLASIER: By asking?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. I had asked how large the bloodstain was and I was told that it was larger than the cotton swab.

MR. BLASIER: How large what bloodstain was?

MR. MARTZ: On the gate.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask how much of that bloodstain had been removed and put on whatever you got it on?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you get it on a swab or on a swatch?

MR. MARTZ: It was a very small swatch.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask how many other swatches had been made from that blood drop?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not. I didn't feel it was necessary. When I looked at that blood swatch I could see that it was thoroughly saturated with blood and that was my concern.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a spectrophotometer in your lab?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that an acceptable means of determining how much you might have of blood in a solution?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it is an acceptable means I think of determining how much hemoglobin is present and from that you could possibly calculate how much blood was present.

MR. BLASIER: Did you use any method at all, other than just looking at it, to try and tell how much blood was in this swatch?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What?

MR. MARTZ: I did a visual examination also of the extract after I extracted the blood with the water and I got a very intense red color, which indicated to me that it was concentrated blood, and also I did a testing to prove that it was--or to indicate that it was blood.

MR. BLASIER: Did the testing that you did, does that establish quantity at all?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think it does somewhat. I mean, I could visually see the blood on the swatch and I could visually see the color of the extract that I performed.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is it your testimony that you can tell with any precision how much blood is in a solution by looking at it?

MR. MARTZ: For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. I mean, I didn't need to be that accurate in order to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved blood or from non-preserved blood. I was very, very careful in the sizes that I cut and I always made sure that I took more sample from the questioned samples than the control samples. That is why I very carefully looked at the color as I extracted and I was convinced that I had at least as much blood on the control areas as I did on the questioned areas or as on the--I had at least as much on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas. I was very, very careful in this analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Did I understand you to say that you weren't concerned with the quantity of blood that you got on the swatch?

MR. MARTZ: I was concerned with the quantity. I wanted to make sure that I had at least as much blood on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas and I was convinced that I did. I was concerned, but even if there was a mistake of one, two, fifty, a hundred percent, I mean, I would still be able to answer the question whether it was from preserved blood or non-preserved blood. I was concerned. Yes, I was concerned.

MR. BLASIER: Did you perform any tests, other than just looking at it, that was designed to find out how much blood was in the swatch that you started with?

MR. MARTZ: I did a presumptive test on the blood and I got similar colors which would indicate I had similar concentrations of blood.

MR. BLASIER: What presumptive test did you use?

MR. MARTZ: I used the phenolphthalein.

MR. BLASIER: Is that considered a quantitative test for blood?

MR. MARTZ: I mean not necessarily, but you do have a color reaction just like you have a color of blood. And everything I did, I did to make sure that I had at least as much blood on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the stain from the sock, did you do any kind of testing on that, other than looking at it to determine how much blood you got from the sock?

MR. MARTZ: As I mentioned earlier, yes, I did other tests.

MR. BLASIER: Anything other than what you've already told us?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did you examine the swatch material that you got on the back gate under the microscope?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: The sample that you prepared, your known samples from the reference tubes that we looked at, where did you get the swatches to do this?

MR. MARTZ: Well, on the sock, I actually cut a piece off of the sock because I wanted to use the same type of material, so what I had was a bloodstain on the sock, so I took the person's blood--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Agent Martz, the question was from the reference tubes where did you get the swatches to do this; not the sock?

MR. MARTZ: Well, that is the answer, your Honor. I took the sock. That is what I used.

MR. BLASIER: Okay, for the sock reference. How about for the gate reference what did you use?

MR. MARTZ: Well, as I was explaining, I wanted to try to make things equal, so for the stain that I produced for the sock, I took a piece of the sock. I took some of the blood of Nicole brown, which was the one suspected or the one identified as being on the sock. I placed blood onto that sock. I let it dry naturally.

THE COURT: All right. Agent Martz, the question was what did you do to prepare the sample for the gate? Not the sock; the gate?

MR. MARTZ: Okay. For the gate I took a similar type of cotton swatch in the laboratory and placed blood onto that swatch.

MR. BLASIER: You didn't use a swatch that came from LAPD?

MR. MARTZ: No. It was--it was too small. In order to put a bloodstain onto a fabric and let it dry naturally, I was using ten microliters of blood. I needed a better size swatch. The size that they submitted to me was not large enough to do that particular test.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your opinion that the amount of blood in a swatch is not determined by the kind of swatch--let me rephrase that. Is it your opinion that if you used a swatch, let's say that had four layers of gauze rather than two, that it is still going to hold the same amount of blood?

MR. MARTZ: I tried to use the same type of swatch that was used in the particular case is all I can say. Whether it is two or four layers, it would make a difference as to how much it would absorb.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, did you ever examine the swatch you got from LAPD to determine under the microscope what kind of a swatch it was, how many layers were there?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever look at your own swatch that you got from your lab to determine how many layers were in that swatch?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you recall--well, let me ask you this: Your eyeball estimate or the way that you did this, what was your estimate of how much blood was on the gate swatch?

MR. MARTZ: I did not estimate the amount of mood on that. What I did was to take a swatch of the same amount and prepared it similarly. I did not attempt to determine how much blood was on the swatch except for the fact that the swatch appeared to be saturated with blood.

MR. BLASIER: So then you made no effort to determine how much blood was there?

MR. MARTZ: Well, visually I looked at it and the swatch was saturated with blood. Like if you were bleeding and would put something to it, it would absorb the blood. The swatch absorbed the blood. It appeared to be saturated with blood.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember me asking that question when we visited together in Washington?

MR. MARTZ: Not specifically. I'm sure you did, but I can't remember specifically my answer.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember telling me that you estimated the amount of blood from the back gate as two microliters?

MR. MARTZ: I can't remember that, but it would be at least--I would say it was somewhere between two and five microliters would be my best guesstimate.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember me asking the same question about how much blood was on the sock stain that you cut?

MR. MARTZ: I think I may have answered that. Was it 800 microliters, 200? I can't remember.

MR. BLASIER: 50 microliters?

MR. MARTZ: 50 microliters.

MR. BLASIER: How much blood is there in a drop, how many microliters?

MR. MARTZ: Oh, I don't know. I don't--I don't do a lot of volumes with blood. All I know is I used ten microliters and five microliters and created some stains.

MR. BLASIER: Let's assume hypothetically that 50 microliters of blood is one to two drops. Do you have that assumption in mind?

MR. MARTZ: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Your opinion is that there was one to two drops of blood on the cutting from the sock that you took?

MR. MARTZ: Not that I took. I'm talking about the whole area of the sock that was stained. Probably 50 microliters. The area that I took was probably a couple microliters.

MR. BLASIER: When you told me 50 microliters on that cutting, you misunderstood what I was asking?

MR. MARTZ: Yeah. I was talking about the full stain.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you--you came up with a process that you used to extract the blood and EDTA, if there is any EDTA, from the swatch, correct, and from the sock cutting?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What method was that?

MR. MARTZ: EDTA and blood are both very soluble in water, so I extracted the materials with 25 microliters of water, let them sit for approximately 40, 45 minutes, and they were in a tube which is designed to filter out a lot of the components of blood to clean up the extract a little bit as blood contains a lot of chemicals. And then I centrifuged it for maybe five or ten minutes and the liquid past through the filter and it was collected on the bottom of the tube and that is what I used for analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Were you trying to remove all the blood from the evidence?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean I--I tried to remove as much as possible. The instrument, the way that it is set up, can take care of, you know, a very complex dirty sample, but if you shoot too much in you can clog up the system and cause excess damage to the instrument, so I tried to clean it up as much as possible.

MR. BLASIER: Did you intentionally not try to remove all the blood from the swatch?

MR. MARTZ: Oh, I thought you--

MR. BLASIER: Did you misunderstand?

MR. MARTZ: I may have misunderstood your question.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you again.

MR. MARTZ: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Did you try to remove all the blood from the swatch, the evidence swatch and the sock cutting that you made?

MR. MARTZ: I treated everything the same. All I tried to do was remove the EDTA. I wasn't concerned too much with the blood. I wanted to remove EDTA from the bloodstain was my purpose.

MR. BLASIER: Can I take it that you are saying, no, you didn't try to remove all the blood?

MR. MARTZ: I mean, I--all I did was try to remove the EDTA from the stain for analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. So you tried to get all the EDTA out of there?

MR. MARTZ: Exactly, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And did you have any testing done to determine whether that method that you devised was effective in removing all the EDTA from a bloodstain like the ones you used?

MR. MARTZ: I determined that was effective to remove EDTA from my analysis to determine whether or not the bloodstain came from a preserved tube or non-preserved tube.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz--

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: --did you do any testing to determine whether your system that you devised efficiently removed all of the EDTA from the evidence?

MR. MARTZ: I didn't feel that this was necessary. All I felt was necessary was to remove the EDTA for analysis. It didn't make any difference if I got 99.9 percent of the EDTA or a hundred percent of the EDTA. I removed enough EDTA for the analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Did it make any difference whether you got sixty percent of it?

MR. MARTZ: It probably wouldn't have, no.

MR. BLASIER: So you weren't trying to get all of the EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Certainly I was trying to get it all out.

MR. BLASIER: Didn't you have some tests or weren't some validation studies performed at Quantico to answer that very question at how good your method was of pulling the EDTA out of the evidence if it was there?

MR. MARTZ: If it was, I didn't understand that that was part of what they were doing.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let me show you a couple of charts.

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

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we have these marked as--what are we up to?

THE CLERK: 1269.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, 1269?

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: 1269-A and B.

(Deft's 1269-A & B for id = charts)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, did you review the validation materials that Quantico prepared for you?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not. They were not prepared for me.

MR. BLASIER: Who asked Quantico to do a validation study to validate your method?

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. BLASIER: Well, did anybody--

MR. MARTZ: I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: They did this on their own? You are aware they did it, aren't you?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, yes.

MR. BLASIER: When did they do this validation study?

MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: I don't know the specific time. I think it was before I had done any of my tests or it may have been about the same time. I really don't know, to be perfectly honest with you.

MR. BLASIER: Was that validation study done in connection with this case?

MR. MARTZ: I believe the way they got involved is they were going to determine whether or not EDTA could be detected in trace quantities or in bloodstains to differentiate preserved from non-preserved blood. They were asked to do this and they were going to devise a procedure which then could be given to a laboratory to do the analysis. When this was all happening, it was determined that we would also try at headquarters to do the analysis ourselves, so I took it upon myself to do some preliminary tests and determined that I could do EDTA analysis. Quantico's testing was done to determine whether or not a procedure could be developed to give to another laboratory to do the testing.

MR. BLASIER: Can we put that down as a yes, that their validation study was for purposes of this case?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

MR. MARTZ: Well, you would have to ask them.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: You didn't ask them?

MR. MARTZ: Not specifically, no.

MR. BLASIER: You weren't interested in any of the work they did validating this methodology that you are using?

MS. CLARK: Objection, argumentative.

MR. MARTZ: Well--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MARTZ: It depends on--

THE COURT: Wait. Sustained.

MR. MARTZ: Oh.

MR. BLASIER: What is the purpose of a validation study?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think I did my own validation study and I think the purpose of it--

MR. BLASIER: Move to strike, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained. Answer stricken.

MR. BLASIER: What is the purpose of a validation study?

MR. MARTZ: To determine whether or not a procedure works.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that that is what your research people at Quantico did?

MR. MARTZ: They produced something that they called a validation study. I know that, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And is it your testimony that you never looked at it?

MR. MARTZ: I never looked at it, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, during the lunch break would you--could you review that for us because I want to ask you some questions about it?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, I don't see any purpose for it, to be perfectly honest with you.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let me show you 1269-A and B. And for the record, 1269-A is discovery page 8419 and 1269-B is 8422. Will you look at those. Are those chromatograms?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, they are.

MR. BLASIER: Do they appear to be generated by the FBI?

MR. MARTZ: I would--I would not know that.

MR. BLASIER: Is that format used by the FBI?

MR. MARTZ: This is a format used by the Finnegan TSQ instrument.

MR. BLASIER: Is that the format you use?

MR. MARTZ: It is one that we have available at the FBI laboratory, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Same format as on all your charts?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And let's assume hypothetically that tests were done to determine how efficient your method was of removing EDTA. Do you have that hypothetical in mind?

MR. MARTZ: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: How would you test that hypothesis?

MR. MARTZ: Well, you would extract it and then run it against a known.

MR. BLASIER: Does it appear that that is what those charts do?

MS. CLARK: Objection, 721, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Can you check with your people at Quantico over the lunch hour to see whether they did that test and what they found?

MS. CLARK: Objection, 721. He did not rely on that. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Will you do that for me?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know what they will be there. I can call--what exactly do you want me to find out?

THE COURT: Why don't we confer with Agent Martz at the lunch hour.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: When the materials that you had put together were provided to the Prosecutors, is it your understanding that that validation study was provided as well?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Then is it fair to say that you didn't do any studies yourself to determine whether your methods for extracting blood or EDTA was efficient?

MR. MARTZ: I think I did. I think I did. On February the 8th I extracted. I was given two samples by someone in the laboratory; one with EDTA and one without, and I was very easily able to determine which stain contained the EDTA and which one didn't.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, move to strike, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever run a test where you did an extraction and then you did a second extraction to see if you had picked up all the EDTA in the first extraction?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if you didn't pick up all the EDTA in the first extraction, you are going to see less of it when you run the test?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Have you done any tests at all to determine whether the age of a bloodstain affects your ability to extract it with water alone?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether aged bloodstains can be extracted with the same efficiency with just water as new bloodstains?

MR. MARTZ: I had conducted several tests on old blood and two from 1993 and I think the other one was from 1991. These were EDTA bloodstains. And I was convinced, based on the analysis that I did with those stains, that the age of the blood, at least over three or four years, had no effect in me determining whether or not the stains were from preserved or non-preserved blood.

MR. BLASIER: Move to strike that all as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken in its entirety.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz--

THE COURT: Agent Martz, would you listen carefully, please, to the question and answer the question that is directed to you, sir.

MR. BLASIER: Did do you any tests to determine whether an old dried bloodstain, not blood from a tube, but a bloodstain that is older can be just as efficiently extracted from that stain as a new bloodstain that has been put on the stain and just dried for an hour or so, with the use of plain water?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did. I took two bloodstains from 1993 that had been on material since 1993. I extracted those and I got similar results for EDTA as other blood that was freshly prepared. I got similar results.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort in that particular test--by the way, when did you do that? Saturday?

MR. MARTZ: That was done last weekend.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you did that, did you make any effort to quantify the amount of blood that you were able to get out of that old blood stain?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any other base of experience vis-à-vis old bloodstains versus new bloodstains in terms of how efficient just using water is at removing all the blood?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree with Dr. Rieders that using an ammonia solution in water is a better way to make sure that you extract all the blood?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, are we talking about blood or EDTA?

MR. BLASIER: Both. Let's talk both.

MR. MARTZ: For EDTA I don't know, to be perfectly honest with you.

MR. BLASIER: And you did no testing to find that--answer that question either, did you?

MR. MARTZ: No, no.

MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you about the gate. Did you perform any tests or to your knowledge did the--your lab in Quantico perform any tests to determine whether or not a bloodstain, an EDTA bloodstain, placed on a metal gate and left exposed to the outside for, let's say, hypothetically a day to three weeks, whether there would be any degradation or loss of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever make any effort to determine the type of paint that was on the back gate?

MR. MARTZ: No, I didn't believe that it was necessary.

MR. BLASIER: Paints have metals that tend to attract EDTA, don't they?

MR. MARTZ: In my opinion the EDTA would stay in the bloodstain.

MR. BLASIER: Paints have metals that EDTA likes, don't they, and is very attracted to them?

MR. MARTZ: I think it would depend on the type of paint, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you do any tests at all to determine whether the type of paint upon which a bloodstain was deposited would attract some of the EDTA and remove it from the blood?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I used one particular paint that we had in the laboratory, a metal surface. I don't know exactly which type of paint it was, but I was able to place a bloodstain on a painted metal surface and effectively remove the EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: What effort did you make to find out whether the paint you used bore any similarity to the back gate?

MR. MARTZ: None.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to find out whether there was any rust on the back gate where that bloodstain was deposited?

MR. MARTZ: No. Again, I didn't feel it was necessary.

MR. BLASIER: Does rust attract EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: It--it could.

MR. BLASIER: It is iron, isn't it?

MR. MARTZ: Well, but iron exists in different states. That is iron oxide and I don't know the property of iron oxide for attacking EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: EDTA loves iron, doesn't it?

MR. MARTZ: In certain form, depending on the pH.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to determine what other environmental things might--let me rephrase. Did you make any effort to determine whether there was any fertilizer that had been used in the area of the gate and may have gotten to the bloodstain?

MR. MARTZ: No, no, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Do fertilizers contain chemicals that are attracted to EDTA or that EDTA is attracted to?

MR. MARTZ: I don't really now how that is relevant, but I guess that they could.

MR. BLASIER: Were you trying to, in your positive controls, design them in such a way that they mimicked as close as possible what you would have expected to find had EDTA blood been used and put on the back gate?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I tied to do that to the best of what I had available and did that with the sock. I used the same sock. With the gatepost, I didn't have that gatepost. We are talking many months later when I got the samples. The gatepost is certainly in different condition now than it was then. I couldn't stain it on the same area of the gate. Based on the testing that I did, I didn't feel that it was necessary to duplicate exactly the conditions because EDTA is a very, very stable chemical.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't it the purpose of a positive control to test the hypothesis--let's assume that EDTA blood was used under the conditions which these stains were deposited, preserved and collected and see what we find. Isn't that what a positive control is for?

MR. MARTZ: The positive control is to determine whether or not you can identify the substance that you are looking for and the matrix that it is on.

MR. BLASIER: Is one of the purposes of a positive control to try and simulate the hypothesis, let's assume that EDTA blood was used on these bloodstains and let's put it through the same type of conditions that the evidence was and see what we find at the end of the road?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean you can't duplicate everything exactly all the time. What you try to do is to duplicate as much as possible and that is why I used a painted surface in the laboratory to duplicate the painted gate, to determine whether or not I could remove EDTA from a painted surface.

MR. BLASIER: Your painted surface, what was that? What kind of metal was that?

MR. MARTZ: It was--I'm sure it was an iron. It was a can.

MR. BLASIER: It was a can, wasn't it?

MR. MARTZ: Yeah, it was a can.

MR. BLASIER: Wasn't anything like a gate?

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MARTZ: Well--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MARTZ: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Now, other than--by the way, when you painted your can, how long did you leave--I'm sorry, when you put the bloodstain on the can, how long did you leave it there before you swabbed it off?

MR. MARTZ: Probably 45 minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to deposit a stain on that can and leave it for a period of one day to three weeks to see what you might find?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever make any efforts to determine what the whether was from July--I'm sorry--from June 12th to July 3rd, the period of time when that bloodstain may have been on that gate?

MR. MARTZ: No. I didn't feel that that was necessary for my determination.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to determine whether that particular bloodstain had changed in terms of being weathered from one--from the time it was deposited until it was collected?

MR. MARTZ: No. You got to remember here, this bloodstain has been identified as human blood. DNA is a very fragile chemical. EDTA is a very, very, very stable chemical. So I felt that if it could be determined that it was blood, that I would have no trouble determining the EDTA content.

MR. BLASIER: Is your reason for not doing any of those things that I have been talking about is because you made assumptions that they wouldn't make any difference?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't know that I necessarily call them--well, you can call them assumptions. It was based on some scientific information that I had that I based that on.

MR. BLASIER: Was it based on any experimentation on your part at all?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think--I think it is in a way experiments that I performed over the last twenty years in the laboratory I think is based a lot on that.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever worked with--I think--didn't you say you had never worked with EDTA until this case?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I have worked with chemicals that are similar and I know what the melting point and boiling points of EDTA is and its property and their solubility and there are certain assumptions that you can make.

MR. BLASIER: Let's talk about the sock. Did you make any effort--let's assume that the sock was collected around June 13th, okay? And did you make any effort to determine how many times the sock had been examined under high-intensity lights or any other kind of lighting during the period of time June 13th until you got it?

MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: No. Again I didn't feel it was necessary. EDTA, when dried, is a very, very, very stable chemical. The FDA would not use it as a preservative if it wasn't stable. It is a very stable chemical.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any study anywhere that looks at the effect of light on EDTA in a dried bloodstain?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did you perform any such test?

MR. MARTZ: Well, in a sense I did. I looked at bloodstains that were several years old.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any idea what the history of those bloodstains were in terms of how often they had been examined and under what conditions?

MR. MARTZ: No, but I'm sure they were under various conditions.

MR. BLASIER: How do you know that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it is part of the FBI's procedure to dry the bloodstains on the cloth. They were dried back in 1993 on the cloth.

MR. BLASIER: Where did those stains come from?

MR. MARTZ: It was a case that was submitted to the FBI laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Where did they come from?

MR. MARTZ: From people.

MR. BLASIER: In what form?

MR. MARTZ: Liquid blood.

MR. BLASIER: That were then made into strains?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So those weren't stains deposited on a surface like a gate or a sock at all, were they?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean they were stains that we placed onto a fabric.

MR. BLASIER: They weren't evidence stains from a crime scene of blood taken off of evidence, were they?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did you do any tests to determine whether the effects of sudden temperature change or what the effects might be on EDTA in the sock of sudden temperature changes?

MR. MARTZ: No. Again, I didn't feel it was necessary. EDTA is a very stable chemical that will decompose I think at about 290 degrees centigrade. That it is a very hot temperature. It is a very stable chemical.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any studies that look at that question?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: So again, you are saying that you are making assumptions that it wouldn't make a difference, that is why you didn't check for it?

MR. MARTZ: I'm making assumptions based on my twenty years of experience working with chemicals.

MR. BLASIER: Is one of the reasons you didn't do some of these things is that you were kind of rushed on this?

MR. MARTZ: No. I believe that I was able to answer the question which was put to me and that was my sole objective, to answer the question, and I believe I was able to do that without doing all the things that have been mentioned.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that you have had time, since your testing in February, to do some of these validation type studies that I have suggested?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, you must realize I'm in charge of a unit at the FBI laboratory. I'm presently now in charge of the section until we get a new section chief. I am wearing a lot of different hats, I'm working cases, I'm reviewing the work of over twenty people, and right now I am actually in charge of over 200 people. I am in charge of the whole scientific analysis section of the FBI laboratory in the interim, until we get a new section chief, so I do have a lot of responsibilities at the FBI laboratory. And I believed that I answered the question satisfactorily. I did not need to do any other testing. Since the other day I have performed a few more tests, but other than that, I didn't feel that any other testing was needed.

MR. BLASIER: I take it from that answer that it is a time problem? It would take a lot of time?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it is that plus necessary. Was it necessary for me to do any other testing to answer the question? In my opinion it was not.

MR. BLASIER: What is the appropriate method if you are going to use mass spectrometry to quantify the amount in an unknown sample?

MR. MARTZ: Well, there is many different ways.

MR. BLASIER: What is the most accepted?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't know of whether it is the most accepted, but to me the best way in mass spectrometry is to use what is called a deuterated standard and that is what we routinely use at the FBI laboratory for quantitation. It is a very expensive means of quantitation, but I believe it is most effective in mass spectrometry for precise quantitation.

MR. BLASIER: Now, correct me if I am wrong. An internal standard, that is something that is very close to the EDTA, but you know it is there and you know how much is there, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Correct.

MR. BLASIER: And it is actually mixed in with the stain--with the liquid that you are going to look at, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: In other words, it is not run at one time and then your evidence is run at a second time?

MR. MARTZ: Correct.

MR. BLASIER: And the reason why you run them together is you can get this wide variation from one run to the next in terms of what comes out of the run, correct?

MR. MARTZ: It determines on your definition of "Wide variation." There is a some variation, but it is acceptable.

MR. BLASIER: You would agree on getting a four-fold difference on two things that are identical is not terribly precise, is it?

MR. MARTZ: Not for precise quantitation, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, we talked about whether you used an internal standard or not in Washington, did we not?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, we did.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember what you told me about that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I told you I would have liked to use an internal standard and the deuterated standard is not available.

MR. BLASIER: Actually you recall you told me that you would have loved to have one?

MR. MARTZ: I would have loved to have one, then I wouldn't have had to answer so many questions.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember telling me it was the ultimate way to quantify?

MR. MARTZ: That is the way that we prefer it at the FBI laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: You didn't use an internal standard, did you?

MR. MARTZ: Was not available.

MR. BLASIER: You didn't use an internal standard, did you?

MR. MARTZ: I did not use one because one was not available for the type of testing that I did.

MR. BLASIER: What efforts did you--what effort did you do to try and find one?

MR. MARTZ: I contacted the manufacturer of one of the largest radion of deuterated standards. They told me that it would be at least three months to develop it. It was a very expensive price also. The price didn't matter so much, but it was the time limit, but it would be at least three months to develop that standard for me or to make that standard.

MR. BLASIER: Who is Cambridge?

MR. MARTZ: That would be a company out of Canada that also makes deuterated standards.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever check with them?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: So you checked with one company?

MR. MARTZ: I checked with the one that we generally do business with, which is one of the largest producers of the deuterated standards.

MR. BLASIER: How many other companies are there that produce these kind of standards?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know, to be perfectly honest.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to find out any other companies that might have one?

MR. MARTZ: I believe when I inquired with the one company I asked them if any other--if they knew of any other company that produced it and I believe their response was they didn't know of any other company.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, about five minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Five minutes?

THE COURT: Five more minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: What is your understanding of a deuterated standard in terms of its cost?

MR. MARTZ: Well, to have one developed is totally different than to buy one. Generally you can buy them for several hundred dollars, but to have one developed may be many, many, many thousands of dollars.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree if one were commercially available it certainly would be within the budget of the FBI?

MR. MARTZ: Oh, sure, yes. Oh, sure.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you about your underlying data for the test that you did. Let's talk about the ones in February. I take it that these charts don't pop out of the machine, do they?

MR. MARTZ: No. You have to--you have to request them or you actually tell the instrument to print out a particular chart.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the data that is coming out of the machine, the raw data, what happens to that?

MR. MARTZ: It is stored on a computer.

MR. BLASIER: And it is stored on a computer for possible later analysis?

MR. MARTZ: Well, generally what we do at the FBI laboratory is after the case is completed, we will erase the file, because we only have so much storage space, so after we have dictated the case, and all the review has been done, we will erase the files.

MR. BLASIER: After you have completed the case? Now, where is the raw data that you did that formed the basis for all these charts right now?

MR. MARTZ: It no longer exists. It was erased off the computer when the case was dictated.

MR. BLASIER: It has been destroyed?

MR. MARTZ: Well, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does the FBI in their computer system have what's called a back-up system?

MR. MARTZ: Not for the--the instruments in the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you assume that when you had dictated your report that you were done with this case?

MR. MARTZ: I was--I was done with those analyses. I had made my opinion, a very careful opinion, and I was convinced of this and I--as far as I was concerned, I did not need to look at that data again. I had made my conclusions. I had printed out the appropriate charts and I would not need to see that data again.

MR. BLASIER: Weren't you expecting that you would be called as a Prosecution witness up until the day they rested?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That is irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Wasn't your state of mind such that you knew or you anticipated that you would be called to testify by the Prosecution in this case?

MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you know when the data was destroyed that this trial was still going on?

MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that without your underlying data there is no way that some other person can review that data?

MR. MARTZ: Well, obviously in this case someone has reviewed it, so I don't know how I can agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: I'm talking about the underlying data that forms the basis for the generation of these charts, the digital data?

MR. MARTZ: Can you ask that question again?

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the fact that you have destroyed the digital data, which is the underlying raw data for these tests, makes it impossible for anyone to review that digital data, anyone other than you? Even you can't review it?

MR. MARTZ: I mean, I can't even review it. I mean, that data is gone. Nobody can review that data any more, but the charts that represent the digital data have been printed out and those can be reviewed.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that there are different ways to analyze your digital data with this kind of a test, other than the charts you produced?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know that I understand that question.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. Do you know whether there are other ways to analyze digital data that comes out of the machine other than by producing just this kind of chart?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, I'm sure that there are, but you know, at the FBI laboratory what we do is trying to make identifications and for that we have certain charts that we point out that represent whether something is there or not and that is what we do all the time. Whether someone can do something else with that digital data, I don't know. It is not something that we do at the FBI laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Are you not familiar with the other methods that you can use with your Finnegan system to generate--using the raw data to generate--to do different kind of analysis?

MR. MARTZ: Maybe if you could give me some specific--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, we're going to take a break at this point.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: We are going to take a break. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to break for the noon hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And Agent Martz, you are ordered to come back at 1:30. All right. We will be in recess until 1:30. All right. Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

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

(At 11:52 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1995 1:30 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. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present with his counsel, People are represented. The jury is not present and Agent Martz is present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?

MR. BLASIER: No.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, counsel, if you recollect, we will conclude today at 4:00 o'clock, at least as far as the jury is concerned. Then we have a number of legal arguments we can take up at 4:00 o'clock. And let me just ask as the jury is coming in, counsel, did both sides receive the letter from counsel at KNBC?

MR. COCHRAN: We just got it. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. It may be germaine to our discussions.

(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. Agent Martz, would you resume the witness stand, please.

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

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, Agent Martz.

MR. MARTZ: Good afternoon.

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

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

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz.

MR. MARTZ: Good afternoon.

MR. BLASIER: During the lunch break, did you have an opportunity to call your folks at Quantico regarding the question of whether your method of extraction allowed you to remove all the EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And did you find--did you make a determination as to whether--first of all, did they test your method?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, they did.

MR. BLASIER: And did they determine that your method was capable or allowed you to remove a hundred percent of the EDTA from the sample you were extracting?

MR. MARTZ: They removed approximately 93 percent was the average.

MR. BLASIER: So they determined that your method did not remove all the EDTA, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you a couple more questions about destroying your data. Did you indicate that your criteria for when it's okay to destroy the data was when you thought a case was over?

MR. MARTZ: No. Once it's dictated.

MR. BLASIER: Once it's dictated.

MR. MARTZ: Once the case has been dictated and the report has left the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. How long after the report's left the laboratory in your mind is it okay to destroy the data?

MR. MARTZ: Immediately.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that using that standard, that never allows other scientists to review your data?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean we provide the data like in this case, the printouts, but the electronic data is lost, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And as part of your function as a criminalist, as an expert, you testify in cases and there are often times there are experts on other sides of the case, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And is your understanding that it's common for one expert from one side of the case to look at the other expert's data to see if they made the right decision, right interpretations?

MR. MARTZ: In the 20 years that I've been in the FBI laboratory, no one has ever asked to look at the digital data until now.

MR. BLASIER: Did you find out from Quantico whether they saved their digital data?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, they did.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that--well, would you agree with this? It would be relatively easy for you to save your data if you wanted to?

MR. MARTZ: Well, not relatively easy. There's only a limited amount of space on the hard drive, and once that that is full, then you have to find another means of saving that data. And I wouldn't agree that it's that easy. It's certainly not complicated, but it's something that we don't practice at the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Well, there are tape back-up systems for the kind of computer you have that are very easy to attach and use, aren't there?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't know about easy to attach and use. But they are available, yes. The deck equipment is quite complex and attachments. It's not like a simple, you know, PC home computer.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you accept that with that underlining digital data, you could do some additional things such as averaging spectra?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you could also do some further analysis by involving subtracting out background noise?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And these are things that you can no longer do because your data is gone, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Well, you can't do it on those data. You could always rerun the same samples or similar samples. There is bloodstain left in this particular case. If someone wanted to analyze that stain, they could certainly analyze it.

MR. BLASIER: But as far as the tests that you're testifying about, that can't be done, can it?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you described to us how you made your positive control samples. And that's K67 and K68?

MR. MARTZ: Those were the blood samples that I used to make my positive controls, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that was taken directly from the reference tubes of Mr. Simpson and Miss Simpson?

MR. MARTZ: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could you show me in your notes where you describe that process?

MR. MARTZ: Right there and right there (Indicating).

MR. BLASIER: Do your notes tell you how large a swatch you made?

MR. MARTZ: No, they don't.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you some questions about the tests that you performed on your own blood. You have that in mind?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when did you do that test?

MR. MARTZ: I believe the first one was April the 11th.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any records that you can check that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. I'm sorry. It's May 11th, 1995.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any notes describing how you did that experiment?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: You didn't write anything down, did you?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is it standard practice in your laboratory when you're performing tests like that that you don't write anything down?

MR. MARTZ: Well, if you perform the test the same way you perform the other tests that are written, sometimes a person may or may not elect to write down the exact same thing that he wrote down before. In this particular case, I examined it the same way I had examined all the other samples and I did not write down how I did it.

MR. BLASIER: So you performed these tests the same way that you did the other tests you've been testifying about?

MR. MARTZ: Pretty much so. I made a cutting. I extracted with water, filtered, centrifuged and injected.

MR. BLASIER: Well, you didn't use a bloodstain from evidence, did you?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Describe to me how you got non-EDTA blood to use.

MR. MARTZ: I went to the health service and I asked them to take two blood samples. I told them to take a non-EDTA sample first and then collect an EDTA sample. So they took a red stopper tube, collected blood and then took a purple stopper tube and collected blood.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the red top tube, does that have any chemicals in it to preserve the blood?

MR. MARTZ: I believe the one that they use was a serum collection tube, and I don't know if it did or not to be--I know it didn't have EDTA in it.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether a red top tube has any kind of preservative in it at all?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, from the point in time when you had your blood drawn into a red top tube, how long was it until you made a swatch?

MR. MARTZ: I believe it was several days.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any information indicating that the bloodstains in this case were ever put in a red top tube and allowed to sit for several days?

MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: So would you agree that that particular set of conditions that you did isn't anything like the testing that you did of the evidence in this case?

MR. MARTZ: No. I would disagree with that. EDTA is very soluble in blood, and in my opinion, it will be throughout the blood sample; and in preparing those samples, I don't believe that that would make a difference.

MR. BLASIER: When you put this blood in a red top tube and let it sit for several days, where did it sit?

MR. MARTZ: In the refrigerator at work.

MR. BLASIER: And was it still blood when you got it out several days later?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: How long does it take blood to coagulate unpreserved?

MR. MARTZ: Oh, I think about 5 minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Did this blood coagulate at all?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: So it had been coagulating for five days?

MR. MARTZ: It was a couple days, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And sitting in the red top tube for five days?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Have any indication that the blood that was used on these stains was clotted blood?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: One of the compound--one of the things that EDTA is used in is rubber, correct?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know that specifically, but I wouldn't--I would assume that it could be.

MR. BLASIER: What's the stopper made out of on the red top tube that you had the blood in for several days?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, I don't know to be perfectly honest with you.

MR. BLASIER: Does it look like rubber?

MR. MARTZ: It's either a rubber or synthetic rubber.

MR. BLASIER: Is the inside of a red top tube coated with anything?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, the red test tubes that were used had a chemical in them. I don't know what it was.

MR. BLASIER: Silicon?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether there's EDTA in silicon on the insides of blood tubes?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, no, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever do any studies by putting plain water in a red top tube, letting it sit for several days and testing to see whether it had any EDTA in it?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that you do not know the answer to the question of whether or not the EDTA or what looked like EDTA that you found in your blood came from the tube itself?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, I don't know that EDTA has ever been used in anything other than the purple top tube. Other than that, I don't have any information.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. I'm not talking about EDTA as a preservative in a liquid form in the tube. I'm talking about the tube itself containing materials that have EDTA. Did you do any research at all to determine whether or not what you found in the blood came from the tube rather than you?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you went back this weekend, you ran that sample again, didn't you?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And it had been sitting in--at that point, sitting in the red top tube for how long?

MR. MARTZ: Well, since May, and then I analyzed it in July.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. MARTZ: May--

MR. BLASIER: Was your purpose in running it again to determine whether you really had EDTA in your blood or not?

MR. MARTZ: No. It was just to show the stability of EDTA over time.

MR. BLASIER: So you weren't trying to determine whether you had EDTA in your blood when you did the second run?

MR. MARTZ: The purpose of all of my experiments from the beginning, as I mentioned, were to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved or nonpreserved blood and to differentiate between preserved and nonpreserved blood. I had--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Agent Martz?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The question was, the second run in July, what was the purpose of doing that, the second run?

MR. MARTZ: To distinguish between preserved blood and nonpreserved blood to show that I can do that on blood that had aged for several months.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: What would be the best way--if you really wanted to test whether you had EDTA in your blood, what would be the best way to do that in your opinion?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know about the best way. I'm sure that I do have EDTA in my blood. The question is how much I have in my blood, and to determine how much I have would depend on which instrumentation I would use, and I would probably want to take a larger volume of blood and somehow or another concentrate the EDTA for analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Well, you would agree, would you not, that the amount of EDTA you would expect in your blood from your diet is in the parts per billion range?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know that I could agree with that. I don't know that there's any data that substantiates that.

MR. BLASIER: All of the studies that we've looked at that you've provided to us indicate that, don't they?

MR. MARTZ: There was one study in 1954 and it had conflicting information.

MR. BLASIER: By the way, the textbook that I mentioned to you--remember the authors' names?

MR. MARTZ: Goodman and--Goodman and--I think I remember.

MR. BLASIER: That's a 1994 textbook, isn't it?

MR. MARTZ: But I believe in that particular case, they're referring back to the original study.

MR. BLASIER: Well, it's a 1994 textbook, isn't it?

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Is it a well-accepted current work of expertise in the area of pharmacology?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think what it has is references of the last work that was done in a particular area.

MR. BLASIER: Is this a treaty--treatise that is used in pharmacology as a standard reference work?

MR. MARTZ: It's a reference book, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any other reference work that contradicts that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. As I mentioned, in 1954, there was conflicting data in that paper.

MR. BLASIER: That's the one paragraph we read?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MR. BLASIER: Anything else?

MR. MARTZ: I think there's been some other studies on ion EDTA and its absorption that may or may not conflict it.

MR. BLASIER: Did you research that?

MR. MARTZ: I can't remember the exact articles, but there possibly was some other conflicting data on ion EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: When you researched this, did you attempt to find that kind of literature?

MR. MARTZ: What I was trying to find in literature was how much EDTA would be present in a person.

MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.

MR. MARTZ: And I could not satisfactory answer that question.

MR. BLASIER: But one of the things you looked for is how much is absorbed, for instance, with iron, right?

MR. MARTZ: Well one of the things that would be critical to determine that would be how much EDTA would be absorbed.

MR. BLASIER: Those studies, the ones that you are referring to, can you give me the name of one of them?

MR. MARTZ: Not right offhand.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you pulled together the literature to prepare for your testimony, is it fair to say that you tried to get the articles that were the most relevant to what you were going to testify about?

MR. MARTZ: I tried to get most relevant articles on EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, by the way, where is the underlying data when you ran your own blood, the digital data?

MR. MARTZ: It's been erased.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever write a report on testing your own blood?

MR. MARTZ: No. It was not casework.

MR. BLASIER: Then why did you destroy it before you dictated a report?

MR. MARTZ: There was nothing to dictate. It was research that I had performed on my own blood.

MR. BLASIER: Was it done for this case?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you tell the Prosecution you were going to do it?

MR. MARTZ: I don't believe I did.

MR. BLASIER: Did you tell them after you did it what the results were?

MR. MARTZ: I believe it was furnished to them at the same time it was furnished to you when you visited me on--about a week ago Tuesday.

MR. BLASIER: So you never wrote--I'm sorry. Were you done?

MR. MARTZ: Yeah. I never wrote a report.

MR. BLASIER: Were you ever asked to conduct any kind of a study to determine taking other people than you, checking their blood directly rather than putting it in any kind of container to see if there's any EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: No.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Did the Prosecution ever ask you to test any of the samples, the other forensic samples in this case, bloodstains that may have come from Nicole brown Simpson, for instance, to see whether they showed EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did they ever ask you to check any stains in the area of stains collected in Chicago to determine whether there's any EDTA in Mr. Simpson's blood from those stains?

MR. MARTZ: Not to my knowledge.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: Not to my knowledge.

MR. BLASIER: Did they ever ask you to test any of the other evidence in this case to see if there was EDTA present?

MR. MARTZ: Not to my knowledge.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon. Agent Martz, first of all, based on all of the testing that you conducted in this case, did you come to a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence bloodstains taken from the rear gate and taken from the socks found in the Defendant's bedroom had blood that came from the tube with the preservative known as EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And what conclusion was that?

MR. MARTZ: I concluded based on the work that I'd done on the 19th, the 22nd and the 28th that the bloodstains in question did not come from preserved blood, they did not come from blood that was preserved with EDTA.

MS. CLARK: Now, you were subpoenaed to testify here by the Defense; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct.

MS. CLARK: You've been asked a series of questions by Mr. Blasier concerning experiments and whether or not you'd conducted them.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: You were asked whether you conducted experiments to determine whether EDTA will break down if it is in blood that is on a metal surface such as a rear gate.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You know who Dr. Rieders is, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: You are familiar with the equipment he has in his lab?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.

MS. CLARK: Do you know who Dr. Ballard is?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Is he present here in court today?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he is.

MS. CLARK: Is he seated right back there at counsel table?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he is.

MS. CLARK: Is he the gentleman in the long blond hair and the glasses?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he is.

MS. CLARK: Are you familiar with the equipment that he has, sir?

MR. MARTZ: Some of the equipment that he has, yes.

MS. CLARK: Does he have a liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he does not have a liquid chromatogram mass spectrometer.

MS. CLARK: What is it that he has to your knowledge?

MR. MARTZ: I believe that he--

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: I believe that he has mass spec, mass spec capabilities.

MS. CLARK: Then the equipment that is possessed by Dr. Rieders and by Dr. Ballard, is that equipment sufficient to conduct the experiment of determining whether or not EDTA will break down or degrade when in blood on metal such as a gate?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And did Dr. Rieders ever confer with you about any experiments that he had conducted in that regard?

MR. MARTZ: No, he did not.

MS. CLARK: Or did Dr. Ballard?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MS. CLARK: You were asked whether or not you conducted any experiments to determine whether the type of paint found on the rear gate at 875 South Bundy would degrade EDTA in blood if placed on that paint. You remember that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I remember.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, could Dr. Rieders perform such an experiment?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: Could Dr. Ballard perform such an experiment?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, have they?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, they have not.

MS. CLARK: You were asked also, sir, about whether or not rust, such as what may be present on the rear gate at 875 South Bundy, may interact with EDTA to degrade it if in blood on that surface. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Could Dr. Rieders perform a test to determine whether or not that substance would degrade EDTA in blood?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning and ask to approach if necessary.

THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We're over at sidebar.

MR. BLASIER: It's not our burden of proof to demonstrate whether or not he did experiments. He can make comment on what tests he did or didn't do. That's completely inappropriate. He can certainly testify as to whether he thinks those kinds of tests are necessary or not, but not with respect to whether he could or couldn't do them.

MS. CLARK: He's the proponent of the evidence, your Honor. He's questioned the witness about whether or not he conducted certain tests and experiments to determine what the behavior of EDTA would be under those conditions. He's capable of performing such tests and the jury should be aware of the fact that in questioning the witness--

THE COURT: Keep your voice down.

MS. CLARK: --about the failure to conduct such tests, that he's capable of doing them as well. And I think it's a fair comment given the line of questioning that they have proposed to this witness whom they called.

THE COURT: All right. I'll sustain the objection as to any further questioning along this line as to Dr. Ballard. I'll overrule it as to Dr. Rieders.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Do you remember the last--

THE COURT: Rust.

MS. CLARK: Rust. Thank you.

THE COURT: Never sleeps.

MS. CLARK: You were asked a question as to whether or not you have conducted any experiment to determine whether or not EDTA on a bloodstain on a rusty surface will degrade as a result of contact with that rust. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Can--could Dr. Rieders perform such an experiment, sir, to determine whether or not EDTA would degrade under those conditions?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: And to your knowledge, has he?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: You recall you were asked a question as to whether or not you conducted any testing as to whether or not fertilizer--if EDTA in a bloodstain was subjected to fertilizer, whether that would break down the EDTA. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Could Dr. Rieders perform such a test or experiment, sir?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: And to your knowledge, has he?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall questions concerning whether or not high intensity light focused on the socks might degrade any EDTA that was present in the bloodstains on that sock? Remember?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, could Dr. Rieders perform such an examination or such an experiment to determine whether or not EDTA would degrade under that condition?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, has he?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: You were asked a series of questions concerning whether or not sudden temperature changes could cause EDTA to degrade in blood. Do you recall that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Could Dr. Rieders perform experiments to determine whether or not sudden temperature changes would affect or degrade EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, has he done so?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that you did confer with Dr. Rieders concerning the subject matter of this case on a couple of occasions, correct?

MR. MARTZ: It was on one occasion last week.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. MARTZ: It was on one occasion. I believe it was last week.

MS. CLARK: Now, the graphs that you generated as a result of the testing that you conducted were furnished to the Prosecution and to the Defense back in late February, early March?

MR. MARTZ: The one graph was. There was additional graphs that I did this weekend.

MS. CLARK: Other than the ones that you did this last weekend, were the other--was the other data submitted to the Defense and the Prosecution months ago?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.

MS. CLARK: At any point, did Dr. Rieders call to tell you that he could not form conclusions or opinions because such experiments as I previously outlined to you had not been done?

MR. MARTZ: No, he did not.

MS. CLARK: Now, you recall that Dr. Rieders testified that he felt that based on the EPA study concerning the maximum tolerance for EDTA in the blood based on an experiment with fish extrapolated from that that the normal amount or the maximum amount you would find in people would be in parts per billion. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: In your expert opinion, sir, is it--was it appropriate for him to use that EPA study to form a conclusion as to what would be the normal amount of EDTA you would expect to find in an average person?

MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong.

MS. CLARK: Now, if all of the--well, are you aware, sir, of any study that has been conducted to determine what amount of EDTA you could expect to find in any one of us on a given day?

MR. MARTZ: No, I'm not aware of any study.

MS. CLARK: Now, you were asked a series of questions about the quantification of blood in the samples that you took for testing. You recall those questions?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Now, if you wanted the exact quantification of the amount, of the amount of blood that you are testing, you could do the tests that counsel proposed; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: Well, what that does is determines how many hemoglobin is in the blood, and from that, you can estimate how much blood is present.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, the evidence that you're speaking of that you tested, sir, is that evidence is still in existence?

MR. MARTZ: As far as I know, it is, yes.

MS. CLARK: And are you aware, sir, that the evidence has been in the possession of the Defense on more than one occasion?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.

MS. CLARK: And could they have conducted the tests they propose to you to conduct in terms of quantifying the amount of blood in any given sample?

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Could a scientist with the capabilities that you're aware of in Dr. Rieders' lab conduct the test outlined to you by counsel for a quantification of blood in any given sample?

MR. BLASIER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, if what you want to know is whether or not any EDTA that may be detected in a stain comes from preserved tube, a preservative EDTA tube or comes from natural blood that has low levels of EDTA, would it be important to quantify with precision the amount of EDTA that you would find?

MR. MARTZ: Not in this particular case. The studies that I did and the studies that were done at Quantico demonstrated very easily that you could determine between preserved blood and nonpreserved blood. We're talking a factor of 100 to a thousand times as much EDTA in preserved blood. And as I mentioned, we don't even know what the amount of EDTA is in human blood. And as I mentioned also, we don't even know whether in fact EDTA was found in these particular samples. The only thing I know for sure is, EDTA was present in the control blood samples that I made from the K67 and K68 blood samples.

MS. CLARK: Now, you were asked if you had determined whether or not the red top tube has some EDTA in it just by the virtue of the way it's manufactured. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Would you be capable of testing the tube to determine that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I would.

MS. CLARK: Would Dr. Rieders be capable of testing the tube to determine that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he would.

MS. CLARK: With respect to--you were questioned about destroying data, the digital data. First of all, what is counsel referring to with respect to the digital data?

MR. MARTZ: Well, in the mass spectrometer, it's a very complex instrument and you're acquiring a lot of data. For all the points that you want, you're acquiring a lot of data that is really not relevant and it takes up a lot of computer space. What you're doing is waiting for the peak to come out, but you're acquiring the data the whole time. So each time you perform a scan on the instrument, you're saving that data. Each one and a half seconds, I'm storing a lot of data on the computer. I'm recording all the masses that I'm looking for and putting it on the computer so then I can retrieve after the run is over and look to determine whether something is present or not, and then I will print out that data that is relevant to the case.

MS. CLARK: And when you print out the data that's relevant to the case, are you referring to the graphs that have been--some of which have been shown?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: What does the digital data do in terms of helping you to interpret that graph?

MR. MARTZ: Well, the digital data allows me to select the appropriate scan or mass spectrum to print out. The printout is what I interpret, which comes from the digital data. But I make my interpretation based upon the chart that is printed out.

MS. CLARK: Now, if what someone wants is the digital data that backs up the graphs that you have generated, could you go back and test the evidence again and preserve that digital data?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, you could.

MS. CLARK: Has anyone asked you to do that?

MR. MARTZ: No, they have not.

MS. CLARK: When Mr. Blasier visited you in Washington D.C., did he ask you to do that?

MR. MARTZ: No, he did not.

MS. CLARK: And the graphs that you've presented here in court, are those an accurate depiction of the results of the testing that you performed?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, they are.

MS. CLARK: So the digital data simply tells you where to print out a graphs?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it has all the data that's been stored. Only some of that is relevant. I will go through, take out the relevant data, print it out and put that with the case.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so what that--the relevant data being the graphs that we've seen here in court?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. You're aware of Dr. Rieders' capability, sir. Could he test the blood of Nicole brown Simpson that is currently in evidence for EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I believe that he could.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, has he done so?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: In fact, as far as you know and as far as you are aware, sir, Dr. Rieders has done nothing more than take your test results and give his own interpretation to them. Is that your understanding?

MR. MARTZ: That's my understanding.

MS. CLARK: And he has performed no independent tests on any of the evidence in this case?

MR. MARTZ: That's my understanding.

MS. CLARK: Sir, you were asked whether or not you had taken bloodstains recovered from metal and aged them for three weeks to determine whether or not you could still detect EDTA in them. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes I do.

MS. CLARK: If the hypothesis given to you is that there is an allegation that evidence has been planted at or near the time of collection and not aged for three weeks, would it be--would it have any relevance to age that bloodstain for three weeks before testing it for EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: No. I mean, if you're going to try to duplicate exactly what happened, you would want to do it the same time period. As I mentioned earlier, I don't believe that either of those would be necessary in the case of EDTA. It is such a stable chemical.

MS. CLARK: And could you explain what you mean by that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, EDTA is used as a preservative. It's used because it is a very stable chemical and it also helps to stabilize other chemicals. Its melting point or decomposes at about 300 degrees centigrade. That's a very hot temperature. I've seen no studies at all that EDTA will break down when it's in the dry form, and based on the studies that I've done on the blood, I can very easily identify EDTA in preserved blood that is several years old.

MS. CLARK: And how were you able to prove that, sir?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I took the bloodstains that we had in the laboratory that were on swatches since 1993 and I analyzed those, and I got similar results as I get from preserved blood that's preserved today or weeks ago.

MS. CLARK: You were talking about a validation study, sir. First of all, let me ask you this. The procedures and methods that you employ to detect--determine whether or not you could detect and then identify EDTA in any of the samples in this case, was that any new method that you never used before?

MR. MARTZ: No. I'm basically using the mass spectrometer which I've used in the laboratory since 1975. That's--my opinion is based on the mass spectrum of the chemicals.

MS. CLARK: In the course of your work for the FBI, sir, over the past 20 years, how common is it for you to be asked to look for a certain chemical in A--in either blood or urine?

MR. MARTZ: It's very common.

MS. CLARK: And so your being requested to ask to look for EDTA in this case, was that an unusual request in terms of being asked to look for a chemical in either blood or urine?

MR. MARTZ: No. I mean, we're a chemistry toxicology unit and we're routinely asked to identify not only a known chemical, but unknown chemicals. A lot of times, we receive evidence that people don't know what the chemical is, and they want us to tell them what the chemical, drug or poison is.

MS. CLARK: So in a case like that where you're submitted a sample and they just say, "Tell us what's in it," is that, in order of magnitude, harder or more difficult or easier than being told look for this particular compound?

MR. MARTZ: It can be all of the above. In a drug case, if you're given a white powder, a lot of times you will test to see if it's cocaine or heroin. A lot of times, it may not be. In cases we've had in the past where people have sold something purported to be cocaine, it may end up being boric acid, which is a poison. Cocaine is sometimes cut with boric acid. So a lot of times, we may be looking for one thing and it may be another. You really don't know what you're dealing with a lot of times, but we do have the capability in the laboratory to not only identify a chemical that we suspect, but unknown chemicals.

MS. CLARK: So have you been asked in the past to identify a chemical for the first time?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. On many occasions.

MS. CLARK: Is that--that's a routine thing?

MR. MARTZ: Pretty much in our unit of the laboratory, the chemistry toxicology, it's fairly routine to identify something that either somebody else can't identify, doesn't have the capability to identify or has never seen before.

MS. CLARK: In the course of your work for the FBI, sir, as unit chief, do you ever teach mass spectrometry?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do. We have a facility out of Quantico, Virginia, and I've been teaching at Quantico probably since about 1980 different courses in mass spectrometry, primarily relating to some of the fields that we do in the unit, arson analysis, toxicology, general chemistry, chromatography classes, explosive classes, a variety of classes in which mass spectrometry is used. And we actually had a course several years ago for the first time where we invited people to do mass spectrometry, and we had a one-week course just on mass spectrometry.

MS. CLARK: And who was it that you were teaching in that class?

MR. MARTZ: Generally peers, people from other laboratories that are doing forensic chemistry and toxicology.

MS. CLARK: Would that mean private--private labs such as those run by Dr. Rieders?

MR. MARTZ: Generally for our classes, they're generally government labs. However, we do have symposiums. We're having one coming in arson, and we're going to invite people not only from the government, but from private laboratories.

MS. CLARK: And in that regard, sir, you indicated that you're a member of currently only one of the forensic organizations noted by counsel. I can't remember which one right now.

MR. MARTZ: It was the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Now, in those organizations, sir, do people get together and exchange ideas, the new trends that are happening in toxicology?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, they do.

MS. CLARK: In the course of your job, sir, do you interact daily with people from around the country and in fact around the world concerning the latest trends in toxicology?

MR. MARTZ: In both chemistry and toxicology, yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Is it unusual for a local agency such as Los Angeles to request the assistance of the FBI, the toxicology unit, to assist in performing tests as you did in this case?

MR. MARTZ: No, it is not.

MS. CLARK: Do you--is it a fairly routine thing for you to be requested by local agencies to perform testing in some regard?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: Now, you have--you indicated that you testified for the Defense on one occasion?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: What was that? What was that experience?

MR. MARTZ: It was a murder case in where two police officers were being accused of murder. One of the people they were arresting was killed or died.

MS. CLARK: And what did you have to do in that case?

MR. MARTZ: It was something that I do--I shouldn't say fairly routinely, but something else I've involved in is drug testing in hair. In that particular case, I had done some drug testing in the victim's hair.

MS. CLARK: Sir, does it matter to you which side calls you in terms of whether or not you tell the truth?

MR. MARTZ: No. No. Not at all.

MS. CLARK: Your tests are your tests, your results, your results?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Regarding the validation studies, sir, you indicate that the Quantico's result was that your method of extraction of EDTA recovered 93 percent?

MR. MARTZ: On the average, recovered 93 percent, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you use the same method of extraction for the evidence stains as you do for the reference sample?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So, for example, if you are extracting EDTA from a cloth swatch that has blood from the reference tube of Miss Brown and you are extracting EDTA from a cloth swatch that has the blood from the rear gate, are you using the same method?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.

MS. CLARK: So whatever amount of EDTA you're leaving behind in the reference stain, you're leaving behind in the evidence stain. Is that a fair statement?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, it--I mean, it's a fair statement. I mean, it wouldn't be exactly a hundred percent. You know, you wouldn't get 93 in this and 93, but it would be relatively the same amount that you would expect to extract, yes.

MS. CLARK: And what impact, if any, would there be on the ultimate result in terms of the relative degrees or relative amounts of EDTA would there be on any discrepancy in the amount of EDTA extracted from the evidence stain versus the reference sample?

MR. MARTZ: In my opinion, it would have no effect whatsoever. We're dealing with chemicals that are placed in blood at 2,000 parts per million. That is a very, very, very large quantity of any substance in the blood. It's very easy to distinguish 2,000 parts per million from what could possibly be one part per million.

If you notice, I said "Possibly." I'm not even convinced that what was found in my blood and in the sock and in the gate was EDTA. I was not able to prove that. If it is, it's still in the parts per million at the most. And to distinguish between parts per million, one or two parts per million and 2,000 parts per million in chemistry with analytical instruments is very easy to do.

MS. CLARK: So, sir, then are you saying that the dramatic difference in the results more than compensates for any small degree of variation?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated earlier that you were not trying to quantitate, in other words, you weren't trying to tell us, well, I had precisely these many parts per million of EDTA in evidence stains and these many parts per million in the reference stain. Do you recall testifying to that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. That's correct. My whole reason for doing this was to differentiate preserved blood from nonpreserved blood.

MS. CLARK: And for that purpose, sir, is it necessary to quantify with the precision that you were being asked about before, that is to perform tests specifically for quantification?

MR. MARTZ: No, it is not.

MS. CLARK: Why not?

MR. MARTZ: Because the instrument is--was mentioned earlier, had a full fold--four-fold difference in the 50 part per billion standard. Between one part per million and a thousand parts per million, we have a thousand fold difference. So these are very, very, very different numbers. It's very easy to differentiate between what possibly could be one or two parts per million from what is between 1,000 and 2,000 parts per million.

MS. CLARK: And so it becomes very obvious without the need for precise quantification?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you some charts. I would rather--I was going to ask you more about that, but I think maybe we can show it--

MR. MARTZ: Okay.

MS. CLARK: --better than tell us. Now, you indicated to us I think earlier that you began testing on February 8th?

MR. MARTZ: February 8th was the day that I had someone prepare two samples in the laboratory, one with EDTA and one without from two test tubes of blood that we had in the laboratory from the same person. Those were prepared. I analyzed them with the procedure developed by myself and--at Quantico and analyzed for the presence of EDTA, and I was very easily able to determine which of the stains came from preserved blood.

MS. CLARK: And how was that?

MR. MARTZ: That was done with the--the first experiment I ran, which is negative ion mass spectrum, and got a 40 sonometer signal for the one with the EDTA and I got no signal for the sample that didn't have the EDTA.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you did that, sir, were you in possession of the evidence from this case, that is a sock and the gate stains?

MR. MARTZ: No, I was not.

MS. CLARK: How did you perform that test on what?

MR. MARTZ: It was performed on the blood that we had in the laboratory from a case in which we put on to filter paper.

MS. CLARK: And how old was that blood?

MR. MARTZ: I think that blood was approximately six months old. It was one of the older cases we had in the unit.

MS. CLARK: And how did you retrieve an unpreserved sample? You know what I mean? You had obviously a sample from a reference tube and EDTA tube, correct?

MR. MARTZ: In this particular case and a lot of cases, they submit to the laboratory blood in both red stopper tubes and purple stopper tubes. And this particular case, they had submitted both of those samples.

MS. CLARK: So the red stopper tubes are the ones without EDTA preservative?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, you were asked a series of questions concerning that about whether blood in a test tube that has coagulated to some degree, because it's not in preservative, the red cap tube, whether that would affect the finding of EDTA. And in your opinion, would the coagulation of the blood affect any EDTA readings you may get?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. No qualification to answer that.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MS. CLARK: Let me put it to you another way. You said that you removed your own blood and put it in a red stopper tube for testing?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I didn't--

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Blood was taken from you and put in a red stopper tube?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. And you tested that for EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you obtained the result that you did?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And when you first began the testing on February 8th, you said you had blood that was in the purple cap tube, that's the EDTA blood, and then you had purple in a red cap--blood in a red cap tube, which is non-EDTA preserved, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: When you tested that non-EDTA preserved blood in a red stopper tube on February 8th, what result did you obtain?

MR. MARTZ: No EDTA was identified in that particular sample.

MS. CLARK: And was that blood refrigerated when you got it?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. Well, it was--we refrigerated it at the laboratory, yes.

MS. CLARK: And in fact, how long had it been refrigerated for?

MR. MARTZ: Approximately six months.

MS. CLARK: So was it somewhat coagulated when you tested it?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you found no EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, I think you indicated that you then began testing on this case on February 19th?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And when you began that testing, sir, can you tell us how you prepared the samples for testing?

MR. MARTZ: I took cuttings of the samples, very small cuttings, maybe two by two millimeters, and placed those cuttings into a tube to be extracted, and then I also took the known samples of blood and placed with the case of the one blood, placed it on the sock in a controlled area and then placed the other blood on a controlled swatch that I had took similar cuttings from those and compared my results.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated earlier that there were--when you cut samples from the evidence, you make sure to cut them at least as large if not larger than you cut from the reference samples. Do you recall that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Does the Court have scissors?

THE COURT: Of course.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Would you please show the jury--I'm going to give you this post-it and ask you to show the jury how you cut samples for your testing.

THE COURT: You mean the size or how to manipulate the scissors?

MS. CLARK: The size.

MR. MARTZ: (The witness complies.) These are very large scissors.

MS. CLARK: What kind of scissors did you use?

MR. MARTZ: A lot smaller.

MS. CLARK: Smaller ones?

MR. MARTZ: Yeah. I can do it. This is actually a little bit larger than the stain I would have taken (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness has placed that piece of paper that he cut onto this legal size paper that I have. I'm going to tape it down so that it will be in evidence.

MS. CLARK: But that's a little bit larger than the sizes you cut?

MR. MARTZ: Right. Just a little bit larger.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: I wonder if this will show up on the elmo.

THE COURT: It will, but you'll need a size reference. Pencil.

MS. CLARK: Pencil?

THE COURT: Pencil. I'm sorry? This is just a relative demonstration I assume.

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Looks really big now. So the jury can see, actually it's just a little larger--it looks like it goes--extends just a little bit past the tip of the pen.

THE COURT: Well, it fits well within the lines of the paper.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. That's a better measure.

MS. CLARK: All right. And you said that's larger than you cut?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you indicated that you cut a larger piece of the evidence sample or as large, but no smaller than the reference sample, what does that accomplish?

MR. MARTZ: Well, that was to ensure that I got at least as much blood from the questioned samples as I did from the control.

MS. CLARK: And why is that important?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it turns out that it really isn't that important because there is a dramatic difference between the blood with and without EDTA. But I just wanted to make sure that I had at least as much or more of the questioned sample.

MS. CLARK: And was that an effort to compensate for the issue raised earlier, that if you have more sample, you'll have more EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Was that really of concern to you in this case?

MR. MARTZ: Not really because it's a dramatic difference between blood preserved with and without EDTA.

MS. CLARK: So any small variance would be easily compensated for by the cutting method you used?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And because of the dramatic differences?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you a graph. First of all, on the 19th, you indicated I think on direct examination that you conducted the negative ion mode?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, why was it that you used a negative ion mode?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I selected the negative ion mode because it's a very, very selective technique. Most chemicals will give a positive ion mass spectrum, but most will not give a negative ion mass spectrum. So I selected the negative ion because it's a lot more selective of a technique.

MS. CLARK: When you mean it's a lot more selective, sir, can you describe it? Can you explain that a little bit?

MR. MARTZ: Well, probably one out of every hundred chemicals that I run will work much better on the negative ion than the positive ion. So its selectively is 99 times greater than that of positive ion in that particular example. Most chemicals that I analyze will not give a negative ion response.

MS. CLARK: So that already discriminates to a large degree by weeding out those chemicals that will not react to the negative ion?

MR. MARTZ: Exactly. That was my sole purpose.

MS. CLARK: And you already knew that EDTA would react with the negative ion?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And in this graph that we have here--

MS. CLARK: I guess I'd be asking to mark it as People's 543?

THE CLERK: 542.

MS. CLARK: 542. Thank you.

(Peo's 542 for id = graph)

MS. CLARK: All right. Showing you, sir, People's 542 that's now up on the elmo, on the far left of this graph, we have K67 and K68. What are those?

MR. MARTZ: Those were the bloodstains that I prepared from the known blood samples, one on the sock and the other on a piece of cotton or gauze.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

MR. MARTZ: They were the known samples that I prepared from the K67 and K68 blood samples.

MS. CLARK: And K67 and K68 refer to which parties?

MR. MARTZ: Those were from Nicole and OJ Simpson.

MS. CLARK: Now, what do those results indicate to you in terms of the parts per million shown?

MR. MARTZ: Well, that's ion count there. It doesn't show anything about parts per million, but--

MS. CLARK: Okay. Ion count.

MR. MARTZ: It clearly shows there's an abundance of ions of--for EDTA in both the K67 and K68 samples.

MS. CLARK: Now, to the right of that, we have Q206 and Q204. What are those?

MR. MARTZ: Those were the samples that I had cut from the sock and the swatch from the gate post, and I treated those the same way I did the K67 and K68 and I analyzed them in similar fashion and did not record any ions for EDTA.

MS. CLARK: And the one next to the very far right, that says 100 PPM?

MR. MARTZ: That is a standard I ran of a hundred parts per million of EDTA just to ensure that the instrument was working properly.

MS. CLARK: Okay. What is the--what do you mean when you say "A standard"?

MR. MARTZ: That's a known EDTA sample that I took, put in solution at a hundred parts per million.

MS. CLARK: And when you run something, a known quantity on the--on the mass spec, what does it help you to determine?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it shows you that the instrument is working properly. That's the main reason that I used it here, just to show that the instrument was working properly.

MS. CLARK: Did it also indicate to you that you could detect an amount of 100 parts per million at least?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Now, based on the testing you performed on the 19th, what was your conclusion with respect to the question that you were asked as to whether or not any of the evidence in this case, the blood on the gate and the sock could have come from a preserved blood test tube containing EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: It was a dramatic difference between the ion count which I received on K67 and K68 and did not receive any ion count for the 204 and the 206. It's my opinion that the bloodstains on Q20406 and Q206 did not come from preserved blood, EDTA preserved blood which is represented by K67 and K68.

MS. CLARK: And based then on the testing that you performed on February 19th, you had the answer; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct.

MS. CLARK: But you didn't stop testing?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: Even though you had the answer?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You were shown the letter by counsel from Mr. Harmon in which he requested that you perform the testing?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: In that letter, he pointed out to you the language which stated that you were being asked--putting it up again on the elmo. You were being asked to refute the possibility that the stain on the sock could have come from Nicole's reference sample and the same thing with respect to the gate. Sir, did you take that to mean that we were demanding a particular result from you?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: Would it have mattered if you thought we had been?

MR. MARTZ: No, it would not have.

MS. CLARK: You were going to perform the test you would perform in any event?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And report the result that you got?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you take that to mean anything more than the Prosecution's confidence that such items were not planted?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: And so when you went to conduct your test, did you go into it with any bias as to what you would or would not find?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: And did you have any allegiance either way towards what you would or would not find?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: Had you detected evidence that indicated to you that the blood on the rear gate and on the sock did indeed come from a preserved EDTA test tube, would you have reported those results?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I would have.

MS. CLARK: And would you have come in to testify to them?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I would have.

MS. CLARK: And is that what you found?

MR. MARTZ: That is not what I found.

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect, counsel, that you're referring to page 2 of Defense exhibit 1263.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: So after you completed your testing on the 19th and concluded that the blood was not from an EDTA preserved tube, you went on to do further testing?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And why was that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, there had been a lot of talk about EDTA being a preservative and being in fabrics and being everywhere else. So I wanted to be thorough and just to see if I could defect any traces of EDTA whatsoever in bloodstains.

MS. CLARK: And given what you've been telling us about the EDTA that's in soap and in detergent and in our food, did you have any opinion as to whether or not you thought trace amounts would be found in normal unpreserved blood?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, it's only logical to assume that if a person is eating EDTA, that some of it will be in their blood. The question is, is how much, and that's what I don't think anyone really knows today.

MS. CLARK: And with respect to the article referred to by Dr. Rieders and the one--and by counsel today, the one from 1954, to your knowledge, that's the only one that does anything in the way of measuring EDTA in the body of a person, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That particular case, it was a carbon 14 study, and they were able to inject EDTA, and they were able to detect up to 30 parts per million in the blood.

MS. CLARK: And why did you find that article not to be helpful in terms of detecting what a normal level would be in someone's blood?

MR. MARTZ: Because when they did the ingestion study, they only gave the subjects 1.5 milligrams, which is a lot lower than would be suspected or be consumed in the average diet.

MS. CLARK: All right. I think you indicated on direct examination that people would expect to eat roughly 50 to a hundred milligrams a day of food containing EDTA or EDTA in food?

MR. MARTZ: That was in front of the reference articles that I provided, yes.

MS. CLARK: And this particular article from 1954, the study had the subjects eating only 1.5 milligrams orally?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in that case, sir, you would expect to find much less in the blood than if they were eating or ingesting orally the amount that we--the studies have determined we actually do ingest, which is 50 to a hundred milligrams. Would that be a fair statement?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it would.

MS. CLARK: Was there any other problem with that article in its applicability to the experiments done in this case?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, only that it did have some conflicting information about the absorption of EDTA.

MS. CLARK: With respect to the absorption of EDTA, are there different types of salts used in different EDTA forms?

MR. MARTZ: The FDA has authorized the use of three different forms of EDTA to be put into food. This particular study only addressed one of those forms of EDTA.

MS. CLARK: Now, what's the significance of that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't know to be perfectly honest with you. But unless you test it, you don't know. I mean in the body, they could all be converted to the same thing in the stomach. I don't know for sure how the absorption would change, but until the study is done, you just don't know.

MS. CLARK: And for that reason, in your opinion, sir, as an expert, would it be appropriate to rely on that article to base any calculations on the amount of EDTA you would expect to find in an average person on any particular day?

MR. MARTZ: I would not use that--that study to try to determine that.

MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, based on the studies that have been done indicating we all eat 50 to a hundred milligrams of EDTA a day, did you form the opinion that some trace amount of EDTA might be in everyone's blood on any given day?

MR. MARTZ: In my opinion, there would be EDTA in everyone's blood.

MS. CLARK: Now, when I say "Trace amount," sir, if the substance detected on the rear gate and the sock is EDTA, which I understand you have not concluded, but if that is the case, would you quantify those as trace amounts?

MR. MARTZ: They would be in the parts per million.

MS. CLARK: Which qualifies for trace amount categorization?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it depends on your definition, but a part per million to most people would be a trace.

MS. CLARK: And would that amount be consistent with what might be a normal level in someone?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't think anybody knows to be perfectly honest with you. It could be, but I don't have any factual information to say that it is or isn't. Only that in my blood, I saw the same indications. But you've got to remember, I don't know that that is EDTA. I have not proved that.

MS. CLARK: In that regard, sir, did you find--in looking at the results of your testing on the sock, the gate and yourself, did you find certain consistencies in the readings and what the graphs demonstrated to you?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And what were those?

MR. MARTZ: It--the one graph demonstrated or some of them did, in my blood, the gate and the sock, there's low levels of an ion that I look for with EDTA, very little levels compared to the EDTA preserved blood. I don't have the explanation as to what they're from. I believe they could be from other chemicals. It could be EDTA or it could be some artifact in the instrument due to some type of matrix effect with the blood.

MS. CLARK: And in that regard, the fact that it could be another compound, sir, in your opinion, in order to rule out any other compound as being the substance detected on the rear gate and the sock, would it be appropriate in your opinion to look at the Merck index for parent ions of a 292 weight?

MR. MARTZ: Well, what I would not do with the Merck index is just look at compounds with a molecular weight of 292. In my experiment that I conducted, I did daughters of 293. So people may assume that what I'm looking for is all compounds with a molecular weight of 292. But that's not the case.

MS. CLARK: No. I forgot to ask, what is the Merck index, sir?

MR. MARTZ: The Merck index is a reference book of about 10 thousand common chemicals that are used.

MS. CLARK: And does that index indicate for each of the compounds that it lists what the ions and what the ion count should be?

MR. MARTZ: Well, no, it doesn't. What it does list though is the molecular weight of the compound. So it's a way that you can determine how many compounds are of a various molecular weight.

MS. CLARK: And is it referenced only by the parent ion?

MR. MARTZ: Well, there's a lot of different references in the book. You can look up by molecular formula. Some of them you can look up by molecular weight. If you have the computer program, you can do a lot of searches.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated on direct examination that--some point this morning, you received additional compounds of the--of a similar molecular weight to the substance as you found in the evidence on the rear gate and the sock?

MR. MARTZ: Well, in the Merck index, I believe molecular weight 292 and 293, there were probably approximately about 50 compounds that would give those molecular weights. But what you have to consider is, there's probably multi thousand compounds that have a higher molecular weight that you would also have to consider as giving the same results. Now, compound with a lower molecular weight, unless something adds to it, you can pretty much eliminate. But just looking at the Merck index and looking at compounds molecular weight 292 or 293, you can't eliminate all the compounds in the book with higher molecular weights that could give a similar response.

MS. CLARK: Well, how is that? If it has a higher molecular weight, how is it going to give a similar response to a 292 or 293?

MR. MARTZ: Well, with a mass spectrometer, I'm only allowing that one mass to go through. Now, there's nothing to preclude a compound of a larger mass breaking down to 293 and then breaking down to the 162 or the 160 ion. That's very possible, and that's why I make sure that I do a full daughter spectrum before I ever identify a chemical in mass spectrometry.

MS. CLARK: When you say a "Full daughter spectrum," what do you mean by that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, with EDTA, when you take the molecular weight or the molecular ion and you bombard it in the second quadrupole, it will fragment to ions. We talked earlier about some of those ions or Dr. Rieders did yesterday, the 160 ion. Well, you also have a 132 ion. And some of the molecular ion passes through the quadrupole, the 293 in this case, the quasi molecular ion. And you not only want those three ions, but you want them at a certain ratio. In this particular case, the 160 is what's called the base peak. That's the largest ion. And then the 293 would be the second largest and the 132. So we not only want all those ions before we identify. We want them in a particular ratio.

MS. CLARK: Now, scientifically speaking, sir, is it very important to insist that the whole spectrum be shown and in the appropriate ratio before you're willing to identify a particular compound in a court of law or anywhere?

MR. MARTZ: In the chemistry unit, we pretty much require that if we're dealing with mass spectrometry alone. Now, there are other ways to identify chemicals. But if we're doing mass spectrometry, we want a full daughter spectrum. Unfortunately, mistakes have been made in other laboratories where they do single ion monitoring or look for just certain ions. It's a very dangerous practice.

MS. CLARK: And when you say "A very dangerous practice," by that, sir, do you mean that you may identify a compound, for example, in this case as EDTA when it really isn't?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in order to guard against that kind of error, is it important then to make sure that the full daughter spectrum is shown?

MR. MARTZ: In my opinion, that is correct, yes.

MS. CLARK: Was the full daughter spectrum shown in the evidence of the rear gate, the sock or your blood?

MR. MARTZ: No, it was not.

MS. CLARK: Conversely, sir, was the full daughter spectrum shown in the reference samples from the Defendant and Nicole brown?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.

MS. CLARK: And for that reason, sir, in your opinion, is it scientifically correct or appropriate to identify the substance in the rear gate and the sock as EDTA in the absence of the full daughter spectrum?

MR. MARTZ: In this particular case, it is not appropriate to identify EDTA based on the data that I have provided for the sock and the gate.

MS. CLARK: Now, having obtained the negative result for the sock and the gate on February 19th, you said you went on to conduct further testing on February 21st?

MR. MARTZ: The 21st was pretty much to determine the minimum amount of stain I would have to use in order to detect EDTA.

MS. CLARK: And when you say that, tell us what you mean.

MR. MARTZ: Well, what I did was, I cut out some small--I put five microliters of blood onto a filter paper and I divided that up. So I took--which would be equivalent to .75 microliters of blood, 1. And 2.5 microliters of blood. Then I extracted those samples. And I was able to detect the EDTA in all three samples. And in the one sample that was the smallest, I got the smallest ion count. The one in the middle, I got the middle ion count, and the largest sample I cut, I got the largest ion count. And from that, I was able to determine that the minimum detectable amount of blood will be probably a half a microliter of blood.

MS. CLARK: Half a microliter?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: How big a stain is that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it's probably a little bit larger than the tip of an pencil.

THE COURT: Let's take a brief recess. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take the mid-afternoon break at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll reconvene at about 10 or 15 minutes. All right.

(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. Let's have the jury, please.

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Agent Martz, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. You got enough water there? All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Now, you indicated that you did not identify the substance found on the rear gate and on the sock or in your blood as EDTA because it did not present the full daughter spectrum for EDTA, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, you have met with Mr. Blasier in Washington D.C., correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.

MS. CLARK: And you have spoken to him on the phone?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.

MS. CLARK: You have been accessible to him, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.

MS. CLARK: And did you explain to him why you did not identify the substance on the rear gate and on the sock as EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I believe that I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Because of the absence of the full daughter spectrum?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you refuse to answer any questions that he posed to you concerning this case?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: Did he make any request of you that you conduct any of the experiments he outlined here in court today when you spoke to him on previous occasions?

MR. MARTZ: No, I don't believe he did, no.

MS. CLARK: Did he ask you at that time when he spoke to you on--previously in Washington or on the telephone whether or not you were aware of any validation studies conducted by Quantico?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, I'm sure we talked about Quantico, but I don't remember the specific details.

MS. CLARK: And the information that was generated by Quantico concerning the 93 percent average EDTA extraction, that study--did it indicate that when you--your extraction method would on the average remove 93 percent of the EDTA from any stain?

MR. MARTZ: I believe I--in looking it over this afternoon, it said very little EDTA remained in the second extract. It did not give a percent in the information that he received.

MS. CLARK: Okay. When it said that very little EDTA remained in the second extract, does that mean that in order to determine if your extraction methods were appropriate and efficient, that they extracted the EDTA using the method you used and then attempted to go back and extract it again?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And is that an appropriate method to use to determine whether an extraction method is efficient?

MR. MARTZ: That is one way, yes. Another way would be just to quantitate absolutely how much you remove knowing how much you placed on the sample.

MS. CLARK: And by conducting the study that they did, was it essentially found that the extraction method you used was appropriate?

MR. MARTZ: I think that it was, yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you indicated that you continued testing on February 22nd even though you had determined there was no EDTA from a preserved test tube and you went into another mode to do that testing?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. I conducted a positive ion mode looking for the 160 daughter from the 293 quasi molecular ion or the m plus 1 parent ion.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you--was there something different about the method of testing you used on the 22nd from the method you had used on the 19th?

MR. MARTZ: It was the same method of extraction. The instrumentation perimeters varied.

MS. CLARK: And what do you mean by that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, with the instruments, you can look at the positive ions or the negative ions that are produced in the ionization. And the first day when I set up the experiment, I was looking for the negative ion, the EDTA form with the ion complex. On the second day or on the 22nd, I was looking for a protonated EDTA.

MS. CLARK: And why did you do that? What would that give you more than you already got from your previous testing?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I determined that it was a little bit more sensitive. So I would be able to detect lower amounts of EDTA that may be present naturally in human blood.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you talk about doing these tests, sir, you indicated that you tested your own blood. Do you recall that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did anyone ask you to do that?

MR. MARTZ: Not that I remember, no.

MS. CLARK: It was just your idea?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, did you generate graphs showing the results of the testing on your own blood?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And did you generate graphs showing that your--showing your blood tested with EDTA and without?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when I say with and without, I'm talking about adding EDTA preservative to it.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And those graphs were turned over to the Defense?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, those were turned over when we met. I guess it was about weeks ago now.

MS. CLARK: All right. Back to the testing on February 22nd.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have here a series of four charts that I would like to be marked People's next in order, A, B, C and D.

THE COURT: 543.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: People's 543, a through C.

(Peo's 543-A through D for id = graphs)

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. I'm going to show you first of all on the elmo People's 543-A.

THE COURT: Are these the graphs on Martz' blood?

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor. These are going to be on the sock.

THE COURT: All right.

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

MS. CLARK: First of all, 543-A, this is on Q206. Is that the socks, sir?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. Could you please interpret for us what we see in Q--the sample of Q206?

MR. MARTZ: The bottom chart is the total ion chromatogram.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

MR. MARTZ: The bottom chart, it would be what's called the total ion chromatogram or all the ions that were looked for. The top chart is the 160 ion which is a daughter ion of EDTA. It has the m/Z160, which indicates master charge 160.

MS. CLARK: Now, this is the evidence from the sock itself, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you attempt then to determine whether or not you could get the full daughter spectrum, that is the 132 as well on the evidence of the sock?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And showing you 543-B, does this graph depict your attempt to see whether or not you could detect the full daughter spectrum in the evidence of the blood from the sock?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: Now, you recall, doctor, you were present in court when Dr. Rieders testified?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I was.

MS. CLARK: And you saw his--you heard his testimony concerning this graph that's now before the jury?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Do you agree with the opinion that he gave on this graph?

MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.

MS. CLARK: Please explain why.

MR. MARTZ: This particular graph depicts a lot of noise is all it depicts. As I mentioned before with the electro spray, everyone is running a 50-yard dash. Everyone is coming to the finish line about the same time. There are many, many, many chemicals in blood that are going to come across the finish line at the same retention time as EDTA. So we're going to get a lot of noise signal at that area. The noise in this case is no larger really than--than--it--it just doesn't increase anywhere, and where it increases may be slightly where Dr. Rieders was pointing out in the one area. That's only because everything was coming out of the instrument at one time and it caused electrical noise. This is not real peaks. This is electrical noise. This is very common in mass spectrometry. It's electrical noise. It is not signal. Any time you would identify something as signal, you would want something larger than the noise. There's nothing here that's larger than the noise. It's random noise that's very common in mass spectrometry, especially in electro spray where you're using different I should say electrical settings than you're using with conventional mass spectrometry. This is standard noise in electro spray mass spectrometry. This should never be considered signal or should never be interpreted as anything other than noise.

What you would want to do and what I did, and unfortunately I didn't print it out, but there was a mass spectrum taken of that particular peak, and it showed that it was just noise. Since there was nothing there, I didn't print it out. But for someone to try to make this into something other than noise is totally wrong.

MS. CLARK: In your opinion then, is his--scientifically speaking, was it scientifically and forensically inappropriate for Dr. Rieders to have interpreted this graph in the manner that he did?

MR. MARTZ: In my opinion, it was, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you point out the issue with respect to retention time. And you recall that Dr. Rieders testified that at about the same time, there was what he determined to be peaks of significance by looking at the retention time. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. MARTZ: I recall that, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, Dr. Rieders works on the gas chromatograph mass spectrum?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And in the gas chromatograph machine, the column in that machine is used for separation purposes, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And in that regard then, the time at which things come out or things pass through the column and get to the mass spec is of significance, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: In your machine, the LC tandem ms with electro spray, you have indicated I believe an analogy that it's kind of like measuring how fast people will go in a 50-yard run?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: They'll all run approximately at the same pace?

MR. MARTZ: Well, they're going to be a lot closer than if they were running a two-mile race.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And why is that true in your machine and not true in his?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it could be true in anyone's machine. It's just the perimeters that are set up with this instrument at this particular time. I'm using the mass spectrometer, the triple stage mass spectrometer for my separator, more so than I am the liquid chromatography part of it. The liquid chromatography is giving minimal separation. Everything is coming out pretty much at dead volume. That's the shortest time something can go through that column. But I can allow this to happen because I have the resolution capability of a triple stage mass spectrometer and I can only let a particular ion go through. So I'm using that as my resolving power and not my chromatography.

MS. CLARK: Physically speaking, in your machine, sir, you have a column, right?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you would use a liquid to push whatever material you want to test through that column; is that right?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Then it comes to a very small capillary, a very small hole; is that right?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Probably smaller than I can make, right?

MR. MARTZ: It's a very small hole.

MS. CLARK: And it's pushed through that capillary. When it's pushed through it, is some kind of electrical charge given to it?

MR. MARTZ: It goes through an electrical voltage of about 4,000 volts.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And then is it vaporized with that electricity?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it's a combination of a lot of things. It's--they're very small droplets. They're being forced out of a small tube. There's other gases around there, and all this helps the very small droplets to evaporate.

MS. CLARK: And when that happens, when the small droplets evaporate, they have an electrical charge given to them?

MR. MARTZ: Well, the electrical charges are on the particles and they're transferred from one to the other. But there's a lot of electrical charges that are transferred at that particular time, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And the purpose of that is so that you can visualize or see what you've got?

MR. MARTZ: Well, so you can create an ion. A mass spectrometer isn't any good unless you can create an ion. You either need a positive ion or a negative ion in order to separate it and identify it.

MS. CLARK: So it helps you to identify what you've got?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. And then in your machine, I think you indicated--you mentioned something earlier called a quadrupole?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it's a triple stage quadrupole. I have three quadrupoles, yes. That's something--it's a mass filter. It's used to separate out the different masses.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And the quadrupole, is it like four rods kind of like--it would be like four pencils through which the item--the material is passed?

MR. MARTZ: Well, the ions are passed, yes.

MS. CLARK: And then you determine by changing the voltage of those poles what can pass through and what can't?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: So you decide, okay, I'm going to let through all 293's in this case, right?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And so only the 293's are going to make it through?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Then it's going to pass through another set of four poles?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: And with that second set of four poles, does that do anything?

MR. MARTZ: Well, that's where the collision takes place. That's where you break down that ion and produce the daughter ions, the 132 and the 160 ion.

MS. CLARK: So that--is that like a reaction chamber?

MR. MARTZ: It's a collision chamber.

MS. CLARK: A collision chamber.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And then is there a third set of four poles that that broken-down ion goes to?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, this third set will let through what?

MR. MARTZ: It will let through what I select. In one case, I let just the 160 ion go through, and in another case, I let from mass 130 up to 295 go through so I could get the full daughter spectrum.

MS. CLARK: So in that way, you run the material through your machine and adjust the voltage so that you can pass through and select out 293, 160 and 132?

MR. MARTZ: Well, you can do it that way. What I elected to do is allow the 293 to go through and then just look at the 160 or let the 293 go through and then look at the full daughter mass spectrum from mass 130 to 295.

MS. CLARK: Now, was that an efficient way to look for the 132?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it's not the most efficient way, but it's the only way that I would look for it in order to identify EDTA. I mean, I could look for 132 by itself, but my purpose is to identify EDTA.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall counsel asking you the questions about selective response?

MR. MARTZ: Selective ion monitoring.

MS. CLARK: Monitoring?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Yes. And in that procedure, you were going to focus only on the 132, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Why was that not appropriate to do in this case?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it would just be another screening test. It would not positively confirm EDTA. What I need for the confirmation is the three ions I mentioned in a particular ratio. And the only way I can do that is to get the full daughter. If I look for them individually, it is not proof that the other compounds or ions are not there. In other words, if I have a camera and I look for one person, another person, another person, it doesn't prove that there aren't people between those people. So I need to look at the full spectrum to see if it's EDTA. If there's something there in the middle that doesn't belong, it's not EDTA. So I need to look at the full spectrum to determine whether or not it's EDTA.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So if you're looking only for 132's, you could be missing 160's?

MR. MARTZ: You could be missing a lot of ions. There could be other ions there. There could be a 150, a 170. You don't know unless you look.

MS. CLARK: So if you look for only 132's, you could be missing other ions that would prove to you it was not EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. So in your--for the manner in which your machine works, the separation occurs in the areas of those four poles, the quadrupoles?

MR. MARTZ: Well, some of the separation does take place in the chromatography, but very little. Most things are coming through a dead volume. The highest selectivity is in the quadrupoles, allowing only mass 293 to go through.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So in the column that you--in the way you use your machine, the column is not particularly used for separation purposes?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it's used for separation, but it's certainly not used for identification.

MS. CLARK: Okay. It does not have the identification properties or capabilities that Dr. Rieders' machine does, correct?

MR. MARTZ: It does not have the normal resolution that you would expect from chromatography.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So given what you're saying, sir, the fact that in your machine, all material is pretty much going to pass through the column at about the same time as opposed to Dr. Rieders' machine in which things pass through the column at very different times, would it ever be appropriate to use retention time as a factor to determine whether or not you identify a compound?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, it could be used, but I certainly wouldn't give it much weight. I personally would not use that. I use the full daughter mass spectrum. The separation technique that I use is just simply to allow the electro spray ionization to happen, not to identify the compound. Now, certainly, the compound has to come out there. But all compounds or most compounds I would identify would come out there. So it just doesn't have what we call resolution, the ability to separate one component from the other.

MS. CLARK: Then would you say, sir, that the retention time in your machine is not a discriminating factor in terms of being able to identify one compound as opposed to another?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. That's a fair statement.

MS. CLARK: And do you think that--strike that. To your knowledge, has Dr. Rieders ever operated the electro spray?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not. He admitted that yesterday.

MS. CLARK: And what impact, if any, would that have on the knowledge that retention time is not a discriminating factor in your machine?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it could have some. But what you need to consider here is the fact that everything was coming out in about a minute. Now, under normal chromatography like I did the one day to differentiate the bloodstains, the chromatography was like 10 minutes. Generally, if you see something in chromatography that's coming out at about one minute, you should be able to realize that's pretty much dead volume and that everything else is going to come out there, and you wouldn't want to use that to help discriminate a compound.

MS. CLARK: What do you mean when you say "Dead volume"?

MR. MARTZ: Well, in other words, there's a certain flow through the column. If I inject something here, it physically takes a certain amount of time to come out the other end. So when I inject EDTA or anything else, it just races through the column and comes out in the minimum time and something can pass through that column. Now, retention time generally, you want something to be absorbed somewhat onto the column so it will take longer to pass through, it will react with the column as it goes through. So it will take a long time to come out. In this particular case, it's just passing through.

MS. CLARK: And that's the major difference between the machine he operates and the one you operate?

MR. MARTZ: Well, not necessarily the machine, but--

MS. CLARK: The column.

MR. MARTZ: --the type of chromatography that I'm doing versus what the normal chromatograph person would expect.

MS. CLARK: Now, you heard Dr. Rieders testify that he was surprised that there was only a few minutes between each scan?

MR. MARTZ: Each run.

MS. CLARK: Each run. Was that surprising to you, sir?

MR. MARTZ: No, because that's the way I designed it.

MS. CLARK: And you run this machine almost every day?

MR. MARTZ: Pretty much. Unfortunately, I still try to maintain my proficiencies on the instruments in the laboratory even though I'm in a management role. I do actively operate the instrument.

MS. CLARK: Now, given that you would not--you said signal to noise. The random peaks that you see on the chart before you on 543-A, how would you characterize those?

MR. MARTZ: Well, the first indication that you don't want to give much credence to this is the fact that we've got 10 to the minus fourth for noise. I mean, this is a large count. So someone that didn't know a lot about mass chromatography would want to know why do you have noise that's that large. I mean, that's a thousand ions or something. Why do you have electrical noise that's a thousand ions. I mean, that's the first thing if I didn't know anything about electro spray or how this was done, I would want to know that before I made any interpretation. Generally, with most instruments, your noise level is going to be very, very small. Now, electro spray, the manufacturer suggests that you use the higher settings because they determine that it works better that way. And this is not normal noise level that you would expect in a mass spectrometer, plus your noises increase by the fact that you're doing tandem mass spectrometry. So you're got two different techniques here that require you to have this very large noise. And any time you have noise that's a thousand counts high, you'd better be very, very careful before you try to interpret and make a peak out of that noise.

MS. CLARK: Because?

MR. MARTZ: Because it's just noise. It's not a peak.

MS. CLARK: It's not--it's not a readable?

MR. MARTZ: It's random noise. I mean, I certainly would want something at least three times the noise before I would even consider it to be a signal.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Yeah. We talked a little bit about that, the ratio of signal to noise. Does--can you--does that mean that the highest peak has to be at least three times higher than any of the smaller random peaks--

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: --before you call it as an identification of some kind--

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: --or detection?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And do you see any peak in this graph that qualifies as being three times noise?

MR. MARTZ: No, I don't.

MS. CLARK: No peak three times as high as any noise or random peak?

MR. MARTZ: I consider all that to be electrical noise.

MS. CLARK: All right. Next in order, 543-B.

MS. CLARK: So then the daughter 132 is not shown on the sock; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: Not in my opinion, and taking the full mass spectrum, it was not present.

MS. CLARK: Showing you 543 B. C? Oh, that was B. C. Can you tell us what this graph shows, sir?

MR. MARTZ: This is the K67 blood which was used as a control for Q204. This is--

MS. CLARK: 206?

MR. MARTZ: I'm sorry. 206. This is a known blood that I took and placed on a cutting of the sock.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you say the known blood that you took, that was from an EDTA tube, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Right. That was from the K67 EDTA preserved blood.

MS. CLARK: And what do you see here?

MR. MARTZ: That is signal. When you have something that's--in this case, we have 10 to the fifth, six times 10 to the fifth, that's a large signal for--representing the ion 160, which is a daughter ion of EDTA. There's a substantial amount of that particular compound coming up at that scan 39.

MS. CLARK: Now, in this graph, I don't see any of the random little jagged peaks that we did on the last one where you found that there was no full daughter spectrum.

MR. MARTZ: Well, the reason you don't see the noise is because the signal is so large.

MS. CLARK: Can you explain that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, if you have noise that's--that's an inch high and your signal is 10 feet high, on a relative scale, you won't see that. So what you do is take your 10 feet and you kind of bring it down, and the one inch of noise disappears. That's a very, very large signal and we're plotting it on the same scale. So the noise disappears.

MS. CLARK: So if you were to generate a graph that kept the noise in it, but wanted to also depict the relative size of the peak that we see here, would you have graph paper big enough?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, you can plot any of these things and that's why I plot it on that particular graph paper, the comparison of the ion counts for the blood and the questioned stains.

MS. CLARK: All right. So this is how a peak looks on known EDTA blood?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. And that's for the 160 daughter?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And going back to the evidence of the sock from the 160 daughter, okay, now, that's the evidence of the sock, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct. That's the bloodstain on the sock.

MS. CLARK: Again, for the 160 daughter?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And here you see all of those jagged lines and then that jagged peak?

MR. MARTZ: You see the jagged lines because the signal is not that much greater than the noise.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, I want to show you 543-D. In 543-D, this is again the sock with the blood you put on it from the EDTA test tube, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: So this is what they call a positive control?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And here you're trying to see if you can detect in the known reference blood the full daughter spectrum?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And did you find it?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. And you can see on those traces the 132 ion, the 160 and the 293, those are all much larger than the noise.

MS. CLARK: Then looking at all of these together, sir--I'm going to try and show you if I can the two reference sample, that is the two known EDTA bloodstains that you put on the sock that shows the parent ion and the full daughter spectrum.

MR. MARTZ: Well, those are the reconstructed ions of the daughter spectrum, yes.

MS. CLARK: And on these readings, would you identify EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I would.

MS. CLARK: Now, by way of contrast, I'm going to show you 543-A and C. I'm going to show you the evidence, the blood taken from the sock itself. Okay. Now, this depicts your attempt to find the full daughter spectrum on the evidence of the sock?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And would you identify the full daughter spectrum on the sock based on what you see in these graphs?

MR. MARTZ: No, I would no.

MS. CLARK: And that is because?

MR. MARTZ: Because there is no signal above noise in the daughter ion spectrum.

MS. CLARK: And so would you identify the substance found in the blood on the sock as EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: No, I would not.

MS. CLARK: And scientifically, sir, in your opinion, would it be appropriate to identify EDTA from the graphs and the results shown in these graphs?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MS. CLARK: In the blood on the sock?

MR. MARTZ: No, it would not.

MS. CLARK: And that is because?

MR. MARTZ: There is no full daughter spectrum for the EDTA chemical.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. And you also did testing on the blood from the rear gate on February 22nd, sir?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And what kind of test did you perform on February 22nd on the blood taken from the rear gate?

MR. MARTZ: The same as I did on the sock. I analyzed in the positive ion mode doing both the daughter spectrum of 293 looking at the 160 ion in the full daughter spectrum.

MS. CLARK: I have another series of four charts, your Honor, People's 544-A through D.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 544-A through D for id = graphs)

MS. CLARK: Showing you first of all People's 544-A, what is that?

MR. MARTZ: That's the Q204.

MS. CLARK: And that is the gate?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, that is the evidence, right?

MR. MARTZ: Correct. That's the blood stain from the gate.

MS. CLARK: And is this an attempt by you to determine whether or not you can find the daughter 160 ion?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Do you identify this as the daughter of 160 ion being present?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, how do you account for the random peaks that you--the jagged peaks below the one larger peak?

MR. MARTZ: Again, that's electrical noise.

MS. CLARK: Now, the fact that you see that electrical noise and in addition to that one peak, what does that tell you about the strength of the signal for the 160 daughter ion?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it's closer to the noise level or becoming very close to the noise level in the instrument.

MS. CLARK: Does that mean it's a weaker signal?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And showing you 544-B. Is this an attempt by you to see if you can find the full daughter spectrum, that is the 132 as well as the 160, in the rear gate stain?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And are you able to identify anything that would allow you--are you able to identify the full daughter spectrum in the rear gate bloodstain?

MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.

MS. CLARK: Can you explain why?

MR. MARTZ: Well, there's several possibilities. One is that it's not EDTA. Another would be that it's below my detectable limit.

MS. CLARK: But what do you see here in the graph?

MR. MARTZ: Well, the graph is just strictly instrumental noise. There's no signal that's recognizable above the noise level.

MS. CLARK: Do you have an identification of the 132 daughter?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MS. CLARK: And if there was 132 daughter below your detectable limit, could it have come from an EDTA test tube?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And what is your detectable limit?

MR. MARTZ: It's difficult to tell, but it's somewhere around 10 parts per million.

MS. CLARK: And what was the amount of EDTA you found in the blood taken from the test tubes?

MR. MARTZ: Well, calculated, it should be between 1- and 2,000 parts per million.

MS. CLARK: And based on the findings in the last two charts, sir, a and B, 544-A and B, on the rear gate stain, is there a full daughter spectrum?

MR. MARTZ: No, there is not.

MS. CLARK: Would you identify the substance found in the blood on the rear gate as EDTA based on that finding?

MR. MARTZ: No, I would not.

MS. CLARK: Would it be scientifically appropriate or correct in your opinion to do so?

MR. MARTZ: No, it would not.

MS. CLARK: Showing you 544-C, tell us what that is, sir.

MR. MARTZ: That's the bloodstain that I prepared. Can you move it down a little bit?

MS. CLARK: Can you move it down?

MR. MARTZ: The K68 bloodstain that I prepared as a control for the Q204.

MS. CLARK: The K68, meaning the blood taken from the test tube containing Mr. Simpson's blood?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in this case, you applied the blood taken from his test tube, his blood, EDTA blood onto the cotton swatch for the rear gate?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And this is the result you obtained?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And based on this graph, would you say that the 160 daughter ion is present?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And showing you 544-D, did you then make an attempt to determine whether you could find the full daughter spectrum on the known stands, that is the cotton swatch on which you placed the reference blood from Mr. Simpson?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And showing you 544-D, can you tell us whether or not you were able to detect the full daughter spectrum based on the results on this graph?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I was.

MS. CLARK: And can you explain to us why?

MR. MARTZ: Well, if--clearly seeing that the ions 132, 160 and 293 are all ions that come out approximately 30 scans that are all above the noise level.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you--all right. Those are the results of your testing of the cotton swatch on which you put the blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct.

MS. CLARK: And based on these results, would you identify the substance found in his blood as EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I would.

MS. CLARK: And in these graphs, you see the full daughter spectrum?

MR. MARTZ: Those are the items that represent the full daughter spectrum, yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. And then contrasting those--contrasting those results, sir, from the known--the blood that we know to have been taken from a reference tube containing EDTA, here we have the results of the blood recovered from the rear gate, the evidence blood. Based on the results in these graphs, sir, would you identify the substance--would you identify that a full daughter spectrum has been obtained?

MR. MARTZ: A full daughter spectrum was not obtained.

MS. CLARK: And based on that fact, sir, and on the results shown in these graphs, would you identify the substance found in the blood on the rear gate as EDTA that came from a preserved blood tube?

MR. MARTZ: No, I would not.

MS. CLARK: And in your opinion, would it be scientifically correct to do so?

MR. MARTZ: No, it would not.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have another chart. I ask that it be marked People's 545.

THE COURT: 545.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

(Peo's 545 for id = chart)

MS. CLARK: Did you generate a graph to illustrate the results of all of the testing that you conducted on the 22nd?

MR. MARTZ: Well, the--some of the results, not all of them. I didn't include the blanks, but most of the results. Some of them.

MS. CLARK: And did you run blanks in-between each of your evidence runs?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And what was the purpose of doing that?

MR. MARTZ: Just to show that there was no carry-over from one injection to the other.

MS. CLARK: Can you interpret for us the results--soon as we can see them--shown in this graph that's been marked as People's 545?

MR. MARTZ: The two blood samples, K67 and K68, which I prepared and placed on the sock and a cotton swatch, clearly demonstrate that EDTA is present in these samples. This is the amount that we would want to find in the sock and on the gate if we were to say that it came from preserved blood. But as you can see, the sock and the gate gave a very minimal response for this particular ion of EDTA. In my opinion, EDTA from preserved blood is not present on the sock and the gate. These stains did not come from preserved blood.

MS. CLARK: Now, you were asked on direct by Mr. Blasier whether or not you had tested any blood of Nicole for the presence of EDTA. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Not specifically.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Did you test a swatch of the dress in which she was found?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And did you test a swatch of the dress that contained blood as well as a swatch of the dress that did not?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And in your testing of that swatch that did not contain, did not contain blood, do you show those results here on this graph?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. The K65, I ran the dress, one that was an area that wasn't blood-stained and the other area was blood-stained.

MS. CLARK: Now, you have an item there on the far left that's known as K65C?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: And is that the area of the dress that you tested that had no blood?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Well, that has a higher reading it would appear than either the gate or the sock.

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And what do you attribute that to?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I attribute it to the possibility that EDTA is present in the garment, either the garment or the dye that the garment is made out of.

MS. CLARK: And directing your attention to the bar just to the right of that, K65, is that the swatch of the dress that did contain blood?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Is it your information it contained her blood?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Is that--does that bar appear to be higher to you than the bar that shows the testing of the swatch from her dress that was not blood-stained?

MR. MARTZ: It's slightly higher.

MS. CLARK: To what do you attribute that?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, it could be attributed to anything. I mean the instrumental technique, the way that I've set it up cannot distinguish between peaks of that height. I--I really didn't attribute it to anything.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Based on the methods that you were using, it was your determination--you had to make the determination as to whether or not the blood in the evidence came from a test tube with EDTA or not, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in that regard, the method you used, was it effective and efficient for that determination even though it did not permit precise quantification?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was. I mean, in all the charts that I prepared and all the tests, I could clearly distinguish between preserved and nonpreserved blood. On two of the days, the testing in the negative ion mode, which required EDTA, the complex with iron, I got no signal whatsoever for EDTA. And again, on the 28th, when I performed liquid chromatography by itself, which EDTA had to bind with a copper compound, I received no signal for the EDTA. It was very easy to distinguish between the preserved and the nonpreserved blood.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, whether or not you confirmed with the full daughter spectrum on the dress?

MR. MARTZ: The dress I was able to get pretty much what I call sufficient daughter spectrum, and I think I dictated as traces of EDTA were indicated on the dress.

MS. CLARK: And was that the dress with the blood or without the blood or both?

MR. MARTZ: I can't remember which one I ran. I would have only run one of the daughters. I don't remember right now which one it was.

MS. CLARK: You don't remember which evidence stain you ran it on, whether it was the dress with the blood or without the blood?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: But on one of them at least, you obtained the full daughter spectrum?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And what is the significance of that to you?

MR. MARTZ: Well, the significance is that levels of EDTA that are used in manufacturing can be identified with the procedure that I used.

MS. CLARK: So you do I--now, has anyone--no. Strike that. You do then identify EDTA as present on the dress Miss Brown was found in?

MR. MARTZ: I think what I used was the term "Detected." The daughter spectrum wasn't the best. I could expect a little better spectrum, but in my opinion, it is EDTA on the dress.

MS. CLARK: As opposed to the gate and the sock?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct. I did not receive any daughter spectrum at all in those two, plus I did not get results in the negative ion mode nor the results from the liquid chromatography, in my opinion, EDTA was not identified and those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood.

MS. CLARK: Now, there has been much said about the variability of the quantification in the runs.

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: From day to day. And I believe you indicated that it's true that a run will vary in quantity shown. For example, if I run a test today, it will come up a certain level. If I run that same evidence tomorrow, it will come up a different level. Is that a fair characterization?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. And it can also come up a different level on the same day.

MS. CLARK: If there is--now, let me ask you about that. There is one particular graph that has been shown to you by counsel, and I'll fish it out later, but it shows two runs on the same day. Do you recall that chart?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I showed a multitude of runs on the same day. Yeah, I think I remember the one with two run on the same day, yes.

MS. CLARK: And it showed that on one run, you showed a very low level of EDTA and on another run, a very higher--a much higher level?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, were those two runs made at the same time?

MR. MARTZ: No, they were not.

MS. CLARK: What divided those two runs? What came between them?

MR. MARTZ: I think it was several--several hours, many hours and, you know, many runs on the instrument.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall whether that was a day on which you ran as many as 30 samples?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know if it was exactly 30, but it was probably at least 20 samples. I ran a significant number of samples on the 22nd.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, bearing in mind that variability, if you run all samples at the same time, will the ratio you get between their various amounts remain constant or remain reliable as a method of determining the relative amounts between them?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know that I understand that question.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Let me ask another one. If you--the machine varies from time to time in terms of the quantity it measures?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: Does that have to do with the column getting--losing sensitivity?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it's more the mass spectrometer becoming dirty. The column, because of interference, it can widen the peak and sometimes you can lose signal. But it's a very complex system. There's many reasons the signal can be reduced.

MS. CLARK: Be that as it may, if you run all the samples at the same time that you are attempting to compare, they're all going to be either depressed or heightened to the same degree?

MR. MARTZ: Generally throughout the day, the--the runs would depress.

MS. CLARK: But what I'm getting at is a little different, sir. Would it be valid in your opinion, would it be appropriate to compare an item run in the morning with a different item run later in the day for their relative amounts of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, it depends on the amounts that we're looking at. If we're looking at parts per million, 1 part versus 2,000, you can certainly differentiate those types of analysis. If you tried to run 49 parts per million versus 50 parts per million, you couldn't differentiate those types of analysis.

MS. CLARK: Let me see if I can make my question a little clearer. If I take--let's say you took that gate stain and you ran it today.

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: And you come up with 2 or 3 parts per million, and then you run it tomorrow and you come up with only 1 part per million. When you run it today and you come up with 2 or 3 parts per million and you want to compare it to a known reference sample and you run them at the same time, you know, one right after another, is that ratio that you get reliable, in other words, one being a hundred times more than the other?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, it can be. I don't understand the question totally, but you certainly can do comparisons with ratios on the mass spectrometer.

MS. CLARK: I think what I'm getting at, sir, is, you--the--Mr. Blasier talked a lot about the variability of the quantification.

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: From day to day.

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: Does that affect the reliability of your results?

MR. MARTZ: Not in this particular case, no.

MS. CLARK: Why not?

MR. MARTZ: Because the difference between 1 part per million and a thousand parts per million, the instrument can very easily distinguish those differences. We were talking on one day a magnitude of 4, and between 1 part per million and a thousand parts per million, we have a magnitude of a thousand. So it's very easy to differentiate those types of differences.

MS. CLARK: No matter when you compare them or when you run them?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, you'd want to run them on the same day.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. MARTZ: Because instruments do change over time. You don't know who else used the instrument. They do have electronics that have to be adjusted. You can compensate by running a standard to get the same signal, but you generally would want to compare samples run on the same day.

MS. CLARK: And when you compare samples run on the same day, do you have a valid comparison between the amounts? In other words, does it give you an accurate assessment in relative terms as to a large amount versus a small amount?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: As is depicted in this graph?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that you also did testing on A--another form of chromatography. Was that the high pressure--

MR. MARTZ: Liquid chromatograph, yes.

MS. CLARK: Liquid chromatograph?

MR. MARTZ: Right.

MS. CLARK: And did you generate graphs for that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And was that done on the 23rd of February?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, as a result of these tests, the high--high pressure? High pressure liquid or high-power?

MR. MARTZ: Well, you can call it high pressure or high performance. They've both been used.

MS. CLARK: As a result of this second--this third test, the results of this third test told you what with respect to the question you were asked as to whether or not the blood on the rear gate and on the sock could have come from an EDTA tube?

MR. MARTZ: I got the same results that I got the other two days. The stains in question from the gate and the sock did not come from preserved--EDTA preserved blood.

MS. CLARK: Now, I'm going to show you the graphs that were generated as a result of those tests.

MS. CLARK: On People's 546, your Honor, I'm going to label A, B and C and et cetera.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 546-A through D for id = graphs)

MS. CLARK: Showing you first 546-A, this is the HPLC?

MR. MARTZ: That's the better way--

MS. CLARK: Is that right?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: For--for the evidence of the gate stain, that would be 204?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us what we see here, sir?

MR. MARTZ: Well, you can see the peak from the injection and no other peaks were detected.

MS. CLARK: All right. And then I'm going to show you--and what does that indicate, sir, that no other peaks were detected?

MR. MARTZ: Well, on this particular case, no EDTA was present.

MS. CLARK: None at all?

MR. MARTZ: None.

MS. CLARK: And now I'm going to show you People's 546-B, and this is your testing of the evidence blood from the sock on February 23rd. Can you tell us what does this graph indicate to you?

MR. MARTZ: Again, this is the injection and that's the solvent coming out and no other peaks were identified. That large peak is the solvent peak.

MS. CLARK: Which means?

MR. MARTZ: That no EDTA was present or identified in the sample.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, I'm going to show you, sir, a graph run on the reference blood of Nicole brown, People's 546-C? Am I at C? 546-C. Okay. This is the testing on the reference blood from Nicole brown. And would you tell us whether or not, based on these results, you would determine and conclude that EDTA from preserved blood is present?

MR. MARTZ: Well, from this test alone, I wouldn't conclude that. But certainly, there's indication that EDTA is present.

MS. CLARK: And showing you 546-D, this is the testing of the reference blood of--taken from the test tube for Mr. Simpson. Can you tell us what the results indicate to you in this test?

MR. MARTZ: Again, the peak at the end is indicating that EDTA could be present in the sample.

MS. CLARK: Could be?

MR. MARTZ: Right. I mean, this is just a preliminary test by itself.

MS. CLARK: In this case, sir, having already conducted the negative ion mode and then the positive ion mode test and forming a conclusion that EDTA from preserved blood was not present in the evidence stains on previous dates, did this test operate, this HPLC test operate to confirm or corroborate those conclusions?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. This corroborated the fact that EDTA is present in the preserved blood.

MS. CLARK: And not present in the evidence?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And lastly, a chart, People's 547.

(Peo's 547 for id = chart)

MS. CLARK: Did you have a graph prepared to depict the results obtained from the HPLC rub?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And showing you this graph, sir, does this depict accurately the results you obtained on February 23rd?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: Could we make it a little clearer.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. The two known reference samples from the Defendant and Miss Brown are to the far left, sir?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct. That's the--the counts that represent where EDTA comes out in an area on the chromatograph run that day indicating the presence of EDTA.

MS. CLARK: And the Q206 and Q204 that we see to the right of those for the sock and the rear gate indicates?

MR. MARTZ: The sock and the rear gate did not give a signal or a response where EDTA would come out on those chromatograms.

MS. CLARK: And then to the right of that, you have a 5 PPM, 5 parts per milligram? What's that?

MR. MARTZ: 5 parts per million.

MS. CLARK: Million I mean. Sorry.

MR. MARTZ: That's a standard of EDTA that was run on the instrument that day.

MS. CLARK: And does that indicate that you can detect an amount as low as 5 parts per million?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I didn't use this quantitatively. But the range would be around 5 parts per million for that sensitivity of the instrument.

MS. CLARK: Then based on all of the tests that you conducted, the negative ion mode, the positive ion mode and the HPLC, were all of those tests consistent and uniform in their results?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, they were.

MS. CLARK: And in that regard, the result for all of those tests was?

MR. MARTZ: That EDTA was present in the K67 and K68 blood samples and was not present on the sock and the gate.

MS. CLARK: Want me to break here?

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess as far as the jury is concerned for the afternoon. Please remember all of 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, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. All right. Let's clear the jury, and we'll have argument on some of the motions. All right. And, Agent Martz, you are ordered to come back tomorrow afternoon at 1:30.

(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. The jury is not present. And we have a number of motions that have been filed with the Court that have yet to be resolved. Counsel, what's your pleasure?

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, if I may interrupt briefly just to mark some exhibits so I can leave them with Deirdre, if that's all right with the Court, because I don't want to lose then.

THE COURT: Certainly.

MS. CLARK: The legal page with the post-it cut out on it, People's--I'm sorry--People's 548.

THE COURT: 548, legal page with post-it cut out.

(Peo's 548 for id = legal page)

MS. CLARK: And the printouts that we did of the graphs put together, your Honor, there's four of those, I'm going to ask that they be marked 549 through--

THE COURT: Wouldn't you rather append them to the group to which they belong?

MS. CLARK: I would. Can I do that without marking them then separately?

THE COURT: I would suggest that they be made a sub exhibit of the group so that it makes--so that they're coherently in one group.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Why don't we make it then--that's a good idea. Thank you, your Honor--543, sub 1, 543, sub 2--

THE COURT: No. It will have to be 543-D, it will have to be 544-A--excuse me--e.

MS. CLARK: Yeah. 543--

THE COURT: I'll tell you what. Why don't you consult with Mrs. Robertson and we'll put it on the record tomorrow morning.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: All right? Okay. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: I'll try not to leave them here then.

THE COURT: No. Leave them with Mrs. Robertson.

MS. CLARK: We're going to have to reprint them anyway in more clearer form. I got my hand in one of them.

THE COURT: Well, it gives it that personal touch.

MS. CLARK: It does.

THE COURT: As you like. But leave the originals tonight with Mrs. Robertson. All right?

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Please. All right. What's up? I have a whole stack of motions here. What do you want to--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I believe, your Honor, that--

MS. LEWIS: I'll get up and talk first, your Honor. I believe the Defense had wanted to put over a little bit the--

THE COURT: Well, I'm sorry. Mr. Cochran was addressing the Court.

MS. LEWIS: Oh, I'm sorry. I got to the podium first. I thought that's what counted.

MR. COCHRAN: As we--Miss Lewis had missed out. Your Honor, when we were back in chambers, we indicated that Mr. Uelmen will be here tomorrow, as I indicated to the Court. So certain of the motions, the motions dealing with KNBC and Tracie Savage and Michelle Kestler, we ask leave of the Court to go over until tomorrow because--and the one dealing with--and the Fuhrman motions. He will be handling those. And with regard to--since Dr. MacDonell will be the next witness if we ever conclude Agent Martz, we would ask the Court to listen to Mr. Neufeld with regard to that motion.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, so that I may retreat upstairs, do you know what time for the Fuhrman and other motions tomorrow?

THE COURT: At this point, it's kind of hard to say since we have a shortened court day tomorrow because the court staff is going to be attending the funeral. We have to finish Agent Martz--Miss Clark, how much more do you have?

MS. CLARK: I don't think more than half an hour. I mean probably a lot less than that. That's the outside.

THE COURT: Are we going to finish with Agent Martz tomorrow?

MR. BLASIER: Oh, certainly. Well, I'll be done with him.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: We'll finish.

THE COURT: All right. And then what do we have after--then we need Mr.--Dr. MacDonell, correct?

MS. CLARK: Mr. MacDonell.

THE COURT: All right. Well, my guess is late afternoon.

MS. LEWIS: All right. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I believe it's the People's motion here. So I think they have the burden.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Also, your Honor, I don't know if you had a chance to review my submission. I got here about 11:45, but for reasons that had nothing to do with this case, I was not allowed in to serve everyone at that time, and I wanted to try to get you the papers before lunch so that you could have an opportunity to review them. It is essential that you review them before we have oral argument. Otherwise, the argument will sound rather nonsensical. So if you haven't had a chance to look at it yet, I would ask that we recess for 15 minutes to give you that opportunity.

THE COURT: All right. I confess, I came back, this stuff was here. I have not read it.

MR. NEUFELD: Could we do that if that's acceptable to the Court?

THE COURT: Sure: Happy to.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, before doing that, earlier this afternoon, I served a subpoena duces tecum upon Mr. Cochran because we had information that a tape that is relevant to the case was given to Mr. Pavelic and therefore would be under Mr. Cochran's custody and control, and we did make the return for that tomorrow which, given that Mr. Cochran is in court every day, we thought was sufficient time. I don't know if they're going to be contesting that subpoena or not, but I wanted to alert the Court that we had done that.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. All right. Let me take a few minutes then and--yes.

MR. BLASIER: One quick item. During Dr. Rieders' cross-examination, Miss Clark was using a transcript, and she indicated that she would provide me with a copy of that. I haven't gotten that. I would just ask that that complete transcript be provided to me tomorrow so I have some time to look at it.

MS. CLARK: Absolutely.

THE COURT: All right. In fact, why don't you have it available--the indication was, there was a copy available yesterday. So I'll direct that they give that to you by the close of business today.

MS. CLARK: I asked that they bring it down that day. I don't know what happened.

THE COURT: All right. I saw somebody come in with a loose-leaf notebook. All right. Let me sit down and read this thing.

(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. The record should reflect the Court's had the opportunity to read the 16 pages plus exhibits filed by the Defense in response to motion in limine. I've examined the photographs as well. Each side will have 15 minutes to argue.

MR. GOLDBERG: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, good afternoon, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: I just would like to point out, as I'm sure the Court noticed, that counsel's brief was 16 pages and there was also--

THE COURT: I was tempted to strike it.

MR. GOLDBERG: --no table of contents.

THE COURT: I noted as well.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'd like to organize my argument somewhat along the lines of the three-prong test that applies in determining the admissibility of experiment evidence. I know the Court's very familiar with that. So I'll skip over some of the legal argument that the Court heard about. And I know your Honor just recently read some of the cases in that area that has come up and I'm sure it's going to come up again in this courtroom with respect to some other experiments. Suffice to say that the first issue is one of relevance, and there appear to be two theories of relevance that the Defense has articulated. As the case law states, the Court does have an enormous amount of discretion in determining what evidence is relevant. And as was argued by Miss Clark in her points and authorities, the issue here is one of the Court exercising its discretion, and the standard on appeal therefore is the abuse of discretion standard, and that's the standard that the Court needs to apply here in exercising its discretion. Now, first, the Defense has said that this is relevant for the purposes of impeaching the testimony of mark Fuhrman. That seems to me that's a little bit of an oversimplification because if all they wanted to do was to say that mark Fuhrman and Detective Vannatter testified that the glove was wet and we want to--or looked wet and we want to establish that it looked dry, that kind of impeachment on a collateral issue in and of itself would be so insignificant that it is not the kind of thing that most advocates would be interested in pursuing and certainly not the kind of thing that most courts would allow.

So what they're really getting at is something a little more significant in their judgment than mere impeachment, and that is trying to put on evidence to suggest I think that Mr. Fuhrman planted this glove at the Rockingham location, that more accurately characterized, that is the first theory of relevancy that the Defense has put forward. They are doing this because Detective Vannatter and Detective Fuhrman testified that it appeared to be wet. They did not testify that it was wet. They specifically testified that they did not touch it and both of them testified that when they observed the glove, they were observing it with what I have characterized as being a pen light. I'm not sure if it really is, but it's a very tiny flashlight, and they are observing it initially under conditions where, needless to say, it's not very ideal. The Court has been behind the Defendant's home where the glove was located.

THE COURT: Well, Detective Fuhrman testified under cross-examination by Mr. Bailey that it was a double A--two double a cell mag light.

MR. GOLDBERG: I think it's still a small--a small little light. It's about five inches or so in length.

THE COURT: I have about five of them.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And this does of course involve a subjective evaluation of Detective Fuhrman and Detective Vannatter. I think it would be a little bit different if they had touched it with their fingers and said it was wet. But we're dealing with what their subjective evaluation of the appearances of a glove under very difficult circumstances was. And then we have to compare those of course to subjective evaluation of the Defense expert who says that under laboratory conditions, presumably under ideal circumstances, after his tests, the glove looked dry and, therefore, say there's an inconsistency. Therefore, we should doubt the testimony of Detective Vannatter and Detective Fuhrman. And it seems to me that is a very difficult comparison to make. In fact, an impossible comparison and unfair comparison to try to make. It seems that what they're ultimately getting at here is to suggest that the glove was transported by Detective Fuhrman to Rockingham in a plastic bag, which was one of the theories which was put forward on cross-examination of Detective Fuhrman, that he put it in a plastic bag and then secreted it in his sock and then later on left it at the Rockingham location, and that somehow the experiment supports this theory because in the experiment, there were certain areas--actually only a couple areas where the glove came into contact with the plastic bag, that in the subjective evaluation of the examiner appeared to be wet, notwithstanding the fact that they were in fact dry. So I guess the suggestion is that in order to get the type of appearance that Detective Fuhrman articulated, perhaps it was dried in a plastic bag. But even the subjective evaluations of the evidence by the expert do not match those of Detective Fuhrman. So I don't think they're relevant for that purpose either, because he only said it had this wet-like appearance in a couple of areas. And even under these conditions, it took four hours for the glove to become dry, and not even under the Defense theory did Detective Fuhrman have the glove in a plastic bag for a period of four hours. So even their theory of what happened, for which there is no evidence, is inconsistent with the experiment because he would not have had four hours to keep that glove in a plastic bag, and that is the length of time that their expert had the glove in the plastic bag before making his observations. So we submit that it is not relevant for this impeachment theory or this theory of trying to prove that it was planted. Of course, we'd also argue, as we have before, that not only are there no--is there no evidence to support this theory, but it's actually inconsistent with all of the evidence. We have accounted for Detective Fuhrman's whereabouts during the relevant periods of time through other witnesses. We've shown that he did not have the opportunity to collect the glove. He has testified that he did not do so. And a number of people have testified that there were--there was only one glove at the Bundy location. So this is all predicated upon a theory which is entirely 100 percent inconsistent with all of the testimony that has been elicited in this case. The next issue of relevancy that the Defense talks about is the question of shrinkage. And in order to determine whether or not it's relevant, I would like to discuss in more detail what is actually the second prong of the test, which is the material circumstances and whether or not those material circumstances are substantially similar, because it seems to me that there's some overlap here. In order for it to be relevant, there has to be some basic underlying similarity between the experiment and the known conditions at the crime scene. The first one that we already mentioned, your Honor, was that the glove experiment took a four-hour period of drying time and that there is no evidence to indicate of course that the glove was ever in a plastic bag, let alone that it was in a plastic bag for four hours. So that's one area of dissimilarity. The other area of dissimilarity is the amount of blood on the two gloves. The testimony was that--I believe by Miss Brockbank--there was slightly more blood it appeared to her on the Bundy glove than on the Rockingham glove. So apparently, there was not the same quantity on both. But there is no evidence to suggest--

THE COURT: But quantity is a very subjective evaluation.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is. But there is no evidence to suggest that whatever quantity that was, assuming it could be easily determined, is the same as the quantity that was used in the experiment. And that's the real point. The next point is, there is an issue as to the perspiration, if any, by the Defendant at the time that he was wearing the gloves and how that could have entered into the equation with respect to the drying time, to the shrinkage issue. Clearly, there was no attempt to replicate that during the experiment. And fourth, we mentioned the ambient temperatures. The Defense tried to elaborately suggest from their responsive papers that to the extent that there were any differences in the ambient temperatures and the environmental conditions, that they were minor and that they would favor a quicker drying period as opposed to a longer drying period. But that is not necessarily the point because the point isn't necessarily how long it took the gloves to dry. The point is, have the circumstances been replicated. And it is possible that a quicker drying period could result in a different subjective appearance of the way that the glove looks after it's dried or it could result in more or less shrinkage. We just don't know. So to the extent possible, we want to be as accurate as we can in terms of replicating the environmental conditions. Some of the other environmental conditions that I would like to point out is that I believe under the questioning of the Court, Miss Pilnac testified that it was foggy on this evening when she was in the Bundy location. Mr. Fung testified that there was moisture on the ground at the time that he arrived at the Rockingham location, although he couldn't say for sure that it was as a result of dew. We have a situation where one glove is on the earth. We would assume that that might have some impact in terms of the glove drying time. It may have been wet and then rewetted. It might have been wet at one time as a result of the crime itself and then rewet perhaps as a result of blood flowing in the area of the glove. We have the glove at the Rockingham location on an area that was covered with leaves on cement. So we'd expect that that could have or play some role in terms of the drying of the glove. We have a situation where there's a lot of vegetation in both areas, and apparently this vegetation is falling down onto the area, as we had a lot of berries that were falling down at the Bundy location staining the areas of the sidewalk and an enormous amount of leaves, as I previously stated, at the Rockingham location. So there are a number of environmental variables that go into this that could be relevant. But the most important one and significant one as far as I am concerned is the freezing of the glove by the Los Angeles Police Department after it was collected. And the Defense says in their responsive papers, well, this isn't relevant because Miss Brockbank testified that there was no shrinkage in the glove between the time that she measured it on the 21st of June and the time that she measured it shortly before testimony. But what has to be kept in mind is that no one measured the glove insofar as the evidence is concerned--I don't believe anyone did measure it at all--between the time it was collected by Mr. Fung and the time that Miss Brockbank looked at it on the 21st. Excuse me. That was July, not June. In-between that time, it had been frozen and apparently unfrozen because it was inventoried on the 29th of June by the police. So apparently, it was taken out of the freezer for that purpose.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Goldberg, though. As far as the shrinkage issue is concerned, since I've allowed the Prosecution to conduct the demonstration as to whether or not these gloves in particular fit the Defendant, you know, with the results that we all saw, don't you think they're entitled to present some kind of evidence to explain either how shrinkage occurs or how it doesn't occur since we all agreed that the marking is as--the internal marking says it's extra large. My recollection is that the tag says it's extra large. The internal markings inside the glove indicate they're from the same run. And my recollection also is, Mr. Rubin testified that there was an internal marking that it was an extra large.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And as the Court noted and as the Defense noted in their responsive papers, I said that the issue of shrinkage is relevant. So as to that prong, we can at least determine that the issue of shrinkage itself is an issue that is relevant in this case. But as to the second prong, the identity of the material circumstances, which is what I'm primarily discussing now, we still have to overcome that hurdle, and that is an independent hurdle of the test. And I think to a certain degree, there is an overlap because if the circumstances are so dissimilar, then the relevancy of the evidence itself or the experiment itself becomes lessened. But at any rate, as I was saying, your Honor, there was some evidence that it was frozen and unfrozen, refrozen and then perhaps unfrozen again and then refrozen prior to the time that Miss Brockbank made her measurements. The other issue with respect to the materiality of the circumstances--

THE COURT: I guess what we should have done is voir dire the jurors when we were selecting them to see who used to have leather ski gloves and threw them away after two or three seasons.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I must confess I--

THE COURT: Since they're all now synthetic.

MR. GOLDBERG: The next issue, your Honor, is with respect to the substantial identity of the material circumstances, is the experiment, the conditions of rubbing in the blood for approximately 5 minutes or I guess it was 5 minutes. I don't know where they came up with that figure or why they used 5 minutes. And it wasn't the issue of whether they used a latex glove for the purposes of doing it that we were primarily objecting to, but rather the issue of the manner in which the blood was transferred to the glove, which is clearly not how it was done at the crime scene. It could have been as a result of a direct transfer or indirect transfer, but the point is that we don't have any evidence suggesting that the manner of the transfer was similar to the experiment. And then finally--we believe this is also a very important distinction--is that the Defendant's gloves were four years old as we argued. Presumably they had been worn. Maybe they had even been washed. They probably had been subjected to environmental conditions before. And perhaps that wearing of the gloves in some way made them more vulnerable than a new pair of gloves would be to the environmental conditions that they were subjected to at the Rockingham and Bundy locations. I think common sense would lead us to believe that that might be the case, and there was no efforts to try to replicate--

THE COURT: Do you think you should have the opportunity to show videotape of Mr. Simpson wearing gloves in the snow in buffalo?

MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't hear the Court's--the first part of the Court's question.

THE COURT: Never mind.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So at any rate, your Honor, there do appear to be a number of circumstances, circumstances here that have not been replicated by the Defense. And then finally--

THE COURT: But isn't the point here that one application of blood, one significant application of blood to the point where they're saturated doesn't account for what appears to be a sufficient amount of shrinkage? Isn't that the point of what they're trying to accomplish?

MR. GOLDBERG: But in order to do that, you still have--you would still have to replicate all the material circumstances of these two crime scenes.

THE COURT: But doesn't the fact that they sit there and rub it in for 5 minutes--I mean, the jury is under the impression that whoever committed this attack, it was probably done very quickly to incapacitate two healthy we all know to be athletic individuals. The testimony is that it took a very short amount of time. By rubbing it in for 5 minutes, certainly that exceeds the amount of exposure that the assailant would have had on his or her gloves.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I framed the issue just slightly different than the Court did. I'd say that the issue is not whether a single application of blood can shrink a pair of gloves. Rather the issue is, what could have accounted for shrinking of the gloves in this particular case. And that's a materially different or significantly different way of framing the issue and it makes the legal inquiry a lot different because in order to answer that latter question, we do have to take into account the history of the glove, the fact that it was four years old. We do have to take into account the freezing of the glove. We have to take into account all of the variables that would go into the issue of shrinkage. But just in conclusion, your Honor--I don't want to spill over the 15-minute time limit. On the third part of--

THE COURT: But I ask questions.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: If I ask questions, then you get a little more. All right. Go ahead.

MR. GOLDBERG: The final point in the inquiry is a 352 type of analysis where the Court is asked to look at the probative value of the evidence, which we say is nonexistent for the purposes of impeachment, is virtually nonexistent for the purposes of addressing this issue of shrinkage, and then against that probative value, then take a look at the likelihood of confusing, misleading the jury and the unfairness that would result as a result of putting on this kind of evidence. And we suggest because of all of these circumstances which the Defense has not been able to replicate and probably could not replicate, this evidence does not have any probative value in demonstrating what is the legally and factually significant issue in this case, which is what caused these gloves to shrink or what could account for these gloves under these circumstances to shrink. It has no probative value on the issue of impeaching Detective Fuhrman or suggesting that the glove was planted. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I don't have to remind the Court of what transpired in this courtroom on June 15th when the Prosecution compelled Mr. Simpson to try on the evidentiary gloves in this case. It was clear to the Prosecution as it was clear to the viewing public that the gloves didn't fit him, that they were too small. As a result of that, in fact, Mr. Darden asked Mr. Rubin if he could give the jury an explanation as to why Mr. Simpson couldn't fit into the gloves at that time. The Prosecution later suggested through Mr. Rubin and other witnesses that the reason the gloves did not fit Mr. Simpson in court that day is because they may have shrunk as a result of being smeared with a large quantity of blood during the commission of the homicides. Mr. Rubin in fact testified that in his opinion, although he had no experimental data to support it, that a large quantity of liquid applied to the gloves could in fact cause the shrinkage. What happened then was, is that Mr. Rubin produced both for the Defense and the Prosecution identical pairs in the same style from the same lot of the gloves in question made by Aris Isotoner. Prosecution over Defense objection then had Mr. Simpson try on the new gloves. The only reason having him try on the new gloves, which clearly do not--are not identical to the evidentiary gloves as they appeared on June 12th and June 13th, and they'll acknowledge that themselves, is because it was their theory that the gloves before June 12th or before the commission of these murders would have fit Mr. Simpson, and they wanted him to try on the new gloves to show that to the jury and make that point. All right. And the Court ruled at that time over our objection that there were substantial replication of conditions to warrant that kind of experiment. All we want to do at this point is rebut an argument that they made. They raised the issue of shrinkage. We didn't.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, then let me ask you to address the two issues with regards to the shrinkage issue that I'm most concerned with, that being the age of the gloves and the impact of freezing and thawing.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, first of all, your Honor, let me simply say that they did raise seven conditions or seven objections which they felt we could not replicate. And I believe in our papers, we replicate every single one of those without exception. I would remind you, your Honor, that Professor MacDonell did a controlled experiment here. You even have photographic proof of what he actually did. What's extraordinary, your Honor--and I'll cut right to the essence of it--Mr. Goldberg suggested that one of the issues in fact is the volume of blood. And as what you can see from the experiment conducted by Professor MacDonell, that he poured a lot of blood into the gloves and then continued to rub it in and rub it in, but it wouldn't absorb any more and then the remainder ran off.

If he used twice or three times as much blood, it wouldn't have made a difference at that point. So we were being excessively cautious if you will, bending over backwards to create the worse case scenario for this experiment, and I think he succeeded in doing that. In terms of the weather conditions, your Honor, the only point I want to bring out about that at this point is that he used a humidity chamber. He did use an experimental contraption to replicate the conditions of that evening. The Prosecution's suggestion about the weather conditions, as I point out in my papers, is partly fabricated. There's no evidence at all that these gloves were ever exposed to sunlight. I think you yourself with the jury was out in that narrow alleyway passage where this all happened, and you have the house on one side, you have vine covered fence two or three feet away from it and then trees overhanging the area. Moreover, your Honor, when there's a discussion about it appeared wet and the officers were unable to determine that because he's using a pen light--and I'll defer to your own expertise on pen lights, your Honor. But I would also like to bring to the Court's attention that at the time Detective Fuhrman claims he first viewed the gloves between 6:00 and 6:15, the sun had already been up for a half hour. So there was a certain amount of ambient light even though it obviously isn't direct sunlight over the gloves. So his ability to view those gloves at that point and Detective Vannatter at some time later than Detective Fuhrman certainly has enough light when they make that--when they give that opinion that the gloves were wet, appeared to be wet and shiny.

THE COURT: Well, counsel, you're shifted from the shrinkage issue into the moisture issue.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: I was interested in freezing and thawing. But since you're talking about the moisture issue, what concerns me there is, how do we measure dryness.

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, how does Professor MacDonell measure dryness? In his experiment, what he actually does is, he takes tissue over the gloves to see if there's any kind of wet transfer. And at the point where there's actually no transfer at all and no longer feels damp to the touch, it is deemed dry. That's the way it's done in the experiment. What's most important here frankly, and I think the Prosecutor hit it correctly and I think your Honor hit it correctly, is not so much dryness, but the shrinkage issue. That's the real relevance here. They made it an issue, and all we want to do is respond to it. They used the new gloves to try and raise the shrinkage issue. We're entitled to use the same new gloves to rebut the shrinkage issue, the bogus claim made by the Prosecution. As far as freezing and thawing, your Honor, that's pure speculation. There's absolutely no evidence in this record that freezing and unfreezing and freezing and unfreezing those gloves in any way causes shrinkage. In fact, the only evidence in the record is to the contrary. That from June 21st, 1994, when they were measured by Susan Brockbank to sometime in June 1995, when they were measured again, there was absolutely no shrinkage although it's admitted by everyone involved that the gloves were taken out, put back, taken out, put back in the freezer a number of times. There's absolutely no evidence that that freezer would precipitate any kind of shrinkage. They produced no evidence that it precipitated shrinkage. We are entitled to rely on Brockbank's testimony that during that one year when it was put in and taken out, it never shrank. So that's a non-issue and red herring raised by the Prosecution here.

Most importantly, your Honor, the method used to determine whether there was shrinkage--and the Prosecution suggests that we're relying on the fact that the gloves were tried on by one of Professor MacDonell's assistants to assess shrinkage. We're not relying on that at all. In fact, what Professor MacDonell did is something far more objective than has been done by any of the witnesses to date. Rather than simply putting the gloves down and using a ruler to estimate the length of them as Susan Brockbank and Richard Rubin did where different people could have the starting point at slightly different places and the termination point at slightly different places, he simply puts the glove down on the Xerox machine before running the experiment and pouring all that blood over the gloves and running it--puts it down on the Xerox machine and takes a photocopy of the glove. Then after the blood is put on the glove and after it is dried and before anybody else put their hands in it, okay, to stretch it out or anything like that, the glove is then simply put back on the same Xerox machine, okay, and it is photocopied again.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I'm not worried about the measurement technique. That really doesn't--

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: --enter into the Court's concern here.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine. Your Honor, I believe that every one of the objections that they raised in their papers is more than adequately responded to with sterling scientific control on the part of Professor MacDonell without exception. As far as the use of new gloves goes, well, they were allowed to use new gloves which certainly don't replicate the condition of the gloves on let's say June 11th, 1994, the day before this incident occurred for their experiment with Mr. Simpson. There was no attempt to do that. And the reason your Honor allowed that is because it's their argument that it's the--it's the smearing of blood and the ensuing drying that precipitated the shrinkage and that's why they were allowed to use these new gloves, even though they could not in no way demonstrate replicate conditions. If they're allowed to use those new gloves, all we want to do is use the same new gloves that they used to show that when this amount of blood and even more blood perhaps is smeared in and rubbed into those gloves for a considerable period of time and so no more blood is absorbed and it's all drained off, that after that, it dries, and after that, you do the comparison, and before and after, and it--there's absolutely no shrinkage, and the jurors will be able to see that for themselves. That's the point. Finally, your Honor, as to their 352 objection, 352 has been used a lot when it's the Defense--they're all of a sudden trying to raise what they call side issues that will lead the jury astray or into some new territory. That's not what's going on here. They raised the issue of shrinkage. They made it an argument. And we, as a matter of fundamental due process, your Honor, are entitled to rebut their argument. There's a whole line of U.S. Supreme Court cases, your Honor, which I'm sure you are familiar with, Chambers versus Mississippi, Washington versus Texas which says Defendant is entitled to put on a defense. It's extraordinary that when this all started, your Honor, the Defense case, one member of the Prosecution staff made a statement that it was time now for the Defense to put up or shut up. We're trying to put up. But every time we want to put on scientific evidence to rebut their argument, they move to preclude that evidence. If at this time, your Honor, the Prosecution is allowed to get away with precluding this experiment, which does nothing more than rebut an issue which they raised, then what they're doing is, they're turning back the clock in this courtroom to a time where Mr. Chambers is being prosecuted in Mississippi or Mr. Washington is being prosecuted in Texas, and I know the Court is not going to allow that to happen at this time. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, do I get the opportunity to respond?

THE COURT: No. 15 minutes a piece. All right. As to the shrinkage aspect, I will allow Dr.--excuse me--Mr. MacDonell to testify, the issue being whether or not a single application of a significant amount of blood can account for any significant shrinkage of the gloves. This experiment appears to be substantially--at least in a single application of a significant amount of liquid, to see whether or not these particular gloves will shrink any measurable amount, I think that's an appropriate thing to present to the jury, and I'll allow that. As to the appearance of wetness, I'll sustain a 352 objection. The problem here is that appearances of what appears to be wet and what appears to be dry is very subjective and there's no measure for that. I have here up on my blotter right now many ink spots, some of which appear to be wet, and but I know have been here for years. They're dry, but they still have a shiny appearance to it. The testimony was, it appeared to be moist, that the fingers appeared to be stuck together and the photographs indicate that that's so. I think the probative value of that evidence is so slight and the amount of time that we would spend going into the testing and measurement would be an undue consumption of time. All right. That will be the Court's ruling. Also, Mr. MacDonell gets to testify as to the powder or red spherical things in the socks tomorrow.

MR. GOLDBERG: As a clarification, your Honor, is the Court going to allow the plastic bag experiment?

THE COURT: No. The drying experiment is not part of this. It's the application of blood in the shrinkage of the gloves is what the Court's allowing.

MR. NEUFELD: I will not elicit any testimony ultimately about how it appeared.

THE COURT: Right. Okay. We are in recess. 1:30.

(At 5:05 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, July 26, 1995, 1:30 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 Tuesday, July 25, 1995

Volume 193 pages 38612 through 38886, 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 193 pages 38612 - 38886

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Tuesday July 25, 1995 A.M. 38612 193 P.M. 38738 193

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Martz, Roger M. 38618BB 193 (Resumed) 38742BB 38757MC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Martz, Roger M. 38618BB 193 (Resumed) 38742BB 38757MC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

542 - Bar graph 38790 193 entitled "February 19, 1995, EDTA analysis on HLPC"

543-A thru 543-D - 38810 193 graphs relating to item Q206, item K67, item Q206 full dau and item Q206/Q207

544-A thru 544-D - 38832 193 graphs relating to item Q204, item Q204 full dau, item K68 and item K68 post control for Q204

545 - Bar graph 38837 193 entitled "EDTA analysis"

546-A thru 546-D - 38848 193 graphs relating to item Q204, item Q206, item K67 and item K68

547 - Chart 38851 193 entitled "February 23, 1995, EDTA analysis on HPLC"

548 - Legal page 38854 193

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1263 - Letter 38648 193 from Deputy District Attorney Rockne Harmon dated February 16, 1995

1264 - Photograph 38649 193 of item Q207 (Computer printout)

1265 - Photograph 38659 193 of a sock and FBI tag

1266 - Chart 38666 193 prepared by Roger Martz

1267 - Article 38672 193 entitled "Food iron absorption in man ii. The effect of EDTA on absorption of dietary non-heme iron"

1268 - Article 38681 193 excerpt by Foreman and Trujillo

1269-A and 1269-B - 38711 193 charts--District Attorney no. 08422 and 08419 respectively