Item 117 was the stain taken from the back gate. The other blood drops at Bundy were degraded and had extremely low DNA concentrations. But item 117 had enough for an RFLP test. It had 27 times as much DNA as item 47 (the first blood drop); 45 times as much DNA as item 48; 270 times as much DNA as item 49; 51 times as much DNA as item 50; and 11 times as much DNA as item 52. This is in evidence from Gary Simms of the Department of Justice.

Items 115 and 116, the blood drops on the lower parts of the back gate, have 15 times as much DNA as item 47; 22 times as much DNA as item 48; 135 times as much DNA as item 49; 25 times as much DNA as item 50; and six times as much DNA as item 52.

These blood drops on the back gate had supposedly been out on the back gate from June 12th to July 3rd. There is no question sunlight, moisture and bacteria degrade DNA, so why are these concentrations so much higher than all the other drops? Another point: In addition to DNA concentrations, Gary Simms testified that when you look at "yield gels," for degradation, these backgate samples are not degraded. How can that be?

Another point: The Prosecution argued the drops on the gate are on a different surface than the drops on the cement--well, this is on a metal gate, painted metal gate. The question is, is there something magical about this that will prevent it from degrading at all in over three weeks? Here is what proves this argument totally fallacious: Remember the blood on the handrail as you are leading up to the front of Bundy? This is the same kind of surface, and it is totally degraded. Also the blood on the front gate, per Gary Simms' testimony, was severely degraded, just like the other samples from Bundy. So since those are the same kind of surfaces, this explanation that the prosecution offered did not make sense.

What was the other explanation that the prosecution offered ? Now, this is a whopper. They said the plastic bags caused the degradation on the back gate samples. Originally, they spent weeks trying to deny that putting samples in plastic bags degrades the DNA. But now they are saying on July 3rd, when Fung made this collection, he put these swatches in a plastic bag, but he didn't let them "cook" as long in the truck as he did on June 12th! It is their own incompetence, that is the explanation. That accounts for these differences. Well, you know that doesn't work either, for a number of reasons.

On July 3rd, they were going on a tour of the crime scene and apparently right away they found this stuff on the back gate and there is no testimony, zero, as to how long it took Dennis Fung to bring those back to the evidence processing room or how long he had them in a plastic bag or what other things they had him doing. There is no testimony that he immediately went back to the lab. He didn't continue with them in the tour or anything like that. And you know why it is significant that they can't argue that, when they don't present evidence? Because they could have. Because we know that there are records of when you go back into that evidence possessing room and get in the door. The prosecution could have demonstrated--if they really wanted to put this argument before the jury, they could have demonstrated how long it took or they could have brought Dennis Fung back to testify about this issue. But frankly, if they brought him back to testify about that explanation so late in the game, the jury wouldn't have believed him, would they? So they can't use this plastic bag theory and they can't use that it is a different surface. They can't. It doesn't make sense scientifically. It doesn't fit. So what is going on here?

Another thing. They say Officer Riske, Phillips, Fuhrman, Rossi, that night when they were entering the premises, the back gate, they had their flashlights and they were looking up and down and they think they saw some blood on the back gate, so they all testified to it, so you know it is there. Well, first of all, we know--the jury went to the crime scene--and saw that this gate was rusty. There are all kind of dark, imperfections. There were berries all over there. There is all kind of discolorations. And what did they really see with their flashlights? It is not clear what they saw with their flashlights. But what is very, very interesting is that three weeks later, Lange said to Fung, "Go look, there is blood on the back gate, you should go look, and we have heard reports there is blood on the back gate."

Now, this is very interesting! Because a diagram was shown to the jury during the trial. You may remember this. This is the diagram that Fung did of the back gate. And you will recall the testimony. These are the numbers that were seen, 115, 116 (all those numbers are the photo numbers). If any of you recall how they did the collection, they put down a photo number, not the evidence item number, so they started on the walkway with 112 and they put down 112 and that was sample 47 and they collected that. Then they put down no. 113 and that was sample 48 and they collected that. Then they put down 114 and that was sample 49 and they collected that. Then they put down 115 and that was sample 50 and (now we are right by the back gate) they collected that.

Now, this is what shows you there was no blood on the back gate. Because at that point what do Fung and the photographer do? They go to the front gate! They walk all the way back to the front gate where the bloodstain patterns are, and they go back all the way to the end of the driveway and then get the last blood drop, no. 52, 11. Why did they go all the way back? I will tell you why. Because Detective Lange had told Mr. Fung, as he testified, that there was blood on the back gate, and Fung looked, he had heard reports of it, and didn't see any blood on the back gate! So the only blood they saw on a gate was on the front gate, so they went back and collected 116. And you know what else shows you that? Do you guys remember the during the trial Barry Scheck's most famous phrase " Where is it, Mr. Fung"? They took no pictures of any blood on the back gate, 117! There is some discoloration there that may be consistent with 115, if it is blood at all, but there is no 116! So there are no pictures of either (116 or 117).

There is EDTA in the stains from the back gate. Let's look at the back gate: 1) No documentation or photos on June 13th. (2) Discovered on July 3rd. 3) DNA concentration. EDTA. Coincidence or corroboration that something is wrong, something is terribly wrong. This is a reasonable doubt. You put this together with the sock. This isn't made up. This isn't invented. These are facts. How could all of this be? This is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence based on solid fact. You cannot on your oath reject this and, say, ah, it never happened. You can't. It is a reasonable doubt.

Now for EDTA, because that is obviously an important issue. The prosecution asked for the tests to be done after the opening statement to refute the defense's contention that there was EDTA. And they didn't put the tests on because the tests did not refute EDTA. Reasonable interpretation of the evidence: If there is EDTA there, consistent with everything, is that the blood came from a purple-topped tube on the face of it. The prosecution did not put the tests on.

The defense had to call their witnesses. But you know, there is a very, very interesting point that you guys might have missed in Dr. Rieders' testimony when you compare Dr. Rieders and Agent Martz, and that is in January there was a gentleman named Henkhaus who works with the LAPD science division who had earlier contacted Rieders regarding testing for EDTA. The prosecution was interested, after the opening statement, in seeing whether or not tests could be performed to detect EDTA. Reference page 38414 of the transcript of Dr. Rieders' testimony were the prosecution asked: "Question: Incidentally, at one point were you consulted by the Los Angeles Police Department during the course of this case about methods to detect EDTA? "Yes." He was shown a letter from Henkhaus. "Do you remember who that was? "Mr. Henkhaus. "And did you provide him with materials on a system in developing a method to detect EDTA? "Yes, of course. There was a letter with a number of citations on it."

The letter from Henkhaus was written before the testing was done, but before they knew he was going to appear as a defense witness; they reached out to Dr. Fredric Rieders. Why? He is an expert on the subject. Because Dr. Fredric Rieders, a Ph.D., is a distinguished teacher and he runs a reference lab outside of Philadelphia. People go to this laboratory when they want to develop toxicology techniques which are specialized and sophisticated because he is experienced, he is knowledgeable, he is learned. They asked him for information about EDTA. You know why else? Because Dr. Rieders testified he has expertise in EDTA and it is used to treat people for lead poisoning. He has been working with EDTA for something on the order of 20 years. He is the expert that you would call to interpret the data, so they asked him for references. And now they want to tell you that he is out of his mind, that he is not reasonable in his interpretation of this data, and he shouldn't be trusted. This is very interesting, isn't it? [NOTE: Agent Martz had ZERO experience with EDTA per his own testimony.]

Now, you know when you evaluate the testimony of Agent Martz and Dr. Rieders, there really isn't that much disagreement. And rember the circumstantial evidence charge that says when there are two plausible reasonable interpretations, you have to take the one that goes to innocence.

There are three questions. Is there EDTA there? Dr. Rieders says yes. Agent Martz says "could be consistent with EDTA based on the ms/ms readings." If it isn't EDTA, says Martz, I don't know what else it could be.

Next question. If it is EDTA, how much is there? Now, both of them agree that it is in parts per million, not parts per billion. And both agree, when you examine the testimony, that if it is in parts per million, it cannot come from the EDTA we ingest in food that then is secreted into the blood. You don't have parts per million that way, because if you did, you would be in serious--you would have serious health problems. You wouldn't clot. You would bleed to death, as Dr. Rieders was pointing out. The next question. And this is where they parted company. Is the amount of EDTA here sufficient to have come from a purple-topped tube? Dr. Rieders says, unless you were treating somebody for lead poisoning and injecting EDTA into them, that is the reasonable explanation for parts per million in these samples of EDTA. Agent Martz says, "No, I can't really say because I would expect there to be more EDTA in a sample left for three weeks on the back gate or on a sock I'm seeing six months later...." but he never did a single experiment to find out how much you would expect to get from stains that are months old and are subjected to environmental insults.

And you saw that there were quantitation problems when they tested it. It would go up and down. So, when you look at it, at the credentials, Marts versus Rieders, Rieders has far more experience with EDTA; they wanted to hire him and they consulted with him. Dr. Rieders works with the FBI. They go to him and consult and he was working on a case with them at the time he came here to testify. He runs a reference lab that is specialized in these issues. He runs a reference lab that is specialized in these issues. Even though he does not have the $750,000 machine yet, the ms/ms that Martz is using, he understands it, seen it before, interpreted data from it, he is getting one soon. So it is not a question of machine; it is a question of the expertise to understand the data. Agent Martz, he has a bachelor's degree, he had some trouble with pi, but he didn't even--there are some disturbing parts of his testimony, let's face it. He didn't even consider the validation studies that had been performed by others at the FBI laboratory. The prosecution made a big deal with these. You know, he didn't look for that 132 daughter ion. He didn't perform the test to find that. All the digital daughters he threw away. He come up with this thing where he says he tests his own blood and he finds some level of EDTA in it but he threw away the documents about what he did. He put it in a test-tube for two weeks that has silicon in it, that has a red stopper in it that could be a source of EDTA. He doesn't go and test anybody else's blood. There would be certainly a phenomena that we found parts per million in parts of whole blood or his whole method is screwed up. They are going to come back and test more.

They are going to come back and say, "Well, Dr. Rieders should have done more of a test on these level of samples. That is what they should have done." But remember it is the prosecution's burden. They say it is key evidence. Then why not get some real studies or do more studies or save the data or present something to this jury that is credible to disprove the presence of EDTA? The prosecution gets up during the trial and says they have disproven that this could be EDTA from a purple-topped tube, and if Rieders has no basis whatsoever for saying this, it can't be a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Well, saying it doesn't make it so, it is their burden, and they have to disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not do this during the criminal trial. During the civil trial they would say this was ghosting but Dr. Reiders again would dispel this.