Good morning, Dr. Cotton.

Good morning.

I'd like to go back to the results board from the Bundy crime scene. This is exhibit 291, Your Honor.

Item number 52, this is the item you received the RFLP result on?

Yes.

As you explained yesterday, these frequencies represent the commonness or uncommonness of that blood drop in the population generally, or that DNA result, in the population, generally?

Yes.

So it's true to say that 1 out of every 170 million people, up to 1 out of every 1.2 billion people, would have that combination of five genetic markers; is that --

Yes.

Could we see the next one, please?

This is the results board from Rockingham and item number 12 at Rockingham, that has the same rate of frequency at -- as item 52 at Bundy?

Yes.

Why is that?

It's the same banding pattern, that is the Bundy item 52, and the Rockingham foyer pattern from item number 12, those patterns are the same.

Okay. So let me see if I understand this, the five probe banding pattern for item number 12 patch, matches that for item number 52?

It does.

And both of those match Mr. Simpson?

Yes.

And 1 out of every 170 million to 1.2 billion people would have that banding pattern?

Yes.

Thank you. Can you take down the Rockingham?

Now, as you mentioned yesterday, Dr. Cotton, in addition to the various items that you've testified to on this results board, there were other items that you tested at Bundy, including the blood under Nicole's fingernails and other item as well; is that right?

Yes.

Now, for all of the tests that you performed on all of the evidence at the Bundy crime scene, did you ever obtain results showing the presence of any alleles that could not have come from one of Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman?

Okay. Good. Would you explain, just one more time, what an allele is?

An allele is simply a version of a gene. So in ABO blood groups, one is one allele, B is another allele and O is another allele.

In the polymarker system, A is one allele and B is another allele and for every locus, you will have, and all people will have, two alleles present; one from each parent.

So for all the blood evidence that you tested at Rockingham, all of that evidence at Bundy, I'm sorry, all of that evidence is consistent with having come from one of the three people listed on the board up there?

Or someone else with those same --

It varies --

-- Types.

Same types.

But there are only three groups of types present.

Okay. Thank you.

And then let me ask you about one other item that you tested that we haven't talked about, and that's item 29. Do you recall that item being tested?

You might have to look at your notes for this one.

Can you tell me where that's --

Item 29 is from the Bronco --

Yes. Okay.

-- automobile. And you tested that.

Was that an evidence item that you got from LAPD or from the Department of Justice?

I have to look that up.

Okay.

I don't think that I included -- okay. Wait a minute. You want to know whether we got that as already extracted?

Yes.

DNA from the Department of Justice?

Yes, we did. It was DNA that we obtained from the Department of Justice.

And what was your test result on that item? That's another page?

Yeah. I'm sorry. I -- I assume you don't want me to read all types here but --

Just tell me what you -- overall.

The overall result is that there are two people. There's more than one person present in the DNA from that item.

And one of the people that was present, is that -- could that be consistent with Mr. Simpson?

Okay.

Mr. Simpson can't be excluded as being a contributor to the DNA in that item.

And the other possible contributor, can you include or exclude anybody from that item?

Nicole Brown is excluded. And in our report we also excluded Ron Goldman.

And could you explain why Mr. Goldman was excluded from your report?

There is a DQ Alpha 4 allele in that sample. Ron Goldman has a DQ Alpha 4 allele, but he also has a 1.3. The 4 was very light. We did not see a 1.3. So based on the results that we could see, we excluded him.

Is it scientifically possible that the 1.3 was there, but just too light to be seen in your test?

That's possible.

Now, let's go back to this board for just one more minute before you put it down. The frequencies that you calculated for the PCR base test, that is the DQ Alpha and the polymarker match, do those frequencies include any information based upon the D1S80 runs?

No.

This board, which is exhibit 297, is the results of DNA analysis of the Rockingham socks. Is that one of the evidence items that you tested, Dr. Cotton?

Yes.

And what kind of tests were you able to do on that evidence item?

We did a DQ Alpha polymarker test and an RFLP test.

What were your results from the DQ Alpha polymarker test?

The DQ polymarker test gave results that were the same as the types of Nicole Brown.

And the RFLP results, what were you able to obtain with that?

The RFLP banding pattern matches the banding pattern of Nicole Brown.

And once again, were you able to obtain banding patterns at all five of your genetic probes?

Yes.

So the possible source of that evidence item is who?

Nicole Brown.

And are Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman excluded as possible sources?

Yes they are.

And were you able to calculate frequencies for those results?

Yes, we were.

Can you put those up on the board?

Sure.

So let me see if I understand the results here, Dr. Cotton. For the polymarker in DQ Alpha result, your figures would indicate that those patterns could come from one in 2500 to one in out of one and -- 26 -- let me start again.

Your frequency numbers would indicate that those patterns could come from one in 2500 to one in 26,000 people?

Right. That's how often you might see those -- that group of types.

And when you did the RFLP result, we obviously get much more substantial numbers.

Could you explain those, please?

All that's saying is that this banding pattern would be expected to occur in -- given that we gave, three numbers all together. The lowest frequency that we got was 16.8 billion people. That means you would have to go through a whole lot of people before you would find or you would expect to find a banding pattern that is the same as the pattern that's common to the socks and Nicole Brown.

And that would be a pretty rare pattern?

Yes, it would.

Let's -- we are going to put up on the television screen here -- would you please identify for the jury what this document is. This is evidence item 285. Exhibit 285.

That is the first autoradiograph or Autorad that was produced with the sample from the socks.

And this is the kind of Autorad that we showed the jury a sample of earlier?

It's not exactly because we showed the jury a sample of an Autorad where one probe had been applied. So that for each sample on that example, there were two bands.

What's done in our lab as a first go around with the data, is to apply four probes at once. And this Autorad shows the results from the application of four probes all together. So if each probe produces two bands, you would normally see eight. Sometimes they may overlap, so you might not count eight but there would normally be eight there. It may be occasionally six or seven.

So this does not look exactly like the example we showed.

This is a little more complicated?

It's a little more complicated.

But it's the same principle that you discussed yesterday?

Exactly.

So can you point out for the jury, item number 13, the socks that you tested?

Sure.

The pattern that you see from top to bottom right here, is the pattern from item number 13.

And would you point out what you compared that to, to match it to Nicole Brown Simpson?

Well, we compared it to all -- all three known individuals. Mr. Simpson's pattern is here. Nicole Brown's reference blood pattern is here and Ron Goldman's reference blood pattern is here. And the pattern from the socks is not the same as Mr. Simpson's. It's not the same as Mr. Brown's.

If you compare the two patterns from the sock and Nicole Brown, each place there's a band in the sock, there's a corresponding band in Nicole Brown's pattern. This data is repeated when you do -- go back and do one probe at a time and generate other Autorads and the pattern from the sock does match the pattern from Nicole Brown.

And that was also confirmed by the computer analysis of these bands?

Yes, it was.

The sock sample that you are showing us up there, evidence item number 13, is that -- we talked yesterday a little bit about degradation of evidence samples. Is that a particularly degraded evidence sample?

No, it's not and it's in quite good condition.

And can you tell by looking at this Autorad, that it's not particularly degraded?

Well, I can tell from looking at the Autorad. We don't normally put our Autorads up on a TV screen. You just look at them on a light box, so -- and that's a lot -- it's a better way to be looking at them. But it's not -- it wouldn't give you -- to you in such a big format. So both from looking at the TV screen here and remembering what the Autorad looks like, that sample is in good condition.

And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks, evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?

Yes, it could.

Why could it?

From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.

If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?

The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.

Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.

And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that explain that relative state of degradation?

Yes.

Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?

Yes.

Is it a discernable difference in degradation?

Yes.

In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?

I have no further questions, Your Honor.