Cross-examination of Gary Sims (part 3)

📄 Cross-examination of Gary Sims (part 3) — Friday, November 15, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\15\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-GARY-SIMS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 16 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Gary Sims (part 2) Cross-examination of Gary Sims (part 1) ▶

Witness: Gary Sims
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Friday, November 15, 1996 • Utterances: 82

Defense attorney Blasier cross-examined DNA expert Gary Sims on interpretation challenges with faint PCR dot results, chain of custody issues with Bundy drop bindles (notably the absence of Andrea Mazzola's initials), and the sock stains. The examination closed by establishing that the large Nicole Brown Simpson stain on the sock cut-out contained 1350 nanograms of DNA — by far the largest quantity of any evidence stain — and that no EDTA was added to those swatches.

# 1 (The jurors returned to their respective seats.)

# 2 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

# 3 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Sims, as we said a few minutes ago, the hints and traces of dots that I had on my board that we just talked about, those were taken from your laboratory's results, correct?

# 4 A:

I believe they were, except there was that one use of the word "vary." I don't think that was from my actual worksheet.

# 5 Q:

Well, that's one of their boards. I was talking about the Bronco board.

The testing strips that were on it had traces and hints?

# 6 A:

You were showing --

# 7 Q:

Yes, I --

# 8 A:

Yes, I think by and large, that was the language.

I didn't look at each one against my recent sheets, but that sounds familiar.

# 9 Q:

You would agree, would you not, that the problems of interpretation of these things become more complicated when you're dealing with very small quantities of DNA and faint dots like this?

# 10 A:

Yes.

# 11 Q:

And sometimes it's not unusual to look at a picture and not see any dots at all, and then look at it in a little different light, and all of a sudden, you see a hint of something, correct?

# 12 A:

Well we -- in our laboratory, we really struggle with dots. We really look at them in such a way that we don't want to overlook anything. We call it very close.

We look to see if there's anything at all there, we'll call it. We're very -- what's the word -- persnickety about that.

I don't know if there's another right word.

KEY QUOTE

# 13 Q:

Is -- one of the reasons for that is the only thing that can light up any of those dots is DNA?

# 14 A:

The only thing would be DNA, unless there's something totally wrong with the dot; that's correct, yes.

# 15 Q:

Okay.

So if you see a hint, a trace, a smudge or little tiny dot, you know that there is DNA on there; it may be from contamination, may be cross-hybridization, may be a DX gene, but you know it's DNA?

# 16 A:

There's definitely a dot there; that's due to DNA.

# 17 Q:

Now, getting back to the Bronco for a quick second --

# 18 A:

Okay.

# 19 Q:

Stain number 303 was a stain that was taken from the console area on August 24. You're aware of that, are you not?

# 20 A:

That's my understanding; it was somewhere at that time.

# 21 Q:

And stain number 30 is a stain taken from the same area or similar area on June 14, correct?

# 22 A:

I believe it's about that time, yes.

# 23 Q:

Now, is it accurate that you found more DNA in 303 than you did in 30?

# 24 A:

I'd have to check my notes on that.

It's 303 versus?

# 25 Q:

30.

# 26 A:

30. Okay.

# 27 (Witness reviews notes.)

# 28 GARY SIMS:

Yes.

# 29 Q:

Thank you.

Now, I want to talk about the Bundy drops for a minute.

The swatches that were sent to you from LAPD for the Bundy drops were in bindles, correct? In envelopes?

# 30 A:

Yes.

# 31 Q:

None of those bindles had any initials of Andrea Mazzola, did they?

# 32 A:

I don't recall seeing AM on any of those Bundy bindles.

KEY QUOTE

# 33 Q:

Now, one of those bindles for Bundy drop number 47, you made note that there was a transfer -- a wet transfer of a blood stain on the bindle itself. Do you recall that?

# 34 A:

Yes. I believe that was the right number, but I'd like to check my notes on that.

# 35 Q:

Okay.

# 36 A:

The number 47 is the one you mentioned?

# 37 Q:

Correct.

# 38 A:

Yes.

# 39 Q:

And that's consistent which a swatch being put in that bindle while it's still wet, is it not?

# 40 A:

Yes.

In other words, there would be some dampness to it that would transfer the blood to the bindle material.

# 41 Q:

And I want to close by asking you some questions about the socks.

When you got the socks, you could see several stains with your naked eye, could you not?

# 42 A:

Well, when I got the socks, I saw, for example, cut-out areas and circled areas, so I knew to look at those areas first.

# 43 Q:

You could see them with the naked eye, couldn't you?

# 44 A:

I could see them with the naked eye to some extent where I -- when I knew where to look, yes.

# 45 Q:

Okay. And you got the socks approximately when?

# 46 A:

That would be in September, I believe.

# 47 Q:

Okay.

# 48 A:

That was September 26 of 1994, we received the socks.

# 49 Q:

Now, you testified on direct, I believe, that you saw part of the ankle stain of the -- one of the socks had a big cut-out on it.

# 50 A:

Yes.

# 51 Q:

You were actually sent some of the patches that had been cut out of that center area, correct?

# 52 A:

Yes. There were cuts in a tube.

# 53 Q:

There's the large sample that RFLP results indicated 11 probes, I think, Nicole Brown Simpson?

# 54 A:

Yes.

# 55 Q:

And you also observed, if we look at a sock and consider a sock as having four surfaces on it, the outside, the inside, and the inside of the other side, and the outside?

# 56 A:

Yes.

# 57 Q:

One, two, three, four. We can talk about surfaces one, two, three, and four?

# 58 A:

Yes.

# 59 Q:

If we define the area of the cut-out as surfaces one and two -- you with me?

# 60 A:

Okay.

# 61 Q:

You saw blood on the opposite side of the sock on surface three that corresponded to that cut-out area, did you not?

# 62 A:

Well, I don't think that really characterizes what I saw.

In fact, when I did that examination, what I noted in my notes is that it did not appear that there was any transfer to that third surface. There were some fibrils with blood on them that had flaked off; and it had appeared to me, once you start cutting this sock material the, fibrils can come -- they start to ravel, basically.

# 63 Q:

I thought you said on direct, you saw some blood on that third surface.

# 64 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Misstates the evidence; didn't say anything about it.

# 65 THE COURT:

It's a question.

# 66 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't see any blood on the fourth surface, did you?

# 67 A:

I did not.

# 68 Q:

Now, you were sent four swatches from that big cut-out stain, were you not?

# 69 A:

I believe there were four, yes.

# 70 Q:

And you did what's called a yield gel, which helps you determine how much DNA is on those stains; and you did that process on three of those swatches, correct?

# 71 A:

I believe that's correct.

# 72 Q:

And on those three swatches, which aren't even the entire stain, you found an estimated 1315 nanograms of DNA, correct?

# 73 A:

Something like that.

But I'd like a second to check my notes on that point.

# 74 Q:

Sure.

# 75 A:

Yes, I took three of the four pieces and I -- after I ran my yield gel, I had about 1350 nanograms left.

KEY QUOTE

# 76 Q:

And of all of the stains, I think you said there was 108, or over 100 that you processed in this case, that was by far the largest amount of DNA in any stain, correct, other than the reference samples?

# 77 A:

I believe that's correct.

# 78 Q:

Thank you.

# 79 A:

Yes.

# 80 Q:

You didn't put any EDTA on those swatches, did you?

KEY QUOTE

# 81 A:

No.

# 82 MR. BLASIER:

No further questions.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Witness

In our laboratory, we really struggle with dots. We really look at them in such a way that we don't want to overlook anything. We call it very close. We look to see if there's anything at all there, we'll call it. We're very -- what's the word -- persnickety about that.

Sims voluntarily describes the lab's aggressive approach to calling faint results, which Blasier uses to underscore how unreliable marginal dot readings can be.

Witness

I don't recall seeing AM on any of those Bundy bindles.

Establishes that Andrea Mazzola, the junior criminalist, did not initial the Bundy drop bindles — a chain of custody gap the defense was building throughout trial.

Witness

Yes, I took three of the four pieces and I -- after I ran my yield gel, I had about 1350 nanograms left.

Confirms an enormous quantity of DNA on the sock stain, which the defense argued was inconsistent with a natural blood transfer and more consistent with a planted wet swatch.

Examiner

You didn't put any EDTA on those swatches, did you?

Final question of the cross — ties directly to the defense theory that planted blood from the reference vials (which contained EDTA) would test positive for EDTA, unlike these swatches.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Bronco stain 303 — console area sample collected August 24

discussed; compared to stain 30 from same area collected June 14; 303 had more DNA

Informal

Bronco stain 30 — console area sample collected June 14

discussed in comparison to stain 303

Informal

Bundy drop bindles — swatches sent to Sims from LAPD

discussed; absence of Andrea Mazzola initials noted; wet transfer on bindle 47 confirmed

Informal

Socks — cut-out stain patches with RFLP results matching Nicole Brown Simpson (11 probes)

discussed; 1350 nanograms of DNA found on three of four swatches from cut-out area

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Blasier•Witness

Blasier establishes that a wet transfer on Bundy drop bindle 47 is consistent with a swatch being placed in the bindle while still wet — implying improper collection or handling by Mazzola.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Witness

Blasier walks Sims through a four-surface sock model to probe whether blood appeared on the third surface (opposite the cut-out), then attempts to impeach Sims's direct testimony. Sims pushes back, saying raveling fibrils — not blood transfer — explained what he saw.

contested

Robert Blasier•Witness

Sims confirms 1350 nanograms of DNA on the sock cut-out — the largest quantity of any evidence stain in the case — and that no EDTA was added, the final question of the cross.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Witness

Sims searches for the right word to describe his lab's dot-reading diligence and lands on 'persnickety,' then acknowledges he isn't sure it's the right word.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ LAPD / Andrea Mazzola

chain of custody — missing initials on bindles

Blasier elicits that none of the Bundy drop bindles bore Mazzola's initials, undermining documentation of evidence collection.

⚔ LAPD evidence handling

physical evidence — wet transfer on bindle

Blasier gets Sims to confirm that a wet blood transfer on bindle 47 is consistent with a swatch being packaged before it dried, suggesting improper or careless collection.

Witness Demeanor

(Witness reviews notes.)

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8283 • 82 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103