What does 1309-A represent, those series of strips?

Do you want to show it to him up close?

Yeah. I think he knows what--

These are items from the Bronco taken--DNA items from the Bronco that were typed at Department of Justice.

Pictures of the Department of Justice --

Pictures of the strips, yes.

And do you also have their scoring sheet with respect to that?

Yes, I do.

All right. And on 1308 itself, have we taken certain strips, enlarged them and then made--and then taken DOJ typing sheets data?

Yes.

And in fact, in the upper left-hand corner here of 1308, we see another picture of 1308-A; is that right?

That's correct.

Okay. Now, LAPD item no. 30, is that a stain from the bloodstain from the Bronco console?

That's correct.

And is item no. 31 also a stain swatch taken from the Bronco console on June 14th?

That's correct.

These were all items taken June 14th?

That's correct.

And QC816, what is that?

That is a quality control specimen and at Department of Justice, they take known samples from known individuals and run them through in a blind fashion so that they can tell if the typing is being done correctly. So this would be a quality number 816 which would have a particular type, and it would be run as a control at the time they did their typing.

And what is this strip marked "Positive control"?

The positive control is the control that is incorporated or packaged with the kit. It's a DNA that's a 1.1, 4 DNA that's run just to check the strips.

All right. Now, is there one control in this series of strips that is not included in this large chart?

I believe so.

And which one is that?

The extraction blank? Is that what you're talking about? Yes.

Okay. And that control had no--what--did that control have any evidence of activity?

No. That's the DNA extraction blank, and in this particular case, it looks clean.

Now, what was the typing called by the Department of Justice for LAPD item 30?

Item 30 was recorded as a 1.1, 1.2 with a hint of 1.3.

And that in this case has been called as a genotype consistent with Mr. Simpson; is that correct?

That's correct.

By the Department of Justice?

By the Department of Justice.

All right. Now, LAPD item no. 31, what was the call made by the Department of Justice and testified to by Mr. Sims in this case?

They recorded this item as a mixture of a 1.1, 1.2 as a large contributor and a minor contributor of a 1.3, 4.

That is in fact what appears in their typing sheet?

Yes.

All right. And was the 1.3, 4 called by the Department of Justice as being a genotype consistent with Mr. Goldman?

It was.

All right. And to make that call, what must the analyst say about that 1.3 allele or dot? Is it--in terms of it being a real allele or a contaminant?

In order for it to be recorded as a real allele or a typeable allele, it should be greater intensity than a C dot.

But in terms of--was that 1.3 called as a real allele or real DNA?

It was considered in terms of the report because it was mentioned as a minor contributor, yes, it was.

All right. Now, on the quality assurance control, QC816, what is the expected genotype for that?

The expected genotype on that quality control was a 1.2, 1.2.

All right. And what was recorded by the Department of Justice in terms of the alleles or the dots seen on that strip?

They recorded in addition--they recorded a hint of a 1.3 and a 1.1 dot.

All right. And looking at the positive control, what's the expected genotype for that?

The expected genotype is a 1.1, 4.

And what did they find?

And they found a 1.3 and they recorded that as a hint of a 1.3.

Now, in view of the 1.3 or the hint of 1.3 that is recorded on QC816 and the hint of 1.3 recorded on the positive control, in your opinion--well, what is the purpose of these controls in terms of the appearance of dots on other strips in the same run?

The purpose of the controls is to ensure that the typing was run appropriately and all the controls worked. In this particular case, this hint of 1.3 on both of these strips indicates at this point we don't know what it indicates. It indicates either there's an artifact, the 1.3 remember can do that, and we have a presence of a 1 allele, so we can't determine whether that's the case or not. It could be a contaminant or it could be an error in this particular run in the way that they ran their hybridization.

And incidentally, you said the 1.3 when it appears as an artifact as opposed to a real foreign DNA contaminant, how much DNA has to be put into the templet?

Well, in order for that to be the explanation, you need greater than 6 nanograms of DNA.

Now, in view of the 1.3 showing up as hints in the quality assurance sample 816 and the positive control, in your opinion, is it scientifically acceptable to call the 1.3 on LAPD item no. 31 as a real allele?

Objection. Lack of expertise on the part of the witness.

Overruled.

Well, you can't call that allele because your controls are showing weak signals similar to that. You have no confidence because the control has failed as to whether or not we have a similar thing going on on this particular item. You can't ignore the 1.3 on your controls and then count it on something that was run during the same run as being real. There's no way scientifically to determine at that point whether that's the case or not.

In terms of the Bronco console and samples that were collected on June 14th, 1995, other than LAPD item no. 31, is there any other DNA results from that console that is consistent with Mr. Goldman's genotype?

Objection. Leading and argumentative.

Sustained.

Is there any other DNA result from swatches taken from the console on June 14th, 19--ooh, that's wrong.

Your Honor, may I make a correction on the board?

You may.

Do you have a black marker. Your Honor, let the record reflect on 1308, I'm changing 6-14-95 to 6-14-94.

Thank you.

Thank you.

In terms of the DNA results from both the Los Angeles Police Department and the Department of Justice from bloodstains taken on the console, from the console that were collected on June 14th, not August 26th, but June 14th, are there other than LAPD item no. 31, are there any other results that are consistent with Mr. Goldman's genotype?

No.

So as far as the June 14th collection is concerned, item 31 is the only evidence that's consistent with Mr. Goldman's genotype on that Bronco console?

That's correct.

And it's your opinion, sir, that the controls failed as far as LAPD item no. 31 is concerned?

That's correct.

And that this cannot be called?

That's correct.

Now, in terms of development length, could you indicate what that is?

As I explained, when you--the last step in these strips is to allow that dot to develop, and it's just like developing film. It's not exactly the same, but it's a good analogy. So then as you develop, you can see the dot getting darker and darker, and the longer you wait, the darker the dot will become, and when you stop it, then that stops the process.

Now, the LAPD protocol--withdrawn. In the Department of Justice protocol, what is the time frame that they indicate they will develop the strips in? How many minutes?

20 to 30 minutes.

All right. And in this particular DOJ typing sheet, did they indicate how long these particular strips were developed?

Yes.

And what was that?

25 minutes.

Mark this as Defense 1310.

1310.

And I have two smaller pictures, your Honor, that correspond with--that are also on this board, one of which I'll mark 1310-A.

And these are DQ-Alpha strips from October 31st?

That is correct, your Honor.

And 1310-B.

And those will DQ-Alpha strips from December 31st.

Thank you. That's correct.

Now, Dr. Gerdes--

Can I have just a moment, your Honor?

Certainly.

LAPD item no. 52, is that one of the Bundy blood drops?

Yes, it is.

Is that the Bundy blood drop that Cellmark got an RFLP result with between 25 and 50 or around 25 nanograms of human DNA?

That's correct.

Now, what was the typing at the Department of Justice with respect to LAPD item 52?

For item 52, they recorded a 1.1, 1.2 with a 1.3 C trace.

C minus?

C minus.

What does that mean in their nomenclature?

That--the C minus?

Yes.

Actually I'm not sure what the C minus means.

All right. But what does "Trace" mean?

"Trace" simply means that there's a very small amount. C minus--okay. I'm sorry. Pardon me. C minus means it's less than the C dot.

Or that's what they've called it?

That's what they've called it.

All right. And what was the genotype recorded in this case for LAPD item no. 52, what the DOJ report is?

They reported a 1.1, 1.2.

All right. Now, let us assume that DNA from the item no. 52 degraded through bacteria and was subsequently--those swatches were subsequently cross-contaminated with DNA from Mr. Simpson and the genotype of the original source of that swatch included a 1.3.

Yes.

Would, in theory, this typing be consistent with that kind of mixture?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

No foundation.

Sustained.

All right. If one to regard this 1.3 dot on LAPD item no. 52 from the DOJ typing as a real allele--just asking you to assume that.

Yes.

What would this be in terms of, would this be a mixture?

Objection. Calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled.

Yes, it would. It would be a mixture of these three--of individuals, all possible combinations of individuals with those three alleles.

All right. Now, in terms of the various systems that we're using here, DQ-Alpha, D1S80 and RFLP, which of the systems is the most sensitive?

In terms of detecting DNA? The DQ-Alpha system.

All right. So if there's small amounts of DNA, it will show up first on the DQ-Alpha system?

Yes.

All right.

Doctor, would you take a half a step back please.

I'm sorry.

Okay. Thank you.

Now, what did you--what was recorded with respect--what is QC877?

That is another quality control sample that happened to be run with this particular run.

All right. And what is the positive control?

Again, that's the positive control, the 1.1, 4 that comes with the kit.

And what did the Department of Justice indicate they found with respect to the 1.3 dot on QC877?

Once again, they record a trace of a 1.3 on this quality control sample and a hint trace of a 1.3 on the positive control.

Now, in the Department of Justice--withdrawn. Did the Department of Justice subsequently rehybridize item no. 52?

They did.

All right. And when was that?

That was on 12-31-94.

All right. And what results did they record?

On rehybridization, they wanted a 1.1, 1.2 with a 1.3 very faint hybridization.

Now, can you see that very faint trace in this picture?

No.

Is that something that was recorded by them when they first saw the strip?

Yes.

So by their own records, what are they indicating about the 1.3 when they rehybridized it?

Well, they're indicating that they saw something on their record and--but I don't see it on the strip.

All right. Now, do their records indicate from the Department of Justice how long they developed this rehybridization on December 31st, 1994?

Yes. 22 minutes.

All right. Is there any indication of how long the strips that were hybridized on October 31st, 1994 were developed?

I couldn't find any record of it on that sheet.

Could you please indicate "Not indicated" on those brackets?

Now, the longer the development time, what happens in terms of these dots?

They become more intense, especially faint dots. The faint dots will begin to appear.

So would it be fair to say that if you develop it, the strips, less time as opposed to a greater time, you're less likely to see faint dots?

Objection. Leading.

Sustained.

All right. What happens if you develop--within a framework, bracketed framework of 20 or 30 minutes, in terms of developing these strips and the likelihood of seeing faint dots, is it greater--when is it greater and when is it less?

The dots will be more intense at 30 minutes and less intense or lighter 10 to 20 minutes.

So it's a gradation the longer the development, the more you see it?

Yes.

Now, in your judgment, do you have an opinion with respect to the limitations of the DQ-Alpha system in the protocol as implemented here, the Department of Justice, with respect to development run?

Objection. Vague.

Overruled.

Yes. I think that the development length should be standardized to a greater degree in order to provide for more reliable in cross--for cross-comparison of two different strips, they have to be developed at the same time for you to really compare the two.

Is there a problem, sir, with dots appearing when you develop them for longer periods and then disappearing when you develop for shorter periods?

Objection. Leading.

Sustained.

Also beyond expertise.

Dr. Gerdes, in terms of--the DQ-Alpha system looks at what gene?

Looks at the DQ-Alpha gene. HLF, DQ-Alpha.

In your laboratory, do you use systems to detect the DQ-Alpha gene?

Yes, I do.

What systems are they?

They're a dot blot system. It's not this particular kit, but it's a similar dot blotting system.

What kind is it called? What--this is called reverse dot blot?

This is direct dot blotting.

That's what you use?

Yes.

Are you developing PCR systems?

Yes.

That involve direct dot blotting?

At the present time, we're using them. We're not really developing them at the moment, but I have in the past, yes.

D1S80, what kind of a system is that?

That's a--it's a short tandem repeat system for PCR.

And with respect to the CNV, did you develop a PCR base system to detect that?

Yes.

Do you have any qualms at all about your expertise as a molecular biologist to interpret the protocols and the operation of the DQ-Alpha system?

Counsel, the objection that was sustained was leading.

Oh. It wasn't as to expertise? Okay. Thank you.

Dr. Gerdes, what is your view--let's do this in our remaining minutes.

Could we put--I would like to put these two boards up side by side. Since we're running out of time, maybe we could--I could even dragoon some people into hold them? May that would do it?

I don't know. I think your colleagues didn't liked that terminology. They'll volunteer. All right. Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir. Making sure you don't block off the court reporter.

Let's just try it this way. With 1309, this is the Bronco console board and item no. 31. Did this 1.3 dot that I'm pointing to on LAPD item no. 31--

Yes.

--how did they call that?

They called that as a real allele.

Did they call that as a contaminant?

No.

Did they call that as an artifact?

No.

They call that as real?

Yes.

Objection. Leading.

Overruled.

Is this 1.3 the basis of calling a genotype consistent with Mr. Goldman in the Bronco?

It is.

Yes.

Objection. Asked and answered.

Answer will still. We did cover that once already though.

I understand.

Could you please--I have a circle here, your Honor. Could you please put over that 1.3 and write in this circle called "Real"?

Is that permissible, your Honor?

Yes.

Write over this to cover it or--

No. Put it perhaps over it to the side.

Below it?

Below it and pointing upwards.

Okay. Now, I ask you with a--this marker--I'm sorry. Now, with respect to the--pointing that to LAPD item no. 52.

Yes.

Pointing that to the dot that's 1.3.

Yes.

How did the department call that in terms of whether that was real or an artifact?

Artifact.

Not real?

Not real.

Could you please on this sticker and with an arrow write "Not real" and point downwards?

Comparing these two analyses, in your opinion, as a DNA laboratory director, as a molecular biologist, as an individual that develops PCR typing systems, are these two calls scientifically consistent?

No, they're not.

All right. Your Honor, I think this is a good place to stop.