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.
All right. Dr. Gerdes, would you resume the witness stand, please.
John Gerdes, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Doctor, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Clarke, you may continue with your cross-examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. CLARKE
Dr. Gerdes, the day before yesterday you suggested that there might have been cross-contamination on various evidence items in this case, correct?
And you suggested that that cross-contamination that might have occurred, occurred during the extraction and evidence handling phase by Collin Yamauchi, correct?
Now, those are two different steps in the process, correct, that is, sample handling and evidence--I'm sorry, DNA extraction?
Those two acts or events take place in different rooms at the Los Angeles Police Department, DNA--at the Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory?
Now, Dr. Gerdes, you would agree, wouldn't you, that there is a way, by tracing the history of samples and how they are processed and handled, to eliminate one or both of those possibilities of cross-contamination, whether in sample handling or extraction, by looking at the history of a particular evidence sample?
I'm not sure. No, I don't believe you can do that. I said that the two controls--to explain this, the two controls, the amplification water control, tends to be a control for introduction of contamination at that stage and that particular control allows you to differentiate from that stage on the process of copying the DNA and anything preceding that. Now, there really isn't a good control to differentiate the first two steps, which is sample handling and sample extraction, at least in the laboratory. Now, the substrate control would allow you theoretically to determine if extract--if there was DNA introduction earlier. If, for instance, the substrate controls were contaminated, and all of the reagent blanks were clean around the same time, that would be definite indication that the source or the time at which the contamination occurred would be at the crime scene.
Dr. Gerdes, going back to my question, isn't there a way, by tracing the history of a particular evidence sample, to eliminate the possibility that cross-contamination occurred at one or both of those two stages?
No. The problem is that when you get to the final process, the final typing strip, if you see an indication of DNA on that strip, you have some idea as to what stage it might have been incorporated, but there is no proof because basically, for instance, the extraction blank, if it were contaminated, that basically tells you that something occurred in the handling in the laboratory or in the extraction process, but if the substrate control was contaminated, that could be either because it was contaminated at the--at the crime scene or the reagents that were added to that substrate control at the lab introduced DNA, so that is--
Dr. Gerdes, what I'm asking you is isn't there a way, by tracing the history of a sample, that may eliminate one or both of those possibilities of cross-contamination during handling and/or extraction?
All right. So instead of the history of a sample, you prefer the term "Sequence of events"?
Okay. Item no. 48, if I recall correctly, came in on the 13th of June, was handled at the processing room for drying on the 14th of June. That particular item was processed at the same time as Mr. Simpson's reference sample and the Rockingham glove.
Yes. In the sequence in which that occurred was that the--Mr. Simpson's blood sample was handled first and then the Rockingham glove and then the item 52 and I don't remember the exact sequence, I can look it up, but the other Bundy drops after that.
No. At that point that item was--and at this point I will have to look at my notes.
Okay. On the 24th of June the item 48 and--was mailed to Cellmark and it was mailed at the same time as 49, 50, the reference samples from all three individuals, and no. 7 and 12 which are blood drops from Rockingham and item 47, 52, 56 and 78. Those items were mailed in a package from LAPD on 6/24/94 to Cellmark. The Department of Justice item 48 was mailed to the Department of Justice on August 12th, 1995, and it was mailed at the same time as item no. 6, which is a blood drop from the Rockingham driveway, and items 47, 49 and 50, as well as the reference samples from Mr. Simpson, Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Is that the entire history of those samples as far as DNA testing is concerned, doctor?
They were then analyzed at those particular laboratories and the substrate controls for those particular items for the Department of Justice substrate controls.
With respect to item no. 48, is that the entire history as far as DNA testing is concerned?
If you want me to go in the specific dates in which the DNA was analyzed, et cetera.
Dr. Gerdes, with regard to item no. 48, you have described it being seized. How many swatches were seized--collected?
Well, I don't recall right off and I apologize, but I only brought what I felt were critical items to--I mean, I have two file drawers full of data on this and I would have to look it up and I don't have it with me.
As far as these two swatches--I'm sorry. Rephrase that. I would like you to assume that there were two swatches collected with regard to item no. 48 at the crime scene.
As far as what was collected from item no. 48, how many swatches did in fact Collin Yamauchi deal with when he extracted DNA from it--from one or more of them?
All right. With regard to item no. 48, is it your recollection, is it your testimony that all of the swatches were in fact processed by Mr. Yamauchi, and I'm referring to DNA extraction?
Incidentally, Dr. Gerdes, do you believe the number of swatches that are collected with respect to a particular stain is important?
I believe it is important to keep track of how many there are and it is important--it would be important if they are--to--the ideal situation would be to take those swatches and put them in separate bindles at the time of collection so that they are not handled.
With regard to, Dr. Gerdes, these one or more swatches, it is your testimony Mr. Yamauchi extracted DNA from whatever was collected, whether it was one or if it was two, he extracted from both of them?
He--I'm sure he did not extract from all of the swatches that were collected. It is important to reserve some of that evidence and I'm sure he did that.
Wouldn't it be very important to know, in terms of your opinions about cross-contamination, whether or not he in fact did extract DNA from some of them, all of them or none of them?
Well, wouldn't it be extremely important in terms of the potential of cross-contamination for you to know exactly how many of those swatches he took DNA from?
It would be--basically important in terms of--of--it is not important in terms of what I see on the typing results that have been reported. It is important in terms of the potential to go back, at least to the stage in the lab, and perhaps do further analysis. It still doesn't control for what happened before that and it doesn't control for the fact that those swatches--it is my understanding that they were all handled, they were all packaged at the same time. It doesn't matter how many swatches there were there on that morning of--or on the evening of June 13th when they were packaged and bindled, those items were all handled at the same time. And so at this point, since I don't know exactly--or I can't be assured exactly of how those were handled and manipulated, at that point you have--already have a suspicion or may have a suspicion as to the handling of the samples because they were all handled, the swatches were all handled at that time. A subset of those may have been extracted at a later time, but because they were all handled together on that day and because they were all handled together at the crime scene, you can't back this up all the way to the very, very beginning.
Dr. Gerdes, wouldn't it be extremely important to know, in terms of the potentials of cross-contamination, if Mr. Yamauchi extracted DNA from all of those swatches or only some of those swatches?
It would be important in terms of going back to those swatches and perhaps doing something with those again, but as far as the analysis of the data that I've looked at, it is not important to that. What I'm looking at is the typing result that he obtained from that and the manipulation, not the extraction, but the manipulation of those swatches on that morning.
Is it your testimony that the steps in extracting DNA from a sample represent the exact same steps that are taken when one simply packages a sample for shipment to another laboratory?
No. It is my testimony that the manipulation process has the potential, whenever you manipulate these. It doesn't have to be DNA extraction.
Dr. Gerdes, what I'm asking you is are the steps of extracting DNA from a swatch the same exact steps that are taken when a swatch is simply packaged for shipment to another laboratory?
No. What I'm asking you, Dr. Gerdes, is are the steps the same for one, taking a sample and extracting DNA from it, and two, simply collecting a sample from a storage location and sending it to another laboratory?
The steps should be the same and that includes handling that substrate control in parallel between each evidence item that is handled.
Dr. Gerdes, aren't there steps in extracting DNA that include adding reagents, for instance, to a swatch?
When one simply grabs a sample from storage and packages it for shipment to another laboratory is chelex added to it?
Dr. Gerdes, when you pick a sample up from storage, put it in a box and send it to another laboratory, you don't add any chemicals to it, do you?
It is never exposed to an extraction process, correct, under the situation I have just described?
Now I would like to turn your attention to item no. 50. Can you describe the history of that sample, and that is referring to item no. 50, another blood drop at the crime scene?
Item--item 50 was handled at that same--as far as manipulation of the swatches, on 6/13, if I recall. As far as bindling, then it was--it was in the first set again, so it was in with that same set of first--of initial LAPD DNA extractions on 6/14 and again in the manipulation stage that particular item at the time of packaging, the order was Mr. Simpson's reference sample, the Rockingham glove, item--blood item 52 and then item 48 was one of the other four, I'm not sure which order, but it was one of those subsequent to that as far as the manipulation and handling of that sample and bindling. Then on 6/14 it was one of the items that was set up for DNA extraction and then typed at LAPD and it was mailed--item 50, correct?
It was mailed again on 6/24 to Cellmark. It was in that--that grouping that I mentioned earlier, and to the Department of Justice--it was mailed again on August 12th to the Department of Justice.
Can you--first of all, is that the entire history of that sample as far as DNA testing is concerned?
As far as--as its arrival at laboratories. Of course if you want to go into when it was extracted and so forth at each lab, that is not the entire history, but at that point then it was extracted and typed.
In other words, when these items were received by other laboratories there were steps taken to type those samples?
With regard to item no. 50, wouldn't it be important to know how many of the swatches collected were extracted for DNA by Collin Yamauchi?
Of--the--basically the extraction process again is the second step in this procedure so what is really critical--
The answer is stricken in its entirety. The jury is to disregard. Ask the question again.
Dr. Gerdes, listen to my question carefully. As far as the potential of cross-contamination of this item that you described on your direct testimony--
--wouldn't it be important to know if Collin Yamauchi extracted DNA from all the swatches that were received or just some of them?
It would be important as to the potential of contamination from that point on, but that does not control for the entire process of what happened in terms of manipulation and handling at the crime scene prior to that.
Dr. Gerdes, with regard to item no. 52, that is another blood drop at Bundy, correct?
You don't recall independently how many swatches were collected for item no. 52, correct?
With regard to that particular item, RFLP results were obtained by Cellmark, correct?
With regard to the potential of cross-contamination that you described two days ago, wouldn't it be important to know how many swatches of the ones that were collected were extracted by Collin Yamauchi for DNA?
No. What I'm saying is I tried to explain it and that is that you basically--doesn't matter how many swatches, those swatches were all handled together. The number doesn't matter.
Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true some of those swatches were never processed to extract DNA by Collin Yamauchi?
Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true not all of those swatches were extracted for their DNA content by Mr. Yamauchi?
Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true Collin Yamauchi did not extract DNA from all of those swatches from the Bundy blood drops?
Thank you. And I have previously shown them to counsel and I would ask that the first one be displayed.
For the record, your Honor, this first slide that will be part of People's 564, does the Court wish them to be lettered individually?
All right. This would be 564-A entitled "Replicate DQA testing of items, 48, 50, 52."
And for purposes of describing this slide A, Dr. Gerdes, does it basically have what appear to be two symbols or a house or building?
And then an arrow to an icon or symbol again labeled "EPR" and to the left labeled "6/14 sampling"?
All right. Is it correct then that with regard to those three items, that they were in fact dried in the evidence processing room or EPR on June 13th, that drying process began?
And is it also true that on the next day, June 14th, in the same room, the evidence processing room, that those particular or at least one of those particular swatches from those samples were sampled by Mr. Yamauchi?
All right. Your Honor, with the Court's permission I would like to display the next slide which would be B.
Now, Dr. Gerdes, isn't it correct that from June 14th and in particular from that portion of the samples from items 48, 50 and 52 which were sampled by Mr. Yamauchi, that they went into the serology section and DNA was extracted by Mr. Yamauchi?
It is your understanding also that what went on June--excuse me--that what went from the evidence processing room to the serology room was not all of the swatches that were in fact collected on June 13th?
All right. Then if we could have what will be labeled exhibit C, I'm sorry, slide C.
Is it also correct that as part of the DNA typing process of portions of some of the swatches, that following the extraction of DNA that DNA that had been extracted by Mr. Yamauchi was taken to Parker Center for the amplification portion of the test?
And in fact that amplification portion also includes the development of the strips so that results can be read, right?
And even photography as well to record those results so that they can be reviewed later?
Is this in fact, slide C, an accurate representation of the chain of events for a portion of some of the swatches of items 48, 50 and 52?
What this slide has added, Dr. Gerdes, is two symbols to the right of the June 14th sampling EPR symbol which read "ECU and serology," correct?
And is it--it is true, is it not, that portions of the remaining swatches not sampled, not extracted by Collin Yamauchi, were sent to the evidence control unit?
Portions of those remaining portions were returned to the serology unit for purposes of shipment; isn't that correct?
No. As far as the date, I don't want to you assume that it was on June 14th that the sampling date occurred.
You described, Dr. Gerdes, and I believe you described the date of June 4th that again portions of the original swatches were sent to Cellmark, correct?
All right. Dr. Gerdes, what was sent as far as items 48, 50 and 52 to Cellmark that you described I believe on June 4th?
And I believe it could be characterized as including an arrow down from the symbol Cellmark to a circle containing DOJ.
With regard to item no. 52, it is correct, is it not, that a swatch or swatches were sent from Cellmark to the Department of Justice for testing, correct?
Dr. Gerdes, with regard to those samples, and I'm referring to the swatches that were never extracted by Collin Yamauchi, they were never subjected to cross-contamination that you have described that can occur during the extraction of DNA process, correct?
In other words, the swatches that went to Cellmark and the Department of Justice, and I'm referring now to the arrows that go right as well as to Cellmark and DOJ, they were never subjected to any of those steps by Collin Yamauchi to remove DNA?
Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true that what you described yesterday, actually day before yesterday, about what might have happened to those samples that went to Cellmark and DOJ as far as DNA extraction cross-contamination could not have happened?
KEY QUOTEI wouldn't state it--if you restrict it to only the extraction stage, that is true.
KEY QUOTEYou have described the extraction stage as one of those stages that cross-contamination can occur, correct?
Incidentally, Dr. Gerdes, none of these samples went to simply one laboratory, correct?
All of the samples--excuse me. All of the samples went to LAPD, went through LAPD first.
Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true that none of these samples were typed by one laboratory only?
And they were typed using swatches that weren't even typed by LAPD as far as Cellmark and DOJ?
Sure. As far as the swatches typed by Cellmark and the Department of Justice, those swatches weren't even typed by the Los Angeles Police Department, correct?
Incidentally, as far as the results from items 48, 50 and 52, and I'm referring to the DNA results, they all could have come from Mr. Simpson, correct?
That's definitely true for item 52 for LAPD. That is true for item 50. The reason I'm checking is that there were some with very faint C dots that they didn't call. Yes, that is true for that third item, too.
So items, 48, 50 and 52 all revealed DNA results by the Los Angeles Police Department consistent with Mr. Simpson?
As far as Cellmark was concerned, they tested all three items as well, didn't they?
As far as items 48, 50 and 52 by Gary Sims and the Department of Justice, those results with all consistent with Mr. Simpson, correct?
KEY QUOTENow, you suggested day before yesterday that there might have been cross-contamination of certain evidence items other than 48 through 52, correct?
Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true there are evidence items in this case that were never even touched by Collin Yamauchi?
There are evidence items that have never even been typed for PCR by the Los Angeles Police Department but have been typed by Cellmark or the Department of Justice?
As far as those samples that have not been touched by Collin Yamauchi, Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, tell us which samples are those?
Again, I don't have my notes on that section of--of the chain of custody, and basically I'm basing that on what I recall from their testimony.
KEY QUOTEOkay. Wouldn't it be important to know who touched certain items as far as collecting evidence, let's say, as far as the potential of cross-contamination?
It would--it might be important in terms of tracing it to a single individual, but basically I didn't attempt to trace it to a single individual. It is traced to--what the point is, is there is--from looking at any of those individuals and the record of the laboratory in terms of contamination, there is substantial risk, and I have no confidence--
Dr. Gerdes, as far as the potential of cross-contaminating another sample, it is different to extract DNA from it than it is to simply package it for shipment in terms of this risk of contamination of individuals?
As far as these samples that were not processed by any of these individuals--and I have mentioned Collin Yamauchi, Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, correct?
As far as all of those samples, you cannot recall now which samples those are; is that right?
I have a clear--I know that the samples which are the Bundy blood drops, the Rockingham glove and Mr. Simpson's reference sample were handled by Collin Yamauchi. I have a definite absolute positive--I'm positive of that. As far as other samples, such as the sock and perhaps some of the--the other items, I don't have as clear of a recall--recollection of those.
You discussed during your direct examination three items removed from the Bronco automobile, items no. 303, 304 and 305. Do you recall that?
Yes. Those were collected in June, June 14th, I believe, and those were processed, umm, and extracted on June 15th.
Who collected those items, 303, 304 and 305, and I'm referring to collecting the bloodstains?
I'm sorry, I'm--let me back up. The items 303--those were collected in--those were the items that were later collected from the Bronco console, so those were the items that were collected at a later date.
Is it your testimony that Collin Yamauchi collected the stains from the console 303, 304 and 305?
I am not absolutely sure, but I think that is who did that. I don't have the notes with me.
Dr. Gerdes, isn't it important to know who collected these items in view of your testimony about the potential of cross-contamination?
Not in my opinion. Basically it is important how they were collected; not who collected them.
It makes--I have observed the testimony of each of these individuals on their procedures as to how they collect items. In my opinion none of the individuals are collecting these in a manner that a microbiologist would consider safe and therefore I don't recall the details frequently on who did it. They are all equally risky.
So it is your testimony that all of the individuals in this case and who have been involved in collecting evidence are all risky as you have used the term?
In terms of what they've described as their collection methods at the crime scene, yes.
As far as 303, 304 and 305, what are the sequence of events after their collection?
Okay. Those items were sent to the Department of Justice after being processed at the LAPD and they were received there on September 26th.
Were they processed as far as any steps in preparation to extract DNA, for instance, in the serology section of the Los Angeles Police Department?
All right. Your Honor, I have a slide actually in the form of a copy to place on the elmo that I would ask be marked as the People's next exhibit in order, a copy of which I have provided to the Defense.
All right. Dr. Gerdes, perhaps this item can be described as a title "DNA testing of items 303, 304, 305 Bronco console."
Now, the first box to the left, Dr. Gerdes, describes "Bronco console removed during search"; is that correct?
And to your--from your review of the record does that appear to be an accurate description of what occurred on that date?
The flow chart then has a second box to the right labeled "September 1, `94" and inside that box swatches made from console in serology, correct?
And does that in fact describe accurately what occurred with regard to items 303, 304 and 305?
The next box then shows "Swatches sent to Department of Justice 9/26/94"; is that right?
Had the Department of Justice done anything with regard to item no. 305 as of November 22nd, 1994?
Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true that what you described yesterday, actually day before yesterday, about what might have happened to those samples that went to Cellmark and DOJ as far as DNA extraction cross-contamination could not have happened?
I wouldn't state it--if you restrict it to only the extraction stage, that is true.
In my opinion none of the individuals are collecting these in a manner that a microbiologist would consider safe and therefore I don't recall the details frequently on who did it. They are all equally risky.
As far as items 48, 50 and 52 by Gary Sims and the Department of Justice, those results were all consistent with Mr. Simpson, correct?
Again, I don't have my notes on that section of--of the chain of custody, and basically I'm basing that on what I recall from their testimony.