All right. Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing recross-examination by Mr. Scheck. Good morning again, Mr. Sims.
Mr. Sims, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your--nice tie--cross-examination.
Thank you. Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE JURY: Good morning.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK
Mr. Sims, just a few more questions. When I left off yesterday when we were talking about Dr. Blake coming into your lab and documenting the evidence as you received it with photographs before you altered it and taking pictures of the test results. Do you recall that?
I don't know when the jury selection was actually completed. I thought it was around that time.
Okay. And then you continued doing testing as the testimony of this trial continued, did you not?
Now, the Department of Justice laboratory did not turn over photographs to the Defense of these matters. We relied on Dr. Blake's photographs?
Yes. As far as my 35 millimeter photographs were concerned, that is true, although there were some Polaroids that were given to Dr. Blake at about the time that we took our photographs, too.
And so the way this worked is that as you finished your test results on an item, Dr. Blake would come to your lab and would take pictures of the test results and it was your understanding he was free to report your findings to the Defense as you went along?
Now, on redirect examination I believe that you said that it is a challenge to sort out mixtures in a bloodstain?
And would you not agree that the difficulty of such a challenge is increased when the bloodstain mixture consists of primary contributors and a number of unknown lesser contributors?
Well, sometimes if you see primary contributors, then it is a little easier. I would say it is more difficult when they are all equal. That could be more difficult to sort out than if you see a distinct, say, two of these dots that tend to go together and two other dots that tend to go together because they are weaker. Those are actually perhaps easier to sort out than when all the bands are equal.
Umm, and I believe you also said on redirect that when you have such a mixture in bloodstain evidence that it is important to look at as many different markers as you can?
Well, some markers are more informative certainly in sorting out mixtures than others, so the more markers you have, the more you can tend to sort it out.
Now, I would like to direct your attention to your analysis of the blood smears found on the console in the Bronco.
Looking at all the data, did you not reach the conclusion, in terms of the DNA you found, that Mr. Simpson could not be a minor contributor to any of the blood found on the console? You did not characterize him as a minor contributor with respect to any of those stains in terms of the DNA types found?
In your report you came up with three kinds of categories to characterize the level of contributions that you attributed to various different DNA patterns, did you not?
You couldn't say whether--now, with respect to Mr. Simpson, on all the different swatches off that console, you never characterized the DNA pattern there consistent with Mr. Simpson as being a minor contribution?
In fact, your findings say that the genotypes consistent with Mr. Simpson was the only one found on stain no. 30 of the console?
And that you characterized the DNA types on the DQ-Alpha and D1S80 system consistent with Mr. Simpson as being the main contribution to item 31?
The only complication is that 305 you recall on DQ-Alpha we had the possible 1.2 allele on that. There was a little bit different interpretation because in that case the 1.2 was the possible.
But your report characterizes that he could be the main contributor to stain 305? Those are your words?
--to 305? No, I think in that one we listed him as contributor. If you look at the verbiage in the report, he is listed as contributing as well as contributing to DNA 30, which is 305.
And with respect to the person who contributed the 4 allele to stains 31 and 305, you characterized as minor contributor?
Just a few questions on controls. Would you agree that with respect to contamination due to the handling of samples or PCR carry-over contamination, that: "Such contamination can be signaled by the appearance of product in blank controls and of mixed or inappropriate types in samples and in positive controls"?
Let's take it step-by-step then. Contamination due to handling, can it be signaled by the appearance of product in blank controls?
Yes. In other words, in the DQ-Alpha system, for example, it would be dots sliding up?
Well, you say "wrong" dots slide up that are not expected or inconsistent with interpretation?
For example, in your lab you have a positive control you run for DQ-Alpha that is 1.1, 4?
And if you see a dot light up at some intensity--and I understand that in your lab you have gradations, you have hints, you have traces, right?
Yes. As far as, for example, looking at cross-hybridization type signals, yes, we characterize those.
Now, you agree that these negative and positive controls should be used rigorously?
And do you agree that these controls are important for monitoring general contamination in a laboratory, not just the results of any particular test or experiment?
Yes. In other words, you monitor these on an ongoing basis for the entire laboratory? Is that the question?
And if a blank control is positive in one experiment, does it not indicate a potential problem, not just for that one test or experiment, but for any tests performed at about the same time?
KEY QUOTEWell, again, I think what one would do would be to try to determine what the cause of a particular signal on a blank was and that may be isolated so that one would know that that is only due to a specific instance and not a general contamination phenomena.
Just so that we are all clear on this, when we are talking about, for example, this is the PCR system, you run a tube, right, a series of tubes?
And we've--for example, in this case we've heard sometimes they will give a number like run no. 60, run no. 61. You have similar labeling in your laboratory?
Well, we--I actually number with the case number and the item number is how I label them.
All right. But let's say in--if there were--in the number of cases prior to this one, if there were the controls indicated that contaminants were appearing in a laboratory, that could raise concern about the results in the test in a particular case even if the controls in the test in the particular case were blank?
And that is true even in a laboratory contaminated with PCR carry-over, blank controls do not necessarily become contaminated on every occasion?
Now, would you agree, given the problem of contamination due to handling and carry-over, that laboratories must incorporate contamination control into their standard operating procedure?
And would you not agree that outbreaks of contamination and the steps to correct the problem should be carefully documented?
Yes, I think those kind of instances should be reviewed and it should be the sort of thing where the laboratory takes an interest in what may have happened and track down, if possible.
Now, Mr. Sims, since we last talked, before you came back before the end of your redirect examination, did you have an opportunity to examine the diagram that Mr. Yamauchi made of the glove on June 14th?
I've only seen this briefly in seeing Mr. Yamauchi's testimony, but I haven't studied this diagram, no.
You have discussed the role of substrate control and how important you thought it was that substrate controls be systematically alternated by the laboratory personnel collecting and handling the evidence?
Yes. In other words, there are substrate controls along with the stains, then those should be systematically processed, yes.
I--I did not collect any substrate controls with the glove, no. I felt it was--the entire glove had blood in almost all places.
KEY QUOTEWell, more importantly--withdraw that. LAPD didn't take any substrate control for the glove? You didn't receive any, did you?
I--I don't know if--if they did actually select any areas or investigate any areas. I'm not--I'm not clear on that.
My question to you, sir, in terms of samples you received, did you ever receive any substrate controls for the glove?
Well, again with the glove, I only received the glove itself. I didn't receive any of the cut-outs that LAPD had made from the glove, so I just had the glove itself to work with.
Right. But for example, you didn't receive any cuttings as substrate controls the way you did, for example, with the--with other swatches, other items?
Okay. And have you ever seen a photograph of the glove prior to--other than ones at the crime scene, have you ever seen a photograph of the glove taken in a laboratory setting that reflected its condition before cuttings and alterations were made on it?
I don't recall seeing a photo like that, although I'm having trouble recalling any LAPD lab photos of the glove. I don't know if I have seen any of their photos--
Now, could you point out on this diagram the area where you found a piece of tissue?
(Witness complies.) I have to look backward here because high notes are with the glove inside out. It would be on the thumb side underneath this area here, (Indicating), where I'm pointing.
Now, have you seen, either in a form of a photograph or a document or a drawing or any form of documentation, an indication of where Mr. Fung removed a hair from the glove on the morning of June 14th?
So you would have no knowledge as to where, in what area Mr. Fung touched the glove on the morning of June 14th?
Well, I was looking at it to figure out the exact location as best I could show it on the diagram.
All right. Could we just show that note for a second on the monitor here so the jury has an understanding of what you are looking at in terms of your notes.
Well, are these--what are these pages from 69--69, 70 and 71? What do those reflect?
Okay. Could you--let me just show briefly those diagrams on the monitor, if I may, and I will mark those pages--what are we up to, I'm sorry?
What about the whole package as 1191? Excuse me, Mr. Scheck. Mr. Sims, are those your original copies? Those are copies.
Can you just focus in on the top for a second. And so that is your diagram and these are the kind of notes you write that indicate, as you are going along, exactly what you are doing and how you are doing it?
All right. Let me just briefly go back and start at page 69. That would be the beginning of your examination?
And then page 70, as you made the cut-outs, you made additional diagrams and listed exactly what you did and the order in which you did it?
And we have looked at page 71, and--okay. Those are the ones that deal with G1, G2, G3 and G4; is that correct?
There were no substrate controls with the glove, were there?
I did not collect any substrate controls with the glove, no. I felt it was--the entire glove had blood in almost all places.
You never characterized the DNA pattern there consistent with Mr. Simpson as being a minor contribution?
If a blank control is positive in one experiment, does it not indicate a potential problem, not just for that one test or experiment, but for any tests performed at about the same time?
I haven't seen any of that documentation.