Mr. Scheck?

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

Mr. Sims, some stains on the sock were more apparent than others?

Objection, it is vague as to time.

Overruled.

The--the only stain that seemed a little bit more apparent to me would be that--that one that was on the logo that I think we called 42A2, that was more apparent to me, and again, keep this mind, I didn't see A1 until after it was sampled.

Okay. But you got the sock, you looked at it and you saw, visible to the naked eye, red discoloration, discoloration that you characterized as a bloodstain in A1?

Objection, vague as to time, your Honor.

Overruled.

Can you--I'm sorry.

Sure.

First time we discussed this on cross-examination, in fact I think it was even on your direct examination, didn't you indicate that when you looked at sock A1, without the aid of the stereomicroscope, you saw by that arrow the discoloration that you identify as the bloodstain at A1?

Objection. That is compound, your Honor.

Overruled.

Yes, I think you could see some discoloration in that general area.

And then on that same sock there is a cut-out?

Well, the--I think what you are saying is the cut-out that is adjoining whatever is left?

Yes.

There is a large cut-out in the ankle area of the a sock?

Yes, there is a large cut-out.

And I think you've testified that the material of this sock, and we've seen it, is smooth, silky kind of material?

It is smooth, yes.

And in the areas where you identified bloodstains, the material tends to become, in your words, crinkled and puckered?

Yes, in some of those areas it did.

Now, Mr. Harmon asked you questions again about that B1 area of the sock that we saw yesterday under the stereomicroscope, correct?

Well, that is--we looked in that general area, yes.

All right. That is the one that everybody got out and looked at under the stereomicroscope?

Well, actually that stain was an unsampled area that was just below B1.

All right. Would it be fair to say that those areas that we spent time looking at with the stereomicroscope were the ones--were the areas where you first identified the stain, looking under the stereomicroscope.

Objection. That misstates what happened yesterday.

Sustained.

Well, I'm talking about your examination. You've told us that there was--that to the best of your recollection, and you are not completely sure of it, there was one stain area that you first were able to visualize under the stereomicroscope as opposed to seeing it first with your naked eye without enhancement?

Well, there were several areas that I couldn't see with the naked eye that I could only see with the stereomicroscope.

All right. In terms of the ones you sampled, that was the only one that you first saw with the stereomicroscope as opposed to looking at it with the naked eye? I'm talking about the ones you cut.

I'm sorry, can you restate that?

All right. I think we have testimony on it. Let me just get to this: The area that we were looking at yesterday under the stereomicroscope, would it be fair to say that that was one of the areas that was harder to visualize with the naked eye in terms of seeing the discoloration, as opposed to other areas?

Well, again, the only other area that I would say would be easier to see it would be that one on the logo, that A2 stain.

Okay. And you can't tell us what the cut-out area would have looked like in terms of the blood on it before you saw it because when you got it it was cut out?

Well, that's right, and that is why I looked at the margins under the stereomicroscope and that is when I saw the reddish in that area.

So there was even reddish in that area after the cut-out had been done?

Yes.

And when you look at that fringe area of the cut-out with a naked eye without the stereomicroscope, you can see the discoloration?

I think there is some subtle discoloration in that area, yes.

Okay. Now, Mr. Harmon asked you some questions about the console and the Bronco. Can you tell us the order in which biological material was contributed to the console from your tests?

No.

You can't tell us what biological material might have been on the substrate of the console before what appears to be blood was deposited on it?

That's correct.

Mr. Harmon I think before asked you questions about bleeding noses. Do people have runny noses when they have colds?

I do.

Beyond the scope, your Honor.

Overruled.

Do children have runny noses?

Yes.

Do adults have runny noses?

Yes.

Do people touch substrate on consoles in cars, in your experience, with their hands?

Yes.

Now, in terms of other contributors to the smears on the console, you found other genotypes than Mr. Simpson's?

That's correct.

That's correct.

And you found--and on the steering wheel on the trip you looked at, the only dots visible were 1.1, 1.2 and 4?

Objection, it is beyond the scope.

Overruled.

This is now on the steering wheel sample?

Item no. 29, the only dots you saw on the strip were 1.1, 1.2 and 4?

Well, again, control dot.

Talking about what you saw.

The control dot was present and I believe the "all but" dot was present.

And Cellmark's result was that that was a--the conclusion was that that was a 1.1, 1.2 and a 4 and they excluded Mr. Goldman?

Objection. That is beyond the scope, your Honor.

It is.

All right.

Now, Mr. Harmon asked you about single coin envelopes being a good control against cross-contamination in sample mix-up, right?

Yes.

You think it would help, in terms of controlling against sample mix-up, to count the number of swatches when they are collected and put counts on the kind envelopes and the bindles where they were originally collected?

Objection. It is compound, argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Would counting the number of swatches at collection and putting that number on a coin envelope or a bindle, would that assist in terms of guarding against sample mix-up?

It might.

Would that assist in maintaining the integrity of evidence in terms of chain of custody?

Objection, that is argumentative.

Overruled.

Now, you were asked a series of questions about the handrail and the front gate, correct?

Yes.

Contrasting it to the substrate on the back gate?

Yes.

And you were asked--and you have never been to Bundy, have you?

I have never been to the crime scene, no.

Now, let's look at this--I guess we will start with the handrail. Will you look at those.

Mr. Scheck, which photograph is this?

I'm using P-291 and P-292.

All right. Thank you.

Now, comparing the state of the paint on that handrail to the back gate, would it be a fair statement that the paint on that handrail shows less evidence of flaking and rusting than the back gate?

Objection, calls for speculation.

Sustained. Foundation.

Well, have you looked at a picture of the back gate?

Yes, I have seen a picture of the back gate.

And in the picture of the back gate do you not see on that lower rung of the back gate there is some flaking of the paint?

I recall seeing some--something like that on that, but again, I would like to see that photo again if that is an issue.

We will show it to you in a second. And would you not agree that flaking of paint would be an indication of exposure to moisture.

Objection. That calls for speculation.

Sustained. Foundation.

Would moisture be a factor in enhancing bacterial degradation?

Yes.

A significant factor?

Yes.

In other words, from the microenvironment, as you characterized it, if bacterial agents got on a substrate, exposure to moisture would hasten or accelerate the bacterial degradation?

Yes.

Mr. Sims, do you have the front gate picture there, by chance?

No. Those are just the rear gate, I believe.

While we are waiting for the other one, why don't I show you--look again at these back gate pictures.

Incidentally, the typing on the front gate did not give genotypes consistent with Mr. Simpson?

On the--I would have to check what those results were. That is some of the very recent work that we did.

All right. Now--oh, gosh. Could we focus first on this photo which is People's 78. Can we get it any brighter than that? Can we go tighter than that?

Do you want tighter or brighter or both?

I guess what distresses me a little bit it is that it appears to be much clearer on the monitor than up here. Can we brighten that at all?

Mrs. Robertson, can you get the lights.

There we go.

Now, let's look at the microenvironment of the back gate. Does it appear to you that there are a number of berries and other foliage material across the steps leading up to the back gate?

Just--just from this view, it appears that there is that sort of material.

And on the substrate at the top of those stairwells you see more what appear to be berries and foliage?

Well, now I thought we were talking about the rear gate as opposed to the--you are talking about the substrate now being the top step there?

Yeah. I'm talking--I'm focusing your attention from the top step going back towards the rear gate. Do you see more foliage--do you recall it from the other photograph being berry material in that area?

I can't really see the berries, but I think that looks like foliage.

And the substrate where sample no. 50 was collected, you know from photographs is just in front of that rear gate?

Yes, I believe that's correct, although I don't know the exact dimensions on these.

Umm, and no. 50, which is collected on that substrate right near the rear gate--

Object to the characterization "Right near," as misleading.

Sustained.

All right.

50, which is collected in the area of the rear gate, without going back and getting the exact number of feet, that bloodstain you found to be severely degraded?

And you don't know how long 115, 116 and 117 were in plastic bags on July 3rd?

You have no idea how hot it was?

No, I don't.

You have no idea how long Mr. Fung kept those around before he took them to the evidence processing room and went through whatever procedures he did to dry them?

Now, looking at 294--before I do that, let's just take a look at People's 97, the front gate picture taken on June 13th.

I don't believe so. Is that the front gate?

Yes.

I'm sorry. All right.

Now, you understand, do you not, Mr. Sims, that given the numbering system of LAPD, this is photo i.d. No. 116 but item no. 51? Do you have that in mind?

Yes, that is my understanding, is that that 116 in the photograph goes with the photo number but not with a booked item number.

All right. So this is item no. 5 would be the front gate sample collected on June 13th? Is that your understanding?

I believe that's correct, but I can check something on that.

Now, does it appear to you that the gate here is peeling?

Objection, no foundation.

Overruled.

In this--in this photograph I don't see any evidence of that.

All right. Now, this gate, you indicated before, opens up into an area where there is some foliage, correct?

Yes. It looked like there was actually some foliage that actually hangs over it when it is opened.

Let me show you what is People's 294 and let's see if we can get as tight on this as we can to the gate itself. Let's just stop there for a second. Now, will you agree that it appears as though we have berries and leaves and soil material on the substrate leading up to the gate?

Yes. In general I can see what you are talking about. I can't see those as berries unless somebody told me those are berries, but that looks like leaves and soil and that sort of thing, yes.

And over time, would you not expect in mornings that there might be moisture or dew over, let's say, a three- or four-week period, three-week period?

Well, umm, certainly there may be some--some dew formation.

Objection. That calls for speculation, no foundation.

Sustained.

Well, I have had a lesson on conditions in June and July in Los Angeles.

I'm going to object to this.

In Brentwood.

Overruled. Have a seat.

Is that a question?

Let's--I think it was in response to the Court's comment about witnesses from out of town talking--making assumptions about weather conditions in Los Angeles.

I understand that, your Honor.

All right. Let's see if we can finish this.

Let's move on.

Mr. Sims, over a three-week period would not exposure to moisture and the biological material that you just see in the substrate in terms of wind blowing it against the gate, would that not be a factor in terms of assessing bacterial degradation of any bloodstain on that gate?

Objection, assumes fact not in evidence, no foundation.

Overruled.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what was being blown on the gate.

Well, would it be--I'm asking you to assume that over a three-week period wind will blow materials, such as you see on the substrate in this photograph, onto the gate area.

Okay.

That is part of--when you were answering Mr. Harmon's questions with respect to microenvironment, you were making assumptions, it was part of your reasoning, was it not, that some of these bacterial agents from the foliage would become airborne and deposit themselves on the substrate?

Well, for example, from droppings and that sort of thing, yes.

Okay. And that would apply to this rear gate as well as it would apply to the front gate?

Well, again, if this is material that drops down onto it, that would be true.

Well, could we go a little tighter to the--

I show you 166. Now, did you see how the door from the rear gate opens onto an area where there is foliage?

Yes, I think I noted that earlier.

And you see some what appears to be leaf-like material just near the gate, don't you?

Do you mean where--now, touching the gate?

The larger chunks at the gate itself?

Yes, that looks to me like iceplant.

And you even see part of the plant sticking up through and touching the gate on the--where it hinges on the right-hand side? Do you see that?

Yes.

All right. Now, you haven't--you haven't actually been to this scene to inspect these microenvironments, have you?

I have not.

And you did some examination of fibers from the Bronco, did you not?

Objection, it is beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Did you see any evidence of berry-like material in the fibers from the Bronco examination?

Objection, it is still beyond the scope, your Honor.

Sustained.

No further questions.