Recross-examination of Gary Sims (part 3)

📄 Recross-examination of Gary Sims (part 3) — Thursday, June 1, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\1\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-GARY-SI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 86 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Gary Sims (part 3) Session closing remarks ▶

Witness: Gary Sims
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, June 1, 1995 • Utterances: 11

Barry Scheck concludes his recross-examination of DNA analyst Gary Sims with a tight, focused series of questions establishing that blood samples collected June 13th from the Bundy back gate area showed bacterial degradation consistent with other crime scene evidence — but samples 115, 116, and 117 collected from the same gate on July 3rd did not. Sims confirms each point without qualification, giving Scheck the clean admissions he needed.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

# 2 MR. SCHECK:

The bottom line of the fact, Mr. Sims, about how much bacterial degradation you saw on 115, 116 and 117, you didn't see it?

# 3 MR. SIMS:

I did not see that same pattern that I saw on the other samples from Bundy.

KEY QUOTE

# 4 MR. SCHECK:

And no. 50 collected from the substrate in the area of that gate, you saw it?

# 5 MR. SIMS:

I believe that was one of those that showed up on the yield gel, yes.

# 6 MR. SCHECK:

And the substrate of the front gate, you saw bacterial degradation of that--those stains--item no. 51 that was collected on June 13th?

# 7 MR. SIMS:

Yes, I saw that pattern on the yield gel.

# 8 MR. SCHECK:

And from the handrail, that substrate, you saw bacterial degradation on the sample collected on June 13th?

# 9 MR. SIMS:

I saw that same pattern, yes.

# 10 MR. SCHECK:

But from the samples that were collected on July 3rd from that back gate, 117, 116, 115, you didn't see that bacterial degradation, did you?

# 11 MR. SIMS:

That's correct.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Gary Sims

I did not see that same pattern that I saw on the other samples from Bundy.

Sims concedes the core anomaly: the July 3rd back gate samples lack the bacterial degradation seen on contemporaneous June 13th samples, a pattern the defense used to argue the later samples were planted.

Gary Sims

That's correct.

The final, unambiguous confirmation that items 115, 116, and 117 did not show bacterial degradation — ending the examination on exactly the note Scheck wanted.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Item 50 — substrate swab from the area of the Bundy back gate, collected June 13th

discussed — Sims confirmed bacterial degradation visible on yield gel

Informal

Item 51 — front gate substrate, collected June 13th

discussed — Sims confirmed bacterial degradation pattern

Informal

Handrail substrate sample, collected June 13th

discussed — Sims confirmed bacterial degradation pattern

Informal

Items 115, 116, 117 — back gate samples collected July 3rd

discussed — Sims confirmed absence of bacterial degradation

Notable Exchanges (1)

Barry Scheck•Gary Sims

Scheck methodically walks Sims through each June 13th sample — getting a yes on bacterial degradation for each — then pivots to the July 3rd samples to secure the contrast. Sims cooperates with each answer, leaving the implication (that the later samples are anomalous) hanging in the air.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Prosecution's back gate evidence

internal inconsistency in physical evidence

Scheck uses Sims's own observations to highlight that back gate samples collected July 3rd lack the bacterial degradation seen on all other Bundy samples from June 13th, implying the later samples were not present at the crime scene when the others were collected.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 6262 • 11 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103