Mr. Sims, before you received the socks, item 13, from--sent from LAPD, were you made aware that Mr. Matheson had conducted some conventional serological testing on those socks?
And when you were made aware of that, were you made aware that the conventional serological testing was performed on blood?
Okay. And I want to just go through your initial observations on some of those socks, okay?
But before I do that, I would like you to define for us what you mean when you use the term "Visible to the naked eye."
Well, in the context of this kind of examination, I'm talking about situations where with the proper kind of lighting, intense lighting, for example, at an angle, you can see contrast with the naked eye. In other words, you don't have to look under the microscope if you have the right lighting.
So can we--can--just to paraphrase it, can we say not aided by some sort of amplification device?
Okay. So you get the socks, you already know there is some blood on them. Which of the socks did you--
Okay. When you got the socks you already knew there was some blood on them; is that right?
When you got the socks, Mr. Matheson had already told you there was some blood on them?
When you got the sock you already knew that Mr. Matheson had conducted conventional serological testing for blood on those socks; is that right?
Okay. Now, before you looked at those socks were you aware that there were any markings on the socks?
Before you looked at them were you aware whether or not there were any markings on those socks, either a or b?
Okay. At that point had you noticed any other areas of discoloration on the sock before you resorted to the stereomicroscope?
No. The only--the only other markings that I noted at that time was that there was--looked like a 10 to 13, like a size indication on the sock.
KEY QUOTEOkay. Were you looking at the sock or--strike that. This area that was outlined, did you ultimately designate that as a stain area and test it?
Okay. Now, when you are looking at it with no--you were looking at it with the naked eye?
No. The only note that I made was there were no markings on that other side.
KEY QUOTEAnd ultimately you did find some areas of interest on that--on the side that you flipped it over to; is that correct?
So when you first looked at it with the naked eye you didn't notice any areas of discoloration?
Yes. I noticed the--there was some writing and then there were some arrows, that sort of thing.
And what did you notice when you looked at the end of the arrow, the direction the arrow was pointing?
Well, there was--there was in this particular area--now, this was what ended up being called A2--there was some--some discoloration along one of the logos that is present on this sock.
Well, again I--it is only when I go to the stereomicroscope that I noted the reddish of--of the stain.
Yes, and I am not sure if I examined the other side and then did the stereomicroscopic exam on both or if I did one side and also looked at the stereo.
The side opposite 42A2 had that cut-out near the ankle area. It had an arrow and it looked like it said 13A pointing to that. There was also a cut-out down more on the foot where there was a C. This is again in white. This white is used as the marking.
Yes. Again I noted with my initial stereomicroscopic examination there was some reddish still in that area around the cut-out.
Is that the first time you noticed the reddish coloration, when you looked at it with the stereomicroscope?
And at some point did you take photos of these stains before you did any cuttings from the socks?
Well, I--I took some shots to just show the overall socks using floodlights, for example, with a 35 millimeter set up on a camera stand.
These are just intense tungsten lightbulbs. They are very intense bulbs that give off a lot of light.
In taking the photographs of the stains that you have just described, were you then able to see other stained areas on the sock?
Well, once--once I was at the point where I was taking the photographs and using that intense light, in that part of the process I noticed some other discolorations on the side opposite of the LAPD cut-out on sock A.
Is that the first time you noticed those stains, when you put the intense lights on them?
When did you first notice those stains? Was it when you put the intense lights on them?
Yes, it was during that process, and it is pretty clear to me from my notes that that is the point which I noted those additional ones which after this photograph I set up.
Okay. Yesterday Mr. Scheck asked you a question about DNA concentration, the difference between concentration from a reference tube that is taken from someone and concentration of DNA and something that comes out of somebody's artery. Do you remember that?
Objection to the characterization of the questions I asked him. That misstates the questions I asked him.
As I recall the question, it was whether or not the blood from a tube, a reference blood tube, would be more concentrated in terms of its DNA than other types of shed blood.
Okay. Mr. Scheck asked you some vague hypotheticals about cross--inadvertent cross-contamination yesterday.
Do you remember the hypothetical Mr. Scheck asked you yesterday about inadvertent cross-contamination?
And I believe you expressed an opinion that the fact--the fact that there are multiple swatches in these individual stains is a safeguard against inadvertent cross-contamination; is that correct?
Your Honor, we could go on forever if we keep on doing this. I think he has explained this a number of times.
Also comment by counsel not conducting the examination as well. Overruled. Briefly.
Yes. The idea that inadvertent contamination would be expected to be a sporadic sort of thing so that one swatch may receive some of this contamination but other swatches wouldn't. That is the concept.
Okay. Now, Mr. Scheck had some questions of you about LAPD items 45 and 51. Do you recall that yesterday?
Okay. And without going over things again and again, would the fact that there is foliage nearby and soil and biological material, would that be of significant interest to you in deciding whether bacterial contamination could cause degradation?
In other words, if those things in the environment contributed to the material on that substrate, yes.
Your Honor, I would like to have marked as People's next in order a photograph of that area showing the front gate at Bundy.
Mr. Sims, would you look at 291 for identification and I would just like you to take in the whole picture there; vegetation, dirt, things like that. Have you had a chance to look at that?
Okay. And what can you tell us in terms of potential for biological material contributing bacterial input to any bloodstains that may have been collected in that area?
Your Honor, I have a foundational objection to this from the photograph in this fashion.
Well, again, I note that there is--there appears to be foliage overhanging that general area and this is--that is the main thing that I see in this photograph.
And is this a potential source for biological material that could contribute bacteria that might contribute to degradation of bloodstains?
Your Honor, I'm going to show--you might want to cut the feed. I want to show a previously marked exhibit, People's 42 for identification. That is a little more distant shot.
Okay. Just I want you to assume that 45 and 51 are from the--45 from the handrail, that you can see in the foreground there, or the background, rather, and 51 from the bottom part of that gate. And what could you tell us about the potential for biological material contributing to degradation of bloodstains that may be collected in those areas?
Well, as this perspective shot shows, it appears that that gate swings out into an area of vegetation.
Okay. And could that be the source of biological material that could cause bloodstains to be degraded?
Well, again, if there is biological material, then conceivably there is bacterial growth in that area and that sort of thing, yes.
Your Honor, I would like to have marked as People's next in order a photograph of that handrail. May that be 292, your Honor?
Okay. Mr. Sims, assume that is where 110 is, item 45 that you just saw in the other photograph. This is just a close-up photograph of that, okay?
Umm, is this the kind of area that might have bacterial or bacteria on it that could impair your ability to type those bloodstains?
Well, again any--any surface such as that could have some bacterial growth or some bacteria on it.
Okay. Mr. Sims, Mr. Scheck asked you questions about substrates and similarity of the front gate painted surface and the rear gate painted surface. Do you recall that yesterday?
Is substrate just one factor in determining what might impair your ability to type stains such as the Bundy walkway stains and such as 45 and 51?
Well, by substrate, for example, if we are talking about a painted metal surface? It depends a lot of what kind of environment--microenvironment that surface is in, actually. If it is near an area where there is more soil and vegetation, that would be different from a cleaner area, basically.
Okay. In fact 45 and 51 do show the same signs of bacterial-induced degradation as 47, 48, 49 and 52; is that correct?
Well, I think this were three that we definitely saw that in from the Bundy drop and it is the same thing that we saw, the same pattern that we saw in 45--I'm sorry--45 and 51.
And does bacteria come--if a person dropped a drop of blood on a clean substrate, would you expect to find bacteria in there?
Well, there are bacteria everywhere in the world. Bacteria are everywhere. It is--it is whether or not the bacteria are placed in a moist environment where they can--warm environment that is moist where they flourish. That is really the issue.
KEY QUOTECould there be--so would the fact that stains that were collected already having bacteria on them and put in a plastic bag in a moist condition, how would that impact on the bacteria that is already there?
Well, under those conditions those bacteria would be thriving, they would be reproducing, growing, so they would--there would be growth of the culture and so then that would lead to more degradation of the DNA in the blood.
Your Honor, at this time I would like to have marked as People's 292 for identification a photo of the rear gate at Bundy.
Mr. Sims, I would like you to take a look at these photos and I'm going to ask you to assume that they are photos of the rear gate at Bundy where 115, 116 and 117 were collected from on July 3rd. Okay?
Mr. Sims, do you see any signs of the same kind of vegetation in the area of 115, 116 and 117 as you did in--with respect to 45 and 51?
It appears there is a little bit of iceplant if that general area if I'm seeing this correctly, but it is not as--it doesn't appear to be as dense growth as in the other--the front end samples.
Okay. Mr. Sims, I just want you to assume, for purposes of this question, that 115, 116 and 117 had been in the same kind of biological environment as 45 and 51.
Okay? If those stains were dried after collection and not stored in a hot truck in plastic bags for several hours--okay?
--would you expect the same kind of bacterial-induced degradation as you found in 45 and 51 and 47 and 48 and 49?
No. Again, I think the key is to get these samples collected and dried as soon as possible, because it is that incubation period when there is the moisture and the heat that allows for the bacteria to thrive and for the culture to grow and that leads to the degradation of the blood.
KEY QUOTEIn fact, you didn't see the same kind of bacterial-induced contamination in 115 through 117?
Mr. Scheck asked you a question about systematically alternating between substrate controls and stains just a little while ago. Do you recall that?
How important do you feel as a safeguard is using only one coin envelope opened at a time?
Well, that--that to me is--is especially critical because that is not only a check on cross-contamination, but it will tend to prevent sample mix-up. There is only one sample you are dealing with at a time so you are not likely to go mix it with another sample.
I think that is very important because then the contents of one can't get into the contents of another tube.
And finally, Mr. Sims, I want you to assume that 45 and 51, 47, 48 and 49 were collected on June 13th.
Okay. Given the different environments in which the group of 45, 51, 47, 48, 49 and 50 were collected from--
--is there thinking about the differences in the amount of DNA in these stains which tells you scientifically when 115, 116 and 117 were deposited on the rear gate?
Your Honor, I'm going to object to this hypothetical with respect to foundations concerning, a, the environment.
No. Again, I think the key is to get these samples collected and dried as soon as possible, because it is that incubation period when there is the moisture and the heat that allows for the bacteria to thrive and for the culture to grow and that leads to the degradation of the blood.
No.
There are bacteria everywhere in the world. Bacteria are everywhere. It is whether or not the bacteria are placed in a moist environment where they can — warm environment that is moist where they flourish. That is really the issue.
That to me is especially critical because that is not only a check on cross-contamination, but it will tend to prevent sample mix-up. There is only one sample you are dealing with at a time so you are not likely to go mix it with another sample.