Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Dr. Cotton, would you resume the witness stand, please. The record should reflect we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Robin Cotton, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

Dr. Robin Cotton is again on the witness stand still on direct examination by Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke, you may continue.

Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKE

Dr. Cotton, I believe we had left off where you had described or actually demonstrated to the jury on this x-ray film of the samples that included the foyer at the Rockingham residence as well as the Bundy stain, items 12 and 52, as well as item-- well, let me rephrase that. You have described those two particular evidence items; is that right?

That's right.

With regard to the third item--

Can I have just a moment, your Honor?

Your Honor, if I may return People's exhibit 257-A to the elmo projection machine. Mr. Harris has graciously offered to view it for us.

All right. This is 257-A(1).

Now, Dr. Cotton, perhaps I can ask you to come down to the point maker, if you would.

And you have already described the similarity in patterns between the two evidence items, Bundy stain no. 52 and the Rockingham foyer stain no. 12 and the pattern of Mr. Simpson; is that right?

Yes.

Is there another evidence item also on this particular autorad or x-ray?

Yes.

And what item is that?

Uh, no. 78.

And that's no. 78, the boots--I'm sorry--the stain from Mr. Goldman's boot?

That's right.

Now, would it be easier to go into these single locus probes or these auto--x-ray autorads that describe one genetic marker at a time for items 52 and 12 or would it be easier to deal with item 78, the boot stain, now at the cocktail x-ray film?

It would probably be easier, given that we're viewing this on the screen, to just go on to the individual films and then incorporate 78 in those and then perhaps come back to this one.

All right. Do you have these one probe at a time x-ray films for, again, this same set of samples?

Yes.

All right. Then I would ask, your Honor, to have marked next in order--actually I believe it's already been marked. 257-B as in boy.

Dr. Cotton, do you have those or do you have the originals with you?

These are the originals.

Okay. Then what I'm going to ask--and actually perhaps to make the record even clearer, what I would ask permission to do is substitute the originals for what was initially marked as 257, each of the autorads for this particular item.

Yes.

So then what would be now People's exhibit 257-B as in boy will be the original autorad itself for this particular RFLP test.

If I can show you, Dr. Cotton, the x-ray film that you just handed me and I've now handed back, what is that?

This is the autorad that was produced for this same set of samples using only probe ms1. The probes have letters, sort of letter, number designations and there isn't any way for them to make particular sense. These are--some of these are the number designations that were given in the lab where they were originally developed. So ms1 doesn't have any particular meaning. Just take it as the name of the genetic location we're going to look at.

So it's simply the way you describe one particular genetic marker that you look at in the laboratory?

That's right. And this is the designation we use. When we talked the other day about a d1 something number, these also have d numbers. This--the number for this is d1s7, but these are marked with our lab designations, and it's marked ms1.

All right. And with the Court's permission, I would ask that this particular x-ray film be placed on the overhead projection system.

Yes.

Now, Dr. Cotton, referring to this particular x-ray, we see what appears to be labels at the top that are similar to those on the previous x-ray that involve the several probes done at one time?

Yes. They're the same.

How do you produce an x-ray film from a particular membrane that you've already produced an earlier x-ray film from? Why isn't all the DNA on the first x-ray film?

Now, there appear to be far fewer bands on this particular x-ray than on the earlier one; is that right?

That's right.

Why is that?

That's because now we're looking at a single genetic locus. Therefore, each of us, for a single genetic locus, will only have two characteristics. And on this film, all the samples have either one or two, and there's a reason why a sample might have one. But anyway, these samples have either one or two.

Let's talk a little bit about the controls. First of all, are these the same controls as were on this cocktail x-ray film that you described earlier this morning?

All the samples are the same as were on the cocktail film.

As far as this first control on the far left labeled lambda, does it have the same number of bands as in the cocktail version?

The lam--yes, it does, and so does the 1 KB.

Now, what about the third lane in that's labeled "TDS" from this member of your laboratory. Do we see fewer bands this time than before?

We only see two, one here and one here (Indicating).

Why is that? Why don't we see more?

Because we're looking at one genetic location. So one of these bands came from this person's mother and the other from his father.

Now, following--following this test and the development of this particular x-ray, were you able to reach any opinions or conclusions about the various samples contained on this particular x-ray?

We certainly reach some opinions, but really, you're never reaching a conclusion until you have the full set of films. So based on each film that comes off, you would look at it and make an assessment, but you wouldn't finish making an assessment until you had all the data.

In other words, this is, again, one step in the process?

This is one piece, yes.

And this is the first time you've actually tested these samples or looked at these samples at this--at a single genetic marker?

That's right.

Once this first single genetic marker is developed, what are you looking for when you look at this particular film?

You're looking for the same type of information that you're looking all along; do the DNA banding patterns from the samples that you have, are they--do you have any that are similar, that is the same, visually the same in this case, what--since we're just looking at it and are there any that are different.

Now, with regard to--and let's focus again on simply the Bundy walkway stain no. 52 and the Rockingham foyer stain no. 12. When you looked at those two particular items, did you reach any conclusions?

Yes.

Can you describe those? And if it would help to use the point maker, please do so.

The--let's see. There's a single band in sample--the DNA from item no. 12. It's very difficult to see here on this projection screen on the original on a light box. There's also a very faint single band from item no. 52.

All right. With regard to that band--

First of all, if I could, your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would like to take this particular film, lay it on this small light box so that the witness can examine it briefly.

Yes.

Dr. Cotton, what I just informed the Court I was going to ask you to do, could you do that?

Have you had an opportunity to do that?

Yes.

And with regard to that one band that you just described, when you look at it on the light box, can you describe what you see?

I see a single band, and it's very light.

Again, what is the meaning of a very light--or actually not again. What is the meaning of a light band in this particular instance?

In this particular instance, the light band is most likely a reflection of the fact that there's not very much DNA in that sample.

Now, if I can take you back to the point maker, and if you would in a similar manner to that which you did with the earlier cocktail film, could you place an arrow at the location of that band you just described on the Bundy stain as well as on the foyer, Rockingham foyer stain and the known sample that it matches?

Now, Dr. Cotton, with regard to that particular set of arrows, first of all, do either of the two individuals who are on this particular film, that is Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman, do either of their DNA's appear to match or be in a similar position to this stain, that is both the Bundy stain and the foyer?

Mr. Goldman has a band that's very close in position to the single band from Mr. Simpson and, however, he's distinguished. That is, they're not the same because he has a second band about the middle of the gel. The sample from the foyer has no second band, and as far as we can determine, the sample from item 52 does not have a second band either.

So based on this result alone, would Mr. Goldman be a possible donor of the DNA found in the Bundy and foyer stains or would he be excluded?

Based on this result alone? Uh, I wouldn't--if this was the only thing I had to look at, I wouldn't want to make a determination based on this alone as to whether or not Mr. Goldman could have been a contributor to item 52. I wouldn't be completely satisfied that there might not be other bands in item 52 that I wasn't seeing, given the one that I can see is so light. So if I was only using this film, I would say, well, certainly, Mr. Simpson is included and Mr. Goldman could be included as well if this was the only data I had.

In this case, is this the only data you have?

No.

What other data do you have?

We have four other individual probes and the cocktail.

What about Nicole Brown? Could she be a possible donor of the DNA in those two bloodstains?

No.

Why not?

She has also two bands, one quite high up here, another one down here (Indicating). They are not seen in the foyer sample and, again, there's only one band seen in the Bundy sample. Nothing else is seen. There's no indication that she would be a contributor to that, although, again, if this were the--if this were all you had, uh, all you could say is, well, I have that one band in 52 and it doesn't belong to her.

And in this case, do you have in fact more data to be able to determine whether or not Nicole Brown could have been a donor of those two evidence items, those two bloodstains?

Yes.

And did you utilize that in making your ultimate conclusions in that--in this case?

Yes.

Now, while we're on this particular autorad, what about children of Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown? And what I'm focusing on, and if you could direct yourself to, is there anything about this particular autorad or this film that you can make any conclusions about whether or not, for instance of a--I'm sorry--whether or not, for instance, a child of those two individuals could have donated the stains found in the foyer and on the Bundy walkway?

Since we don't have that--a child--a particular child's pattern, a child of these two individuals would have one band from Simpson and one band from Nicole Brown. Now, there are no brown--there are no bands that we can see from--that correspond to Nicole Brown's sample in item 52. Uh, however, Mr. Simpson could give this band to a child, and he probably has another band that we can't see on the gel, although I can't say that for certain. So a child of Mr. Simpson could have this same band or may not.

Well, would that child have to have one of the two bands of Nicole Brown that are shown under her lane?

Yes.

Do you see either one of those bands--do you see either one of those two bands from Nicole Brown in either of those two evidence items, the Bundy stain or the foyer stain?

No.

What conclusions if any can you then reach about whether or not a child of the two of them could have donated the DNA in those two stains?

Now, with respect to this particular marker--and I believe you said it was called ms1?

That's right.

Do you then perform this single genetic marker typing process at other individual locations on the DNA molecule?

Yes.

All right. What would be the next marker that would be used in an instance like this?

The--there is no typical next one. We do them in whatever order is convenient for the staff who's doing the additions of probes to the membrane. So I order them in a particular sequence. We just have a sequence that we keep them in the lab, but it doesn't mean that's exactly the order that the films were produced.

All right. What would be an appropriate marker to look at next then whether it's the chronological order or the way you interpret the results?

Let's go on to ms31, but--you know, we could determine what the chronological order was, but I don't know if this is the next one or not. It's what I would commonly look at next. You can do the dotted one next. That--

And, your Honor, this would again be another original x-ray film that was initially marked 257-C that now would be our request to substitute the original for that copy.

All right.

This can be described I believe as-- and, Dr. Cotton, perhaps you can describe this because I believe we will see two separate films at this particular genetic marker. Could you describe this first one that will be 257-C?

All right. Do you want to print out first of all what you have on the--

Yes, your Honor. Could that be 257-B(1)?

Yes.

All right. Mr. Fairtlough, do you have that captured? All right. Proceed.

Dr. Cotton, with what will be People's 257-C, can you describe that, please?

This is the first of two autorads that were produced with probe ms31. And you'll see as soon as we put this up why we went to do another one, because this one didn't turn out very well. And also, I see that it has a piece of scotch tape left on it from when I put the labels on. So--

All right. Now, you say scotch tape from when you put the labels on?

Yeah. I used it to orient--to make them all level.

Does the scotch tape have anything to do with the production of the film or your looking at it and interpreting its results in the laboratory?

No. It wasn't there when we looked at it. And we can take it off. It won't hurt anything. We can take it off later.

I was just going to say, if we take it off now, will it in any way damage anything that is on the film itself?

Oh, no.

All right. Then with the Court's permission, may the witness remove the tape?

Can we go ahead and have you describe what's shown on this film without removing the tape first?

Yes. It's not going to get in the way of looking at it.

Okay.

I just don't think we want to leave it on forever.

Mr. Clarke.

Now, Dr. Cotton, with respect to this particular film, 257-C, what does this show?

This is an amplification of probe ms31. And you can see that you--there are bands in the samples. But as you can see, there are many small black dots all around the film. That is something that happens occasionally when you're adding the radioactive probe. If the probe is not washed off sufficiently, that is, you add the probe, you allow it to bind, you wash off excess probe before you lay your film over it--if the excess probe isn't washed off sufficiently, you will get what's generally referred to as background. And background doesn't always look like little dots, but it does sometimes. It does on this film. And although you can see bands in the known samples over here on the right and you can see bands in item 12, there are bands that you can see also in item 78, but it totally obscures anything that might be seen in item 52. And because of the background, this--at this time, the membrane was--the probe was washed off and another hybridization, which is the term for adding the probe to the membrane, was attempted to see if we could get a better image.

Is there anything about the creation, for instance, of this film that somehow alters or changes the locations of the DNA that are found in the membrane itself? There's nothing in the processing of the membrane in terms of adding probe, washing it off, removing the probe later on that moves any of the DNA that's on the nylon. That DNA is--is chemically fixed to the nylon and it's not going anywhere.

Is this something that's happened before in your laboratory or is this the first time?

Oh, it's certainly not the first time. It happens occasionally. You certainly are--are unhappy when you get something like this, but with the number of sam--membranes that are processed through the lab, you do see it every once in a while, and you usually hope that you can get another film off to correct the problems that you have with one that looks like this.

Is that simply to create or try to create another film that shows the same thing in terms of banding patterns, but doesn't have this background or noise that gets in the way of your being able to view it clearly?

That's right. You're simply going to repeat the process of adding that probe again and hoping that you get a better result.

Were any interpretations made from this particular film, 257-C?

No. We certainly--when we did it again, we checked and made sure it was all consistent. But other than that, there's no interpretation that was done from this particular film.

Then if we could, your Honor, I would like to have marked as 257-D, the fourth autorad.

All right.

And showing you, Dr. Cotton, another film, can you describe what that is that will be marked 257-D?

This--this is the second try at getting a film off with this probe ms31.

All right. Could we then utilize that on the projection system so that you could tell us any conclusions or opinions that you made?

Sure.

This particular film seems to have fewer of those dots; is that right?

Yes. This one came out just fine.

Now, with respect to this particular film again--and let me back up one step if I may. Are each of these films that we've looked at that have shown these three evidence items, the Bundy stain, the boot stain and the foyer stain, all from the same membrane?

Yes.

So you simply do this one after another from the same membrane; is that right?

That's right.

Now, this is at what genetic marker again?

Ms31.

And once this film was developed, did you examine it to determine if there were any opinions or conclusions that you could reach?

Yes, we did.

Now specifically, again, are the markers the same in terms of the lambda and 1 KB markers that are present?

The markers are exactly the same, two on the left, two on the right and one in the middle, and the DNA control samples marked TDS and k562 are in exactly the same position as they have been on all of the other films that had these evidence samples on them.

Incidentally, as far as these markers are concerned, whether it's the--and let me actually ask one question before that. The samples at the top that have the labels with the boxes around them, what do those describe? Let me ask a different question. The lambda that has a box around it, is that a control?

Yes.

Okay.

You mean--are you talking about the label?

Yes. I'm sorry.

Yes.

Okay. Are the labels that have boxes around them, do they show anything different than the labels that have no boxes around them? Do you understand what I'm asking?

I do. And since you designed these labels, I know that you designed them so that anything that's a control sample has a little box around it, and the other samples that are evidence samples or samples from known people are just names or item numbers.

And actually, the names or the evidence items are in larger print as well?

That's right.

Okay. As far as then these markers--and I would like to direct your attention to, for instance, the TDS. Again, that's the banding pattern obtained from a member of your laboratory?

That's right.

Are you familiar from previous cases with what that laboratory member's DNA looks like?

Yes.

Are you accustomed to seeing it in certain locations for each of these various genetic markers?

Yes.

If you don't see them in the appropriate location, what action do you take?

Well, you would really try to figure out why they weren't in the right place. Umm, the only--the only good example I can give you of them not being in the right place is that if we had an autorad that was hybridized, for example, with ms1, but was accidentally labeled ms31, you would look at it and you'd say this can't be ms31. These are the bands that should show up with ms1. It would tell you that there had been a labeling error or an error in addition of probes. So it helps to detect that. And then in addition, the actual band sizes when they're calculated later are compared to what we know to be the standard sizes for that sample.

Okay. Turning your attention now if I can to what appears to be a black like dot between the first TDS sample, which I believe is in the third lane from the left, and between that and the lane involving the Bundy stain, what is--

Is this the dot you have in mind (Indicating)?

Yes. What is that?

It's a little bit of background, sort of like one left over from all the dots we had on before. It's not probably left over. It's probably a new dot, but it's some background from p32 that's stuck to the membrane that didn't come off in the wash.

P32, just what is that again?

That's the radioactive probe that--that's the correct designation for the radioactive label that's on the DNA probe.

There also appear to be at least two or possibly three dots in the lower right-hand portion. Do you see what I'm referring to on the screen?

You're talking about here (Indicating)?

Yes. And is there one--

And here (Indicating)?

Yes.

Yes.

What are those items?

Still more background.

Do those interfere in your ability to be able to conclude types or banding patterns that are present on these autorads, these films?

No.

Why not?

Well, they're clearly not bands. They don't look anything like a band. And if you spend very much time in the lab looking at x-ray films, you become very good at distinguishing what's background from what's a band. The thing that they do interfere with is the computer imaging system that you may put your film on doesn't have the judgment that an experienced scientist would have. The computer imaging system is only looking for differences in darkness. So if this band--let's say this dot here because it's bigger happened to be moved over a little bit and be in a sample lane, then the computer imaging system would call that a band even though it's clearly not. So in that case, you would have to tell the computer, nope, that's not a band, disregard it. But other than that--other than helping the computer to deal with the background, that's the only point at which you would say it interferes in the analysis in any way.

Okay. Now, specifically referring to what we've been discussing, that is the Bundy stain and the Rockingham foyer stains, do you see banding patterns for those two items of evidence?

Yes, I do.

All right. If you could again, using the pointer, perhaps place arrows at the locations of bands in the lanes of those two items.

First of all, do those two items appear to have DNA with banding patterns that are--that appear to be the same as one another?

Yes.

Are there any individuals on this particular film, that is amongst the known people, who first of all can be excluded? In other words, could not have donated the DNA found in the Bundy stain and the foyer stain?

Yes.

Who?

Uh, Nicole Brown would be excluded. Her bands are in a different position than the ones in item 52 or item 12, and Mr. Goldman has a single band for this probe. It happens to be in a similar position to one of the bands of Nicole Brown. But in any case, it is not in a similar position to either of the two bands from the Bundy scene or from item no. 12.

All right. What about the third remaining known sample that of Mr. Simpson? Can he be excluded as a donor of the DNA in those two stains?

No, he cannot.

Why?

All right. Could you place the two arrows in those same two bands locations with respect to Mr. Simpson's DNA?

All right. Your Honor, may we have that printed as well?

Yes. That will be 257-D(1).

Thank you.

All right. Dr. Cotton, did you conduct any other probings with another genetic marker of this particular set of samples from the same membrane?

Yes.

What genetic marker would that be at? Which should we discuss next?

Ms43.

Your Honor, may this particular film be again substituted for the previously marked 257-E?

Yes.

And, Dr. Cotton, which marker was this?

Ms43.

Dr. Cotton, could you clear the screen of those arrows? And we'll move to the next film.

Excuse me, Mr. Clarke, for a second.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to take a comfort break real quick here. And let me just add, this is going to be a long trial as you know. Any time any of you need to take a comfort break, just let the bailiffs know. We can accommodate that. All right. We'll take a five-minute comfort break.