Dr. Cotton, and if we could proceed with the next genetic marker, and I believe you said that was ms43?
Which should be People's exhibit 257-E. Now, again, is this simply another film from the same membrane that contains the various items that are labeled at the top?
Now, as far as this particular film is concerned--and again, just quickly, as far as TDS, your known laboratory member, are his or her bands in the appropriate location from your past experience?
Now, with regard to, again, the Bundy stain no. 52 and the foyer stain no. 12, can you use the arrows and describe their relative locations?
I certainly can for 12. There's two bands right here and right here (Indicating). Did you want me to mark them?
As far as those particular bands, are there any individuals, that is either Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman that can be excluded, in other words, can be eliminated as being donors of those two stains from the foyer and the walkway, Bundy walkway?
Nicole Brown is excluded, her bands are not in the same position, and Ronald Goldman is excluded, his bands are not in the same position.
Incidentally, just to make it clear, to exclude someone, do you need to be able to exclude them at each of these different genetic markers?
As far as Mr. Simpson, is he excluded or could he a donor of the DNA in those two evidence stains?
Okay. I'll have you place the arrows on his banding patterns at this time, if you would.
Now, let's turn to the Bundy stain, item no. 52. First of all, on this projection screen, can you see any banding patterns from the sample at this genetic marker?
I--I sort of see where they are, but you have to keep in mind that I've looked at the original many times.
So if I were looking at this on this screen and hadn't seen it before, I doubt that I could pick out anything.
I did look at it before we put it up there. And on the light box, you can see two very faint bands. They are hard to pick out and they are consistent with the bands in no. 12 and they are consistent with the bands in Mr. Simpson.
Now, with regard to these very faint bands as you've described them, how do you know--how do you know those are banding patterns from DNA in that sample? How do you reach that conclusion when they're faint bands like that?
The best banding pattern we have from item 52 is that in the cocktail, and--and that was the first time that probes were added to the membrane, and it's typical that that's where you get your strongest signal or your darkest bands.
Let me stop you for just a moment. The cocktail is that first film that has several bands for each of the samples?
The individual probes are used to both confirm the data in that cocktail and to identify which band in the cocktail was produced by which marker. So if the cocktail has in it probe ms1, ms31, ms43 and the last one that we haven't looked at in the cocktail, g3, then when you go back and use them one at a time, of the multiple bands in the cocktail, you can pick out which two were created by probe ms1 which--or one or two, which ones were created by ms31 and so on. Even if you go back and do each probe individually, as long as you get three out of the four and compare them back to the cocktail, you can deduce where the last two came from. So even if we were to see nothing on ms43, we still have, therefore, identified the ms43 bands on that cocktail. So the fact that these are very light--it would be nicer if they were not. But even if we didn't see them at all, there is a sufficient amount of data to go forward.
Incidentally, when these films are reviewed, are you the only person that looks at these opinions to reach conclusions or opinions?
At a very minimum, the analyst who's done the work will review the films before I ever see them. In--in a case where there are light bands, it's very usual in the lab to then have one or two other people also look at the film to get their opinion as well in terms of, are these bands sufficiently distinct that we can use them in the analysis.
I believe you mentioned--and, again, before we leave this autorad completely, Dr. Cotton, there again appear to be some of the spots in various locations; is that right?
Those are the same type of spots that we talked about earlier. They are background from the p32 label, and they certainly aren't going--the spots here don't look like bands and they aren't going to interfere.
Your Honor, again, may we have the original for that marker substituted for what's already been marked as 257-F?
Dr. Cotton, showing you what will be marked 257-F, is that the next genetic marker in the series of tests performed on these three evidence samples?
And if you could, Dr. Cotton--you're doing exactly what I was going to ask. Thanks. Now, showing you this particular film--and you've already described it as being at a--would this be a fourth genetic marker, g3?
And would this be the fourth of the four markers that are part of what you referred to as that cocktail earlier?
Now, in this sample again and referring to the markers including the sample for TDS, did the markers or do they appear as though they perform properly?
The markers look just like they should and there's no indication from them that there was any problem with the gel or the addition of probe.
Now, referring you to again the evidence items, the Bundy stain and the foyer stain, were banding patterns produced at this particular marker?
There are two bands in item 52. One is here and the other one, which is also difficult to see on this screen, but is visible clearly on the film, is right here (Indicating). Item no. 12 from the foyer has two bands, and I'm indicating those with the arrows.
Now, what about the samples from Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman? Could they have been donors of the DNA found in those two stains?
Mr. Goldman and now Nicole Brown. And their bands are not in the same position. They're not consistent with the bands from item 52 or from the foyer.
Now, if I could take you down to the very bottom of Mr. Goldman's banding patterns. Is that a band at the very bottom there?
Now, why couldn't be Mr. Goldman be a donor? For instance, in referring to that bottom band there that you just looked at.
Mr. Goldberg has a band that's quite small and it almost lines up exactly with the very smallness band in the marker. When I say the band is small, what I really mean is, the DNA fragment that made that band is not very long. I don't mean that the physical size of the band that you see there is small. That is, it's light, but it's about the same dimensions as all the other bands. The band in the--item 12 and item 52, that's also towards the bottom of the gel, does not line up with this lower marker and you can see is some distance above it. So--and then Mr. Goldman's other band, which is up here (Indicating), does not line up with the upper band in the evidence sample. So he's clearly excluded from being a possible donor of the DNA in item 52 and item 12.
Mr. Simpson has two bands. They are in similar positions to the bands in item 52 and item 12.
Now, Dr. Cotton, with regard to this process of more than one person reading these particular films as to banding patterns, did that happen in this case?
Because that item doesn't have much DNA in it. The banding pattern is light and we wanted--I wanted and Julie Cooper wanted who--she was still at Cellmark at that time. The original report was generated and later on, Paula wanted to make sure that we all had come to the same conclusion.
Sustained. The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard indication what Julie Cooper said.
With regard to the results in this case as to 52, the Bundy stain, was there an agreement about the results?
As far as the records that you keep in this case, Dr. Cotton, first of all--and I believe you described the fact that records are kept in the course of your testing?
Do those records include analyst determination about samples that match or samples in which persons are excluded?
With respect to item 52, do those documents reflect determinations of either exclusions or inclusions?
And with respect to those records, do they show the opinions of other analysts in this case?
Yes. The opinions are reflected in the signatures that are on the report. So if someone signed the report, indicates that they agree with the conclusions that are written in the report.
And do those reports include the determination or a determination that with respect to, for example, the Bundy stain, item no. 52, that that matched any particular individual?
Objection, your Honor. Distinguished from between opinions and other types of statements and business records.
Dr. Cotton, in forming your conclusions in this case, do you consider the opinions of other experts in your laboratory?
Did that take place with respect to all of the conclusions about matching patterns, that is individuals who may match a sample versus individuals who may be excluded as the donor of the sample?
In forming your own individual conclusions about this case, did you rely on or take into consideration the opinions of, for instance, Julie Cooper and Paula Yates?
With respect to those particular opinions that you relied on--well, let me rephrase that. In reliance upon those opinions, did that lead to the formation of your own opinions in any way?
In my role in reviewing the case, I received the data and a draft report. The draft report indicates the opinion of the analy--the analyst who did the case. I have the option to agree or disagree with it or change the report, and at the end of this process of--of drafting the report, we have to agree on the conclusions so that we can both sign it.
Now, with respect to those opinions--first of all, as far as these drafts opinions, did you change them in terms of their conclusion from when they were drafted by one of the analysts?
I don't have exact recollection of whether I made any changes in the report. I know that I did not change the substance of the report. Whether I made any grammatical changes or wording changes to be more precise, I can't remember.
Did you make any--any changes in terms of conclusions about patterns or evidence items that matched known individuals?
All right. With respect to these individual markers, you've described the fact, Dr. Cotton, that this cocktail contains a combination of four markers, correct?
All right. Your Honor, I have one more original x-ray film that I ask be substituted for the already marked copy, which is 257-G.
Showing you, Dr. Cotton, what will be exhibit 257-G, can you just tell us what that is?
Thank you. Now, again, is your testing or your typing process at this genetic marker, which I believe you said was ynh24, taken from again the same membrane that each of the previous markers were tested from?
As far as the controls and without going into that in depth, did they or do they appear appropriate as they should?
Now, referring to the evidence item--and if you can, again, focus on the Bundy stain no. 52 and the stain from the Rockingham foyer, no. 12. Let's start with no. 12. Do you see banding patterns in that sample at this genetic marker?
Now, with regard to the Bundy stain, are there banding patterns in any locations on that particular--in that particular lane?
Did you have an opportunity just a few moments ago to look at the original film on the light box that you have in front of you?
And by looking at--I'm sorry. And by looking at it on that light box, were you able to see the two bands in the Bundy stain lying on this film?
Now, as far as Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, are they possible donors of the DNA in those stains or not?
Nicole Brown has two bands that are close together, and they're clearly in different location than the two bands in the--item 12 and from the two bands in item 52. Ron--Ronald Goldman has two bands also, one right here and the second one down here (Indicating). The upper one is relatively close in position to the upper bands in item 52 and item 12, but not in exactly the same position. And Mr. Goldman's lower band is in a position where there's no band at all in item 12 or item 52. So he's clearly excluded as is Nicole Brown.
Now, with regard to Mr. Simpson, what can you say about him in terms of being excluded or included as a possible donor of the DNA in those two stains?
Mr. Simpson also has two bands, one here and another one here (Indicating), and they are certainly in visually similar positions to the bands in item 52 and item 12.
Why don't you have a seat on the witness stand. Dr. Cotton, with regard to--and let's start with item no. 52, the Bundy stain. Is Mr. Simpson included or excluded as a donor of the DNA in that sample following your review of all of the x-rays regarding that particular sample?
Your Honor, I would object as to the Bundy stain and I would ask for an instruction from the Court at this point.
How do you base that opinion? Is there a short way you can describe that from what you just reviewed with the jury?
Yes. When you--excuse me. When you review the DNA bands that are visible in the cocktail and in each individual film for that item, in each case, they are consistent with the bands that are seen in Mr. Simpson's pattern.
With respect to those five markers, is there a term you use when an individual cannot be excluded as a donor at a particular genetic marker using this RFLP process?
The term that you may be referring to is "match," and that term implies that not only are the bands visually similar, but when analyzed on the computer imaging system and a DNA fragment size is calculated, that those sizes are also close enough together to confirm your visual interpretation that the patterns are very similar. So in fact, when you go through that exercise, the bands in item 52 match the bands in Mr. Simpson.
KEY QUOTEAs far as looking at these patterns from these various films with your eye, did Mr. Simpson match item no. 52, the Bundy stain?
As far as this imaging process or the use of the computer that you've described, did he match at these five genetic marker locations the DNA found in the Bundy stain?
Now, turning your attention to the foyer stain from the Rockingham foyer, item no. 12, following your review of the material that you've just described in Court, what statement if any can you make about Mr. Simpson and that particular stain?
The DNA banding pattern from item no. 12 in the foyer matches the DNA banding pattern from Mr. Simpson.
KEY QUOTEWith respect to this computer, this imaging device, what conclusions were reached with regard to that stain and Mr. Simpson?
Well, actually what I just said was a compilation of both the visual assessment and the computer imaging data, and the two patterns do match.
As far as the possibility that Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown contributed either of those stains, what can you say?
Okay. Dr. Cotton, with regard to these films that you've just described, there was a third evidence item on each of them, wasn't there?
All right. I'd like to, if you would return to the podium, and perhaps in a little shorter order with fewer questions, have you demonstrate the results of the testing of item no. 78, the boot stain. Could you do that?
The DNA banding pattern from item no. 12 in the foyer matches the DNA banding pattern from Mr. Simpson.
They definitely did not.
So even if we were to see nothing on ms43, we still have, therefore, identified the ms43 bands on that cocktail. So the fact that these are very light--it would be nicer if they were not. But even if we didn't see them at all, there is a sufficient amount of data to go forward.
The term that you may be referring to is 'match,' and that term implies that not only are the bands visually similar, but when analyzed on the computer imaging system and a DNA fragment size is calculated, that those sizes are also close enough together to confirm your visual interpretation that the patterns are very similar.