All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
All right. Dr. Cotton, would you please. Mr. Clarke, where do you anticipate questioning Dr. Cotton at this point?
All right.
Robin Cotton, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Good morning, Dr. Cotton. You are reminded you are still under oath. Mr. Clarke, you may continue.
Dr. Cotton, prior to the jury coming in, have you had an opportunity to put various of these x-ray films on this rather large light box that we have in the courtroom?
And can you describe for us first which of the films are across the top row of the light box, and there appear to be six of them?
Excuse me, Mr. Clarke. Why don't you let counsel pass so that they can be at a vantage point.
The six films across the top are the films that have items 52, 78 and 12 along with the three known samples and the rest of the controls. The film that had the--all the dots all over it with the background isn't up here, since we didn't--weren't really able to make any interpretation from it. And the first film is the cocktail of four probes. The four films following the cocktail are each the individual films that--or the individual probes that are part of that cocktail. And the very last film is the probe that is not part of the cocktail.
Let me stop you for a moment. The top row, does it then have the film that you actually showed on the overhead projector yesterday with regard to the Bundy stain?
That is the film that was also passed out to the jury that has item 56 and the three known individuals.
All right. Then with the Court's permission I'm going to light the light box and then ask the jurors further questions--I'm sorry, ask the witness further questions.
Now, Dr. Cotton, now that you have an opportunity to have all of these x-ray films on the light box at one time, would the fact that they are all together be helpful in explaining anything that yesterday you weren't able to explain as well because these films were not done all at one time or shown at one time?
There are two things that are useful in terms of putting them up on the light box. One is to just illustrate to you how they can be superimposed one on the other to identify the band in the cocktail. And then also this is a much more optimal way to view them, not from quite that far away, but in terms of seeing bands, that are not very dark.
All right. With respect to the upper row then, can you point out for us what you are talking about and which of these films show, for instance, this lightness and darkness and so forth that it would be helpful to see while they are up all at one time?
The only pattern that we need to pay attention to, in terms of where do we have light bands, is the item 52 pattern, and the bands are most clearly visible on the cocktail, but individually one can go through and pick out bands. The other bands in the sample are pretty much easy to see, perhaps with one or two exceptions on item 52. MS1 has a single band. It is up here where my finger is pointing, (Indicating), for item 52. For MS31 the bands are quite easy to see. For MS43 again they are very light and two of them for g3, they look fairly clear, but still light, and for YNH24 they are clear but still light. So that is what you would be looking at if you were in the laboratory. You would be viewing it on a light box like there on your desk or on the counter or something.
And again, when you are referring to 52, you are referring to the stain from the Bundy walkway?
Now, there is one more autoradiograph x-ray that is down below and I believe you said that is the particular film that was used in an attempt to type the shoeprint, no. 56?
Does that give you then the opportunity to show what a lane looks like that has no DNA in it versus lanes that have more DNA and then lanes with more DNA still when you compare all seven of these films?
Well, when you say it has no DNA in it, that is not literally loaded. It just isn't human so there is no human DNA there and it just is an example of the lane that has absolutely no bands in it at all.
All right. While these six films--I'm sorry, seven films are present on the light box, is there anything further that you feel would be appropriate to point out in this comparison process?
Just in terms of understanding how these films relate to one another, let me pull one down and give an illustration, which won't be enormously easy to see, but hopefully you will get the idea. Let's use as an example, because it is fairly easy to see, let's look at item no. 12. If we wanted to identify in item no. 12 which of the bands here was produced by which probe, one can--and here is the band I'm going to follow for MS1. Because these all came from the same membrane, they are superimposable, you can lay these one on top of the other, and I've just now moved the top one slightly to the right and I can see that the top band for item no. 12 is the band that is produced by MS1 and they are--can be superimposed well enough so that now you can't really see that you have two films there.
Just for the record, Dr. Cotton, have you just taken the film that is labeled 257-b and placed it over the film labeled 257-a?
Yes. And then you would go on and continue that process, and I went go through all six films, but if you go on to the next film, MS31, you can do exactly the same thing, and I can determine from that that the two bands that are in the middle here, the bottom two of this group of three, are the band in the cocktail that are produced by MS31. So once all the films have been completed, that is the procedure that you can use in the laboratory to go through and say, well, if I'm going to take my sizes from this film, which is the easiest thing to do, then I can identify which probes each of those bands comes from by simply superimposing them, making that identification and then noting that in your case materials.
All right. Dr. Cotton, while we have these films on the board, I would like you to assume, and let's start with no. 56, the shoeprint from the Bundy scene, I would like you to assume that with regard to that particular bloodstain, that that was from a bloodstain and that was found on a walkway outside in an area that has leaves and apparent soil nearby.
And that that item was collected during a late morning time period on a given day. I would then like to shift your attention to item no. 52 from the Bundy walkway, and that would be referring you to the films that are exhibit 257-A, B, C and so forth, and I would like you to assume that that was found on a concrete type driveway in an apparent cleaner area than item 56, but collected at approximately the same time that day, same day. And then lastly, I would like you to assume, with regard to item no. 12, that that in fact was blood staining from an indoor area, that is, inside a home on a floor and that that was collected later the same day in the late afternoon, approximately. With those assumptions, do these results that you've obtained, are they consistent with degradation of DNA in relative amounts?
With the assumptions that you've just given me, the state of the DNA, the amount of degradation that we see in these three samples that you mentioned, is consistent with the types of environment that you have just described.
There have been a number of experiments published and also based on our own experience and talking with people from other DNA laboratories, we know that if a sample is exposed to soil or leaves, the likelihood of getting DNA from that sample that is good enough to use for RFLP is very low.
All right. How does the comparison of these three items, how does that play a role in your conclusions?
If item 56 was in an area where there were leaves or dirt or soil, the fact that we did not get any human DNA, but we did get DNA that was possibly bacterial DNA, is consistent with the assumption that you asked me to make.
All right. What about then the relative conditions of the DNA with regard then to the Bundy stain, 52, and the Rockingham foyer stain, no. 12?
The Bundy stain 52 has less DNA and DNA which is more degraded than the DNA in item no. 12,. And if item no. 12 was collected from a cleaner location than item no. 52, that would be consistent with the condition of the DNA as it is seen on the autorads and as it was seen on the small gel that was done after the DNA extraction.
Incidentally, when, for instance, a human cuts himself or herself and begins to bleed, does one's blood, as it is coming from one's body, have bacteria in it?
The bacteria in the blood would be then coming from whatever the blood was deposited on.
KEY QUOTEAll right. At this time, your Honor, it would be my request that the jurors have an opportunity to walk by and examine these particular films while they are on the light box.
All right. Let's have the jurors in row no. 1 then, starting with juror no. 1, if could you file by the light box and then re-enter the jury box at the other jury door, please, and take your time.
Yes, thank you. Now, Dr. Cotton, if I could ask you to remove the films that are on the light box right now, which are People's exhibits 257, I believe a through--
And I'm going to ask if you would now place on the board the films that constitute People's exhibits 258-a through f regarding the sock.
Now, Dr. Cotton, with regard to People's exhibit 258, those six films, first of recall, with regard to the sock, are there any faint or weak bands that you need to point out?
All right. Your Honor, again with the permission of the Court may the jury view this set of autoradiographs?
The record should reflect that each of the jurors has had and taken the opportunity to view both series of autorads.
Dr. Cotton, in the course of your testing, you described earlier the fact that you tested a number of samples that you received using the PCR process?
How did you decide whether--well, let me rephrase. How did you decide whether to type a sample using PCR or RFLP or both?
If the DNA was in sufficiently good condition for both, we did both. If it wasn't in sufficiently good condition to do RFLP, we then did PCR.
With regard to the samples that you identified on those boards that had a number of different photographs of envelopes and so forth, did you in fact test those samples either by RFLP or PCR or both?
Your Honor, at this time I would ask to be marked as People's next in order what I believe could be described as the Bundy results board.
And I'm going to also ask the Court's permission to be able to place in the location under the projector screen with a second tripod the earlier board, exhibit 165, that is the photo board for the Bundy crime scene.
Your Honor, incidentally, the Defense have copies of these boards they were given with the material shown on them.
In other words, with the new configuration of the courtroom, I have a suggestion about the boards. Oh, I see, it is that one. It is impossible.
All right. Then perhaps as I refer to individual items we can raise it or point out as necessary.
All right. Dr. Cotton, with respect to various items of evidence, and if I may, I will direct you to specific item numbers and a brief description of them, do you have before you the results that your laboratory obtained, whether it is PCR results or RFLP results?
All right. Initially were you asked and did you test an item no. 47 described as "first drop by the victims at Bundy"?
At how many markers, and we will try to do this as to this first marker and perhaps shorten it with the remaining markers?
All right. With respect to those results can you describe what the DQ-Alpha result was?
Now, I'm going to ask you and perhaps--have you had a chance to look at these results boards before, Dr. Cotton?
And have you had an opportunity to look at not only the various items of evidence that are listed on the board, but also the known types of the three people in this case, Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, that are listed at the very top of the diagram?
With regard to the known types, that is the DQ-Alpha types, are the types shown on this board, People's exhibit 259, with respect to those three known persons, accurate?
Now, with regard to again item no. 47, this first drop by the victims at Bundy, did you also obtain polymarker results at those five additional markers?
As a result of those tests, that is the results you obtained, were you able to include or exclude any of the three parties as far as being contributors of that sample, possible contributors?
Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman are excluded and Mr. Simpson is a possible contributor.
KEY QUOTEAll right. With the Court's permission I'm going to remove the current cover that shows those results as far as this particular item.
Well, if it is a logistical problem, I can assume you can settle it yourselves. Proceed.
Let me see if I can get on my tip toes. I don't know if you can see, Dr. Cotton, but have I --
Okay. With regard to what is beneath that cover that I just removed, and this is item no. 47, your laboratory, it states "DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2" and then it says "polymarker included"?
You previously or just a few moments ago testified that these results, including all six of these genetic markers, exclude Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown; is that right?
When you use the term "included," again does that mean he is or is not a possible source of that DNA?
Now, turning your attention to the next item on the board, which is labeled "no. 48 Bundy walk," did you also test that sample using PCR?
Your Honor, while the witness is looking, I'm also going to remove the second magnetic portion of the board that is under the column "not excluded" relating to item no. 47, the first drop.
Actually, were your results the same or different than 47, the first drop by the victims?
Does that mean then that the types were DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2 and as to the polymarker an individual was included?
Your Honor, your Honor, with the Court's permission, I'm going to remove again both magnetic markers as to item 48, the Bundy walkway.
Drawing your attention, Dr. Cotton, to no. 49, another Bundy walkway stain, did you type that particular evidence using these same six genetic markers using PCR?
Mr. Simpson is included as a possible donor and Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman are excluded as possible donors.
Now, does that include or were your results as to no. 49 on the Bundy walkway the same as for the first two items, 47 and 48, the other Bundy walkway stains?
Your Honor, again with the Court's permission I'm going to reveal the two appropriate covers.
Now, referring you to what's marked no. 50, bloodstains from the Bundy walkway, did you also test that sample?
With regard to item no. 50, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman are excluded and Mr. Simpson is included as a possible donor.
All right. Your Honor, with regard again to those results, I'm going to, with the Court's permission, reveal the appropriate markers.
Turning your attention now to no. 52, which is labeled "the Bundy walkway," first of all, you have already described RFLP results with respect to that Bundy stain; is that right?
And I believe you described that there was a match between Mr. Simpson and this stain at a number of genetic markers; is that right?
Your Honor, with the Court's permission, there is a column with "RFLP results" and I'm going to ask to be able to reveal that at this time also.
In other words, Dr. Cotton, was there a five-probe match between Mr. Simpson and no. 52, the Bundy stain, using your RFLP technique?
You will have to wait just a second because I thought I had turned to the correct page and I haven't.
First of all, was that the same stain, and I'm referring to item no. 52, that you discussed as far as RFLP results yesterday?
The PCR results exclude Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown and they include Mr. Simpson.
All right. Again, your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would like to reveal the remaining two magnetic covers.
Now, I would like to turn your attention to the shoeprint, item no. 56, which you've testified I'm sorry--testified about already both yesterday and today as far as RFLP typing.
We obtained polymarker results and we did get some signal on the DQ-Alpha results, but there was no C dot.
That is one of the controls, and because we didn't see a C dot, we noted the types that we could see, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other types that we couldn't see.
Was there anything about the--well, what types did you see as far as DQ-Alpha was concerned?
The polymarker results had a--the control turned out okay and, umm, those results are--hang on one second.
With regard to the other two parties in this case, were those results consistent or inconsistent with them?
Let me stop you just for a moment or go back, if I can. When you said there was no C dot on this DQ-Alpha marker, what does that mean?
The C dot is designed to say that you have enough amplified product to reliably interpret your results. If the--if you have no C dot, then what that means is that you may have so little amplified product that you could have a person, for example, that had two alleles but you might only see one of them, so your typing would--the type that you see is one of the types that is there, but it may not be all of the types that are there.
--previously. With regard to this result from the shoeprint then, and I'm referring then to the polymarker results, was a particular individual included?
All right. Your Honor, with regard to the shoeprint, I would ask the Court for permission to remove those covers.
Turning your attention, Dr. Cotton, to item no. 78, the Ronald Goldman boot drop, you have already described RFLP results over the last couple days, correct?
All right. Your Honor, with the Court's permission I'm going to ask to remove the cover as far as RFLP testing is concerned.
The results indicate that there are a mixture of two people in the sample.
KEY QUOTEFar as those results, can you include or exclude any of the three persons; Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman?
All right. Your Honor, with this item I would ask for permission to remove the two magnetic covers.
Excuse me. Mr. Fairtlough, before you bring up something that has got a victim's body in it, would you warn me, please.
Now, as far as the polymarker results well, let me step--go one step backwards. The DQ-Alpha results on the boot drop, they show what appear to be three types, plus the possibility of a fourth?
The polymarker results don't have any locus that has three types in it, so it is not clear from the polymarker results alone that there is a mixture, and the differences in the intensities of the blue dots are not really quite good enough to indicate definitely that there is or is not, so the determination that there is a mixture relies on the DQ-Alpha results.
Now, as far as those DQ-Alpha results, there are three types listed, 1.1, 1.3 and 4. Did you obtain those types?
When you have more than one individual in the DQ-Alpha test, the way the strips are designed is that you wouldn't be able to definitively read the 1.2 if you have a certain combination of alleles, and you have more than one person. If you only have a single person, there is no problem, so when there is clearly a mixture, which there is here, and you can't definitively say whether the 1.2 is there or not, then it is generally reported as you have the alleles that you can define and you have a possible 1.2 and you can't say that it is or is not definitively there.
Now, turning your attention to what are listed as items no. 84-a and 84-b, the left and right-hand fingernail clippings and scrapings of Nicole Brown, did you type those items using PCR?
Your Honor, I would object to foundation on those fingernail scrapings that come--I don't think they were sent directly from--
Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman are excluded and Mr. Simpson is a possible contributor.
Yes, there was.
Those results are not consistent with Mr. Simpson.
The bacteria in the blood would be then coming from whatever the blood was deposited on.
The results indicate that there are a mixture of two people in the sample.