Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Harmon, you may resume.
Mr. Sims, I think we found the missing page from your chain of custody records. It relates to sending some items to cellmark?
Mr. Sims, showing you 265--People's 265-A, is that the document that was missing from your entire set?
Yes. This was in the earlier discovery packages, why it was missing from the second set. But this documents the transmittal of extracted DNA, DNA that I extracted from the sock, no. 13, to cellmark via the D.A.'s office investigator.
Okay. We're--why don't you describe that a little bit. This is DNA that you extracted from a stain that was sent to you from LAPD?
It's as part of my examination of the socks, the pair of socks, item no. 13. A stain had been previously cut out. My understanding was that was by the LAPD, Mr. Matheson, and that was part of the package that was sent along with the evidence. And so I took portions of those cut outs, of that cut out, extracted it, ran my tests, and then part of that extract of DNA in the tube I sent to cellmark for them to test.
I also sent a control, a substrate control from the sock that Matheson had also cut out and I also submitted my extraction reagent blank that I extracted along with those samples.
Well, that was part of the extraction set. I always extract a reagent blank along with the stains and the substrate control samples, and I wanted them to have that so if they wanted to do any PCR analysis, they would have an extraction blank. That's important for PCR.
When did you send 13 or that stain and the substrate control and the reagent blank?
Okay. Now, the boards that you looked at merely reflected items that you had received directly from the LAPD; is that correct?
Okay. And was there or has there been am exchange of items between you and cellmark on occasion?
Yes. There was one occasion when I received some samples from cellmark and then there was another occasion besides this when I sent samples to cellmark.
Okay. Just a bit of background here. When you receive items, they have the LAPD item numbers on them?
And the set of documents numbered People's 265 for identification, those reflect both the LAPD item numbers and your numbers; is that correct?
Yes, they do. The only exception was the--some of the exemplar samples just had the name of the person, the Coroner's case number, for example.
Okay. Other than the stain from the sock that you sent to cellmark, what other items did you either receive from cellmark or send to cellmark? And if you would please use the LAPD item numbers.
Yes. The item numbers were as follows: And I received these actually via Mike Stevens of the District Attorney's office. He was the messenger for these items coming from cellmark to us. The item numbers were item no. 49--
Those--okay. Those were the two items that we received from cellmark. And then the other thing that involved cellmark or the other shipment was--oh, and I should give you a date for those two items. 49 and 52, that was received by us on October 13th of `94.
Then on February 16th of 1990--1995, February 16th, we received--I'm sorry--we sent to cellmark via the D.A.'s office investigator Dana Thompson extracted DNA from the--I can give you our numbers. I'll hold off a second and then I'll give you the LAPD numbers. LAPD no. 29, LAPD no. 29 control.
There were two items that were submitted to the--to--again, this was through D.A.'s investigator Dana Thompson. This was on February 16th, 1995 for transmittal to the FBI. One of those was a heavily blood-stained area from item no. 86, the dress of Nicole Brown, and then a relatively unstained area from the dress also was sent.
Those are the actual samples that I sent out to the FBI. I believe there were some others that went via LAPD.
Okay. Now, in a while, probably this afternoon, we're going to discuss the testing methods that you used and the results of your analyses. But is it true that some of the samples of the many samples that you received, some were not typed?
And--and of the ones that were not typed, were there even some that were never even opened?
Okay. You've described your role as the lead analyst in this case, and you mentioned a couple other people that worked with you, Steve Myers and Renee Montgomery?
Are there actually others that performed routine tasks in the typing process that we'll be hearing about in a while?
Yes. For example, we have a staff of people that do what we call batch probing whereby these RFLP membranes are actually probed with the various--the various DNA RFLP probes, and they actually perform that part of the analysis themselves, and then I'm the one that develops the films.
Well, they're all part of our team. Some of them are criminalists and some of them are technicians.
Okay. Could you--before we get into some of these results, could you just describe the items by number and description of items that were never tested by DOJ lab?
Yes, I can do that. Excuse me. I have that summarized on my--my last report, which is dated April 6th, 1995. The items that were never examined were item no. 49 control, item no.--
Item no. 49 gives a very low level of human DNA to work with. And rather than consume the additional sample that was available to us in the form of the swatches, we just decided to let that one go and preserve the swatches.
Well, we did some testing on one of the stains from Rockingham, but we didn't feel that that was that critical to test the other stains.
Well, I guess that gives rise to a question. Is it important to have some background information about a case in deciding which samples to test and which not to test?
And based on the information that was provided to you about the location of stains at Rockingham, is that why you didn't test 4?
Were you aware of other test results and the location of that stain when you decided not to test no. 4?
And taking those things into consideration, is that a reason or the primary reason you didn't test no. 4?
Yes. That and that there were other things that we felt were more important to test.
Okay. And what information did you have about that that made you decide not to test it?
And was that also based on your feeling that you already had a representative sample?
Now, when you say "the same reason," the jury hasn't heard all the results of the tests that you performed on these various locations. Are the results that will unfold this afternoon part of the reasons you didn't test the samples that you're describing?
And same reasons you did not test that as you did not test the other Bronco items?
The last one is the--item no. 81, which was the shirt of Ronald Goldman himself or the shirt itself.
Yes. Cuttings were provided to me that had been made by the LAPD and those were the items from the shirt that I tested.
Okay. Okay. We've discussed and defined your role as the lead analyst. But before you actually performed any analyses in this case, you received items of evidence such as items of clothing or the nail kits that had to be processed; is that true?
Yes. In other words, before we can do our DNA analysis, we have to look at the evidence and document the evidence and do that sort of processing before we can actually extract the DNA and test it.
All right. Could you describe a typical--I think we've picked August 18th as a representative day for how you processed a series of items in this case. Could you describe the--you've logged them in and now you get around to processing it. Why don't you describe that to the jury.
Okay. Excuse me. This was--this was fairly early on in the case when we first started looking at the evidentiary items and the--I'm just going to go through my lab notes as to the process because--
Okay. Why don't you describe the events of August 18th, if that's a typical representative day.
The--the work on this case began around 1:30. This was at a time when Dr. Blake was present to view the sampling, the initial opening of these various items.
What sort of an arrangement did you have with him to allow him to be there on August 18th?
Dr. Blake was given full access to view everything we basically did on this case. He had an open invitation to see anything we did. And as it turned out, what he usually did was to view the actual opening of the items and document what was there, and then he would also come by and review our results.
KEY QUOTEAnd what was his--he was not just a disinterested bystander in this case; is that true?
Seemed that way. Now, what did you do on the 18th? What kinds of things did you process?
We--we processed two of the bloodstains on this case. Began by removing the evidence from a box--a locked box that we have inside our vault freezer. So we would get the evidence out. I would show the contents of the items to Dr. Blake. He would take photographs to document them, and I had already photographed them and that's why you saw all those board photographs. I had already done that when--the actual date of receipt. Typically--and I'll start here with our item no. 6, which is the 48 Bundy drop. No, I'm sorry. I will start with item no. 6 from Rockingham. That was the first item looked at this date. The LAPD item number is 6. Make sure I get that right. So what I would do is, I would--after the outside of the envelope had been photographed as far as documentation and sealing by Dr. Blake, then I would open up the envelope and lay out the evidence in a particular, you know, part of the laboratory to do the examination. I would make notes about what was present, what all the writing was that was on all the bindles and all the coin envelopes. I would initial now the bindles because the bindles are inside the coin envelopes. I had already initialed the coin envelope when I received it. But now that I took out the bindle, I would write on the bindle. Then inside this bindle would be a stain swatch. We've heard a lot of discussion about what a swatch is, so I won't go into that. But then I would photograph and document what was present as far as the swatches. So I would make measurements as I mentioned earlier--
Well, they're--they're actually pretty close because I could hold a pair of forceps up to the ruler. And in fact, between items, I would actually bleach the ruler. So it got pretty clean that way.
Now, do you actually note all the identifying marks in writing on the bindles as you observe them?
They are actually written in my notes as to what it would say on that. So, for example, on this bindle, there were the initials "CYG" and then the number "G8880 to DOJ 8-11-94." on the back of the bindle, the item number--well, not item number. Just the no. 6, the numeral 6 and what appeared to me the initials "DF."
Yes. I would describe them in terms of how well stain they appear, what their measurements were, how many there were certainly, that sort of thing.
And later on, when you got substrate controls, did you actually describe how they appeared to you?
Okay. Why don't you take it up and talk again about 6 and 48, the processing of those.
Yes. This is still on item no. 6. After the--that initial documentation and photography and again Dr. Blake would take his photographs, then we actually weighed these particular items. Each swatch was individually weighed.
That--that has not been my practice, but I believe it was Dr. Lee or--that proposed that from this original cellmark cutting back in July or whenever that was and--so I told Dr. Blake that if that's what they wanted to do, that's what we would do, that was fine with me.
And then I would do the actual cutting, which is the--to say the sampling of the particular item. And part of that process was to take a pair of forceps, a pair of--small pair of scissors which I had rinsed and actually flamed to make sure they were absolutely clean. And then I would make a cutting of that particular sample. I would also then take the particular cutting that I had made to extract for my purposes, put that into a test tube labeled with the item number, our case number, and then I would show those one by one to Dr. Blake to show that this was in fact the swatch from that particular item number.
Well, at that point, he's observing. He's carefully observing what I'm doing as far as what sample I'm putting in each tube.
Do you have any idea how many pictures you took of this whole process? This is just one day. I'm talking about the entire case.
Of course--and of course, some of those are multiple exposures too. So--then the--once that--there would also be documentation as to what portion was saved, and Dr. Blake would generally photograph the remainders of what I had saved.
And then I would also do a presumptive blood test on those particular samples just to make sure, and that involves just a minute portion of the actual stain.
Even though the people who collected it might have done the same thing at the scene?
It's part of my practice to just know that I have run that particular test because that's how I test a bloodstain.
Yes. It's a extremely sensitive test. And so you can do it with just a speck--excuse me--a speck of material.
Okay. Then the next part of the process would be to seal the remainder in the bindle. So I put the remainder back into the bindle, put my seal on the bindle, then put the bindle back into its envelope and seal that envelope up. And so part--part of the process here is that we're working on items one at a time. In other words, we're not laying out a bunch of these swatches. We're going through these items one at a time as far as the processing. And the purpose of that of course is to eliminate the possibility as best as possible of mixing up any of the samples. So in other words, that sample now is all sealed up, the sample is in its tube and that's put on a separate rack now to be extracted before we move on to the next sample.
Okay. And is it fair to say that these items when you've described them, which is this day is simply one day in the life of this case, that all the evidence received from the Los Angeles Police Department was in a sealed condition when you received it?
Yes, it was. Yes, it was. Some of the larger items were inside sealed boxes, that sort of thing, but yes, they were all sealed.
And your notes for each shipment actually are specific to describing the cartons and the containers within?
Okay. Keep describing the work you did on the 18th in the company of Dr. Blake, if you would.
Okay. It was clear at this point that these were the two main samples we were going to initially focus on. When I say "the two," I mentioned item no. 6, which was the Rockingham drop, and then the other item we were interested in was item no. 48, a Bundy drop. And intervening there, as far as the cutting process, I--I next looked at what we call a quality control bloodstain. And in our laboratory, every time we do a set of extractions in this case, we would also run a bloodstain that is unknown as to the type to the analyst. So in other words, I'm going to take--I'm going to go to a bank of samples that are just coded by number, and I have no idea what those typing results are for those numbers. I take one of those. And in this case, it was QC, quality control sample no. 806. And that sample then gets processed in the same fashion.
It's--to us, in our laboratory, it's an important quality control measure because it really tests the analyst each time the analyst does a particular test. And in this particular case, we ran something like 20--about 20 of these different samples because of the large number of extraction sets that we looked at.
No. What happens is, I go through the whole process, and then at the final stage when the--when I submit my results for supervisorial review, then the supervisor goes and sees if I got the correct results.
Okay. So in this case, I took a particular quality control sample and I sampled it in the same fashion as I would one of these swatches, although I didn't do all the documentation as far as photography and that stuff because it wasn't of an evidentiary nature. Then next, the item was 48. And again, we went through the process of opening up the sample, documenting what was on the bindle and the coin envelope. And in this case, it was "113 DF CYG 8880." Dr. Blake photoed it. I photoed it. The--the swatches then were again measured and sampled.
Yes. And again, it's weighed out. A cutting is taken. It's put into a tube. A presumptive blood test is run again, and then Dr. Blake photoed the remainder. And then that item is then all sealed up, the swatch is sealed in the bindle, the bindle is sealed in the coin envelope.
So in the normal course of the processing, once you do the sampling, it's sealed up and put back in the freezer?
Yes. And it's important to note that what we do is, as we process these samples, you don't run in the freezer every five minutes. So what you do is, during the course of that afternoon or whatever, I'm finishing a sample, putting it aside, finishing another sample, putting it aside. Then when I get to the end of the day, then as a group, they all go into the freezer.
And then unless you have to go back and get anything out of those package, that's what's left?
That's exactly right. And it's in a sealed condition. So it's ready to go out the door at any time now if somebody wants to have that evidence back.
Okay. And have we missed anything on August 18th that you and Dr. Blake did together?
Well, we--we also decided at that time that Dr. Blake would be allowed to photograph what other items we had in house, and this would relate to the Bundy drops at 40--no. 47 and no. 49 and no. 50. And so at that point, we--we actually got those items out, I did the measurements and the photography was done, but no sampling was conducted at that time.
Yes. Well, he was there from I think I mentioned about 1:30 till about 8:00 in the evening.
And can you give us an idea of how many other days you had like this where Dr. Blake performed the functions that you've just described?
It would be very hard for me to give an estimate. It seems like most of September and October would be my answer to that.
But there was a lot of activity in September and October. There were days that were very similar to this and also, there was activity in January, for example.
Okay. Now, I think you also mentioned that he would periodically come by and review results and take photographs of those?
Yes. Because the process was that we would do this initial documentation with Dr. Blake always present, and then we would--after we'd put together a series of samples, then we would proceed on our own to do the extractions, the valuation, the DNA that Dr. Cotton talked about. We'd also do the typing phases, and then Dr. Blake would generally come by to review our results. And so some days, we would, you know, do the results review and also do this additional sampling. So there's a lot of back and forth with that.
Was--was Dr. Blake ever present for any of the intermediary or intermediate steps? Dr. Cotton eloquently described the whole processes for the jury. Was Dr. Blake ever present to view or photograph any of the other intermediate steps in either the RFLP process or PCR process?
Well, I--I can recall, for example, Dr. Blake was present sometimes at the time that we would do DQ-Alpha strip readings, for example.
Oh, I see what you mean by intermediary. Uh, I don't recall those particular instances, no.
Okay. Let's talk, if you will, about specific items. You actually received, instead of, as cellmark has described through Robin Cotton obtaining samples, you actually received some entire items to view and process; is that right?
Yes. That's correct. In other words, items of clothing, for example, that sort of thing.
Okay. Were you--did you receive a pair of socks that were found on Mr. Simpson's master bedroom that have been identified as item 13?
And when did you receive them and what else did you receive in conjunction with those socks?
And would you describe what else you received that was associated or sent along with those socks?
Yes. We also received item no. 45--excuse me--45, item no. 51, item no. 84, which consisted of the left and right hand fingernail samples of Nicole Brown. We also received item no. 115, 116, 117, which were associated with the rear gate at the Bundy crime scene.
Okay. Let's focus on the package that had 13, the socks in them. Was there anything else that was sent along with those socks?
The socks were inside a sealed letter envelope, and along with those socks were two tubes, plastic tubes with caps that contained cut outs that had information that indicated they were made by Greg Matheson.
Yes. One--there were two tubes and two socks. One tube was labeled "13A GBM" and the other two was labeled "13A control GBM."
And when you--I'm jumping a bit. When you examined the socks, 13, the two socks, did you notice two holes in the socks?
And when you say they were labeled, did you have some sort of communication with Mr. Matheson about those socks that--that caused you to select the samples to test?
Excuse me. Yes. As I recall--and I can't recall the exact date, but I was aware that he had obtained some conventional serology results that were consistent with Nicole Brown on that particular item.
Okay. Was--were you provided or had--before you received those, had you been provided with any other information about any other possible blood-stained areas on those socks?
And based on the communication with Mr. Matheson, did he describe this--the control as being from an unstained area of the sock?
I don't recall him talking about the control. It was more that I found it when I opened it up as I recall.
So two socks, two tubes, one with a stain allegedly and one with a substrate control?
How did you go about evaluating those socks just based on the two holes and the two tubes? What did you do?
Well, obviously the initial focus of the examination was in the cut-out material because there was already genetic information, genetic typing information developed. So we pursued that particular line. But also, I noticed, as I was looking at the socks, that there were some other markings on them, and also, I noticed, as I spent some time looking at these socks, that there were other stains of particular interest.
Well, why don't we start from the beginning then. You first--first thing, other than the holes that you've described, you noticed some other markings on there?
The--the markings that I saw--one was a--I think was just the size of the sock. It was a--it was 10 to 13, like the size of the sock that was imprinted. The sock--the socks, each side on the inside at the top, it looked like the initials "SB" maybe and also "CY" were present. There was an arrow pointing to that area where the cut out had been made near the ankle and that arrow also had a "13a" with it in white.
Yes. And there was also near this control--what appeared to be the control area, there was a "c," a marking for "c."
Yes. Then it appeared there was--the "13a" was marked on the heel of that--that same sock. And then finally on this same sock, there was a--an arrow, a white arrow pointing to a stain up near the top.
Did the numbers on the tube correspond to the holes in the socks? In other words--
Go ahead. In other words, there was a "13A GBM" and there's a white mark with a hole in it?
Yes. This--this is--and "C" standing for control. I mean, that's pretty standard nomenclature in this business. So I was quite confident that that was the control area.
13a. Okay. Now, when you noticed those markings, did you notice initially--let's take this very slowly as things unfolded to you. When was the first time you noticed any possible stained areas in the visualization, your examination of these socks?
The--my attention was called to that other stain I mentioned up towards the top by the arrow. Certainly that caught my eye. And then at that point, after there was some initial photography and Dr. Blake photoed also, my notes here--this is on page 51 of my notes. "note: Saw additional spots of interest on the side with 42a-1 stain, stereomike." in other words, I'm looking at it now under the stereomicroscope, which is a low-power magnification, but very effective. "these are reddish, about 13 to 15 centimeters from the top." and I have a note that I considered that maybe these were spatter stains or something along those lines.
Okay. Let's back up a minute. You see the white marks with the holes. Then you see some other marks, is that correct, white marks?
Okay. Could you see any other stain--or strike that. Were you looking with your naked eye at that point?
Excuse me. At that point, I was looking under the stereomicroscope, but I was also taking advantage of the illumination that's very bright and oblique provided by that microscope. So you're sort of looking at it with a naked eye under a good lighting and you're also looking at it under the stereomicroscope.
Yes. And that's--that's when I--I noted that other stain up near the top, the side opposite the cutting.
Okay. Now, let's stay with the eyeball. When your--your direction was atten--or your attention was focused because of the arrow; is that correct?
And at that point, before you got the microscope out, could you see any other areas that you thought might be bloodstained with your naked eye?
I--I don't recall noticing any until we got over to the stereomicroscope and set up with the illumination.
And is that the normal course for--as a forensic scientist, visual examination leading to other more sophisticated exams?
Okay. So why don't you take us through that then. You're looking with the stereomicroscope. Could you please describe what you saw?
Okay. Under the--the stereomicroscope, I noted that there were some additional stains up towards the top that were on the same side as the sock as where that cutting had been made by Matheson, and I thought that was very interesting.
Okay. Did--and did you then attempt to start identifying those stains or assigning numbers to them?
Now, the only--on that particular night--this was now October 4th--the only--the only numbers that I assigned were that I would call that--that first stain a1, and I--it has our DNA number of 42 associated with it. So it's 42a1. But the key is that it's a1. And then on the opposite side, the one that had the arrow pointing to it, I called that one a2. But none of these other ones--I'm sorry. On the other sock, there was also an area that--that had been outlined, and that was what we called 42B1. So that was on the other sock now.
Okay. And so this completes at least your assigning numbers or identifying stains as of October 4th?
Well, the next--I--I just wanted to review the--that day also just to make sure because there--part of that was the--as I mentioned, the photography, but also the individual cut-out stain was laid out and documented because that came in four separate little pieces from Matheson's tube. And so that was all documented and measured. And at that point, I actually took three of those four for my extraction. So I took three of the four to do my testing with.
Okay. Let's stay on the 4th for just a second. Is this the date that you looked at 13a1 under the stereomicroscope?
Could you give the jury an idea of what this stereomicroscope is? And you mentioned some special lighting too. Give us an idea of how that helps you look at things.
Yes. It's a--it's not like a high-powered microscope. It's more about, oh, 10 times to about 40 times magnification. So it's--it's very good. It's much more than a magnifying glass obviously, but it's not like looking for an individual blood cell or something like that. I mean it's an intermediate there. But it's also very useful to get an idea of where you might see a bloodstain and how it stains the fabric. In other words, you can see the reddish area, for example, here against a black background. And so this particular setup that we have has lighting from the sides. That's called oblique lighting and it kind of--it's like providing a spotlight on the particular item. It illuminates it brightly. And so that just allows you to see things much more clearly and with a good contrast than you can with just the naked eye.
Tell us what you saw when you looked at 13a, the cutting that Greg Matheson sent you.
Well, on that--excuse me. I looked at those particular cuttings under the stereomicroscope exam. I noticed there was reddish staining, looked like there was some--I noted it looked like it was through and through, the soaking, it--it's somewhat powdery on the other side. And that--that's basically what I saw. In other words, it looked like--like it was a bloodstain to me, but that's just an examination.
Okay. Now, you mentioned something powdery on the other side. Could--did you actually dislodge some of those particles?
Well, what happens is, the particular pieces start to shed. The fibrils that make up the sock start to shed. And so some of those actually would come off on to the filter paper that we had placed on the--placed the cuttings on.
Now, if particles like that--or strike that. You needed the stereomicroscope to be able to visualize these particles; is that true?
To see them at that level, yes. I mean, you could see that they were reddish without it. But keep in mind, during this particular sock, you're talking about a dark substance on a dark substrate. And so it's pretty hard to see it without looking at it with some kind of lighting or other--
So if those socks had been sitting on a carpet and dried somewhere and those--what do you call them? Fibrils?
Well, the fibrils are associated with the cutting. In other words, once you make the cutting, then the fabric can tend to start to come apart.
Okay. If--if those little particles had come off a sock wherever it had been deposited, would you need the stereomicroscope to see them?
If you had a good pair of eyes, you could probably see them, yeah. You could see them with the eye.
Okay. The--the next involvement was on October 5th. And with that, there was actually measurements of the--excuse me--the control sample and sampling of the control sample that Matheson had cut out. And at that time, I noted that the measurements that I made for this cutting are very close to the estimate from the previous cutting on the sock. In other words, I looked at those measurements for this piece of cloth, and they were very similar to what I saw for the hole on the sock.
Okay. Again, we're just looking at the control cut out. Under stereomicroscope, no reddish staining was seen. I decided to use--since Matheson had made that cut out, I decided to use that as a substrate control because it was--it was in reasonable proximity to the stain area.
Okay. Why don't we talk about substrate controls. Is it always possible to obtain one?
No. Some items are, for example, just so heavily bloodstained that it's not practical.
We'll talk about item no. 9, the glove from Rockingham, but is that one where you were not able to--
And does that necessarily--the absence of a substrate control, does that undermine or totally do in any results that are produced from any DNA testing?
What impact on results, DNA typing results is there if one does not have a substrate control?
Well, with a substrate control showing no types, it gives you confidence that the particular types you're getting on a stain near by it are from the stained material itself and not associated with the substrate.
Okay. And we'll spend some time with substrate controls probably this afternoon. Why don't you keep describing your examination of the socks on the 5th.
Okay. The--again, I looked at that under the stereomicroscope. I didn't notice any reddish staining. A presumptive blood test was run on these little fibrils that came off. And again, I had done that previously for the stained fibrils, and that was a positive test. This one gave a negative test. Resealed the item up. And then--then it's on October 10th now that we start to do the actual extraction of--for the DNA content of that particular sample.
Okay. And by now, have you identified all the stains that you ultimately tested in this--
Okay. Why don't we jump ahead before we go through the process and describe how you later identified other stains on those socks.
At--at that particular point, there was some examination of the--of the sock again. No--no numbers were actually assigned, any addition--no additional numbers were assigned at that particular point. That was just an examination of the socks.
The--the thing that's interesting about these socks is that the more time you spend with them, you do--and you really study them under the stereomicroscope, you really do see a lot of stains on there. There's a large number of small stains on there, and it's--it's only when you get under the stereomicroscope that you can really appreciate how much there is.
So are you telling us that the stains that you identified on this later date you were not aware of the first time around?
The first time around, I saw there were some other areas of interest, but I specifically focused on that one that I mentioned. But it was clear that there was a lot to look at on this sock.
Okay. In the course of your examination of these socks, did you have a videotape taken under infrared lighting conditions to--that demonstrated where stains were that were not apparent to you?
The actual videotaping was done on October 27th, 1994 with the assistance of Dusty Clark from the Bureau of Forensic Services, latent prints section.
Now, at that point--let's stop the clock at that point. If you would, would you please identify by your lettering or your numbering system the stains you were able to see before you did the video?
Some of the--some of the stains--excuse me--I actually noted, but I didn't assign numbers to until I actually sampled them. In other words, I make drawings, and I say, "look over here. There's something there, there's something there, there's something there," but I didn't actually assign numbers to them. So sometimes I notice things and it's only when I go to sample it later that I have to give it a number.
I think--I think the answer to that is no. I think most of those stains I had seen without the assistance of the video. The video is just a way to try to capture that information, to document it.
Okay. To just go back for a second, you mentioned these presumptive tests that you performed. The negative presumptive test was on the substrate control; is that right?
Okay. Your Honor, could I show People's exhibits 214-A and b on the elmo? They've previously been marked. They're photos of the socks.
Yes. It's--needs a little focus I think on the writing. Can you get that a little sharper for my--
Can you see them? For record-keeping purposes, did you identify one of those socks as sock a?
Okay. The one that just moved there, that would be the 214-B, which sock is that a photo of?
The sock to the left, and that's People's exhibit 214-B. And by default 214-A is sock 13a?
And is that writing that's in those photos, is that writing that you placed on--when you took those pictures?
It's an attempt to depict the relative locations of the particular stains that we actually sampled in this sock. It's not all the stains, but it's the ones that we typed.
So--and we'll go through that after lunch. These are actually what became stains that you processed for DNA typing in this case?
Okay. If you could, I'd like you to think, Mr. Sims, thinking about putting those socks on. I don't mean I'm going to ask you to put those on. But if you put one sock on one foot and one sock on the other foot--I know there's two answers to this--the first way you put them on, where would--would the stains all be on one side or the other of these socks? And maybe you ought to come out here and demonstrate to the jury what we're talking about.
Let me ask you a preliminary question. You can't tell which one of those is the left sock and which one is the right sock; is that right?
So let's just assume you put one on your left--either one on your left foot and either one on your right foot. Then we'll reverse them in a second.
The key--the key point is that the stain that's on the a sock, the Matheson cut out is now being compared to those stains marked B1 and b2 which are on this surface of this sock. And the point is, is that given that the socks go in this direction to the toes, that those socks would--those stains would either be both on the outside or both on the inside (Indicating).
All right. Ladies and gentlemen--unfortunately, I think people in the back row didn't see the demonstration by Mr. Sims. So if you folks want to stand up, you're welcome to do so.
Okay. Again, we're talking about that Matheson cut-out stain and we're talking about those stains B1 and b2. And the point is, is that given the orientation of the sock and where the toe would line, you would either have those stains both on the outside or both on the inside (Indicating).
All right. Mr. Matheson--excuse me. Mr. Harmon, I think at this point, we'll take our break for the noon hour. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, do not allow anybody to communicate with you, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We'll stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. and, Mr. Sims, you may step down. All right. Thank you. We'll be in recess. (At 12:00 P.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1995 1:01 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
Dr. Blake was given full access to view everything we basically did on this case. He had an open invitation to see anything we did.
the more time you spend with them, you do--and you really study them under the stereomicroscope, you really do see a lot of stains on there. There's a large number of small stains on there, and it's only when you get under the stereomicroscope that you can really appreciate how much there is.
Did you do okay in this case?
I took portions of those cut outs, of that cut out, extracted it, ran my tests, and then part of that extract of DNA in the tube I sent to cellmark for them to test.