All right. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination. And, counsel, we're going to break today at 4:00 o'clock. All right. Proceed.
Mr. Sims, just back up, a point I may not have clarified. When you opened items--let's say it had bindles in them and there were initials and letters and dates on them. You noted those in your report?
Well, the cocktail is a useful approach because it gives a very quick answer towards exclusion, for example, and--and that's--that's a very reasonable thing to do. We just have not adopted that approach. We haven't adopted it in the sense that we haven't evaluated that cocktail fully, asked if we were taking all our probes in all our conditions to see how it would look. So we just don't use it.
Now, is your lab also investigating or in the process of implementing other PCR markers other than DQ-Alpha and D1S80?
When your lab performs the PCR process, do you use the requisite positive controls or negative controls?
And you also--I believe you said you process the substrate controls in the PCR process as if it was a stain item?
And in addition to telling you whether or not there's biological material on the substrate closely associated with the stain, do those substrate controls perform a function, a trouble-shooting function when they're typed through the whole PCR process?
Yes. They--if they come up negative, then that shows that you're not picking up any contamination through the entire process, and that would be from the point of collection all the way through the analysis, the typing.
Okay. And would you--would you classify then in that context the substrate controls as a negative control?
Well, I generally think of a negative control as something where there--we know in advance there's nothing, and the substrate control, you don't specifically know that. But I think for our purposes, you can think of that as a negative control, but it doesn't always come up negative because some substrates have material on them.
Okay. Let's talk about how the Department of Justice reviews all the data in a case like this, a complex case where many samples are typed and what sort of process is involved in reviewing all the data and writing the report. How many people were actually involved hands on in the actual work in this case?
And Renee Montgomery, does he have--does she have some specific expertise in one of these areas?
Well, Mr. Myers has special expertise in the extraction and evaluation of DNA from hair samples. So he performed that analysis. He also did some DQ-Alpha and D1S80 typing.
That would be the three of us. I was the main author. Then I reviewed it and got suggestions and input from Montgomery and Myers, and then finally, that entire package is reviewed by the Supervising Criminalist, Ken Consack.
And when you say you reviewed things, did you review things such as the DQ-Alpha typing strips?
We're going to get to some autorads in just a moment, but I want to ask you a couple of categorical questions about positive controls throughout the entire PCR process. Did the positive controls type the way they should have through all the samples that were tested in this case?
Yes. That would be the extraction blanks and also--which is an extraction reagent blank, and also the negative amplification controls. Those were all negative.
When you say they were negative, there was no DNA typing produced as a result of putting them through the whole process?
And the substrate controls, the same question with respect to the substrate controls. Did each and every one of the substrate controls produce no typing result in this case?
Okay. And we'll actually--we'll enumerate them at a later point. You've written two reports in this case; is that correct?
And the material you're going to testify about now is a combination of the results that are reflected in both of those reports?
The numbers that we give them are--it's a sequential number. It starts with the letters am for analytical membrane, and in this case, the numbers are am616, am625 and am626.
And we'll put some of those autorads up in just a moment, some of those films, but what samples were on am616? I assume that's the earliest of the three?
Yes. Those would be the three reference samples and also the extract of the sock, bloodstain 42a. That's the LAPD Matheson cut out.
And then you had DNA that you extracted from the little tube that was cut out from the sock, 13a?
But were you able to successfully compare the pattern in DOJ 42 or GBM 13a, the cut out from sock 13 with any of the three known samples in this case?
How many different probative--in other words, where you were matching or trying to match samples--how many different probative autorads or probes did you use in producing these results?
Okay. Now, we have spent some time, considerable time going over this case, haven't we?
Well, I think you and I were meeting about once a week since around the start of the new year.
Okay. Your Honor, at this time, I'd request to have marked as People's next in order--should be People's 269.
I'm going to need to correlate numbers because we can't write on here, your Honor.
There are numbers on here. If we can, I'll correlate the numbers on here with the exhibit numbers.
Mr. Sims, can you check--I want to make sure we have these grouped correctly--which autorads by the a numbers which you've labeled on relate to am616? I've got a1 through 9 and a20 and 21?
I believe it's easier for me just to look at them because I don't have that separate listing.
Wait. Excuse me. Mr. Sims and Mr. Harmon, you both have a habit of talking at the same time. Let Mr. Harmon finish asking his question before you start to answer. And, Mr. Harmon, let him finish answering before you start asking the next question, please.
And just to correlate them, your Honor, 269-A would be a1, b would be a2, c would be a3, d would be a4, e would be a5, f would be a6, g would be a7, h would be a8 and I would be a9.
Are you with me, Mr. Sims? We're going a1 through a9. Okay. Could we--Mr. Sims, I'm going--we're going to start with a couple of the ones that we selected that have--that are better clarity. If we could pick--
If you would, would you put up the one that's labeled a2, 269-C or we'll give that to Jonathan to put up on the elmo, if we could, your Honor?
Okay. Mr. Sims, would you get us oriented on what we're seeing there? Describe those things that look like hash marks if you would, and then we'll do the actual reference samples and the stain in a minute, okay?
Okay. This--this is an autoradiogram. It's an x-ray film that has the DNA patterns for this particular probing developed on it. The--what Mr. Harmon described as hash marks, we also call those ladders sometimes. You see that in those four lanes. And those are the molecular size standards. In other words, those are the knowns. Those are like the molecular ruler that you're placing on this--on this gel along with the samples so that you can make measurements of the sizes of the bands in the lanes, in the sample lanes.
Okay. Could you--from now on when we're--those are very clear, but could you use the point maker when you're going to point out other things?
Okay. Let's start in the left-hand lane inside that left-hand ladder if you would and just point to that and tell me--tell us what that sample is.
This particular lane, which has two bands, this is the upper band and then there's the lower band (Indicating), that is the k562 that I spoke of earlier. That's a--a standard that's used nationwide in laboratories, and we know what the particular sizes of that particular sample are so that we can use that as a quality control measure.
There's actually two bands here and one of them is weaker on this particular copy than it is on the original. But this is the quality control sample. You can see a band part here and then there's a weaker band down in this particular region (Indicating) that appears on this--on this autorad. That's--that's pretty subtle on this--on this overhead, but there is a band in that particular area. And that--those two--that--I'm sorry. That particular--particular lane represents the quality control sample that I mentioned earlier. In other words, I don't know what the right results are for that particular sample. It went through the entire extraction process. I run it out on this gel. I make sizings of it, and then I submit those results in a blind fashion.
Okay. And that's the QC sample that the supervisor peaks at the list to make sure you got it right?
That's correct. And I believe in this case, it was QC806, but I don't recall exactly the number.
Okay. Now, jump over--there's one ladder and then there are the three reference samples; is that correct?
That's correct. The three reference samples are in a row. I'll just I guess point out where the bands are. The first sample is from Nicole Brown's reference bloodstain extract. The next one is from Ronald Goldman's reference bloodstain extract and then the next one is from Mr. Simpson, the Defendant's reference bloodstain extract. So those are the--those are the three reference samples that are on this gel.
Now, is this fairly typical, when you have three unrelated people, to have three patterns so different from one another?
It's--it is very typical because these probes have what is called a high degree of discriminating power and people tend to be different. For example, in this class that I'm taking in my Berkeley program week, I took I think--
Okay. So all three of those samples visually to you are clearly different than one another?
And Robin Cotton described the first step in the evaluation process as a visual examination. Visually when you saw this autorad, what opinion did you reach with respect to the consistency between Nicole Brown and the sock, stain 13a?
And let's just talk specifics about this autorad, and we can generalize with the next once. Do you also do computer sizing in your laboratory?
And based on the computer sizing in this case, did your computer and do you agree that those two samples are consistent from having come from the same source?
Now, this is from am616 and I believe you said there are nine separate autorads that compare these samples; is that right?
Would you just put arrows by the sock, 13a, the two-banded pattern and the pattern of Nicole Brown.
I would--I would have to look at the actual autorad to know because I don't--I don't have all the patterns memorized on the k1 system.
That looks like d2s44. But it's all labeled. I mean, as I do them, I label them as they come off because it's at the bottom of the autorad.
Okay. Can we take a look at the autorad for d5s110 which is labeled a5? Your Honor, may we mark the print of autorad a3 for d2s44 269-C1?
Now, Mr. Sims, this is--Robin Cotton explained how a membrane is probed and then stripped off, another film is put on. This is another film representing the DNA for this probe that comes from the same membranes; is that true.
Your Honor, I don't mind getting through this, but maybe the witness could testify.
Sure. Are all of the samples in the same relative positions on this autorad as they were on 269-C?
That's correct. You strip off the old probe, then you hit it with a new probe and you develop a new film.
And then once again in the middle, the same three reference samples in the same relative positions?
Now, can you simply look at that visually and determine that these three unrelated people, Miss Brown, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson are dramatically different than one another at this probe?
And visually, were you able to determine whether or not Miss Brown could be the source of the stain on the sock at 13a?
Could you mark arrows on the Nicole Brown pattern that you've determined is consistent with the sock stain, 13a, and also the sock stain?
And did you follow up your visual examination with a computer sizing of those stains?
And did the computer sizing determine that those two samples appeared to match one other another?
And 269-F, the autorad labeled a6, that's another film from the same membrane as the previous two films were from; is that right?
And then once again, the three reference samples in this case are in the same relative positions?
And visually, can you distinguish Nicole Brown from Ronald Goldman from the Defendant in this case?
And were you able to make a visual determination whether Nicole Brown could be the source of the stain on the sock, 13a?
Could you put arrows on the Nicole Brown pattern that you feel matches the sock--the stain on the sock?
Now, Mr. Sims, for purposes of illustrating this to the jury, those labels up on the top, those are not actually labels that you produce as part of the laboratory testing; is that true?
And is that labeling, is that actually a piece of transparency that's put over the autorad?
And I believe you've already mentioned there are six other different RFLP probes or genetic markers for this membrane; is that correct?
And we will show them on the light box so the jury can see them with the Court's permission probably tomorrow. But to summarize your conclusions or your findings with respect to those other six RFLP probes or genetic markers--
Did you reach a similar conclusion with the next six RFLP probes or genetic markers similar to the one that you reached with the three that you've demonstrated so far?
And how many autorads are represented or how many autorads did you produce with respect to that membrane?
Okay. And would you please list those probes for us or let me ask you a foundational question. We're using the term "probes" and we keep using these letters "d." can you explain what the "d" and the numbers and letters following that mean?
Yes. Actually--actually when we're using these terms "d," that describes what is called a locus, and that is the location of where this particular segment is found on the various chromosomes. The probes have names like YNH24, MS1, that sort of thing that usually describe who found them and what order they found them. It's a more personalized thing. The formal locus is the "d." that stands for DNA. We talked about d2s44. "2" means it's on chromosome no. 2. "s" means it's a single locus probe. So in other words, there's only one point in all the geno where this would light up, where the bands would show that variation. And then finally, the "44" is just a number on which it's registered. It's a sequential type of number for the mapping of chromosomes.
You mentioned these things are discovered. Are the discovery description of these things published in the scientific literature?
And how and why does a lab such as yours select the different probes to use in casework?
The basis for the selection is that we want--we want probes that are of good strength, good quality, good purity. But most important, we want them that are--that show this tremendous amount of variation. In other words, we're looking at probes that have high degrees of discrimination. And that is that they are capable of distinguishing two individuals. And in fact, most of these probes have the capability of excluding about, oh, 95 percent of two indivi--95 percent of the time, two individuals would be shown to be different by these probes.
Is this something that you keep abreast of in the scientific literature, reading about the probes that you use in your casework?
For example, are you familiar with the specifics or the qualities or characteristics of the probes that you've described so far?
And if you could generalize, what are the characteristics in terms of differences between and among people?
Again, your Honor, I think this is foundational in the area of population genetics, beyond this witness' expertise.
How many articles do you think you've read that describe the different characteristics of the probes that are used in these case--in this case?
And from reviewing the scientific literature, are you familiar with the characteristics of the different probes that are used in forensic work?
As of--without being specific to the probes that you use in the case, what characteristics are desirable for use in forensics?
The desirable characteristic is one that shows--is capable of distinguishing among individuals. In other words, these--a good probe would be a probe that can show a great deal of variation, large differences in band patterns across the population. So that means that two people randomly selected would tend to be distinguished by this particular test.
And based on your review of the literature, your familiarity with the probes that are used in these cases, is it also desirable that most of these probes produce two banding patterns?
Yes, it is. That is--that's called the degree of heterozygosity, how often you see two bands.
Again--again, I would have to look at the a number because those relate to discovery numbers.
On am625, the loci that were examined were d1s7, d2s44, d4s139, d10s28, d17s79, D7S467, d5s110 and d17s26.
Were these probes selected because they identify a spot on the chromosomes where people differ from one another?
May the next group of probes or autorads, specifically a10, a12 and A13 be marked as 270-A, b and c?
This particular autorad or this particular gel, am625, again has the three reference samples on it of brown, Goldman and Simpson. Then it has--it's a repeat analysis or not a repeat, but an additional analysis of the same sock bloodstain, 13a,. And then finally it's got a sample on there from the glove that we talked about earlier, and that particu--in particular, that was stain g3, and that was from the inside surface, back of the ring finger.
Okay. And we'll show a board probably tomorrow that shows the exact locations of that, but where was that stain, g3?
The lining. And so could you hold up your hand and show the jury as if you were pointing at it from the outside?
Okay. You've got your right hand up, your ring finger between the first and second knuckle?
Okay. Now, let's go left to right again, and describe what's in the respective lanes, if you would. On the left-hand side is what?
On the very far left, we start with one of these size markers again. That's the ladder. Then lane no. 2 is a k562 sample. Then lane number 3 is another quality control sample, another QC sample. Then we get into another--in lane 4, we see another one of the ladder--
This pattern right here, this lane no. 2 is from the k562. Then in this lane, we see another quality control sample (Indicating).
Okay. Now, in the middle again, you have the three reference samples; is that right?
These are the same reference samples that were on the first gel for am616; is that right?
Okay. And once again, visually, can you distinguish Miss Brown from Mr. Goldman from the Defendant?
Okay. Now, to the right of the three reference stains or the reference sources in this case is what?
And then the next lane is the sock stain again, the same stain that was on am616, the same extract in fact.
And let's focus on that. And if you would, I'm going to ask you to change colors when we get to the next stain. But visually, did you compare Nicole Brown with the stain on the sock, 13a?
Yes. I did a comparison, a visual comparison of that sample there in lane 13a with Nicole Brown.
Could you put arrows that show the comparison between Nicole Brown and the stain on the sock?
Mr. Harmon, do you want to consider maybe putting the arrows the other direction and on the other side of the lane?
Actually, turn the arrows the other way and put them on the other side of the lane.
Okay. And did you follow up your visual examination with the computer sizing of those stains, of the stain and the reference sample?
Okay. Now, you have this stain on the ring finger from what you've identified as glove g3. Visually, were you able to determine that those--that that stain appeared to match one of the reference samples?
Could you change colors and put arrows to show the corresponding bands between Ronald Goldman and the glove, g3?
You've put some pink arrows. And those--and those reflect the correspondence between Ronald Goldman's pattern for that marker and the pattern from the glove stain; is that correct?
Yes. And, gentlemen, you're both talking over the ends of each other again. All right.
And visually, can you distinguish Nicole Brown from Ronald Goldman from the Defendant in this case based on these results from d4s139?
And that's the same stain--that's from the same stain that Greg Matheson cut out and sent you?
And were you able to visually determine whether or not that stain matched any of the three reference samples?
I would suggest we reposition those last two since it appears the arrows are obscuring the actual bands.
Did that again determine that Miss Brown's reference blood seem to match the stain from the sock, 13a?
And again, did you compare the stain from the glove no. 9 from Rockingham, the stain designated by you g3 with the reference samples?
And were you able to compare--determine visually whether any of the three reference samples could be the source of the stain in glove g3?
And once again, did you determine that Ronald Goldman's reference sample appeared to match the stain from glove no. 9 labeled g3?
And may we have A13, the autorad A13, which is for the probe D7S467? It's been labeled 270-C? Okay. Now, these lanes are all in the same relative positions, the samples are?
Again, lane no. 1 is the size marker lane. Lane no. 2 is the k562 standard. Lane no. 3 is the quality control sample. Lane number 4 is the size marker lane. Then the next lane is the brown sample, the next one is the Goldman reference sample, the next one is the Simpson reference sample. Then the next one is another size marker. Then we have the sock, 13a stain again, the same stain we've been talking about, then the size marker, then the glove, g3, and then the--finally another size marker.
And let's go back to the three reference samples. Again, is it easy for you to distinguish visually from among the three reference samples that those are from three different people?
And to move over to the stain from the sock, 13a, visually, were you able to determine whether one of the reference samples matched or appeared to match the stain?
And could you put arrows on the bands from the stain sock or sock stain 13a and Nicole Brown's pattern?
Okay. And similarly, did you compare the stain from glove no. 9 from Rockingham that you designated g3, with the three reference samples?
And visually, did you determine that one of those reference samples matched the stain from the glove?
Okay. Don't sit down yet, Mr. Sims. I just have a general question. You have this--the sock stain on both of these autorads; is that correct?
Now, initially, you mentioned that there is a match between Nicole Brown and the sock stain, 13a, with 11 probes. Is that what you said?
Okay. Now, how--the first series just showed nine probes. Can you explain if there were nine on the first series, am616, and then I believe eight in the second series, where the additional two probes came from?
Well, there is--there is some overlap of some of the probes, and then there are two additional probes on 625.
Yes. Those--those samples included three additional stains from the glove as well as the reference samples from Nicole Brown and also Ronald Goldman.
Could you designate or give us the number that you assigned to those stains? And if you would, just turn to the jury and show us where on your hand the respective stains came from.
These stains are designated g1, g2 and g4 (Indicating). Keep in mind, g3 was the one we just saw. So this is g1, g2 and g4 now. This is all on the glove. G1 is the inside surface of the glove. Again, we're working with the glove turned inside out. The back of the index finger--I'm sorry. Back of the index finger, that's g1. G2 is the side of the middle finger and then g4 is on the back of the hand. It's in this general area on the back of the hand.
Yes. And again, we'll--I believe there's a poster that will actually show these a little more clearly on the glove itself.
Okay. And, Mr. Sims, if you would, when you answer my questions, try not to look at me and address them to the jury.
271. Right now, simply three autorads from am626. They're labeled a16, a17 and a25.
And a16 represents the probe d1s7, a17 represents the probe d2s44 and a25 represents the probe d5s110. Can we have a16 up, please?
And if you could, if you could get us oriented. If you start from the left and use the point maker, Mr. Sims.
Yes. This--this particular gel, am626, represents these additional glove stains compared to brown and Goldman's references. The other point I wanted to make about this particular gel is, we're using less DNA than on the earlier--than on the earlier gel. So this is now about a hundred nanograms, something in that neighborhood, that was applied for these samples.
Is that why the bands in the right-hand columns that appear to be the evidence stains appear to be fainter?
That's--that's one particular reason, yes. The other--the other point is that these involve actual mixture samples. And as I go through these, perhaps we can talk about the different mixtures that we see.
Yes. Starting on the left-hand side, lane no. 1 again is the ladder. Lane no. 2 is the k562, lane no. 3 is the quality control sample, lane no. 4 is the ladder again, the size standard. Then we have the Nicole Brown reference sample, then the Ronald Goldman reference sample, then another size ladder, and now we have the three stains from the glove, g1, then g2, then g4 and then finally another size marker.
And we'll talk about that in a while. But any tests that exclude somebody at one marker absent some other explanation is excluded for other markers?
Now, looking at the two reference samples between Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, can you easily distinguish between the two people?
Could you identify those bands or just point to them? We're going to label them in a minute. So let's not label them. If you just point out from top to bottom.
Okay. Now, Dr. Cotton mentioned that we inherit one of these bands from our mother and one of our bands from our father; is that correct?
Well, if you see four bands, that indicates that it's from more than one individual. It's a mixture of samples.
Okay. And if you would, were you able to compare Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown with the four-banded mixture stain, and it's labeled g1 from the glove, no. 9?
The visual comparison was that--that those two combined could produce the band pattern seen in g1. In other words, g1 could be a mixture of those two individuals' samples.
If you would--hopefully it will fit--could you identify the pairs of bands that match up between--let's start with Nicole Brown--between g1 and Nicole Brown.
Okay. And what can you say about the remaining two bands in that four-banded pattern when you compare them with Ronald Goldman?
Now, is there anything about the nature of that four-banded pattern in the lane g1 or in the stain g1 that alone that helps you sort out whether or not those two reference samples in fact match or came from that--or the stain came from a mixture of those two, the two reference samples?
No. In that--in that lane by itself, it would be very difficult to determine what went with what.
If the intensities were different, you could begin to see--you might see that one pattern tended to go with one individual whereas the other two bands tended to go with the other--the second individual.
But as it stands now, because there are no intensity differences between or among any of the four bands in g1, you're unable to say anything simply on that alone--that basis?
Yes. I think if you look at that g1 lane by itself, it would be very difficult to say too much.
No. This would a good point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we'll stand in recess as far as the jury is concerned until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. Thank you.
Nicole Brown could be the source of that sock on 13a.
That would be the sample from Goldman.
g1 could be a mixture of those two individuals' samples.
No. The eyeball is sufficient.