All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Proceed, Mr. Harmon.
No, not the photo board. The agreement was after lunch that was going to be taken care of.
Okay. Moving right on to exhibit no. 172, the Bronco photo board--your Honor, what time does the Court intend to break today?
And could we show that in conjunction with the Bronco results board, which has been marked as exhibit 260.
Mr. Sims, while the photo board is being found, did the Department of Justice perform DNA analysis on LAPD item no. 24, which was marked as your no. 15?
And did your department or your laboratory also perform DNA analysis on item no. 29 from the Bronco steering wheel, which you marked as DOJ 16?
And did your department perform DNA analysis on item no. 30, LAPD item no. 30 from the center console of the Bronco, which you marked as DOJ DNA 17?
And did your lab perform analyses on item no. 31 from the Bronco center console, which is your no. 18?
And did your laboratory perform analyses on item no. 34 from the Bronco driver's sidewall which you marked as item 20?
And did your department perform DNA analysis on item 293 from the carpet driver's side which you marked as your no. 29?
And did your department perform DNA testing on item 303 from the center console which you marked as DOJ 52?
Did your department, your laboratory, perform DNA testing on item 304 from the center console which us marked as DNA 53?
And finally, from the Bronco, did your lab perform analysis on item 305 from the center console, which you marked as item 30?
Okay. Let's go back to the top then. Item number--I'm sorry--24, which you marked as DNA 15, what sorts of tests did you perform on that sample?
Okay. Is that result consistent with the known type of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant in this case?
Would you step to the board and remove the covers on item 24, your no. 15. Can you reach it?
The result was that we found mainly what we considered to be a 1.1, 1.2 with a weaker 4 allele.
And let's just talk about--this is one of the samples you sent extracted DNA to Cellmark from; is that correct?
And as far as--the only test in common that you and Cellmark performed, if the chart is correct, is the DQ-Alpha testing; is that correct?
And you have described a weaker 4. What is the significance of seeing a 1.1, 1.2 weaker 4?
With the weaker 4 allele--well, first of all, by my interpretation, I saw the 1.1, 1.2, which is consistent with the Defendant's own type, which is 1.1, 1.2. I noted the weaker 4 allele. And in my interpretation, because there was so little DNA in this sample, I was hesitant to make much of a conclusion of that weaker 4 as to who could be the source.
Is this one of the ones you struggled with in terms of how to describe the significance or the conclusions of your results?
And what is the significance of the low amount of DNA with respect to being able to draw a conclusion on this sample alone?
On this sample alone my concern was with that very low level of DNA to begin with, and given that it is a mixture, I would be concerned that we may not detect one of the weaker alleles in a mixture.
Now, when you say there was a low level of DNA to begin with, you performed some sort of quantitative analysis of the DNA?
And when you performed that sort of quantitative analysis, are you--is that a quanitation of the total amount of DNA that is in the mixture?
That's correct. In other words, we just knew the total DNA but we wouldn't know the breakdown of the mixture from that procedure.
Okay. And is this one that you actually--it was difficult for you to describe in terms of what your conclusion was about who was excluded and who was not excluded?
And is your--I'm going to ask you to describe it to the best of your ability the way you described your conclusion in your report. Do you have your report memorized in terms of how you concluded who was excluded and who was not on this stain?
How did you describe your conclusions in terms of comparing your results with the reference samples in this case?
Well, the main point I made again was that I saw this particular combination of 1.1, 1.2 as being the major component of this--of this pattern. And so I--from that I concluded that Mr. Simpson could not be excluded as a possible source of that sample.
Well, where I went from there was I saw this 4 by itself. I did not see Mr. Goldman's type in full which was the 1.3, 4, but I was hesitant to make an absolute exclusion of Mr. Goldman on that basis.
Well, what this kind of result tells me is that this is probably a good sample for additional testing, which is one reason we sent it to Cellmark because this information was just limited to my conclusion of Mr. Goldman. You know, at the same time I want to point out that I think is--I don't think it is proper for me to stand here and say, oh, yes, that 4 came from Mr. Goldman. That is not the kind of point I'm trying to make at all. The point I want to make is that when you are talking about absolute exclusions we said that we could not make a clear-cut exclusion of Mr. Goldman on that sample. I'm not suggesting for one moment that he is the source of that 4.
For that matter, can you tell us how many people could produce the combination of types that you see in your results?
How many people--can you actually put a limit on how many people total could have contributed to that mixture?
Well, it would be very difficult with interpreting that very weak 4 and not knowing what else may be there in the components.
I guess my question is not clear. What is the maximum number of people that could have contributed the mixed results that you obtained, you alone obtained on that sample?
Well, the maximum number, if you start thinking of all the different possibilities, that would certainly add up. I mean, you could have two people, for example, that are of the same type to contribute to a mixture.
Let me just give you a general question. Without knowing the types of this group, could you exclude like the starting line-up of the L.A. Lakers?
No. It would be very difficult to make that kind of determination, but again, I can only speak to what I see. I can't--
Sure. Are your results necessarily inconsistent with Cellmark's conclusion in any way?
Oh, not at all. For example, if one wanted to say that Nicole Brown could be there because her 1.1 allele is present and she is a 1.1, 1.1, then certainly that is a possible combination.
Okay. And given the way you've questioned it, do you feel there is any point to put Mr. Goldman's name in the "not excluded" column?
I think this is sort of an asterisk situation. I don't feel comfortable putting him there. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable putting him as a possible source. I think that would be incorrect.
In that--on that particular sample we did 27 different PCR systems. We did the--the DQ-Alpha typing and will D1S80 typing.
Let's move to item no. 31 from the center console, your no. 18. What sort of test did the lab perform on those?
The results were as follows: on the DQ-Alpha test we determined that there was mainly 1.1, 1.2 and we also saw what we considered to be a weaker application with 1.3 and 4 alleles.
When one is looking at one of these typing strips, one can see that there is a stronger contradiction, a stronger dot for particular types than for some of the other dots, and it is analogous to the process I was showing you on the RFLP. It is a different typing system, obviously, but it is the same idea about picking out what goes--what two alleles might go together because they are stronger and what two alleles or dots might go together because they are weaker.
So would you describe--you have listed in the "not excluded" category the Defendant in this case. Why did you include him in what you saw in the mixture as a result that you saw from item no. 31, the center console?
We included the Defendant because his types are present in the sample, 1.1, 1.2 for the DQ-Alpha and also 24, 25 for the D1S80.
Okay. And let's talk about Mr. Goldman's D1S80 type and Renee Montgomery will be testifying next and demonstrating some of these results.
Umm, how can you sort out, from looking at the reference types of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, and Mr. Goldman, it appears they have something in common with D1S80; is that correct?
Okay. So how can you determine that if you see a 24, 25, as you did in this case, is there anything about the results that help you sort out the mixture?
In some cases there are. There are clear distinctions. It varies from sample to sample, however.
Okay. So let me make sure I understand or we have explained this--you have explained this to the jury. The results from 31, are they are clearly a mixture?
And they are clearly a mixture that is consistent in the stronger regard on DQ-Alpha with the Defendant?
And then the weaker 1.3, 1.4 (sic), could that have come from the Defendant in this case?
Let's just stop for a second and talk about inheriting patterns from parents. Is this mixtures stain--could this mixture stain that we are talking about, item 31, be consistent with an offspring of the Defendant and Nicole Brown?
No, not--if you look at, for example, the DQ-Alpha types for the Defendant and also for Nicole Brown, their children would be either 1.1, 1.1 and looking up here now, (Indicating), or 1.1, 1.2.
What combination of types could an offspring have of the Defendant and Miss Brown?
Well, again with the idea that one comes from the mother and one from the father, the D1S80 types for the offspring of Nicole Brown and the Defendant would be 18, 24 or 18, 25.
Okay. So the D1S80 type alone that you obtain from item 31, the console, that alone could not be from an offspring of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and Nicole Brown?
And the DQ-Alpha mixture alone could not be consistent with an offspring of the same two people?
--down at the lower left-hand column, your no. 20. What sorts of tests did you perform on that stain?
Now, that is the same result that you obtained on item 24, the instrument panel; is that right?
Okay. And taken at face value, given your--what you just told us about the hereditary nature of those samples, that result could be consistent with an offspring of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and Nicole Brown?
Let's move on to item no. 293, the carpet on the driver's side. This is in the photo at the bottom in the middle with the pointer.
The results were as follows: For DQ-Alpha the type was a 1.1, 1.1. We noted that there was a possible trace of 1.2 present. For D1S80 the result was 18, 18.
Okay. And is that--other than the possible trace that you've described, whom are those results consistent with from among the three reference types in this case?
Do those results, the combination of the DQ-Alpha and the D1S80 types, could those have come from an offspring, a child of the Defendant and Nicole Brown?
Well, when one performs this kind of testing, one can get, especially with these 1 types, what we call these 1 subtypes, one sometimes sees very faint dots and you can't always be sure if those very faint dots are attributable to an actual type or if they may be an artifact from the typing process.
So in the context of this case could you say that based on the total of your PCR results, that Mr. Simpson's type could also be in there because he is a 1.1, 1.2?
You could not exclude him on that basis if there was some of his DNA present; however, we find no evidence of his DNA in the D1S80 type.
And is the D1S80 test, based on your review of the literature and your use of these protocols, is that as equally sensitive--
Do you feel, based on your observations, your review of the data in this case--I notice we don't have the Defendant's name in that "not excluded" column--are you saying that it is your opinion that he could be included in that stain, based on all the results?
I think there is a possibility of that, although not seeing his type on the D1S80, I wouldn't have that information.
And Mr. Goldman is excluded or not included as the result of these tests; is that correct?
Okay. And item no. 303, the center console stain, which is in the lower right-hand photograph on the board, exhibit no. 172, what sorts of tests did you perform on item 303?
The results were as follows: For the DQ-Alpha, 1--DQ-Alpha 1.1 allele was present, possible 1.2 allele present. 1.3 and 4 alleles were also present, indicating a mixture.
The D1S80 results were mainly the 24 and 25 alleles along with a weaker 18 allele, again indicating a mixture.
From among the three reference samples that were provided to you in this case, whom could you not exclude?
All--all three of the individuals, the three principals, the two victims and the Defendant, are consistent with being part of that mixture.
KEY QUOTECould you remove the cover from the "not excluded" column. Does that mean, at least as far as the three reference samples that were provided to you in this case, that the Defendant, Mr. Goldman, and Ms. Brown, were--are possible sources of the stain on 303?
Is there anything about--just focusing on DQ-Alpha, the relative intensity of the DQ-Alpha results--that help you sort out the relative strengths of this things?
No. On this particular sample with the DQ-Alpha, the intensities were all very similar.
Umm, now you are not saying they are the only three people who could have contributed that mixture, are you?
And without knowing the starting line-up of the San Antonio Spurs, you can't exclude them as being the possible contributors of that?
Move to strike that and I take a strong exception to naming certain basketball teams--
KEY QUOTEThe results are--to make it simple, the results were the same for three--I'm sorry, for 52 and 53, gave the same results with DQ-Alpha and D1S80.
And would you characterize them the same? In other words, you cannot exclude the three people that are listed in the "not excluded" column as possible sources of that mixture?
Let me ask you just a general question about 303 and 304. When you say it is a mixture, are you saying that the types that you see in 303 and 304 in total are more than you would expect to see from a drop of blood from the Defendant in this case?
And you can't tell us, for example, if these things were--these different mixtures were deposited on top of one another at different times?
Okay. Let's move to 305, the center console, which again is in that photo in the lower right-hand corner. What test did you submit stain 305 to?
For that particular sample 305 the DQ-Alpha was 1.1, possible 1.2 and then weaker 1.3 and 4 alleles, indicating again a mixture.
Now, how would you compare--it looks like you have described 305 somewhat differently than 303 and 304; is that true?
They were--they were described differently because in this particular case with 305 one now sees that the 1.3 and the 4 alleles are weaker than the 1.1 and the possible 1.2.
Okay. And you have already described that Mr. Goldman's type, DQ-Alpha type, is 1.3, 4; is that true?
And when--is this somewhat like the RFLP mixtures, when you can see things stronger and thing weaker than others, that helps you pair types up?
Does it help you pair types up in the DQ-Alpha marker when you see some dots stronger than others?
Okay. And is it fair--would it be fair to say that 303, 304 and 305 produced consistent results between and among one another?
No. There is nothing inconsistent other than the weaker 1.3, 4 on 305, but otherwise they are very similar patterns.
Yes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take our break for the morning session. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case--don't discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will stand in recess for fifteen. And let me see counsel for both sides, please.
I don't think it is proper for me to stand here and say, oh, yes, that 4 came from Mr. Goldman. That is not the kind of point I'm trying to make at all. The point I want to make is that when you are talking about absolute exclusions we said that we could not make a clear-cut exclusion of Mr. Goldman on that sample. I'm not suggesting for one moment that he is the source of that 4.
All three of the individuals, the three principals, the two victims and the Defendant, are consistent with being part of that mixture.
Yes. I could not exclude the San Antonio Spurs.
Move to strike that and I take a strong exception to naming certain basketball teams and not others.