Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. The record should reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination of Mr. Sims.
Mr. Sims, I want to go back to item no. 6 that you tested from the stain at Rockingham. Was there a substrate control you tested along with that?
Okay. Does it matter in terms of testing the substrate control for the presence of any biological material on it whether you test it with the DQ-Alpha marker or the D1S80 marker?
Well, either test is capable of detecting very low levels of human DNA. So by that criteria, we didn't detect anything in the substrate control for that item that would indicate there was some human contamination.
Okay. And the same with respect to the Bronco stains that you tested. I'm not going to put the board back up there, but would you please describe which of the stains from the Bronco that your lab tested that also tested substrate controls.
Yes. For those particular samples, wherever we presented a DQ-Alpha or a D1S80 result, we also tested in that particular system the substrate control; and in all cases, those were--those were all negative.
So every item that was on the Bronco result board, which was exhibit 260, you also tested a substrate control. Is that what you're saying?
That's correct. In each one of the systems that we tested, whether it be DQ-Alpha and/or D1S80.
And I would like to have marked as People's next in order a board described as "the glove no. 9 results board." and may that be 272?
Okay. Mr. Sims, have you had a chance to see 272-B, which is the photo board that has photos of the glove inside and out?
Okay. And on 272-B, which is the photo board, there are numbers G1, G2, G3, et cetera. Do they correspond to your item number?
Yes. They are--red lines point to the approximate locations where I sampled those stains with those designations.
And actually your item number, the main number that you assign to the glove from Rockingham was what number?
Okay. And then the g numbers are the numbers you assigned to individual stains that you collected?
And if you'd look at 272-A, the result board, are those items under the column entitled "Cellmark/DOJ number," the g numbers?
And all the results that you obtained are represented by the numbers that are listed there, G1, G2, G3, G4, G9, G10, G11, G12, G13 and G14?
Okay. Let's step back just for a moment and talk about your examination of the glove, just for a couple of questions. And if you would, it probably would be better, step up to the board here, and if you'd use the long pointer so all the jurors can see.
And let's start with the back of the hand inside photo. Could you just in numerical order describe what the substance is or what the material is that those stains were removed from?
The substance that the stains were removed from is this material that forms the inside lining of the gloves.
Okay. Now, as far as the stains on the inside of the glove, did you make any attempt to correlate the location of those stains to stitching or seams on the outside of the glove?
Well, I noted that the gloves were stitched especially along the fingers. We don't see it here, but along the back of the hand, there's stitching and there's also stitching along this thumb area down here (Indicating). I think there were also some holes in the glove when I received it. But those are various locations where--the main thing was the stitching. That's what I was interested in.
And what if anything is the relationship of the stitching to where you found stains on the inside of the glove, if you can generalize?
Yes. In general, particularly when we're talking about the fingers and out towards the--it was the finger areas, that's where the stitching is, and I made the determination that that--that the vast quantity of blood from the outside could have followed that stitching sort of waking up into the inside. That was my--what appeared to have happened to me.
Now, were you provided a substrate control for any or all of the stains in this case?
No. The problem with the glove is that there's so much blood all over it, that it would be very difficult to find an area that didn't have traces of blood on it.
And would that be unusual with an item that was as heavily covered with blood as this glove was on the outside to not have a substrate control?
And does the failure to have a substrate control in the results that you're going to be describing in a moment, does that in any way in your opinion undermine the results that you're going to be presenting?
No, I don't think so. And I think in particular, with that sort of situation, what I did was to look at some multiple areas to try to see if certain types would be reproduced consistently or in different areas so that it wasn't just a one-shot determination.
And how might that address the failure to have a substrate control, testing from diverse areas on the same item?
Well, by looking at diverse areas and seeing diverse results, that would give an indication of what the different mixture patterns, for example, might be.
Why don't we start out from item no. 9, the right-hand glove from Rockingham. Would you please--
And he also keeps blocking juror no. 7. So why don't you stand on this side of the--
Would you describe what sort of tests were performed on G1? I think you've already described generally the RFLP results. We showed them on AM626. Is that--is that the results that correspond to G1?
Okay. Now, you've already described those RFLP results as being possibly a mixture; is that correct?
And what--specifically what results did you produce for the analysis of the stain at G1?
Okay. And you've described that the RFLP results were consistent with a mixture of two people, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. What can you tell us about the PCR results?
And is it true that the PCR results in essence do not exclude Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?
Moving on to G2, you've already described on AM626, we've seen three autorads showing RFLP mixture results from that. Is that the sum total of the RFLP results that you obtained in this case?
All right. Would you remove the cover of the RFLP result column for G2 which you've previously described and shown to the jury?
The results were as follows for DQ-Alpha: 1.1, possible 1.2, 1.3 and four alleles, again indicating a mixture, and D1S80, 18 and 24 alleles.
Well, there are only certain possibilities. Yes. That's all I can say with regards to those principles--
Okay. Are you saying that Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman could have produced the mixtures that were seen in G2?
Now, let's just talk about G1 and G2 together for a moment. Do the known types of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman account for all of the RFLP and PCR results that you've described so far?
In other words, there's nothing in there that's foreign or extraneous to a mixture of those people?
Is that correct? Okay. G3, you've previously described your RFLP results; is that correct?
Well, that--that provided very strong evidence that that was Ronald Goldman's blood on the glove, the RFLP alone.
KEY QUOTEOkay. We'll come back to what you've described as very strong evidence in a little bit. Did you perform PCR testing on that stain?
Okay. Could you remove the cover, and we'll talk about that, make sure it reflects what you've just told us?
Okay. Now, you've got possible 1.2 and possible trace 1.1 in there. Can you tell us why you've used those terms to describe what you saw?
Yes. One of the limitations of the DQ-Alpha typing system is that the 1.2 allele cannot always be determined in a mixture because there's no unique probe for that 1.2 allele as that test is performed. So one has to--by looking at the pattern of dots, one has to make an inference that it may be there. And if it may be there, then we would say possible 1.2.
The 1.1 is also a situation where with this particular typing system, you can sometimes see a weak signal at the 1.1 dot because of a phenomenon that's called DX-Alpha. It's a--not to get overly technical, but one has to know that sometimes you can see a weak signal at that 1.1 dot even though there's not a 1.1 present.
Yes. It's well described in the scientific literature. It's part of the user guide that comes with the kit, and anybody that's using this should be aware of that.
Now, before we talk about the "not excluded" column, you're not saying that it's possible that Mr. Simpson's blood is in there, are you?
Well, I--I--I do not see his D1S80 type there. So I wouldn't make that inference that--
Okay. Before we undercover the "not excluded," what about Nicole Brown? What could you say--you're not saying that she's not excluded as a result of these tests, are you?
I--again, I don't see her 18 there. So there's no evidence for there. Is it possible, for example, that she or Mr. Simpson could be making a very minute contribution to this? Yes, it's possible, but I--
So is it your opinion that Mr. Goldman could be--the strong evidence of Mr. Goldman could be the source of the stain on area G3?
Okay. We'll move on to G4 then. You've previously described G4 and shown some autorads on AM626. Do you recall that?
And the jury got to see three of the autorads. How many autorads, genetic marker tests did you actually submit this stain to?
Umm, one of--at this point, it's probably a good idea to make a correction. There were four probes originally on G1, G2 and G4. But as you'll recall, we added the D5 later, which I think is one we showed. So these are actually now five including G4. Those should all actually be five.
So why don't we talk about, just summarize your observations about G4. You've described it as a mixture?
The results were that for DQ-Alpha, 1.1, possible 1.2, 1.3 and four alleles, mixture indicated.
And that--that's corroborative of what you saw with the RFLP results; is that correct?
The clear difference that was seen here (Indicating) was that for G4, the 18 allele and DS180 was weaker than the 24 allele.
--results were reported in the same fashion. No. They were reported in the same fashion.
Okay. And are your PCR results corroborative of the mixture that you've already described and demonstrated to the jury from G4, from glove no. 9 at Rockingham?
Well, again, the RFLP results and the PCR results are consistent with the mixture of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.
Now, you've got Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown listed there. Does that mean they're the possible source?
And when you say "a possible source," there are many other possibilities; is that correct?
On the other hand, is all of the data that you observed in the RFLP results and the PCR results on G4, is that all accounted for when one combines the types of Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown?
So there's nothing foreign to either of--well, either Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown in any of the stains that we've discussed to this point, G1, G2, G3 and G4; is that correct?
Let's talk about G9, okay? That is not one of the stains that was subjected to RFLP typing; is that correct?
Now, are these results different than--the PCR results in G9, are they in any way different than the results from, say, G4?
Well, they're different in that we do not detect the 18 allele, for example, in--in--in G9 which we did detect in G4. Also, the--there is a difference with regards to the 1.1 allele. It is--it was determined to be clearly present in G4, but now it's dropped down to the category of possible trace in G9.
Okay. So just move up one notch then. Are the results that you obtained from G9 from the glove at Rockingham, are they consistent with the results, just the PCR results that you obtained from G3?
Now, you're not saying that it is your opinion that based on those possibilities, that Mr. Simpson is not excluded, are you?
Couple of negatives in there, huh? Are you saying that Mr. Simpson is not excluded as a result of your analysis on G9, the glove?
Well, I find no evidence, for example, of these 25 alleles. So I--I wouldn't say he's in that category.
Okay. And from among the three reference types in this case, whom have you not excluded as the source of G9?
Well, there's no clear mixture there. Is it possible that there's some traces that are causing a mixture? Yes. But it's not what we would call a clear-cut mixture.
Okay. And everything that you see concretely, could that be accounted for from the typing that you performed on Mr. Goldman's reference sample?
For DQ-Alpha, 1.3, 4, possible 1.2 and then weaker 1.1 allele, indicating a mixture. For D1S80, 24 allele and then a weaker 25 allele, again indicating a mixture.
And the 25 allele from among the three reference types in this case, is there anyone that has the 25 allele at the D1S80 locus?
Now, let's talk about DQ-Alpha. Is there anything about your observations of the DQ-Alpha results that helps you sort out how many people are involved here?
Well, it's still difficult to say exactly how many. But one notices that there's information there about the 1.1 allele being weaker than the 1.3, 4 alleles.
Well, that gives us some information as to whether or not which alleles might go with the other alleles.
And whom were you able to exclude from among the three reference types in this case as a possible source of what you saw in stain G10?
We were able to exclude Nicole Brown because we didn't find her 18 allele on the D1S80.
So you were able to exclude Miss Brown as a possible source for the mixture that you saw there?
Now, is all of the data, all of the types that you observed in the DQ-Alpha results and the D1S80 results consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson?
So there are no alleles that are unaccounted for from what--if you mix Mr. Goldman's blood and Mr. Simpson's blood?
Are there any alleles unaccounted for in your results when you compare the mixture results you obtained with a combination of the types of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson?
And is--is this stain different than every other stain you've described to this point, G1, G2, G3, G4 and G9?
On G11? The finding was the 24 allele and then weaker 25 and 18 alleles, again indicating a mixture because there's three alleles.
And is what's on the board accurately describe the results of your D1S80 testing on G11?
And whom were you able to exclude--or I'm sorry. Withdraw that. From among the three reference types in this case, whom were you not able to exclude as a possible source of the D1S80 mixture that's on the board?
I could not exclude any of the three individuals, the Defendant, Nicole Brown or Mr. Goldman.
Because this pattern is consistent with their types. In other words, their D1S80 types, those alleles, which would be 18, 24 and 25 all found in that stain.
And if one were to mix Nicole Brown's blood sample with Ronald Goldman's blood sample--
If one were to combine the types of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman for the D1S80 marker, what would the combined types be?
And could you remove the cover of the "not excluded" column that describes your conclusions?
Now, you're not saying, are you, that the D1S80 results could only have come from a combination of those three people, are you?
Now, the 25 allele or marker for the D1S80 genetic marker is not in G12; is that true?
Could you step over to the photo board here, and let's talk about where the relationship of the G10 to G11 and G12. And we'll do this again with G13 and G14. It's a dark object. I'd like you to start out with G10 and then describe exactly where it is and what kind of surface it's on.
G10 is on the inside lining of the glove. This would be towards the thumb down near the wrist watch. It's--the arrow--the red line is very close to it. It's actually a little bit closer in now where I'm pointing now, and it's in that general area. This was a--this small area of bloodstain that I--that I detected in that particular area (Indicating). And that's G10. Then G11 is now on the outside of the glove. This is now the palm or surface of the glove. G11 is here to the side of this wrist notch that I discussed earlier (Indicating). That's G11. And then G12 is on the--excuse me--the outside palm or surface also near the wrist notch (Indicating). Then G13 is along this stitched border of the wrist notch area (Indicating). And finally, G14 is on the inside back surface near the--near the wrist (Indicating).
Okay. Why don't we go back up to the board there, the result board, Mr. Sims. The G12, you only found 24 and in 18, were you able to exclude anybody from among the three reference types in this case from the two victims and Mr. Simpson, the Defendant?
We were able to exclude Mr. Simpson because we did not find his 25 allele on this particular sample, G12.
The D1S80 results where the 24 allele was present along with weaker 25 and 18 alleles.
And from among the three people, the two victims, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and the Defendant, who's the only one that has the 25 allele?
And were you able to--from among the three types that were provided to you in this case, the two victims and the Defendant, were you able to exclude any of those people, the three people as a possible source of that mixture stain?
Now, is it fair to say that every stain that had the 25 allele in it, G10, G11 and G13, was in close proximity to that notch on the wrist?
G10 again, as I mentioned earlier, is a little closer to the notch than the red line shows. G11 is on the outside near the notch area, and then G13 is along that stitch along the notch, along the palm or surface near the wrist (Indicating).
Okay. Why don't we finish with G14 from the Rockingham glove, no. 9. What--no RFLP tests were done on that stain?
The results were as follows: The type was determined to be basically a 24, 24 with a possible trace of the 18 allele.
Were you able to exclude, based on that, Mr. Simpson, the Defendant as a possible source of that stain?
Well, the way we phrase that was that it is--certainly the 24, 24 by itself was consistent with Ronald Goldman's D1S80 type. We noted that it was poss--there was a possible contribution from Nicole Brown on the 18 allele, the basis of the 18 allele.
I would like to--or the sock result board has previously been marked as exhibit 262, and we should have 262-A then for the sock photo board then.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to stand up and take a stretch while we're waiting to locate the exhibit, go ahead. Mr. Fairtlough, did we check the hall?
Okay. Mr. Sims, would you step up to the photo board that we've marked as 262-A and just examine the photo board and make sure we've got things accurately labeled?
And for consistency, sock a is the one that had the cut out that Greg Matheson sent you?
As well as sock A. And are there still a number of these minute areas that you detected blood that have never been tested?
Okay. Why don't we start out with 42A1. 42 is your designation for LAPD item 13 which were obtained from Mr. Simpson's home?
And you described yesterday and we showed just a few of the RFLP autorad results for 42A1. How many actual RFLP autorads or genetic marker tests were performed on 42A1, the cutting that Greg Matheson sent you from the socks, no. 13?
And yesterday, you described I believe that the sock--that sock stain, 13A1 or your 42A1, was actually run on two different gels or two different sets of RFLP tests; is that right?
And the sum total of different probes or different genetic markers from those two tests is 11.
Yes. The PCR testing on that particular sample was done by Steve Myers in our laboratory.
And this is a stain that you sent extracted DNA to the--to Cellmark diagnostics; is that correct?
How many--if we assume that the Cellmark results are accurately depicted on that chart, how many different separate genetic marker tests were performed on stain 13A which Greg Matheson cut out from the socks, 13?
Excuse me. The five here, we would subtract two from I believe because Cellmark looks at two probes that--uses two probes that we use. So that's 14.
Yeah. The--Cellmark uses a different enzyme for restriction than we do, that they look at two of the same probes that we do. So there is some correlation in those results. I don't know off hand exactly what that correlation is, but those are not entirely independent results obviously.
Okay. How many genetic marker tests were performed aside from conventional serology?
We would now have 11 plus the three, which would be 14. The DQ-Alpha would be 15. D1S80 would be 16, and then I believe we had five for the poly-marker. So that's now I believe 21.
KEY QUOTENow, if the chart is correct, you obtained the same DQ-Alpha results as Cellmark did on the same DNA?
Okay. Let's move on to the stain that you have designated 42A2, which is from sock 13A. Could you come over here and show us--could you use that long pointer?
42A2 is now on the upper part of the sock. It's opposite of where the LAPD--the opposite side from the LAPD cut out. So it's up here (Indicating).
And whom are those results consistent with from among the reference types in this case?
Yes. This is now on the same side as the LAPD cut out, which is where I'm pointing to the LAPD cut out. You move up the sock, and 42A3 is up in this region (Indicating). It's in the general area, but on the opposite side of 42A2. So--yes. It's on the opposite side.
The tests that were performed were DQ-Alpha and D1S80 and I'm currently performing an RFLP analysis on that stain.
So you mentioned you were performing additional tests. Those tests could not change whose excluded, could they?
Well, for example, if those tests excluded the Defendant, they would change that. But they're not going to change the results with regard to Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.
Right. 42A4, the stain which is on sock 13A, the toe region, could you show us where that is?
Yes. I don't think we mentioned this one yesterday when we were looking at the video, but this is down in the upper toe area of the sock a (Indicating).
And could you uncover whom you did not exclude from the three reference samples provided to you?
42B1--now, we've moved over to sock 13B. Would you show us where that is on the photo board?
Yes. 42B1 is in this area where I showed there was--on the video, there were a lot of additional stains (Indicating).
Could you - let's talk about that for a moment. When you say there are a lot of additional stains in the area of 42B1, could you elaborate for a moment?
Well, the elaboration would be that when looking at that into the stereomicroscope, there are a number of other stains in that particular area that I examined.
I'd have to look at my notes again, but I think they were in the neighborhood of 10 on that side, something like that.
While you're at it, we're going to talk about your results in 42B2. What's the relationship of 42B1, 42B2 and these other 12 tiny little stains?
Well, they're all in that same general area, and some of them are significantly smaller than 42B1 and 42B2.
When you say general area, can you give us a--why don't you show us up on the photo board 262-A.
The general area I'm talking about--it's somewhat hard to see because those logo marks give me my math point and they don't show up very well in the photograph. But it's basically down in--I'll sort of mark the lower boundaries--down this part of the sock up to about here (Indicating).
So if we drew a band around the sock from--that's kind of bordered by B1 and B2 on that side of the sock that's shown in the photo, is that the general area they were in?
Okay. Why don't we talk about the type tests you performed on 42B1 on sock 13B near the ankle.
For DQ-Alpha, the type was a 1.1, 1.1. There's a possible trace of the 1.2 allele. Then on the D1S80, it was 18, 18.
Okay. Let's talk about this possible trace of 1.2. You've described that previously with some of your other results. How--what does that mean in the context of this case? Are you telling us this is a mixture?
No. I can't say for sure that that's a mixture. I can not decide between two possibilities. One is that there really is a trace of that 1.2 allele present from some other individual. The second possibility is that this is showing up as a weak, a very faint dot in the typing system.
Now, if there were really a trace of a 1.2 in there, would you--or strike that. I'll come to that in a second. From among the three reference types in this case, were you able to exclude anyone as the possible source of 42B1?
I was able to exclude Ronald Goldman and I felt also that we could exclude the Defendant based on the fact that we didn't find his 24, 25 on the D1S80.
Okay. Now, you're saying you can exclude him even though there's a possible trace of the 1.2 in there?
Well, I'd have to feel more secure about there being a definite 1.2 before I would make a statement that he--
And I believe you mentioned that part of the reason you feel comfortable excluding Mr. Simpson is that you didn't see anything of his in the D1S80 genetic marker?
Setting aside the possible trace 1.2 for a moment, is everything that you saw in 42B1 consistent with the genetic marker test results for Nicole Brown's reference sample?
It's described--it's your 42B1 and it's actually--the chart has sock 13A and it's actually 13B. Jonathan is getting us a B label for that.
And that's also near the ankle. You've already shown us where that was. What sorts of tests did you subject this stain to?
The results were the same as for B1. In other words, B1 and B2 gave the same results. DQ-Alpha type would be 1.1, 1.1 with possible trace 1.2. The D1S80 type was 18, 18.
Okay. Would you remove the results from the PCR results and would you remove the "not excluded"?
And in spite of the possible trace 1.2, the same explanation; you feel that there's no reason to include Mr. Simpson in those results?
Was there a substrate control that was submitted to you or that you cut out to conduct testing in this case?
The substrate controls that I took were, first of all, the LAPD cut out. I used that one. And then I used one for 42A2. In that general area, I cut one out near stain 42A2, which I used to serve as a control in that upper area of the socks. So it served as a control for both A2 and A3. And then also, for 42A4, there was a substrate control area. That was the one down towards the toe. And then finally, for 42B1, I took one control for that general area to cover both stain B-1 and stain B2.
And you processed those substrate controls just as you processed the evidence stains that you just described?
And what--generally speaking, can you make a categorical statement about the results of your processing the substrate controls of the socks?
Yes. On--I believe it was 42A4 in the upper toe region--the toe region, that control.
Well, it's not critical when you're talking about an item of clothing that it's negative. If it's negative, you can make an inference from that. But if it's--if there was some background, that would not be totally unexpected in this kind of a sample.
And is that what you're looking for when you're typing substrate controls? If it does not produce a type, that's a significant result?
Yes. If it doesn't produce a type, then it gives you confidence in the typing results for the bloodstains.
What was it about the control that was a little bit different than the other controls?
For that particular sample, there was some DNA depicted on a yield gel. It was just a yield gel.
I know we went through this before. Could you just give us about a 90 second on why that doesn't undermine any of the results in this case?
Does that--does that DNA on the yield gel undermine your confidence in any of the results in this case?
No, it doesn't. I don't know whether or not, for example, that DNA might be of non-human origin. There may be some bacteria or fungus there or something like that. And the point is that it did not produce a PCR result as far as type. So we saw something on the yield gel that was DNA, but it did not produce a typing result.
Well, let's take a--since we'll have to change boards, let's take the opportunity to take a--
Yes, please. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, do not form--can we have it quiet, please? Do not form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 1:00 o'clock. And, Mr. Sims, you can step down. Thank you.
that provided very strong evidence that that was Ronald Goldman's blood on the glove, the RFLP alone.
The Defendant has the 25 allele.
The 25 allele could not have come from Ronald Goldman... The 25 allele could not have come from Nicole Brown.
Those would be consistent with the Defendant, Mr. Simpson... They would be excluded.
We would now have 11 plus the three, which would be 14. The DQ-Alpha would be 15. D1S80 would be 16, and then I believe we had five for the poly-marker. So that's now I believe 21.