Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims. Good morning again, sir.

Good morning.

Mr. Harmon.

Thank you, your Honor.

In discussing the subject of--the second subject of cross-contamination of samples and when substrate controls were involved, we covered contamination by investigators and lab personnel; is that right?

Yes.

And if--if the stains and the substrate controls were alternated systematically would that provide a safeguard against cross-contamination?

Yes, it would.

And let's reflect back on the Comey article, too, and remember the contaminated scissors?

Objection, asked and answered, leading.

Overruled. I assume this is foundational.

Yes, your Honor, for injecting substrate controls in there.

Please.

If one were to use--if a forensic scientist were to use contaminated scissors that were contaminated with a quantity of DNA and alternate between substrate controls and evidence stains, would that provide any kind of a safeguard against cross-contamination of samples?

Yes, it would, because again the scissors would be used on a bloodstain and then if there was any contamination, that should then be transferred, if it were--if was contamination it would be transferred to this substrate control which would very likely show that contamination and then that would be monitored before one would proceed then to the next bloodstain. So if that substrate control in the middle turns up clean, that indicates that there was no contamination detected.

Okay. Let me just clarify a point about the Comey article. Have you had a chance to look at it again during the break?

Yes.

If you would, the two areas where there was cross-contamination between stains, could you tell us more about how--what kind of contact, if any, those stains had, both the wet and the dry?

Well, the article indicates that the two stains were actually touching each other. They were actually stored together in a way that they were touching each other and that is the important point, is that they are in physical contact.

Let's shift to the third area and that is contamination within the laboratory. We've already discussed contamination by lab personnel in sample preparation and I think you talked about contamination by amplified product?

Yes.

Now, you previously discussed the concept of negative controls as a safeguard against contamination about PCR product?

Yes, yes.

Do--in addition to negative controls, and assuming they test clean, what are the implications of having substrate controls processed through the entire PCR process as a safeguard against contamination in the laboratory by amplified PCR product?

Yes. Those--again, those substrate controls, if they had no DNA on them to begin with, would be most vulnerable to showing any contamination, whether it occurred from this handling effects, whether there was something in the laboratory, whether there was any PCR product contamination. And because they are treated in the same manner, they go through the entire process and so this is an important control on the entire process; not just the collection, not just the extraction of the DNA, but all the way through the typing.

Okay. Umm--strike that. You have--actually, when you opened up all of the evidence if this case, have you documented the condition of the actual substrate controls that you previously enumerated when you talked about the results in this case?

Yes.

Okay. And do the substrate controls, are they all uniform in appearance for all the samples, all the substrate controls that you tested in this case?

No.

Is there a range in how they appear?

Yes, there is.

And when you sample those substrate controls, let's assume they are not uniform, some are discolored--some part are discolored, some appear clean?

Objection, leading.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

In this case, if you saw a substrate control that parts of it were cleaner than others, what part did you sample to process through the entire PCR process?

Objection here is foundational with respect to making something hypothetical as opposed to specific.

Is the objection that it assumes facts that aren't in evidence yet?

All right. Sure.

Sustained.

Did you sample all the substrate controls that you said you sampled in this case?

Yes.

Okay?

I think you asked him did he document, at the time of receipt, the substrate controls. I guess the question would be did he notice any differences between the substrates at that point.

I think I have asked a different question. I think I have moved on.

All right.

I haven't finished that area. Thank you, your Honor.

When you sampled the substrate controls, if one part of any of the control was dirtier, appeared dirtier than the other, which part did you sample?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

Specific--

Were there any such?

Yes, there were, your Honor.

Proceed.

And when you encountered such a substrate control, what did you do?

Took the dirtier or what appeared to be the dirtier area in this case, as I can recall.

Why was that?

Well, I figured that probably received more of the environment. For example, if it was a sidewalk, it probably got better contact than maybe the other area of the substrate control.

And what would that--if that had happened, why would sampling the dirtier part of it have been important to you?

Well, that--that tells me that that is most likely the area that was most heavily--for example, may have some dirt or whatever is on that substrate that I got a good area to test, in other words.

Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to just a couple of these substrate controls and see if you can describe how they appeared to you when you first observed them. Okay?

Okay.

The substrate control for LAPD item 52, the drop out in the driveway at Bundy, do you recall--do you have an independent recollection of how that appeared when you observed it and ultimately sampled it?

That one in particular I believe I do have an independent recollection of.

And what--what is that?

Well, my independent recollection was that it was sort of pinkish.

Is that the only one that was pinkish that you recall?

That is the only one I recall was pinkish.

In fact, were most of them absent of any coloration or--

Objection, leading.

Sustained.

Were most of them, did they appear clean to the naked eye?

Objection, still heeding.

Still leading.

How did most of them appear to the naked eye?

Most of them appeared as pieces of white fabric.

Is that unusual?

Objection, no foundation.

Sustained. Sustained.

If you would, let's talk about substrate control 48, 48C. If you like I can direct your attention to a page in your notes. Do you recall how that appeared when you examined it?

Not without looking at my notes.

Would it help to refresh your recollection if you look at page 48 of your notes?

Yes.

Okay. What is your recollection of how 48 appeared?

The 48 control was our item number dna-22. I noted there was some dark debris specks associated with a cloth and I took those also for the extraction process.

Okay. Do you recall what the control for item 50 looked like, the substrate control for item 50, which is farther back along the Bundy walkway?

Again I would have to look at my notes.

Would it help? It is on the same page there, 48.

Yes. I noted that it was a piece of whitish cloth with some brownish staining. I thought it may be some soiling.

Okay. And let's just shift to some others that look differently, for example, item 29 control, that is from the steering wheel of the Bronco.

Okay.

Could you--would it help--do you remember what it looked like?

No.

Would it help to refresh your recollection if you looked at your notes on page 21?

Yes.

Okay. How did that appear?

That was generally just an irregularly-shaped piece of white cloth.

Is that unusual to see a substrate control that looked like that?

No.

Okay. And do you have actually detailed notes of each and every other substrate control that you observed?

Yes.

And photographs of them as well?

Yes.

And this is before you sampled them?

Yes.

Okay. Mr. Sims, let's move on, if you will. I would like to discuss the--the subject of degradation of DNA and cross-contamination, if you will.

Okay.

Okay. I want to give you a hypothetical and ask you some questions about the hypothetical. The hypothetical is that all of the Bundy walkway stains were collected and they were packaged in plastic bags and substrate controls were collected systematically alternating between the substrate control and the evidence stain. They were packaged in plastic bags, they were put in a truck for several hours and they were brought back to the Los Angeles laboratory. They were put in this same box with items that were collected from Mr. Simpson's residence, that were also collected systematically with substrate controls. For starters, is it possible--

I'm going to object to this hypothetical in that form. I think it misstates the evidence and is compound.

Overruled.

We've already described the Comey article and you have described how at least based on studies it is possible to cross-contaminate samples; is that correct?

Yes.

And you have described the conditions under which cross-contamination can occur?

Yes.

Now, in that study none of those samples were degraded; is that right?

In my understanding in that study is that those were good quality bloodstains, yes.

Now, do you have an opinion about whether or not, just the co-existence of those--and I'm sorry, let me withdraw that question. Let's assume that there were stains from Mr. Simpson's residence which in fact were from him contained his DNA, okay?

Is it possible, scientifically possible, in your opinion, for those stains, merely by their co-existence in a room, for them to cross-contaminate one another?

Objection at this time.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

These stains from two residences are collected along with their systematic substrate controls.

Okay.

They are brought into a room where they remain for a period of time. They are not in contact with one another. Okay so far?

Okay.

Is it possible, based on that information alone, for those stains to have cross-contaminated one another?

My--I don't know about the rules on hypothetical in terms of--but--

Speaking objection.

All right.

Is the objection foundation?

Assumes facts that aren't in evidence?

Yes.

All right. That objection is overruled.

I'm sorry?

Overruled.

Thank you, your Honor.

You may answer that question.

The question is how were those stains packaged at this point?

They were initially left in plastic bags. I will--well, actually let's start off. They are in a box together.

Okay.

They are in coin envelopes that are folded over and they are in plastic bags in those coin envelopes that are folded over. Is it possible for those samples to cross-contaminate one another?

No. I would say no.

Okay. Let's move to the evidence room. Moving that box where you don't believe cross-contamination was possible, into the evidence room, is it possible for those stains to have cross-contaminated one another and not cross-contaminated the substrate controls?

Foundational objection.

Sustained. You need some additional facts now that we are in the evidence processing room.

Excuse me, your Honor?

You need some additional facts now that we are in the evidence processing room. It is also vague as to what state--

There are a lot of facts.

I have sustained the objection, counsel.

Okay. You have told us it is not possible, given that they are packaged up in a box in the truck?

Yes.

Okay. Does moving that box into a room and leaving it on the table, is it possible for those stains to have cross-contaminated one another?

Objection--

Overruled.

--to that testimony.

Under those conditions, no.

Now, let's assume that those stains are now processed for drying and that--

Objection, move to strike, vague on processing.

Overruled. He hasn't finished the question.

All right.

I assume that that is next.

The processing for drying systematically alternates between the substrate controls and the evidence stains and that--

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

If one were to systematically alternate between the substrate controls and the evidence stains--

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled.

--and that the substrate controls ultimately were processed along with those stains and produced no typeable results, do you--is it your opinion that those samples were cross-contaminated at that point?

Objection, speculative, assumes fact not in evidence.

Overruled.

I would say there is certainly no evidence for that and that I think those substrate controls would then provide a way of monitoring to show that that did not occur.

Let me add to that hypothetical, that a known reference tube of Mr. Simpson's blood was kept in that room in a black plastic garbage bag. Okay?

Okay.

Add to the hypothetical you just answered. Is it possible for those samples to have been contaminated by that reference tube in the black plastic bag without contaminating the substrate controls?

Now, let me add to that. Let's accumulate to the next question. Let's assume that each and every stain that you tested along the Bundy walkway was degraded to the point where you were unable to type with any of the PCR methods. Okay?

Okay.

Just add that to the hypothetical that I just asked you. Is it possible for cross-contamination to have occurred in that setting without cross-contaminating the substrate controls?

Well, again I would give the same answer, that the substrate controls provide evidence that that did not occur.

Okay. Now, let's move on. Are you familiar with how the Los Angeles Police Department processes evidence stains in substrate controls for drying?

I have some information on that, yes.

And let's assume--or is that information, that they use the tube drying method?

Yes.

And place them back in the coin envelope?

Yes.

And place the coin envelopes in a box?

That's my understanding, that it is box so that they can now air dry--that the tubes can now air dry.

Place the box up on a metal shelf up on the wall?

Well, this is my general understanding. I don't--I have never seen the actual room.

Let's talk about the qualities of DNA. Now, we've got everything drying up in the tubes and assume it is dried overnight.

Okay.

Okay. Have you seen photographs of what DNA looks like microscope--powerful microscopic photographs?

Well, there are--yes, very are very powerful microscopes you can see the motion of DNA, for example.

Now, can DNA fly?

I don't think so.

I mean, there are no scientific studies that have shown that, are there?

No, I don't think it has wings.

How about if it is from a bird, can it fly?

I don't think that makes any difference.

Does the DNA of an athletic person that is in a stain have any athletic prowess, more than a dead person?

Well, I--

Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. The jury is to disregard the tenor of that question.

Are you aware of any scientific studies that show that DNA can come to life at night?

Objection.

Sustained.

Is it possible for the sample to have been cross-contaminated up on the shelf in the box in the coin envelopes in those tubes?

Again I would answer that the substrate controls provide the monitor to ensure that this didn't occur.

Now, I believe you discussed, and I'm getting close to the end here, Mr. Sims, I believe you discussed--I think you--in discussing some of your sample processing, you mentioned you bleach your rulers; is that right?

Yes.

And I think you also said what do you to wipe your tools with when you are doing evidence processing?

I--I do three things. I do a water washdown under the tap, then I wipe it with a chem wipe, than I do an ethanol rinse and wipe that off, and finally I flame them over a bunsen burner flame, very hot flame.

What kind of tools are we talking about?

Generally that would be a pair of scissors, small scissors and an forceps, like a tweezers.

Okay. Do they have serrated surfaces on them?

Actually they are fairly smooth and sharp.

Why is that?

So they cut well.

Is there an aversion to using things with serrated edges or surfaces in processing evidence?

Well, it gives you more surface that you have to worry about.

Why do you flame your tools?

Have you always done that?

No.

Do you feel that you cross-contaminated any samples before you started flaming your tools?

No.

Objection, foundation, relevance.

I will sustain the objection. Why don't you ask some foundational questions regarding that.

Are you aware of any cross-contamination between samples that you induced by not flaming your tools?

No.

Let's--let's talk about not flaming your tools and inject substrate controls into that process. What safeguard do the existence or the availability of substrate controls to type all the way through the process--what impact do they have on detecting cross-contamination, if it occurs?

Well, again, they are a safeguard because if one were to cut the stain, wipe the scissors, for example, then those scissors would be next to a substrate control and again that substrate control is very vulnerable, and if anything is going to get contaminated, it is the substrate control.

Why is that?

Because it should have no DNA to begin with. I mean it could--you could have a substrate control that had DNA to begin with, but assuming there is no DNA to begin with, whatever you put down is now its DNA, so in other words whatever type now shows up could be it has become that type.

Okay. And let's take--stay on the same topic and not talk about flaming tools, but talk about just wiping tools with water.

Okay.

You have a three-step wiping process. If one were to just wipe with water and systematically alternate between an evidence stain and a substrate control, what safeguard does that substrate control provide in ensuring that no cross-contamination has occurred?

Again, it should provide a safeguard in that it should then monitor for any contamination.

And if the substrate controls test clean, as they did in this case, what assurance or what do you conclude from the possibility that the cross-contamination did not occur in this case?

Again, it is another piece of evidence that you are not contaminating those samples.

Okay. Mr. Sims, my next to the last subject here, in your conventional serology expertise have you testified about the genetic marker EAP?

Yes, I have.

How many times?

I couldn't give a number on EAP in particular, but it was a commonly used enzyme in the days that I did conventional serology.

And are you familiar with the scientific literature on that subject?

Yes, I am. I have--I used to be much more familiar with it than I am now, but yes.

Okay. If you could describe the marker EAP and what a forensic scientists should be aware of in that context, what would be your brief statement of the use of EAP?

Well, I think one has to be very careful in interpreting EAP band patterns. It is subject to certain--it is an unusual marker in that it is--there are certain intensities as well as band positional things that we have to take into account. I think Mr. Matheson probably went into that in great detail, but it is unusual in that the intensities are an important part of the interpretation and the relative instabilities of certain bands.

Okay. Have you reviewed Mr. Matheson's records on this subject?

I have reviewed some of his records, yes.

And do you have those records with you?

Yes, I do.

Could I see them?

Mr. Scheck, do you want to take a look?

Oh, yeah.

Could we have these items marked as exhibit next in order, your Honor?

All right. People's 273.

There is actually two items, your Honor. I will describe them. Mr. Matheson's analyzed evidence report dated October 18, and I will count the pages--

Is anything being put in that wasn't previously put in when Mr. Matheson testified?

No. They are the same items. We can refer to them. Maybe Mr. Scheck can confirm they are the same items. I don't have to mark them.

All right.

Maybe we can refer to those prior.

If it is already marked--

It is. I just hadn't shown the exact exhibits to Mr. Sims, so--

I would prefer that we use the exhibits that were previously introduced through the prior witness.

Previously marked.

For foundational matters.

Sure. One of the exhibits is an electrophoretogram marked 224-A.

You are withdrawing 273 at this point?

Yes, I am, your Honor.

All right.

We are going to have to mark Mr. Matheson's report because it is more complete than the exhibit that was marked, your Honor. I will count the pages.

All right. So we can keep them clear, why don't we make the additional report an addenda to the original exhibit.

Okay.

Miss Martinez, do you have the designation of that report?

One moment, your Honor.

This item is 23 pages, your Honor. Do you want me to go ahead, your Honor?

Your Honor, People's 218.

All right. 218. Then the additional report will be 218-A, the more complete report.

Thank you, your Honor.

Can we just look at what is new? Just marking for identification?

That's correct.

That is all right.

Okay.

Mr. Sims, have you reviewed Mr. Matheson's analyzed evidence report, and specifically with respect to items 84A and B, some typing that Mr. Sims did on some fingernail kits?

That Mr. Matheson did.

Mr. Matheson, sorry.

Yes.

Have you reviewed the electrophoretogram which is a picture of the gel that he ran those on?

Yes.

Okay.

Referring to People's 223-A. Electrophoretogram.

224-A.

224-A. Got it. Thank you.

Mr. Sims, I want to give you a hypothetical--

I'm going to put the nail board up there, your Honor.

Mr. Sims, why don't you start with my hypothetical, and when the board is up there I'm going to ask you to look at the board. Okay?

Okay.

Oh, here we have it.

Your Honor, I think we need to cut the feed for this board.

Yes. I'm going to direct the photographers not to take any photographs of this board. Thank you. Proceed.

Mr. Sims, have you had a chance to study the pictures along the bottom of that board? You have already described how those are photographs, the top five photographs. Have you had a chance to see the three along the bottom of Nicole Brown?

No. I just saw them for the first time the other day.

Have you had an adequate chance to look at them?

I would like a moment.

Okay. Sure.

Could we raise it a little bit, your Honor? It is a little bit low for the jurors on the end.

All right.

Okay. Mr. Sims, you have had a chance to look at Nicole Brown Simpson's hands and the blood on them, have you?

Yes.

All right. This is People's exhibit which? I forget. Which one is this? Mr. Sims, could you tell me what the evidence tag says on the corner?

220.

220, thank you.

You have had a chance to look at these three photos, Mr. Sims?

Yes.

Okay. I'm going to ask you a question, a hypothetical question, which--and I would like you to consider the following things before I ask you the question. Okay? You have considered the photographs, the three photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson's body and hands on 220. All right?

Okay.

Also, I would like you to consider the fact that you observed no tissue in the nail scrapings for--when you saw them and you processed them for PCR typing in this case. Okay?

Okay.

I would like you to consider that your PCR results were consistent with the type of Nicole Brown.

Okay.

I would like you to consider that Cellmark's PCR results were consistent with the types of Nicole Brown.

Okay.

I would like you to consider that the three separate samples which were typed by you and Cellmark all produced consistent results. Okay?

Okay.

I would like you to consider the sensitivity differences between the PCR typing method and the conventional serology marker typing for EAP. Okay?

Okay.

I would like you to consider that Greg Matheson saw no tissue when he sampled from the nail scrapings before you.

Objection, foundation.

Sustained as to that last point.

Your Honor, there is testimony.

Sustained the objection as to that point.

Could we approach?

Proceed.

That Greg Matheson saw no tissue in the nail scrapings--

Same ruling.

Excuse me, your Honor.

Same ruling. I'm sustaining the objection to that aspect. Continue.

Could we search the transcript?

Proceed, counsel.

Is the--if Greg Matheson saw no tissue--

Same question; same objection; same ruling.

If Greg Matheson only sampled blood when he sampled the nail scraping kits--okay?

Okay.

And--

Objection, no foundation.

Overruled.

And finally, what you know about the EAP marker and specifically the BA pattern, okay, we have all those things that I want you to consider--

Okay.

Okay.--the question is would you, as a forensic serologist, exclude Nicole Brown as the source of the blood under her fingernails and on her fingernails based on Greg Matheson's report and the electrophoretogram that you reviewed?

Objection, foundation as to blood, source of what blood.

I think the question is clear to the jury. Overruled.

My name is Sims, and no, I'm not.

Sims, I'm sorry. You are conspiring, Mr. Sims? You are not.

We will stipulate to that.

Okay. Thank you. No further questions.