Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Why don't you be seated. Mr. Sims, why don't you go ahead and take your seat. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined now by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Sims is again on the witness stand. And, Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
Mr. Sims, to move back to our discussion of PCR carry-over contamination, now, referring you again to the chart that's--
--1133, now, these 4 billion 290 million fragments that are produced by an amplification, is the term that is sometimes used to describe a single one of those fragments an amplicon fragment?
And under the discussion we were having of this cy--32 cycles of one fragment, we were assuming it was the starting material--
And so that would mean that the 4 billion 290 million amplicon fragments were these 1.3, 1.3 fragments from the DQ-Alpha system.
And just as we broke, you indicated to us that one of those fragments is invisible.
And if a number of these invisible fragments were to get from one of these tubes into another tube, that could cause what's known as PCR carry-over contamination?
How many of these amplicon fragments, these 1.3 fragments would it take to--when it transferred to another tube where it shouldn't be to create one of those little 1.3 dots on a DQ-Alpha strip?
Well, it's not just to create the dot. It's actually to get a typeable result. Is that what you mean? To get a typeable result, we'd need about a hundred of them, something like that.
1--only 100 out of those 4 billion 290 million fragments being transferred to another tube would cause a 1.3 contaminant on a strip?
KEY QUOTEAnd have you ever heard the term "exquisite sensitivity" applied to the PCR technique?
And by "exquisite sensitivity," it is meant that the ability of the PCR process to amplify up very small amounts of starting material means that it is a very sensitive form of testing?
And by sensitivity, we're talking about the ability to detect small amounts of, in this case, DNA?
If one takes one of those microfuge tubes with the top and pops it up and gets a small aerosol, gets on a glove, gets on the rim of another tube and then gets into a second tube and only 100 of those fragments gets into that second tube, that can cause a PCR carry-over contamination which would create one of those typeable 1.3 dots lighting up on the strip?
Well, no. That by itself wouldn't cause that. That's--you're--the way you phrased that, that's not what you're talking about.
It gets into the tube and then you amplify it up and then you see the dot on the strip?
In other words, if--if some of that amplified product, that number of copies we talked about got back into another tube and then that got amplified, then that's correct, yes. But you have to amplify what you got in the tube.
Now, because these amplified products, it only takes 100 of them I think you said--
PCR laboratories, whether doing forensic typing or typing for clinical medicine, have to be very, very concerned about carry-over contamination.
You have to take very strict precautions to make sure that amplified product, these fragments are not accidentally spread around?
And you need to take strict precautions because only 100 of these invisible fragments can cause that contaminant?
Yes. In other words, 100 of those fragments all landing in the same place, the same tube as you mentioned, yes.
All right. Now, in your--amplified fragments, these invisible amplified fragments can get on people's shoes?
I--I suppose they could if there was some on the floor, for example, and you stepped in it.
And you could carry them to another section of the laboratory if one isn't careful?
And if you carry that to another part of the laboratory, then touch your clothing and put your hand down on a surface, that can spread the amplicons?
And then that spread of the amplicons can somehow get on an analyst's hands or clothing and then start getting into reagents?
It's somewhat of a circuitous route, but I suppose theoretically, all that could happen.
Well, isn't that in your understanding of the literature in this area more than a theoretical problem?
Well, most--most of the concern has come about, for example, in the way instrumentations such as pipettes are used or that sort of thing, but that is part of the issue, is you want to isolate the PCR product. There's no doubt about that.
And that's why in your laboratory's--withdrawn. Now, once one gets PCR carry-over contamination in a laboratory, it is hard to pinpoint exactly where it came from?
In other words, if one saw a--a large amount of it, in other words, a large number of samples that were contaminated, is that what you're saying? Yes, it could be difficult to isolate that.
And in the literature on PCR typing, there has been much written about measures that could be taken in laboratories to prevent carry-over or amplicon contamination as it's called?
Actually, I think it stands for--this may be more information than we need--Uracil N-Glycolase.
And this is an enzyme that can be put into the PCR process that can prevent--can be used to prevent amplification of carry-over amplicons from the previous amplification run?
Yes. That's one approach that was proposed sometime back. I--nobody's adopted it in forensic use because we haven't found the need for it.
But in PCR typing, for purposes of clinical diagnosis, this is a widely-used technique, isn't it?
Do you know if u-n-g is used in clinical laboratories as a precaution against PCR carry-over contamination?
Are you familiar with the section concerning PCR carry-over contamination in the NRC report?
Well, counsel, if you are talking at the same time, I can't hear the question, I can't hear the objection at the same time. Restate the question.
Do you rely on the section of the national academy of sciences report concerning PCR carry-over contamination?
Is that the same Dr. George Sensabaugh that was the author of those articles or a number of the articles that Mr. Harmon referred you to on direct examination?
Now--so you don't use u-n-g as a precaution against PCR carry-over contamination in your laboratory?
Now, ultraviolet light can be used to--as a precaution against PCR carry-over contamination?
Literally, if you expose the DNA to ultraviolet light, it does something that they call cross-link it?
And in simple terms, what that means is, if you expose the amplicons to ultraviolet light, you will sort of deactivate them to the point where they can't be amplified up as carry-over contamination?
And so ultraviolet light can be used as a way of--sort of as a precaution against PCR carry-over contamination getting on surfaces?
And I think you indicated that when you take notes in your forensic typing, you do it as the work is performed?
So you would be there with your paper, your note--your notes, the paper on which you make your notes as you are performing some of these functions?
And as a precaution, do you take the pages of your notes and put it in some machine to expose them to ultraviolet light?
Well, what I do is, I take the pages that have been in the PCR room, that's our product room, I expose those in a device called a straddle linker, which it zaps them basically with this ultraviolet light, and then I do that both sides of the paper before I remove it from that room.
And the reason that you--so you literally take the pieces of paper that you bring into that PCR product room, and then you put it in--what did you call it? A contraption?
Right. You put it in there, you expose both sides of the paper to the ultraviolet light, right?
So that's to make sure that the paper that you're carrying out of that PCR product room doesn't contain any of these amplicons?
That's--we are probably overboard on that matter, but I--we think it's a good idea because that paper may have been, for example, on a lab bench in the PCR room.
KEY QUOTEWhen you say "overboard," you're talking in terms of comparing forensic DNA laboratories, right? You're comparing yourself to other forensic DNA laboratories?
Right. You don't know very much about what clinical laboratories do in terms of trying to prevent PCR carry-over contamination?
And would it be fair to say that the PCR typing process has been used in clinical laboratories far longer than it has been in forensic laboratories?
Is it fair to say that most of the forensic laboratories that you've been referring to for your knowledge are laboratories that are connected with law enforcement?
So basically what's happening--I think you even described it on direct--is that law enforcement, police crime laboratories have been taking a PCR technology that was first introduced in clinical medicine, the first application, and then research and transferring it into the crime laboratory?
Well, I--I don't think--you said first. Now, I know Dr. Blake, who is a forensic analyst, was using this stuff in 1985 or -6. I mean, he was in the same building as the Cedus Company that developed it. So I don't know that you can actually say that clinical medicine people were using it before Dr. Blake was.
Now, in your laboratory, you--at the end of the PCR typing process, you go into something that you call a what room?
And it's in your protocol that you never, never take PCR product out of that room?
Well, we never process it away from that room. That's correct. We would not do that.
And you would never in your laboratory take the PCR tubes out of that room, put it in a car, drive it for a mile, bring it into another laboratory and then in another room in a laboratory, perform a PCR product gel, would you?
Objection. No foundation, calls for speculation, it's irrelevant, beyond the scope.
Would you ever take tubes out of your PCR product room and perform what's known as a PCR product gel in another room in your laboratory?
No. It would always be contained in the PCR product room because of the way our lab is set up.
And that's what's recommended by--in forensic laboratories and any other laboratory that you know of that does PCR typing; that you should have a one-way work flow and the PCR product should not leave that last room?
That--that's the basic idea, yes. In other words, you work on a sample, you extract it, then you move into the PCR room for the final step.
A PCR product gel is another one of these mini gels I think Dr. Cotton may have referred to. It's sort of like a yield gel, but it just tells you whether or not you got PCR product out of your amplification. In other words, it evaluates whether or not the--this amplification process was a success, because if it was a success, you'll see a band for the DNA size fragment we mentioned, about 240 base pairs, on your gel.
And to perform a PCR product gel, bottom line, you would be taking some tubes that contained these amplicon fragments. You would have to be using that, be using amplified product?
And in preparation for that, I would ask you to turn to I guess it's page 69 of your notes while I search for one of the glove boards.
Oh. The two of them would always be done together. You're absolutely right, your Honor. It's just a question of logistics. But I--thank you.
And while we're doing that, let me show Mr. Harmon some photographs so that he has--
What I would like to do with you now is just go over what you did and how long it took you to do it, to cut from the glove four samples. I believe they are G1, G2, G3 and G4, okay?
Okay. But when you say "cut," I mean I'm also spending a lot of time documenting, photographing and Dr. Blake is taking photographs too. So--
On October 15th at about 3:15, you began an examination of this glove which you received on September 7th?
All right. And this took you--and at that time, the glove was turned inside out as reflected on the top left-hand photograph in People's exhibit 272-A?
And you then on--you--and when you were examining the glove on October 15th, you also did some presumptive testing on different areas of the glove?
Okay. The presumptive blood testing is with a--it's a color test, a reagent that when--in this case, I used orthotolidine. And what one first does is take a swab and then touch lightly the area of interest where you think there's blood, and then you take that swab now and drop sequentially reagents upon it, the orthotolidine followed by the hydrogen peroxide. And since blood has the--what's called a peroxidase like activity associated with it, if there's blood there, it will turn the reagent blue. You'll see a nice blue color.
And the purpose of going over the--the--the glove with this orthotolidine test and looking for all areas that you might think was blood, was to identify all the areas that you could see on the inside surface of the glove that you thought would be relevant for purposes of DNA testing?
Well, I--that's right, except I would probably take out the word "all." I'm not sure I--there's a lot of blood on that glove. So--but those are the areas I focused on.
The examination, documentation and presumptive testing of the surface of the glove took you--all those activities that you've described on October 15th took you about and a half hours, or you tell me how long it took.
That's approximately correct, yes. All those--all the activities of that day took about that much time.
And then from something that would be equivalent on if you would turn the glove, you know, out again, right, the inside of--what do you call this finger--the--ring finger?
All right. Then you also looked at an area that was even middle of the palm, right?
G4 is on the back of the hand. It's hard to think because it's inside out. You have to think about it. This notch here is what we call the palm or surface. In other words, that's the surface, the palm of the--and then this--G4 then is on the back of the hand.
Between each cutting in your notes, you indicated that you went through the procedure before where you cleaned your instruments with water and alcohol and flamed them.
And you changed gloves between each one of the cuttings or cleaned or put on--washed your gloves?
Now, that--I don't recall in this particular examination that I did that each time. I'm--I'm--I'm not sure I did that each time because this was all one item.
Now, how long did it take you to do those four cuttings? About five hours and 40 minutes?
No. I think--I think there's a follow-up. This was--this was a Sunday afternoon and I think there was still follow-up time. There were additional samples taken and additional documentation that Sunday.
Well, I'm just curious if you could, to the best of your recollection, using your notes, how long do you think it took you to do the cuttings for those four samples?
Probably an hour, something like that at least. Maybe an hour and 15 minutes. Something like that. Maybe am hour and a half. I'm not sure.
Uh-huh. And did there come a point where you proceeded on October 17th with the organic extraction or your extraction process on those samples?
Yes. Page 72, this would now be October 16th. This is when I began the extraction of those samples.
The first--well, the first portion that--that night was fairly quick because I just had at that point had all my tubes set up and I just had to add a couple reagents to those tubes, and then that went overnight. The extraction process takes overnight. You let this to get this DNA out, you have to--and with our procedure, you have to go overnight. So then we begin now with the 17th because the 16th--
Well, that would probably take about half an hour, something like that, on the 16th.
All right. And how long would it take you to finish the organic extraction on the next day, page 77?
This goes from 72 I guess over to page 75. I would say I spent probably, oh, half a day at least. I work--I work very slowly, but something like a half day, maybe four or five hours, something like that.
And then did there come a point when you did an amplification of these G1, G2, G3 and G4?
This was a--this was a pretty long day. Let's see. I--I--yeah. I have Dr. Blake coming over around 2100 hours. So that would be what, around 9:00 o'clock I guess. I'm running the yield gel during that time. I think it's not been till about the 18th--I have Blake departed 12:00 A.M. that would be midnight. And I think that the actual set-up then starts on the 18th. That would probably take about an hour and a half, something like that. There was some calculations based on the yield gel made and then there was some laying out of the--what we were going to amplify. So that would take about an hour and a half, something like that.
And finally, when you do your amplification run and you get your typing results, about how long did that part of the process take for these four samples?
The--the typing, usually about half a day. I'd say about four hours it takes to do the typing. And then if the product gel is run, that's another hour or so.
Well, from a production standpoint, it's not--I don't think--I don't think it's all that good. But in terms of getting the right result, I think it's important to take one's time to do a good job.
Yes. Now, looking at all your results on 272-A, which is the picture of the glove, and 272-B, would it be fair to say that the predominant source of DNA on this glove, whether it be through RFLP typing or PCR base typing, is consistent with Ronald Goldman?
Well, I can only address those issues--those places where I sampled. You have to remember there's a lot of blood on this glove.
And from the areas that I sampled, I mean, there's a great deal of mixing going on, but--but overall, from the areas that I sampled, I would say yes, Mr. Goldman's types were predominant in those areas.
KEY QUOTEWhether you're looking at the band intensities in RFLP or the dot intensities in PCR or the band intensities in D1S80, it would be your conclusion that his DNA was the predominant source on this glove in most of the areas?
All right. And each of the areas would take it--would you agree that Mr. Goldman's--that DNA consistent with Mr. Goldman's type, different typing procedures, was the predominant source?
Now, you found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in G1, the index finger?
KEY QUOTEYou found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in G2, the middle finger?
KEY QUOTEYou found no trace of Mr. Goldman's--Mr. Simpson's DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in the ring finger?
You found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in G4, the back of the hand?
KEY QUOTEAt G14, the bottom of the glove, you found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson?
All right. The three areas where you found traces of DNA on the D1S80 system that were consistent with Mr. Simpson were G10, G11 and G13?
That's--actually there was a little more than that because this was now available after the quantitation. So it was a little over 44 nanograms, yes.
And looking at band intensities on the D1S80 system, would you say that the proportion--let me ask you, how would you estimate the proportion of DNA within that area that contributed to the 25 allele? Would you say it would be something on the order of 20 percent?
Maybe something along those lines. I would defer that though to Renee Montgomery, who is a D1S80 specialist.
Well, from your examination of that, would you--your opinion say about 20 percent?
So if we use that estimate, then that would mean it's about eight nanograms of DNA would be consistent with the contribution of the 25 allele?
Yes. That was again what was available after the quantitation. So there was more along the lines of about 20, something like that.
Okay. And what would be your estimate of the proportion of DNA that would be attributable to the 25 allele?
On that--on that particular one, I don't remember because I haven't looked at that gel in a long time. So I don't have an independent recollection other than that it was a weaker contribution than the 24 allele. I do independently remember that first one we mentioned, but I don't recall the intensity on g--on G-11, these last two because I don't recall that particular gel.
Uh-huh. But your assessment here is that this would be consistent with the three-way mixture?
All right. So that would mean that if you assumed that the mixture on the D1S80 system was a--was between an 18, 18, 25--and a--24, 25 and a 24, 24, all right?
All right. So would you say that something on the order of at--at most a third could be attributed to the 25 allele?
Well, again, as I mentioned, I don't recall this particular gel. And so I think I'd be speculating to say what that contribution would be.
Yes. Again, that would be available after the quantitation. So it would be a little higher than that to start with.
And do you have a recollection of--and again, this was a three-way mixture, could be a three-way mixture?
And that the predominant--withdrawn. And that the 25 allele was comparatively faint?
And what proportion do you believe of that mixture would be attributable to the 25 allele?
Well, I think again, I'd have to give the same answer because I think those two samples were run on the same gel that I don't recall the intensity patterns.
Uh-huh. But again--all right. So you wouldn't want to speculate that it would be at most a third?
Yes. Actually, what I'd like to do, your Honor, with your permission--I've shown these to the witness--is--they are photographs that are contained inside plastic and there are markings that are illustrative of them, and I would like to show them to the witness. So that the exhibit would be the photograph inside the plastic with the marking.
Well, this appears to be the same glove that I looked at and I would--I'm pretty sure that's Dr. Blake's writing on that photograph to label it.
All right. Does that appear to you to be the cut-out area that you and Dr. Blake identified as being the sample removed from the back of the wrist by the Los Angeles Police Department before you received the glove? And please check it against your diagram.
Well, I just wanted to finish by saying, the assumption was made that that cut was caused--was not caused, but it was made by the LAPD. I don't know that independently.
Your Honor, I object to that, move to strike that. That calls for speculation, your Honor. There's no foundation for that right now.
And to the best of your knowledge, in looking over the records of this case, no other agency performed any testing or made any cut-outs of the glove before you received it?
All right. Show you what's 1162. Does this photograph--these two photographs in the plastic reflect cut-outs, one, two, three, four, five cut-outs that you observed on the glove prior to your removing anything from it?
Now, again, I do have my own photographs of this item too, but against my drawings within my notes, that appears to be consistent. Yes.
And this would be a plastic page with two photographs. And would that--does that reflect swabs that you made at the area designated G11 and G12?
Yes. These were taken by Dr. Blake. I'm holding the forceps and this is--he wanted to document exactly where we were getting the samples from. So this is him taking a picture of me sampling them.
All right. Mr. Scheck, would you mark the front of that 1164-A so that Mrs. Robertson doesn't spend time looking for--
We seem to be getting some reflection, but can you--Mr. Sims, if you--look at the lower photograph of 1164-B. Do you see something, initials "CY"?
Excuse me. Mr. Scheck, perhaps if we took that out of the plastic. Is that possible? Because the reflection appears to be off the plastic surface.
Well, I understand. The problem is, if we take it out of the plastic, then you lose the markings that indicate where everything is. And I won't be with this long, your Honor.
All right. And in the area just below where you took G14--well, in that lower area of the glove, all right?
And the swab that you took on G11, the swab you took on G13 and the cutting you made in G10 are all in that lower area of the glove where you see those initials, some on the front, the swabbings on the outside surface of the glove, the cutting on the inside of the glove?
And do you know if those initials "CY" stand for Collin Yamauchi, an analyst at the Los Angeles Police Department?
Do you have any knowledge of whether or not someone from the Los Angeles Police Department prior to you receiving the glove did manipulations, put on initials, did cut-outs and handled that glove on the morning of June 14th?
All right. Thank you. Now, Mr. Sims, would the--would it be fair to say that the traces of DNA consistent with the 25 allele in G10, G11 and G13 are all certainly 8 nanograms or less?
Well, again, I would defer on that question because I haven't evaluated all those mixtures.
So in other words, to get a more precise proportion, other than the one you said--you said--I think you testified that G10 would be 8 nanograms at most, maybe less?
All right. And you're deferring us to Miss Montgomery with respect to getting a calculation on the other two?
Every stain that you cut and sampled from that sock, you could see with the naked eye?
In other words, you could see it with your naked eye, the reddish stain, without the stereomicroscope, every stain that you cut with appropriate lighting?
And a trained forensic scientist with appropriate lighting--withdrawn. Trained forensic scientists will examine pieces of evidence with appropriate lighting.
Excuse me. I mean, it depends obviously on the type of examination that's being performed. It's hard for me to comment on that. It's sort of a general question.
Well, you have told us about your--you sit on a board that certifies criminalists; do you not?
Well, that's beyond what my duties were, but that was part of my duty was to work on the examination, for example.
All right. In your opinion as an expert in criminalistics, are criminalists trained to perform careful visual examination as an appropriate lighting of garments such as a sock that might contain bloodstains?
Well, again, it would depend on the type of examination. Sometimes criminalists will screen items very quickly, just take a quick look to see if there's grossly anything noticeable. And then other times, if you're going to do a thorough examination, then I think you're right, that you would want to make sure you have the appropriate lighting.
And when you're trying to examine an item for purposes of determining how much blood would be on it for purposes of DNA testing, you would want to examine that item with some care?
And when you receive these socks, one of the stains I'm not talking about the larger cut-out area at the ankle, just one of the stains, the first one you saw at the top, you saw that right away with the naked eye, the one near the arrow?
And the cut-out on the sock in the ankle area, the cut-out is about three-quarters of an inch?
And in the area adjoining the cut-out, you could see with your naked eye not under the stereomicroscope a section of reddish material?
My initial exam was under the stereomike and I said, "some reddish still here." I don't think--I think that was pretty subtle though around that particular stain.
And that material had reddish stains on it when you took it out of the tube that were visible to the naked eye?
And when you looked at those cuttings, could you see reddish material with your naked eye?
Well, again, my examination notes are, "stereomike exam, reddish staining." that was the--I mean, I--I think if you looked real hard at them, you could probably pick up that there was a little bit of reddish associated with them. But my observation was that I took them over to the microscope right away because I wanted to see if there really was a lot of blood there.
At no point did you ever look at those cut-outs to see whether you could see a reddish stain?
That's what I indicated in my notes, but that was just a gross observation. I didn't actually characterize the fibers.
And the area where--the areas where there is blood on it, the fabric crinkles, it's a little stiffer?
So that's a smooth synthetic sock, and the area where you observed blood, the stained areas, crinkled and puckered?
Is it true that in the areas where you observed red stains with your naked eye without the use of a stereomicroscope, you noticed that the fabric of the sock had crinkled and puckered?
The areas of the socks where you observed blood, the naked eye, the fabric, your observation, those areas crinkled and puckered?
And you told us on direct examination about cut-outs you made from the sock that you put on white paper?
And you've explained that on that white paper, you could see what you called fibrils?
And you also could see without the aid of a stereomicroscope powdering, reddish powdering?
All right. And when forensic scientists are examining an item, is it not their practice ordinarily to put that item they're examining, searching for blood on a white or a light colored piece of paper?
That's typical. It's not always done, but it's typical. Sometimes we would use brown paper, for example.
All right. And it is standard practice for forensic scientists to examine any debris or powdering that you might find on such a paper?
Well, now, again, you're talking about the debris. The debris comes about from the cutting process.
Well, the debris that you saw, you explained to us some of it were fibrils that you believe came from the cutting process.
All right. I'm talking about a situation before you do cutting, when you're examining an item.
And you've indicated that forensic scientists will put this on white pieces of paper.
And it is standard practice after you do that to look on the piece of paper to see if you see any kind of powdering or residue from the item you've examined?
Well, I don't know that that's standard practice to look at that residue. One may look at it, for example, trace evidence.
And even from the sections that you cut in your laboratory in terms of the reddish powder, do you have an expectation that if you did a presumptive test just on the powder of the white piece of paper, you would have been able to get a positive presumptive?
Mr. Sims, you are not part of any conspiracy to tamper with evidence in this case, are you?
To your knowledge, Dr. Cotton from cellmark is not part of any conspiracy to tamper with evidence in this case?
But, Mr. Sims, as you sit here today, you don't know how and you don't know when that blood got on the sock, do you?
Do you know from your own personal knowledge how and when that blood got on the sock?
And that section of the sock you made--withdrawn. The middle cut-out of the sock, you had--you took four swatches?
And out of those three, when you quantitated the DNA, you got 1,350 nanograms of DNA from the three swatches?
And you would expect that there would be more--there would be additional DNA on the other swatch that you haven't tested?
And there is yet additional DNA on a session near the cut-out of the sock that you did not even cut?
Yes. I could see that there was still some reddish staining around the edges of the cut-out.
And would it be fair to estimate in your opinion that if you start from the area of the sock on the ankle, that from where you can see blood, right, to the end of the cut-out, right?
Cut-out area, that if you had to make an estimate of the amount of DNA in that spot, it would be in the area of 2- to 3,000 nanograms?
All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't allow--don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until 9:00 A.M. Monday morning. Mr. Sims, Monday, 8:45. All right. You may step down. Have a nice weekend.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have a pleasant weekend. Just for your information, we will be working on this case and other cases this afternoon. So we're just taking a lunch break. All right? You all have a nice weekend. All right. We'll stand in recess, 1:30.
1--only 100 out of those 4 billion 290 million fragments being transferred to another tube would cause a 1.3 contaminant on a strip?
From the areas that I sampled, I mean, there's a great deal of mixing going on, but--but overall, from the areas that I sampled, I would say yes, Mr. Goldman's types were predominant in those areas.
You found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in G1, the index finger? ... G2, the middle finger? ... the ring finger? ... G4, the back of the hand? ... G14, the bottom of the glove?
We are probably overboard on that matter, but I--we think it's a good idea because that paper may have been, for example, on a lab bench in the PCR room.
Yes, it must have been because it was there when I opened it.