Mr. Scheck, would you retrieve that item.

Thank you, your Honor.

Proceed.

So we are clear, Mr. Sims, your position is that the positive control and the quality control--withdrawn. That the positive allelic control did not fail to give the correct result in this case and therefore you did not have to redo this analysis?

Yes. There were some other ones in this case where I did redo them, but in this case, no, I felt that was the correct result and I was confident of the interpretations that were made for all these strips.

And that is because you didn't think that the 1.3 dot was lighting up intensely enough to cause you to redo the hybridizations here?

That's correct.

And if the 1.3 dot was lighting up due to some kind of 1.3 contaminant, like a PCR carry-over contaminant in your laboratory, that would be a problem with respect to interpreting item no. 31 and the 1.3 dot in that strip?

Well, in other words, if there were contamination from product, I would expect that there would be--more likely you would see it across than in some of the other samples, the controls, too. I don't think that the contamination would necessarily pick out that one sample on 31, for example.

Well, if the--you see a 1.3 also on QC 816, as well as the positive control?

Well, again, I didn't say we saw a 1.3. There is a faint indication down there of 1.3. I believe we said it was scored as a hint of activity, but that is not to say that the 1.3 allele is there, because this 1.3 allele, as mentioned in the user guide, it is in the forensic literature, that's correct, that sometimes you can get a faint response of the 1.3.

Now, to put it in terms that we discussed before, you are saying that the 1.3 in the positive control and in quality control sample 816 is an artifact?

Yes. I believe it is an artifact.

Or to put it in another--more direct terms that we used before, it is not real?

It doesn't signify that the 1.3 allele is truly there.

But you are saying that the 1.3 in item 31 you feel confident is real?

Yes.

All right. Now, why don't we look at a strip that I would ask to have marked as next in order. What would that be?

1168.

1168.

And this is now a photograph of DQ-Alpha types that you made on some of the Bundy drops?

This is--say it again, please.

This is a photograph--that is a photograph of hybridization strips for the Bundy drops, some of the Bundy drops?

Well, one of the Bundy drops is represented here, but then the other samples I believe are all Bundy drop controls.

Okay. And the--

Substrate controls.

Sorry. And the Bundy drop in question there is what we have been calling item no. 52?

Yes. It is our no. 55-A.

And item no. 52 is the Bundy drop that you were saying was degraded but in your judgment not substantially degraded?

That is my understanding, yes, of the RFLP that was obtained on that.

All right. And this is the Bundy drop that you would say has the DNA--has DNA in its best shape out of all the other Bundy drops in terms of degradation?

Well, as opposed to, for example, the rear gate?

No, I'm talking only about those samples collected on June 13th.

That is my understanding, yes, that 52--of the ones that I know of, that's the one.

All right. Now, I would like to put this on the elmo, your Honor.

All right.

I would like to go tight if we could to what is dna-55 A.

Mr. Scheck, do you want to give Mr. Harris some direction here? I think we are missing part of it here.

Yes, your Honor. I think in terms of the item of interest we are focused in the area that we need to be.

Well, why don't we see the whole thing.

Let's see the whole thing. Pull back.

Looking at 55-A, that is the strip that is the analysis of item 52, correct?

Well, this is one of the strips on which it was analyzed, yes.

This is the first analysis you made?

Yes.

All right. And umm, this is the one that you typed as a 1.1, 1.2?

Yes. Ultimately the call on that sample was 1.1, 1.2.

And did you not call a 1.3 on this sample?

Well, again let me--let me refer to the actual notes page.

That--that particular sample was--was scored as a c minus trace, that particular dot.

Well, in other words, your--the score that you made was 1.1, 1.2?

Yes. At that time that was the score that was made at that time.

And the 1.3 dot you did not score as real?

That's--that's correct.

All right. Now, Mr. Harris, could you go closer on that 1.3 dot.

Now, there are--you do, however, in your scoring, indicate that you do see the 1.3 dot as a trace?

Yes. It is called a c minus trace.

All right. But you are saying that that 1.3 dot is not real; it is an artifact?

Well, I'm saying that in the context of--this test was repeated because we were concerned with the interpretation of that particular result.

We will get to the repetition in a second, but this call, even on the first run, before you repeated it, you scored it as a 1.1, 1.2 and you did not score the 1.3 as real?

Well, we didn't report anything at this point. There is no report was issued until we did the additional testing on this sample.

You have a scoring sheet?

Yes.

In your scoring sheet you and the second reader scored it a 1.1, 1.2 and you said there was a trace of a 1.3, but you did not call the 1.3 as real?

Well--

At that point?

At that particular point that's true.

And--okay. Your Honor, I would ask that--because of the visibility of these--Mr. Sims, could you put on the--on this post-it next to the lane that is--represents item 52, just an arrow and a 1.3, maybe move the post-it a little closer to the strip so it is clear.

I have the same objection.

Noted. It is overruled.

Your Honor, may I pass this to the jury?

May I see it first?

Sure.

Just one additional question before I pass it?

Yes.

So we are clear, the 1.3 dot here on lane 52, you said in your first report here, and after your subsequent rehybing of this is not real, it is an artifact?

That's real--that's correct. In other words, I couldn't eliminate it. It just appeared to be an artifact when I rehybed it.

All right. Would you hand it to juror no. 7 this time. 7, top row.

All right. Mr. Scheck, would you retrieve that item, 1168, from Deputy Smith.

Thank you.

All right. Proceed.

Mr. Sims, if that 1.3 dot on sample 52 represented--was real, as opposed to an artifact--are you with me?

Okay.

--would that not be consistent with a mixture of degraded DNA from one contributor and additional DNA by way of a cross-contamination from a second contributor who had a 1.1, 1.2 genotype?

Objection, it is irrelevant, calls for speculation, and it is inconsistent with his testimony, misstates his testimony.

Sustained.

I'm asking--

Rephrase the question.

Let us assume that the 1.3 allele on item 51 is real, okay?

On item 51 now or 52?

Yes. I'm sorry, item 51--the one we have just looked at?

I think that is 52.

Did I say--I mean LAPD item 52, the Bundy blood drop?

That sounds like the right one, right.

Okay?

Right.

And let us assume that that 1.3 dot that we just all looked at is real and not an artifact. Are you with me?

Okay.

Would not the typing on that strip we just examined be consistent with a mixture of a contributor with a 1.1, 1.2 genotype and a second contributor who contributed less DNA with a 1.3 genotype, 1.3, 1.3?

Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation, misstates his testimony and it is an improper hypothetical.

Overruled.

Yes.

Yes.

All right. Now, as we said--withdrawn. You agree that sample 52 has the DNA in it that is in the best shape of all the blood drops recovered on June 13th from the Bundy walkway?

That is--that is my understanding, yes.

And if one were to assume that there was cross-contamination between Mr. Simpson's blood and the swatch 52 and others in the laboratory--are you with me? Assume some cross-contamination.

In other words, contamination from a reference sample.

From a reference sample or from other samples, just assume cross-contamination. Let's not worry for the moment how it gets there.

I'm going to object. That is argumentative, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Let us assume that this is cross-contamination with sample 52 from a reference sample or from another swatch containing Mr. Simpson's blood that had a high DNA content.

Okay.

And let us further assume that the starting material on swatch no. 52 had DNA that was degraded.

Okay.

Would not a result, assuming that 1.3 dot is a real dot, not an artifact--are you with me?

Okay.

Would not the reading on this strip be consistent with that set of assumptions?

Objection. It misstates the testimony. It is improper hypothetical not based on fact and it calls for speculation. It is argumentative and compound.

Do you understand the factors involved in the question?

I think I understand the first about half of it and then I kind of lost it on the second half.

Sustained.

Which factor don't you understand?

Well, when you start to talk about where the 1.3 comes in.

All right. I'm asking you to assume the 1.3 we saw in that strip is real.

Okay.

All right. And assuming the other conditions that we talked about with respect to cross-contamination--

Okay.

--would that strip not be consistent with--wouldn't that strip be consistent with the hypothetical I just gave you?

Your Honor, I have an objection, the same ground. May we approach on this?

No.

May I cite a case, your Honor, for the proposition?

No. Sit down. Sustained.

If one assumes that 1.3 dot is a real allele--

Okay.

--that is not consistent with a mixture of starting material that is degraded that contains a 1.3 allele and--

Your Honor, I must object. I'm sorry to interrupt. The same grounds, assumes facts not in evidence. It misstates his own testimony.

Overruled.

Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Let's start again. If that 1.3 dot is real, is it not consistent--is the strip we just looked at--isn't it consistent with a mixture where the source of the 1.3 has less DNA in it than the source of the 1.1, 1.2?

Yes, that is one possibility.

All right. Now, you redid item no. 52. That is what you called a rehybridization?

Yes, I rehybed that sample.

And you rehybed that sample because you were troubled by the intensity of the 1.3 dot and you wanted to see if you could resolve whether it was real or not real?

Well, that--that was part of it. The second reason was that I think in that particular run the positive control showed a little bit of the 1.3 and so did the quality control sample that was run on that particular set. And those two samples were what we called--or actually this is the initial reader called the trace or hint trace level and that was another clue that maybe there was a hybridization question on those particular results. So the totality is all of that together, yes, that is why that was repeated.

Well, you just said that you ran it again because you saw a hint of the 1.3 dot on the quality control sample in the positive control.

Well, it is--this is getting very technical, but the level of that 1.3 was somewhat increased relative to the c dots on the positive control and on the quality control sample in this particular run, as opposed to I think it was on the prior run that you mentioned where we had, what was it, 31 and 30--I think it was 30.

You make out scoring sheets where two readers look at these dots, right?

Yes.

And on the scoring sheet for this strip that contains item 52, when you looked at the positive control and the quality assurance control, the 1.3 was characterized as a faint trace or a hint?

One was--the quality control sample was characterized as a trace and the positive control was characterized as a hint/trace.

And on the previous run with the console, the quality control strip and the positive control were also characterized as hints of the 1.3?

Only as hints, yes, but the reader felt that these two results on this second run were slightly higher on the 1.3. And I realize this is a subtle difference, but this is what a perfect look at.

Well, you call them both hints, right?

On the first run they were called hints. On the second run one was called a hint/trace and the other was called a trace and a trace is more than a hint in our vernacular.

And when you are making these distinctions between hints and traces, you are talking about almost imperceptible levels of intensity differences?

Well, you are literally looking, just as the jury did, with your naked eye at a thousand little intensity of the dots?

Yes.

That is what you are doing?

And other trained eyes looking at these particular calls that you made, you might expect could have a different interpretation of these small intensities, other experienced analysts like yourself?

You mean such as Dr. Blake?

Dr. Blake, Dr. Gerdes, Dr. Mullis, others?

I don't know if Dr. Blake, for example, would disagree with these interpretations.

What about Dr. Mullis or Dr. Gerdes?

Objection, your Honor.

Sustained.

The--you reran this--to get back to this item 52, you did what you called a rehybridization?

Yes.

And that is you took some of the amplified product left over and you ran it on the strip again?

That's correct.

And did you develop it for the same amount of time on the strip that you did the first one?

I would have to check the notes on that point.

I--I am looking at a Xeroxed copy of the initial run and I'm having trouble seeing exactly how long the development was. According to our protocol, it is 20 to 30 minutes is the standard development time.

Well, let's just see if we can make clear, before the break, what we mean by development time. You are saying that sometimes when you put the amplified product on the strip you are literally waiting for almost like a photograph for the dots to develop; is that right?

Well, yes. The very last part, after you have added the color reagents, then there is a certain time that passes as these dot intensities develop.

And the longer you let it develop, the more you will see luminosity from the dots?

Yes, you will see an increase in the color to the point.

And the longer you leave it to develop the less you will see luminosity from the dots?

It gets to a certain point. You can overdevelop these strips. That can help. And it is mentioned in the user guide, for example, that you can overdevelop these strips, and for example, Dr. Blake commented several times that we over developed our strips and that might be one reason we see more of the 1.3 weak result.

Was that the hypothesis you were pursuing when you were rehybridizing this?

That is one thing that I thought, that we do let our strips develop a long time.

And the second time that you hybridized item no. 52, you didn't let it develop as long?

I didn't say this at all. I let that go 22 minutes, it looks like, according to my notes, and 20 to 30 minutes is what is called for in the protocol.

Well, did you let the first strip where you saw a darker 1.3 go for longer?

I--I--as I mentioned, I couldn't say that for sure, because I am looking at a Xerox copy of the notes and that may be at the very bottom and I'm not picking it up.

But when you rehybridized, when you did it again, you still saw a faint trace of the 1.3 dot in your second hybridization, didn't you?

I think on that particular run sheet the--well, let me look at it right here. I have it.

That was the one performed on December 31st, 1994.

Yes, I think in the run sheet I did score that as a very faint trace. I scored it as a faint trace. I think the photograph of that one speaks for itself.

Well, when you are analyzing these dot-blots and you look at it in the tray as it is developing, often the analyst will be able to see intensities that are not picked up on the photograph?

Well, we usually read the strips and then photograph them, so depending on the quality of the photograph, that could be true. There are subtle things that one may not see on a photograph.

All right. Mr. Scheck.

Last question, your Honor. One last question.

Yes, I do.

Okay. Thank you.