Now, Mr. Sims, just one last point on--with respect to LAPD item no. 52. You were talking about two different kinds of tests performed on that item, the DQ-Alpha test that--the strip we just reviewed. Do you recall that?
Now, the DQ--out of those two techniques, the DQ-Alpha system is what is known as the more sensitive one?
And that means that if there were some small degraded contribution to item 52, one would be more likely to see that with the DQ-Alpha system than you would with the RFLP system?
--the--your findings are that looking at the data now for the stains recovered on both June 14th and September 1st, that the primary DNA source on those bloodstains in the console was someone with DNA types consistent with Mr. Simpson's?
All right. Let's start with the call--we had some lengthy discussion about the call you made on item 31.
And--but assuming your call is correct with respect to item 31, it's your interpretation that the primary contributor would be someone with the 1.1, 1.2 allele genotype?
31. Yes. This was when I--when I'd mentioned about this was the one with the tough call, that was the tough part of the call, was to decide whether or not we could say that there was a 1.1, 1.2 there as a major type. And I would contrast that with the one that we call DNA 30 which you had on the chart where we said possible 1.2 where you showed the listing of the results.
But my question, sir, is simply, on 31, your finding was that the primary contributor--the primary contribution was DNA with the 1.1, 1.2 genotype?
And on 303, which was collected on September 1st, your interpretation that the primary contributor of the genotype in the DQ-Alpha system was the 1.1, 1.2 genotype?
No. On one--on 303, we just listed the--the alleles. I don't think--we didn't state about the--which one tended to be the primary on 303.
So on 303, in your judgment, there is--you can't distinguish which--where there's a primary contributor and where there's a secondary contributor or contributors?
That's correct. In other words, the dot intensities were fairly well-balanced for those different--like the 1.3 and the 1.1.
And as to 304, the--would you say that the primary contributor based on your reading of dot intensities would be DNA from the 1.1, 1.2?
No. It--again, it was more like 303. Again, the similarity of the alleles was noted so that it wasn't clear necessarily what went with what from that strip.
So you can't--you would make no interpretation as to which was the primary and which was the secondary contribution?
Now, your tests do not indicate when or in what order sources of DNA got on the console?
That's correct. In other words, I don't know the exact sequence of how things got on the console. That's correct.
And the console is a comparatively large area within the Bronco that people could touch?
And in your experience as a forensic scientist, it's the kind of substrate that can contain traces of saliva or other biological material?
And this data that you've been reporting to us could be consistent with blood from Mr. Simpson being smeared on that console first and then some other person or persons subsequently entering the car and contributing biological material to the stains on the console?
Well, it would have to be a significant contribution and it would have to be a very consistent contribution across the console.
Now, are you saying that with respect to sample 303, you can not make any determination as to which alleles are associated with a primary contributor and which one--which ones are associated with secondary contributors?
Well, the--the principal interpretation there I think would again be the 18 allele, that that appeared to go as a secondary contribution.
All right. So as far as you're concerned, in the DQ-Alpha system, you can not make any assessment in terms of the strengths of the dots to differentiate the 1.1 from the 1.2 from the 1.3 from the 1.4?
Well, again, there may be some subtleties there, but we did not make any distinction along those lines, no.
All right. So looking at the stain in 303 and the DQ-Alpha system, you've identified a series of alleles within the mixture, correct?
Now, in assessing the possible combi--one--withdrawn. An analyst such as yourself will review possible genotype combinations that could be within a mixture such as stain 303?
All right. Now, if one assumes that Mr. Simpson's genotype of 1.1, 1.2 is within that stain, 303, one can by a simple series of figuring out combinations come up with other two-person genotype combinations which, when combined with Mr. Simpson's 1.1, 1.2 genotype, will account for all the DQ-Alpha alleles in stain 303?
Mr. Sims, ask you to look at this and see if you would agree that the list here of genotypes represents the actual combination of two-person genotypes--withdrawn--represents two-person genotype combinations which, when combined with Mr. Simpson's genotype of 1.1, 1.2, will account for all the DQ-Alpha alleles in stain 303.
Okay. Yes. This is the list you showed me at the break, and I believe those are correct.
So this chart, as one moves down it, just simply lists all the different possible genotypes of a second contributor and a third contributor that could account for all the DQ-Alpha alleles in stain 303 when combined with Mr. Simpson's genotype. And let the record reflect I've now pushed the page down through page 1 which gives 23 combinations and now exhibiting 24 through 37. Now, Mr. Sims, looking at this chart, out of these combinations on the chart of two people's genotypes that could account for all of the DQ-Alpha alleles in stain 303 when in combination with Mr. Simpson's genotype, isn't it true that only two include the genotypes of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in combination?
I'm going to have to look at this for a minute because I notice that you have the second and third and then you just change the types the--you just reverse the order. For example, in no. 1, you have 1.1, 1.1 for the second contributor, then you have a third contributor as a 1.3, 4, but then you also on 24 list the second contributor as being 1.3, 4 and the third contributor as being 1.1, 1.1.
Well, Mr. Sims, just take your time, study the chart and see if you can tell us out of all the combinations on that chart of two people's genotypes that would account for all the alleles in the DQ-Alpha system in the mixture stain of 303, how many of those combinations--and see if you're clear with me on the question--would include the genotype of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson as the second and third contributor; out of those combinations, how many are included in that combination, that is Nicole Brown Simpson's DQ-Alpha type and Ronald Goldman's DQ-Alpha type together. Do you understand my question?
No. He's already started on that one. Mr. Sims, have you already started on that one?
Now, the question has to be that they are both together as opposed to the possibility that one could be there with somebody else?
On the hypothetical, that Mr. Simpson's genotype 1.1, 1.2 is there, and if looking at the number of combinations that one could have of two other contributors that explain all the alleles, in terms of those combinations, tell us how many of those combinations are ones where Nicole Brown Simpson's genotypes and Ronald Goldman's genotypes together part of the combination.
So out of the 37 combinations there, only two are consistent with--of a two-person genotype combinations which, when combined with O.J. Simpson's genotype of 1.1, 1.2, will account for all the DQ-Alpha alleles in stain 303, only two of them are ones where--that have Nicole Brown Simpson's genotype and Ronald Goldman's genotype together?
On direct examination, Mr. Harmon asked you to read from your report with respect to your findings on the steering wheel. Do you recall that?
Would you not agree, Mr. Sims, that looking at your data and the Cellmark data, that the best interpretation of item no. 29 is that the person who deposited the 4 allele is either a genotype of 1.1, 4, 4, 4 or 1.2, 4? That's the best interpretation of the data.
I know that--that expression "Best interpretation of the data" because that's the--the term that Dr. Blake uses when he interprets data like that, and I--I think that probably is, for our purposes, the best interpretation of that data, yes. I--I think I brought this out and I won't go into detail again, but I don't--I don't think we can be absolutely sure that that is the correct interpretation.
But as far as you're concerned, looking at all the data, that is certainly the best interpretation?
Well, again, that's without studying the Cellmark data. That's just looking at what I see on our DQ-Alpha results. And I'd have to sit down with the Cellmark data and perhaps talk to Dr. Cotton about all those results and look at intensities and all that sort of thing, and I haven't done that.
And looking at the intensities of dots on the poly-marker strip, those would tend to support the interpretation, the best interpretation of the data that you and I just agreed upon?
Well, I don't--I don't feel comfortable giving an opinion on that because I don't have a lot of hands-on experience with poly-marker and I have to rely on talking to somebody like Dr. Cotton about her interpretation. So I think I should give that particular opinion.
Well, in terms of the intensities of the dots, for example, at the--without going into excruciating detail, but looking at the dots at the HBGG locus--
Dr. Cotton's interpretation of--I'm sorry--of no. 29 is that it is a DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2 and 4 in the mixture?
And I think, as you just indicated, you would agree that the best interpretation of the data is that the contributor of the 4 allele in this mixture would either have a 1.1, 4, a 4, 4 or a 1.2, 4 genotype?
The data that you have and from what you've seen of the DQ-Alpha data from Cellmark and looking at all the data, would you not agree that the best interpretation is that the person who deposited the 4 allele is either a 1.1, 4, a 4, 4 or a 1.2, 4?
Well, again, I don't know--I don't use that interpretation, that best interpretation line. That's--I would normally say that yes, I think that's probably what's going on here, but I would hold open that possibility that I mentioned.
Now--well, wouldn't you say that based on the fact that the 4 dot is greater than the all control in your tests, that it is extremely unlikely that the 4 is from an individual who possesses the 1.3 allele?
No, I don't think we have--if it's not on this strip, I'm not sure it's in evidence.
And while Mr. Sims is looking for that, your Honor, I ask permission to pull out the chart so I can go through what I think is the last line of questions.
I--my answer to your question is, I don't think the all but 1.3 dot is particularly relevant here because I think, as you mentioned when we were discussing about how these dot calls are made, if the other samples have activity that will light up a dot, then I don't--I don't think that interpretation is proper here. I don't think the all but 1.3 call, the call on that dot is particularly relevant to this--to the discussion at that--at the levels of intensity that we're talking about.
Now, assuming that there is a contributor to the--item no. 29, the steering wheel stain, that's a 1.1, 4, a 4, 4 or a 1.2, 4--are you with me?
Such an individual could also be a contributor based on the data you find on the stains on the console, 303, 304 and 305?
Forgive me for interrupting you. The problem is, the easel, Mr. Harris, is blocking juror no. 7's view of the witness here.
If we could move the big one away, I think that would be better. If we can move the big one and then away from that, that will make it easier.
Sure. An individual with--individuals--withdrawn. The genotypes 1.1, 4, 4, 4 or 1.2, 4 all could be genotypes that contributed to the stains on the console, 303, 304, 305 and your interpretation of 31?
In other words, would--would we be able to exclude somebody with those genotypes out of these mixes? Is that the basic question?
1.1, 4 is one potential genotype, 4, 4 is another potential genotype and 1.2, 4 is another potential genotype.
Okay. Now, do you have--I'm sorry. Looking at--if we go with the view that there was a contributor to the stain on the steering wheel, no. 29, that--and may I just write on this board, chart? One of the genotypes we mentioned was 1.1, 4, correct?
All right. Now, do you have with you the frequency tables that you used to calculate the frequencies for the genotypes you reported for the Prosecution for the DQ-Alpha system?
Now, if one were to add together the frequencies of these three genotypes for the Caucasian population, the 1.1, 4, the 1.2, 4 and the 4, 4, what would be the sum?
Now, in the chart labeled People's 260, there's a column indicating "Individuals not excluded," correct?
And that's not excluded in terms of the genotype combinations that could be found in the stains, some of which are mixtures?
And with respect now to the steering wheel, what we've done in this chart is list the frequencies for the Caucasian population, the African-American population and the Hispanic population for the genotype 1.1, 4.
And these reflect percentages of those populations that can't be excluded just as the 1.1, 4 genotype can't be excluded as contributors to the stain 29 on the steering wheel?
I--I--you lost me a little bit at the very end there. In other words, you asked me about those three possible genotypes, and what I'm giving you is the listing of those frequencies in the various population groups.
Right. And for Caucasians--withdrawn. And we had--with respect to the steering wheel, we agreed that it's consistent with the findings that the contributor of the 4 allele could have a 1.1, 4, a 1.2, 4 and a 4, 4, correct?
That's--that's correct. In other words, if we throw out the possibility that there--that that 4 could go with any other type and just said that this has to be a 4 standing by itself with those other two alleles, you know, continuing the hypothetical, yes.
So in other words, the possible contributor of the 4 allele could be--could have one of these three genotypes?
Well, again, I couldn't absolutely rule out that that 4 allele went with a weak allele or an allele from the weaker component that didn't get amplified at that level of sensitivity.
Well--withdrawn. You're--you agree--you don't disagree with Cellmark's position that Mr. Goldman's 1.3, 4 is excluded?
Well, I think we went through this the other day about how this kind of call or how this interpretation can be made, and my concern was that we are amplifying so little DNA to begin with on this sample. We're talking about 400 of these picograms that we mentioned and we're talking about that 4 allele perhaps going with--with a--as part of the weaker component of that 400. So you really are getting down there and you're really pushing the system to guara--to say that you can guarantee that you'd see everything from the weaker contribution. That's my concern, and I think we went through all this a couple days ago.
But your concern would apply then to possible other--if that's your concern, then you can't rule out the possibility of other contributions at low levels on 303, 304, 305?
Well, again, I can only talk about what I can see. And what I can see are a certain number of alleles and a certain number of types and I can see certain patterns emerging as I look across the results of this case. But on any particular sample--for example, there could be one cell from you and I might not detect it.
And you agree that the best interpretation of the data is that the genotype of the contributor of the 4 is either a 1.1, 4, a 1.2, 4 or a 4, 4?
Well, withdrawn. Withdrawn. Let's just go through this. If one looks at the 1.1, 4, the 1.2, 4 and the 4, 4--
That 27.6 percent represents the percentage of the population that cannot be excluded as the source of the 4 allele on the steering wheel?
KEY QUOTEAll right. And with respect to the African-American population, 36.4 percent of the population cannot be excluded as the possible source of the 4 allele on the steering wheel?
And looking at the Hispanic population, 35.2 percent of the Hispanic population cannot be excluded as the source of the 4 allele on the steering wheel?
And I recall on direct examination that Mr. Harmon asked you some questions about the percentage of the population that couldn't be excluded as possible sources of the 4 allele on the steering wheel.
Did Mr. Harmon ask you some questions about excluding the front line of the San Antonio Spurs and the Los Angeles Lakers? Do you recall that?
As you sit here, can you exclude the front line or the starting five of the robbery-homicide squad of the Los Angeles Police Department as possible contributors of the 4 allele?
All right. Can you exclude--these are--let's put it this way. 27.6 percent of the Caucasian population is over a fourth?
KEY QUOTEAll right. And to the extent that those populations are in combination among personnel in the robbery-homicide squad of the Los Angeles Police Department, these percentages would apply to them as they would anybody else?
And, Mr. Sims, if we follow through on the caveat that you gave us, would that be a fair--now, that may be a bad word. You gave a qualification of some kind with respect to your reading on the steering wheel, correct?
And you're saying it's possible that there might be some unknown allele that goes with the 4?
And if one follows through on the possibility of their being an unknown allele that goes with the 4 and factors that in, then that would include a hundred percent of the Caucasian and African American and Hispanic population if you factored in an unknown allele here?
Well, it's--it is much more complex than that because you do get into questions of how these allele sequences are related to each other and which ones you may see this phenomenon going into. So I'm not going to give a blanket statement to that. It's a very complex part of the technology.
Well, if you assumed that there is a possible unknown allele that could be a contribution to the mixture in the steering wheel and just followed that hypothesis through, the percentage of the population not excluded would be even larger than the ones that are on this chart?
Well, in this particular case, where I have a 1.1, 1.2 demonstrated as a main type, then the main allele I would be worried about with this phenomenon is the 1.3 allele, not the 2 allele so much, not the 3 allele. It really does come down to the 1.3 allele. And that's just a complex part of this technology. It's not--it's not a blanket statement that I would just throw out there for all of these alleles.
I'm asking you about just the question--and I understand that's your explanation--just the question, if you assume that there was a possible unknown allele, following through with your hypothesis, that's not being detected, then it would be consistent in terms of calculating the percentages, that they would get even larger than those that are put on the board as to the possible genotypes that can't be excluded?
Well, again, I--I--I think this begs a question of what if there, for example, was a cell from you on that steering wheel? I might not detect it.
Mr. Sims, my question to you, sir, if you assume that there could be a contribution on the steering wheel of an allele that you can't see--are you with me?
If you were to calculate the percentage of the population that couldn't be excluded as contributors to the steering wheel, it would be even larger than the percentages for each racial group than is depicted on this chart?
Okay. I see it in two of them.
27.6 percent represents the percentage of the population that cannot be excluded as the source of the 4 allele on the steering wheel?
Can you exclude--these are--let's put it this way. 27.6 percent of the Caucasian population is over a fourth?
I don't think so. Try again.
Yes, it would be larger.