All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let's have it quiet, please. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Good afternoon again, Mr. Sims. Mr. Harmon.
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON
Mr. Sims, I want to start out addressing some of the issues that Mr. Scheck raised in cross-examination with you. Is that okay?
I noticed that in response to many of Mr. Scheck's hypotheticals, you gave answers that things were possible. Do you recall that?
Did any answer that you gave expressing a possibility to Mr. Scheck's hypotheticals, did any of those answers in any way undermine any of the results and opinion that you've previously addressed on direct examination?
When hypotheticals are created, certainly you get to a point where you can say anything is possible, and anything is possible.
KEY QUOTENow, Mr. Sims, do you remember Mr. Scheck asked you whether or not you had any reason to believe Robin Cotton was involved in a conspiracy?
Okay. Do you have any reason to believe Greg Matheson is involved in any conspiracy to frame the Defendant in this case, Mr. Simpson?
Do you have any reason to believe that Dennis Fung is involved in a conspiracy to--
Mr. Sims, Mr. Scheck asked you to--in another one of these hypotheticals to describe the numbers of possible combinations that could be accounted for in the stain on the console, item 303, and he asked you to assume that the Defendant's type, a 1.1, 1.2 is in there, and he gave you that sheet. Do you recall that sheet?
And it's true, is it not, that that's only one of the markers that you performed on that stain--on that stain on 303?
So that sheet and that entire series of questions ignored an entire set of data that you produced from your analyses on those stains; did it not?
You've described in not addressing the D1S80 data that you produced in your test to that stain, that only two of the 37 combinations were consistent with combinations of the victims? Is that the way you've described it?
Okay. And let's talk about possible interpretations of those 37 results, only two of which were consistent with the victims in this case, okay?
Could that mean that there were 35 other people killed that night whose blood was in that car?
Could that mean that there were 35 other dead people whose blood was found on that console in that car?
Could that mean that there were 35 other deceased people whose blood was found in the stain in 303?
Does that mean that there were 35 other living people whose blood was found on that stain in the car?
Okay. For example, you can't exclude the possibility that 35 other people with different genotypes had nosebleeds on that same spot on the console, can you?
Okay. Is there something funny about broncos that might cause nosebleeds like that?
Mr. Scheck asked you and you struggled to try to think of a casework experience you've had--
Remember Mr. Scheck asked you whether or not you'd had an actual case where you had blood mixtures?
Well, and then you went on--he went on, and I believe you said you thought you'd encountered such a thing in casework. Do you recall that?
The scenario, as I recall it, was, an individual was beaten with a weapon, a blunt object that caused a lot of bleeding of the victim, and the issue was whether or not we could find some of the perpetrator's type who also we thought might be bleeding on that particular weapon, that perhaps had put the handle in, and we were able to show that there was a mixture of victim and perpetrator blood and it did happen that the blood then did match also the perpetrator's type or--I'm sorry--or the suspect's type. So those things will happen, yes.
So in the context of that case, it was the mixture of these two coincidental types that were significant to you; is that right?
And it is a challenge trying to sort those things out, is it not, when they're blood mixtures?
And in the context of that case, you found the victim's blood on something associated with the suspect?
Okay. Just to digress for a second, if you saw Mr. Simpson's type in a stain and you were unable to see a c dot there, how would you report that?
In our laboratory, we would not consider that to be a typeable result. We would note the types, but we would not consider it to be a reportable result.
Okay. Now, Mr. Scheck asked you whether or not your tests can show the order of deposition or when or the order of deposition on the console. Do you recall that?
In fact, regardless of when or how or the sequence of events that caused stains to be deposited there, if your tests showed the types that are actually there, they perform successfully; is that true?
For example, the steering wheel, can you tell when or the order those stains or those actual biological materials were deposited there?
And Mr. Scheck's--the handwritten chart with those large numbers on it, do those numbers also ignore some of the data that was produced in this case--on that stain?
Is there other data that was produced as a result of yours and Cellmark's testing on the steering wheel that could tend to contribute to the frequencies that you calculated?
Is your opinion as it was when you testified last week concerning being unable to say that the 1.3 allele is not there?
Sure. Is your concern or your opinion about the results of 29, the steering wheel stain, is it as you expressed it last week; that you can not say that because of the low amount of DNA that was in that sample, that the 1.3 allele is not there?
That's correct. In other words, I can not unequivocally say that we would have seen the 1.3 allele in that test.
And in that regard, in that context, including all the data that was produced in this case, what is the significance of Mr. Scheck's handwritten chart summing up frequencies?
In your opinion, does Mr. Scheck's chart in light of the concern that you--or the limitation or the reservation you have about 29, what does the chart mean when it sums up all the frequencies?
Do those frequencies reflect anything significant in your opinion with regard to the results that you obtained from steering wheel item no. 29?
Okay. Do those frequencies reflect anything in relation to your opinion and your reservation about the results on item 29 from the steering wheel?
What if anything do those frequencies reflect in light of your reservations about your test results from item 29?
You indicated that you had some concern about the numbers that were there, the assumptions that were behind it.
Well, what concerned me was that I again couldn't absolutely rule out the possibility of the 1.3 allele not being detected in that weak mixture. That's all.
Thank you, your Honor. May we see Defendant's exhibit 1166 on the elmo, your Honor?
Mr. Sims, you recognize that when you saw 1166, that's Dr. Blake's photo; is that right?
Let's start at the top and describe the items so that the jury can appreciate all the results that are contained on exhibit 1166. DNA 17, what LAPD item does that correspond with?
Mr. Sims, while we're getting to that, in spite of all the questions that Mr. Scheck asked you about Defense exhibit 1166, do you have any doubt about the results that you expressed on direct examination?
In fact, focusing on exhibit 1166 ignores all of the D1S80 results which were produced from analysis of these samples? Is that true?
Mr. Scheck's discussion of Defense exhibit 1166 does not take into account any of the D1S80 results on the items that were analyzed that are listed on 1166?
What if anything do the D1S80 results contribute to your understanding and your expression of the results that are reflected on 1166, simply the DQ-Alpha strips?
Well, again, we look to the consistency of the additional systems that were tested; and in this case, it would be D1S80.
Okay. While you're looking there--let's look at every alternate strip if we would, starting from the second from the top. DNA 17C, that's a substrate control?
Yes. DNA 17C, that's cut off a little bit by the post-it, but that's the substrate control, yes.
That means that no activity--no DNA was detected in the substrate control for that particular sample.
Okay. And let's move down to DNA 18 control. That is the Bronco center console 31 substrate control?
Yes. That control on DNA 18, which is 31 LAPD, again totally negative, no dots light up at all.
And DNA 29 which corresponds to LAPD 293, the Bronco carpet, driver's side that was consistent with Nicole Brown, is that substrate control--what result does that produce?
And jumping another strip down to the lane or the label DNA 30 control, is that the substrate control for LAPD item 305 on the center console?
No dots whatsoever. And we'll discuss substrate controls in a while. Do these substrate control strip results show that there was or that there was no typeable activity on all of those strips and all of those stains?
On DNA 18, that was--now, that was a mixture of types with the main type being a 1.1, 1.2 with the weaker type being a 1.3, 4. And what made this one more difficult was the assessment of whether or not the 1.2 allele was really there. I think we talked about this earlier, that there's not a distinct separate probe for the 1.2 allele. So you have a dot there, the 1.2, 1.3, 4 dot, that can be lit up by any of those three probes. And the key here that we--and admittedly, this one was one where we had to take a hard look at--was that that intensity is so great in that 1.2, 1.3, 4 dot that the 4 and the 1.3 alone would not produce a dot of that intensity. So we made the determination from that that we felt that the 1.2 allele was present which meant that the main type was 1.1, 1.2 and that the weaker components were 1.3, 4.
Okay. On DNA 29--excuse me. The--the call on DNA 29--and this is actually LAPD no. 293. The main--the call there was that that--the main type was a 1.1, 1.1 and there's--it's--it's hard to see on mine, but there was--there was a little bit of activity at the--at the 1.2, 1.3, 4 dot. So we interpreted that to be a 1.1, 1.1 with a possible trace of 1.2.
Okay. For DNA 30, this is LAPD no. 305. Now, in this particular case--this is where we talked about the tough call. If you contrast DNA 30 with DNA 18, you can now see that there is a 1.1 dot, there's a 1.3 dot, there's a 4 dot, but now the question is, is the 1.2 allele definitely present. And we argued--well, we discussed it. We decided that no, you could not definitely say that the 1.2 allele was present because that 4 dot and the 1.3 dots could possibly give an intensity similar to that. So that's why on our chart, we see over there possible 1.2.
Okay. Mr. Scheck asked you with regard to results on Defense exhibit 1166--or strike that. He asked with regard to one of the other sets of strips. Could another trained eye disagree with you? Do you recall that question?
Overruled. Yes or no? Have you discussed these results with any other experts other than Miss Montgomery.
And if some trained eye discussed it with you, could they also retest with the remaining evidence in this case?
Yes. If somebody disagreed with these results, then they could retest the evidence. They could request the extracted DNA. They could retest the product, the PCR product.
Mr. Scheck discussed in the context of this strip the possibility of PCR carryover. Do you recall that?
And do you see any signs of PCR product carryover in any of the substrate controls or any of the negative controls in this case?
He was present at the reading of these strips. We took our photo and then I believe he took his photo, but I'd have to check my notes on that.
(Witness complies.) I--I believe it was photoed at that same time. I--yes. I do believe it was.
Okay. And throughout this whole photography and reading process, have you consistently interpreted the strips the way you've described your conclusions to this jury?
What sorts of contact did you have with Dr. Blake with respect to the set of strips that were run that are reflected on Defense exhibit 1168?
Sure. What were the nature of your contacts with Dr. Blake? I'm not asking you to describe conversations. What kinds of contacts did you have with regard to the strips that are shown in Defense exhibit 1168?
Well, Dr. Blake photographed these results in our laboratory. Again, I'd want to check because there were a couple times when he came back and photographed our photos, like there was some glare problems or something like that. So I think--I think though on this particular one, he was probably present. But if I could have one second, I'll check on that.
When you actually read them, are you writing them down, the results, on some sort of piece of paper?
Well, the way it's done is, we have a run sheet where you fill out the results for each one of these dots and the--the primary analyst, the one who does the actual run, writes down his or her results. And then what happens is, the second reader comes along, looks at just the strips and tells the primary analyst what his or her interpretations are. So we have two separate readings of these--of these strips.
Now, Mr. Scheck spent quite a bit of time about whether or not the 1.3 was an artifact. Do you recall those series of questions?
Okay. And we'll talk about your rehybridization in a couple minutes. But do Cellmark's DQ-Alpha, poly-marker and RFLP results corroborate your opinion that the 1.3 allele that you detected or the 1.3 artifact that you detected in that strip is in fact an artifact?
And would it be sound scientific practice to focus on the first of two hybridization strips to debate about whether or not the 1.3, which is seen on the strip on 1168, is an artifact when that issue is resolved by another laboratory's DQ-Alpha, poly-marker and RFLP results?
What impact do--or could you explain the impact that Cellmark's DQ-Alpha, poly-marker and RFLP results have on the discussion you had with Mr. Scheck about the 1.3 artifact that might have been on the strip reflected by no. 52 on exhibit 1168?
Well, it doesn't--as far as the interpretation of that particular data, that's--I repeated that result because of the overall pattern that I saw on the strips. But the--it doesn't--the final interpretation is consistent with that being an artifact.
Assume hypothetically Cellmark's poly-marker results included Mr. Simpson. Would that corroborate the fact that the 1.3 was an artifact?
And also, we can't forget your D1S80 results. Were they corroborative of the fact that that stain was consistent with Mr. Simpson and did not appear to be a mixture?
Yes. When we looked at an additional system, we saw no evidence that there was a weak component in a mixture.
And has anything happened since you first interpreted the DQ-Alpha strip for your DNA item 55A, which is LAPD 52, which is on the projection screen as Defense exhibit 1168, that causes you to question that that is a 1.1, 1.2?
Okay. But before we move on to that, you mentioned a couple of times that this was a tough call for you. Do you recall that?
I think we talked about it in the context of that other--that other stain, which was really the tough call about whether or not the 1.1 and the 1.2 were together in that stain.
Okay. Well, let's--can we put--may I have it marked as People's next in order, a--
You--Mr. Sims, do you have the hybridization photo for the rehybridization of 52--oh, you know, before--I'm sorry. Before we move on, let's stay with 1168 if we can for a couple minutes. Start at the top, Mr. Sims, and tell us--there are a lot of things up there that have C's next to them. There's a 52C, a 47C, a 48C, a 50C. You see all those?
Yes. All of those with the c at the end are substrate controls. From the top, it would be for LAPD no. 52, LAPD no. 47, substrate control 48, substrate control 50, substrate control--those are all substrate controls for Bundy drops.
And what is the importance of those stains having produced no typing results just in the context of this series of tests that are reflected on 1168?
Well, again, you don't see any level of contamination such as PCR product control as you look across the series of strips like this.
Did you give me your photo that shows the rehybridization of 52? I believe that's back there. You want to check up there, Mr. Sims? We seemed to have lost it.
Okay. Mr. Sims, could you just start at the top of People's exhibit 274 and describe the samples that are represented by those horizontal strips?
Yes. This is--this is some rehybridizations of some of the samples that we wanted to take a second look at in this case. The first one is 42B1, which was stain B1 from the sock. The next one is 41B2, which is also from the sock. And then there's a positive control that was being rehybed, a negative control. And then the 55A on the--which is the one, two, three--the fifth strip down, that's no. 52, the rehybe.
The second one from the bottom. And then the last one is a rehybe of the positive control that was run at the same time that 52 originally was run.
And is your opinion still the same about LAPD 52, which is the stain out in the driveway in the rear of the Bundy residence, that drop of blood, as it was when you saw the strips the first time you hybridized them?
Well, yes. But now I have--I have checked it to make sure that that is the correct type, the 1.1, 1.2 is the correct type.
Okay. And in this rehybridization process, is that something that another trained eye could do if they had any of the DNA?
And you've already described, there's quite a bit of PCR product around on these samples?
Well, there's--on all these samples, I believe we still have PCR product left on all of them.
Would that be one way of confirming or refuting the results that you produced here in Court?
Okay. And we talked about the poly-marker and D1S80 results. How do they support your initial and now confirmed opinion that 52 is a 1.1, 1.2?
Do the Cellmark results and your D1S80 results confirm your finding that the 1.3 was an artifact in light of the fact that--
Do the Cellmark RFLP and DQ-Alpha results and your D1S80 results confirm your initial opinion which is confirmed on People's 274, that the 1.3 was an artifact in item 52?
Mr. Scheck asked you a lot of questions about your sound scientific practice. Do you recall those a couple days ago?
What about extraction techniques? That's one of the initial steps in the process. You use the organic extraction process?
Yes. In this case, we used the organic extraction process. For example, there's a chelex extraction process and that's--that's an acceptable practice.
Your Honor, I move to strike these questions as outside the scope of cross-examination in terms of these particular type things. It's not what I asked him about.
When you said--when you describe things as sound scientific practice, do you mean that any other way things are done is unsound?
Well, there's some things that you do in this business just because that shuts down anyone saying, "Well, why didn't you do that," or, "What did you think about that," or, "Is it possible that you had something on there?" And so there's certain steps that one can take to just eliminate any of those possibilities. And I've been involved in a case recent--not too long ago where it was inferred that the way I was cleaning my tools was insufficient. And so what I decided to do was to say, okay, let's remove that argument. Let's just burn these things.
Even if an analyst wasn't as meticulous as you, if he follows the PCR, DQ-Alpha user guide, including the use of positive, negative and substrate controls, in your opinion, would those results be sound scientific results?
Yes. I think if one follows the user guide, that those are--those would lead to sound results. Those are sound practices leading to good results.
Mr. Scheck asked you some questions about your QA manual, your quality assurance manual?
Do you believe that the examiner should only or should examine only one item of evidence at a time?
And do you believe that this practice of examining only one item of evidence at a time will guard against sample mix up and cross transfer?
Yes. It's a very important tool because that way, you only have one thing in front of you that you're dealing with at any given moment when you're talking about examining a basic bloodstain or swatches for example.
Do you believe that reasonable care will be taken to ensure that the risk of inadvertent transfer between high and low DNA concentration samples, evidence and reference samples and between victim and suspect is minimized if you take reasonable care?
And do you believe that this may include only processing the samples at a different time or space and/or processing only a few samples at a time?
Now, Mr. Scheck asked you several days ago about a seven-day period from start to finish with some of your evidence processing through typing. Do you recall that series of events and questions?
Okay. And now, in that context, I'd like to actually describe what you did versus what you normally do. Okay, Mr. Sims?
Did that seven days represent the fastest period of time within which those complete set of tests could have been performed?
By no means. In fact, it was September now. I remember it was a series of days in September. But I think what that would represent was about the slowest it could ever take to do that series of tests.
Well, we were being extremely methodical as far as sampling this evidence. We were--we were documenting each part of the process--
Excuse me, your Honor. Could he be specific as to which samples because I asked him about a few.
Could we focus on what--the series of questions this was about? Do you recall the dates?
That would be item no. 47, item no. 1, item no. 20, item no. 14, item no. 15, item no. 16, item no. 17, item no. 18, item no. 19, item no. 20, item no. 26. I think that's--well, no. There was some additional items. Now, item no. 293, item no. 305.
Mr. Sims, are you going back and forth between your DOJ numbers and the LAPD numbers on us?
Well, no. Actually I don't--yes, I'm sorry. I did do that. I mentioned 47, I mentioned 1, 20, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 55, 293, 305. I think that's it for those samples.
Well, what took so long that you don't normally do in the processing of these samples?
Well, I think--I think you begin by the fact that any time you have a guest in the laboratory, that automatically adds a certain amount of time to the process.
No. I mean, there's a certain level of hello, how are you and all that kind of thing that always goes on. But more to the point would be that the documentation would be twofold. In other words, I would take a photograph and then Dr. Blake would take a photograph and then I'd stop and make sure he had taken his photograph before I moved on to do my next step and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So that's--that's a long part of the process. And that--now, that would include just the actual sampling of these items. In other words, to get it out of that coin envelope, documented, photographed, et cetera, and then put into a test tube for later testing.
Yes. This was something that I had never done before in a case, where I actually weighed the swatches, individually weighing them. And, you know, as you can imagine, one has to be very careful because you're starting to now handle the evidence in an unusual way. And so you have to make sure that goes right. And that takes time.
Having never done this before and adding a new step in the sample processing, does that increase the likelihood or possibility of some sort of problem?
Well, it--any time you excessively handle things, it makes me nervous. But I--I just had to slow things down to make sure that we didn't lose one of these. For example, in other words, one didn't fly off the forceps or something like that and land on the floor. That would be the kind of concern that I would have.
How much additional time do you think this weighing, double documentation, double photographing contributed to the process?
Well, I mean, to the whole--it's hard for me to say exactly, but it would at least double, maybe triple the amount of time that I'd spend, something like that. I don't know exactly.
Yes. The chelex extraction can be done in a matter of a couple hours. The organic for one thing would take overnight, and then there's a lot more processing down at the--afterwards.
And do you usually do that before you--the final product or the typing is conducted?
If you do it afterwards, then you can start from sampling to typing in a shorter period of time?
Yes, because it's one step that you do later. So you could have a typeable--you could have a typing result and then just do that later.
And is that sound scientific practice to do it afterwards just as it is to do it before?
Okay. And you believe--I believe in the sequence, you also did a slot blot, did you?
Yes. I believe it was a slot blot was run on these samples, yes, and that was by Renee Montgomery.
Well, overall, that would probably add about a day's worth of work to this because there was the preparation of the slot blot. Then it's got to be hybed. Then you do the actual test. Then there was the documentation of it. For example, Dr. Blake would come over and review all of our results. So we would spend time putting--figuring out what the quantities were and then we'd review all that stuff. So that takes a lot of time.
So is there any way to compare how long you took in that seven-day process with someone else who's trying to exonerate or implicate someone else in short order?
Let's talk about the EAP marker specifically as it relates to the fingernail scrapings.
Okay? On direct examination, you briefly referred to scientific literature about the EAP system. Could you just briefly summarize general concerns about the EAP system?
Counsel, haven't we been through this with this witness on direct and with Mr. Matheson? I mean the jury has heard the concerns about EAP.
I understand that. But I'm saying I don't think the foundation is necessarily required at this point. The jury has already heard this discussed three times before.
You've reviewed Mr. Matheson's notes and you've reviewed his electrophoretogram marked as People's 273 for identification; have you not?
Could you from left to right read the number of evidence samples that are on that electrophoretogram?
Okay. And reviewing 84A and B, which purport to be from the fingernail scrapings of Nicole Brown taken at the--during the autopsy process, how would you report the EAP type for 84A and B?
Objection. Beyond the scope of cross-examination. I asked about degradation matters.
Well, I mean this is--this is somewhat difficult because obviously I'm not the one that read the original plate. But I think if you look at this particular set of results, you do see that some of these samples have their a bands starting to fade away. I can--I can see consistency in that. And I also note that in that critical area of the plate on the left side where 84A and B are, there is some distortion in the gel. And I don't--I don't think you can definitely say that that's a B result. That would be my conclusion.
Well, I recognize that there are the bands--I see some bands there that you could say, you know, may be attributable to a B. In other words, it's not an a, for example. There's no doubt in my mind that it's not an a result. But I don't think you can absolutely say that that's a B either.
Would you exclude Nicole Brown as the source of the blood under her nails now that you've explained to the jury what you think 84A and B look like, if you assume that she was an EAP type BA?
Well, it's--I'm not looking at this result just in that vacuum of the particular gel. I mean, I'm taking into account the information that we derived from the PCR results and I'm also taking into account my understanding that there was no indication of any tissue as found on the sample. So from that--those to me are powerful pieces of information because it indicates that this is not just some isolated sample, but this would be part of that entire mix that was looked at by the PCR testing, which included Nicole Brown. And so I would not use this to exclude her.
Okay. And I believe your description of what you see, you see some possible a bands there. Is that consistent with the scientific--the primary scientific literature that Mr. Scheck referred to on cross-examination?
Are your observations about seeing something in the a band area consistent with the main stream scientific literature on the subject?
Well, my concern was that that key area where the most stable a band is is not really--
Excuse me, Mr. Sims. The question was, is that consistent with what you have seen in the scientific literature on the subject? Yes or no?
Okay. You've described--you've told the jury that you would not describe that as a B. You've told the jury that you see something in the a band area. Knowing the degradation process of an EAP type BA, in seeing what you see in the a band area, is your observation consistent with a BA degrading to a B based on the main stream scientific literature on that point?
Well, my concern--I think that misstates what I said somewhat about seeing some a bands there. My concern is that critical area is not where the a band would be, one of the key a bands would be is not that clear from this particular result. So that--and that is consistent with the scientific literature, that one of those a bands is more stable than the other.
I'd like to talk about Dr. Blake and his presence in your lab a little bit more. Mr. Scheck elicited from you that you frequently change gloves between samples in this case. Do you remember that last week?
Did Mr. Blake's involvement in this case have some impact on your changing gloves between samples?
Could you explain at each point in the process why Mr. Blake's involvement caused you to change gloves in this case between samples?
Yes. When we were processing the samples, the--one of the activities I mentioned was weighing of the swatches. So that meant that for each one of these, I had to go one at a time around different areas of the laboratory. And I was particularly concerned about having handled doorknobs and touching different things as far as what that may potentially be on my gloves. So I would contrast that with the situation where you're just working with clean tools, then it's unlikely that you would get any contamination on your gloves, where you're just working in one area. And it was because of the request for the weighing of the swatching that that would--would necessitate or would make me want to be more concerned about how those--about the changing of gloves.
So would you actually--with each sample that was taken, would you then go take it and be weighed and photographed individually?
Yes. It would be taken to another room for photography and then taken to another room for weighing and then brought back into the main laboratory area where I was working.
Well, that was one of the key concerns in my case because I was handling a lot of different surfaces at that point.
Okay. Now, so it's not your practice then to routinely change gloves between every sample that you're processing in a case, in a normal case?
Okay. And is your practice consistent with the amplitype PCR, DQ-Alpha user guide?
In that regard, do you change gloves frequently to avoid sample-to-sample contamination?
And do you change them whenever they might have been contaminated with DNA and whenever exiting the work area?
Yes. Whenever for--whenever I would think that I may have contaminated my gloves, I would immediately take them off.
We've--we've been involved in several cases over the years. I--I can't recall one where he took photos of me, you know, as opposed to photos of the evidence.
Okay. Did your examination of the glove, no. 9, from Rockingham take a long time in this case?
Actually it was a weekend. It was a good part of a weekend was spent on that glove initially, and then there was additional examination in I believe in November of the glove.
And did you engage in the documentation practice that you've described where you took photos and weighed things and have Dr. Blake take his own photos?
Well, in that case now, we didn't weigh anything from the glove. But there was the kind of documentation that you mentioned.
Who actually--how did that come about, that you weighed samples for the first time in this case?
Your Honor, I have no idea what he's going to say next, but we would stipulate we asked to weigh the samples.
Okay. Let's talk about the glove exam just for a moment while we're talking about the glove. Why did you look in the notch area?
Well, the way this came about was, I started thinking about how someone with a bloody finger might want to take a glove off and use that notch to do it.
Well, I hadn't--I didn't have any results at that point. I had just taken samples from other areas.
Well, there were a lot of stains on that glove to look at, but I--I--again, that's why I looked in that particular area, was because I thought there may be some significance to one taking a glove off and using the notch to do that.
Could we get the glove photo board and the glove result board up there? Put the result board up--272-A and B. Put the result board up first, please.
I think you've described your attention being drawn to the notch. What drew your attention or what stains are we talking about that drew your attention to the notch area of the glove from Rockingham no. 9?
Well, on this--this again would be from my notes on page 71. I noted an area on the inner surface with the notch that showed what I said was macro interest. And that means that I saw there was some of that blood, small amount of blood staining down in that G10 area. And I also noted what I thought was--and then I looked at it under the stereomicroscope, and I thought it looked like a possible piece of tissue in that area.
Well, because tissue is normally something that's produced by, for example, a fairly deep--a wound as opposed to just blood by itself.
Well, again, from my--I guess this is my training and just common sense and all that goes into it, but I started thinking about where blood--
You also have to trust the common sense of the jurors about how one takes gloves off and how one puts them on.
Okay. Mr. Sims, just to kind of summarize here where we are with the glove, could you show the jury where the stains are located that are consistent with Mr. Sims as one of the contributors? Would you--I mean Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson. Well, we don't know his type, you know.
We may have to move that over here so all the jurors can see what you are talking about because it's pretty subtle what's there. And if you could, Mr. Fairtlough, could you move that up so 1492 and 165 aren't blocked by the podium? All right. Mr. Harmon.
Mr. Sims, could you just point out the three different areas that you found a mixture consistent with Mr. Simpson on the glove?
Okay. Again, I just want to review, make sure I've got those numbers correct. Yes. It's 10 up here. This is the one I was talking about. It's near the notch. It's actually down a little bit closer than the red shows, but there's a stain down in this area (Indicating). This was--9 was where I thought I saw the possible tissue and then 11 is on the outside of the glove to the side of the notch there down towards the wrist area and then 13 was along the actual stitching of that notch.
Okay. Now, while you're there--and I've got some photos if you need to have your recollection refreshed. But of those three stains that had 25 allele which could have been contributed by Mr. Simpson, but not Mr. Goldman, not Miss Brown, were any of those close to cut-out areas that were on that glove when you first saw it?
I did--the only--the only one that at all comes to mind to me would be this cut-out here (Indicating) is somewhat close to g--
Yes. The mark--the cut-out here near G14. In other words, G14 is down in this area (Indicating). There's a cut-out above it that somewhat opposes it now. When it's right side out, it would somewhat impose this area on G10.
And the other two stains that had the 25 allele were not close to any areas that appeared to have been cut out?
Okay. Could you just tell the jury, when I say areas that were cut out, tell us what the glove looked like when you got it?
Well, when I got it, it was--it appeared to me that cut-outs had been made from the different areas, some of the different areas along the glove. In other words, I didn't know exactly who cut them out, but it appeared that there were some sort of squarish cut-outs made in different areas of the glove.
No, no. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a 15-minute recess. Please remember my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations or allow anybody to communicate with you. And we'll be in recess for 15.
When hypotheticals are created, certainly you get to a point where you can say anything is possible, and anything is possible.
That's why I think it's important to look at all the data. All the different markers and all the results.
By no means. In fact...I think what that would represent was about the slowest it could ever take to do that series of tests.
I've been involved in a case not too long ago where it was inferred that the way I was cleaning my tools was insufficient. And so what I decided to do was to say, okay, let's remove that argument. Let's just burn these things.
I don't think you can definitely say that that's a B result. That would be my conclusion.