Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Harmon. Mr. Harmon, you may continue.
Do you have the electrophoretogram in front of you, Mr. Sims, that has got 84A a and B and 117 on it?
Yes, I have a photograph of the EAP results and also I have some photos of the PGM results.
Well, I--about the actual type, I think that is an inconclusive result, although I--yes, I think that is an inconclusive result. It looks similar to--
I see what we would call the B and c bands. There is a possibility of some activity in the closer a band, but it is smeared in that area.
Okay. If the stain in item 117 is actually from the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and his EAP type is a BA, how do you compare the fact that he is a BA with what you see in the electrophoretogram?
Well, because again I don't think the pattern is that clear that you could rule out a BA on that particular result.
Would it be fair to say that that stain has been there for some time simply based on the appearance of the bands?
Are you familiar with the scientific literature on the degradation of the EAP marker?
What can you say about the length of time the results that you see for 170, the electrophoretogram, that stain was in the position that it was removed from?
Well, with that EAP result by itself it would be difficult to give much of an estimate on that result alone.
Okay. We will talk about PGM in a little bit. Let's talk about substrate control processing. You have shown us some of the results which show no typing results on the DQ-Alpha strips that we saw earlier this afternoon?
What I would like to do is address the processing of substrate controls in three areas: Sample mixing in the field, cells from investigators or lab personnel contamination, or in-lab contamination via amplified PCR product, commonly known as PCR product carry-over, okay?
Because it shows itself, for example, where it comes through in your control sample or you may see a lot of additional bands--not bands, but dots in the sample that shouldn't have additional dots.
And if so, do you believe that appropriate controls should be used that would indicate those situations?
And do you believe that negative controls, including extraction reagent blanks and unstained substrate controls, when possible, should be run for each batch of DNA isolations?
Do you also believe that the absence of a PCR product in these control reactions attest to the validity of the typing results derived from the evidence samples?
Have you relied on an article by Cecelia Beroldingen and Dr. Blake that we alluded to on direct examination?
And do you recognize the statements I read to you as coming from that chapter that you relied on by Dr. Blake and Cecelia von Beroldingen?
Now, Mr. Scheck asked you numerous questions about handling substrate controls. Do you recall that in the beginning of your direct examination?
And do you recall him using the word "Handling in parallel" with the emphasis on the "Parallel"?
Now, is there a difference between systematic handling of substrate controls in parallel in the evidence processing phase and processing those substrate controls in the same manner during the DNA typing proposes?
No. I think we are talking about the same basic process of alternating between stain and substrate control, stain and substrate control.
Now, is--do you have any scientific problem with not processing substrate controls in some instances along with the stains which they were collected alongside?
Would you explain to the jury why in your opinion it is not appropriate not to have gotten substrate controls after you had typed some of the evidence stains?
Well, again, it is just a matter of you can--depending on what you are going to use the substrate controls to infer, as long as they are typed at some point, that tells you that through that process of collection and how they were initially handled in the laboratory that there is no--there is no problem with those processes. In other words, you didn't induce some contamination.
Are you missing anything by not processing for typing those substrate controls at the same time you typed the evidence stains?
Okay. But let's revert back to the evidence processing in the very beginning when, for example, stains are processed for drying. Is it critical that substrate controls be processed in parallel or systematically alternation by an evidence stain and a substrate control?
Well, again, if you are going to use it as a control to that process, I would say yes to that. In other words, you do one and then another.
Because again, if anything is likely to show a type contamination, it is a sample that would be blank in the first place, so that all you have is contamination, so the substrate control is the key, because you are alternating those between the stains. And so if there was something from this stain contaminating it, it should then contaminate the substrate control.
Okay. And if one also were to simply process one stain at a time, in addition to alternating between the evidence stain and the substrate control, would that provide an additional safeguard?
Okay. Now, let's--that is the first category, sample mix-up, either in collection or processing within the lab. Let's move to contamination by investigators or lab personnel. What is the role that a substrate control plays in that process?
The substrate control can play the role of showing that it was in an area that was nearby, for example, when we talked about all the sneezing and coughing, that that is an area that was nearby the stain, and so there is no evidence then if--assuming it comes up negative, there is no evidence then that that kind of contamination occurred on that particular sample.
Now, is there any scientific basis for the notion that a sneezing investigator, his sneezes will only go on evidence stains and not on substrate controls?
Has anybody ever done any research on any aversion biological material might have to these blank substrate controls?
Well, we have studied swatches that are blank. I mean, after all, it is a blank swatch that is used--that starts out blank that is used to soak up a stain, so they certainly have an affinity for biological material, these swatches do.
Okay. And the third area that you discussed on direct examination, in-lab contamination PCR product carry-over. Are there two areas of controls or two different sets of controls in this context to safeguard against contamination?
Well, again there are the controls that the substrate controls offer, and then there are also the controls that--such as the extraction reagent blank, the negative amplification control. Those are all important controls.
And if those controls all test negative, what does that tell you about in-lab contamination?
Well, it gives you confidence in your results because you don't--you would then see no evidence that you have in-lab contamination.
Yes, they are. We are constantly monitoring for that situation. We are not just taking steps to avoid it, but we are using these controls as a way of monitoring it to see whether or not it may actually occur.
So in this context, if the evidence stain was--would be contaminated, there is no--you would expect the substrate control to be contaminated?
If you have a general contamination problem, then you would expect all those to be affected.
Okay. Is there any scientific reason you can think of why PCR product carry-over would avoid substrate controls or negative controls?
Is there any scientific reason I can think of? No. Again, you look at the totality of the results and--no, I think the answer to that question is just no, there is--no.
And you admitted that about a hundred units might be enough to produce a detectable or typeable contaminant?
Now, do these amplicons, do they go out like in military units of a hundred-unit sizes when they go out?
Is there any molecular affinity that these things have, any bonding affinity that these things have?
The only time you have any affinity would be when they are all in a droplet, for example, but once they are dispersed, they are dispersed.
It would be a very--you could have a very small drop, but you could see that type of spot, yes. It is extremely small.
And if one of these 100 amplicons went out in the environment somewhere, that is the minimal--minimum detectable amount that you would have to have to produce a typeable result?
Well, they would all have to end up in the same test-tube is what I think the point was.
Mr. Sims, I want to ask you a series of questions about your laboratory practices and about the presence of substrate controls and negative controls play a role. Okay?
I'm fearful that this is asked and answered, your Honor. I think we have been over this four times now.
Let's assume all the substrate controls and negative controls produced no typing results, okay?
Is the subject of sample to sample cross-contamination adequately addressed even if the forensic scientist does not change gloves between samples?
Well, because again the controls serve as a way of checking out your system, and you look at the totality of the results and all those controls came out negative, then the inference would have to be that the stains were properly typed.
Okay. The same assumption. Is the subject of sample to sample cross-contamination adequately addressed if those controls produce no typing results, even if the forensic scientist does not change gloves between different stains from different sources of people?
Okay. Same conditions. Is the subject of sample to sample cross-contamination adequately addressed even if the forensic scientist does not handle a reference sample in a different room than he handled the evidence stains?
Again, provided you have all those controls, I would say yes, it does adequately address that.
The same assumptions. Is the subject of sample to sample cross-contamination adequately addressed even if the forensic scientist does not handle evidence from separate crime scenes in--in a different room?
And the same conditions. Is the subject of sample to sample cross-contamination adequately addressed even if the forensic scientist does not avoid handling multiple samples during this same period of time?
Same assumption. Is the subject of sample to sample cross-contamination adequately addressed even if the forensic scientist does not completely prevent aerosol of any type?
Yes. Again, provided that you have got all those substrate controls working in a negative fashion, I would agree with that.
Tell us about aerosols and the substrate control and negative controls. Why would that be a safeguard?
Well, because an aerosol is a generally dispersed phenomenon and so you would expect--if there is contamination, you would expect it to land on the various items all--that were anywhere in a certain proximity.
If the controls all test negative, if the--is the subject of sample to sample cross-contamination adequately addressed even if the forensic scientist does not change paper between samples?
Is the subject addressed even if the forensic scientist does not flame his tweezers or tools?
Is the subject addressed even if the forensic scientist doesn't straddle ink his lab notes?
Now, you end up going back into the laboratory where DNA is prepared at some point, right?
Do the substrate controls, negative controls, provide an adequate safeguard against you bringing DNA back in the lab that has been amplified, a PCR product?
And does the--assume all the controls are negative. Is the subject of sample to sample cross-contamination adequately addressed even if the forensic scientist does not have a laminar flow hood?
Mr. Sims, what combination of events would have had to have occurred in order to allow cross-contamination between, let's say, Rockingham stain no. 12 and all of the Bundy walkway stains which would have allowed you to type the Bundy stains to give Rockingham types, types that were originally at Rockingham?
In other words, this would be to get the same typing result on the Bundy stains, no results on the substrate controls and those Bundy stain results would be the same types as found on the Rockingham stains. Is that the hypothetical?
Okay. Well, there would have to be a lot of things going on. The Bundy result would have to have totally degraded. The Bundy stains, I'm sorry, would have to have totally degraded and then somehow this contamination would have to sort of play a game of hopscotch and miss the substrate control and just hit on the stains.
Well, in other words, if all the DNA had gone from the Rockingham? I mean, it is not really conceivable to me that that would happen.
Okay. How likely are these things to have happened to all of the Bundy stains that you processed?
I think this is without foundation. Goes beyond anything suggested on cross-examination.
Based on your review of the scientific literature, your examination of these stains, both the Rockingham and Bundy stains, your familiarity with the conventional serology results in this case, do you have an opinion about how likely only the Bundy walkway stains would be to be--were totally degraded, so degraded to produce no typing, that there was a transfer from the Rockingham stains--
I'm going to sustain the objection because I think it calls for speculation. The jury knows what the conditions are and the likelihood is for them to determine.
Mr. Sims, I want to ask you a series--a couple of hypotheticals and I will explain the question first and then I will provide the hypothetical information for you. Okay?
The question which I will ask you after I provide the hypothetical information is even if all of the above happened, is it conceivable that cross-contamination occurred between the Defendant's reference sample and the--and the Bundy stains during the dry--the stain drying process? Okay. That is what the question will be.
Well, let me give you the hypothetical and maybe it will be easier to do the question then. Let's assume that all the Bundy walkway stains that you saw, 47 through 52, absent or less 51, were seen at midnight by police officers, that the Rockingham stains were seen by police officers at 6:00 in the morning, that all of these stains were collected with their attached--or with their substrate controls on June 13th before the Defendant's reference sample was obtained. Furthermore, that all of these evidence stains from Bundy consist of multiple swatches ranging from four to seven individual swatches, that all of these stains were stored in plastic bags along with a plastic bag containing the substrate control, in individual coin envelopes, one coin envelope per stain. They were put in a truck in the month of June in Los Angeles where they stayed for several hours. They were ultimately taken back to the Los Angeles Police Department where they were processed for drying. The stains were processed one stain at a time, one coin envelope at a time, systematically alternating between the evidence stains and the substrate controls.
Your Honor, I'm going to have a problem with this hypothetical as being incomplete given--since I already know--
Counsel, he hasn't even gotten close to finishing yet, so that objection is premature.
You were at the systematic alternate processing of the evidence stains and substrate control.
During the drying process that the Defendant's reference sample was brought or during--before the drying process the Defendant's reference sample was brought into the room and kept in a plastic garbage bag where it remained overnight. The next morning the stains were dry, they were individually, one coin envelope at a time, put into bindles, a separate bindle for the evidence swatches, multiple swatches, a separate bindle for the substrate control, put back into the original coin envelopes, always only working on one coin envelope at a time. And furthermore, I will add the next proviso that ultimately all of the substrate controls tested negative.
Okay. Is it possible that the Defendant's reference sample could have cross-contaminated any of the evidence, based on all of the those facts?
Legal basis, it is without foundation and it doesn't address--it only goes up to a certain point in time. Many facts are left off.
Excuse me. Just a second. This is not an audience participation function. The next time I hear a reaction from the audience, I am clearing the audience.
No, no, I'm not. I want to be clear that my objection is not just incomplete to the steps up to this point, but incomplete with respect to subsequent steps.
As I understand the hypothetical, and one of the keys now is that the blood sample is in that--the reference sample is in a plastic bag, I don't see how that is possible.
KEY QUOTEAnd what--what effect, even though that alone I think you believe covers it, what effect of the substrate control not producing typeable results have on clearing up any question you might have?
Well, again, they address the cleanliness of the whole process, if you will. In other words, they are showing that where there is no DNA, no blood collected, that we don't get a typing result, so I think that is important.
Okay. Mr. Sims, I want to take that hypothetical and I'm going to start at the beginning again and then take it a little bit further. Okay?
Do you have everything fresh in mind? We got you right up to the reference sample in the plastic bag. The next morning all those swatches are put in coin envelopes.
Okay. So now they are in coin envelopes and then the plastic bag still contains the reference sample?
Right. And is there--these are two separate crime scene stains. Let me add a few other elements to it. From among the stains are two items from Bundy.
Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point that it is woefully incomplete in terms of--
Two of the Bundy stains which were processed that are not along the walkway produce results which are not consistent with Mr. Simpson, but are consistent with Nicole Brown.
None of the substrate controls processed, either during the Rockingham processing or the Bundy processing, gave typing results. Okay?
And furthermore, that the Bundy multiple swatch stains, number--numbers 47, 48, 50 and 52, were divided at some point after the processing, sent to separate labs, and concurring typing results were produced.
Okay. Based on all of those factors, is it your opinion or what is your opinion about the possibility of cross-contamination occurring between the Rockingham samples and the Bundy sample?
Your Honor, objection, incomplete, and I don't know--it is based on testimony--I have to make my objection at the side bar without--assumes facts not in evidence and is misleading, extremely misleading and incomplete.
Okay. Before--before you address the bottom line question there, what is the role of the stains from the Bundy walkway, the fact that they have--they consist of multiple swatches, some of them up to seven individual swatches that were collected, in providing an answer about cross-contamination between the Bundy stains and the Rockingham evidence stains?
Objection, outside the scope of his own hypothetical, confusing, and inconsistent with the facts.
Yes, I do--I think I do, your Honor. Well, to me the multiplicity of the more than one swatch being around, that would mean that anything that would be contaminating, it would seem unlikely that it would contaminate--in other words, it is unlikely that you would see one contamination over here, but then you would get a different result from a swatch that was tested in a different laboratory. In other words, it seems--the consistency of the results between laboratories on these multiple swatches suggests to me that the results are valid.
Okay. Then let's get back to the role that those multiple swatches play, as well as all of the other factors that I have provided you in assessing the possibility that there was cross-contamination between any of the Bundy stains and the Rockingham stains.
Based on the hypothetical information that I have provided to you, do you have, and if so what is your opinion about the--the possibility of cross-contamination between the Rockingham stains and the Bundy stains?
Yes. I would--my opinion would be that there is certainly no indication that such contamination occurred.
KEY QUOTESustained. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the evening at this time. And we are also going to take a brief break in the testimony of Mr. Sims. As you recollect, Mr. Sims is from out of town, has some personal matters that he needs to attend to and he will be back on the witness stand available I think Thursday or Friday; is that correct?
Thursday. All right. Mr. Sims, I'm going to release you at this time, order you not to discuss your testimony with anybody other than the attorneys in the case. You are ordered to return here 8:45 on Thursday.
All right. Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will stand in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. All right. We will be in recess.
The Bundy stains, I'm sorry, would have to have totally degraded and then somehow this contamination would have to sort of play a game of hopscotch and miss the substrate control and just hit on the stains.
As I understand the hypothetical, and one of the keys now is that the blood sample is in that--the reference sample is in a plastic bag, I don't see how that is possible.
The consistency of the results between laboratories on these multiple swatches suggests to me that the results are valid.
My opinion would be that there is certainly no indication that such contamination occurred.
This is not an audience participation function. The next time I hear a reaction from the audience, I am clearing the audience.