Well, 117 was gone into extensively on cross and this is part of the large picture on 117. As everybody knows now, EAP is in the red cells.
It is one of the EDTA stains. We all know the significance of that. That is one of the stains that wasn't collected until July 3rd. We all know that EAP is in the red cells, DNA is in the white cells, and the Defense contentions about 117 are that it is planted and that that is--remember this great chart that shows--
--how much more DNA is in there? Well, that is just the white blood cells. The red blood cells in conventional serology and the EAP is right on that electrophoretogram. Well, Mr. Simpson is EAP type BA and that is not what 117 typed to. It typed to, as I recall, a B inconclusive or a B question mark. And what Mr. Sims, if I am allowed to do--and this is part of the large picture in discussing and demonstrating irrefutably that 117 wasn't planted, the fact that Mr. Simpson's EAP type is changed, just like Miss Brown's did, from a BA to a B, the fact that the conventional serology results by Mr. Matheson show no PGM activity from 117. And Mr. Sims is going to discuss PGM literature. PGM is a much more persistent marker than EAP is. These all demonstrate totally conclusively that that stain, 117, was out there for a long period of time. That we will be discussing scientific literature about PGM to show how it persists in spite of a large number of environmental insults. And the EAP electrophoretogram is right on there and if you recall back, this was back some weeks ago, the Defense made a big deal on one of these exhibits. They wanted us to cut off 117. This is weeks and weeks ago. I can't even remember which exhibit that was. Because they just don't want the jury to see that Mr. Simpson's EAP type went from a BA to a B inconclusive, just like Nicole Brown Simpson's did on the fingernail clippings. So this is a small piece of the big picture that shows that 117 was out there for some period of time. It is consistent with having been out there since June 13th.
Your Honor, I need to supplement that a little bit, too. That same electrophoretogram has 115 and 116 on there. 115, 116 and 117 all produced the same conventional serology results. This BA looks like a B, looks like a degraded BA. It is a B inconclusive, very much like what Mr. Sims has described 84A and B are, no PGM activity. And let's not forget what we know about 115. And I will bring that up again at the close of the business today, too, your Honor. We have got a photograph taken on June 13th--
We are only talking about whether or not I'm going to allow you on redirect to go back into 117. And it had been my recollection, erroneously, that that had not been covered in one--117 had not been covered in the cross-examination.
It was only covered with respect to the DNA concentration and what--first of all, the--
The inference is with respect to the amount of DNA in that stain and that is it. What Mr. Harmon is trying to do--
Wait. The inference that you are going to argue from that is that it is different than the DNA on 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52?
It has to do with the relative age of the drops, there is no question about that, but he has made two different arguments here. And the first is--and let's sort them through, because it is outside the scope of the cross in this regard. The first is, that there is--the 117 is typed inconclusive. It has nothing to do with B, it is just period inconclusive by Matheson. So it seems to me, umm, that it is improper and outside the scope certainly cross-examination to be raising 117 in the context of the fingernail description at this point in time when that wasn't gone into and again it is an inconclusive. Mr. Harmon is talking about PGM now with respect to this stain and how that might relate to the age of the stains, and I think that that again is outside the scope of the cross-examination. But certainly, using 117 to go back into the issue of the appearance of--of a B when it wasn't called a B, it was an inconclusive, and to go back into the fingernail scrapings has nothing to do with the cross-examination on that. As to what he is saying he wants to do with this electrophoretogram on the conventional serology markers, I don't know. It sounds like it is outside the scope there, too. Umm--umm, and if, umm--I mean, that is about all I have to say about that, but plainly, it is beyond the scope with respect to what he is doing right now and that is discussion of the fingernail scrapings.
That's right. Red blood cells, white blood cells, they are within the same cell and they want to--I mean, you talk about something being beyond the scope. We are talking about the same cell and they want to preclude me from talking about implications of red cell testing by saying we only talked about white blood cell testing, and I think that is clearly a silly proposition, your Honor, to confine me. We are talking about 117. We are talking about how long 117 was there. We are talking about whether it was planted. We are talking about the ambient environment that it was in, as opposed to all the things along the walkway in the house. That is what we are going to be talking about with this witness, your Honor, and that is all within the scope of that beautiful chart that they put up there. It is within the scope of that chart.
The other answer to this, is that if they want to make some inferences about--they just had this witness testify that he disagrees with the call that Mr. Matheson made on the EAP B under the fingernails, that he wouldn't have called it a B. Now, what they are tying to do is have him testify about these test results in another context with respect to the gate when he is not the person that performed these tests, has express reservations about the results of these tests. He is the wrong witness. If they want to call a witness to testify about this particular testing and lay a foundation for it in relation to the gate and how conventional markers can or cannot tell you anything about the age of the blood on the gate, then they can call a witness to testify to it, but it is outside the scope of the cross-examination and it is without foundation as to this witness as to these tests which he has disavowed. He wants them to start testifying about results which this witness has disavowed. He disagreed with the call on the fingernail scrapings and now he wants him to testify about the significance of the back gate which was called inconclusive, which ordinarily--in fact this witness has said that inconclusives he won't testify report the results.
Mr. Scheck, hold on. Mr. Harmon, your offer of proof is that you are going to ask Mr. Sims to testify to the durability of PGM markers in blood left at crime scenes?
Right. I mean, we are only at the point now we are talking about EAP, and so we haven't gotten beyond that with 117. You can look at this thing and it looks just like 84A and B and that is what Mr. Sims is going to say. The EAP result looks just like 84A and B. Now, if this is planted, unless somebody took Mr. Simpson's red blood cells from this stain, it gets much more complicated if that is--
My objection is to if he is restricting it that way, that is one thing, although I still think it is outside the scope, but I don't want him doing this with respect to the fingernail scrapings in this context because I didn't go into it in that context on cross-examination and it is going to open up a whole can of worms that--
All right. I understand this argument to be in the context of 117, the stain at the gate.
All right. The issue was raised regarding the age of the stain on the gate, I will allow limited access by the Prosecution on redirect to that issue. All right. I'm not willing to try the rest of the case on this.
KEY QUOTEAnd I anticipate the foundation will be laid, but you did bring up the issue of the EAP.
I have no quarrel with putting in such testimony through the competent witness with a proper foundation, but that is not--
KEY QUOTEWe are talking about 117. We are talking about how long 117 was there. We are talking about whether it was planted... And I think that is clearly a silly proposition, your Honor, to confine me.
He wants them to start testifying about results which this witness has disavowed. He disagreed with the call on the fingernail scrapings and now he wants him to testify about the significance of the back gate which was called inconclusive.
The issue was raised regarding the age of the stain on the gate, I will allow limited access by the Prosecution on redirect to that issue. I'm not willing to try the rest of the case on this.
I have no quarrel with putting in such testimony through the competent witness with a proper foundation, but that is not—