Miss Montgomery, let me show you two pages of discovery, page 803, and ask if you recognize these as work sheets on a proficiency test that you did.
And those are--that's just one proficiency test, is it not, that's--that was rehybridized twice or a second time?
But you're doing a different hybridization? Those represent two different hybridizations?
Miss Montgomery, the two pages I showed you, one was numbered page 6 of 9 and the other was page 8 of 9. Do you recall that?
Well, actually, that's not my writing at the top of the page. My writing's at the bottom and I can not tell the whole--it hasn't been Xeroxed completely.
Well, this is a proficiency. This isn't something that I brought to court with me today.
But it appears that one says 14 of 22 and the other says 19 of and there's a 2. So--if I could see the original documents or a better copy, that would be even better. But just by looking at it, it appears that the 14 of 22, the other one's trying to say 19 of 22 maybe.
Let me show you the rest of the document that those pages came from and see if that helps you.
Yeah. It--it appears that this is--this second page is probably part of the same document. It has the same proficiency number and also has a date two days later. So this is the first one that has a date of the 18th of October and the second one would be the 20th of October.
All right. For the record, she's referring to 1172-A as the first one and 1172-B as the second one.
Let's look at 1172-A. Let me give you the rest of this packet in case you need to refer to it.
I don't believe we do. Now, this is the work sheet--what we have up on the elmo is the work sheet that describes what results you saw after you performed the test, correct?
The clarity is not very good on this. So maybe if I came down there, it would be easier for me to see.
432-51, that line refers to one of the samples that was provided in the proficiency test, correct?
Okay. And that's one of the samples you were supposed to type and get a result, correct?
That's a quality control. What would be more helpful is if I had the whole file on this. It's difficult just to take this all out of context to actually see what the notes are prior to the samples being written on here because a lot of times, what you want to do--when you talk about sample, you can't write everything that pertains to that particular sample. So you write a certain section in that sample, and then in your actual--the body of your notes, you write a little more description.
What you write in the little boxes there is what you see on the dots. Or I'm sorry--
No. That must be the correct result because this goes through approval. We have this approval process where, first of all, a second reader reads the strips and then the results are given to a supervisor to review the whole case, and the QCs are unknown to us and the supervisor reviews the results of your QC. And if you--and they check to make sure those QCs are giving the proper results. If the QC doesn't give the proper results, then something needs to be done.
A hint is just an indication of some--I believe Gary Sims talked to you yesterday or the day--or a couple days ago about this. When you look at the DQ-Alpha strips where there are a series of the dots and next to the 1.3 in this case, if I document--if I wrote that that's a hint, then there was some outline or a hint of some activity seen at that dot. But it was significantly less than the C dot. So it was--it had to be documented, but it wasn't significant to the analysis. When--in our laboratories, things need to be C or greater before they're actually called.
If this were a mixture, however, you interpret mixtures where you have dots less than the C dots as being alleles, don't you?
If you see a C dot, then that would--you do report that out. As far as a C minus or a trace or a hint, you note it, but as far as any interpretation, one needs to be cautious about interpretation on that.
You're not supposed to see anything at the 1.3 dot with a quality control sample that's a 1.1, 3, are you?
Are you supposed to see anything in the 1.3 dot with the quality control sample that it's a 1.1 and a 3?
Well, if you--you shouldn't see a substantial amount of activity at that 1.3 if that's truly--if that is a 1.1, 3. It's one of the limitations of the system; at the 1.3, you could get cross-hybridization. And this is where sequence that's complimentary or to the 1.3 will actually cause some hybriding--or cause some of the 1.3 dot to show up. But this is just an artifact of the system and at such a low level, one wouldn't even interpret that result.
It's not a dot that would be interpretable. As I stated, that's--that's a hint. It's not a C dot. The intensity is substantially less than that C, the C dot.
We have a--in our laboratory, we have a scale of progression on how to call these dots. An outline hint means there's a--you can see something on the strip, but it's just a small amount. A trace is a little more and then there's a C minus and then a C and then a C plus.
A trace is a little more than a hint, but once again, it's not significant for the analysis. It just happens to be an artifact or a limitation of the sys--or not a limitation. An artifact of the system. A trace would not be interpreted in the results.
What's the difference between a system that gives you artifacts and a system that has limitations that gives you an artifact?
Well, it's caused by a little of both. And what happens--you know, these are not significant dots. They're hints and traces. They aren't--they would not be counted in your interpretation. But what happens is, if a--with slight variations in the typing, some trace amounts of 1.3 activity can be seen on the strips. And it's--I guess one could say it's a limitation as Mr. Blasier says, but also it's an artifact of the system. And if it was something--these dots are so faint and so weak that, you know, as I have said, it just wouldn't be counted in your interpretation.
It could also be a minor component of a mixture that has a 1.3 and a small quantity in it, couldn't it?
And is there some sort of uniform scale within the forensic community by which you determine the difference between a hint and a trace?
Does it have anything to do with the results that you expect to get out of a test as to whether you're going to call it a hint or a trace or a C minus?
Now, the positive control, the lane second from the bottom, that was supposed to be a 1.1, 4, correct? That's what the type was that was put in that lane, correct?
Yes, it is. As I said, on our scale of progression, a trace is slightly greater than a hint.
Now, are you supposed to get these kinds of traces and hints when you perform tests? Are they expected?
This is something that you--it's not unexpected. I think "Unexpected" is a bad word to use with it. It's something--as I said, it's just an artifact of the system, and by doing reanalysis, you could probably get rid of those hints and traces.
This is 1172-B. Now, you did this one again, the one we just looked at, and the sheet that's on the elmo is the results of the second run or second hybridization on the same samples; is that correct?
Well, what--ordinarily, what would be your reason for running a proficiency test a second time?
There could be various reasons. I think I'd need to see the actual--my actual notes to be able to explain why I reran this a second time.
If the results that you got on the first one were totally as expected, would you have any reason to run it a second time?
Well, that's possible. You know, I would--I would need to see the actual--to speculate on this or it's best not to speculate. It's best to actually see my notes in this particular instance.
Okay. Now, these are your notes with respect to how you read the strips, correct?
Now, let's look at 432S1, the top lane. That's the first one. Now, would you agree that you found that there was a hint at 1.3 and a hint at 1.1 that was unexpected?
Once again, by saying "Unexpected," I think you're--you're putting more emphasis on it than you should. There was--I did notice hints in both of those samples. And once again, the hint is not significant to the results of that analysis.
So these are hints that show up now in the same sample that didn't show up the first time you did it, correct?
Now, in 433S2, we've got a trace at 1.1 and a trace at 1.3 that don't conform to the genotype of the sample which is 1.2, 3, correct?
434S3, we now have a trace at 1.1 that is not consistent with the type of that sample which is a 4, 4, correct?
Now, quality control sample 839, we have two hints that are inconsistent with the genotype of that quality control, correct?
Well, no. They're not inconsistent with the genotype of that quality control. I have to keep emphasizing that a hint is not significant. A hint is just noting that something--you're seeing a little darkening in the dot and it's not significant to your interpretation. The results of that QC are 1.1, 3 and those were the correct results.
Isn't one of the tests of whether a system like this is a reliable system, whether or not if you do the same samples two times, you're supposed to get the same results, aren't you?
So is it fair to say that this one particular proficiency test that we've looked at is an example of one which has been scored in some fashion that you got the right answers?
Grades them. The individuals review them. First of all, my--the--a supervisor in the laboratory would review the results, and then secondly, a--the outside agency that submitted the samples to us would review our results and then determine--send out a result whether we obtained the correct results or not.
And do you use that--performing any kind of PCR amplification, the various steps that you perform in that test, do you do them within a laminar flow hood?
Would you ever use a hood that is called a flume hood I believe that sucks air from the outside of the lab into the area of the hood and then out?
Laminar flow hood, is that something that's pretty standard in terms of your education as a criminalist that you're taught what that is and how to use it?
Well, it's--it's just a hood that has air flow and a window of air that separates the inside environment from the outside environment, and there's really not much training on it. You just turn the switch on to activate the hood.
I don't recall being taught. It's just something that I'm aware of, something that I'm familiar with.
The kits that you use to perform DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests require that you do them in a laminar flow hood, don't they?
The kits that you use that are provided by Roche that produces the kits state that various steps should be done in a laminar flow hood?
I'm not quite sure. I don't recall seeing that in there. If you could show me the section.
I'll get that at the break. Have any of the proficiency tests that you've taken involved mixed bloodstains?
Most of the or many of the stains that you looked at in this case, you--your test results indicated could be mixed stains, correct?
And so you've never undergone any kind of testing to see whether you're able to do mixed bloodstains accurately?
I've--part of the validation process of the D1S80 marker, I looked at mixed--mixed samples, and these were both mixed--they're mixed DNA's. So not actually the mixed bloodstain together, but the DNA or an extraction process where the two DNA's were mixed together. And I looked at that during the validation process in use in our laboratory. And I believe that's the only--those are the mixed bloods that were examined. There are mixed samples that are examined also in the laboratory and this--sexual assault samples, you know, vaginal swabs where you'll have epithelial cells and then if there's sperm present also.
But there are no proficiency tests that you've taken that involve mixed samples of blood, are there?
Well, you know, I was just looking at this as you were or as I was talking, and it's--one of the proficiencies I did was blood semen mix. And that was a cellmark proficiency. And so that's where some of the blood and semen was mixed together. It wasn't two bloodstains, but it was two different samples mixed together and one of them happened to be a bloodstain.
Without getting into any detail, sexual assault samples are different than mixed blood samples, aren't they?
You have other methods that you can use, a differential lysis to split them apart, can't you?
Incidentally, did you perform any kind of analysis on any of the stains that you looked at under the microscope to determine whether you could tell if there was a saliva component to any of these mixed stains?
No. As I stated earlier, Mr. Sims looked at all the evidence initially and I did the D1S80 or DQ-Alpha analysis on the samples after he examined the samples.
So you have no way of determining whether any of the components of the mixtures you testified to are--have saliva contributions from a source as opposed to blood?
Now, I want to ask you some questions about the victims' clothing with respect to the D1S80 results. Do you have that in mind?
I conducted analysis on two items of clothing and Steve Myers in our laboratory examined Nicole Simpson's dress.
Okay. And the two items that you looked at were the shirt and the pants of Ronald Goldman?
And the dress was looked at by Steve Myers, that was Nicole Brown Simpson's dress?
Okay. And there were certain D1S80 results that came out of that analysis of those three items, correct?
Now, I've indicated on my chart up there that I've--I just color-coded it so it's a little easier to understand.
Now, would you agree that from your results, yours and Steve Myers' results, there were six stains looked at on Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, three of which indicated a contribution by--possibly by Ronald Goldman?
Yes. A total of six stains were examined and three of the stains had a weaker contribution of a 24 allele.
Would you agree that there were nine stains examined from Ronald Goldman's jeans, five of which had an indication of an 18 allele which is consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?
Well, four of them had a weaker 18 allele. One of them had G6 from the left thigh area, had a possible trace 18. And that's what I had talked about earlier, where there was a darkening on the band, but it could not definitely be determined that it was a band.
Would you agree that there were eight stains examined from Ronald Goldman's shirt and all eight of those stains showed an 18 allele consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?
Now, to summarize, there were a total of 23 stains tested on these three items of clothing, correct?
I'm sorry. 16 of those stains--let's make that 15 since you said the one was just a trace--indicated mixtures containing possibly both victims?
Now, is it also accurate to say that of all of those 23 stains, O.J. Simpson is excluded?
KEY QUOTEWould you agree that this is a fairly--withdraw. The shirt that was tested, these were stains that were taken from all over the shirt, correct?
Let me withdraw that one and I'll ask you another one. Did you do any of the cuttings on the shirt for these stains?
There was a considerable amount of blood on the shirt; was there not? Do you know that?
Now, would you agree that one way that there could be such carry-over from one victim to the other would be if the clothes came into contact in some way?
Now, Miss Montgomery, can you tell us in your opinion, how would you get the kind of mixed stains on both sets of clothing in so many different stains?
Now, one of the stains on I believe it was the shirt was the substrate control; was it not? Actually, it wasn't a stain. It was a control.
Correct. There was a substrate control submitted or substrate control taken with that.
Now, the substrate control, we've had a lot of testimony about what they are. But just very briefly, that's supposed to be an area of the shirt where there's no apparent tape, correct?
Right. It's best to take a substrate control that--close to the stain in question, but without any biological fluid that's detectable such as no blood present.
And is that an indication that there can be enough blood or biological material in the sample to cause a result where you can't see it on the original sample?
Yeah. There are two possible ways that could happen. One is, the controls failed, correct, if you get a reading on a substrate control that's supposed to be empty?
Well, the substrate control is to test what the background of that substrate is.
Well, "Failed" probably was the wrong term. If it shows something, it indicates that there's DNA there?
And this particular control showed that there was DNA in an area of the shirt where there didn't appear to be any stain?
Well, if it was taken as a control, then the individual wanted to see what the background of that material was, and it did show some activity in the background of that material.
But by definition, that would have been an area that didn't have any apparent stain?
Substrate control, is that supposed to be an area that doesn't show any apparent stain?
Yes. As I stated, the substrate control should be an area that's near the stain, but one that does not give you a presumptive test for blood or anything such as that.
Now, I want to ask you some questions about the specific testing that you performed in this case. Do you have your notes with you?
Now, you on I believe it was August 6th of 1994, you started testing, and you started to test the reference samples to see what the types were, correct?
And you amplified--you tried to amplify Mr. Simpson's reference sample the first time and you got no results, did you?
And that was a sample that you assumed came from Mr. Simpson because it was in the reference file labeled Mr. Simpson, correct?
Well, actually that was a tube. Gary Sims examined the bloodstains that were submitted pertaining to O.J. Simpson, Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown, and he took a portion of the bloodstain and put it into a centrifuge tube and then he gave me those tubes for the extraction process. And so the tube was labeled--I have it specifically--he labeled it with our case number, he labeled it with the evidence number and then he labeled it O.J. Simpson.
Now, that was a sample that you expected to have bands show up, but nothing showed up, correct?
Yes. There was inhibition in that sample. So there was no visible band on the D1S80 gel for O.J. Simpson's reference bloodstain.
Now "Inhibition" is a term that I think we've heard it a couple of times. But that means that something happens with the DNA that the alleles don't amplify. Is that an accurate description?
Yes. It's during the amplification process. Somehow, there's inhibition of the polymerase to--for the amplification of that specific allele.
So in mixed samples, you can have inhibition, and some of the alleles that might be there don't show up?
That's unlikely. If you--when you have inhibition, the whole sample is inhibited. You don't just have inhibition of select alleles within an amplification.
I thought you just said a question or so ago that you could have alleles that don't show up because of inhibition?
So you're saying that if there's going to be any inhibition at all, all of the alleles are going to be inhibited?
Yes. You would have inhibition of the sample, not inhibition of one particular allele, but inhibition of the alleles in general.
Well, the system has been optimized so you don't get any of this--what was the word you stated?
Well, the system has been optimized so you don't have some of the partial amplification of alleles.
It's been optimized both at the manufacturer and also through validation studies, an in-house evaluation of the system. And this, as I was talking about, the Twgdam requirement, this was one of the requirements that had to be addressed before D1S80 or any PCR marker can be used in the laboratory.
You're not aware of the phenomenon where a minor component of a mixture might get lost in the amplification process and not show up in typing because of the relative quantities of the two contributors?
Oh, now you're talking a different thing. Now, what you're referring to is stoichiometric effect where if you have a minor component, that it's possible--depending on how much of that minor component is present, it's possible not to see the other contribution. But that would be at very low levels of DNA.
The test in this case, some of the minor components of the mixtures involved very small amounts of DNA, didn't they?
Small relative to the initial start--initial DNA, but not small as I was referring to just in your previous question.
So the amounts that you used in this case, you would never expect to see an allele drop out in amplification?
Well, there was some samples where we amplified a small amount by DQ-Alpha and I believe it was--I'd have to look at my notes, but I believe it was 400 picograms that was amplified. But with D1S80, we--the smallest amount that was amplified I believe was 800, and typically we were amplifying well over one nanogram of DNA.
Now, you also had a problem with one of your standards in the D1S80 tests that you performed in this case; did you not? I'm referring to page 28 and 29 of your notes.
Yes. That's not--that does not have anything to do with the D1S80 system though, and what that is is a slot blot.
Well, the slot blot--you used the slot blot to determine the quantity that you were then going to use for the D1S80 gels, correct?
Right. On this one, one of the higher standards, it was a 40 nanogram, that was outside of the range that we were even comparing our samples to. These are the standards that are used for comparison with our unknown DNA's. And one of the 40 nanograms was--was out of balance compared to some of the other standards that were on the gel.
No, I don't believe I did because the 40-nanogram standard was irrelevant on the results of the other samples that were on the gel because everything was at a lower level and it wasn't--the 40-nanogram standard wasn't used as a comparison for the unknown samples.
So when something goes wrong with the test, you make some kind of an assessment that whether it really would affect your results or not in deciding whether you do something over again?
Yes. One needs to--if something such as that where the 40-nanogram standard was less intense than the 20-nanogram standard, if something like that happens, one should troubleshoot it and determine what is happening. And if it appears that it had any bearing on--or any bearing on your results, then your analysis needs to be repeated. In this particular case, it was shown that the 40-nanogram standard was irrelevant because what I was looking at was low levels of DNA in the unknown samples. And so I was comparing at the lower levels, the lower-level standards as opposed to the 40-nanogram standards. So--and basically that 40-nanogram standard did not even need to be placed on that gel.
You also had a problem--I'll pass on that. You also had a problem with the Rockingham glove, didn't you?
Refer you to page 46 of your notes. The first time you did it, you had a problem, didn't you?
And what happened was, the ladder was smeared and distorted and you had some crossover from one lane to another on the gel, correct?
Yes. And this demonstrates that when something is unacceptable in our laboratory, we do reanalysis of the samples. If there's ever any question, then we reanalyze samples.
Now, let me refer you to page 62 of your notes. One of the standards that's used on these gels--and let me ask if we could have some photographs marked. Actually let me use one of the Prosecution's, exhibits 275-H.
I just want to use this for illustrative purposes. The--if we count three lanes over from the left--
Three lanes over from the left is called the one-nanogram control lane; is it not?
Yes. That's a--that's an additional standard that's placed on the gel. It's provided within the Roche kit. And as you can see, the first lane--if I had the little telestrator, I could--
That is supposed to be--that's supposed to come up 1831 each time you do it, correct?
That one-nanogram control, that's one of the controls that you use and that's supposed to light up at 1831 if your test is being done properly?
Yes and no. That is a--an additional control, but the control in question that must respond properly is the first one in that--after the ladder, and that's the four-nanogram control of an 1831.
Yes. They're--yes, they should. But the one--the one in question is actually the four-nanogram.
I believe you indicated on direct that your system has been optimized so bands with equal amounts of DNA will show up with equal intensity. Did I hear that right?
Miss Montgomery, I showed you a series of pictures or I gave them to you at lunch for you to look at to see if they were accurate pictures of some of the films that we've already seen, correct?
And did you agree that the packet I gave you was an accurate--these were accurate pictures of your films?
Let me ask you just to look at these again just to satisfy yourself that they're the same.
Now, Miss Montgomery, this is the--this is just a picture of the film that you showed us that contains the Bronco samples, no. 30, 31 and 293, correct?
And I'm going to highlight or I'm going to--actually I'm going to magnify the one-nanogram control lane.
Mr. Blasier, are we going to go through all of these at this time? Would it be easier if I just stayed down at the--
Well, I think you should be able to see these on the monitor. Now, you agree that the lane there on the right is the one-nanogram control lane?
Now, you can refer to page 70 of your notes. Would you agree that when you read this, you read the 18 band of that one-nanogram control as being brighter than the 31 band? It's a little difficult to see in the picture. That's why I referred you to your notes.
Okay. Do you have the page of your notes that shows your work sheet for items 30, 31 and 293? Let me show you my copy.
Would you agree that your notes indicate that the 18 is more intense than the 31?
Page 70, this is AG, analytical gel, 267, and this is a composite of many samples, quality control samples, positive controls from different amplification days and also two controls relating--two control samples relating to the Bronco, and those are DNA 17--DNA's our DOJ number--17, which is what, LAPD 30, and then also DNA 18 control, which is LAPD 31.
So that's--is that a different run of the same samples that we showed in the last picture?
Well, the first picture you showed was actual samples that were taken. The samples that related to the controls of the Bronco, they were samples DNA 17 and DNA 18. Those were two Bronco samples. And then on the next gel, the one you're referring to now, AG 267, those are the controls that go with the Bronco samples on that previous gel.
Okay. And those controls were done at a different time than the samples to which they belonged?
Yes. There's only a limited space on a gel. You can't--sometimes you can't fit all the samples.
Well, on many of these runs, you did put the control samples with the samples to which they belonged; did you not?
Yes. When--when there's enough space, I'll put as many samples as I can on the gel. But if there's not enough space, then you're limited with the number you can put on the gel and you'll have to put it on a different--a separate gel.
Now, would you agree on your run for the controls, page 70 of your notes, that you determined that the 18 band in your standard, one-nanogram standard band was greater than the 31 band?
Umm--no. The positive control that goes with those control samples functioned properly.
Oh, okay. The one-nanogram control. Now, this pertains to a different amplification. This doesn't pertain to the controls that were put with the Bronco. And yeah, there was an 18, a weak 18, and the 31, there was a hint at the 31. There was a difference in the intensity of those alleles.
And your four-nanogram control lane also had a difference in intensity; did they not--did it not?
Yes, it did. There was a gel problem on that region of the gel. That was the--the farther region of the gel, the last four lanes.
That's not the way those controls are supposed to work, is it? They're supposed to be of equal intensity, aren't they?
Yes. We've optimized the amplification so you get equal intensity of those alleles. This was a gel effect.
So there are some effects on the gel that can cause there to be different intensities of bands in the same lane?
Yes. I mean that was demonstrated on that particular sample, on those samples towards the further region of the gel, that there was a discrepancy between those alleles. And it's a gel art--or it's a gel polymerization problem.
Now, you also indicated on your work sheet for that--those controls that your 31A allele was smeared and not well defined. Is that also--is that another manifestation of the gel problem?
Yes. And that gave you an indication that that--that region of the gel wasn't functioning properly.
Now, let me refer you to page 62 of your notes. And that was the run for the positive controls for what? Actually those are sock samples; are they not?
And you have both some controls and some of the evidence samples on that run, correct?
Now--well, that wasn't a problem because on this run, four nanograms--no, that wasn't a problem.
The one-nanogram control had--the 31 band was darker than the 18 band, and that's for the one-nanogram control. The four-nanogram control gave equal intensity of the two alleles.
The one-nanogram control was supposed to also give you bands of equal intensity, correct?
Well, the one-nanogram control, you would like to have equal intensity of those two alleles, yes.
I'm sorry. There are situations where you don't get equal intensity of those two alleles. And that's why at lower levels of DNA amplification, you need to be cautious with your interpretation. That's why you strive to amplify more than a nanogram of DNA.
Doesn't that mean that with small concentrations of DNA, you can't really make very precise assessments about band intensity vis-à-vis who the contributor was?
Well, you're saying with--when you have a low level of DNA, that it's difficult to tell which bands go to which bands? Is that what you're saying?
You have to be much more cautious in terms of trying to determine who contributed what bands when you're talking about low levels of DNA?
Now, we've talked about the--your being unable to amplify Mr. Simpson's standard--or reference sample the first time, problems with the standard--the glove that you had to redo, the gel problems that you've had and the 31 control band that we've talked about. Is this number of problems typical for the D1S80 system?
Did you ordinarily have these types of problems with D1S80 or in this case, did you have more problems than usual?
With the amplification, that's a PCR phenomenon, the fact that the reference sample did not amplify. And as far as the other--the other things, the one-nanogram control is used or the one-nanogram standard is used as an additional control. The main control that we're concerned with is the four-nanogram, and we want to see equal intensity of those four-nanogram controls. The system, I have all the confidence in the system and with the results of the system. So if that answers your question.
Was that a yes or a no? Are these the kinds of things that happen routinely with the D1S80 system?
So more things like we've described happened with respect to this case than you would expect to see in other D1S80 cases?
Okay. You said it's not typical. Would you expect in D1S80 system on a particular case there to be more problems like this or less?
KEY QUOTEOver 20 gels were run in this particular case, which is more than most cases. And as far as the problems, there were no significant problems. There was reanalysis on a few of the gels, but nothing was significant to cause problems with this result. I--there were not more problems seen in this particular case than seen, you know, with D1S80 analysis and they weren't major problems.
So when you said that this was not typical, you were indicating that in other cases, you're likely to see more types of things like this?
Well, you said this wasn't typical, and I asked you, are there more things, problem areas let's call them, here than in a typical case. And I don't think you answered that. Could you answer that?
By typical doesn't mean--it's not routine that you see some of these phenomenons occurring. That's what I meant by it's not typical.
So in ordinary cases, you don't see these kinds of things happen. Is that what you said?
Now, Miss Montgomery, could you take a look at this and tell me which run this is? This is--I'll tell you. It's AG184, correct?
Now, on this sample, you did both samples of those drops as well as some of the controls; did you not?
And the writing at the top is--that just identifies what's in the lane below it, correct?
Now, the last two lanes over here--I've got the little arrow on it--the first one is DOJ 24. And what is that?
DOJ 24 as written here is what we call DNA 24. Dr. Blake tended to call our samples DOJ and in-house we called them DNA, and that relates to LAPD no. 50 control.
It's not a band. That's--yeah. If you look at the--yes. If you look at the original gel, you can see that there's some blip or glitch. I'm not sure if it's actually cut out of the gel or not. That's right in between the two lanes, but it's not a band. It's definitely not a band.
Would you agree that if that were a band, that means that your control, the substrate control showed the presence of DNA that shouldn't be there?
Now, how do you tell the difference between something like that that looks like a band and something that is a very faint band?
Well, first of all--first of all, this is right in between two lanes, and samples are loaded into the lane and you would see distinct banding pattern within that well where they were loaded. As I'm holding up a gel to demonstrate for you, this is where the wells, where samples are loaded. Can you see this? And there's a separation between each--each--where your sample's loaded. That blip right in there (Indicating) is diffuse smearing blip in the gel, and it could either be--like I said, it could be just where the gel's been darkened right in that area, and when it was photoed, it was captured by that. But it's definitely not a band. It's not a distinct thickened blind.
It indicates that something is going on there that shouldn't be going on there; isn't that accurate?
Now, we described this as having a band-like appearance. Would you concur with that? Looks like it could have been a band?
And it's at an allele--I'm sorry--it's at a level on the ladder different from any of the people that you've tested in connection with this case?
And it's--I believe it's at a 15 allele, isn't it, if that is a band. That band-like appearance, is a band, it's a 15?
Well, if you--if you're saying it's a band, then that would be in between that 14 repeat and the 16 repeat. So that would be the 15 repeat.
Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our break. Please remember all of my admonitions. We'll be in recess for 15 minutes.
Now, is it also accurate to say that of all of those 23 stains, O.J. Simpson is excluded?
That's correct.
They're not typical, no.
I have all the confidence in the system and with the results of the system.
You said it's not typical. Would you expect in D1S80 system on a particular case there to be more problems like this or less?