Miss Montgomery, this is the gel that shows 30, 31, 293 and 305. Do you have that in mind?
Now, do you see in the reference sample lane for Mr. Simpson there appears to be three bands, would you agree?
Okay. Can we zoom in on that a little bit more? Actually there appears to be four bands, I think. Would you agree there appears to be actually four bands in that reference lane?
It is not supposed to happen? Umm, to optimize you would prefer that it did not happen. It does happen on occasion, though.
What do you mean to optimize you would prefer it not happen? You don't want it to happen, do you?
Did something go wrong with this particular gel that caused these bands to show up?
Well, something didn't go wrong with the gel. What--sometimes we see these--these shadow bands in the inside region of the gel, just in the center section, and as you could see, it is isolated to this center section of the gel. If, umm--if it was an issue, the sample should be rerun. If there is a potential that these were mixed samples or something such as that, then you would want to rerun these. It doesn't change any of the results of the analysis on this gel.
KEY QUOTEIsn't one of the shortcomings of this system is that that sometimes happens, that you get extra bands on that that are shadow bands?
Is that a characteristic of this system--let me ask you this: How frequently does this happen?
It depends on who is doing the analysis. Different people--this is a very techniquey system. Some individuals tend to see it a little more often than others. In our laboratory we have been able to minimize it, so we rarely see it any more.
Now, would you also agree that the band on Mr. Simpson's reference sample at 24 is uneven in the sense that it is not even the same intensity across the band?
Well, there is the artifact, that little dot right on the end of the 24 band, but by looking at this copy, this copy also has that little dot, but it appears to be relatively equal intensity across the length of the well.
You are saying not supposed to be there. The dot is not part of the sample, no.
Could we have photo no. 96 and I have an additional photo that will be marking as 1178.
Okay. And is it correct that these--the photo on the right has the samples 303 and 304 from the Bronco on them?
And the one on the right is the run that has the samples for 30 and 31 from the Bronco and 293 from the carpeting in the Bronco?
Now, 303 and 304, you read those as containing very weak 18 allele, I believe; is that correct?
Yes. For the two Bronco samples, dna-52 and dna-53, there was a weak 18 detected.
Now, I'm going to try and blow up that area, and the area that we have indicated is approximately in here, (Indicating); is that correct?
Your Honor, I have the same objection that we lodged earlier. That is a distortion.
Yes. As you could see, the 18 allele is--the 18 ladder allele is--I'm sorry, yes, that is correct.
Okay. And were you able to quantify the amount of DNA present that was contributed by the 18 allele?
No. What we do is a total quant to determine the total amount of DNA. We can't tell the difference between different alleles, contribution for the sample.
Would you agree that the band intensity of the 18 band that I have circled is about the same as the one nanogram standard, or maybe less, or just what is your assessment of the relative intensities?
I'm sorry. This is approximately equal to the one nanogram, slightly less, umm, than the one nanogram for dna-53.
And the intensity of that is far less than the 24 allele and the 25 allele, correct?
And I'm going to circle the area where you would expect to see that. And would you agree that I have made little squiggles there about where the 18 band would be?
Okay. And you indicated there was nothing there that you saw that could be a band?
Now, I want you to assume for a minute that 30 and 303 came from the same general area.
If you had a mixed stain that had alleles present in part of the stain that weren't present in another part of the stain--do you have that in mind?
So what you are saying is a bloodstain where one person is bleeding here and one person is bleeding here and some of one person's diffuse into another?
No. Let's just stay you have a stain, a fairly relatively large stain, and you test one area of the stain and you find some alleles and you test another area of the stain and you find some additional alleles. Do you have that in mind?
Would that be an indication--would one explanation be that those stains were put there at different times?
Would that be consistent with two different stains being put on that surface at different times?
Now, you have no personal information about what happened between when sample 30 and 31 was collected and when sample 303 and 304 were collected, do you?
Now, the appearance of the 18 allele on 303 and 304, the very faint band, would you agree that the children of O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson both would have an 18 allele?
I'm sorry, you are correct. If the mother is an 18 homozygote, then the children will all have an 18 allele present.
And there is a strong likelihood that those children might also have a 24 or a 25?
And if there were stains mixed in with a bloodstain that--from the children, you might expect to see some of the children's alleles in the stain, correct?
And you have no way of telling whether the 18 allele in samples 303 and 304 was put there or got into that sample at the same time as the 24, 25 alleles, do you?
Well, some indication can be obtained by the--if a yield gel is done on a sample. You can obtain some information if degradation has occurred, but by looking at strictly the D1S80 results, no.
But you might be able to tell if there is degradation but you can't tell how old the stain is, can you?
Now, the photograph on the left, would you agree that that appears to be the gel with the samples from the glove, Bundy glove--I'm sorry, the Rockingham glove, G11, 12 and 13?
And the one on the right, which is photograph--which is exhibit 1180, appears to be stains G1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10, correct?
And would you agree that you interpreted those--the three stains, G10, 11 and 13, as having a weak 25 allele?
Okay. And the 25 band is here, (Indicating), and here, (Indicating), for those two samples, correct?
And the fact that it is so much less intense than the 24 band would indicate that if there was a contribution from a 24, 25 genotype, that that person's contribution is very, very small compared to other contributors?
Yes. The 24, 25 or--if--the 25 is--well, the 25 is the minor component along with an 18 on those samples and the 24, 24 is the major contribution, so the minor contribution would be less than the major contribution.
And the same is true over on the picture at the right of G10 with respect to the 25 allele, correct?
I called a major type and a minor type--a major type and a minor allele in that particular sample.
Can we print that, please. Save it and print it later. And could I have slide--first slide.
The three stains from the glove, G10, 11 and 13, were the only stains on the glove where you found genotypes in the D1S80 system consistent with Mr. Simpson, correct?
That's correct. Those are the only--those are the three areas where a 25 allele was detected along with the 24 allele.
And the indication that you have on your paperwork is that those three stains all came from the wrist area of the Rockingham glove, correct?
You tested a number of different stains from the rest of the Bundy glove--the Rockingham glove, correct?
And isn't it accurate that you were able to exclude Mr. Simpson as a contributor to every stain that you looked at on that glove, other than G10, 11 and 13 in the wrist area?
KEY QUOTEAnd there was--when you received this glove, do you know whether it was turned inside out?
I--Gary Sims did all the examination of the evidence in this case, so I don't recall.
As a forensic specialist, if you got a glove as a piece of evidence and you wanted to turn it inside out, how do you do that?
Well, I think it is not just a forensic analyst, but how would an individual in general turn a glove inside out if it were out the opposite direction.
Would you agree it would involve considerable manipulation of the wrist area of the glove?
Do you have any way of quantifying the amount of DNA attributable to the 25 allele in G10, 11 and 13?
Yes, I could, umm, by looking at the relative intensity of the 25 compared to the major contributor of a 24 homozygote, I could tell you the extremes that it could be and for the sensitivity of our system what we find is beyond 1 to 20, you can't see the minor components--you typically cannot see the minor contribution in a sample.
But you have no way of quantifying how much DNA was present that caused the 25 allele to appear?
On the gel. Well, in this case what I could do is compare the one nanogram standard, the 25 allele to the one nanogram standard, and would you like me to do that?
That 25 allele is approximately equal intensity to the one nanogram control that is on the gel.
Yes. The other--the other band in those samples looks a little greater than the four nanogram standard.
You have no way of telling from this test whether or not that 25 allele got on that glove at the same time as the other alleles on the glove, do you?
KEY QUOTEIt is a weaker 25 allele; it is not a weak 25 allele.
Isn't it accurate that you were able to exclude Mr. Simpson as a contributor to every stain that you looked at on that glove, other than G10, 11 and 13 in the wrist area?
You have no way of telling from this test whether or not that 25 allele got on that glove at the same time as the other alleles on the glove, do you? ... No, I don't.
If the mother is an 18 homozygote, then the children will all have an 18 allele present.
Something didn't go wrong with the gel. What--sometimes we see these--these shadow bands in the inside region of the gel, just in the center section.