All right. Miss Montgomery, would you come forward, please.
Renee Montgomery, called as a witness by the People, out of order, was sworn and testified as follows:
Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
I work for the State of California, Department of Justice at the Modesto or excuse me--I'm sorry--at the Berkeley DNA laboratory.
My present assignment is casework analysis and also lead analyst in the development of new methods such as STR's for use in casework.
Okay. We'll talk about that in a little bit after we discuss your education and background that have contributed to being in the position you're in, okay?
Yes, I do. I have a bachelor of science in environmental toxicology from the University of California at Davis. I graduated in June of 1988.
Okay. And can you describe just generally the field of environmental toxicology and whatever scientific courses you took to achieve that degree?
Sure. Environmental toxicology is the study of toxicants in the environment and how they react with the body and also how they react in the environment. This course work included extensive instrumental analysis and also courses in chemistry and biology and anatomy.
I began work in--at the end of the summer in 1988 at the Modesto criminalistics laboratory.
Okay. And we'll talk about that in a bit, but let's focus on courses you've taken which have contributed to the position that you're in right now. Did you take any courses in pursuit of your undergraduate degree that relate in any way to forensic DNA typing that you've performed for the DOJ lab?
Yes. After graduation, I began taking courses in extending my education, and the majority of my course work, well, the ones that are relevant to DNA analysis, began in 1992. And the first course was a genetics course through California State University at Hayward, and this was a one-quarter unit in--with--under the topic of genetics. I then took a--
Could we just--give us a little description, if you would, of the course and how it might relate to the testimony that I'm going to be eliciting from you.
Your Honor, I'm going to object. I think the question was about undergraduate courses, and I think she's talking about after graduation.
Exactly. After I graduated from college, it's a course that I took after I had already obtained a degree, bachelor of science.
Yes. It was the study of genetics, the study--part of the course involved DNA and how DNA functioned in the body and also molecular biology.
What was the next course that you took that contributes to the area of expertise that I'll be asking you to testify about?
The next course I took was a two-semester course in molecular biology, and this was through the University of California at Berkeley and their extension program, and this began in winter semester of 1992 and it continued through I believe it was May of 1993; and it was a two-semester course and it involved molecular biology going into DNA, RNA and the function of it in the body.
I believe it was two--two nights a week for three hours, and it was four units per semester. So a total of eight units.
The next course, I was sent to the FBI academy in Quantico, Virginia for a four-week course in forensic DNA technology both in classroom training and laboratory training; and this was a six-unit graduate level course. That's it.
Yes. That focused on DNA analysis as it pertained to forensic--forensic analysis.
Sure. We went into both RFLP and PCR techniques, and it was both the practical application and also the theoretical application behind RFLP and PCR. We did in-lab practice testing of samples and also some unknown samples by both RFLP and the PCR methods.
Okay. And what was the next course that you took that contributed to your expertise in forensic DNA typing?
The next course was in the fall of 1993, and this was a course, statistics for biologists, and it was a one-semester course through UC Berkeley extension.
That course was on the basics of statistics and particularly how it related to scientific research, developing studies to be used in both a clinical environment and pharmaceutical environments.
Well, it helped me understand more--understand the papers, the literature on statistics and how statistics are used for DNA analysis.
And then what was the next course that you took, the next additional course that you took?
Yes, I have. And the next course, it's not on Mr. Blasier's copy, it was a DNA sequencing course through the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, and that was in the summer of 1994.
It was DNA sequencing. It went through both the PCR extraction techniques and also sequencing of DNA.
Okay. In addition to those courses that you've described, is there something called the California criminalistics institute?
Have you taken courses through them which relate to any areas of expertise in the field of criminalistics?
Could you describe what or tell us what those courses are, just briefly describe them?
Okay. As the courses that pertain to DNA analysis, what were a one-week course through the California criminalistics institute and it was all on PCR analysis. And this course was--it was one week, eight hours a day, and it was taught by some of the more prominent members of the forensic community such as Dr. Edward Blake, Dr. Becky Reynolds and Dr. George Sensabaugh. And this course was both a practical, meaning we did laboratory work, and also a theoretical course.
One week? And what was the next course that you took through the California criminalistics institute?
Well, that was the most recent course that I took. Prior to that, I took extensive courses in the area of general criminalistics, and I'll need to refer to a sheet. The list is quite long. And these ranged from techniques for conventional serology such as basic microscopy, and this was a one-week course in the use of the microscope as it pertains to forensic work, and also zone electrophoresis which is a technique used for genetic markers such as enzymes. I also took a sexual assault evidence course, and this was a course that was devoted to extraction techniques for sexual assault cases, examining evidence that pertains to sexual assault cases and also the analysis of evidence for sexual assault cases. Would you like me to continue on this list?
Okay. I took a course on analysis of low explosives, and that was in April of 1992. That was just prior to transferring to the DNA laboratory, and that was a course taught by ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and that was through the California criminalistics institute also, and a course in analysis of clan lab evidence. And this is analysis of samples for clandestine laboratory, meaning drug laboratories where individuals are making PCP or methamphetamine or some other type of illegal drug. I took an arson accelerant course in 1991, and that was the--also, there was some individuals from ATF, alcohol, tobacco and firearms at that course, and that was on analyzing samples that had been involved in arsons and detecting for petroleum distillates, gasoline and other substances. In 1990, I took a course in basic serology, and that was just looking at--doing presumptive tests on various fluids, blood, saliva and determining its origin and also doing genetic analysis or looking at markers such as enzyme markers. In--going back a ways now, in 1989, I took a course in crime scene investigation, and that was a one-week course and up in--taught in eureka by some of the more well-known individuals in the crime scene investigation reconstruction field such as Jerry Chisum and Joe Reynerson. In 1989, I also took a firearm safety course. And doing general criminalistics, it's important that the criminalist knows the basics of firearms so if evidence comes into the laboratory, they will be cautious and they won't be hurt with the guns by any way. And that was just a three-day course that taught the basics of firearm examination. And that looks like the extent of my general criminalistics course work through the California criminalistics institute.
Okay. You mentioned that in 1988, you were hired as a criminalist. Could you describe the--your assignments during the years that you worked at the Modesto criminalistics laboratory starting in 1988?
Yes. I started in 1988 shortly after graduation and I was at the Modesto criminalistics laboratory. That's--this is a laboratory that's located in the central valley of northern California. I worked there for three years and the--my primary duty was crime scene investigation and reconstruction, blood alcohol analysis and drug analysis. I also did some basic serology at that time. So through the course of those three years, those were my predominant duties.
And when you say basic serology, do you mean conventional serology such as ABO typing, EAP, PGM typing?
Yes. At the Modesto crime lab, the majori--the tests that were done were primarily presumptive tests and also some ABO testing.
Yes. In--at the end of the summer in 1991, I transferred to the Stockton laboratory. And at that time, my primary duty was doing conventional serology. And also as part of the rotation basis, crime scene investigation had to be done at that laboratory also, and also clandestine laboratory investigation.
And are both the Modesto lab and the Stockton labs, are they part of the Department of Justice, the State Department of Justice?
Yes. At the end of the summer or I believe it was August of 1992, I transferred to the DNA laboratory in Berkeley.
And starting with your initial assignment there, could you please describe the evolution of your role there from when you first started in 1992 until the present?
Yes. When I first began with the Department of Justice at the Berkeley laboratory, I was assigned to their conventional serology program and in getting the protocols in place and then also doing analysis of samples that--from the convicted offender program. We--the conventional serology program or protocols were put into place, and just as aside, the laboratory decided not to continue on with conventional serology, but to focus with DNA analysis at that laboratory and to allow the satellite laboratories to do all the conventional serology, but to have the Berkeley DNA laboratory focus only on DNA analysis. So initially I was--I compiled the standard operating procedures for the laboratory along with another individual, Donna Dowden, at the laboratory, and I also did 290 analysis. And 290 analysis are samples from the convicted offender felon program. And these are samples when convicted offenders are released from prison, a blood sample is taken from them, and these samples are analyzed and then put into a database in the laboratory. So I did that for the first, oh, approximately a year that I was at the DNA laboratory.
Can I just stop you for a second? When you said you did that, what kind of tests did you submit those samples to?
After that, two individuals, myself and Richard Showalter, were assigned to the development and in-house evaluation of a new marker called D1S80, and that began in June of 1994. Richard began the process in June of 1994.
Okay. Why don't we stop that for a second. We'll come back to that in a minute. Have you given presentations at various meetings in the area of forensic DNA typing?
Could you describe or name the presentations and the groups and just briefly describe the nature of what your presentation was?
Yes. Referring to my CV once again, in February of 1993, I gave a presentation at the Modesto memorial hospital, and this was for a trauma symposium. The title of my lecture was "DNA, the latest crime-solving tool." And this was to--it was approximately an hour presentation in which I talked about analysis of samples by RFLP and PCR and how it pertained to--how it related to some of the trauma nurses and the trauma doctors, the evidence that they had collected.
The next presentation was in Santa Rosa, and that was--the FBI put on a crime scene investigation course. It was in 1993, and I was asked to talk about DNA and biological evidence collection.
The next several presentations were through the California association of criminalists--criminalistics, and they were--one was a DNA study group in San Diego, California; and that was in October of 1993 and it was on the validation of D1S80. And then in 1994 at the CAC seminar in northern California, I gave a presentation on PCR typing casework and in court work or courtroom considerations. And in that talk, I talked about both the validation studies that have been conducted on D1S80 and also some of the recent cases at that time that we had done in which D1S80 used in conjunction with DQ-Alpha gave valuable information.
Okay. Now, have you ever testified as an expert witness in the field of forensic DNA PCR typing?
The first one was in--it was the latter end of last year, and the second one was in Marin County approximately a month ago.
Okay. And have you ever testified as an expert in the field of forensic serology in your career?
And in--have you ever testified as an expert in the field of blood alcohol and controlled substances?
Okay. Let's get back to the evolution of the forensic DNA PCR marker D1S80 in the laboratory. I think you mentioned that--or strike that. When did the lab first begin its implementation of that PCR marker D1S80?
We first began using D1S80 for our casework in April of 1994. That was after approximately eight months of method development and evaluating the technology.
Okay. Now, when you say "After eight months of method development and implementing the technology," is this something that the DOJ lab itself invented or put together?
Okay. Had there already been published articles in the peer review scientific literature about the PCR marker D1S80?
Okay. And just before the DOJ lab began this implementation and evaluation of it, could you kind of turn back the clock and tell us what kinds of scientific literature was out there already in existence at the time that DOJ began its implementation?
Well, originally it was--in 1988, an individual by the name of Dr. Nokamura discovered the location of D1S80, and that was published in a journal article. At that time, the--the laboratory, I believe it was salt lake city, continued examining that particular region, and in 1990, an individual by the name of Dr. Kasai published the sequence for D1S80.
Okay. That's initially. What other sorts of literature was out there in existence already at the time that the DOJ began its implementation of that marker?
Well, the Europeans were using D1S80 long before the United States began using it for casework. An individual in Holland by the name of Sajantila, I believe that's how you pronounce the name, S-A-J-A-N-T-I-L-A, published some articles on the technique of visualizing D1S80 and also on the PCR technique. And he also published the first paper on casework analysis of D1S80's use for casework analysis. Dr. Budowle of the FBI had published some articles also on D1S80 use, and then there are various other articles that were published prior to DOJ using the technique.
So is there a distinction between a laboratory implementing a marker that's already been validated in the peer review--published peer review literature? You see the--you understand the question?
Sure. When you implement something, do you implement something that has never been invented before?
No. The D1S80 was examined by a lot of other laboratories and there was published information out there. And the way the Department of Justice, we looked at the literature compiled some of the literature and then did our own evaluation of the technique. And also at the time that we were doing our evaluation of D1S80, we were looking at the Roche--it's a company that--a commercially--a commercial company that manufactures the D1S80 kit, they also had a written protocol for the use of D1S80. So what we did is, we looked at all this information, evaluated various techniques and then came up with a method using the same PCR technique and so we could use D1S80 and examine it using various conditions.
Now, was the laboratory already using the PCR marker DQ-Alpha at the time D1S80 was introduced?
Are you familiar with an article, peer review article in the journal of forensic science generally known as the casework article where Dr. Blake is one of the authors?
Okay. We'll do that at the break. How many cases have you actually worked on where you've used the marker D1S80?
You mentioned that Roche--the company Roche. Is this a commercial product that's available through Roche, D1S80 marker?
Okay. And what else has Roche put together to assist people that want to use this marker?
Well, Roche has the full kit. Roche is the company that also puts out the DQ-Alpha kits. And with the D1S80, they have a similar kit in which they have all the reagents that are necessary for the amplification process available in this kit that can be purchased from them.
And are they also--people from--scientists from Roche, are they also some of the authors of articles that are out there about the D1S80 marker?
Have you been subjected to proficiency testing in your career at the DOJ lab in the area of forensic DNA typing?
Could you please describe the nature, types and results of the proficiency tests which you've taken?
Yes. Our laboratory has a quality assurance manual that states the frequency that proficiency tests must be given to analysts. And for our casework analysts, you have to do two proficiencies per year. And to date, I have done five proficiency tests and--which dealt with over 20--I believe that it's 20 samples.
Can you describe some of the--the nature of some of the samples that have been in those proficiency tests?
Yes. They're both bloodstains and sexual assault samples, meaning there's--such as the vaginal swab that has both sperm and--male contribution sperm and also the female contribution epithelial cells. So I've done both the bloodstain analysis comparison and also the sexual assault comparisons.
I believe you mentioned standard operating procedures. Does your laboratory, the DOJ laboratory have written protocols for all the different kinds of DNA tests that it performs?
Did you follow those written protocols when you performed the tests on the evidence in this case?
Are those written protocols based on the scientific literature that you've described that was in existence before the DOJ lab began investigating the D1S80 marker?
Yes. Our--as--the D1S80 protocol is based on the scientific literature, but that protocol was written specifically for D1S80 in our laboratory, but it compiled the literature from the outside.
Now, in performing the PCR D1S80 tests, Mr. Sims has just generally described the sorts of positive and negative controls that are involved in DQ-Alpha tests. Are there also positive and negative controls when you perform the D1S80 test?
Parts of it? Could you just briefly describe let's say the role of negative controls in the D1S80 testing process?
Yes. By negative controls, there are two types of negative controls. One is the negative amplification control. And that's a sample in which it's used during your setup of the amplification and either distilled water or a buffer is added to the reaction mix, the cocktail as we also call it, instead of any DNA. And this should respond negatively. This should respond negatively when tested by the D1S80 system. Another type of negative control is an extraction blank. And this is a sample that's taken through the full extraction process. And that's to demonstrate whether there's any contaminant in your reagents. And so that also should respond negatively.
When you say "Respond negatively," could you explain to the jury what you mean by that?
Yes. By responding negatively, meaning no results are obtained. And you'll see with some of the D1S80 gels--you'll see when I show the D1S80 gels that when you run the sample, if no bands are visible, then that's responding negatively. If there is a response in a negative control, a negative amplification control or a reagent blank, then that analysis needs to be repeated.
Okay. And could you briefly describe the role and the significance of positive controls in this case?
Yes. A positive control is provided in the D1S80 kit. And this is a control of a known type. The sample is put through the amplification process and it needs to respond properly for D1S80. And in this particular case, you'll see on some of the gels, it's an 1831, meaning there's two bands that are present, and these two bands need to be present in the proper locations for the samples to be--for the gel to be acceptable.
Could you tell us what you mean by that, why they have to be in that position for the gel to be acceptable?
Well, it's testing both the amplification and the typing process. And if these bands aren't present, then it shows that there was some--some problem with your amplification or your typing.
And what was the purpose in testing those substrate controls that were provided to you?
Substrate controls are important to show you what the background of the area being tested is. In this case, substrate controls also served as negative controls. There are a few instances where there was some activity in a substrate control. But in general, these all responded negatively for the amplification process at D1S80.
I believe one of them was addressed by Mr. Sims yesterday or the day before, and that is a control that he had detected blood on, substrate control on a garment that he had detected blood on. And so that responded with a faint reaction in the D1S80 sample.
Okay. Just generally speaking, could you describe your role in relation to Mr. Sims in this case? What was the official relationship and how did you get samples from him?
Gary Sims was assigned this case. He was in charge of the case, and he went through the majority of the extractions and documentation of all the samples. I was assigned to this case because of my experience with D1S80. So there are a few samples that I did the extraction on, the extraction and the analysis on. But predominantly, Mr. Sims handed--we consulted over how many sample should be amplified and then I amplified the sample for D1S80 and analyzed it and did the interpretation on that.
Okay. So the closest--or strike that. You never actually physically examined and sampled any item of evidence that was sent to the lab?
Okay. And then he would provide you with whatever it was agreed upon you needed to do your test?
Okay. I want to ask you if the number items--I'm going to ask you if these are all items that you processed and achieved D1S80 results on and then we'll show some of them, okay?
So--did you achieve D1S80 results on the following samples in this case: Item no. 6 from the Rockingham residence?
Now, we'll shift items to item 13, the pair of socks from Mr. Simpson's bedroom. Did you obtain results from stain 13A1?
And now shifting to the white Bronco, Mr. Simpson's Bronco, did you obtain results from item 30?
Okay. And then did you also obtain results--did the laboratory also obtain results from the following items from the Bundy residence? These are drops along the walkway. 47, the one closest to the victims?
Did you also obtain results from clothing items from the two victims in this case, Mr. Goldman's jeans, item 79?
Mr. Goldman's shirt, which you mentioned to--mentioned a couple minutes ago, no. 81?
Steve Myers? Did you also produce results from three items from the nail clippings and scrapings from Nicole Brown, generally item 84?
And did you also produce results from Bundy, the three stains on the rear gate, 115, 116 and 117?
Okay. And again, just to lump these together in categories, some of those results produced mixtures; is that correct?
And we'll show some of them in a couple of minutes, but were the mixtures for items 9, G1, the glove again, the right-hand glove from Rockingham?
And shifting to Mr. Simpson's white Bronco, did you obtain results that you determined to be mixtures from item 31 on the console?
Miss Montgomery, what do you call these films just so we don't confuse the jury with autorads? What are they called?
Could you describe the final product and how we end up with a piece of film from that product? And what I would like you to do is just to distinguish between these films and autorads, which this jury has seen quite a few of.
Okay. The actual--the final product, the similar film is used to get a duplicate of the gel. To just show you an original gel, that--an original gel is placed onto a nylon--oh, it's--well, actually it's a plastic piece of material and it's dried down. And then to make copies for court, because we don't want our originals to be submitted to court, we would like to keep them with the files, to make copies of it, we just use duplicating film and we expose it to light and then put it through a film processing apparatus or machine to get a duplicate copy.
And is that what I have, these films that are produced from the gel that was dried down?
Okay. Your Honor, I have a total of 18 of them. I would like to have them marked as 275-A through R. I think that's the right number.
And I don't intend to show all of these. I intend to show a through h, and I've got them separated out. I'm not sure how--perhaps I can just describe each one for the record and then we'll give it the right letter then, your Honor?
Okay. And I've shown some of them to counsel. I think I showed you this one yesterday.
In fact, we're going to use the telestrator a little bit too. So, Miss Montgomery, why don't you come down here.
All right. Miss Montgomery, would you keep your voice up while you're down there, please?
And, Miss Montgomery, even though I'm behind you, talk to the jury so they can hear you better than I can, okay?
Your Honor, the first copy that I would like to put on the elmo is just an illustrative film which Miss Montgomery has nothing to do with the casework in this case. So may that be 275-A?
Could you shift it so it's--so the sample's at the top. Whoops. There we go. And do you think--thanks.
Okay. Miss Montgomery, can we get the jury oriented to what all those markings are and then describe the significance of 275-A?
Yes. This is a D1S80 gel. And for orientation purposes--let's see. Ah, there we go. Okay. The origin is here (Indicating). And this is where--it's up at the top. You can't see on this particular gel, but that's where the samples are loaded. And they're distinct wells, separated. Each sample is separated. This (Indicating)--the ones with the multiple banding patterns, these are ladders and these are made by the company. They're provided within the kit and they range from a 14 allele down here--whoops. There we go. Hold on. 14 allele or a 14 band all the way up to a 41. And the way--the way I like to look at D1S80 is the marriage of PCR and RFLP. And by saying "The marriage of PCR and RFLP," it's using a PCR base system, but it's looking at repetitive regions or repetitive sequences of DNA within the geno much like Dr. Cotton described with the RFLP process. So these are repeat sequences ranging from 14 repeat units all the way up to 41 repeat units. And what the company did is, they made some of the alleles bolder so it's--for ease of picking out the alleles. And the ones they made bolder were the 18 allele, which is 18 repeat units, and that's right here (Indicating), the 24 and then also the 31 and the 34 repeat units.
Yes. This is termed a "Discreet allele system," meaning that unlike the RFLP process, with this process, you could use the ladder, the 14 to 41, as a ruler or a reference point and then just look at your evidence sample or your unknown sample and match up the band to the corresponding ladder lane. So--for example, this--oh, let's see. That (Indicating)--
The sample right there with the--this is moving. That is considered an 18 allele. And if you look at this one (Indicating)--
Yes, some of them are. And what the company did--let me put that down. What the company did is, the ones that they made darker are the ones that tend to be more commonly seen in the population. So as you can see on this gel (Indicating), the--I'll just make lines. Whoa. Okay. Let's not do the line. The 18 allele, the one right here (Indicating), is seen in three of the samples, and that's a total of what, 13 samples.
These are just individuals that were taken from our convicted offender database. They're individuals that have been released from--from prison and their samples were run--their DNA was extracted and then they were run on the D1S80 system. But then if you also look back to Mr. Harmon's question, if you look at this (Indicating), the 24, you can see that there are four individuals out of the 13. I'm saying 13 individuals because I'm looking at the positive control also. It would be 14 individuals. Four of these have a 24 allele. But by looking at the second allele, you can differentiate between all 12 of these individuals.
So they share one band or frequently in common, but they're different with the other band quite frequently?
So let me put that another way. From among these randomly selected 12 people, do any of the 12 share the same two bands?
Your Honor, I would object to the "Randomly selected." There's no foundation that that occurred.
Yes. Of these 12 individuals, none of them are the same type. But it's not unusual for individuals to be--there are instances where individuals are the same type.
Why don't we just start from left to right just so the jury can get a sense for how you can look at that and describe which type is there starting with sample 1.
Okay. Sample 1, if we count 14--I guess I should go back to talk about the ladder. It goes from 14 repeats all the way up to 41 repeats, but the 15 repeat's missing. So we go from 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, so on. 24, this one's bold again. So sample no. 1 would be an 18, 25. Sample no. 2 would be a 24, 25. Sample no. 3 would be a 24 homozygote, meaning they have--that individual only has a single banding pattern.
What they inherited from their parents was the same allele, 24 allele from both the mother and the father.
Okay. This one is a 22, 26. And then this one--sample no. 5 is a single-banded pattern, a homozygote.
Could you just give us a little better explanation? Why is there just one band there?
Well, there's just one band visualized because both of the bands--the individual is a 24 comma--or not in this case. But this case, the individual is a 28, a 28, 28. And so both of the bands are running into the same location. So all you're seeing is a single-banded pattern on that individual.
You're--this has since been optimized. So you would see the banding pat--equal intensity of the two alleles that are present or the two bands that are present on an individual. This is a reference bloodstain, and a single band is observed. And in this system, it hasn't been found that any of the samples run off the gel or anything such as that. So if you see a single-banded pattern, you can assign that a genotype or what you're observing and the type of the actual sample.
Sample 6 would be--once again, I have to--you know, I have to get my orientation and count from the 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. So this would be a 28 and this would be a 34 (Indicating). And you could see that 34 band's a little more intense than the other bands. And that once again is for ease of--so you can quickly call or you can readily identify types without having to count from the very bottom up to the top.
Sample 7 is a 20 because 18, 19, 20, and then a 28. And you can see three individuals, no. 5, 6 and 7, all share the same allele.
Why don't we move on to 275-B, which--you assign numbers to each of these gels when you run them; is that right?
Now, what's the purpose of this first gel, the--or strike that. Are those labels normally on your gels, the O.J. Simpson, R. Goldman, N. Brown labels?
No. Those labels were placed on the gel for--to identify what sample is in that particular lane.
Well, for two reasons. First of all, this gel was--these samples were run prior to any evidence coming into the laboratory. The only evidence that we had obtained were these three samples. And as I stated earlier, Gary Sims had examined the reference samples and placed a portion into a tube, and then I extracted these samples and analyzed them for D1S80.
Well, for two reasons. First of all, the L.A. District Attorney's office asked me to see if we could differentiate between these three individuals.
That was important to determine whether this--the evidence was sent to our laboratory for D1S80 analysis. If we couldn't distinguish between these three individuals, then it wouldn't offer any more information. At that time, they wanted to know if these three individuals could be differentiated.
Okay. Could you briefly describe the layout of this gel? You've already pointed out the ladders. Are there six ladders on this gel?
There's seven? There's one. What else, starting from left to right inside the left-hand ladder, is in each lane?
Okay. I should have stated on the last gel. What we have--we have a convention--conventional way of setting up these gels. And first is to, after your first ladder, is to place the positive amplification control. And this is the--once again, the amplification control that's provided in the D1S80 kit. And the amplification control is an 18, 31. And the next lane on this gel is a negative amplification, a negative amplification blank, and this produced no results. And then a ladder, and this is a QC sample (Indicating), and I believe Mr. Sims went into the explanation of what a QC sample was. And this is run--
And the next lane over is an extraction blank. And this provided no banding pattern.
Okay. Now, that's Mr. Goldman? He's a 24. So by coincidence, he shares one of these bands with Mr. Simpson?
Are there population studies that continue to be produced that compile the frequency of all these bands with the D1S80 system?
Okay. And when you typed Nicole Brown's known blood sample, what type did she produce?
She came out an 18 homozygote, which is one of the other more common alleles that is seen. The 18 and 24 alleles are the most common alleles that are seen in the population.
Okay. Now, let's just stop here for a second and I want to ask you, is it necessary to run these reference samples again with all the other tests that you performed on the evidence in this case?
If you know the results of the individuals, you don't need to run them on each subsequent gel that's run. There's a limitation on the number of samples that can be run on each--on each gel, and that's 20 samples or 20 lanes. And that doesn't include all the controls or the ladders. So to run them once is sufficient for the analysis.
Your Honor, I would like to at the same time I do this because of that samples that are on there to have the jury be able to see the photo boards from Bundy and Rockingham, those are exhibits 120 and 165, so we can see the relationship with these items. Could we do that?
I have no objection to that. May I request that any time we put arrows on something, we print it out? Apparently that last one didn't get printed out.
Okay. While Mr. Fairtlough is getting those boards out, essentially you have the same generic layout of the gel. This is a different gel than 148, the one we just saw; is that correct?
And I notice you have lanes labeled with Mr. Simpson's name on it, Mr. Goldman's name on it and Nicole Brown's name on it. Why did you include them on this gel?
They were included on this gel because I had extra room on the gel to run their samples again. And I--for the analysis. And it's also good, you know, just to--for the first gel, I wanted to see all the samples placed together.
Okay. And did Mr. Simpson's reference type produce the same type as we just saw on 275-B, exhibit 275-B?
Actually this gel is--some of the samples are fainter. So I'll need to get my glasses.
Sure. Could we lower it? There we go. Miss Montgomery, let's start out with the stain that was labeled Rockingham no. 6 that's displayed on the Rockingham exhibit board, and it's been identified as--individually as photo 120-C. What type did that produce in the D1S80 system?
As you can see, there's the 24 allele and there's--whoops--there's the 25 allele (Indicating).
In fact, let's--just to make it easier then, why don't we just go all the way across either the top or the bottom. The other band is a 24?
So you got the same results from the stain in Mr. Simpson's driveway with a D1S80 marker as you did with 47, the drop closest to the victims, 48 next down the walkway and 50, the next one down the walkway?
Assuming a single source, yes. It's inconsistent with Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown can be eliminated because her 18 band isn't seen in the bottom region of any of those samples.
No, there wasn't. By looking at the DQ-Alpha results also, there's no indication of a mixture on that--on those particular samples.
With regards to this? All right. Mr. Fairtlough, how about if we change places so the jurors can see the Bundy exhibit because it's too low with the use of the screen.
The way I like to look at D1S80 is the marriage of PCR and RFLP. And by saying 'the marriage of PCR and RFLP,' it's using a PCR base system, but it's looking at repetitive regions or repetitive sequences of DNA within the geno much like Dr. Cotton described with the RFLP process.
He's a 24, 25 ... Mr. Goldman is a single-banded pattern, a 24 homozygote ... She came out an 18 homozygote, which is one of the other more common alleles.
Have you made any mistakes in any of those proficiency tests? No, I have not. Does that mean it's not possible for you to make a mistake? No, it doesn't.
All the evidence went through Gary Sims.