All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. Mr. Yamauchi, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Collin Yamauchi, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination.
We were about where you were having a discussion with Dennis Fung in the evidence processing room, and I think you said you don't recall if there was anyone else there?
Okay. What did you discuss with Dennis Fung that relates to the testing that you ultimately did in this case?
Well, we discussed what stains would be appropriate to analyze, and he seemed to have the best idea being as how he investigated the crime scene. So I took the suggestions that he made and eventually sampled and analyzed those particular stains.
Sure. You have notes that reflect the conversations that would help refresh your recollection?
Well, at that time, he had stains with photo numbers on them. They were not yet assigned item numbers. So he told me about 117, 115, 114, 113 and 112. At this time, these were photo numbers.
Could you explain to the jury--we've had a lot of testimony about that, but could you just briefly, to go back to where Dennis Fung testified, explain what the photo id numbers reflect and what they--how they relate to item numbers?
Okay. In crime scene investigation, it's often difficult to take photos of everything in an order that will eventually be made clerical. In other words, they're got to have a clerical run in our property to know what each and every item was. And because there are certain rules of how clerically you have to put these into item numbers, the photo numbers don't always match up. But it is documented so there could be no confusion in the future.
And ultimately, does evidence of the sort that you were discussing with Dennis Fung, does that get booked into the evidence control unit?
Well, Dennis would assign it, it's a different number, and then present that sheet to the evidence control unit.
Okay. And would you describe what those items were that Dennis Fung discussed with you?
Okay. 117, which corresponds to item no. 52, is, as referring to my notes, some type of a--
I'm going to--seeing his note, I'm going to move to strike the characterization as part of his answer. I'd stipulate 117, 115, 116 are the--47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, the Bundy blood drops.
So, Mr. Yamauchi, 117 became photo id no. 50--or became evidence item no. 52; is that right?
And when you were discussing--we'll talk about the other items in a second. When you were discussing those items with Dennis, did he actually show you the items?
You mean open up and display the swatches? No, he didn't actually show me the swatches. But he did point out that yes, these coin envelopes are contained in these photo id numbers.
What other items did you and Dennis Fung discuss at that point in terms of potential testing?
Well, at this point in time, there were no exemplars which would be reference samples that you would need from victims. There were no exemplars from the victims. So in lieu of that, for the time being, Dennis suggested using this particular stain to represent the male victim.
Okay. And then what other--was there another item in the same category for Nicole Brown?
That was to act as a possible exemplar for the female victim and it was collected off of concrete.
Okay. And what other items if any did you discuss with Dennis Fung in the context of PCR DQ-Alpha testing that you contemplated?
He described a glove and told me about the Defendant having a cut on his hand and that the glove had red stains on it.
KEY QUOTEAnd was there some discussion about what item number that had or was--that should have at that point with Dennis Fung?
I'm not sure if it was Dennis or Andrea or if it was read off of a slip, but somehow or another, I was indicated it would become item no. 18.
Now, you mentioned that Dennis Fung pointed out a set of coin envelopes that were somewhere in the evidence processing room?
And where were you actually standing in the evidence processing room when you had this conversation with him?
They were on the table that was in the back section of the evidence processing room.
Do you recall if there were any other items other than the ones that he referred to or gestured to on that same table?
Where was the analyzed evidence envelope that he referred to that contained Mr. Simpson's blood?
At any point, did you see that analyzed evidence envelope in a black plastic garbage bag?
What is your first recollection of actually seeing that analyzed evidence envelope? When did you see it?
How close to the same--to the conversation you just described was it that you first saw that analyzed evidence envelope?
Okay. Now, we're going to talk about how you sampled those items in a couple of minutes, but when you obtain a reference sample that's in a tube, what's your normal practice in serology in terms of processing that item?
Well, we like to make swatch cards out of the blood to be dried and frozen as a reference.
Okay. And ultimately, did you do that on the reference tube that was provided to you by Mr. Fung that morning?
Did you ever make a fitzco card with the Defendant's blood sample in this case on that morning?
And when in this series of events that you're about to describe for us was it that you prepared this fitzco card?
To the best of my recollection, it was right after that so I could allow it to dry.
Okay. When in relation to the conversation with Mr. Fung was it that you prepared this fitzco card from the Defendant's reference tube?
Well, after conversing with him and discussing everything and him pointing out where I would need to get the evidence as well as the reference sample, it would have been after that.
Okay. Now, is that--making of the fitzco card, is that something that you've done many times?
Well, at least--at least 30 times or so. But the problem with fitzco cards is, they're kind of a new invention. In the past, we've made our own version of that out of clean cloth, cotton cloth, and that's been a practice for all the years that I've been at LAPD.
Other than the difference between the card, the fitzco card and the fabric, is there any difference in how you pour the blood tube onto the card or the fabric?
Now, where did you make this fitzco card within the evidence processing room and in relation to the coin envelopes?
I--I did that on more of the area facing the--there's a gate that can move up and down, and that's closest to the entrance door that you would go in and out of. By that area more so than back by the other evidence. It was separated by space.
Well, you know, it's obvious I had to find a nice space or area that I could be assured it would be away from wind currents or, you know, anything that would be blown around and it would be safe to dry on its own. I didn't want it to be contaminated.
Well, offhand, the most important thing for the forensic end of it would have been anything containing DNA or any type of biological material.
Well, there are two reasons. One is, every human being has biological substances on their hands and their body. So of course, you wouldn't want to contaminate by putting your own types and things onto such a reference. But also important is for your own safety purposes. It is a blood sample that--and all blood samples should be treated as, you know, possibly hazardous to your health. So you're going to want to take precautions to ensure that you don't get infected by any potential pathogen.
Now, at that point in time, the coin envelopes that Dennis Fung had pointed out to you were still on the table 10 to 15 feet away?
And were they in some sort--or strike that. What sort of condition were those coin envelopes in at the point where you went 10 to 15 feet away to prepare the fitzco card?
What--oh, they were in their regular position closed off and sorted out in rows into the--in the coin envelopes.
Okay. Now, we've heard a little bit about this sometime ago, but if you could briefly describe, why is it important to you as a conventional serologist, as a PCR DQ-Alpha forensic scientist, why is it important for you to make this card, this fitzco card?
To--well, we use that through our analysis as a reference so we'll have a dried preserved sample of that reference blood. You see, blood in the liquid state, it doesn't--it doesn't last as long as if you dry it out and freeze it. And for that reason, it helps to make a card like this for future analysis.
And when you say "For future analysis," what do you actually do with that card when you want to do some future testing?
Well, that card would be sampled in much the same way as all the other evidence would be sampled.
Okay. We'll get to that in a couple minutes. The envelope that had Mr. Simpson's reference tube, do you recall if it was sealed?
Do you recall if it had any item number on it when it was given to you like an evidence item number?
Well, on--on the tube itself, I have listed in my notes that it was a purple cap vial, in quotes, O.J. Simpson and 6-13-94. But what was on there was O.J. Simpson and Thano Peratis was in quotes.
KEY QUOTEOkay. Now, in the normal course of business within the SID, when does an evidence item or an envelope like the envelope this tube was in, when does it normally get sealed?
Okay. And what kinds of seals do you have in the laboratory? In other words, what do they signify?
Generally speaking, before it's analyzed, it gets a red seal. After an analyst receives the evidence, analyzes it and is through with it, that analyst would put the evidence back and then seal it up with a yellow seal at that point.
Okay. So if that envelope had not been booked, was it unusual for it not to be sealed?
Have you occasionally in your career performed testing on evidence before it's ever been booked?
Well, on a certain instance, I remember collecting the evidence myself in the field. So it wasn't booked.
The--can you describe the kind of tube that this blood sample was contained in? Does it have a commercial name to it?
Well, I know there is vacutainer or venojet or something like that tubes. I didn't take notes as to which specific one it was.
The--have you noticed in the times that you've opened tubes like this anything distinctive when you've opened them?
Well, generally speaking, you have to put some type of a clean cloth over the top because quite often, little bits of blood will be at the top of the cap.
Well--okay. Often, you can hear a vacuum noise because they're--they are vacuum tubes that are used to collect blood.
Do you recall whether you've always heard that noise in every case where you've taken one of these vacuum caps off?
Do you remember each case in which you've taken one of these caps off the vacuum tubes?
Now, what precaution--do you take any sort of precautions when you open these tubes?
Well, I make sure I wear gloves and I also put clean chem-wipes over the top of it to insure that no aerosolizing or any of the blood on the cap gets--gets away.
Okay. I know the jury's heard this before, but could you quickly tell us what a chem-wipe is?
A chem-wipe is a fancy scientific form of Kleenex. It's like an all-purpose type of paper that you would use around the lab for different wiping purposes.
KEY QUOTEOkay. And you mention aerosolized. Why would you put a chem-wipe over it in the context of aerosol?
Well, because when you're taking off the cap of one of these tubes, there's a little bit of force involved in order to pull the cap off. And doing that, like--like opening up a wine bottle or something of a cork, and you pull real fast, you don't want it to get away from you and have things splash all over the place. So to ensure that everything stays in one place and wouldn't contaminate anything or yourself for that matter, I put these chem-wipes over the top to take it off carefully.
Well, that--I'm not sure if it's written in to do that or not, but I just take it as common sense to utilize that practice for my--basically for my own safety and also for the contamination factor.
Now, before you took the cap off the tube from Mr. Simpson in this case, did you make any attempts to measure the amount of blood that was in that tube?
Well, from a scientific standpoint, what we're interested in is whether there's enough there for us to test, and that's all I noted. And I note that by writing "Ample."
KEY QUOTEI felt there was sufficient sample in that tube for us to run a battery of tests.
Would you describe what you attempted to do with respect to the fitzco card in order to make a--an exemplar in the way you described it? How did you do it?
Okay. In the laboratory, I use what's known as a pipette-man. And what that is is the mechanical pipetter which utilizes sterile tips that have these plugs in them to make sure that no aerosol particles or anything at all can contaminate the pipetter. These pipetters are very accurate in measuring out aqueous solutions. What I did was, I used that to draw up some blood and carefully put it onto the card.
Generally speaking, a couple hundred microliters which it--well, let me put it this way. If you know what a milliliter is, which is less than half of a teaspoon, a microliter in that respect, 200 microliters would be about a fifth of a milliliter. So it's a small amount, but, you know, it's definitely enough that you could see what it is.
When you did it in this case, do you remember how much blood you drew up into the pipette-man?
Well, consciously, all I'm worried about is getting enough on the exemplar card. But being as how it is a one am. Mil. Pipette-man, I most likely would have drawn up one mill of blood.
Usually I would do that. And if there's any left over, that tip would be disposed of in biohazard along with the excess blood.
And when you make one of these cards, is it your custom or practice to actually label it as well?
And how do you identify it? Do you have some sort of initials or number that you would routinely put on items?
For--for my own personal identification mark, I--I generally use my initials "CY" followed by my serial number.
Okay. Now, I think you mentioned that the reason you did--or strike that. What was the reason that you chose to do--make the fitzco card first? You said something about drying earlier.
Well, I wanted to allow it a chance to dry so that later on, I could sample that card in my analysis.
Okay. And so--did you actually hold the tube in one hand and the pipette in the other when you drew the blood?
Would you please describe the relationship of the tube to the pipette when you drew the blood up into the pipette-man from the tube?
And then what would you do with the tube while you have the pipette in your left hand?
Well, we have various types. There are small ones with bags in them, and then there are some with--that are made of paper kind of like, oh, it's a box about that tall (Indicating).
I'm sorry. About a foot. And then there are bigger boxes about one - one cubic foot in size and then there are larger bins which have trash-bag size biohazard bags in them, and there is one of those in the evidence processing room.
Right. That once again, to clarify, is kept clean because these pipette tips have this filter in them that does not allow anything to pass through the tip area and into the instrument itself.
Now, at this point, are the evidence coin envelopes still in the same position that you described earlier?
Sure. You just put the disposable pipette tip into where you dispose it. Are the coin envelopes still in the same place where they had been when you described them earlier?
Okay. And the jury's already seen what the fitzco card is. So after you put the blood on it, did you just leave it the way it was with the blood on top of it?
Well, they come in two parts. They have the card itself and then they also come with a storage compartment that you can eventually put the card into. I usually put that storage compartment down and then put the fitzco card on top of that so that the card itself isn't touching the table.
Do you recall specifically with regard to the tube and the fitzco card in this case whether you deposited all of the blood that you had drawn up into the pipette-man onto the fitzco card?
I'm not sure. If there is though, I--I dispose of it. I don't replace the excess blood back into the tube.
Well, I've been taught from general lab practices going back to college that that's not sound lab practice.
Okay. How long does it normally take these fitzco cards to dry to your satisfaction?
That depends a lot on the--I guess the temperature and humidity. But generally speaking, they dry relatively fast, maybe an hour, hour and a half, two hours.
Okay. Now, after you prepared the fitzco card--and I believe you described you put the cap back on the tube--did you then turn your attention to the coin envelopes?
What did you return--what did you turn your attention to after you prepared the fitzco card in the fashion you've just explained to the jury?
Okay. Now, is it your custom and practice to prepare detailed notes of the items that you sample?
Okay. Could you give us an idea? We're going to show one of them in a little bit, but could you give us an idea of the kinds of things you document?
Oh, okay. Well, what I generally do is, I kind of draw out a picture of what I think the swatches look like.
Okay. Let me step back. I left out something. Where was the tube when you turned your attention to the coin envelopes, the reference tube?
Well, afterwards, after being capped, it would have went back into the gray envelope.
Do you have any habit or custom about working with respect to gloves and working with wet blood?
Well, yeah. After you handle a tube of wet blood, almost inevitably, you'd get a little bit on your glove. So as a practice, change them.
Okay. And when you turned your attention to the coin envelopes, where was the envelope that the reference tube from Mr. Simpson had been?
That, after it was placed back into the gray envelope, would have been put back with the rest of the evidence.
Okay. So now, we're about to talk about sampling of the evidence in general, okay?
Have you had a chance to review the board that we made with respect to your habit and custom of sampling evidence?
Before we move on, do you actually remember changing your gloves between the reference sample processing and the evidence sampling in this case?
Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, if you could step out here and use the pointer, I'd like you to describe to the jury how you normally process evidence samples in a case where you've been given a coin envelope with swatches from an evidence stain and a substrate control.
Just start with photo no. 1 that's entitled "Labeling tubes." Could you explain to the jury what that shows?
Oh, okay. The first step is, you've got these little tubes that eventually you want to put your samples into. And so to ensure that you're going to get the right thing into the right tube, the first thing I do is, I'll write down on the tube to make sure that I--I've got the number and whatever other information I'm going to need on there. And then from that point, once the tubes are labeled, I will go to the next step and--
Well, if I have it, a DR number. But in this case, I'm not sure if at that point I had a DR number. I believe I was working off of the photo id numbers at that point because that would be the only information at that time I had.
Okay. And we'll talk about them in a little while as well. So are you ready to move on to photo no. 2 that describes the opening of the bindle?
Sure. Okay. There's actually two steps going on here. We've got--what I'm doing there, I'm opening up a sterile scalpel blade, which is the instrument I use to do most of my manipulations, and that would be cutting as well as transferring stains into the tubes that I just described. The other thing that happened there is, I--these bindles here, one of them was opened up face up like that.
Paper. It's plain paper. Oh, there's one other thing I didn't mention that is in this photograph to my attention. We've got the chem-wipes that we talked about earlier, and they're underneath the bindle there. And the reason why that's done is because once you're viewing some cutting even on the paper bindle, you occasionally would go through and cut through the paper bindle. And you wouldn't want the blade to go all the way through and cut into the table or something that could potentially cause contamination. So in order to ensure that that doesn't happen, I always lay about three chem-wipes underneath the bindle to make sure that that doesn't occur. At that point--see if you can--if you look closer, you can kind of see how the blade itself can be used to manipulate the evidence and--
You were talking about how easy it is to manipulate the sample with the scalpel. Why do you try to do that with the scalpel?
Well, the scalpel is sterile, and I want to make sure that the only thing touching that, it would be that sterile instrument. So for that reason, I like to do my manipulations with that blade itself.
Well, we--we throw the whole blade away after each individual sample that we cut.
Yes. Afterwards, for safety purposes, we put it back in the aluminum foil packaging that it comes in, and then that's tossed away in the biohazard.
Okay. And do you--what is your practice with respect to changing those between samples?
And what about if you have a substrate control in addition to a stain? Do you change it at all between those two?
Right. Substrate controls are handled in the same fashion the evidence is handled.
And here, moving right along, as the end of that process is occurring, I'm putting the cut piece of sample into the microcentrifuge tube utilizing the scalpel blade as the manipulating instrument. And moving right along then, that tube is placed capped into the rack, and the next--the next process then occurs.
We have to cap it in order to cut it off from the other surroundings to ensure its safety from being exposed to any other contaminants.
And what is your practice with respect to changing gloves? You've described it with respect to changing gloves when you worked with a wet sample. What is your practice with regards to changing gloves when you're processing a series of coin envelopes in the manner that's shown on the exhibit board, exhibit 277?
Okay. As is clear with this display, my gloves do not have to come in contact with the swatches themselves and, therefore, I don't change my gloves between each sample because the manipulating instrument, that's the only thing that's touching the sample itself, is the scalpel blade. So it's not necessary to change your gloves between samples.
Okay. Occasionally, do you--have you seen the need to change gloves between samples even when you're working with dry samples?
Well, if anything arises that would cause that, yes, of course. Gloves would be changed.
Excuse me. Mr. Fairtlough, you want to just briefly take it down to the other end there?
When you processed the items that are labeled 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in this case, generally were there two bindles in each of those envelopes?
Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes?
Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously.
Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of cross-contamination. So you work on one thing at one time.
And in each of the coin envelopes that you processed in this case, there were two bindles you've said?
Sure. During the processing of the evidence in this case, did you initial either the coin envelopes or the bindles?
That would be my initials "CY", and most often, I'll also include my serial number too.
Okay. And you mentioned, in showing the processing of one of those items, that you opened the bindle, you had a chem-wipe underneath the bindle.
How frequently did you change the chem-wipe with respect to the processing of these bindles?
Well, this all makes logical sense. If I'm going to cut in--every time I make a cut, well, that set is going to have to get a different set of chem-wipes underneath it because that was the whole idea behind it in the first place, to ensure that I wouldn't cut into the table. So yes, every single time between controls, between sample, those chem-wipes are changed underneath.
Your Honor, I'd like to have marked as exhibit 278 for identification--I've shown these to Mr. Scheck. They're simply four coin envelopes, each with two bindles in them. And I'd like to have Mr. Yamauchi demonstrate right up here in front of the jury the sequence of handling from one point--and I'm not going to ask him to do all four. I just want to have him do two so the jury can observe how he actually did these in this case.
Your Honor, I don't know. Maybe he can do one. And we have a board. We have a description.
Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, did you prepare--and I'm going to write just on one of them for the time being.
Mr. Yamauchi, would you please come up and do this in front of the jury? And I'm not going to ask you to cut any of these, but would you pretend these are two coin envelopes they're waiting for you to process. And just start with 278-A. And if you would, if you'll describe what you're doing and what you did on the evidence in this case so the jury can watch.
Your Honor, if this is what he's doing, I object because he's just having him open up the coin envelopes and bindles and it's not replicating the process depicted there, the scalpel and the swatches.
Okay. With the same process and procedure in mind, you get out the clean chem-wipes and I've got my--
--get out the marking pen and mark them up, have them ready to be processed. Those are the--the tubes. And then--well, I'd have gloves on of course. Usually the way the flaps are done is in this fashion like that to hold them shut. So then we'd have two closed-off paper bindles. They would come out like that (Indicating). And the reason why there's two is--I--I know you've been hearing this all along, but we have controls and we have sample, and that's why there's generally two there. Well, regardless of order, I handle these in the same fashion. So I don't necessarily do my sample and my control first. But what I would do is open this up, put it down onto the chem-wipe pad and then I would proceed to opening up the scalpel blade and then take out the sterile scalpel blade and do my cutting. And then with the sterile scalpel blade, I've learned to, if you press down on it at a certain angle, you can actually pick the sample up that you're going to put into the tube. And when you get good at this stuff, like anything else, you can take a tube and you can open it up with one hand and then put the sample in, close the tube off with one hand, put it away. The sample--the scalpel blade goes back into the container it originally was held in so that it doesn't cut anybody. That's put to the side or, you know, tossed out if you've got the receptacle there. Then the same process is started all over again. This is closed off. Sometimes I'll initial the bindles or I'll initial the coin envelope or I'll do both just to be on the safe side. These chem-wipes, along with the scalpel blade, rolled up, tossed into the receptacle and then work on the next one, the whole process all over.
The bindles are then placed back into the coin envelope, put on the side and then the whole process starts over again with the next one. This has to be closed off before you start on the next sample.
You don't want two of them open at the same time because even though you separate it out, it's still not good lab practice to have them open simultaneously.
All right. Mr. Yamauchi, why don't you return to your seat on the witness stand, please.
Now, when you actually open one of these bindles--we've had a discussion about you approximate how large they are and describe them in your notes?
on the tube itself, I have listed in my notes that it was a purple cap vial, in quotes, O.J. Simpson and 6-13-94. But what was on there was O.J. Simpson and Thano Peratis was in quotes.
Referring to my notes, I have that it was not sealed.
From a scientific standpoint, what we're interested in is whether there's enough there for us to test, and that's all I noted. And I note that by writing 'Ample.'
He described a glove and told me about the Defendant having a cut on his hand and that the glove had red stains on it.
A chem-wipe is a fancy scientific form of Kleenex.