All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Miss Montgomery, would you come forward, please.
Renee Montgomery, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Miss Montgomery, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Mr. Harmon, you may commence your redirect examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON
Miss Montgomery, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about how recently your laboratory implemented D1S80 yesterday. Do you recall that?
And he also asked you a question about cellmark and I believe you said cellmark is not using the D1S80 marker. Do you recall that?
Yes. There are, umm, both private and public laboratories that are using the D1S80 marker. Some of the laboratories are the Minnesota State laboratory, Dr. Ed Blake's laboratory, which is FSA. It is in northern California. The Orange County Crime Laboratory is using D1S80. AFIP, which is the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, is using D1S80. Did I state Minnesota crime lab.
Now, yesterday with Mr. Blasier's examination of you, you realize that many of the exhibits that were projected up there are computer scan photos that were taken by Dr. Blake, do you not?
Do those photos accurately represent the data which is on the original gel from which you produced your results?
No. As I stated yesterday, it is best to see the actual duplicate copy, the blue copy, to see what bands are present.
And using scan photos projected on the elmo up on this screen to show or to attempt to demonstrate that something is not there, do you feel that is a scientifically reliable way to determine whether something is on the original gel?
That misstates. They were computer--they are coming--computer-generated photographs coming off a hard drive; not from the elmo.
Do those--those computer scanned photos which were projected up on the screen, do they in any way accurately reflect what was not--what you saw on the original gel when they are used to demonstrate that something is not on the original gel?
Well, no. You lose some of the sensitivity. It is good just for a guide to give you some bearing on what is on the gel, but you actually need to see the gel yourself and to view that gel.
Okay. Mr. Blasier also put up on the screen analytical gel 184 which--where there was--remember the discussion about what you described as an artifact in between lanes for the other substrate control and an extraction blank? Do you recall that?
It is to show you what the substrate around the stain in question is--what is occurring with that stain, so if there is any background, you need to be able to detect that background.
And is it important in that regard to look at the actual stain which is adjacent to the substrate control?
Now, let's assume--I know you say that is an artifact. I want you to imagine or assume that that was not an artifact, that that was really a band on a g184, even though it is between lanes. Even though you have described it, it is not a band, I want you to imagine that it is a band. Okay?
Imagining that really was a band on the other substrate control, would it be important for you to compare this imaginary band with the actual stain for 50 to see if that imaginary band appears in the stain?
Would it be important for you, imagining that that really was a band, even though that is not your opinion, to look at the typing results for the substrate control to see if that imaginary band appears there?
Yes. One would want to look at the substrate control, and if banding did occur in the substrate control or if any DNA was detected there, then you would want to compare that to your evidence sample.
Okay. And do you recall what your typing results were for stain no. 50, one of those Bundy walk stains?
While you are doing that, this imaginary band that you have already described was not there, where did it line up with respect to the ladder?
--which I'm forcing you to do in this question, where did that band that I have asked you to imagine line up with?
Well, as--when Mr. Blasier was--excuse me--asking me we were--we saw that it was right in between the--I believe it was the 17, but let me look at my notes again to be sure of that.
The evidence sample, DNA--I'm sorry, DNA 8, LAPD no. 50 from the Bundy crime scene, came back a 24, 25.
And nothing appeared in the area of the band that I have asked you to imagine appearing in 50 control; is that true?
And even if that band that I have asked you to imagine was on the other control, the fact that you see nothing on the other stain, what is the significance of that? And I'm asking you to imagine something that is contrary to your scientific opinion.
Well, the only banding pattern that was seen on the evidence sample that relates to that substrate control was a 24 band and a 25 band. There are no bands seen in any other region of that gel.
Okay. Let's move to the proficiency tests that were shown up on the screen by Mr. Blasier. Did you know that the correct answer to the quality control sample on that proficiency test was a 1.1, 3?
No, I did not. These are blind--or they are unknown to me. The results are unknown to me when I'm doing the analysis.
Did you make up the explanation of cross-hybridization for describing in your notes on the result sheet what you saw in that QC result?
Okay. Is it also mentioned in Dr. Blake's case work article, "The phenomenon of cross-hybridization" on page 704?
Dr. Blake does mention cross-hybridization in his 1992 case work paper. As far as the exact page, you would have to show me the document.
Okay. And moving to the test sample, and in your proficiency tests, when you wrote down what your opinion was when you saw the data, did you know that the correct answer was 1.2, 3?
Mr. Blasier put up the gel where the three reference samples were initially run and you described that you were unable to type Mr. Simpson. Do you recall that yesterday?
Is the subject of inhibition, PCR inhibition mentioned, in the user guide by the manufacturer of these kits?
Yes. Dr. Blake does mention it. As far as the exact page, I would have to look at the document.
Is it also mentioned in the chapter 17 that was authored by Dr. Blake and Cecelia von Beroldinger on page 214, the subject of PCR inhibition?
Is it also addressed in the analytical chemical article that we have discussed authored by Dr. Blake and Becky Reynolds from Roche?
And is it also discussed in a chapter in the book, the Saferstein book the way we have described it, the authors of which are Dr. Blake and Dr. Sensabaugh, the subject of PCR inhibition?
Well, Saferstein has three books out, and in the third edition there is a chapter devoted--the chapter I believe you are referring to is devoted to PCR and there is mention of inhibition in that chapter.
Is the phenomenon documented by Dr. Blake and Mr. Haguchi or Dr. Haguchi, who is also from Roche, in a 1989 symposium paper that was published in the FBI symposium? Do you want to take a look at that one?
Yes, I recognize this article and it does discuss inhibition in this article, also.
And when faced with the prospect of PCR inhibition or the--or strike that. Do all of these articles also discuss what you do when you think there is PCR inhibition?
Yes. If inhibition occurs with the sample, and by inhibition you don't get any typing results, no product is obtained from that sample, analysis should be reconducted to try to get a result from that sample and then it could be reconducted by either diluting the sample--by diluting the sample out and then reamplifying it.
Now, did you see--remember Mr. Blasier showed those graphics, one about the glove and they purported to show the locations of stains where the 25 alleles were found. Do you recall that yesterday?
And are you familiar with the sampling of the glove and the relationship of the stains that were typed by you and Mr. Sims that produced the--that detected the 25 allele?
How misleading is that slide with respect to showing where those stains actually are?
Does that slide accurately reflect the location of the stains which produced the 25 allele?
Well, I think the best depiction would be to see the actual photograph, to see--
Okay. Would you like to do that, please. We will put that board up. Just stay right where you are.
Miss Montgomery, why don't you look at the slide again. From looking at that can you tell whether that is a right-hand glove or a left-hand glove?
Okay. Would you look at 272-B, the photo board, and if you could take the pointer and show us where those stains really are on that right-hand glove, no. 9, from Bundy--from Rockingham.
Sustained. Rephrase the question. And Mr. Harmon, how about if we take that board and put it on the main easel. You can put it on top of the results board.
Okay. Would you point out to the jury where the stains which produced the 25 allele are?
Once again, just by looking at my notes to get the exact item numbers, a 25 allele was detected on G10 and there was a 25 on--
Okay. Just, you know, because those are inside out gloves, two of them, and one is right side out, could you make it real clear where--what surface that is on and where it is. Just describe it in words, please.
Okay. G10 is the inside surface near this wrist notch and the results of G10 were a 25 allele and a weaker 25 allele.
There was also a 25 allele detected at G11 and G11 is the outside palmer surface of the glove, (Indicating). And what was detected here was a 24 allele and a weaker 25 and 18 alleles.
On G13, (Indicating), which is also the outside surface of the glove, there was--near the notch area, there was a 24 allele detected and also weaker 25 and 18 alleles detected in this region, (Indicating).
Mr. Blasier asked you about a problem you had with one of the glove gels. Do you recall that, with the ladder leaking?
Yes. Anytime I am not confident with the result or if there is any question in the results, I will do a reanalysis on those samples.
Okay. In fact, did you get the same answers when you reran that gel that you did on the gel where the ladder leaked into the lane?
And is that what a responsible forensic scientist would do when faced with that problem?
Well, I think any individual, when there is a question, needs to do reanalysis on samples.
And Mr. Blasier projected a G295 up there, the rear gate gel. Do you recall that yesterday?
Okay. And in your opinion you described what was on there that he directed your attention to as not a problem; is that true?
Do you recall that there was a problem, perhaps a band, a line of bands that went all the way across the gel or a line of shadows that went across the gel?
Well, I will look at that gel and see if that is the one that had the silver smearing across the bottom region.
This is a beautiful gel. I don't know what problem could have been mentioned on this.
KEY QUOTEIf there had been a problem, could any responsible forensic scientist have rerun it?
There was a lot of discussion yesterday about terms that you've used to communicate data that you saw; a hint, a trace, possible trace. Do you recall those discussions?
Do the words that you used to try to communicate or convey the data, do they somehow change the data?
And the words are words you have used to try to express that so that they can appreciate it?
Mr. Blasier asked you some words about examiner bias yesterday or some questions about examiner bias. Do you recall that?
I want to you ask you a question about examiner bias. Can you make a 24, 25 result look like a 18 by wishful thinking?
Did anything arise in the course of Mr. Blasier's questioning of you that in any way undermines the results that you and Mr. Sims have presented to this jury?
If a responsible forensic scientist had questions about the results you have presented, could she have performed retesting to address the question scientifically?
Yes. Anytime there is a question, reanalysis can be done on these samples. The ones where there were questions, reanalysis was done.
Miss Montgomery, yesterday before lunch or at lunch I gave you every picture that I was going to use, didn't I?
And I told you to look at them and compare to the original of your gels, not the blue film, right?
I don't recall if you specifically said to compare them to the originals or the copies.
No, I have--I made multiple copies of the blue film or of the gel, both for discovery purposes and also to retain copies within--for the case files.
And I told you that I wanted you to look at them carefully to make sure that they were accurate pictures, that they accurately portrayed what you have on your film, didn't I?
Yes, you asked me to look at those photos and see how they compared to the--to the gels I had or the copies.
And you came back after lunch and you handed my pictures back to me and you said, "These are great, I wish we had some of these," didn't you?
Actually the photos, as far as showing the ladders and what the samples are and the strong band, they are excellent photos. As far as the weaker band, you need to actually see the gel to be able to capture the weaker gels and to be able to visualize them with your eyes.
And I told you that for any picture that I showed if you wanted to look at your original gel you should tell me so, right?
And the two films that we sent--we showed to the jury, were actually your films, not my pictures, correct?
Now, I want to show you--I want to show you 275-I which is the film with the dress samples on it, correct?
And I put a post-it on there with arrows above the two bands that you say are there at 24, correct?
And let me show you the substrate control that Mr. Harmon asked you about which is 275-Q,. The band in the substrate control lane, have I put a post-it with an arrow above the band that you say isn't a band?
Well, the band that you say isn't a band, it is not a band, that is why I say it isn't a band. There is the one where we were talking about it yesterday where there is this little glitch in the gel, and if we could pass it around to the jury for them to look at, that would probably help.
You can see something there that looks like a band and you can't see--what you can see on the dress is much fainter than what you see on the substrate control, correct?
No, that is incorrect. This is not a band and it is not a band because it is not a distinct banding pattern. It also falls within two lanes, and you could tell it is just a--you know, I don't know how else to describe it besides a blip. But if you could show to it the jury, I think that would help.
Let's try one at a time. We can't fit them both on here. Let's try 275-Q, the substrate control first. Can you zoom in on it?
Yes, and--as I--when I was talking or when Mr. Harmon was presenting the gels, asking me to explain some of the fainter ones, I was saying that it is difficult to see those fainter bands from when--when they are projected up on the screen and you actually have to see them. It is just like slide presentations. Sometimes you lose some of the contrast when you put something on an overhead such as this.
Your Honor, could we also have a white sheet of paper? It makes it a little easier to see.
Miss Montgomery, these slides we just showed the jury, this is what you submitted to the Court as evidence of your testing, correct?
Now, cross-hybridization, I want to ask you a couple of questions about what Mr. Harmon asked you. Under what conditions do you get cross-hybridization so that you have a 1.3 dot show up?
Cross-hybridization can occur when there is a slight difference in the temperature of the stringency wash during the typing process of the DQ-Alpha. And I believe Dr. Cotton may have gone into this in a bit more detail, and if the temperature is slightly off, then you could get some of this weak dot, some of the weak dots occurring within the sample.
There are controls built into the system so that you don't have temperatures too low, correct?
Well, we use--we calibrate our water bath and we check it with a thermometer, but sometimes if the water level is not high enough, then you could have a high subtle--or a slight difference in the temperature from between where the strips are and to--where the water level ends and then where the top of the tray is.
What does the amplitype user's guys says with respect to cross-hybridization and when it can occur in terms of how much you have to test?
Yes. They talk about cross-hybridization and how it can occur when too much--when you develop your strips for too long or too much DNA is added into the--too much DNA is amplified and these are two other ways that cross-hybridization can occur.
Does the manual say that it can occur when you develop your pictures properly and don't use too much DNA?
I'm sorry. If you use the appropriate quantity of DNA you shouldn't get that, right?
Okay. It is section 6.2.3 of the amplitype user's guide put out by Roche. There is a Cetus emblem because Cetus was the original company and it was bought out by Roche. And in the supporting material section 6-5, it talks about typing of large amounts of amplified DNA. It is a long paragraph.
"Amplification of samples containing high level of starting DNA," parenthetically, "Greater than 30 nanograms, generally results in large quantities of amplified DNA. Hybridization of very high concentrations of amplified DNA to the probe strips can sometimes lead to the detection of faint background signals much weaker than the C dot which is due to nonspecific, quote, `cross-hybridization' unquote. Cross-hybridization in this context refers to the weak interaction of a probe with a DQ-Alpha sequence allele that is not perfectly complimentary. This occurs more with the subtyping probes than with the typing probes because the subtyping probes detect differences between the alleles of only one or two bases." That is only halfway through. "The extent of cross-hybridization, even with very high levels of amplified DNA, is so low that any faint background signals only appear after lengthy color development. These nonspecific signals do not appear if the color development reaction is stopped with a degree of coloration of the specific dots appears to have reached a maximum."
"Some samples having very large quantities of amplified DNA require only five to ten minutes for maximum coloration." And our laboratory we develop between 20 and 30 minutes. "Development of color beyond this point, overdevelopment, can also lead to high strip background which decreases contrast." And that is one thing our laboratory--Dr. Blake has noted that we should stop our color development a little earlier than we do.
Mr. Harmon told you to use Dr. Blake's name as many times as you could, didn't he?
KEY QUOTENo, he didn't? So the manual tells you that you shouldn't get these dots if you develop your film the appropriate amount of time, doesn't it?
Well, it is in the film. What we are talking about are strips and those are the membranes, the thin membranes that have the dots on them, the 1 dot, the 2 dot, the 3 dot, so we are referring to strips, not film.
The manual says that you only get that phenomena when you develop it for too long, correct?
And it also says you have to have a high molecular weight of DNA before you see that phenomena, too, right?
No. It said that a high level of DNA and that is one way that cross-hybridization can occur.
Now, does it describe any other way you get cross-hybridization in here, other than those two ways?
Now, Dr. Blake's paper on case work analysis, would you agree that that says that you don't get cross-hybridization unless the temperature is too low; 54 degrees rather than 55?
Yes. I believe what the article is referring to is the 1992 publication by Dr. Blake and some other individual states that with changes in the temperature that cross-hybridization can occur.
Now, let's assume hypothetically that you can get cross-hybridization at lower levels of DNA. Would you agree that what that results in giving you is 1.3 dots that really aren't there? I'm sorry, that don't represent any DNA?
Well, I think we need to remember that these dots are very faint and they are not interpreted as part of the--the results. These 1.3's are outlines or hints. If it is anything substantial, and there is a question, then reanalysis should be conducted.
Well, you are bringing possible trace into the way the D1S80 is described. There--the hint as opposed to a trace. If it is trace, then you want to reexamine those samples.
You recall, Miss Montgomery, that this is the second time that you ran these proficiency samples, correct?
And you got one hint and one trace and you got a hint in QC 839 and a trace in the positive control, correct?
No, I don't believe that is the reason why I did it again. I would need to see that whole case file to determine why subsequent analysis was done on this sample.
All right. And you got nothing in your evidence sample, the actual proficiency sample, of any hints or traces, did you?
And you got two traces in your proficiency evidence samples, did you not--actually, you got three, didn't you?
Yes, that's true, but if you look at the control on that strip, the positive control, and the QC sample, there is nothing indicated there. And as far as the type that was reported out for these samples, umm--let's see, I can't--on sample 433, the reported result is a 1.2, 3. Those trace amounts in the--the trace amounts of cross-hybridization were not reported out. They weren't significant to the analysis.
And your quality control showed--I think you just indicated the quality controlled worked fine. That shows two hints, doesn't it?
Miss Montgomery, yesterday when I showed you this, I asked you whether the stains G10, G11 and G13 were in the wrist area, didn't I?
Well, yes, that is the lower level of the glove. One would call it a wrist area.
Okay. Now, the upper area of the glove, is it accurate to say that the various samples that were tested, that Mr. Simpson was excluded from any bloodstains on that glove up around the finger area where someone might grab the fingers to take the glove off?
Yes. There were areas in the finger region that were tested and there was no 25 allele detected in those samples.
And there was no--Mr. Simpson was excluded from any sample in the palm area where someone's finger might make contact if they were holding it with the other hand?
Gary Sims examined the glove and I guess I should--I should note that for G11 it was near the wrist notch, it was termed the outside palmer surface. And as I stated, Mr. Sims looked at all these samples and extracted them and then I analyzed them for D1S80.
The reason for taking so many samples was to get a representative sample from different parts of the glove, correct?
And various areas were tested and Mr. Simpson was excluded from everywhere on that glove except the wrist area, correct?
KEY QUOTEMiss Montgomery, have you ever taken a pair of leather gloves off by pulling them off at the wrist?
I just have a couple questions, Miss Montgomery.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON
The cross-hybridization, when you were reading from the user guide there was something in there that I think need to be clarified. I believe the exact words were that this cross-hybridization occurs more with the subtyping probes?
Could you tell the jury, just so they understand what that means, what are the subtyping probes that were used in this case?
Well, the sub--subtyping probes, there are four nominal alleles, and this is the 1 allele, the 2 allele, the 3 allele and the 4 allele and then there are also subtypes and that is the 1.1 and the 1.3 and the 1.2, but the 1.2 has to be inferred because there is not a specific probe for that 1.2. So it is more common to see the cross-hybridization occurring with samples of the subtype.
Okay. What I would like to--what I would like you to do is just so the jury can appreciate what this means and doesn't mean, you know the symbol for circle with a line through?
Yes. Let's make this line as thin as possible because they are kind of beefy there. Down below "Genotypes consistent with Defendant" if you can fit that in there.
We will remember what that means. Could we capture that, your Honor, and I don't know if that is 1173-C(1) or I'm not sure how we number this one.
Miss Montgomery, while--this is the substrate control, the 50C, I'm pretty sure that is the one it is--or no, that's the--I'm sorry. The gel that had the other control on it, 275-Q.
Now, we just need to get back to a little basics here. You put the samples in all the way across the top and they move in one direction; is that right?
I believe one of the things you said is that whatever that is, it is not a band; is that right?
Right. That is one of the reasons. I think you will want to clear the telestrator. Yes, and it doesn't have the definition of a band.
Well, let's just focus on where it is. It is your opinion that it is not in one of those lanes; is that right?
Now, can--these bands, they are DNA, they are started out--they are DNA material, right?
I mean, suppose it was a band full of amplicons from a very willful person. Could they--and they wanted to turn left. Could they do that?
KEY QUOTEAll right. Miss Montgomery, thank you very much. You are excused. All right. Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.
This is a beautiful gel. I don't know what problem could have been mentioned on this.
Mr. Harmon told you to use Dr. Blake's name as many times as you could, didn't he?
Various areas were tested and Mr. Simpson was excluded from everywhere on that glove except the wrist area, correct? ... Well, as I stated, the wrist and near the wrist area.
How does John Madden do this?
I mean, suppose it was a band full of amplicons from a very willful person. Could they--and they wanted to turn left. Could they do that?