All right. Thank you very much, counsel. Proceed.

Thank you, your Honor.

Mr. Yamauchi, what sort of instrument or tool did you use to draw the blood from the tubes in preparation of the fitzco cards?

The pipette-man that I described yesterday.

Okay. And did you change the tips as you described yesterday?

Of course.

What did you do with those cards after you put the blood on them?

They were laid out to dry along the edge of the hood system I have at the edge of my work station.

And what kind of hood is that?

I'm not sure.

Did you, before--let's talk about one of these samples at a time. Did Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample, which you've described as Coroner's no. 94-05136, was that ultimately assigned an evidence item number?

Yes, it was.

What was that?

Item no. 59.

And the same question with respect to Ronald Goldman's reference sample, what item was that given?

That would be item no. 60.

When you first observed Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample, which was item no. 59, did you make any specific notation of how much blood was in there?

No. I--I would have noted whether or not it is an ample amount.

Okay. Have you ever noted how much blood, I mean, recorded how much blood was in a reference sample that was provided to you, when you first saw it, in your career?

Something accurate, no.

Okay. The same question with respect to Ronald Goldman's reference sample. Did you make any notation of how much blood was in that tube before you drew any to prepare the fitzco card?

Once again, I wrote "Ample" down indicating to me that scientifically there was enough there for us to do our analyses.

Okay. How much blood did you withdraw from item no. 59, the reference sample from Nicole Brown?

Well, I don't have it in my notes, but once again, going by what my normal procedure is, I would have probably drawn up approximately one ml.

Okay. And as you described yesterday with Mr. Simpson's reference sample, when you prepared the fitzco card, do you have a specific notation in there as to how much you put on the card for the one for Nicole Brown?

No, but once again, it is approximately 200 microliters or so.

Do you recall if there was any--any of the blood left in the pipette tip when you disposed of it?

I don't recall. If there was, once again, my practice is not to put that back into the tube, but to dispose of the tip with the excess blood.

All right. And how much--do you have a specific recollection of how much you put on the reference--on the fitzco card for Mr. Goldman?

Once again, approximately one ml would be my standard practice.

And same question about the tip. Do you specifically recall whether there was anything left in that disposable tip?

No, I do not.

And did you follow your practice, and if there was, not put it back in the tube?

That's correct.

Now, just to jump ahead for a second. When these cards are dry are they handled or stored in any different way--in any way different than the tubes are?

They are--well, they have a separate pouch that--that is made by the manufacturer that actually stores these--these blood swatches, and in them they have a desiccant. That is something that allows things to stay dry, kind of like you might find in a pack of vitamins, it is very similar, and that is stuck in along with the blood swatch in this foil-lined envelope and that is how that is stored.

Where does it end up?

That would be frozen.

What about the tubes, where are the tubes or how are the tubes stored?

Well, the tubes, after the analysis and everything, it is eventually frozen, too.

Okay. And when you were finished making your preparations for the fitzco card, what did you do with those tubes?

Finished--

You made the fitzco card, you have the tubes. What did you do with those tubes?

The--I would have been doing extracts? Is that what you mean?

No. Where did the tubes end up?

You mean after I was done with the extract and everything?

After you made the filter cards?

Well, I would have made the filter cards before I went to go sample the tubes and then put the evidence into the tubes, so they wouldn't have been--there wouldn't have been tubes yet.

Okay. Do you recall giving those tubes to Mr. Fung at any point?

Objection, leading.

Sustained.

Would it help to refresh your recollection to look at your those with regard to what you did with those tubes that morning?

When you said "Tubes" are we talking tubes, vials? What we are talking about.

The vial of blood, 59 and 60?

I'm sorry. I understand now. I thought you were referring to the microcentrifuge tubes. Okay. The vials of blood were taken over to Mr. Fung.

Do you have a specific notation in your records about that?

Yes, I do.

Do you recall what time it was you gave them to Mr. Fung?

About 9:25 on the 15th of June.

And where did you give--where were you when you gave those tubes or the reference vials to him?

Okay. Now, the--does the evidence processing room have a similar log that records when you put your badge up to the censor?

Yes. Our access cards are recorded somewhere in the lab through a computer system.

At some time soon after you gave those reference samples that were in the tubes to Mr. Fung, did you have a conversation with him about other evidence items that he had collected?

Objection, leading as to--

Sustained.

Did you have any conversation with Dennis Fung soon after you gave him those reference samples?

Objection, leading.

Sustained.

Did you talk to Dennis Fung at any time after you gave him the reference samples?

Yes.

Okay. When was that?

Well, sometime after that we would have discussed what the evidence items were that he would have had for me to sample.

Objection, move to strike; speculation.

Overruled.

And which items did you discuss with Mr. Fung?

Objection, hearsay.

Sustained.

Did you process the items that you discussed with Mr. Fung?

Objection, leading. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

Sustained.

What items did you process after your conversation with Mr. Fung?

No. 33, no. 23, no. 25, no. 31, no. 34, no. 12 and no. 14.

And why did you process those items?

Because it was discussed with Dennis Fung and he--that was his suggestion--

Motion, move to strike any hearsay that might follow from this conversation.

Overruled. It is not hearsay. Offered for a limited purpose only, to explain the conduct after that was said. Proceed.

Up to this time, what he may say next.

Proceed. Ask your next question.

Thank you, your Honor.

So you processed 33, 23, 25, 31, 34, 12 and 14?

Yes.

And how many of those had substrate controls along with them?

33 did not, 23 did have a control, 25 had two control swatches, 31 had one control swatch, 34 had one control swatch, 12 had one control swatch and 14 had one control swatch.

Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, let's go back then and talk about how many swatches, excuse me, were within each of the stain items in those various same samples--you made the same kind of notation and record about the sampling process as you did on the run that you did on the 14th?

Yes.

Okay. And if it would help to look at your notes to refresh your recollection, let's take them item by item, describe the number of swatches. May I supplement that with one more thing and describe how much you removed for your own sampling?

Okay. On 33, that was--that was something that was removed from a shoeprint on a piece of carpet by Dennis Fung and was kind of a glump of material and I used that piece of sample for my analysis.

That is the one with no substrate control?

Yes.

Okay. Next sample?

And then no. 23 there were two what appears to be small cloth swatches and I used one of those for my analysis. And on no. 25 there is a test-tube with cloth swatches in it and I have here written "Carpet fibers" with two groups of material and one of those was sampled for analysis. And then on 31 there is test-tube with cloth swatches, and there was one swatch in it, and I sampled half of that for analysis. On 34, again test-tube with cloth swatches, and there was one swatch in it, and I sampled that for analysis. And on no. 12, in a paper bindle, there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8--8 pieces and I sampled one of those pieces for analysis. And on no. 14 there is one small piece of swatch or some type of transfer material and I used that entire sample up for analysis.

Now, you have described--just in describing those items, you have described some of them were in tubes?

Yes.

And some of them were in paper bindles?

Yes.

Okay. Now, are you familiar with the drying process that Mr. Fung uses to dry wet swatches?

Yes, I understand how it works.

And based on your familiarity with his drying process, what is the significance of seeing those things in the tubes that morning?

Objection, calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Well, Mr. Fung tends to dry his swatches in test-tubes, and that would have been the stage at which this would have taken place.

Okay. And then what about the two that were in the bindles already, 12 and 14?

Those would--

I think--did he say tubes? I'm sorry. Did you mean--

Rephrase the question.

You have described no. 12, the substrate, the stain and substrate control, and 14, the stain and substrate control, as having been in bindles. What is the significance of that?

Okay. Then I would assume he took the tubes.

Excuse me. Motion to strike what he assumes.

Sustained.

What is the significance of the fact that they are already in bindles?

Objection, calls for speculation.

"Significance" doesn't. What point in the process is this?

They would have been dried and placed into the bindles.

Motion to strike as to what would have happened.

Overruled.

Now, did you sample the stains and substrate control in the same manner that you sampled the stains and substrate control on June 14th?

Objection, leading.

Sustained.

What manner did you sample the stains and substrate controls that you just described; 33, 23, 23 control, 25, 25 control, 31, 31 control, 34, 34 control, 12, 12 control, 14, 14 control?

I would have utilized the same handling proceedings and techniques that I did on the previous day.

Same precautions?

Yes.

Same reasons?

Yes.

Did you have more than one coin envelope at a time during the sampling process on June 15th?

Objection, leading.

Yes.

You did ever open more than one coin envelope at a time?

You said "Never."

I said ever. Let's get it--

No.

Okay. After you sampled all of these items in the manner that you sampled the items the day before, what did you do with them?

The--after the sampling was done, the rack of microcentrifuge tubes would have been carried back to the serology unit for further analysis.

Now, when--strike that. Did you take any samples from 59 and 60, the two fitzco--strike that. Did you take any cuttings for the PCR processing for the two fitzco cards that you've described you made earlier that morning?

Object to this form of question as leading.

Overruled.

Yes, I did.

And when did do you that in the sequence of events?

I would have sampled those after I got back to the serology unit.

Will you describe the manner in which you sampled those two cards?

It would have been done in the same fashion as I had described for the day before for the other sample card.

Using the same safeguards?

Yes.

At some point, after sampling the two fitzco cards from 59 and 60, did you begin the PCR process?

I would have done the extraction, yes.

In the same manner you described yesterday concerning the run that you did on June 14th?

Yes.

In what order did you perform the extraction on these samples?

Again, in reference to my extraction record, I have listed item no. 23, red stain and then control, item no. 25, red stain and then control, item no. 31, red stain and then control, item no. 33, red stain, item no. 34, red stain, item no. 34 control, item no. 12, red stain, item no. 12 control, item no. 14, red stain, item no. 14 control, and then blood exemplar, Coroner's blood exemplar, brown, Nicole--or brown, Simpson Nicole, and then again blood exemplar from the Coroner as Goldman, Ronald, and then there would be that positive control standard, blood standard, followed by the negative control cloth control.

Now, why do you have the cuttings from the fitzco cards at the end of the line as you did in this case?

Well, that--that was kind of the order that everything took place and for some reason I tend to keep my--my exemplars grouped at the end.

Did you use the chelex extraction process once again?

Yes, I did.

And how long did it take? About the same length of time as it took the day before?

Yes.

And after you performed the extraction process, what did you do next with regard to these samples?

Well, after the extraction process I would have taken the extracts over to PAB where our other amplification lab is held at.

Perform the amplification there in the manner you performed the amplifications the day before?

Yes, I did.

Same safeguards?

Yes.

Okay. After you performed the amplification, what did you do?

After doing the amplification, then the next step would be the hybridization.

Same manner you did the day before?

Yes.

Your Honor, I just have a standing objection.

Noted.

Did you produce results from some of the samples that you processed on June 15th in the manner you have just described?

Yes.

Before we discuss the typing results on the stains, did you produce any typing results from any of the substrate controls that you processed along with the stains in this case; 23 substrate control, 25 substrate control, 31 substrate control, 34 substrate control, 12 control and 14 control?

No.

Did any of the other negative controls that you've described yesterday produce any typing results?

The negative controls, no.

Did--did the positive control perform the way it should have performed in this case?

Yes. It was as expected.

Mr. Yamauchi, I would like to talk about the results now, if we can.

Your Honor, I would like to display for the jury at this time the Bronco photo and result boards which are respectively People's 172 and People's 260.

Proceed.

Thank you, your Honor.

Mr. Yamauchi, while we are getting set up with that, to move things along, can you tell the jury what typing result you produced from item no. 23 from the Bronco?

1.1, 1.2.

Mr. Yamauchi, could you step down and I'm going to ask you to look up on our result board for the Bronco automobile, People's 260 for identification. And you got a 1.1, 1.2 in your typing?

In no. 23?

No. 23. Would you remove the cover under "PCR results" for item no. 23. Do you see it up there?

Is that the result that you obtained from the Bronco, the driver's door interior?

Yes.

And from among the three reference samples that you typed, two on the 15th, Mr. Simpson on the 14th, whom is that result consistent with?

Mr. Simpson.

Okay. Could you remove the cover under the "Not excluded."

Okay. Did you produce any typing results from item no. 25, the driver's side carpet fiber?

Yes, I did.

What result was that?

1.1, 1.2.

And is that also consistent with Mr. Simpson?

Yes, it is.

And both of those results are inconsistent with Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown?

Yes. For this DQ-Alpha system.

Sure. Could you remove the cover from over the "Not excluded" column.

And did you produce any typing results from item 31?

31 is inconclusive.

Okay. And in what regard?

Motion to strike, your Honor, inconclusive, if he is going to go beyond the Court's ruling.

Your Honor, maybe we do need to approach.

All right.

Out of caution.