All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
Mr. Yamauchi, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Collin Yamauchi, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Mr. Yamauchi, you are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE JURY: Good morning.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK
Over that memorial day weekend, sir, were you able to go back to your lab and compare the code sheet for the mock vaginal swab validation studies with the hybridization sheets that I showed you on Friday?
All right. And did in fact the mock vaginal swab code sheet that I showed you go with those hybridization records?
Okay. And in reviewing that, with respect to item no. 1 from the mock vaginal swab case study, the sperm fraction on that sperm study was supposed to be a 1.2, 3; is that correct?
Well, before you explain why you believe the result is acceptable, why don't we first get some facts on the table. You--you typed this as a 1.2, 4, correct?
On the SC fraction--yeah, actually both of them came back to reflect those results.
If you look at the typing sheet, the hybridization strip for the sperm fraction, there is no 1.3 visible, is there?
Well, I have looked at the better photographs, not this copy, and I didn't see anything there.
So when you look at the typing sheet, the only visible results you could see for the sperm fraction were a 1.2, 4; is that right?
But the sperm fraction, that is supposed to be sperm DNA that has a genotype of 1.2, 1.3?
The sperm fraction on the mock vaginal code sheet indicates that the DNA in that fraction should typed as a 1.2, 1.3, correct?
If the concentration of the sperm cells were high enough to be detected, then yes, that would be the type that I would expect.
But since they were not, the only detectable types there were that from the epithelial cell fraction which spilled over into the sperm cell fraction.
Under that you are saying there is carry-over, but let's just get to the facts. The fact is on the sperm fraction--
Well, Mr. Yamauchi, the correct--the expected answer here is a 1.2, 1.3; is that correct?
There are no expected answers. That were the types of the cells that were put on this, but as I was saying earlier in Friday's testimony, these were made out to be challenging, somewhat similar to what we would get in a case work sample. And in case work sample there are not always enough of the sperm cells in order to get the typing off of them, so we wanted to reflect somewhat similar situations in our validation procedure and make the samples challenging. And in this case it was in line with what I would expect if I had somewhat similar samples in case work, where the female's type would show up and then you would not get any typing from the male fraction. That quite often happens. It involves mixtures. It is inherent in sexual assault cases to have mixtures which will reflect both the type of the male and the female, one or the other or, you know, some combination thereof.
The mock sample--the mock sample, Mr. Yamauchi, indicates that the sperm fraction has a 1.2, 1.3, correct? Yes or no?
Now, anywhere on your sheets do you indicate that the 1.2, 4 was not the result that was expected, according to the mock vaginal swab code sheet? Is that anywhere in your reports?
No, counsel. Don't interrupt the witness. The problem is, he doesn't like the terminology "Expected results." The issue is, is the result that the code sheet reflects in his report? The answer to that question from the testimony so far has been no. I understand there is a second such result.
My question, most respectfully, was as expected on the code sheet, so let me rephrase it to make it crystal clear.
The result you got, 1.2, 4 for the sperm fraction, was not the result listed on the code sheet which was 1.2, 1.3, right?
Right. So wasn't the result that was listed as the sperm fraction on the code sheet correct?
Mr. Yamauchi, anywhere in your sheets for this mock vaginal swab study in your sheets do you indicate that the typing result you got from the sperm fraction 1.2, 4 does not match the code sheet typing of 1.1--1.2, 1.3? Do you indicate that anywhere.
Do you indicate on your hybridization records, or any other form you filled out on this mock vaginal swab test, that the typing you got of 1.2, 4 for the sperm fraction is not the same as the 1.2, 1.3 that the code sheet indicates is associated with the sperm fraction? Did you indicate that anywhere?
In reviewing your work did any of your supervisors indicate anywhere in any written document that your typing of 1.2, 4 for the sperm fraction was not in accord with the 1.2, 1.3 for the sperm fraction indicated on the code sheet?
Did not the LAPD, in reporting on the validation studies, indicate that you, Collin Yamauchi, correctly typed every sample given you? You either got the right answer or no result, but you never got a wrong answer?
I took it and I can't find it right now and I have to make a copy of it. Can I just show this to the witness?
Looking at exhibit--Defense exhibit 1181, doesn't it indicate that you, Collin Yamauchi, did not give a wrong typing result on any validation studies? You either got the right answer or no result?
Now, Mr. Yamauchi, you indicated, when we were here last Monday (Sic), that you needed to look at some document to refresh your recollection with respect to whether or not you knew anything--you had read anything with respect to false positives on the CACLD proficiency tests. And your Honor, I have two documents that I would like to mark Defendant's next in order.
All right. Did you indicate, in your testimony Friday, that you couldn't remember whether you had read anything about reports from the CACLD concerning their blind trials during your training?
All right. You wanted to look at some documents to see if it would refresh your recollection?
Let's start with 1183. Could you review that document and see if it refreshes your recollection as to whether or not you ever read any reports from the California Association of Crime Lab Directors with respect to their blind trial studies?
And do you know them to be authors that are critical of forensic DNA typing methods of crime labs?
All right. Have you ever read an article written by Dr. Ford and Thompson entitled "The meaning of a match sources of ambiguity in the interpretation of DNA prints that concerns the CACLD study"?
All right. Are you sure of this? Do you want to take a look and see if this refreshes your recollection.
So have you ever read--do you make it a practice to read articles that are critical of the forensic DNA typing methods of laboratories?
Do I make it a practice? You mean go out of my way to look for them? No, I don't.
All right. In the course of your training have you reviewed any articles by scientists that were critical of the forensic DNA typing methods of crime laboratories?
I know I have read articles with pros and cons in it, but I have read so many articles and so much literature it is hard to point out specifically where it was.
Can you tell us by name any one article you've read that was critical of the typing methods of DNA laboratories?
Would it be fair to say that in the course of your training no one at LAPD made a particular effort to search out the views of critics and make sure that people in training read the views of critics?
Was it--was a concerted effort made during the course of your training to have analysts at the LAPD DNA laboratory review articles by critics of DNA typing methods as practiced by forensic laboratories?
All right. In the course of your training were you ever directed to read articles about forensic DNA typing?
Forced to or I mean--yes, we read them on our own. It is part of our own training. We've got to convince ourselves that the things that we are doing are correct and that we can get good results on them, so of course we read articles. And it is not a matter of anybody directing us to do this. We read articles dealing with the pros and cons to this type of typing and scientific practice so that we can be well-rounded and aware of everything that is going on.
Well, Mr. Yamauchi, what I'm really asking you is--well, withdrawn. Are you saying, sir, that there was no one who was in charge of your training who gave you sets of articles to read?
In other words, you on your own, in the course of your training period, would figure out for yourself what was appropriate to read or not to read? Is that how it worked?
Well, we go to, like I said before, CAC meetings and a lot of talk goes on over there as to what is the new article, and yeah, it might be worth reading, and so we get information that way, as well as talking amongst ourselves or through Roche Molecular System, that class. There is all kind of ways we have access to information.
All right. But there was no one or two people in your training that actually sat down and developed a set of readings for you to review? That didn't happen, right?
Now, briefly, sir, over the weekend have you been able to review how many external proficiency tests you did before you commenced work on this case?
Yes. You said you needed to go back and look at the record to refresh your recollection.
Well, I don't recall you asking me to check and see how many I did. I recall you asking me to go back and reference that--those set of hybe strips that you gave me.
In any of the external proficiency tests that you performed before you did the work on this case, did any of them involve degraded samples? In other words, the external agency sent you degraded samples to type?
Well, you are going to have to be a little bit more specific about that because, technically speaking, once a sample is made it is starting its degrading process right away, so to a certain extent all samples are going to be degrading. But do you mean some type of a time study where they are degraded to certain points and levels of DNA that they have measured? I don't know. That would be up to the company.
All right. When you took these external studies, did you do yield gels and slot-blots to determine the amount of human DNA in the samples?
Isn't the use of a yield gel and a slot-blot together a way for an analyst to determine whether or not a sample is degraded?
A yield gel, as the jury has seen, is a mini gel that has known samples that give bands of a certain intensity, correct?
And then you compare the amount--the intensity of the bands from the unknown samples on the yield gel to give you an idea of how much total DNA there is in the sample, both bacterial and human, correct?
Well, a slot-blot would be the choice that we would use because we do our samples with chelex extractions. A yield gel is not effective because the chelex procedure winds up with a sample that is--that is not fitted for the yield gel's purposes, so we would have to use what Mr. Scheck is referring to right now, which is a slot-blot.
Well, a slot-blot gives you, again looking at the intensity of the bands from the known sample and comparing the intensity of the bands from the unknown specimens, it gives you a measure of the amount of human DNA in a sample, correct?
So if you combine information from a yield gel and a slot-blot, you can get a measure of how much bacterial DNA there is in a sample, as opposed to human DNA, correct?
And if you do a yield gel and a slot-blot together and find out that there is a comparatively greater amount of bacterial DNA in a sample than human DNA, that is an indication that the sample is degraded?
If you did a pheno chloroform extraction, you would be able to tell that, but once again, we use chelex extractions so we could do the slot-blot and that could be done even after the test results are obtained and as a--at a level of troubleshooting.
My point, sir, is that by using the yield gel and the slot-blot together, one can come to a conclusion as to how much bacterial DNA is in a sample, versus human DNA, correct?
Once again, if you assume that the person did a pheno chloroform extraction to begin with, which that is not the procedure we use. Once again, we do the chelex extraction.
You are saying that in your opinion it is impossible to do a yield gel while doing chelex extractions?
So you can do a yield gel and you can do a slot-blot when doing chelex extractions, correct?
Okay. The--once again, chelex extractions yields somewhat of a different type of an extraction product, and because it actually to a certain extent chops the DNA up into smaller pieces, but pieces that are not too small for the PCR amplification process and it also delivers DNA in a state that is what we call single-stranded, in other words, it is not together in the two-stranded form, which the pheno chloroform extract yields, and it is because of this that you can do a yield gel, of course, on a chelex extraction, but it doesn't give you any information like the pheno chloroform extract would give you if you did a yield gel on that.
All right. So you can do a yield gel while doing pheno chloroform extractions? Yes or no.
While you are looking at it, can you tell us if in section 15 of your protocol concerning yield gels it indicates anywhere that it shouldn't or cannot be done when you are doing chelex extractions? Does it say that?
It doesn't address that point there. It is only a protocol to explain how to do the yield gel.
And you are telling this jury that in terms of doing chelex extractions, you have no means--withdrawn. In doing chelex extractions you don't have the ability to do a yield gel and a slot-blot together to determine whether or not a sample is degraded because it has a lot of comparatively more bacterial DNA than human DNA? Is that what you are saying?
Is it your testimony, sir, when doing chelex extractions, that one cannot do a yield gel and a slot-blot together to get a measure of whether or not a sample is degraded with bacterial contamination?
Now--so you don't know--and in these external proficiency tests that you did, you can't even run slot-blots?
It wasn't necessary. There was typeable results. If there was a reason why, I would--I would definitely go back and troubleshoot it by using a yield gel. The extracts aren't thrown away. They are still there.
Uh-huh. Now, in these external proficiency tests you did before working on this case, did it involve bloodstains that were mixtures involving two or more contributors?
I don't have recall having a mixture on any of my proficiency tests or blood stains.
That would cover proficiency tests before you did work on this case and after you did work on this case?
But this case involves bloodstains with mixtures, according to the Prosecution's theory of two or more people?
Does this case, in your opinion, sir, involve bloodstains that are mixtures of two or more contributors?
Your Honor, I would like to show--I would like to put on the screen Defense exhibit 1159-H.
Now, Mr. Yamauchi, is it part of your training that an analyst should systematically change or wash gloves between examining or cutting different items of evidence?
Well, if you are cutting swatches it is really not necessary because you are not touching the swatches with your gloves.
Your Honor, I move to strike the answer as not responsive. I asked him a specific question.
Is it part of your training that an analyst should systematically change or wash gloves between examining or cutting different items of evidence?
Is it part of your training that an analyst should systematically change gloves between cutting different items of evidence?
You did not systematically change or wash gloves between cutting different items of evidence in this case, did you?
Once again, I--I changed my gloves when it is necessary. If I'm dealing with swatches, and I believe I explained this earlier, I use a sterile scalpel blade to do my manipulations.
Do you feel that routinely changing gloves between each item of evidence that you cut takes too much time?
Do you feel that changing your gloves as a matter of routine between cutting different items of evidence would lower the risk of cross-contamination?
Well, if you are touching the evidence item with your gloves, then yes, that is a very good point taken, but if your gloves are not coming in contact with the item of evidence, it is not necessary.
All right. Now, you helped design boards that were presented in this case concerning the methods used for drying swatches?
Were you consulted in the construction of boards that were introduced through Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola in evidence in this case concerning the drying methods using test-tubes? Were you consulted when those boards were put together?
Is changing of gloves between handling wet swatches during the drying process something you believe necessary?
Well, again, if you are handling--you mean the gloves physically coming in contact with the swatch itself?
Are you familiar with the method used in this case by Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola to dry the swatches by taking wet swatches out of plastic bags, placing them in test-tubes?
Did you, Erin Riley or anyone else from the DNA unit, give a lecture to the criminalists that collect, dry and package the evidence, such as Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola, telling them that it was critical to systematically alternate substrate controls when handling swatches in the evidence processing room because such controls could later be used as a check against cross-contamination in DNA testing?
Did you or Erin Riley or anyone from the DNA unit give lectures to the criminalists, specifically Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, about how to handle swatches in the evidence processing room which were going to be subjected to DNA testing?
Well, I personally haven't lectured them. Erin Riley may have talked to them about that. I don't know.
In the course of setting up your DNA laboratory, was there any discussion that there should be a uniform method among all the criminalists for handling blood swatches to minimize the risk of cross-contamination?
No. First question. Was there any discussion among you in the DNA unit that it would be important to have one uniform way for handling wet swatches for purposes of minimizing the risks of cross-contamination in DNA testing?
All right. While we are looking for that exhibit, if anybody needs to take a comfort break.
Mr. Scheck, why don't you hold on just a second. We are waiting for one of our jurors to return.
All right. We have our full complement of jurors. Mr. Scheck, which exhibit is this?
This is--you are testing my short-term memory. That is very dangerous this morning. 277.
Well, at the D.A.'s request I was asked to be in some photographs and they put it together.
You mean you didn't give them any advise on how this ought to look based on what you actually did in cutting the swatches in this case?
Well, before that was set up, didn't you have an extensive discussion with them about exactly what happened before this board was put in place?
Yes. They asked me what I did, and how I did it, and they said let's take some photographs documenting that process. I said "Fine."
Mr. Yamauchi, didn't you have a bigger role in setting up boards other than this one?
Okay. And in this demonstration you are cutting a plain white swatch; is that correct?
And was that done to minimize the risk that during the course of putting this together you might accidentally get a little red on your glove?
Do you know--who made the decision to use a white swatch rather than a red swatch?
About using red swatches, I don't think that issue ever came up. The whole idea was to demonstrate the procedure that I would go through in sampling.
But you are not demonstrating a red swatch covered with blood on this board, are you?
And you were aware that other demonstration boards had been put together starting at the beginning of the process where swatches were made with blood on them?
Sustained. Counsel, the board pretty much speaks for itself, what it is and what it isn't, so let's not waste a lot of time on this.
Now, are you telling us, sir, that when you went through all the different swatches on the morning of June 14th, that you only used one hand with the scalpel in it to manipulate those swatches?
So in other words, looking at this board, you have a scalpel that is about how long?
And when you grip it, about how much of the blade is there that is uncovered by your fingers?
Well, look at no. 3 on this exhibit 277. Does that demonstrate how you held the scalpel when you went about manipulating the swatches?
All right. And about how much of the scalpel is exposed as you hold it in your hand? How long an area is that?
And the way you go about cutting these swatches and then putting them in a test-tube, as indicated on 3, 4 and 5 of this evidence sampling board, is that you do it with just one hand with that scalpel?
And then you stick the scalpel into the swatch, pick it up and put it into the microfuge tube?
On the morning of June 14th when you did the swatches in this case, you did all the swatches with one hand?
Now--and you feel there is no danger in this technique of touching a swatch with your glove?
Now, you told us on direct examination that with respect to item 49 you originally counted out five swatches?
Are you telling us that you pulled apart those swatches with one hand holding that scalpel and didn't use a forceps and didn't use a tweezers and didn't use your other hand?
Yeah. Well, it is not easy, but if you take the scalpel blade, you can get it in between them and kind of jiggle them apart.
KEY QUOTEIncidentally, when you were handling the socks last Friday, were you aware that you were also touching the microphone with your gloved hand and then went down and touched the socks?
KEY QUOTEAnd so as far as you are concerned there is no possibility that you inadvertently touched the swatches even when you were pulling apart those two swatches that were stuck together on sample 49?
Now, Mr. Yamauchi, please listen carefully to my question. Is it part of your training to change lab paper between cutting different items of biological evidence?
Okay. If I'm working on one item that needs to be placed on directly to the lab paper, then yes, of course, I will change the paper. But if I'm working on cloth swatches, what I do is I change the chem wipes that are beneath the bindle, the paper bindle.
Are you aware that in scraping out the blood swatches in this case Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung did not change the paper between items?
Did you hear the testimony of Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola with respect to how they handled the blood swatches in the evidence processing room on June 14th?
Well, you listened to testimony in this case from your fellow criminalists, didn't you?
And did you have any part whatsoever in advising Dennis Fung, Andrea Mazzola or the Prosecutors on how to create the board dealing with drying swatches?
I didn't have anything to do with making their boards or--that was all through the Prosecution. They made their own boards.
So in your opinion, when handling blood swatches, when you are taking them out of test-tubes, one should change the paper?
Well, if the swatches are going to touch the paper, then, yes, I would say that that would be a good idea, but if they are not allowing the swatches to touch the paper, then there really isn't any reason to change the paper beneath them. Do you see my point?
Mr. Yamauchi, I thought you just told us that it was your routine practice to change paper every time that you handled a different blood swatch except when you were--when you had chem wipes underneath the bindles?
Did you just tell us that you believed that paper ought to be changed between each evidentiary item, including blood swatches, except in an instance where you are just changing the chem wipes?
All right. Is it part of your training to clean a table with bleach between cutting different evidentiary items?
No. I make sure that there is a barrier between the table and the item, somewhat like fresh paper, but I wouldn't bleach it down every single time.
Now, Mr. Yamauchi, in the course of your training was there discussion that the danger of cross-contamination is greatest when an analyst is dealing with degraded samples?
And you are telling us that in the course of your readings and in the course of the Roche class there was no discussion that the danger of cross-contamination is greatest when an analyst is dealing with degraded samples?
Those exact words being the greatest course of contamination, no, I don't remember anything like that.
All right. Let's try a different phrase. Was there discussion that the risk of cross-contamination was raised when dealing with degraded samples?
No, I don't recall any discussion like that. If you had more information to go along with that, just degraded is not enough for me to make a distinction there.
And in the course of all of your training there was no discussion of false positives occurring with degraded samples?
On June 14th you had no idea if the swatches that you were handling from the Bundy scene were degraded?
Well, like I said before, all our case work samples are degraded to a certain degree. How badly--no, there is no way of knowing, by looking at a sample, what the quantity and quality of DNA is on it.
Right. They looked like rich red swatches to you when you were handling them on June 14th?
Well, some of them were red. Some of them were light red and they were all different types of shades.
Uh-huh. And I think, as you told us already, that it is not your practice to do yield gels?
Yes. We--we could do a slot-blot and that would be used in troubleshooting should something anomalous come up or something that needs to be troubleshooted.
And if you did a slot-blot before you proceeded with the extraction of DNA, you would have an idea of how much human DNA was in those swatches?
And if you did a slot-blot, that might have given you some information as to whether or not these Bundy samples you were dealing with were degraded?
If I did a slot-blot it would tell me whether or not there was human DNA there, but it doesn't necessarily tell us the state as far as whether it is degraded or not. It can give you a slight idea, but it doesn't address that issue--
All right. Well, if do you a slot-blot and you see that there is less human DNA than you would expect just by eyeballing the swatches, that would give you some information that you were dealing with degraded samples?
Sure. If you did a slot-blot and the slot-blot reading showed less human DNA than you would have expected just looking at the swatches, wouldn't that be an indication that the samples were degraded?
A low amount of--of, umm, human DNA, that statement coming from a slot-blot would be an indication that there is a small amount of DNA there.
And on the morning of June 14th you were operating on the theory that the blood drops at Bundy had been deposited within twelve hours of their collection?
Were you operating on the premise on the morning of June 14th that the blood drops at Bundy had been deposited within twelve hours of their collection?
Well, we can't really speculate as to how old a stain is. It is--just handle all evidence in the same fashion that you would, whether it is possibly there for twelve hours or 24 years. The same procedures and steps are in line.
Mr. Yamauchi, are you telling this jury that you would handle a sample that was 24 years old in exactly the same fashion as you would handle a sample that was twelve hours old, as far as you knew?
In other words, as far as you are concerned, degradation and the effects of time plays no role in the way that one handles samples?
Well, time doesn't necessarily--isn't necessarily the only factor that causes degradation, so we have had good typing results off of samples that are a number of years old, and you always just can't put your money on one thing or another.
So whether or not you've got a brand new fresh exemplar or an evidence item, you still have to treat them the same. You can't assume that one is old and/or degraded or for whatever reason, because there is too many factors involved for us to know everything about that sample.
Now, Mr. Yamauchi, on the morning of June 14th you had certain information about this case through Dennis Fung, didn't you?
He had a conversation with you in the evidence processing room? Do you remember that?
You don't remember your--you don't remember seeing Detective Lange anywhere on the morning of June 14th, right?
Well, I'm not sure if I saw him that day or not. It just--my memory--it is almost a year ago.
Are you aware of any legal issues that have arisen in the last two days that make it important for you to forget that you ever saw or spoke to Detective Lange on the morning of June 14th?
KEY QUOTESustained, sustained, sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question.
I take it you didn't see Detective Lange anywhere near the evidence processing room or any of the swatches on the morning of June 14th?
Uh-huh. Now, in a conversation you had on the morning of June 14th with Dennis Fung he communicated certain things to you that he had learned from the detectives that were investigating this case?
Well, didn't he tell you explicitly that he had obtained certain information via or through robbery/homicide?
Well, don't your notes specifically say that Dennis Fung told you that Mr. Simpson had a cut on his left hand and you--and he had learned that via robbery/homicide? Didn't you write that down?
This will be the last question and answer before we take our break. Do you want to direct his attention to a page?
Mr. Yamauchi, you have your notes as to the morning of June 14th written out as to the events in the evidence processing room on something called a "Serology item description sheet," do you not?
All right. And on the first page of those notes there is a description of the Bundy samples?
And there is a note in the top part of your page indicating that you learned that Mr. Simpson had cut his left finger on his left hand via robbery/homicide per Dennis Fung?
Yeah. I wrote "As per Fung" and then parenthesis "Via RHD O.J.'s cut on left hand."
And "Via RHD" means that that note means, does it not, that Mr. Fung told you that he had learned from the detectives at robbery/homicide that Mr. Simpson had a cut on his left hand?
Did he indicate to you, via the detective from robbery/homicide, that the Rockingham blood drops were expected to be Mr. Simpson's blood?
He indicated there was a blood trail leading away from the scene, and he talked about that cut and it could possibly be linked.
My question had to do with blood drops from Rockingham. Are you with me? Not Bundy.
Did Mr. Fung indicate to you, through information that he got from the detectives at robbery/homicide, that they expected that the blood drops at Rockingham would be Mr. Simpson's blood?
When you were talking with Mr. Fung on the morning of June 14th did you know that detectives at robbery/homicide had taken a statement from Mr. Simpson earlier that day?
Sustained. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess at this point for fifteen minutes. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case. Don't allow anybody to communicate with you, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will be in recess for fifteen.
Are you aware of any legal issues that have arisen in the last two days that make it important for you to forget that you ever saw or spoke to Detective Lange on the morning of June 14th?
Incidentally, when you were handling the socks last Friday, were you aware that you were also touching the microphone with your gloved hand and then went down and touched the socks?
It is not easy, but if you take the scalpel blade, you can get it in between them and kind of jiggle them apart.
Yes. That is what it indicates there.
Yes, I would.