All right. Good morning, counsel.

Good morning, your Honor.

Good morning, your Honor.

Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. Counsel, there were some issues left unresolved that we were going to discuss further this morning; however, when I came in this morning I found that the transcript of our last proceedings in chambers was not available to me, and it is my proposal that we continue with the cross-examination of Mr. Yamauchi and take up those matters later when the transcript is available. Any comment?

Just--thank you, your Honor. And we have no problem with that, your Honor, and I understand that that may take perhaps the rest of the day and part of tomorrow to finish the testimony with Messers. Yamauchi and Sims, and we can then launch into those matters at that time. We have no objection to that.

I take it that is agreeable to the People? Miss Clark.

Yes, your Honor, it is.

Thank you. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

Your Honor, one point.

Certainly. Good morning, sir.

Good morning, your Honor. The other day Mr. Scheck had some records marked and you recall Mr. Yamauchi was going to review them over the weekend.

Yes, I recollect.

And now that we've had a chance to review them over the weekend, I would like to point out the irrelevance of the mock vaginal swabs. I think in the examination of Mr. Simpson Mr. Scheck was waxing eloquent about different extractions separating sperm from epithelial cells and you cut him off at one point because we don't have any of that kind of evidence in this case. And I just alert the Court that should Mr. Scheck persist in his questioning about these mock vaginal swabs, this jury will hear in very elaborate detail that when you try to separate the male and the female cells in these vaginal swabs it is not always perfect. Sometimes you get a type from the sperm and the epithelial cell sample, and vice versa, and in fact, that is what these mock vaginal swabs that are represented in Defendant's exhibit 1181 reflect, the fact that the separation isn't perfect, but that you do get a type sometimes from the male and the female sample. And I just point that out as a foundational matter because I think we are getting into irrelevant areas that have nothing to do with the testing in this case.

Well, wasn't the issue the performance of validation tests or proficiency tests? Wasn't that the issue, the correct or incorrect answers?

Yes, but the question of what is correct and incorrect when you are dealing with a vaginal swab and when you are seeing a type that is from the male or the female in the opposite sample. There were two separate exhibits. One of them had to do with proficiency tests, which I'm not going to address now, and the other one is the exhibit 1181 that this is a sexual assault type evidence where this differential extraction where you attempt to separate the types is important. And it is not a question of whether they are incorrect. It is a question of whether or not what you are seeing could be from the sperm source on the one hand or the epithelial cells on the other hand. And I just point that out to the Court, that--

That I should anticipate a 352 objection. Is that what you are saying?

Yes, your Honor.

Mr. Scheck, good morning, sir.

Good morning. Naturally we are aware that sometimes differential extractions are not complete and we are not going to be questioning Mr. Yamauchi on any of those results which could reflect carry-over from the differential extraction. That is to say that you may get some of the sperm cells in the epithelial fraction and vice versa has been identified on this test by their own readings and their own results are two mistakes that cannot be accounted for in that fashion, and that is the point. The point is that they did validation studies, they said they made no mistakes, and by their own--their own recorded results, they made mistakes. Now that it seems apparent from--the tenor of Mr. Harmon's remarks that they are going to concede that the code sheet does in fact go with these two sheets and that will be it and it will be simple. And if Mr. Harmon can explain those two mistakes by carry-over, I will be quite amazed.

Sounds like three questions to me.

That is just sort of the Court's expression that there is limited value to that evidence, so let's not spend a lot of time on it.

Well, I'm saying--we think it is important. It is an error.

I agree, the testing and the proficiency testing, but getting into what it is and how it works and blah, blah, blah--

Is not good for any of us.

Judge, may Marcia--Miss Clark and I approach for a second?

With the reporter?

No, without the reporter.