Mr. Sims, let's talk briefly, if we can, first about the sock. Now, Mr. Harmon directed your attention and we all viewed under the stereomicroscope two sections of sock b; is that correct?
Now, the second section of sock B that a photograph was just introduced about, that's the one you designated 42B2?
Now, out of the stains that you testified you saw when you first got the socks at your laboratory, 42B2, was a stain that you discovered for the first time under the stereomicroscope?
Is it possible that you might have actually seen that stain with your naked eye before you looked under the stereomicroscope?
Could you have seen that stain with your naked eye before you looked at it under the stereomicroscope?
Well, to the best of your recollection, can you tell us with certainty whether you saw it first under the stereomicroscope or first with your naked eye?
Now, you told us I believe when I was asking you questions on cross-examination that with respect to sock a, 42-A, the first thing you noticed when you saw the socks was, with your naked eye, without a stereomicroscope, you saw a blood drop on 42-A; is that correct?
And then that was near a section on sock a where the largest cutout was taken out of all the cutouts that were made in the sock?
Okay. The ankle cutout was more--I'm sorry. I'm losing your question now. Please ask me again. I'm sorry.
Okay. Could I ask you first to take out sock a and show the jury the area that you saw with the naked eye when you first saw the socks that was a bloodstain on sock A. Could you do that? Come over here, pull out the sock, hold it up and show it to the jury.
You'd like another piece of paper lain down? Well, actually the way we did it before, would it be acceptable to you, Mr. Sims, if we put this paper on top of the Prosecution's cart and you could then take sock a, put it out here, stand before the jury and display it. Does that sound--
Could you please hold up sock a, point to the cut-out area where the arrow was for the jury and, please, if you could walk across the jury and show us that area where you saw a bloodstain with your naked eye upon first receiving those socks?
Your Honor, I'm going to object. That misstates the testimony, that it was a bloodstain.
Mr. Sims, did you later determine that the red spot you saw in the area you're about to display to the jury was a bloodstain?
Thank you. So could you please hold up the sock--it's this area over here (Indicating)?
By the arrow, could you please start with juror no. 1 and show her and the rest of the jurors here that section that you saw the bloodstain with your naked eye when you first received the sock.
Now, Mr. Sims, could you please now flip the sock over and could you please display for the jury the cut-out area on sock a--well, before you do, let me just ask you a few preliminary questions. Was there a cut-out area--
And you determined from three of the four swatches that you tested from that area that there was something on the order of how much high molecular weight DNA?
It was something in the order of about one and a half micrograms as I recall. Something in that area.
We have the same problem. We have a witness with his back to the Court and the court reporter who can't hear what you're saying. And you need to address your comments to the witness.
And the high concentration of DNA that you found in that section of the sock is consistent with the kind of high concentrations one finds with blood that comes from reference tubes?
Well, I mean it's--I'm not sure I understand the question as far as reference tubes. I mean, the blood coming out of a reference tube may be very much like the blood coming out of someone's artery, for example.
All right. Let me put it to you this way. Would you not agree, sir, that blood that comes out of reference tubes tends to be highly concentrated in terms of its DNA content.
Thank you. Now, could you please display to the jury the same fashion you did before that cut-out section of the sock, sock a?
Your Honor, may the witness hold it up so it's clearly visible to the people in the back row?
Thank you. Mr. Sims, thank you very much. Maybe you could just return the sock there for a minute. We'll pack it up later if we could if that's all right with the Court, and you can resume your seat and I'll--
Now, Mr. Sims, would it be pair to say that in terms of the blood-stained areas of the sock that you examined, that some areas were more difficult to see than others?
And we have just spent--well, withdrawn. The area that Mr. Harmon directed you to point out to the jury and look at under the stereomicroscope, would it be fair to say that that was one of the more subtle areas to observe?
Now, in the final analysis, Mr. Sims, every bloodstain that you cut out of that sock you could see with your naked eye?
You were asked some questions on redirect examination about multiple tests by different laboratories. Do you recall those?
All right. Now, the RFLP, DQ-Alpha tests, D1S80 tests that were performed by your laboratory, those tests in and of themselves cannot tell when blood or DNA from blood was deposited on any particular item?
Now, if you assume that samples you tested had been previously contaminated with blood or DNA from blood inadvertently or intentionally at LAPD, all right--these are samples that you tested.
Would you expect that another laboratory performing the same tests that you did would get different results than you got?
Well, I think when we're talking about multiple swatches, for example, that would be one way that you could touch on the contamination. But as far as the deliberate or--
Well, the "Inadvertent" I think is addressed--as far as contamination being inadvertent, to me, it would be unlikely that you would get this uniform contamination across all the swatches. But the second part of your question or the second--
Well, I think when you use the word "Deliberate," if it was deliberately contaminated, to me, I would assume you're talking about taking a regular liquid sample of blood and making a deliberate contamination, then one might expect to get the same results all the way across.
All right. Then let's just focus on, if you assume--please listen carefully to my question and answer the question I'm asking you, okay?
If you assume that samples you tested had previously been inadvertently cross-contaminated at LAPD--you have that assumption in mind?
Would you expect that another laboratory would get different results than you got when you tested the samples if they were to test the samples after you?
I'm asking you to assume that there was inadvertent cross-contamination of a sample.
Now, those same samples are then given to another laboratory to perform the same battery of tests that you performed. Do you have that in mind?
Well, again, now we're talking about the same sample. But I think in the context of multiple swatches, that would seem unlike--or it would seem that you might see differences in results. If there was contamination say of swatch a, but not of swatch c, then if one lab tested swatch a, another lab tested swatch c, then you might expect to see differences if cross-contamination occurred.
I'm saying that if somebody were to take the samples that you tested, the ones you tested--
And then tested them again using the same battery of tests if there were enough sample to conduct such tests. All right?
And further, we're assuming initially that there had been inadvertent cross-contamination at LAPD, right?
Would you expect the subsequent laboratory to get test results that were different on the samples--the remainder of the samples that you tested than the results that you got?
Well, again, it gets complicated because I may have tested one swatch and saved another swatch. So if you're assuming that the swatch I got was cross-contaminated, that doesn't mean to me that the other swatch was contaminated. So you may get different results.
You cut part of swatches and left them--some of these were--were extremely small amounts, weren't they?
On those that you cut, would you expect that the subsequent lab would get a different result than you got from the same swatch?
In the--in the instance where we're talking about one particular small swatch, in those situations as opposed to those situations where I had multiple swatches to work with, then I would--I think you're right in that particular situation.
Yes. The ones as far as--the ones that we actually examined, I can speak to those, although I think again that one, no. 52, is a Bundy blood drop that an RFLP was obtained from. So I wouldn't say that was so degraded.
To use the terminology that I believe you employed the last time we spoke about this--
And you gave us on redirect examination some specific numbers that we'll get to in a minute as to how much or how little human DNA were in those samples, correct?
And as to sample 52, you prefer to use the term "Degraded" as opposed to "Substantially degraded" because an RFLP test rendered a result with Cellmark?
But in terms of numbers, nanograms, you recall we went through an exercise where we estimated amounts of DNA based on milligrams, weight and the amount of DNA that you got on your slot blots. Remember that?
And your projection, according with--according to the assumptions behind the Defense hypothetical and the projections you made is that the total amount of human DNA in sample 52 was 33 nanograms?
Again, I think that was based on your assumption about how much of the sample I got because you made the assumption that I think I had 11 and a half percent or something like that.
Now, would an estimate of about 33 nanograms for all of sample 52 be consistent in terms of testimony from Dr. Cotton that the amount of DNA, human DNA that was the basis for the RFLP result at Cellmark was between 25 and 50 nanograms?
Yes. If that's--if that is in fact what Dr. Cotton said, that she had 25 to 50 nanograms on that sample.
Now, in terms of blood drops, how much--how many nanograms of human DNA would you expect to be in one drop of blood?
On a--on a typical drop of blood, you may see somewhere in the neighborhood of, oh, 500 nanograms, maybe something like that, maybe up to a microgram depending on the size of the drop obviously.
Well, again, I--when I'm talking about how much DNA one might get out of a drop of blood, I'm usually talking about a clean substrate like a cloth--
--which may yield or give back a stronger yield than the situation where we're talking about collecting no. 52 off of the I believe it's what, the carport area or something like that. That's a different substrate and substrates don't yield the same amount of blood or DNA in the tests.
Let's talk about substrates. As I understand your testimony here on redirect examination, item no. 12, blood drops recovered from the wooden floor in Mr. Simpson's Rockingham home had a higher content of DNA in them than the Bundy drops?
So when those samples were being processed, they had a higher content of DNA than the Bundy drops?
Well, now, when you're saying when they were being processed, is that opposed to when they were shed or--
No. When they were being collected, packaged, dried, taken out of test tubes, all those processes that took place in the evidence processing room, would it be fair to say that the swatches from item 12 had a higher content of human DNA than the Bundy samples based on the data you've seen?
And even item no. 6 from Rockingham had a higher content of human DNA than the Bundy samples according to the calculations you made for the Prosecutor on redirect examination?
Well, you--do you recall seeing a picture of bloodstains recovered from the front gate, photo no. 116, on June 13th?
I--that number doesn't ring a bell to me, but I have seen I believe a photo of the front gate.
You were answering all kinds of questions from Mr. Harmon about substrates based on looking at photos, right?
All right. And looking at the photo of the front gate and comparing it to the photo of the back gate, would it be fair to say that the front gate and the back gate were the same kind of substrate?
All right. We're looking for a photo now, but let's plow on. Now, you also analyzed a sample from the handrail at Bundy.
Would it be fair to say that in terms of substrates, the blood on the handrail--withdrawn. In terms of substrates, the handrail appeared similar in the photographs to the substrate on the back gate?
Yes. Again, you're asking me if it's generally similar. I think it was. It was white painted metal as I recall.
Now, you have done yield gels and slot blots on item 51, the bloodstains from the front gate; have you not?
And from that substrate on the front gate, were not those bloodstains substantially degraded?
Well, it appeared to be bacterial. I didn't--again, remember I'm not doing a specific test for bacteria, but it has that degradation pattern as some of the Bundy drops were seen.
So the results from the substrate on the front gate collected on June 13th were comparable to 47, 48, 49 and 50?
And the results from the substrate of the handrail, you did yield gels and slot blots on that as well?
And those showed--those stains collected on June 13th from a substrate on the handrail, handrail substrate, those also were substantially degraded like 47, 48, 49 and 50?
Yes. That's--that is correct. The one point I wanted to make is, I think it's on 47, we didn't actually run that yield gel and see that degradation pattern. But three of the other ones, I know we did, the same kind of pattern that you're talking about on these two additional items.
Now, I asked you to look at--you did a chart for the Prosecution where you made a comparison of the amount of DNA in terms of nanograms per milligram, correct?
All right. Could you explain to the jury exactly what you mean by that when you're making a comparison of nanograms per milligram?
Yes. What I wanted to look at was the basis of how much DNA we were recovering from some of these swatches against what the weight of the swatch material was. So you recall, we talked about weighing all these swatches. I went back and I figured out how much DNA I got per each milligram unit of the swatch material of the stains.
And would it be fair to say that this is an analysis that tries to give you some notion of concentration?
Now, have you reviewed two charts we prepared at the break based on the data that you gave us on redirect examination in terms of nanograms per milligram?
Now, first, have you checked the math on these and does it appear to you to be substantially correct?
All right. Let me do this. Let me try to hold this up to the jury as best I can and read it off.
I see people nodding. I don't think it's really going to--maybe what I can try to do is just--
Do you want to bring that in the center so that it's at least in the center of the room?
Okay. So this is a comparison of the swatch DNA samples to 117, the rear gate sample?
And the rear gate sample, no. 117, has four times as much DNA on the basis of concentration, on the basis of nanograms to milligrams as item no. 6?
Yes. And again, keep in mind, on 117, 116, 115, that's a yield gel comparison against the slot blots now on 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52.
And as far as 48 is concerned, another Bundy blood drop, it has 45 times as much DNA?
We need to actually flip that over. Is that possible? Because that's Mr. Yamauchi's diagram if you recollect.
Now, with respect to 115 and 116, same comparison, 115 and 116 have about two times as much DNA as no. 6?
Now, Mr. Harmon asked you today and the last time you were here a whole series of hypotheticals based on assumptions about how Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola handled samples when they collected them, when they put them in plastic bags, when they put them into test tubes, when they took them out of test tubes after they were allegedly dry and scraped them out of test tubes. Do you recall those?
And he asked you in regard to that set of activities when he was asking you these hypothetical questions to assume that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung systematically alternated the substrate controls and the specimens when they handled the samples.
And I think on redirect examination last time, you actually characterized that as a critical assumption as far as your answers to these hypotheticals.
I--I don't recall using that exact word and I do recall remarking on something being important. I'm not sure it was that specific item, but yes, I think that is important.
Thank you. And Mr. Harmon added to the hypothetical today many assumptions about what Mr. Yamauchi did and did not do when he handled the samples?
Now, did you ever review Mr. Yamauchi's notes to verify whether or not he performed the activities in question in accordance with the assumptions that were given to you in the hypothetical questions Mr. Harmon asked you?
Do you know, Mr. Sims, whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department DNA laboratory has a contamination problem that arises from the way they handle samples during the extraction process?
Mr. Sims, can you open a reference tube without--a vacutainer reference tube with a purple top without getting blood on your gloves through a chem-wipe?
I--I suppose when--I'm thinking now when I do that, I frequently will double up or maybe even triple up the chem-wipe, and that tends to get most of it. But it wouldn't be unusual for some of that blood to get through the chem-wipe.
Incidentally, your Honor, I think we have here exhibit 97, which is a picture of the back gate. Oh, we can't. Front gate. I'm sorry. Can I just for sake of time--
It's one of your exhibits, counsel. It's tough when we have to go back to the old ways.
When you get blood on your gloves when you're handling samples, Mr. Sims, do you always know it?
Well, I--I would change my gloves is the way I would answer that. I would automatically change my gloves when handling that kind of sample.
So by routinely and systematically changing or washing your gloves, you can avoid that problem?
Now, you were asked some questions about Mr.--Dr. Blake being a stranger or guest in your laboratory on redirect the last time you were here.
--in both terms. Now, Dr. Blake has been a friend of yours for 20 years; has he not?
At one point, when you were a student at Berkeley, he taught you as a teaching assistant?
He asked you to pose for pictures here indicating how you would handle samples during the course of your examination?
In an effort to assist you in getting this work done, both of you worked around the soccer schedules of each other's children?
Now, when he was in your laboratory, he documented by photographs the evidence as you received it?
And as far as no. 49 is concerned, it has 270 times as much DNA?
Yes. That is correct. The one point I wanted to make is, I think it's on 47, we didn't actually run that yield gel and see that degradation pattern. But three of the other ones, I know we did, the same kind of pattern that you're talking about on these two additional items.
No. I did not review them with that in mind.
Maybe a little longer. More like 22 now.
It wouldn't be unusual for some of that blood to get through the chem-wipe.