All right. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Gary Sims, The witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Let the record reflect--thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Let the record reflect that all of our jury members have again rejoined us. Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
My apologies to you for the longer than normal lunch hour back there. I had some evidentiary issues I had to rule upon before some items are shown to you, and we had to set some of the physical evidence up to show you. All right. Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Harmon. Good afternoon again, Mr. Sims.
Mr. Sims, you are, sir, reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your redirect examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Your Honor, at this time, I would like to have marked as People's 287 for identification the chart that we made up over the lunchtime.
Mr. Sims, what I'd like to do is just to recap with the chart that you helped prepare with us over the weekend--or over the lunch hour.
Okay? What I want to do is just kind of discuss the--your numbers real quickly in the groups from which these stains were collected; namely 47, 48, 49 and 50.
And in parenthesis, you have slot blot there. That's the method that you used to estimate the amount of DNA?
And if you'd look at the monitor. I just want you to look at the area that these were collected from. That's 47.
Okay. And then 52, what sort of estimation did you come up with 52, the one from out on the driveway?
Okay. And then with respect to 6, what was your quantification of item 6 from the Rockingham address?
Well, that was based on the high molecular weight from a yield gel blot where we actually tested the DNA for human content.
What's the correlation between estimating it in the way you did no. 6 versus 47, 48, 49 and 50?
Well, some of those other samples that--in that Bundy series, some of those were subjected to just the yield gel analysis, and we could see this degradation pattern that appeared to be from bacterial contamination.
Okay. Let's move to--I'll ask you to assume hypothetically that 12 was on an indoor floor, and we're looking for that photograph now. But let's shift to 115, 116 and 117. Okay. And what are your estimations on the amount of DNA in those three samples?
Okay. Mr. Sims, does that look like the--one of the photographs you've seen for 115, 116, 117?
Okay. Let's show you a close-up of that. Does that look like one of the other photos you've seen?
Thank you. Move on to 53-D then. It's a photograph of 116. 53-E, it's a photograph of 117 from outside. 53-F, it's a close-up photograph of 117.
I'd like to put up 48-A, your Honor, a perspective of the walkway which includes numbered stains that Mr. Sims has seen individual photos of.
Your Honor, at this point, I think it's--the jury's seen it. It's foundational at this point to ask him to comment on photographs that he hasn't even seen.
Okay. Mr. Sims, I want you to assume now--we've talked about, you've seen the areas that these things were collected from, you've commented on the differences in substrates. I want you to assume that items 115, 116 and 117 were collected on July 3rd, 1994, okay?
And they were--that a criminalist was specifically directed to collect those stains, okay?
That those stains were collected in the same fashion as the stains were collected on June 13th at Bundy, okay?
Well, I'm going to object to any more questions along this line because there's--on foundational grounds with respect to the absence of testimony.
That they were in the plastic bags which the other items which were collected on June 13th were originally placed in for a shorter period of time.
Now, you've talked about bacteria getting in there and chewing up the human DNA. If there was no bacteria on the gate as opposed to the bacteria that you saw at the Bundy crime scene--
I'll withdraw that. You saw no signs of bacterial contamination or degradation in 115, 116 and 117, right?
That's correct. I didn't see that pattern that we did see in some of the other Bundy--in some of the Bundy drops.
Okay. Is it surprising that you see the amount of human DNA that you do in 115, 116 and 117 given the assumptions I've just asked you to make?
Is there anything remarkable about the amounts of DNA that you see in 115, 116 and 117 given that you don't see any bacterial caused degradation?
And what is the significance of that, not seeing any bacterial degradation in light of the amount of DNA that you saw?
Well, the significance that I see in this is that there's no evidence of the kind of massive bacterial contamination of these samples that was seen in some of the other Bundy samples. So in other words, I don't see the evidence of that. So it's not surprising to me that we recovered a good amount of DNA out of these samples to work with.
And if 115, 116 and 117 were in fact there on June 13th and there was no bacterial-induced degradation, would you expect to see what you saw when you analyzed those samples?
You have reviewed Mr. Matheson's notes and the conventional serological testing that he performed on 115, 116 and 117; have you not?
Are the conventional serology results obtained by Mr. Matheson with respect to 115, 116 and 117 similar?
Now, we've heard a lot about EAP and I'm not--I don't intend to go into that with you. But what form of tests did Mr. Matheson use for PGM, the marker PGM?
Sure. Do you know what kind of tests he performed for the PGM marker in those three stains?
Okay. In your years of doing conventional serology both for Prosecutors and Defendants, is that a marker that you've tested frequently?
And did you keep abreast and do you keep abreast of the scientific literature about the PGM marker?
What can you tell us about the term "Persist"--or strike that. Can you--is the term "Persistence" of some technical significance in this area?
Yes. That's a term that's used to describe the--how long a period of time and what kind of conditions a sample such as blood could be exposed to and you could still get a typeable result.
And could you tell us what you are aware of from the scientific literature about the persistence of the PGM marker based on the scientific literature?
Yes. It's a--as far as enzymes are concerned, we would consider it a fairly stable marker. In typical laboratory studies, laboratory prepared bloodstains, it might persist for something like a month, two months, three months, something like that. Now, this is at room temperature.
Well, what that generally means is that somebody takes a fresh blood sample, puts it on something like a clean cotton swatch material and then just lets it sit at ambient conditions and usually indoors.
And what's the range that the studies have shown that the PGM marker persists under those conditions?
Well, again, it would go from something like about a month out to maybe several months, something like that. There's--it's a fairly broad range.
What can you tell us about--you've told us that the results are comparable for all three stains; is that right?
That means that you don't see any of these bands on the gel. You look in the lane where that sample was run and you don't see any of the bands.
Does that mean that the marker did not persist in the way you've described it a little bit ago?
Yes. It's gone off or lost its activity. And again, that assumes that the test was performed correctly and the standards give the proper results, and they appeared to in this case.
What sorts of things have an impact on this losing the activity for the PGM marker?
Well, again, sometimes with proteins, a lot of different biochemical reactions can take place such that it will be degraded to a point where it may just lose its activity altogether or what usually happens with--especially with PGM, it goes through a series of reactions until it gets weaker and weaker, and then it's just no longer detectable.
Well, with time, any stain would--and not--unpreserved, in other words, left in the environment, the ambient environment, it will get to the point where it's no longer typeable.
And the PG or the EAP results that Mr. Matheson obtained on those three samples, 115, 116, 117, what were they?
Do these comparable results that were produced for all three of the stains, do they support those stains being on the same substrate in the same environment for a comparable period of time?
Yes. I mean again, within broad limits. But yes, they all look the same as far as the PGM results.
And if testimony is shown that 115, item 115 was on that gate on June 13th, are the comparable results that you've just described consistent with the other two stains having been on the gate on June 13th?
Okay. Is there anything about your review of Mr. Matheson's testing and your review of all of the data and testing for 115, 116 and 117 support the conclusion that those three stains were on that gate on June 13th?
Is there anything in your review of Mr. Matheson's testing and your actual testing on 115, 116 and 117 which is inconsistent with those three stains being on the rear gate on June 13th?
What, if anything, is there in your reports which may be construed as undermining the fact that those three stains, 115, 116 and 117 were on the rear gate on June 13th, 1994?
Sustained. Mr. Harmon, the problem with having the assumption of June the 13th--if there's some comparability as far as age or activity that you can draw from those conclusions, I'll allow that.
But the problem is the assumption about the age--the specific date is the assumption that I'm having problems with.
KEY QUOTEIs there anything about your observations, the testing of those three stains that your lab did as well as your review of Mr. Matheson's test results, which is inconsistent with those stains being on the gate for the same period of time?
Mr. Sims, is there anything in your--that you've seen in your review of Mr. Matheson's test results on June--on 115, 116 and 117 combined with the actual testing and review of those three stains yourself which is inconsistent with those stains being on that gate for a period of two to three weeks?
You don't have any idea when the stains you tested on those socks were deposited there, do you?
Do your test results include Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson as possible sources on sock a?
Do your test results include Nicole Brown from among the three reference samples as a possible source on sock b?
You previously described numerous microscopic stains between--on sock B between the two stains that you typed as being consistent with Nicole Brown; is that correct?
And you previously described that there was no apparent blood which soaked through from 13A1 to the opposite side of that sock?
Was there any apparent blood that soaked through to the opposite side of the major stain that you tested from Greg Matheson's cutout at 13A1?
Well, again, when I laid that sock out and looked at it, I didn't see any evidence for that.
In your opinion--strike that. You've looked and we're going to look at this--at the socks through the microscope. But how many hours did you scan these socks using the microscope for?
It--it would--it would be very difficult for me to estimate that, but many hours. I would say many hours looking through the microscope and then also looking at them macroscopically.
Having spent many hours looking at the various stains and keeping like the results that you produced, your typing results, when the blood which you've typed as being consistent with Nicole Brown appears dry, okay?
Is it just as difficult to see as the blood that you've typed consistent with Mr. Simpson's blood?
You've produced two different sets of typing results on these socks; is that correct?
Having spent those many hours looking at those stains, do the stains that type consistent with Nicole Brown, do they look any differently than the stains that you typed consistent with Mr. Simpson?
So of the two different typing results that you produced, were they equally difficult to visualize?
Is there any scientific reason to believe that Mr. Simpson's blood is more difficult to see than Nicole's blood on those socks?
Are you aware of any scientific principal which would explain why Mr. Simpson's blood might be more difficult to see than Nicole Brown's blood when you look at those socks?
Are you aware of any scientific literature that says one person's blood is more difficult to see on a pair of black socks than another person's?
In the many hours that you looked at sock B, you--you performed several samplings of sock b; is that correct?
And have you set up sock B here on an area that's--that was of interest to you that you noted when you examined these socks on November 11th, 1994?
And without going into any processing about that specific stain, would you tell us how you located it without talking about any testing and what you were able to see back in November?
Well, I was examining it under the stereomicroscope and I was documenting where the reddish stains were.
And how many reddish stains did you document just on the side that we're looking at that's reflected on page 117 in your notes?
Well, again, it--it was about a dozen. I--I haven't counted them again, but it's--it's in that area of a dozen.
These are in addition to the two stains that you've described as having typed b1 and b2?
And then at some point, did you flip the sock over and visualize other reddish areas on the other sock?
Your Honor, may I have this sketch marked--projected or marked as 288 and projected on the elmo?
I found nothing inconsistent with that.
There's no evidence of the kind of massive bacterial contamination of these samples that was seen in some of the other Bundy samples. So in other words, I don't see the evidence of that. So it's not surprising to me that we recovered a good amount of DNA out of these samples to work with.
I didn't note any difference, no.
No, I'm not aware of any such literature.
The problem is the assumption about the age--the specific date is the assumption that I'm having problems with.