All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Harmon has completed his direct examination. And Mr. Scheck, you may commence your cross-examination.

Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

Mr. Sims, good to see you.

Good to see you.

Let's see if we can--

All right. Are you going to put up again People's 172?

Yes.

All right. Got it?

Mr. Sims, could you join me for a minute, and if we could look, just to clarify some of the facts here, at People's 172 and also the results board, People's 260, to understand precisely what you have done here. Now, first of all, items 30 and 31 are depicted in the upper right-hand corner; is that correct?

Yes.

Of the People's 172. And those represent swatches that were made on June 14th?

Yes, that is my understanding, but those two stains were collected about June 14th.

On June 14th by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola?

I'm not sure who collected them, but the date sounds right to me.

And each picture on this board, 29, that is the steering wheel you told us about, right?

Yes.

All right. That is the one with the 1.1, 1.2 and 4, correct?

Yes.

And number--the next picture over, 33, another picture of the steering wheel, 29, 33 again, 22, 23, 34, the picture showing 25, 26, 27, all those pictures were of collections made on June 14th, 1994? That is your understanding, correct?

That's my understanding, yes.

And 293 is a carpet that was pulled out of the Bronco on June 14th, correct?

That is my understanding, the carpet was pulled out on that date.

All right. Now, samples 303, 304 and 305, those are the samples that you combined to do your new RFLP test, right?

Yes. 303, 304 and 305.

And they are depicted at the bottom right-hand corner here from the console?

Yes.

And those stains were collected on August 26th, right?

Yes. My understanding it is about that date.

Okay. Now, the results you got on the Bronco samples that were collected on June 14th are shown in the result board here that is 30 and 31, correct?

Yes, I believe those are the ones, although 34 I think and 29 were also--

I'm talking about the console?

Console, 30 and 31.

That is my question.

Yes.

Right, the console?

Yes.

Now, 30 is depicted in the upper right-hand corner from that swatch collected on June 14th, you got a 1.1, 1.2, 24, 25, correct?

Yes.

And that is a DNA typing that is consistent just with Mr. Simpson?

Yes.

And from that typing there is--you can exclude Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?

Yes. None of their DNA shows up in that sample.

Okay. Now, the result from 303, the sample taken on August 26th, right?

Yes.

All right. Which is that one on the DQ-Alpha and D1S80, you got results that were consistent with Mr. Simpson, Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown?

That's correct.

And in theory it is your understanding that 30 and 303 were taken from the same area?

Objection, calls for speculation, misstates the testimony.

Sustained.

Is it your understanding that 303 and 30 were supposed to be bloodstains in the same area?

Objection. That is vague, calls for speculation.

Overruled.

I remember we went through all this in May and I think we got down to the issue of what is--what are we talking about when we are saying it is exactly the same area?

I didn't say exactly the same. Same general area?

Same general area, yes.

Right. That is what the reports you got indicated?

Same general area, yes.

Thank you. Now, 31, okay, that is the second stain from the console from June 14th, right?

Yes.

And that is the one that you say has a DNA--a DQ-Alpha profile that is consistent with Mr. Goldman?

Yes.

All right. Now--your Honor, I'm--for the sake of--I don't know if it can be seen, so I will try to put it in the middle.

Now, Mr. Sims, 31--

All right. I'm sorry, Mr. Scheck, you just put up Defense exhibit--

1309.

Thank you.

31 is the item--30 and 31 are depicted here in Defense 1309; is that right?

Yes, the DQ-Alpha strips.

And in the upper left-hand corner we see all the strips that were run that day?

Yes.

Now, you recall we discussed this, you and I on cross-examination?

Yes.

And my--you would agree when I asked you those questions on cross-examination the issues probably weren't so clear the way I did it that way with dots?

I thought it was clear.

Oh, you thought it was clear? I apologize. But when dr. Gerdes testified he made points that were similar to precisely the points I made--was making with you when we visited this issue on cross-examination?

Objection, that is vague, no foundation.

It is argumentative. Sustained.

Argumentative.

All right.

Now, you stated on direct examination one of the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with respect to this 1.3 dot, correct?

Yes.

Now, wasn't one of the points that dr. Gerdes made is that there was also evidence of the 1.3 dot appearing on the quality sample 86 and the positive control on the same run?

Objection, that is beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Yes, he mentioned that in his testimony.

Right. And he took the position that scientifically when your controls are showing 1.3's, that shouldn't be there, it is improper to call a 1.3 that is also faint within a mixture? You remember he made that point?

Yes.

And your protocol, as we discussed when I cross-examined you, does say that if the quality control and the positive control fail or show unexpected results, that the procedure is to do it again?

That's what we would say, yes. In other words, if they show--I think the key word is whether or not they fail, but in my opinion, they didn't fail.

I understand that, but you did not do this again?

That's correct.

However--and this is--

All right. Mr. Scheck, just be careful because this easel--

I understand. I think I've got it.

--has got a limited capacity.

1310.

1310. Thank you.

However, on item 52 on board 1310 there was a--what you in your terminology called a 1.3 trace, correct?

Objection. It is beyond the scope, your Honor. These are different samples.

Overruled.

Yes, it was called a c minus/trace.

Right. And there is also on one of the quality assurance samples in this run what you called a trace of a 1.3?

Yes. I believe that is right, but I would like to quickly check the note sheet for that day.

Well, would you accept my representation that this came from the note sheet? Is that your--

That is my recollection.

And that on the positive control it was a hint/trace?

Yes. In other words, there was more of a dot showing on this particular positive control than the previous one you showed me.

And that you decided, based on this data, to do it again?

That's correct.

And the 1.3 here, item 52 is a Bundy blood drop?

Yes, it is.

And if that 1.3 were a real allele, then that would indicate that there was perhaps more than one contributor to the stain you had?

Objection, 52 is beyond the scope of direct, your Honor.

Overruled. But let's--

Yes, we are moving through it.

Yes.

Yes.

Do you recall that?

Yes.

And you did it again?

Yes.

And in your notes, even though it is not really visible on this strip, it was recorded very faint trace?

Yes, I believe that is correct, but I rehybed it.

And the rehybe indicates that the film was developed for 22 minutes?

I believe that's correct, yes.

And your protocol is to develop them between 20 and 30 minutes?

Yes.

And would you agree that the amount of time that you develop them may relate to the intensity of the 1.3 dot?

Well, beyond--beyond about twenty minutes it was really very little difference in those. It is mainly what happens in the first twenty minutes that is the issue.

Well, you didn't indicate on the sheets how long the original run of item 52 was developed?

That's correct. I consulted with Renee Montgomery later on that.

All right. Now, dr.--to finish this up, you recall that dr. Gerdes criticized your results by saying that it was inconsistent to call this 1.3 not real and without further testing to call the 1.3 on sample 31 real?

I believe that was his testimony, yes.

Okay. So those are some of the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with respect to a full rendition of his concerns with respect to sample 31. Fair statement?

I think that covers about everything.

Okay. And just so we are all clear, with respect to the console of the Bronco and the samples that were collected on June 14th, the only evidence of DNA testing that you had with respect to the console is that 1.3, 4 finding that you and dr. Gerdes disagree about on item 31?

Yes.

Okay. Now, with respect to the results on 303, 304 and 305, you recall that dr. Gerdes expressed the view that the integrity of the evidence had been compromised by the way in which the Bronco was handled between June 14th and August 26th. Do you recall that?

Objection, that misstates the testimony. That is argumentative. That is not what he said. It is beyond the scope of the direct examination.

Overruled. Overruled.

I believe I saw that in his testimony, yes.

All right. So you recall that with respect to his opinions about 303, 304 and 305, that was a concern of his?

I believe that was a concern, yes.

All right. And do you have some familiarity with the way the Bronco was handled between June 14th and August 26th.

Objection, no foundation, calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Hearsay.

You can ask him if he took that into consideration.

Mr. Sims, from what you know about the way the chain of custody for the Bronco was handled, between June 14th and August 26th, do you think it was handled appropriately, in your forensic opinion?

Well, I don't--I don't know the whole history of how that Bronco was maintained. I don't know the whole history of that. I've heard that there were some--

Objection. That calls for hearsay, your Honor.

Overruled.

Calls for speculation.

Overruled. It is an expert opinion, counsel.

I'm sorry.

Please continue.

Overruled.

I've heard that the Defense has raised some issues with regard to that. I don't know the truth of the matter on all these issues, though.

Object. That is nonresponsive, move to strike. There is no foundation.

Overruled.

Mr. Sims, you heard dr. Gerdes testify about it?

I heard him express concerns. I don't know what his basis for those concerns were, other than the general term "Chain of evidence."

Well, you have no knowledge with respect to whether or not this Bronco was secured for further biological analysis between August 26th and June 14th in a way that would preserve the integrity of the evidence? You have no knowledge of that?

Well, I--I know what I see in the newspaper and I know, for example, that I think two weeks ago I called a witness that addressed some of those issues, but that is what my knowledge is.

And you have not familiarized yourself then at all with what the history was of how the Bronco was kept? Is that what you are telling us?

Objection. That is argumentative, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Have you--let me try it this way: Mr. Sims, in your forensic opinion, based on your experience--

All right. Mr. Scheck, is it necessary for him to be down there at this point? Simply because the--we ought to use the microphones when we--

All right. I think it would save time if we keep the boards up.

All right. Go ahead.

Mr. Sims, to try to cut to the heart of it quickly, let me--let me ask you to assume that between June 14th and August 26th the Bronco automobile was not--was put into a tow yard, that no records were kept as to who entered or left it between June 14th and August 26th, that unauthorized personnel were in and out of that Bronco automobile, that is non-police personnel, they were in the seats, they were looking around the car. Would you consider that an appropriate way to preserve the integrity of biological evidence?

Well, I--I don't think that should be allowed. I don't think one should be allowed to come in and out of a car. I think that should be done by authorized people.

And that records should be kept as to who has access and doesn't have access to the vehicle if you were going to preserve blood evidence for future biological testing?

Well, when you put it in the context of records should be kept, I don't know. I mean, for example, there may be, you know, other tow yards that I have been involved with in forensic cases where perhaps just one person has the keys, so there is no record kept of all those things, but that should be controlled. Access should be controlled.

So your answer is yes?

Well, with what I added to that, yes.

Now--so basically you have no basis for disagreeing with dr. Gerdes' judgment that the integrity of those samples, 303, 304 and 305, was compromised by the chain of custody procedures used in this case?

Objection. It is vague as to what type of integrity, your Honor.

Sustained.

All right. You heard his testimony that he believed as a scientist that the chain of custody for those samples compromised the integrity of future analysis? You recall that?

Yes, I heard some of that.

And you are saying to us that you are really not familiar with the details of how--of the chain of custody of the Bronco?

And you have not endeavored to become more familiar with the exact detail of how it was kept and who was in and out of the car?

That's correct.

And therefore you wouldn't want to render an opinion on it because you don't have enough information?

Objection, it is vague as to opinion about what.

Overruled.

Well, I think I did offer the opinion of what should be done with that kind of evidence as far as securing it, yes.

All right. So your general opinion is that wasn't handled properly, but you don't know the specific detail of how bad it was.

Objection, that is argumentative.

It is.

I will move on.

Now, just so we are clear, what you have done since we last visited is that you combined the samples that were found on August 26th, 303, 304 and 305, and you put them together; is that correct?

Yes, I've put them together.

Now, altogether, when you did the quantitations on all these stains combined, you came up with 72 nanograms of high-molecular weight DNA?

Well, there was actually more than that, I believe, after, but some other tests were run in between, but it is about 72 nanograms.

About 72 nanograms?

Yes.

And looking at the results, you believe this to be a mixture?

Yes.

And the predominant contribution in the mixture is DNA that you say is consistent with Mr. Simpson?

Yes.

And that is something on the order of 3 to 1?

Yes. I--I would say it is somewhere 3 to 1, maybe 2 to 1, but that is the right ballpark.

And therefore the amount of DNA on the RFLP tests that is consistent with the profile of Mr. Goldman would be something on the order of 20 nanograms of DNA?

Somewhere in that area, yes. That is--that is a reasonable approximation.

And that is why you had to put these probes, keep those probes cooking, so to speak, for fifteen or sixteen days, to try to draw up the amount of DNA because there was comparatively a small amount there?

Yes. Technically what is going on is that there is a low amount of DNA on that membrane, that southern blot that we made, which means that there is a low amount of radioactive probe that is binding, and so you have to let the film that is--that is developing, you have to let that film go for a longer period of time. Usually we do these in a couple days, but for this type of sample you have to let it go a week or longer to get those weak bands to show up.

So 20 nanograms of DNA, that is really at the low end of your ability to detect, isn't it?

Yes. This is getting of the low end of the ability to detect.

Small amount?

Small amount.

Now, if we were to look at--to give us some perspective, one drop of blood contains about 1000 nanograms of high-molecular weight DNA?

Yes, about a thousand nanograms or one microgram, yes.

All right. And in fact you have seen estimates in the NRC report and other places that some people put it at between one and 2000?

Yes, it is in that area.

Now, if you, based on your quantitations, were to combine the amount of DNA that you got as a whole in 305, 304, 303, the August 26th collections, and for just the purpose of this hypothetical, let's also include the amount of DNA that came out of the swatches from 30 and 31--are you with me?

Yes.

--would you not agree that combining all of those together, all that from the console together, the amount of DNA would not exceed a hundred nanograms?

Well, it might slightly exceed that, but it is around that ballpark.

Around a hundred nanograms?

Around a hundred nanograms.

Well, you have to remember that with a drop of blood, for example, if you are testing liquid blood, that is not the same as extracting DNA out of a stain's worth of one drop of blood, so there is--you are not quite talking apples--you are somewhat talking apples and oranges there, but in terms of the ballpark you are talking about, you know, maybe getting three/quarters of that DNA out, so you can figure it from that.

All right. So what you are basically saying to us is that maybe if you are just dealing with a pristine drop of blood, you won't get a thousand nanograms, you will get 750?

Something like that.

Is that what you just said in English?

Yes, that is what I just said.

Okay. And if we were to--I mean no disrespect for that, just summarizing it. And so if you've got about a hundred nanograms of DNA and there is 750 nanograms in a drop of blood, can you give me that fraction quickly? That would be, what, about a seventh?

Something like that. Something like that.

Okay. So certainly, just reasoning from the DNA alone, the amount of blood, just looking at the DNA in the console, as you said, is in the area of a hundred nanograms of DNA?

Yes.

Objection. That assumes it was all collected.

Overruled.

Well--

Overruled.

Object to the--

Overruled. Overruled. Overruled.

Okay.

May I answer?

You actually overruled that speaking objection.

Calls for speculation. Calls for speculation.

I overruled the objection. Ask your question.

Oh, overruled the objection?

Can I finish my answer to that?

I'm sorry.

I thought you did.

I meant--sustained is what I meant.

That is what I thought you did.

Thank you, your Honor.

Okay. Now, you also were asked some questions on--withdrawn. I will start this way: Now, you don't know anything about the order in which blood was deposited on that console?

No, I don't know the order in which the blood was deposited.

Are you familiar with the testimony of dr. Baden in this case that Mr. Simpson told him that he had cut himself on the evening of June 12th, I believe, and that he had gone into the Bronco searching for his cellular phone?

Objection, that calls for hearsay and no foundation.

This was testimony.

Overruled. Overruled.

And with a small cut on the side of his finger and had blood within the Bronco? Are you familiar with that testimony.

Same objection, calls for hearsay and no foundation.

Overruled.

Misstates the testimony as well.

Overruled.

No, I really wasn't interested in doctor, is it Baden how you say it, in his testimony. I don't recall that. I don't recall his testimony on that issue.

All right. Just look at it then from the point of view of forensic DNA expertise that you have, ask you to assume that there was an initial deposit of Mr. Simpson's blood on the Bronco from a small cut and I ask you further to assume that a--at a later point in time there was a second deposit, all right? Do you have that hypothetical?

Okay.

And if one assumes, for the sake of argument and for the sake of this hypothetical, that the bloodstains of 303, 304, 305, all right, were all present also on June 14th, all right, asking you to assume both of these--there is no question, just for the purpose of this hypothetical--that everything that was on--on August 26th, all right, that was found there, was also present on June 14th, just for the purpose of this hypothetical. Are you with me?

Okay. On June 14th versus August 26th. Okay. Those are the two collection times.

Right. But if we assume that on August 26th the finding--the stains there 303, 304, 305, were also present on June 14th, but somehow they were missed, okay--

Okay.

--your conclusions with respect to mixtures are not inconsistent with two deposits at two separate times?

Objection. That is an improper hypothetical. Misstates the testimony. There is no foundation.

Overruled.

Okay. I understand the hypothetical, but now give me the last phrase, please, the question.

In other words, your findings here of mixtures are not inconsistent with a contribution of Mr. Simpson's blood at one point in time and then a subsequent contribution of blood from Mr. Goldman at a subsequent point in time?

That's correct.

And in fact, based on all the testing that you did, most of the blood, if we--withdrawn. Most of the DNA that you extracted from that console is consistent with Mr. Simpson?

In the sample that we look at he would be consistent with the main contributor of that DNA mix.

Something--when you combine 303, 304 and 305, something on the order of 3 to 1?

Yes, that is--again, that is a reasonable figure, something like 3 to 1, maybe 2 to 1.

Now, finally, there--you have continued testing--are you still continuing testing in this case?

Well, as I mentioned, there is another autorad that we would--I would like to look at this afternoon, another probe or another one of these autorads that we are developing.

Have you tested item 1, the speck on the door that was first observed by Detective Fuhrman?

Objection, that is beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Do you have DNA samples from the handrail? Have you tested that?

Objection. It is beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Excuse me for one second.

Your Honor, can we approach the bench for just one minute?

Proceed.

On a scope problem. I don't want to ask the question and--

All right. With the court reporter, please.

Take just a second.