The People recall Gary Sims.
Gary Sims, recalled as a witness by the People in rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:
Please raise your right hand to be sworn. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
Mr. Sims, have you conducted additional testing that you are here to provide the results on in this case?
And just to put the additional testing in context, I would like to put up a couple of exhibit boards, People's exhibit 260 and People's exhibit 172, which are the Bronco photo board or the Bronco result board and the Bronco photo board, respectively, and start out by just briefly discussing items 31, 303, 304 and 305 that you previously presented to the jury. Item 31, if you look at the result board, that was on the center console shown in one of the photographs where you provided some PCR results from that; is that correct?
And just--would you just summarize what the results were and what your conclusions were, without addressing any statistical aspects of those conclusions.
Yes. For item number LAPD 31, which is our item number DNA 18, the DQ-Alpha finding indicated a main type of 1.1, 1.2, a minor type of 1.3 and 4, and those alleles are consistent with a mixture of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson's blood, and Mr. Ronald Goldman's blood. And then on the D1S80 results for that sample, the call on that was 24, 25. Again that is consistent with this same mixture.
Okay. And would you give us the same summary with respect to item 303, which was from the center console as well?
Yes. Item 303 was our numbered DNA 52. The DQ-Alpha type on that was a 1.1 with a possible 1.2, 1.3 and 4. The D1S80 type was 24, 25 with a weaker 18 allele. That particular mixture was consistent with a mixture of the Defendant, Mr. Goldman, and also Nicole Brown.
305--in the case of 305 there was a slight difference there in that the DQ-Alpha type was called a 1.1, possible 1.2. the minor type in that case was a 1.3 and 4.
And what conclusion would you draw about possible sources from among the three parties whose reference samples were provided to you in this case?
Well, I would also supplement that the D1S80 results were the 24 and 25 alleles, along the weaker 18 allele, so again that was consistent with a mixture of all three of the principals in this case.
Okay. I want to ask you a general question with regard to your PCR processing of each of these console samples that you've provided a summary of your results on. Were any of those console samples ever extracted in the presence of any of the reference samples during your handling of these samples in this case?
Are you familiar with dr. Gerdes' testimony with regard to some of your results in this case?
And what is the basis for your familiarity? Have you read excerpts of his testimony?
I listened to some of his testimony when I was monitoring it. I also have read some of the transcript.
And have you also been provided with a copy of a Defense exhibit in this case, Defense exhibit 1309?
Well, why don't you take a look at it. It appears to be a photo of a set of DQ-Alpha strips. Why don't you take a look at the photo in the left-hand corner and see if you recognize the photo of the complete set of strips reflecting work that you did in this case?
Could you briefly summarize, and I want to solely ask you to focus on LAPD item no. 31, the center console item that you just provided us a summary of your results for, could you describe, based on your reading of dr. Gerdes' testimony, the nature of his concerns about item 31 and solely with respect to the DQ-Alpha testing?
What is the first concern that dr. Gerdes expressed with regard to--specifically with regard to LAPD item 31?
The concern that I was aware of was the determination as to whether or not that 1.3 dot was in fact a real allele showing up or an artifact. That was his concern.
Okay. Do you agree with the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed to this jury when he testified and discussed exhibit 1309?
Well, I disagree with him in that his conclusion was that one could not say with confidence that the 1.3 allele was there, and I disagree with that.
KEY QUOTEAnd solely focusing on LAPD item 31 and the testing that you actually performed, and you are the only one that performed testing on that sample, why do you disagree with him?
Well, just for the record, I should state that this analysis was performed by Renee Montgomery and I was the second reader on this particular date.
I disagreed with him because of the relative intensity of the 1.3 dot in this case relative to the c dot within this particular strip.
Well, the call that was made at the time that this strip was developed included the findings of the 1 dot, the 4 dot, the 1.1, the 1.2, et cetera, the 1.3 and the all but, and the finding of these two dots, the weaker dots here being the 4 and the 1.3, was that they were of similar intensity to the c dot.
In an effort to unravel or determine the potential sources for all of the bloodstains that were tested on the console, on the Bronco console, did you continue to perform testing on items 303, 304 and 305, continue beyond what you've already described to this jury?
What I ended up doing--may I sit down? What I ended up doing was noting that the overall quantity of DNA that was individually extracted from those three samples, 303, 304 and 305, appeared to be insufficient for an RFLP type analysis, so what I did was to individually look at the types from those samples and then I made a determination to combine those extracts, the extracted DNA from all those three samples, to get enough DNA so that I felt I could get an RFLP result by the collective--the bringing together of those three samples from the center--all from the center console.
We are going to talk about that in a little bit, but would you just describe the relative amounts of DNA that you detected in those individual samples, 303, 304 and 305?
From 303, which is our item DNA 52, there was about 40 nanograms recovered in that original extract. From 304, which is our DNA 53, there was about 29 nanograms. And then in the original extract of 305, that was around 17 nanograms, approximately.
Now, why did you feel it was appropriate to combine those stains in order to pursue the RFLP--strike that. Why did you feel it was necessary to combine those three stains to--in order to try to perform RFLP testing to produce results from those stains?
Well, it was clear to me that we had a mixture of DNA in these--of DNA's from different individuals in these samples, and individually, for a typical individual stain we like to get about 50 nanograms to test in our--in our laboratory for an RFLP analysis. And I knew that given these weaker mixtures that it would be very difficult to get that kind of DNA to show up on one of these autorads that we have seen so many of without having enough quantity. So the only way I felt that I could get enough quantity to do that was to combine them. In other words, I could individually test them for these sensitive PCR tests, but to get enough from one of these RFLP results, I felt that I had to combine them.
Why did you feel it was scientifically appropriate to combine those three stains in order to perform RFLP testing?
Well, I looked at this in a very step-wise fashion in terms of looking, first of all, at the consistency of the PCR results and the different systems that we tested DQ-Alpha and D1S80. Also knowing that they were all collected from the center console, the Bronco, I felt that, you know, in my forensic opinion that that was the same general blood-stained area so that it would be reasonable and certainly feasible to combine them.
Do your--in your opinion do your RFLP results, which we will show to the jury in a few minutes on the mixtures that you have just described for us, do they corroborate your interpretation of item 31, the center console where you concluded that the possible sources would be Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman?
Well, the finding of those--of the RFLP patterns that are consistent with those two individuals, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, tends to corroborate the results in item no. 31, which is also a center console bloodstain.
Objection, move to strike with respect to item 31. He is talking about 303, 304 and 305. Irrelevant.
Okay. And in your opinion do your RFLP results, which we will show to the jury in a couple of minutes, do they tend to undermine the reservation or criticism expressed by dr. Gerdes that you've described to the jury just a few moments ago?
Mr. Sims, in your opinion do your RFLP results from the mixtures that you've performed--that you have just briefly described to this jury, do they tend to undermine dr. Gerdes' opinion--
Mr. Sims, what is the impact of your RFLP results on the combination of 303, 304 and 305 on dr. Gerdes' criticism about the 1.3 allele in item no. 31 from the center console?
Well, I think the RFLP results do tend to undermine that because they do show consistency with what I originally called on item no. 31 and which Renee Montgomery also called on item no. 31, namely that those DQ-Alpha results were consistent with a mixture of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
Okay. In addition, Mr. Sims, do your RFLP results from the combined stains on the center console also corroborate the PCR results that you've briefly summarized from those same stains on the center console?
Well again, the finding on the RFLP results is that it is consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson. You will recall that on the PCR results we saw a little bit of this 18 allele. This was the weak allele on the D1S80 results on those gels. I believe what we are seeing is that that weak type that is detectable by the very sensitive PCR methodology is not detected by the less sensitive RFLP approach.
And what do you say about the remaining types that are consistent with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman from the PCR? Is that what you see in the RFLP results?
Mr. Sims, do the combined stains from 303, 304 and 305, the RFLP results, tend to address any concerns about PCR's exquisite sensitivity?
Yes, I believe they do, because we've heard extensive--you've heard extensive testimony about the sensitivity issues with PCR. The RFLP is not as vulnerable to those concerns as the PCR is.
Mr. Sims, do the mixture results from stains 303, 304 and 305, the RFLP results, tend to address concerns about potential cross-contamination among samples?
Yes, I believe they do, because to get an RFLP result you need a substantial amount of DNA from a blood sample, particularly when you are comparing that to how sensitive the PCR test is.
Okay. Your Honor, at this time I would like to have marked as People's next in order a set of four autorads in a plastic cover. What would that number be, your Honor?
Yes. And I will describe that so we can correlate them in order. I will describe the order that we will be showing them. As 616-a, the autorad is labeled D10S28. As 616-b, it is autorad d4. And as 616-c it is d4. And 616-d it is d2, your Honor.
Mr. Sims, I would like to show you a set of four autorads, 616-a through D, and would you tell us if those represent the four autorads that were produced as a result of your combination of those three stains, 303, 304 and 305?
And we have actually put labels on them that you didn't put on there to show the names and identify the stains; is that true?
Your Honor, I would like to show them to the jury and have Mr. Sims use the telestrator. I would like to show 616-a, please.
Can we clear these artifacts. Mr. Harmon, we appear to have artifacts on the telestrator. There we go. Thank you, Miss Martinez.
Mr. Sims, can you help get the jury reoriented on autorad reading 1 here and describe what they are seeing so they can understand the results.
Yes. This is--this is now an autorad from a gel which contains the combined 303, 304 and 305 from the console and that is labeled "Console" in that particular lane. And you will recall these samples run downwards from the top to the bottom in the vertical column. Then we have a reference sample from Mr. Goldman, we have a reference sample from Mr. Simpson and then a reference sample from Nicole Brown to the right side there.
Okay. And so the lane that is labeled "Console," that represents the combination of 303, 304 and 305; is that right?
Could you describe your results and what your conclusions are, without addressing any statistics?
Yes. The finding of that pattern in the console is--in the console lane is consistent with a mixture of the banding pattern of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and also the contribution from Mr. Goldman.
Could you--is there any way that you can show which bands match which by using different colors for the different reference samples?
(Witness complies.) I will mark the lanes in the console in, I guess that is sort of a lavender or pink color, that are consistent with the Defendant's bands, and I will also mark those lanes--I'm sorry, I will mark those bands in the Defendant's, Mr. Simpson's lane.
And then what about--there seems to be on the reference sample of Mr. Goldman for this probe, it looks like he has just got one band; is that true?
Yes. This was scored as what we call a single-band pattern down in this area. It is possible that he has two very close bands in this area, but they tend to run together in all the samples that we saw in this case every time we ran the sample. It is a single-band pattern, so instead of having two bands, he just has one that is scored, and I will mark in green his position in his reference lane, and now I will mark that band also in the console lane. The other--the other thing that is significant to me in this particular mix is that--
The other thing I wanted to mention, and we will see this as we go through the total picture of these different autorads, is that the bands that are consistent with Mr. Simpson's sample are consistent with the stronger bands in the console lane, whereas the bands that are consistent with Mr. Goldman's sample, his reference sample, are consistent with the weaker bands in the console lane.
And that is true with each of the four autorads that we will be showing to the jury?
Okay. Mr. Sims, we are looking at 616-b now. You have already given the jury the orientation on that. What do these results reflect, in your opinion?
This is the--this is an autorad developed from the locus D4S139. Perhaps we can brighten that up a little bit. That is pretty good.
Sure. Why don't you describe what you observed and what conclusions you drew from 616-b?
Yes. From 616-b, again this is the locus D4S139. Again the console lane has in this case now four bands. This is consistent with a mixture of the Defendant's sample and Mr. Goldman's sample, and I will mark the bands again, as I did previously in the console. Console lane I'm marking in the pink or lavender, the bands that are consistent with Mr. Simpson's bands, and now I will mark them in his reference lane, and now I will mark in green the bands that are in the console lane that are consistent with Mr. Goldman's bands.
In this instance Mr. Goldman's reference type and the corresponding evidence stain have two bands; is that correct?
That's correct. He has a two-banded pattern, which is the typical pattern in an RFLP is a two-banded, but sometimes you will see one, for example. And now I will mark in green the bands of Mr. Goldman in his reference lane.
And I neglected to ask you this with regard to 616-a, but Miss Brown is excluded as a source of any of the typing results on the console combination; is that true?
Again, this is the same gel but now this is the locust d5s110. Again, we see a pattern in the console lane that is consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson. Again the bands that are the strongest in that console lane correspond to Mr. Simpson's bands. The weaker--the two weaker bands correspond to Mr. Goldman's bands.
Could you mark them with the corresponding arrows and colors that correspond to 616-a(1) and b(1).
Yes. I will use the lavender arrow to indicate the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with the bands seen in the Defendant, Mr. Simpson's, reference lane. And now I will mark those corresponding bands in Mr. Simpson's reference lane. And now switching to the green arrows, I will mark the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with the bands in Mr. Goldman's reference sample, and now I will mark in green the corresponding bands in Mr. Goldman's reference lane.
Why don't you describe to the jury what you see on there and what conclusions you drew from the results.
Yes. Thinks now the locus d2s44. This is the final autorad I will show you today. This is a more difficult call on this particular lane with regard to the console, because you can see that Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson have fairly close bands as far as their upper bands are concerned, and I will talk about that as I look at the--as I explain to you the console pattern. But I think you can--you can see--I will point with the lavender arrow at the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with Mr. Simpson's bands, and now I will mark those corresponding bands in the lavender color in his reference lane. And now with the green arrow I will first mark--I will go backwards a little bit here. I will first mark the bands in Mr. Goldman's reference lane here and here, (Indicating). And now we will talk about the console lane, because there is--this is a little more difficult to--to see. There is a band in this position, this lowest position in the console lane where I'm pointing now with the green arrow, (Indicating), that is in agreement with Mr. Goldman's lowest band. Now, the difficulty arises when looking at this particular area right above the band that corresponds with Mr. Simpson's band.
The upper band. This autorad was reviewed by myself and then independently by a second reader. We felt that there was an indication of a band here, but we could not score that as a clear band. In other words, it is not clear and distinct enough that we could make a determination that that is a band sitting on top of that one band. It is too close to call and it is just not clear enough, so we did not score that as a band.
It is too close to the band that corresponds to Mr. Simpson's band in his reference sample.
And if what you see there really is a band, does that correspond to Mr. Goldman's other upper band?
Yes. There is another film that if I get back today I will look at it this afternoon.
Mr. Sims, why don't you go up and have a seat. I just have a couple more questions here.
Mr. Sims, is there any question in your mind that the RFLP results that you've described to this jury represent a mixture from more than one source?
And you've already described to the jury the significance of the relative intensity differences in the bands and you can see what they are, especially on 616-d; is that true?
What significance is there to the fact that you never observe more than four bands in the combined stain from the console?
That would indicate that we are seeing most likely DNA from just two individuals; not more than two individuals.
KEY QUOTEAnd just to make sure there is no confusion, because of the relative sensitivity of PCR with respect to RFLP, these RFLP results in no way undermine or contradict the PCR picture results you have previously provided to the jury; is that correct?
It is 25 after. Do you want me to start for five minutes or do you want to take a break? It is up to you.
Your Honor, I neglected. We have a patch. I just wanted to complete his testimony.
Okay. May the record reflect on the Bronco result board I'm placing vertically, to overlap the RFLP column on 303, 304 and 305, a label that says "Console mix four probes."
the DQ-Alpha finding indicated a main type of 1.1, 1.2, a minor type of 1.3 and 4, and those alleles are consistent with a mixture of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson's blood, and Mr. Ronald Goldman's blood.
I disagree with him in that his conclusion was that one could not say with confidence that the 1.3 allele was there, and I disagree with that.
the only way I felt that I could get enough quantity to do that was to combine them.
There is clearly a mixture of DNA's in those samples.
That would indicate that we are seeing most likely DNA from just two individuals; not more than two individuals.