All right. Mr. Sims--we know where Mr. Sims is. He knows how to get to L.A. all right. Mr. Harmon, do you have any redirect examination for Mr. Sims?
Just taking up with that last point, dr. Gerdes' study about LAPD, do you recall that dr. Gerdes was unable to recount the history from the sample collection of 303, 304 and 305 when Mr. Clarke asked him to recite that to the jury?
No, I did read that part of the testimony. I did review that particular part of the testimony regarding who collected the samples on--with regards to 303, 304 and 305.
And based on reviewing his testimony, do you recall that dr. Gerdes made no specific technical criticisms of your PCR results on 303, 304 and 305?
Yes. My recollection in his transcript was that there was no specific criticism of those PCR results.
Okay. Now, Mr. Sims, your crime scene collection days have long past; is that right?
I haven't been to a crime scene or a vehicle, that sort of thing, in about five years now, over five years.
Mr. Scheck asked you about the appropriate way to preserve evidence and keep logs of who has access to evidence. Do you recall that?
Well, I just said that access should be controlled. I think that was the gist of my response.
Now, the failure to keep a log of who went in and out of a car, if anyone went in and out of the car, that is not going to change the types of the RFLP results that you presented to this jury that are consistent with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, is it?
And allowing people to go into the car to look around, unauthorized people, if that actually happened, that alone is not going to necessarily change the PCR or RFLP results from 303, 304 and 305, is it?
What you have presented to this jury is the results of your testing--DNA testing from various samples that are provided to you; is that true?
In fact, given the way these violent crimes often occur, some history of the sample is frequently lacking when you do your testing; isn't that correct?
Let's just--I will give you a hypothetical and just to sort of illustrate, let's assume we have a female brutally murdered, signs of sexual assault.
Signs of sexual assault, evidence is vaginal swabs, apparent seminal stains on clothing are all collected and sent to you with reference samples. Are you with me so far?
And in cases like that you have frequently identified people as the source of sperm in apparent sexual assault/murder cases; isn't that true?
Yes. For example, we have used the DNA to say who could be the potential source of that particular semen testing.
Now, when you do that testing, based on the test results alone, you can't necessarily tell whether the sex act that produced the sperm occurred before the homicide, can you?
You can't necessarily tell that the sex act that produced the sperm occurred during the homicide?
You can't tell that the sex act that produced the sperm occurred in any relationship to the violence that caused the homicide, can you?
And last question on this point. You--for example, you might identify--the sperm that you produce might be someone who had sex with a person who has been murdered where the sex act occurred after the homicide?
Now, Mr. Scheck asked you a series of questions about people having access to the car and coming into--into the car, and I just asked you some questions about those things wouldn't necessarily change the type of the DNA that was there. Do you recall that?
Now, in order for one person to have produced the RFLP results or the PCR results that you detected on that console, there would have to be something terribly wrong with that person, wouldn't there?
Based on your DNA result, in order for one person to account for the DNA results from 303, 304, 305, both individually and in combination, there would have to be something terribly wrong with that person, wouldn't there?
Would there have to be something terribly wrong from one person if one person were to try to account for all of the results from 303, 304 and 305?
Well, because you see more what we call alleles or types than you would from a single individual.
Okay. For example, you've already described the significance of seeing four bands, two of higher intensity and two of lower intensity?
Are you aware of anything in the literature where one person could have four bands where they are of different intensities?
The sort of thing where we might see that would be on, for example, somebody who is transfused or something unusual like that.
Well, to just add to the mystery a little bit, if in order for--you've paired those results. You've paired some of them that are consistent with Mr. Simpson by relative intensity and some that are weaker than Mr. Simpson and they are consistent with Mr. Goldman; is that correct?
Yes. The intensity patterns, the band intensity patterns pair up between those two individuals.
In order for another person to account for depositing, let's say, the weaker set of bands, they would have to match Mr. Goldman's type, wouldn't they?
Now, the last point, or I think it is the last point, at least, Mr. Scheck asked you about the console mixture results that you've described to this jury, 303, 304 and 305, both PCR and RFLP, and you said they are not inconsistent with two deposits, the results alone. Do you recall that?
I didn't speak clearly enough. Are they--I think you told him they are consistent with two separate deposits, having come at two different times?
Now, is there something about the amounts of DNA in those samples that tells you it is highly improbable that that occurred?
Well, it is hard to say too much just based on the amounts of DNA in those particular samples. I have no reason to suspect that they are from different times, but there is nothing clear to me one way or the other.
Would you say that the amounts that would be represented from, say, Nicole Brown, who is not detected in the RFLP testing, what can you tell us about that?
Well, when you--when you--when you enter the point now where you are talking about three different people's blood on a console in a vehicle, I mean, forensically that seems very significant to me. I mean, it just seems unusual that you would have three different individuals bleeding or their blood present inside a vehicle in that kind of a location. That to me is the significance.
Mr. Sims, Mr. Scheck never asked you about 293. You are aware of the history of 293?
Yes, he asked me about that and I discussed a little bit about how the carpet was cut out and later sampled.
Okay. That was done at the earlier date rather than the later date? Is that your recollection?
Are the types that you found on the carpet consistent with what you detect as the possible presence of Nicole Brown on 303, 304 and 305?
Are they consistent? Yes. In other words, her type was found on that sample consistent also with what was seen in the Bronco console.
And finally I'm going to ask you a question about 31 and 30 and 303 and 304 and 305. Have you had a chance to look at those results?
Are those results consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself during the brutal murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, returning to his car, that Bronco, with a right-handed glove that bore their blood commingled with his blood from his injured left hand, and somehow that item having come in contact with the console?
I'm going to ask you a question. The question is are your results consistent with the following scenario? You know what Mr.--
Well, I mentioned that I heard dr. Baden specifically talk about that. I am aware from other issues in this case about the cut on the hand.
Okay. And you are familiar with the fact that the victims in this case provided--their reference samples were provided to you for typing?
You are familiar with where all the stains were found on the console? And we've just had the photo board up there; is that right?
Are the PCR and RFLP results that you produced, your lab produced from the console, are they consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself while brutally murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?
Are they consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself at or about the time someone brutally murdered Ronald Goldman?
Mr. Sims, let's go back to the same question about the console. Are all of your console DNA test results consistent with the glove, item no. 9, having Mr. Simpson's blood on it, that glove being in the Bronco, coming in--and having the victim's blood on it as well, and that glove coming into contact with the console and transferring portions of all three participant's blood onto the console?
Mr. Sims, you know what your--the glove results that your lab produced suggest a mixture consistent with Mr. Goldman, Mr. Simpson and Miss Brown; is that correct?
I want you to assume hypothetically that that glove was brought into that console or into that Bronco and that glove transferred some of the blood from the glove--
All right. We are going to take our recess for the morning session at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, and counsel, we will stand in recess until 1:00. Mr. Sims, you may step down. You are ordered to come back at one o'clock. All right. We will stand in recess.
All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is present with his counsel, People are represented. The jury is not present. Counsel, when we adjourned, Mr. Sims was on the stand and Mr. Harmon was asking a hypothetical question regarding the glove results, no. 9 being consistent with 304, 303 and 305, and that's where we were.
Your Honor, I would--I think that--I would object to any further questions along those lines in terms of--Mr. Harmon was asking a series of hypotheticals that plainly go far beyond what's permitted. They're talking about brutal murders and everything else and not tied to what was raised on the cross-examination, which all I brought out is that it's consistent with--that he can't tell what blood was deposited when. That's all I did. And I think this is way beyond the scope and I think it's reached the point now after all these different questions where we're way into argument. Hopefully, we'll argue this case soon, but I think that these hypothetical are improper.
Well, I--frankly, I thought that after he got this answer, well, when you enter the point now where you're talking about three different people's blood on a console in a vehicle, I mean forensically that seems very significant to me.
I mean, it just seems unusual that you would have three different individuals bleeding or their blood present inside a vehicle in that kind of a location. I thought that was going to be the last question and answer.
It probably should have been. But I have two more and they have nothing to do with my hypothetical.
Excuse me. Before we call the jury back, I wanted to put on the report that I he was down here during the noon hour and did bring the materials or at least parts of the materials that we have for Defense to see, and they wanted to go out and have lunch. I am now leaving to do some other business that we will be prepared to--
I brought down the test impressions that were taken on August the 21st and I brought down certain of the raw materials that are going to be placed on boards, photographs, including photographs of the jeans, photographs of the Bundy walkway that were taken on June the 13th, plus those that were most recently taken, the black and white photographs of various abnormalities in the tiles and some other photographic materials that we would be used--that would be used to be placed and mounted on boards for purposes of evidence that would be presented presumably tomorrow morning.
Your Honor, you have to--I thought that we had an understanding when Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke were present at the bench that I reiterated the request which I thought the court granted yesterday, that we would get an opportunity to look at the test impressions, blown-up photographs, the shirt and the jeans at one location. I raised this with Mr. Goldberg earlier. I brought it up with the court. I thought the court said that that could be arranged either in the courthouse or at the lab. I went back to Mr. Goldberg, I said--communicated what your Honor had said to us. I asked him to make that arrangements, began to do so, then Miss Clark turned to him and said, "Just show him the test impressions. That's it." And then I asked--I said, "Well, Miss Clark, it's not my understanding of what the Judge just indicated and what he previously ordered," and she said, "Just give him the test impressions. That's it, and, Mr. Scheck, I'm not talking to you. Don't even talk to me. I don't talk to you." That's the way this woman works and she's ordered him to do that. Now, he came down here at a quarter to 1:00. As we're running downstairs, he pulls out a big packet and he says, "Take a look at this one, take a look at this one, take a look at this one," and I say, we're going downstairs to eat lunch right now. We can't do it. Mr. Morton just arrived. The federal express package just came in. Now, you know, I've already made my arguments about an opportunity to look at it. We have to have an opportunity to look at the data that they're going to put on, and we're taking the afternoon off because their witness has just arrived. And it's a civilized scientific way to proceed. I've requested an opportunity to talk to the witnesses and just make this simple arrangement. Should take an hour or two to show us the data. I think that's what's required and it's civilized. And I just ask that that be done. And if Mr. Goldberg is going to run out the door and we won't be able to see him later in the day and make arrangements for this and we won't be able to get ahold of him in the office, I think that's wrong.
Your Honor, my understanding of the court's order yesterday--and I think it was pretty clear--is that we were supposed to, over the noon recess, have the test impressions from the 13th and the 31st--excuse me--from the 21st and the 31st in court. We learned that the 21st impressions have been mailed to the court. So I don't know--
Excuse me. The 31st impressions from the jeans and the shirt have been mailed to the court. But I wanted to try to satisfy the court's order by being down here at--over the noon recess, and that's what I was trying to do. If counsel didn't have an opportunity to look at them at that time, whether it's legitimate or illegitimate, doesn't make any difference to me. We will try to accommodate them at some later point. The point is that, had they wanted to look at them over the noon recess, they could have done so, and I was trying to fulfill the court's order. No one recalls anything, other than Mr. Scheck, about the court having revisited this issue and now placed an additional requirement on the People that we are responsible for assembling the jeans, the shirt, the test impressions simultaneously at the same place at the same location. That's a logistical problem. It's difficult for us to do that the court did not require us to do because that would mean--
Well, Mr. Goldberg, here's our choice. Mr. Morton is here. Mr. Scheck is here. The stuff is--the impressions are here. It would take us an hour to take this evidence after the jury has been excused, put it in the jury room, let them look at it and then we can proceed.
The only problem would be getting the jeans and the shirt here. We'd have to do that and that would be difficult.
Right. But the point is, that needs to be checked out and I'm not sure the jury room is an appropriate environment to be looking at those jeans and I'm not sure that that would be acceptable to Mr. Morton as a forensic scientist.
I don't want to delay this trial anymore. Mr. Morton is here, the impressions are apparently here. I'm certain Mrs. Robertson could find somebody to call over at LAPD to get Detective Vannatter to check those items out and get them over here. Let's let them look at it. Maybe we can proceed with this testimony today.
We won't be able to, your Honor. They just arrived. I saw them. They have gone out to Bundy to re-examine the scene and look at the various defects in the tiles and they will, however, be ready first thing in the morning.
All right. So you're not ready to present this at this point in any event because your witnesses are in West L.A.?
Your Honor, we've also communicated, and all I'm saying, we'd like an opportunity to discuss with the witnesses what it is, because just looking at the test impressions and the markings and the pictures, it's hard to link it up. If they could provide us with that opportunity since--
I'll let Miss Clark do that. Evidently she's going to be putting on these witnesses, and our policy is, we always allow the witnesses to decide on their own. We do not make any suggestion one way or the other.
Can I just also say, I don't think it's necessary for the record, in response to Mr. Scheck's contentions about Miss Clark's statements, she was simply communicating to me that her recollection of the court's orders were not the same as Mr. Scheck and that the court did not modify its previous order. For the record, you know, we've tried to get along with all the attorneys as amicably as we can. I think the Defense has done so as well. There appears to be a little bit of a--perhaps it's a cultural clash between the California and New York styles. I don't know what it is, but--
We have had a little bit of difficulty at times with Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld and it's simply easier for us to deal with many things on the record than to try to sort them out informally. We've had some trouble doing that.
I understand. And that is our interest as well. I just wanted to say that we have had a little bit of difficulty and we're trying to smooth it out to the extent that we can.
All right. Mrs. Robertson--excuse me--would you contact either Detective Vannatter or Detective Lange and see if we can get those two items, the shirt, Mr. Goldman's shirt, Mr. Goldman's pants checked out and brought over here, please.
He has to leave, so it has to do with one other thing so we don't have to delay the trial.
We need him here if we're going to talk about that video. We have some objections to the video. If he's not going to be here--it's his video, isn't it?
All right. Also, just so everything is clear, the court has received two packages from the FBI. Mr. Byrne, my research attorney, is cataloging those items, and then we'll make those available for inspection to counsel. Also, we've received from NBC what appears to be a package, sealed package of videotapes in response to our discussions yesterday. All right. Also--excuse me. As soon as Mrs. Robertson logs those in, we'll have the opportunity to display those to counsel, the videotapes from NBC. Also, while we were still in recess, Mr. Neufeld advised the court that he had advised the Prosecution that apparently there's some objection you're going to withdraw, Mr. Neufeld?
Good afternoon. What we are prepared to do, your Honor, is withdraw the objection that the RFLP results for the combination 303, 304 and 305 stains need to be presented in conjunction with the statistics, and the failure to do so is the objection we are now withdrawing. It should be very clear though that we're not saying that that authorizes them to argue to the jury that the true numbers for the significance of that mixture are the solo contributor stains that exist elsewhere which have been typed consistent with either Mr. Goldman or Mr. Simpson.
Excuse me, your Honor. I think that's perfectly proper argument if the jury decides in the context of this case that those two stains did come from those two people and there's other information within this case that will allow them to do that. I think the court, upon reflection, will see that if they decide that and if that information is contained elsewhere, then that's a proper point to make for them and that's a proper conclusion for them to draw.
Your Honor, two things. No. 1, we suggested doing this to save a great deal of time. They were going to have somebody coming from Great Britain. We were then going to have dr. Shields come in to respond to that issue. You know, it looks to me that from just the expressions on the jurors' faces now, I mean whoever has anymore witnesses gets these cold stares from the jury, and we're trying to avoid the continuation of that problem. All we're simply saying is, they would be precluded from arguing solo frequencies for the other mixtures and that's why the court made the initial ruling and that's why Bruce Weir came in here and offered different frequencies for mixtures than the frequencies that are given for solo stains. So that's been the--that's been the approach to mixtures throughout this entire proceeding. It would be a distortion of that reality should they be permitted to then argue something completely different for this mixture which they're not allowed to argue for any of the other mixtures. It just doesn't make any sense.
Just final response. You know, reality has no reason to be mentioned in any of these arguments. These are legal arguments designed to create a reality, okay. We are not conceding that there's any validity to limiting our argument because they're willing to shorten the trial. Whatever you feel is appropriate argument at that time, you'll have to decide that, your Honor. This is--we have not agreed to anything except if they withdraw their objection, we will not call a statistician. There's no quid pro quo for that, your Honor. That's their decision. We're happy they want to shorten the trial, but we have not agreed to any concession on any other point and I think the court will see in the context of the argument--
The problem I have though, counsel, is, the original proffer to this evidence, this RFLP, was not to offer any statistics, merely to say that it is consistent with the PCR test. That was the offer that I was given and that was the assumption that I was under when I allowed this evidence.
--or undermines that. But my point is--I mean listen to the cross-examination. I was going to ask you to reconsider your ruling in light of the fact that they have conceded by their cross-examination that part of that RFLP pattern is Mr. Simpson's blood. Well, then who else--what other pattern is left there? And if there's information in this record that this jury can use to evaluate how frequently that fainter pattern, which when you subtract Mr. Simpson's out is Mr. Goldman's, then I think not only is it is permissible for them to do that, that Miss Clark can ask them to do that. She may not want to. My only point--because we're not arguing the case now--is to say, we're not conceding any issue in light of what--what, you know, that they don't want to see another statistician here. We're delighted about that as well.
All right. I understand that. But you should understand that the court's already made a ruling in this area.
Let me indicate while the jury is coming out, your Honor, we received--these are other charts that were mailed to us from Agent Deedrick, and I don't want--I want the Defense to know that they're here. I want to show it to them as soon as we recess today.
All right. Let's finish Mr. Sims, and then we'll see where we are at that point. What do you have after Sims by the way?
Before we ask the court to rest subject to--you understand also, your Honor, we have sent a letter to the Defense requesting the Stockdale tape because we have a declaration from the answering machine company that they no longer have any copy.
All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
Gary Sims, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Harmon. And, Mr. Harmon, you may continue.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON
Mr. Sims, one last point, couple of questions. Based on the combination of your RFLP and PCR results from 303, 304 and 305, how would you quantify the amount of DNA which produced results consistent with Nicole Brown?
The amount of DNA for that particular component of the mixture would be what I would describe as a trace level of DNA.
Okay. And you recall Mr. Scheck asked you about eliminating or talking about how many different deposits there would have to be or there might be to account for the console results from 303, 304 and 305. Do you recall that question?
And you said it's possible that there could be more than one deposit that could have produced the combined results that you saw in this case?
Now, in order--in light of the trace amount of DNA that you've described is consistent with the results that are consistent with Nicole Brown. You with me so far?
And in light of the fact that you found three such results, what series of events would have to have happened in order to have--and assuming that Mr. Simpson's blood was there previous to that in all three places.
Okay? Would you describe the series of events that would have to have occurred to account for the trace amounts from Nicole Brown and the substrate controls from those three samples testing clean?
Can you describe the series of results--keep my last question in mind. Can you describe the series of results which would have had to have occurred in light of the trace amounts of DNA that are consistent with Nicole Brown?
In order for you to have seen the results that you saw, which include Mr. Simpson's DQ-Alpha type--and by the way, how would you describe the amount of DNA which produced Mr. Simpson's types as opposed to the trace amounts that produced results consistent with Miss Brown?
Well, I would describe it that there was significantly more DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson than there was with Nicole Brown Simpson's sample.
Okay. Now, in order for you to have seen the results that you had, greater amount of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson's type and the trace amount of DNA consistent with Miss Brown's type, and in order for there to have been two deposits, one of Mr. Simpson and then at least one more with a trace amount of Nicole Brown's, would you have to have had that trace amount deposited on all three separate stains and not on the substrate controls?
When you enter the point now where you are talking about three different people's blood on a console in a vehicle, I mean, forensically that seems very significant to me. I mean, it just seems unusual that you would have three different individuals bleeding or their blood present inside a vehicle in that kind of a location.
Yes. It would be some sort of genetic anomaly.
About two more questions and it will be totally irrelevant, your Honor.
There was significantly more DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson than there was with Nicole Brown Simpson's sample.