Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Neufeld. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we ask the jurors to join us? No. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Weir, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Bruce Weir, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Dr. Weir.
DR. WEIR: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Doctor, you are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And Mr. Neufeld, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: You are welcome.
MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD
MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, Dr. Weir.
DR. WEIR: Good morning, Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, is it your position that the appropriate or ideal--let's call it the ideal database in a criminal case for analyzing DNA evidence would come from a census of the population of possible perpetrators?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?
DR. WEIR: Yes. The word "Census" means a complete enumeration. I suppose that would be ideal. That would be beyond practicalities.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, have you ever in fact stated that in your own articles, in your own writing?
DR. WEIR: I probably have, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, I think--could you explain, by the way, what that term means, to the jury?
DR. WEIR: Which one was that?
MR. NEUFELD: That the ideal database would be the population of potential perpetrators.
DR. WEIR: Certainly. I think that is quite a good point. What we are trying to do is to estimate the frequency of one of these now absent profiles. We want to know how often something occurs and the way to answer such a question is to go out and see how often it occurs. I mean the ideal, and I say ideal meaning that is sort of the ultimate extent, is to go out and type everybody in the world and that would be certainly wonderful, because then we would know, when we saw a profile, how many times it occurs. I think I said on Friday, or maybe Thursday, we can't even count everybody in the world, let alone profile them.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I think also in your writing, sir, you used as an example in a criminal case where the police were actually able to go out there and type the entire reference population of possible perpetrators, which was a case in England in Leicestershire?
DR. WEIR: Yes. That was the first--the first criminal application of--of DNA was an interesting case for many points. But indeed the crime was committed in a village and the police got blood from everyone, I think in actually two adjacent villages, something like 5000 people.
MR. NEUFELD: And in that case what they did is they typed all the male members, I believe, of those two villages?
DR. WEIR: It was a rape/murder so they typed all the males, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So that would be an example where in fact you have a database comprised of a census of the population of possible perpetrators?
DR. WEIR: Well, it wasn't a database. They didn't do any frequencies. They just types everybody and found the one--found the person who matched, so there were no calculations done. I wanted to clarify the word database.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But they at least had data on the entire population of potential perpetrators, at least in this case?
DR. WEIR: They are typing on just a very small number of loci, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, sir, that in each case, each case defines what would be its own appropriate population of potential perpetrators?
DR. WEIR: That's right. We always--when there is a case and there is a matching profile, there are two possibilities, either we know who the profile came from or we don't know, but this unknown person has got to come from somewhere. And as Mr. Neufeld said, it is convenient to call that group of unknown people the population of potential perpetrators. That is a funny phrase.
MR. NEUFELD: So, for instance, in this particular case, where Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson are killed, in--in a place somewhere in Los Angeles, in the area called Brentwood, would the population of potential perpetrators include those people with a certain geographical proximity who could potentially have committed this crime? Would it include those people?
DR. WEIR: It would certainly include those among others. That may be the most natural description.
MR. NEUFELD: And when we say "Include," that would mean at least including the people of Los Angeles or the greater Los Angeles area, if you will?
DR. WEIR: I'm not sure how far--how wide a net you would want to cast, but--
MR. NEUFELD: But--
DR. WEIR: That sounds reasonable.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, in this particular case, sir, did either Cellmark or the Department of Justice rely on a database comprised of the population of potential perpetrators?
DR. WEIR: Not in this case nor in any other, because the population of potential perpetrators is not sufficiently well-defined that it can be sampled.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you've also written, I believe, Dr. Weir, that shy of doing a census of the entire population of potential perpetrators, the next best approach would be to take a representative sample of that population of potential perpetrators; is that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: Yes. We can't get everybody. A sample from the--kind of easier if I say the irrelevant population. If we could do that, we would. We--I--it is almost always the case in a crime that that population is not sufficiently delineated. You know, we say that this one could involve Los Angeles, it could involve San Francisco. It could involve someone who has just hopped off a bus, committed a crime and hopped back on. So it is very difficult for us in practice to say who--which exactly--which group of people there is that we should be considering, so because we can't describe it, we can't take a sample from it.
MR. NEUFELD: Umm, Dr. Weir, do you have any published evidence that would show that the multilocus frequencies in the Cellmark and DOJ databases are the same as the population of potential perpetrators in this case?
DR. WEIR: Oh, I can't do that for any case. The population is not defined well enough.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, sir, that the databases that were relied upon in this case are not even representative of the population of potential perpetrators for the crime committed in this case?
DR. WEIR: Well, that is really confusing things a bit, I think. It is not representative in the sense it doesn't contain people just from this area. It is representative, however, in the sense that the frequencies we obtain from the Cellmark or the FBI databases are applicable to the crime in this case.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, would you agree that, for instance, not even large segments of the population, of people who live in Los Angeles County, are reflected in any of those databases that you relied upon from either the FBI, the Department of Justice or Cellmark?
DR. WEIR: Well, I agree in the sense that those specific people, but I disagree in the sense that people with those--with those profiles. We have a lot of experience now from FBI and Cellmark and many other laboratories in this country and around the world showing that whenever we make calculations, each calculation differs according to which database we use, but they don't differ in the sense of importance, in that profile is very rare in this population, which would be very probative or very common in this population, which would not be very interesting. So we find great consistency in the conclusion that these multilocus profiles, these complex DNA profiles, are rare no matter which database we use.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, but Dr. Weir, didn't you say just on Friday, for instance, for the various PCR markers, that you see large swings in certain profile frequencies between different racial populations, be it black, be it white or be it Hispanic?
DR. WEIR: Well, yes. For the PCRs the numbers are much smaller. The proportional differences are quite large. The actual differences are not and we are going from tens to hundreds, maybe to thousands where you are getting a range. Of course that is a big range of number, but we didn't start out by saying the PCR--PCR profiles are extremely rare, but no one has ever claimed that. The RFLP profiles are extremely rare no matter which database we use.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Dr. Weir, returning to that issue of whether or not the databases that you relied on in this case are a representative of the population of potential perpetrators, are you aware of the fact, for instance, that California has the largest concentration of Asian Americans in the United States?
DR. WEIR: I'm not aware, but it doesn't surprise me.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, the databases that you relied upon in this case--well, furthermore, are you aware that there is a very substantial Asian American population residing in the greater Los Angeles area?
DR. WEIR: Oh, I'm sure that's right, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So would you agree that the databases that Cellmark relied upon in this case do not include Asian Americans?
DR. WEIR: Well, of course they don't, but I think I've explained that I don't believe that matters, because when we--when we examine Asian databases, we still find that an RFLP profile is rare and a PCR profile is in the same ballpark as from the Hispanic and African American and Caucasian. Your point is quite valid. There are no specifically designated Asian databases used in this case. I don't think it is going to cause us any misunderstanding of the nature of these profiles.
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, not only are there no Asian American databases from Cellmark, but again, you agree there is no Asian American database that you have relied upon here in analyzing the DOJ or FBI work; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: No, I haven't used Asian. I have used the Hispanic, African American and Caucasian, three somewhat different racial groups, and their frequencies are consistent in that all three of them tell us the same story. The RFLP profiles are astonishingly rare and the PCR profiles are rare, but not astonishing.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, and that the PCR profiles vary considerably depending upon which database you use; isn't that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: Proportionately, but not in absolute terms. They still are in the range tens to hundreds or thousands.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir--
MR. CLARKE: I'm not sure the witness finished.
THE COURT: I think he finished.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, whether or not you do the PCR databases, wouldn't you agree that there are significant differences between the various ethnic groups?
DR. WEIR: Umm, well, I'm not sure on the profiles. We will have to examine each one specifically. When--the numbers are different. If they are significantly different, we mean is--is one included in the confidence limit of the other--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, did you finish your answer?
DR. WEIR: No, I hadn't. Now, for the profiles, consisting of PCR typically--well, up to 14 bands where there are seven PCR. Each one of those 14 bands by itself can differ markedly. We've got some numbers here that can be two or three percent in one database and maybe 20 percent in another, an astonishing difference for each individual item, and some--some people have got very upset about this--this difference for each band. It is interesting, but it is misleading in that we are not using individual bands. We are using the whole package. Now, if I have a band which is more frequent in African Americans and less frequent in Caucasians, it almost has to follow that another band must be flipped around. We've got to have some balancing out between the databases. It just couldn't be otherwise. So when we multiply together these varying bands, the whole package, the whole profile doesn't differ as much as the individual bands.
MR. NEUFELD: So just to cut to the numbers themselves, if you look, sir, at the table you have for three contributors for the various mixtures--could you look at that for a second?
DR. WEIR: Certainly. This is the one I gave you this morning?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. Now, look at item 29 on the steering wheel?
DR. WEIR: Yes. Now, these are all the PCR profiles, right?
MR. NEUFELD: What is the most frequent profile for a three-contributor mixture for item 29?
DR. WEIR: Well, this comes, if these three unknown people we are supposing--we don't know where this profile came from. If those three were African American, southeast Hispanic and southwest Hispanic, in that case the profile would occur one time out of four.
MR. NEUFELD: It is one--
DR. WEIR: Excuse me. I've misspoke. One out of two.
MR. NEUFELD: One out of two?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. That is if the mixture came from an African American, south eastern Hispanic and a southwestern Hispanic, correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, I thought so. It is actually two African Americans and a Caucasian. I apologize.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Okay. Two African Americans.
DR. WEIR: And a Caucasian.
THE COURT: Do you want to start with a new page?
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: So this is going to be for three contributors. Now, would you please tell me what is the most common profile?
DR. WEIR: That would be the two African Americans and the Caucasian.
MR. NEUFELD: Two African Americans and a Caucasian?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: And what is the frequency of that three-contributor mixture, sir?
DR. WEIR: One out of two.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, according to these databases that you relied upon, which--could you please give me the racial or ethnic mix of that group of people which would have the rarest frequency?
DR. WEIR: Certainly. This is--if the whole three unknown contributors were all Caucasian.
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, how rare or common would that frequency occur, given your databases?
DR. WEIR: 1 in 3500.
MR. NEUFELD: 1 in 3500; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Dr. Weir, that the difference between a frequency of 1 in 2 and a frequency of 1 in 3500 is extremely significant?
DR. WEIR: Umm, well, I'm going to have to do it in two parts. Of course it is. And I should explain why the difference is so dramatic in this case. I've done--I woke up this morning at 5:00 and thought how can I possibly avoid embarrassing myself again in Court, and I thought I will do every conceivable thing to make these frequencies as conservative as possible. And I noticed that I believe item 29 has an LDLR--has a polymarker component and I noticed that in also African American database it was a suggestion, just a hint of some dependence between components of the polymarker. So I took out some of the information for the African American contributors to item 29, which is--so really we are comparing--this is--I think this is an appropriate number, but we need to keep in mind we are comparing profiles with different numbers of bands in them.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And sir, just as your calculations and your databases did not include any Asian Americans in them, would you agree that in the Los Angeles community there are various people, umm, of different Hispanic origin?
DR. WEIR: Oh, yes. I would go further. I think when we come down and look at people in particular, if we went round the room, would find that we each have different ethnic background, if we go back far enough.
MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, Dr. Weir, does either the DOJ databases that you relied upon or the Cellmark databases for their Hispanic database, contain people who originally are from South America as opposed to being from Mexico?
DR. WEIR: Oh, I have no idea.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you have no idea whether there are any people in these databases from, say, Colombia?
DR. WEIR: No, I have no idea.
MR. NEUFELD: Who moved to the United States?
DR. WEIR: I have no idea.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Gary Sims said that he relied on the FBI's RFLP database. Are you aware of that, sir?
DR. WEIR: I think DOJ uses those databases from the FBI, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And are you aware, sir, that a substantial portion of the FBI's Caucasian database is comprised of 220 self-described white FBI agents?
DR. WEIR: What is the self-described? They are--they are FBI agents.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm sorry, the self-described refers to their ethnicity.
DR. WEIR: Well, certainly, as all the databases do, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You are aware of that?
DR. WEIR: Yes, uh-huh.
MR. NEUFELD: In your opinion, Dr. Weir, would you consider 220 white FBI agents to be within the population of potential perpetrators for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?
DR. WEIR: From the point of view of RFLP profiles, I would, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And--
DR. WEIR: Because their profiles--actually the identifiable agents is a lovely collection of people because they are from all over the country and although they say, as Mr. Neufeld said, they self-described them as Caucasian, we can be sure they have quite different European background, so this is really a lovely mixing up. We've got people from all over, each contributing their own unique profiles and making sure that the FBI's database represents the whole of the United States. I think it is good.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, how sure are you as to the fact of whether or not the FBI's 220 white FBI agents represent European background from all over Europe? Do you have any personal understanding on that subject?
DR. WEIR: Well, I'm just relying on my common sense there.
MR. NEUFELD: Just your common sense?
DR. WEIR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: You have no personal information as to the ethnic origins or national origins of any of those 220 white FBI agents, do you?
DR. WEIR: Them or anybody else in any of these databases.
MR. NEUFELD: I see.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, Dr. Weir, you said that other people in this white FBI database come from other parts of the country. I think you said all over the country; is that right?
DR. WEIR: No. I said the FBI agents would be from all over the country.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, other portions of the white database come from Texas, I believe you said, right?
DR. WEIR: Well, the FBI Caucasian database has actually four origins. There are FBI recruits, there are people who have given blood, blood donors from I think Miami, somewhere in Texas, I'm not sure if it is Houston or Austin, and somewhere in California here, probably Los Angeles.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, probably Los Angeles. Do you know for a fact that it is Los Angeles?
DR. WEIR: I think I've read that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you know for a fact that there are actually blood donors or from some other source?
DR. WEIR: I thought it was blood donors.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you show me the source of information that you are relying upon when you say that the sources of subjects from California are derived from a blood bank?
DR. WEIR: Well, I'm going to have to cite my own paper in 1992 and then when I wrote that I checked with Dr. Budowle and that was my understanding at that time.
MR. NEUFELD: In the 1992 paper do you say that they come from actual blood donors in California?
DR. WEIR: I think I did.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, you mentioned that as to the white database of the FBI, that 220 FBI agents are included in that white database. Are you aware of the fact that the FBI's African American base does not include any FBI agents?
DR. WEIR: I am not aware of that specifically, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, are you aware of what the source the FBI's black database is?
DR. WEIR: It is parallel to the Caucasian. That is the blood banks from those three areas; Miami, Houston and Los Angeles.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So if it is just had blood banks from Miami, Houston and Los Angeles, you have not included in that group any African American fib agents; isn't that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: That is absolutely correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, are you aware that the reason there is no African American FBI agents in the FBI's African American database is they don't have sufficient numbers of African American FBI agents working for the FBI?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Relevance, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Well, that makes sense. They just probably didn't choose to separate out that group if it wouldn't be numerous enough.
MR. NEUFELD: So you are aware of the fact that these databases are really nothing more than convenience samples? Is that a fair statement?
DR. WEIR: They are the best things we can do. If they call it convenience, that is a good term. We've got to get blood from people. It is hard to get anything from people, and it is very hard to get blood from people, so it makes sense to go to the place where the blood is kept, the blood banks.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, as opposed to convenience sample, you would agree that the samples used in these databases are not what statisticians refer to as truly random samples; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, they are not truly random. That would require us to list the population and take a sample from this list and some other scheme. It is unnecessary to do that. And I say that on the basis of what we see in databases collected under a variety of rules within this country and around the world. We just don't get led astray by using these FBI databases.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, a moment ago you said that taking these blood bank samples is, I believe you said, a wonderful source of samples for analyzing this data; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes, certainly.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Dr. Cotton testified several weeks ago in this case that the 1992 Cellmark database for African Americans is derived from 150 people who made contributions from a blood bank in Detroit. Are you aware of that fact?
DR. WEIR: Not the details, but that sounds right.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, do you have any idea how ethnicity or race was determined at that Detroit blood bank?
DR. WEIR: No, but what I'm hoping is that it was self-reported. I think what--I think it is very easy to overstate the ethnicity of these databases. Ethnicity is--we now know it is a very vague term genetically. We may look different but underneath we are extremely similar, so although it is interesting and maybe convenient to label these databases African American, Caucasian and Hispanic, it is sort of overstating the differences. For these profiles, particularly the RFLPs, they just don't differ very much in frequency.
MR. NEUFELD: But Dr. Weir, you are aware of the fact that the laboratories who did the work have chosen to rely on those racial and ethnic classifications in their databases; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, I don't know that I say "Rely." They keep them separate and this has the advantage that we get different answers, so that it is clear to us what difference it makes. If we go to different sets of people, it is--sort of make my point. It just doesn't make a difference. I would be just as happy if they amalgamated all the databases into one and just gave a single figure. But by giving a range, if you like, they are being very open and saying, well, I have used three different samples and this is how they differ and they all tell me the same thing; these profiles are very rare.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, a moment ago you said you do not have any knowledge as to how ethnicity or race was determined at that Detroit blood bank; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: I don't have any knowledge, that's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, would it be fair to say that you also have no knowledge how ethnicity or race was determined for anybody of the databases?
DR. WEIR: Well, I have no knowledge, but what I'm hoping is that it was very vague.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. I would just ask that the last part of the answer be struck.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking what he has knowledge about.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if in fact--you mentioned the method a minute ago of self-reporting. Do you remember that?
DR. WEIR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: In other words, where a person comes in and gives blood and the nurse or phlebotomist says, "What race are you" and the person says I am white, I am black, I am brown, I am green, I am whatever, okay, that would be self-reporting, correct?
DR. WEIR: That is what self-reporting means, yes, uh-huh.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, sir, that self-reporting is not a scientific method of classifying people by race?
DR. WEIR: Mr. Neufeld, I don't think we understand what race is at a genetic level. We had a very interesting conference in Atlanta last fall where this was discussed extensively and reported in the newspapers. We now know as scientists that the whole idea of race is a very vague one, genetically, so what I'm hoping is that people don't get too detailed and specific about their race, whatever they choose to call themselves. What I'm more concerned is that we have a sample of people from as wide as base as possible.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, please answer the question.
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, if the Detroit blood bank relies on self-reporting of the individual donors, would you agree that that would not be a scientific method of classifying people by race?
DR. WEIR: I think the question is confusing in that it doesn't make any difference what the people are called. They can call themselves Martians and we will still get the same conclusions, that these profiles are rare. I think that the reporting of racial groups just is irrelevant.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, you have reported data in this case based on racial groups, have you not?
DR. WEIR: I have used the databases as supplied to me and those are described by racial names, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you in fact expressed ranges in your testimony that are present indicated on race as well?
DR. WEIR: Yes, because that makes it very clear what I'm talking about. It shows the effect of using different databases.
MR. NEUFELD: So Dr. Weir, I now ask you do you agree or do you disagree that simply relying on self-reporting to determine one's race is not scientific?
DR. WEIR: I don't understand the question, I'm sorry. Scientific meaning how we should calculate profile frequencies? I think what they've done is most appropriate.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, if the person who drew the blood simply wrote down race based on the self-reporting, would that be a scientific way of determining someone's race?
DR. WEIR: For the purposes of these calculations, I don't think it matters what the person writes down.
MR. NEUFELD: I didn't ask you whether it matters, sir. I asked you whether it would be scientific. Can you answer that question?
DR. WEIR: I can answer the question in the context of what I'm doing here, and I think in the context of what I'm doing here it just doesn't make any difference.
MR. NEUFELD: I didn't ask you whether it makes any difference, sir. And your Honor, I would ask that the witness be instructed to at least answer the question.
THE COURT: No. The way you have phrased the question he is giving an answer within the context of his expertise.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not it is scientific to simply rely on someone's self-reporting that I am either African American or Caucasian or Hispanic as a term of determining which database the person fits in?
DR. WEIR: Certainly.
MR. NEUFELD: You think it is scientific?
DR. WEIR: I think it is doing appropriately. When you say it is scientific in this context, yes, I think it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. How about if the person in the blood bank simply relied on his or her observations of the blood donor to determine which race the individual belonged in? Would that be scientific?
DR. WEIR: Well, given what I've said, that just--it is just as appropriate. It is just as arbitrary as self-reporting. I think it would be fine.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, if it makes no difference how someone describes themselves and what database they fit into, how do you explain the huge differences on that board between 1 in 2, if you have people who are two African Americans and one Caucasian contributing to the mixture versus a frequency of 1 in 3500 if you have three Caucasians contributing to the mixture?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, argumentative and misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Well, the difference is in part with the different number of bands, but the more important difference is that they are based on three different--excuse me--four different samples. We could very well have found the same range for four samples of Caucasians.
MR. NEUFELD: But you couldn't find it in four different Caucasians in these databases, could you?
DR. WEIR: I have only one Caucasian database.
MR. NEUFELD: And that is what you relied on here?
DR. WEIR: Yes, certainly.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, wouldn't you agree that when people simply report their race, if asked, say, at a blood bank, that that is not done in a scientific fashion?
THE COURT: Haven't we asked this question now about eight times?
MR. NEUFELD: I modified the language thinking that perhaps this will give the witness a different answer.
DR. WEIR: Please restate it. Excuse me.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you believe that people who are reporting their race when they go to a blood bank, that those descriptions would be consistent with doing this in a scientific fashion?
DR. WEIR: Well, I can't answer unless we talk about what it is used for. If it was used to construct a evolutionary tree of the evolution of races of men, then it would be very important. If it is used to calculate forensic profile frequencies, I don't mind what they say.
MR. NEUFELD: But the reason you say you don't mind is because you don't think race makes a ditches now; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That is correct.
MR. CLARKE: Objection asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: And you don't think it makes a difference, notwithstanding the example that I put on that board which is--I don't think we gave a number to this board, your Honor.
THE COURT: Nope.
MR. NEUFELD: What is the next in line?
THE COURT: 1206.
MR. NEUFELD: 1206.
(Deft's 1206 for id = chart)
THE COURT: Is that correct, Mr. Douglas?
MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: And you don't think it makes a difference, Dr. Weir, notwithstanding the example that is reflected on Defendant's 1206; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, as I have explained, it is a little wrinkle here, but if I had kept the same number of bands, the numbers would still have been different. This is a range for every profile over all these four databases, and I think the range would be similar if we took different databases of the same ethnic background, so the numbers are different. And I think that is very--very informative. It gives us a very concrete feeling of what these numbers are saying. We don't know what the frequency of a three-person pool of DNA is. We are trying to convey some sense. And in this particular case it can be quite common, 1 in 2, it can be moderately common, 1 in 3000, but now we have laid out all the calculations and we've got a very good understanding of the variation that we get by taking different samples. I think it is the best possible way to present this information.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, didn't you say, either early Friday morning or late Thursday afternoon during your direct testimony, that there is, in your opinion, substructure within the different racial and ethnic groups? Do you recall that?
DR. WEIR: Yes. There are groups of people. If we could--if we could identify a group, just put a rope around a group of people and say this is a group of people and measure their frequencies, they will be different from another group and another group.
MR. NEUFELD: And so I--sorry. So for instance, even amongst Caucasians you would, if there is this thing called substructure and that there were different groups of Caucasians, who may have different genetic frequencies for particular alleles than other groups of Caucasians, then for some of those groups alleles could be much more common or more common than for other Caucasian subgroups; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I think you have captured the essence of it. It is the specific alleles that differ one group from another. It is the profiles, the collection where the differences balance out, that don't differ very markedly.
MR. NEUFELD: And so these databases, though, do not break people down into those various subgroups for which there may be different allele frequencies; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: The databases don't, but the calculations I took take that into. I do take that into account.
MR. NEUFELD: The calculation itself, that you say you do take that into account; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: That are now being done by myself and several other people, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But the calculations being done by Cellmark that Robin Cotton offered in this case do not take that into account, do they?
DR. WEIR: No. They give the single estimate; they don't do this extra step.
MR. NEUFELD: And the calculations that Gary Sims from the Department of Justice delivered to this Court also don't take that into account, do they--does it?
DR. WEIR: They don't take it into account. Of course what they have done is give the different racial groups, so they have conveyed a sense of how much variation there is in frequencies. They--instead of taking the subgroups within the Caucasian and looking at those differences, they have taken the differences between Caucasians, African Americans and Hispanics, so they have given a sense of how the answers vary.
MR. NEUFELD: Let's talk about that term "Hispanics" for a second, Dr. Weir. Cellmark used a database in this case which they characterize as Hispanic; is that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: That's right, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Wouldn't you agree, sir, that Hispanic isn't even a race, it doesn't define a race?
DR. WEIR: It is a very vague term. It almost means none of the above in the census forms.
MR. NEUFELD: So would you agree it doesn't define a race of people?
DR. WEIR: It doesn't define a race, and just to go to the next point, it doesn't have any relevance whether it does or not in this context.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in fact when Cellmark is using the term "Hispanic," what they are simply saying is that these are people who contributed blood who have a Hispanic sounding surname; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: I don't know that.
MR. NEUFELD: So you have no--no knowledge as to what their criteria was for putting somebody in their Hispanic database, do you?
DR. WEIR: Oh, I imagine there was a reason for calling--either they or someone calling the brood donor Hispanic, but as I've said, in several different ways now, that is fine.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Dr. Weir, wouldn't you agree, again getting back to the issue of subgroups and substructure, that for instance people who have Hispanic surnames, who have a lot of, let's say, Central American Indian blood in them and they are living in, let's say, Southern California, may have very different frequencies for particular alleles than would people with Hispanic surnames living on the east coast who may be coming from Puerto Rico and have African American and Spanish blood in them?
DR. WEIR: Well, you can refer to my paper where I show that statistics are different. Sometimes RFLP structures have fifteen different types we can put into fifteen different categories. When I do a test between Miami and Houston, 14 of those 15 frequencies are different at a particular locus, and that doesn't surprise me. As Mr. Neufeld says, people who--someone has called them Hispanic living in Miami, they have a very different background from people living in Houston. The important thing, as I went on to show, to demonstrate in that paper, when we amalgamate all the bands from all the loci, the profiles don't differ to an extent which would be misleading. Sometimes the profile are not even statistically different. Sometimes they are, but they always convey the sense, locus RFLP profile is a rare phenomena.
MR. NEUFELD: But nevertheless, would you agree then that the Cellmark database which they characterize as Hispanic, I guess after what you just said, is a rather meaningless term? Would that be fair to say?
DR. WEIR: No, it is not meaningless. There is some rationale, after all, for someone being called Hispanic. It is a convenient label on the database. It is as good a name. I would have been happy if they called them databases 1, 2 and 3.
MR. NEUFELD: But that convenient label of Hispanic has nothing to do necessarily with the race of the individual who inhabits that database, does it?
DR. WEIR: Well, I don't think it can because we don't know what race means, so I don't--you know, I'm not trying to be evasive. I think we just don't mind what--what--what race a person is. We are concerned with the profile frequencies.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, how do you define someone as African American for putting them into an African American database?
DR. WEIR: Fortunately I don't have to.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you relied on Cellmark's descriptions of their databases, have you not?
DR. WEIR: I have taken the databases and they have labels on them, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You have relied on the FBI's databases and they, too, have labels on them for different races, don't they?
DR. WEIR: They have four databases with labels which have racial names, that's true.
MR. NEUFELD: And you have been consulting to the FBI, I believe you said, since 1989, haven't you?
DR. WEIR: That's right, I have.
MR. NEUFELD: And you and your university have been consulting to Cellmark for almost as long a period of time, haven't you?
DR. WEIR: After some time, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you this: Given the characteristics and descriptions that Cellmark and the FBI use for putting someone in their white database or their African American database or their Hispanic database, where would you, as the advisor to these people, put, for instance, the children that are the product of Mr. Simpson, O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson? Which database would they go into according to that criteria?
DR. WEIR: I would be happy to flip a coin. I don't think it is going to make any difference to the calculations how a person is classified in the database. It is a convenient way of identifying different samples of people. The samples are all giving you the same kind of an answer, and I don't think it makes any difference.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Dr.--I'm sorry.
DR. WEIR: I don't think--when you come down to it, I would be hard pressed to define my own ethnicity precisely. I'm obviously Caucasian, but I have grandparents from different European countries and I differ from other Caucasians in the room. I don't think it matters.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Dr. Weir, if you don't believe in these classifications by race as being relevant, then how in good conscience can you sit here and make racial classification estimates as you did Thursday afternoon, Friday, and apparently today as well?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: I will move on. In this case, Dr. Weir, when you provided a statistical estimate of the value of a certain piece of biological evidence, such as, let's say, a blood drop stain at the Bundy walkway or a drop recovered from the rear gate, you made certain assumptions, did you not?
DR. WEIR: Well, yes. Did you want to--to go through them or what?
MR. NEUFELD: I will go through them. I just want to at least establish that certain assumptions were made.
DR. WEIR: Well, all science is based on assumptions, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And I believe as you stated in your report, one of the critical assumptions that you have made for all your calculations is that the laboratories made no errors in the processing of the evidence; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: Oh, I can't--I can't even address that in the sense I just don't know what the labs did. They give me their reports and I just go from there.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, but in your report that you submitted to this Court and to counsel, you have a discussion of error rates, do you not?
DR. WEIR: Well, as a disclaimer in essence I say whether or not the laboratory made a mistake, it is really beyond my expertise and knowledge, so I'm just going to go with what they said.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you also said that you are assuming that no errors were made; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, my calculations start with the data, so that I said that, but it really means I just--the errors, any errors at any stage don't have any impact on my calculations. My calculations are frequencies of profiles.
MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you state that your calculations in this report assume the validity of all the DNA profiling done in this case?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: We have covered this once before.
MR. NEUFELD: Leading into a new subject, your Honor.
THE COURT: I assume.
MR. NEUFELD: As you sit here today as an expert in this case, sir, are you aware of the testimony of Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola and Mr. Yamauchi of the LAPD laboratory?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Not specifically, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever review any of the manuals of the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division prior to your testifying today?
DR. WEIR: No, I didn't.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you aware that the Los Angeles Police Department has no protocol or manual in use for the collection and preservation of biological evidence?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, relevance, also--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I believe you said a moment ago, Dr. Weir, that you have sort of chosen to ignore the impact of the probability of laboratory error would have on calculations in this case; is that a fair statement?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, have you taken into consideration in your own calculations the probability of laboratory error?
DR. WEIR: I have not, I could not and I should not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you this, Dr. Weir: If you could quantify that variable known as laboratory error, would you agree that that would certainly be relevant to your calculations?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, irrelevance. Also asked and answered.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking if it is relevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: It is not relevant to my calculations.
MR. NEUFELD: And it is not relevant to your calculations even if you could quantify that variable? Is that your opinion, sir?
DR. WEIR: You are asking me, in essence, to quantify something I don't think exists, so I reject the notion of an error rate. I reject the notion that it should be incorporated.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, I believe you said that there are portions of this report by the national research council that you agree with and other portions that you disagree; is that correct?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you agree with the following statement, Dr. Weir?
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection, calls for hearsay, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, in your report, which you filed with this court, did you not make the following statement and I quote: "Coincidental identity and laboratory error are different phenomena so the two cannot and should not be combined in a single estimate." Did you make that statement?
DR. WEIR: I quoted that statement.
MR. NEUFELD: Excuse me?
DR. WEIR: I quoted that statement.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact you endorse that statement; is that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: I do.
MR. NEUFELD: And you are aware, when you endorse that statement, that that was a statement that you were lifting right out of the national research council's report "DNA technology in forensic science"; isn't that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, and in that very same statement or that very same thought, doesn't the report state the following--
MR. CLARKE: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: What page? Is this the same paragraph?
MR. NEUFELD: It is the same paragraph.
THE COURT: Proceed. What page, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: Page 88.
MR. CLARKE: Could I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: What paragraph, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: It is the first paragraph in the chapter called "Laboratory error rates."
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. CLARKE: Objection.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have a copy of the report with you, sir?
DR. WEIR: I do.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you want to look on with me to make sure I'm quoting it accurately, sir?
DR. WEIR: Not especially.
MR. CLARKE: I still have the same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Reading from the middle of page 88, quote--I'm sorry--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just so the jury can read along, I'm asking to put the quote which I'm about to read from that paragraph up on the board.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. CLARKE: Could I have just another moment, your Honor?
(Brief pause.)
MR. CLARKE: Thank you.
THE COURT: Proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Dr. Weir, do you agree with the following quote from the NRC report: "Interpretation of DNA typing results depend not only on population genetics but also on laboratory error. Two samples might show the same DNA pattern for two reasons: Two persons have the same genotype at the loci studied or the laboratory has made an error in sample handling, processing"--I'm sorry--"In sample handling, procedure or interpretation. Coincidental identity and laboratory error are different phenomena so the two cannot and should not be combined in a single estimate; however, both should be considered." Do you agree with that paragraph, sir?
DR. WEIR: I agree regardless of the fact that it is quoted there. I have those thoughts entirely on my own volition.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, you what?
DR. WEIR: I have reached that same conclusion myself.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, by the way, in your report, you include a portion of that paragraph, do you not, on page 3 of your report?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I specifically include the last sentence.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you specifically excluded the last sentence, didn't you, sir? The last sentence of this report--
DR. WEIR: Excuse me. Excuse me.
MR. NEUFELD: --of this paragraph is--
DR. WEIR: The statement--
MR. NEUFELD: --"However"--
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. There is a rule here. Only one persons gets to talk. Both of you are violating that rule. Dr. Weir, let him finish asking the question. Let him finish the answer. Proceed. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, the last sentence of that paragraph, Dr. Weir, is: "However, both," referring to laboratory error rate, and those population frequencies that you have given this jury, "Should be considered"; isn't that correct? Isn't that what the sentence says?
DR. WEIR: The sentence states that correctly and of course that is way beyond anything I'm empowered to do. I'm an expert in the interpretation of coincidental frequencies. I'm not an expert or I have no knowledge, I should not venture into talking about errors.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, in that last sentence, saying that "Both should be considered," was omitted from your report; is that right?
DR. WEIR: It is omitted from my report because I must omit it. I must omit that consideration in what I do. I am not allowed to say anything about what the laboratory does. I would be way out of bounds. I can only address the science of statistics and population genetics calculating these profile frequencies. To do anything else I would be way out of line.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Especially for a technology with high discriminatory power, such as DNA typing, laboratory error rates"--
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection, hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking if he agrees with the statement.
THE COURT: You need to give us a source, for starters. This is a foundational objection I take that as.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, you said you have a copy of the NRC report with you?
DR. WEIR: I do.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you please take it out and look at the top of page 89 and read that first paragraph to yourself.
DR. WEIR: The first paragraph of the page?
MR. NEUFELD: On 89.
DR. WEIR: (Witness complies.) I have read it.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you agree with what is stated in that paragraph?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, relevance, hearsay, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: This paragraph is referring to something that is beyond my testimony.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, I asked as an expert in the field of statistics do you agree with the statement in that paragraph?
DR. WEIR: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Without actually saying at this point what it is, do you agree with it?
DR. WEIR: Well, the statement has nothing to do with statistics and it is not anything that I have even considered, so I'm not sure--I can read bits and pieces from this document and agree with some and not others.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking you if you agree with that paragraph, sir?
MR. CLARKE: Well, objection. I think that is asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, did you testify under oath in the case of state of Florida versus James Chassen on May 20, 1995, in a deposition in Raleigh, North Carolina?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Yes, I did.
MR. NEUFELD: And in that deposition, sir, when you were asked whether you agreed or disagreed with that paragraph--
MR. CLARKE: Well, excuse me. Objection, hearsay.
MR. NEUFELD: I am not stating what the contents are.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: When you were asked whether you agreed or disagreed with the first paragraph on the top of page 89, didn't you state under oath that you agreed with it?
DR. WEIR: I have no recollection. I talked to the counsel for about eight hours that day. I just don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: May I approach the witness to show him something?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
MR. CLARKE: Could I see it, please?
THE COURT: Yes. Do you have a copy for counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: I don't think I have. Let me just see. I think I might actually.
MR. CLARKE: Could we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: No.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: While he is looking, if I may just ask one other question of the witness, umm--one second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, we do have an objection to this portion.
THE COURT: All right. The request was to ask him to read it and see if it refreshes his recollection at that point.
MR. CLARKE: Very well.
THE COURT: That is all that is before the court at this point.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: And what page is that, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking him to read beginning on page 152 of the deposition through the top of page 153.
THE COURT: All right. Doctor, if you would just read that to yourself and see if that refreshes your recollection.
MR. NEUFELD: This is your examination of you that starts with that question and then here is your answer.
DR. WEIR: (Witness complies.) Yes, this refreshes my memory.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. CLARKE: Again, objection as to relevance, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, referring to that entire paragraph at the top of page 89,--and by the way, is the--
MR. CLARKE: The additional objection as to hearsay as to this question and answer.
THE COURT: Overruled. Is there a question?
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, on this previous occasion on May 20, 1995, when you were under oath in that deposition, didn't you state that you agreed with that top paragraph on page 89?
DR. WEIR: I said that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. May I put the paragraph up, please.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: All right. All right. Dr. Weir, this is a paragraph from page 89 of the NRC report. I'm asking you now whether you agree or disagree with the following, quote: "Especially for a technology with high discriminatory power such as DNA typing, laboratory error rates must be continually estimated in blind proficiency testing and must be disclosed to juries. For example, suppose the chance of a match due to two persons having the same pattern were 1 in one million, but the laboratory had made one error in 500 tests. The jury should be told both results. Both facts are relevant to a jury's determination." Do you agree with that statement, sir?
DR. WEIR: I agree with the second half of it; not the first half.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you testified--one moment. When you testified on May 20th, just a little more than a month ago, in Raleigh, North Carolina, and you were asked about that paragraph, when you said, "Yes, I agree," you never said, "Only with the second half of the paragraph," did you?
DR. WEIR: What I said, if you read there, I said yes, I agree, and then I went on to qualify what I meant by combining error rates, so in the context of that conversation, it was clear to me at that time counsel was asking about combining error rates and coincidental identity rates. He had me agree with that paragraph, and then as you see, I immediately came back and quoted this previous sentence that they should not be combined, so that is the sense. I don't see any inconsistency.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, what you come back and you say is that: "Coincidental identity in laboratory error are two different phenomenons, so the two should not and cannot be combined in a single estimate"; isn't that true?
DR. WEIR: That's true.
MR. NEUFELD: But there is nothing in your answer on May 20th under oath where you call into question your agreement with the first half of this paragraph where it talks about how estimates on blind proficiency testing must be disclosed to juries? There is nothing in there about that, is there, sir?
MR. CLARKE: I have an objection under 356 as well, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, may we approach the bench, please?
THE COURT: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor--
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: All right. On May 20, 1995, were you asked this question and did you give this answer--
MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry, your Honor. We are--
THE COURT: Sustained. As a matter of courtesy, counsel, you have to give a copy to opposing counsel if you are going to do this.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Page 152.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) (Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, when you testified under oath at that deposition on May 20, 1995, were you asked the following questions and did you give the following answer: Question with the questioner quoting from the NRC report.
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. You don't get to editorialize. Just state what was asked and answered.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, the question begins with a quotation mark.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked the following question and give the following answer, question, quote: "Before the method can be accepted as valid for forensic use, it must be rigorously"--whoops. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was on the wrong page.
THE COURT: What page, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: Page 152 to 153.
THE COURT: What line?
MR. NEUFELD: Beginning line 18.
THE COURT: Mr. Clarke.
MR. NEUFELD: That is what he has before. I was just reading from the--
MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry, to where?
MR. NEUFELD: To line 13 on page 153.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Unless you would like me to stop reading at line 6. It is up to you, Mr. Clarke.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Clarke, it is your preference. I can read to line 6 or continue reading to line 13.
MR. CLARKE: I think the initial reference is fine, thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Line 6?
MR. CLARKE: No, line 13.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked the following questions and did you give the following answer: "Especially for a technology with high discriminatory power such as DNA typing, laboratory error rates must be continually estimated in blind proficiency testing and must be disclosed to juries. For example, suppose the chance of a match due to two persons having the same pattern were 1 in one million, but the laboratory had made one error in 500 tests. The jury should be told both results. Both facts are relevant to a jury's determination," unquote. "Answer: Yes, I agree. I've already stated that. I think it is a little misleading for you not to read the next sentence, and that is, quote, `a coincidental identity and laboratory error are different phenomena so the two cannot and should not be combined in a single estimate.' "Question: So you would say then that laboratory error rates are crucial to evaluating DNA evidence? "Answer: No, that's--they are talking about the--the rate of errors in proficiency tests. As I said, those are relevant, but I reject the notion of error rates in case work. I don't think that those are relevant, applicable to each case." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers under oath on May 20 of 1995?
DR. WEIR: Yes. I think that was a good answer on my part, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Sure. To your knowledge, Dr. Weir, have any of the witnesses in this case presented that error rate, which you believe is a good thing to do, as expressed in this quotation?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: That question does not reflect what you just read out. The error--the rates refer to the frequency with which mistakes are made on proficiency tests. I reject the notion of an error rate applicable to case work.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, do you agree with the portion of the paragraph that says that laboratory error rates must be continually estimated in blind proficiency testing and must be disclosed to juries?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I disagree.
MR. NEUFELD: You now disagree with that statement?
DR. WEIR: I disagree now and then. I have always disagreed with that statement.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, do you agree that proficiency tests must be truly representative of case work?
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection. Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, do you believe that the results of blind proficiency tests that a laboratory undergoes should be presented to juries?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: In 1993, Dr. Weir, you wrote an article entitled "Population genetics in the forensic DNA debate," did you not?
DR. WEIR: Refresh me the journal citation, please.
MR. NEUFELD: The proceedings of the national academy of science, 1993.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Did you?
DR. WEIR: It was 1992.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. Published in 1993, however?
DR. WEIR: It was published in 1992.
MR. NEUFELD: Published in 1992. And in that article you discussed the issue of laboratory error rates, do you not?
DR. WEIR: Not really. That was a review paper and I reviewed a great many things which a lot of people had been saying. At that point a lawyer by the name of Richard Lempert had discussed error rates and given a formula, which if you knew what the chance of making an error was on a continuing basis, you would combine. I didn't agree with his formula and gave the correct formula in the context of reviewing his work. I reject--I reject the foundation, however, of doing that thing.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you say on Friday--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: In that article you said that Professor Lempert or Dr. Lempert provided an equation and you rejected that equation and gave the correct equation?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I corrected his equation, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please show me Dr. Lempert's equation in this article. And I would ask that it be marked for identification, I think it is 1207.
THE COURT: 1207.
(Deft's 1207 for id = document)
THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the side bar without the court reporter, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
MR. NEUFELD: Just one moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly. I'm sorry, we lost a juror to a comfort break.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: If you want to show that to the witness while we are waiting, if he wants to refamiliarize himself with the article.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
THE COURT: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. We have all the jurors present. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: I believe you said moment ago, Dr. Weir, that in that 1992 article one of the people you reviewed in there was Dr. Richard Lempert and his approach or formula to giving weight to error rates and that you disagree with that; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, I'm trying to remember. I wrote that three years ago and at the time I think I disagreed with his formula. At that time I was writing a review. It was not a matter of much concern in the committee. I think Dr. Lempert may have been the first to even raise the issue. Since this time I have thought a great deal more about the issue, so that if I was writing that now, I wouldn't have even given him the credence I did.
MR. NEUFELD: I see. Do you recall on Friday, during the cross-examination, Dr. Weir, being asked these questions and giving these answers, referring to page 109 of the transcript. Question by me on cross-examination. "Question: And Professor Richard Lempert was on that committee as well; is that correct? "Answer: Yes, I know Dr. Lempert quite well."
MR. CLARKE: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: "Question: And he is an expert in the field of statistical inferences and evidence, is he not? "Answer: Yes. He and I share a common belief in the correct way to interpret this data."
MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers to this jury just this last Friday?
DR. WEIR: Certainly, but that was not talking about error rates. We share a common belief in the likelihood ratio approach.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, in your statement you made some distinction between how one presents this data in terms of error rate and how one presents this data in terms of frequencies?
MR. CLARKE: Objection.
THE COURT: It is argumentative. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: In arriving at your own opinion, sir, on the role of error rates, did you take into consideration the published writing of Dr. Hagerman?
DR. WEIR: I don't think I know what paper you would be referring to, so the answer is no.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, in your own article in 1992, which is I believe 1206--
THE COURT: 7.
MR. NEUFELD: 1207.
MR. NEUFELD: Authored by you, do not you refer to an equation's handling error rates in a paper written by Dr. Paul Hagerman? And I show you a paper. Beginning here, (Indicating).
DR. WEIR: What I said was as Hagerman explains, this ratio can be diminished if the typing laboratory may have falsely declared a match. Nothing else that follows refers to Dr. Hagerman's work.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, you mentioned Dr. Hagerman by name in your own article, do you not?
DR. WEIR: Three years ago I cited his paper, certainly. I don't recall--at this point I don't even recollect reading the paper.
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, in Dr. Hagerman's paper that you are referring to, he provides an equation on this very issue, does he not?
DR. WEIR: He may. I have no idea.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So at least now that you've looked at your own article that you wrote on this subject in December of 1992, does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you have read a paper by Dr. Paul Hagerman on the issue of the role in assessing DNA evidence in terms of error rates?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Obviously I read the paper. At this point I don't know what it said.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And have you read any of the published work of Dr. Richard Lempert?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, relevance.
MR. NEUFELD: On the same subject?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Well, I'm not sure. I think I refer to a paper of Lempert's there.
MR. NEUFELD: That is the only paper that you have read of Dr. Lempert's?
DR. WEIR: On error rates, I think so.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you read any of the work that Dr. Laurence Mueller has written which refers or describes the error rate issue?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I don't think so. I have read one of Dr. Mueller's papers. I don't recall error rates being in there.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you say you have only one read of his papers?
DR. WEIR: I think he only has one peer review paper in this field.
MR. NEUFELD: And have you read the publications of Dr. J. Koehler on the issue of error rates in DNA profiling?
DR. WEIR: Probably. Dr. Koehler and I were at the same conference a couple of years ago and I read the proceedings, so I probably did.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, do you know who Dr. Richard Lewontin is?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Is Dr. Richard Lewontin is an extremely highly regarded population geneticist at Harvard University?
DR. WEIR: Yes, certainly.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you who Dr. Daniel Hartl is?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Is he another highly regarded population geneticist at Harvard University?
DR. WEIR: He certainly is.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you read their papers where they describe the phenomena of error rates and its role that should be made in assessing DNA evidence?
DR. WEIR: I don't think so. I think I have read everything that they have written in this field. I don't recall what they say about error rates. And I would point out to you, in this and another context in science, it doesn't matter who says it, it matters what is said, so whether or not they said anything in itself wouldn't give it special credence.
MR. NEUFELD: So in other words, the fact that there may be a half dozen articles addressing this very issue which may disagree with your position, is not as important as the reasons put forward for their position; is that correct?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: There are several parts to that question. The scientific literature in the feeling of the forensic community does not subscribe to error rates. I know that on the basis of conversations with forensic scientists. In the more general setting, if something is said by a scientist, that doesn't make it true. We need to see all the context, all the argument, get the facts marshaled. I think I have lost the question. I think the answer was yes, though.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, you just said a moment ago that some of your opinions are from conversations you have had with people who are in the forensic science community; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes, some of them are, but we talk about these things in formulating our ideas. We don't work in a vacuum.
MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say at the very beginning of your testimony, Dr. Weir, that one doesn't rely, say, on what is said in cocktail conversations or other kind of conversations, but in science one relies on what is actually published, as opposed to mere conversations? Didn't you make a statement like this early in your testimony?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I said that, and that is when the finesse of words are said and evaluated in the course of writing papers, I talked to other people.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Dr. Weir, in contrast to these different authors who I just asked you about with regard to their publications, what, if anything, have you personally published on the issue of error rates?
DR. WEIR: Oh, I haven't published anything.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Dr. Weir, getting back to the calculations of frequencies in mixtures, I believe on Friday you admitted to this jury that you had made an error which you repeated in your frequency estimates for various stains on the Bronco console and for a stain on the glove; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, it was worse than I realized. It was both better and worse. I made the same error on every mixed stain involving DQ-Alpha alleles 1.3 and 4. I know how to do that. I had laid out, which is the annoying thing, I had laid out the correct method in my report. I should have applied the same method to all such stains. I did apply the same method to all the stains. Unfortunately for me my program had a mistake, so I was consistent, but consistently wrong, and I have now corrected that.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Dr. Weir, in your report--do you have your report in front of you, sir?
DR. WEIR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: In your original report--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, in your original report where you simply list the different pairs of genotypes that could give rise to the 1.1, 1.3 and 4 alleles for some items of evidence, where there are mixtures, you actually put down all the possible pair combinations, assuming on the one hand there is a 1.2 allele, and assuming on the other hand there is no 1.2 allele; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's correct. What I just said, though, was the answers I gave were consistent and they do not have those included alleles.
MR. NEUFELD: But what I'm saying, sir, is even in your description of the pairings in your report, you describe the pairings one way for stains which included Mr. Simpson and another way in some of the stains which excluded Mr. Simpson; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, that is--that is correct that it doesn't state what in fact I did, and the numbers that went on the board. The numbers on the board were the--were wrong in all the profiles that included 1.3 and 4. I'm going to have to live with that mistake for a long time.
THE COURT: What page is that, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I'm referring to page 35 of his report now.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: And as you may recall, also on Friday, I asked you in contrast to the numbers that you put on that board for, let's say, for instance, item 29, the steering wheel, under your method and your approach, I then asked you to calculate the frequency of that percentage of the population that could not be excluded as contributors to that mixture using the NRC approach that you were critical of in your report. Do you recall that?
DR. WEIR: Yes, and I would like the opportunity to explain the difference of those two approaches.
MR. NEUFELD: You will have that opportunity, sir, but I just want to try and get through this part as quickly as possible, all right, but there will be plenty of opportunity for that. Now, after you left court on Friday morning, sir, did you go back and confer with any other people about what had happened and what method you had used?
DR. WEIR: Not--not on the method I used. The method I used is the correct method. There was no need to confer with anybody.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you have any conversation was anybody from the different laboratories?
DR. WEIR: I have had a conversation with Gary Sims on the detail of item 31. He confirmed his testimony and what was presented on the chart, so my analysis of that item was correct.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Did you have any conversations with anyone other than Gary Sims from the laboratories?
DR. WEIR: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you have any conversations with the people who are responsible for manufacturing and designing this DQ-Alpha kit?
DR. WEIR: Oh, that would be outside my expertise. No, I did not.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Other than speaking with people from the laboratories, did you confer with any Prosecutors over the weekend?
DR. WEIR: I have met with them. Not--not on what I should do. Not on the details of my analysis, however.
MR. NEUFELD: Which Prosecutors did you meet with over the weekend?
DR. WEIR: Miss Kahn and Mr. Clarke.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Did you, after you left the witness stand on Friday, until this morning, speak to any other statisticians any other place about this?
DR. WEIR: No, I didn't.
MR. NEUFELD: And over the weekend you generated pages of data; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: At your request I generated a lot of paper.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And much of it was delivered to me last night; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: As soon as it came off the printer you had it.
MR. NEUFELD: And some more was delivered to me this morning?
DR. WEIR: Once again, as soon as it was possible, you had it, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now that you have had the weekend, sir, have you generated new numbers to replace the old numbers on those boards?
DR. WEIR: I have.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. I would like to go through that now, your Honor. Let's start with--do you want to help me get the Bronco board? Let's start with the Bronco board.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, do we have a rag--
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. NEUFELD: Do we have a rag available so the witness can erase the numbers he put on direct examination and replace them now?
MR. CLARKE: I have an objection to that, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is their exhibit. We are missing a juror right now.
MR. NEUFELD: Oh.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: May I? Are we ready? Oh, now we are not ready. Sorry.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect we have all the jurors present. Mr. Neufeld. And you have People's exhibit which up?
MR. NEUFELD: I have People's exhibit 260.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning did you write certain numbers on People's exhibit 260 to express certain frequencies?
DR. WEIR: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did you quote certain frequencies so Mr. Clarke could write them on the board?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at the frequencies that Mr. Clarke wrote on the board when he was simply writing on the board what you were quoting?
DR. WEIR: No, I couldn't see the board, so I just quoted and I hope he wrote them down as I called them out.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you please take a look at that board. You can step down for a moment.
THE COURT: Sure.
DR. WEIR: (Witness complies.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now, are the frequencies for items 303, 304 and 305, at the bottom of that board, for those three stains, those--are those the numbers that you quoted under direct examination on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning?
DR. WEIR: Well, I'm sure they are. I can't answer with certainty because I don't have those numbers with me.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have a copy of the report that you had with you?
DR. WEIR: Oh, from the old report? Certainly, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, could you please check the report to make sure that the numbers that Mr. Clark wrote down on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning are the numbers that you testified to before this jury at that time.
THE COURT: Is there really any dispute as to that, that these are the numbers that were quoted?
MR. NEUFELD: I hope not.
DR. WEIR: I'm sure Mr. Clarke wrote them down correctly.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, now that you've had the weekend to reanalyze the data, would you agree that those numbers for items 303, 304 and 305 are wrong?
DR. WEIR: Those numbers--every number with a 1.3 and a 4 in the DQ-Alpha, that is the only--I guess that is the only ones. Well, no, this--this one is correct, so--
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. Let the record indicate that he said item no. 31 is correct.
DR. WEIR: Excuse me. 31 is correct. Mr. Sims confirmed that, so on this board it is 303, 304 and 305 have the 1.3 and the 4 which is the combination that confuses things, that hides the 1.2. We don't know if it is there or not. I know we should either assume it is there and/or assume it is not and add those together. I know that, I didn't do it, so that these numbers need to be changed.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Your Honor, since Mr. Clarke was simply writing down a written record of this man's testimony, I'm asking that these numbers now be replaced.
THE COURT: It is his exhibit, counsel. If you want to have a separate sheet of paper marked 303, 304 and 305, but it is their exhibit, if they object.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. All right.
THE COURT: And this will be 1208.
(Deft's 1208 for id = chart)
THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, 1208?
MR. DOUGLAS: (Nods head up and down.)
MR. NEUFELD: This is 120--
THE COURT: 8.
MR. NEUFELD: 1208.
MR. NEUFELD: And Dr. Weir, I'm going to entitle this exhibit "Mixture frequencies," okay? All right, sir. Now, let's start with items 303, 304 and 305, since that is where we just were, and what I would like you to do first, I'm going to divide this up into three different columns, sir, and the first column we will refer to as your old results, meaning the results that you testified to last week. Is that okay?
DR. WEIR: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: And the second column we will call--we will call it "Weir new," reflecting your new results that you arrived at over the weekend. Okay, sir?
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: And we will do it for a number of different items. The first item we will do it for is evidence item 303, 304 and 305. Okay?
DR. WEIR: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have the data in front of you, sir, that reflects both the old numbers and the new numbers?
DR. WEIR: It will be a bit awkward, but I think so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, for instance, if we look simply at a two-contributor approach to this data and we want to look at the most common frequency in the data--okay?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: I believe you testified that for two contributors the most common frequency under the old data that you gave this jury last week was 1 in approximately 1413. 1 in approximately 1413, would that be correct?
DR. WEIR: That is the figure. I rounded it off to 1400.
MR. NEUFELD: The precise number was what, 1 in 1413?
DR. WEIR: That is the precise number. I try not to give any of these figures to--I try not to give more than two significant figures so I will be more comfortable with 1400.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. So that is 1 in 1400 for the rareness of that particular profile in the mixture? Okay?
DR. WEIR: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now, under the new calculations that you did over the weekend, sir, what is the most common probability, or I'm sorry, common frequency for the mixtures in 303, 304 and 305?
DR. WEIR: Well, I'm going to round to two places again. 1 in 570.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And so would you agree, sir, that the difference from the old approach to the new approach means that it is approximately two and a half times more common in the new approach than it was in your old testimony last week; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That sounds about right, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. The next one I would like to ask you about, sir, is G10, stain on the glove.
DR. WEIR: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, I have a black--I would really prefer you not use the dry erase markers because I have a feeling there is a lack of permanence in there. I have a regular black. I'm just concerned that it might disappear if you use that dry erase stuff.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. May I approach?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, looking at the glove stain on G10 which also, according to the Prosecution witnesses, also includes and cannot exclude Mr. Simpson as one of the contributors, did you arrive at a most common frequency for that particular profile using the old data that you testified to before this jury last Thursday and Friday?
DR. WEIR: The figure--
MR. NEUFELD: Again for two contributors?
DR. WEIR: Excuse me. The figure I called out to Mr. Clarke would have been 1 in 3900.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, sir, that you have recalculated these numbers, having seen your error, over the weekend, what is the most common probability for this particular profile under your technique, given the new data?
DR. WEIR: It is the same data, but the correct, I hope, calculations, 1 in 1600.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, sir, would you agree that given your new calculations, the new calculations make this profile approximately two and a half times more common than in your old calculations?
DR. WEIR: That is very close to two and a half, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, now, I would like you to look at item 29, which is the stain on the steering wheel, and under your old calculations for a two-contributor assumption, what was the most common profile?
DR. WEIR: I would have called 1 in 70 I think Friday.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, would you please take a look at page 38 of your report.
DR. WEIR: I'm looking at it.
MR. NEUFELD: And am I correct in saying that on the old data, or your old calculations, I should say, that you put down the most common frequency for this mixture is 1 in 59, not 1 in 70?
DR. WEIR: Oh, excuse me, that's right.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that right?
DR. WEIR: Yes, sorry. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, under your new calculations what is the most common frequency for item 29?
DR. WEIR: 1 in 26.
MR. NEUFELD: So sir--and for that one you would agree that it is at least two times more common, given your new calculations, as it was in your old calculations; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: And these are--these are all stains where the Prosecution says Mr. Simpson cannot be excluded, correct?
DR. WEIR: I'm thinking of the word. I think that's right, isn't it? I'm just looking at my table. Yes, Mr. Simpson is not excluded, that's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But each of your new calculations makes those profiles that you observed in the mixture certainly significantly less rare than they were under your initial calculations; isn't that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: Well, they are about half to two and a half times more common, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, I asked you, as you may recall, to do some calculations on the frequencies of these mixtures relying instead not on your approach, but on the--that NRC method of which you are critical. Do you recall that?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I do.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you recall--one moment.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, when we looked at the Caucasian, African American and Hispanic databases using that NRC approach, which you were critical of--
DR. WEIR: Well, it is not me that is critical of it. It is wrong and it is contrary to the published literature.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand your position, sir.
DR. WEIR: Well, it is not my position. It is wrong and it is not the published way of doing things.
MR. NEUFELD: You said a moment ago, sir, that you yourself--well, withdrawn. But under that method, when we calculated the most common frequencies using the three databases for item 29, because that was the only one we did it for last week--do you recall that?
DR. WEIR: Yes. We did a couple of different things. You better remind me which one you are talking about.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
DR. WEIR: I mean which calculation.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, we did a series of calculations to show what percentage of the population could not be excluded as having contributed to the mixture which is a profile described in item 29. Do you recall that?
DR. WEIR: Yes. I want it to be clear that we are talking--are you talking about genotypes or alleles at this point?
MR. NEUFELD: I'm talking about genotypes.
DR. WEIR: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when we did that, sir, the most common sum, using that NRC method that you believe is wrong, was approximately 1 in 2 people; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: We--
MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry, objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I wouldn't even dignify that number by putting it on the same piece of paper. It is talking about something so different that when you lay it along side, you are given the impression we are talking about the same thing. It is--it answers a completely different question.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand that that is your opinion, sir.
DR. WEIR: Excuse me. Excuse me. That is not an opinion; that is a different--completely different question. It is irrelevant and I would very much like to take a minute and explain why it is irrelevant.
MR. NEUFELD: You will have more than ample opportunity, sir. Right now what I'm asking you is this: Did you some calculations on Friday morning--
MR. CLARKE: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: Also irrelevant.
THE COURT: Ask a question, Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: You made some calculations on Friday morning on the frequency of that percentage of the population that would not be excluded as having been a contributor to the mixture found on item 29; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, you had me write out your calculations; I didn't.
MR. NEUFELD: Were any of the numbers that I reported on that piece of paper inconsistent with the numbers that appeared on the Cellmark databases?
DR. WEIR: The numbers you reported were from the Cellmark databases, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Sir, and when you summed those frequencies, was the number--was the most common aggregate of those frequencies for item 29 using that NRC method that you say is wrong--
DR. WEIR: Excuse me.
MR. NEUFELD: --was approximately 1 in 2 people?
DR. WEIR: It is not me that is saying it is wrong. I'm not saying it is wrong. It is wrong.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But using that NRC method, sir, is the number that was arrived at approximately 1 in 2 people?
DR. WEIR: That's correct, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. CLARKE: Again, objection, misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm going to do some more calculations. Perhaps this would be a good time to break for lunch.
THE COURT: Go ahead and finish.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you want me to keep going?
THE COURT: Finish.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Friday I asked you, using the calculations using that NRC method for item 29--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: How much more time do you need, Mr. Neufeld?
MR. NEUFELD: Umm, approximately 45 minutes.
THE COURT: All right. We will take our recess at this point. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss this case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you. We will be in recess until 1:00 P.M.
(At 12:03 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1995 1:05 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, People are represented. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?
MR. NEUFELD: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's invite the jurors to join us, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Dr. Weir, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Bruce Weir, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon again, doctor.
DR. WEIR: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, just so we can explain this--these fractions a little bit to the Court and to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for instance, taking item no. 29, when I show that fraction 1 over 2, doesn't that mean that approximately 50 percent of the population could not be excluded as a potential contributor to the mixture reflected on the steering wheel stain? Is that what 1 over 2 means?
DR. WEIR: That's what that says. It doesn't allow us to interpret the mixture however.
MR. NEUFELD: But that is what it says, sir; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's what it says, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Now, what I would like you to do, sir, is I'm going to also ask you to do--using the same approach that we utilized for item no. 29, I'm going to ask you to do the same thing for item 303, which is 304 and 305 as well as well as G10. And to do that, sir, again, referring to the databases that you received in this case, the database from Cellmark and then the database for D1S80--
DR. WEIR: Excuse me, Mr. Neufeld. I have used FBI's data on the polymarker--on the PCR.
MR. NEUFELD: On the D1S80. But I also showed you, as you may recall, Cellmark's tables for the data on DQ-Alpha; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's right. So we're not only doing different calculations, we're using different databases.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well--
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you remember that the DQ-Alpha calculations that you relied on--that you relied on for arriving at that NRC number was Defendant's 1201. I'll just show it again to you to refresh your recollection, sir.
DR. WEIR: Yes. Your calculations are Cellmark databases and mine are FBI.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But I think you said frankly that it shouldn't make much difference or the difference should be rather minimal for these DQ-Alpha frequencies whether one uses the FBI's database or the Cellmark database; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: They won't be greatly different, but they won't be the same.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But I want to--since we already did the calculation for item 29 using Cellmark's database and since Cellmark did report DQ-Alpha typing results in this case, I'm going to ask you to use Cellmark's table again, and then, of course, for the D1S80, you would use the FBI's databases since Cellmark doesn't have any databases for D1S80. Item 303, 304 and 305 has been typed, has it not, referring to People's exhibit 260, both on the DQ-Alpha locus and also on the D1S80 locus; is that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: Yes, that's right.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So one could--so if one wanted to answer the question, that is the same question that is posed in the NRC report, which is what percentage of the population cannot be excluded as being a potential contributor to this mixture, namely, the mixture on the console of 303, 304 and 305, one could make certain calculations and generate certain sums for the DQ-Alpha locus and then again for the D1S80 locus and then you would combine those; is that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: Yes. You've just pointed out something in fact, that we didn't do that of course here. We've only done the one locus. What--my figures are on all the loci. Yours are just on the one locus.
MR. NEUFELD: For the--for the 303, 304 and 305 there?
DR. WEIR: The 303, 304 and 305 is typed, the DQ-Alpha and D1S80. The figures I've given are typed based on both loci. You've only given half the story.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. Okay.
DR. WEIR: So it's even more misleading than I had realized.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, on item 29, there is only one locus; isn't that correct? I'm sorry. Withdrawn. There are polymarkers in the DQ-Alpha locus; isn't that right?
DR. WEIR: That's--that's right. So there were six loci. And I've given a six-locus result and you've given a one-locus result.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, excuse me, sir. But for item 29, isn't it true that the polymarkers do not discriminate, the polymarker results themselves?
DR. WEIR: I'll need--I'm not sure that's true. Let's just go and look.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you the question specifically, sir. Isn't it true that a hundred percent of the population is reflected in those polymarker results alone?
DR. WEIR: I think--I think finally we've put our finger on our main difference. To calculate the frequency of a mixture, I take the mixtures of people and then the correct method that does not sum to a hundred percent. Your method does. So we've got them on the same piece of paper and we're talking about very different things.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm not talking about my methods. I'm talking about the NRC method, Dr. Weir. And what I'm asking you is, applying the NRC method to item 29, would you agree that there is no--there's no one in the population who could not be included or who wouldn't be included as a potential contributor to the polymarker profile that you see for item 29?
DR. WEIR: I think that's the point. That's why it's so absurd.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you agree with that?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I do.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. And would you agree, sir, that the one genetic system where there is some portion of the population who would be excluded is for the DQ-Alpha system in item 29?
DR. WEIR: Only if you mean excluded meaning single people. For the mixtures, of course, we've got several people.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. I'm talking about single people who could be excluded saying that there's some people who just could not have been a contributor to this mixture.
DR. WEIR: So the question--I think I'm agreeing with you, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Fine. Now, here's what I'm asking you, sir. For items 303, 304 and 305, if we use that NRC method and we use the D1S80 databases from the FBI and we use the DQ-Alpha databases that Cellmark used in doing their own calculations for 303, 304 and 305--
MR. NEUFELD: And this would be 120--
THE COURT: 9.
MR. NEUFELD: 1209?
(Deft's 1209 for id = table)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, just to remind you of what's up on the screen at this point, we're looking at the genotypes for the Bronco console stains, 303, 304 and 305.
DR. WEIR: Fine. Fine.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay? And the DQ-Alpha profile that's seen in that mixture is a 1.1, a 1.3 and a 4 and there may or may not be a 1.2 there; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, do the frequencies and the sums of the frequencies for the Caucasian, African American, Hispanic databases that I present on that table as you're looking at now correctly give you the aggregate, the sum for the various matching genotypes that are consistent with that mixture for an individual?
DR. WEIR: Well, it's--correct me if I'm wrong. It looks like you've listed all the possible genotypes because every genotype could be in that mixture.
MR. NEUFELD: Right.
DR. WEIR: Is that--am I correct? This looks like a complete listing of all the 10 genotypes.
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
DR. WEIR: So I'm puzzled as to why the frequencies don't add up to a hundred percent. I must be missing something.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Because there are some alleles in the system, if you may recall from your review of how the system functions, like allele 2, allele 3. Do you remember that, sir?
THE COURT: Is that a question? Are you testifying or are you asking a question?
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. I'm asking--I'll rephrase it as a question for the witness.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you recall in your discussion of the systems with Mr. Sims that there are more alleles in the system than alleles that are present in this mixture?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I do. And that's what I had forgotten. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Correct. All right. So when you--when you then look at the frequencies reflected in the Cellmark tables for the genotypes that are present in that mixture, are the numbers reflected on Defendant's--
THE COURT: 1209.
MR. NEUFELD: --1209 accurate?
DR. WEIR: The one on the screen now?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
DR. WEIR: I think so.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I'd like to do is show you what will be Defendant's 1210.
(Deft's 1210 for id = table)
MR. NEUFELD: And in 1210, we were told that there are three possible alleles present in the D1S80 system; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's right, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the various genotypes that could comprise those three alleles, 18, 24 and 25, are reflected in the first column; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And if we were to sum up all the possible genotype frequencies that could be part of that mixture, you would arrive at the numbers that we have on that last line entitled "Sum" for the three different ratio databases; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: I think they're right, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, if you wanted to then look at what is the frequency of the population who could not be excluded as a potential contributor to this mixture both in the D1S80 level and the DQ-Alpha level, you would then have to combine the frequencies from those two different loci; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's true.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now I'll show you Defendant's 1211.
(Deft's 1211 for id = table)
MR. NEUFELD: And does Defendant's 1211 now reflect the combined frequencies of the DQ-Alpha system, the D1S80 system for those three databases as I've just described?
DR. WEIR: Yes, it does.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And would you agree, sir, that if we simply look at the most common frequency of people who could be included as contributors to that mixture of those three databases, what is the most common?
DR. WEIR: It looks like 1 in 4.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So what we're saying, sir, is that given the mixtures that we see--just looking for the black.
THE COURT: Do you need one?
MR. NEUFELD: No. He gave it to me.
MR. NEUFELD: --that if we're just considering 1 percentage of the population cannot be excluded as being a contributor to the mixtures reflected on the bloodstains on the console using that NRC method as you see it up there, would be approximately 1 in 4; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: And what that says, when you say 1 in 4, that means approximately 25 percent of the population, if you simply type them at random, they would come out with genotypes for these two systems that would be included or consistent with the profile seen in that mixture on the console; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Well, included, but not consistent. The profiles are a mixture of more than one person.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand. But you wouldn't be able to exclude 25 percent of the population approximately?
DR. WEIR: No. I don't think you would want to do that calculation, but you're quite right.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. And now, finally, for that last item, sir, G10, which is the stain on the glove, again, the DQ-Alpha profile for that one, for the DQ-Alpha mixture, would be reflected on Defendant's 1209, would it not, because you have again the 1.1, the 1.3, the 4 and you may or may not have the 1.2?
DR. WEIR: It's just the same as the previous one, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Same numbers, right? Same frequencies?
DR. WEIR: Right. Uh-huh.
MR. NEUFELD: Fine. And now, for the D1S80 frequencies, however, instead of seeing three alleles present, you only see two; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: The 24 and the 25?
DR. WEIR: That's right. Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I'll show you what we'll mark 1210 I believe.
THE COURT: 1211.
MR. NEUFELD: 1211. 1212.
THE COURT: 1212.
(Deft's 1212 for id = table)
MR. NEUFELD: And what you see in the first column of 1212, sir, are the various genotype combinations that could go into that mixture; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes. The genotypes along with their frequencies, and they seem to be fine.
MR. NEUFELD: And those frequencies are correct?
DR. WEIR: I think so.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And then we have the sums of those frequencies at the bottom?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, once again, now for this stain, if you wanted to take the same approach that we did for 303, 304, 305, you would then combine the frequency for the D1S80 locus with the frequency from the DQ-Alpha locus; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: And now I'd like you to take a look at 1213.
(Deft's 1213 for id = table)
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on 1213, sir, have we done just that? Did we combine the frequencies for each of these genotype sums, both for Caucasians, African Americans and Hispanics?
DR. WEIR: That's right, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, of these three databases, what is the most common frequency of individuals who cannot be excluded as having contributed to a mixture such as this profile?
DR. WEIR: Well, it's about 1 in 20.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't it for Caucasians 1 in 10?
DR. WEIR: Oh, excuse me. Right. Yes. 1 in 10. I was looking at the wrong one. Yes. 1 in 10.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. So if the question was, Dr. Weir, what percentage of the population would be included as potential contributors to this mixture on the glove, that was the question being posed, the answer would be 1 in 10; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: The ink is running out, your Honor.
THE COURT: I think I have some new ones in the red cup down here. Mr. Neufeld, try that red cup there.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you want this one back so it doesn't get recycled?
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: And so with regard to that last fraction, 1 in 10, what you're saying is, sir, that if we look at the entire population, that approximately 10 percent of that population would have genotype frequencies which would be includable or represented in that mixture on stain G10; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's right, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, Dr. Weir--
MR. NEUFELD: One second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Dr. Weir--Dr. Weir when you failed to take into account in your calculations last week, was it that the--when you see the 1.3 and the 4 alleles in a mixture, that you don't know whether the 1.2 allele is there or not; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's what gave me the problems, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you--
MR. NEUFELD: One second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you also said that before you would undertake all these statistical calculations, you wanted to be absolutely sure of what these mixtures meant, and that's why you contacted Mr. Sims; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's right, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, do you realize as you sit here today that just as the presence of the 1.3 and 1--I'm sorry--withdrawn. Do you realize as you sit here today, Dr. Weir, that just as when you have the 1.3 and 4 allele, you can't tell whether the 1.2 is there or not, and that same phenomena occurs if you have a mixture in the 1.1 and the 4 allele are present? Are you aware of that, sir?
DR. WEIR: I'm not aware--I'm not sure we have a profile like that in this case.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, let's look at item 29 again, Dr. Weir.
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Can I have the original notes?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir--
MR. NEUFELD: Let me have marked for identification three pages of Cellmark's notes.
THE COURT: 1214.
MR. NEUFELD: This will be collectively 1214, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you staple them together so they don't get lost.
(Deft's 1214 for id = Cellmark's notes)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir--
THE COURT: Why don't you show that to Mr. Clarke--
MR. NEUFELD: Sure.
THE COURT: --so he knows what pages we're talking about here.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: He's still not ready.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, there's already been testimony in this case that Cellmark's no. 19 is their internal number for LAPD item no. 29, the steering wheel. I would like to show you what's been marked as Defendant's 1213--1214 and show you their notes and show you their comments and their characterization of the typing for DQ-Alpha on their no. 19, which is the steering wheel. Here, here, okay, and here (Indicating).
DR. WEIR: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, in the Cellmark laboratory notes, sir, for their DQ-Alpha typing of the steering wheel, do not they say that it is a 1.1, a 4 and a possible 1.2?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Foundation at this point.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Before you commenced to do your statistical work on Cellmark's data in this case, did you take it upon yourself to learn how the data should be interpreted?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Vague as to data.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: For the interpretation of the mixtures on this item specifically, I used the chart in evidence. I did not--I have not seen these pages before.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact, Dr. Weir, that any time there is a 1.1 and a 4 allele present, the 1.2 might also be massed? Are you aware of that?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: Also beyond the scope and no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me present you--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, when you calculated the frequencies for the mixture on the steering wheel, did you assume that the 1.2 allele was not massed?
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: My calculations were based on the chart which shows that it was present.
MR. NEUFELD: So what you say--
DR. WEIR: On both DOJ and Cellmark. I saw the same pattern from both laboratories. I assumed that they were correct and made that calculation.
MR. NEUFELD: So are you saying, sir, that when you did your calculations on the steering wheel, you assumed in that calculation that the 1.2 allele was not massed or was actually present?
DR. WEIR: It's stated here as being present from both laboratories. So I assume it's present.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, would you agree if in fact a 1.2 allele could equally be massed whenever the 1.1 and 4 are present, as you've already acknowledged it is when the 1.3 and 4 is present, would that also change your frequency estimates?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Also misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: If you were to learn, sir, that the--that when you have a 1.1 and a 4 allele present as you do on the steering wheel--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Why don't you more clearly frame that as a hypothetical question.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Well--all right. Assume for the moment the hypothetical, sir, that whenever you see a 1.1 and a 4 allele in a mixture, you can't be sure whether the 1.2 is there. I just want you to assume that.
DR. WEIR: Is the sum evidence that I should assume that from these two reports?
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, I'm just asking you to assume that. Would you assume that for the next question I'm about to ask you?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Improper hypothetical at this point.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Can you assume that, sir?
DR. WEIR: Oh, I can assume anything. I don't think it's going to impact my analysis.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, if you assume for the moment that whenever you have the 1.1 allele and the 4 allele present in this hypothetical, that you don't know whether the 1.2 allele is present, in that hypothetical, if you then calculated the frequencies for the mixtures on the steering wheel, would you arrive at frequencies that are more common than those frequencies that you arrived at either in your Friday calculations or in your Monday morning calculations?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. No foundation. Also assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: The way you've described this hypothetical sounds to me like the situation we've already discussed, the 1.1--excuse me--1.3 and 4.
MR. NEUFELD: That's correct.
DR. WEIR: If that's the facts, and I have no knowledge one way or the other, if that was the case, and that was ignored, then that would affect the results, certainly.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, would that also affect the results in such a way that your calculations on the steering wheel would again be statistically biased against Mr. Simpson?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: It's argumentative. It's argumentative. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, sir, that if that condition in the hypothetical was correct, then the statistics that you've articulated to this jury both last week and this morning would incorrectly state the frequencies in such a way as to make them seem more rare than they really are?
DR. WEIR: Yes. That's true.
MR. NEUFELD: Ask that this be marked--we're 12--1215, which is the amplitype users guide.
THE COURT: 1215.
(Deft's 1215 for id = amplitype users guide)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
MR. NEUFELD: Doctor--
MR. CLARKE: I do have an objection as to foundation.
THE COURT: All right. Well, you can show it to him, see if he knows what it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: I want you to take a look at this page. It begins here and ends here, okay. This and then this table (Indicating).
(Brief pause.)
DR. WEIR: I've read this.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, having read that document, okay, sir, would you agree that apparently, given the construction of this DQ-Alpha test--
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, I'm sorry. Objection. Beyond the scope of this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, have you ever--before you did any calculations in this case, you said that you spoke to Gary Sims and you attempted to learn the limitations of this system; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes. I've asked them to confirm that the results on the charts are accurate, and he confirmed that they were. I've not seen this document before.
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, may the record reflect that the witness is referring to the exhibit?
THE COURT: 1215. Yes.
DR. WEIR: Excuse me.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, plain and simple, wouldn't you agree that you've also made another mistake on your calculations for item 29?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Argumentative. Also asked and answered.
THE COURT: Argumentative. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, as you sit here today at this moment on the witness stand, did you make a mistake in your calculations for item 29?
DR. WEIR: No, I didn't. This is the first time I've seen this document, and it says here apparent heterozygous, type 1.1 and 4. If we see that "Apparent," meaning that's what we see, that apparent type may have a 1.2. The evidence presented to me quite clearly states a 1.1, 1.2, 4 mixture. It does not show a 1.1, 4 mixture.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, before you did your calculations in this case, had you ever even looked at a DQ-Alpha strip?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: Also beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I have not looked at a DQ-Alpha strip at all ever. As I've said repeatedly, my analysis starts with what the forensic scientists tell me in general and in particular what's written on these charts.
MR. NEUFELD: But, sir, don't you think it's important as a statistician that's relying on someone else's data, that you first learn what the limitations of that system is in terms of ambiguities?
DR. WEIR: I don't have enough time to learn all of the molecular biology. I must analyze data presented to me. If a reputable forensic scientist says this is the data, that's what I analyze. I can't do everything. I've been very careful I hope to explain I'm not a molecular biologist. I must rely on what's told to me.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, wouldn't you agree that at least in the hypothetical that I gave, if in fact when you have a 1.1 allele and a 4 allele present in a mixture, if in fact you can't tell whether the 1.2 is there or not, if that was true in the hypothetical, wouldn't that mean that your statistical frequencies for item 29 understate the true frequency of that profile?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. No foundation at this point.
MR. NEUFELD: It's a hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: And also beyond the scene of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: The hypothetical as you've described is not consistent with what I have in front of me.
MR. NEUFELD: But is--the hypothetical as I've described it to you, sir, would mean that your frequencies once again would be in error, correct?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the hypothetical as I've explained it to you would mean once again that your frequencies understate--
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, accepting the hypothetical as I've given to you, wouldn't that mean--I'm sorry--would that mean that the frequencies of occurrence would be more common than those that you testified to previously?
MR. CLARKE: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled. I assume this is the last time we're going to ask this.
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
DR. WEIR: My results, which I believe are correct, are based on the assumptions of the data being as it is. I have been very careful. I've given you the answer for the profile in front of me. That is not the answer for a profile not in front of me.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, please, all I am asking you is that you answer the question. If in fact--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, your Honor. Move to strike counsel's comments.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: If in fact the condition I put into the hypothetical is correct, would you agree that the frequencies that you've testified to here for item 29 are in fact less common than what they actually would be?
DR. WEIR: If I calculated frequencies under one assumption when the other one was true, then I would be misstating them, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. Now, the methods that you employed in this case in calculating the frequencies of these mixtures, have you ever testified to those methods in any other criminal case involving DNA evidence before this one?
DR. WEIR: No, I haven't.
MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, Dr. Weir, has any other expert in the United States ever used your approach that you used with this jury to calculate the frequencies in a mixture in a forensic DNA case?
DR. WEIR: I believe Dr. Stoney in Chicago uses these calculations. I don't--I'm not sure whether he's testified. He's certainly written about them. He is the scientist in this country and there are scientists outside of this country who use that method.
MR. NEUFELD: Once again, sir, to your knowledge, has anybody, any expert anywhere in the United States of America ever testified in a court of law in a criminal case applying the methods to calculating mixture frequencies that you've testified to in this case?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I think whether I know it or not doesn't--is not really the point. I don't know--
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I would ask the witness be instructed to answer the question.
THE COURT: Yes. Dr. Weir, are you aware of any such testimony?
DR. WEIR: I'm not aware of any, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you said that the California Department of Justice relies on the FBI database for its RFLP numbers; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's true.
MR. NEUFELD: And you've said you've consulted the FBI since 1989?
DR. WEIR: That's true.
MR. NEUFELD: And you've also been consulting to Cellmark since about the same time on their statistical methods and their databases; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: At about the same time, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you testified that you reviewed--at the conclusion of your direct testimony, that you reviewed the statistical work done by both DOJ and Cellmark in this case; isn't that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And you said after your review of that data, it meets with your approval; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: I'm not sure if I said those words, but I think the estimates they gave are good estimates. They follow naturally from the databases they use, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, when you reviewed Cellmark's work in this case, were you as careful in your evaluation and assessment of their work as you were of your own work in this case?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Dr. Weir, were you more careful with your evaluation of the FBI's statistical work and DOJ's statistical work in this case than you were with your own statistical work in this case?
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: Would a brief break be possible to bring something up with the Court?
THE COURT: Bring something up with the Court?
MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry. No. To bring a matter before the Court's attention for resolution.
THE COURT: With the court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at sidebar. Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: The only item I wanted to bring up, in our view, as a result of this questioning recently, the last few minutes about the witness' awareness or the witness' personal involvement in providing frequencies for mixtures, that that opens up the fact that we were directed by the Court to provide frequencies. Otherwise, the jury is left with a misleading impression that, well, this is the first time this has come up. The answer is, we were ordered to do that by this Court. So I wanted to bring that to the Court's attention. But I think at this point, that's relevant and admissible.
MR. NEUFELD: I have no problem with that.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: As long as it's done--you know, could we just have ground rules how the question is going to be framed so it's not a leading question and so it's done--
THE COURT: Well, he--the only way to get a straight answer here is to ask a leading question because if I were you--you know, in this context, if I were you, I would let Mr. Clarke lead him into this.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you tell me what the question is now so--so I--just let me know what the question is now.
MR. CLARKE: Could I have just a moment?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. NEUFELD: That's all.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. CLARKE: Pursuant--as a result of a Defense request in this case, the Court ordered that--
THE COURT: After a hearing. After a hearing in this matter, you were directed by the Court--
MR. CLARKE: Well, I think it really puts it in an overall accurate picture to describe what happened here.
THE COURT: You can say after a hearing, you were ordered by the Court to provide--
MR. CLARKE: The problem is, that doesn't describe it accurately. It makes it seem as though this witness in the past should have been doing this type of calculation when in reality, it was the witness' testimony that, "No, I haven't done these calculations before because we don't feel it's appropriate to do it that way."
THE COURT: You can ask him that question. Ask him, "Why you don't think it's appropriate," and ask him, "Were you ordered by the Court to do this?" "Yes." "Why don't you think it's appropriate?" "X, Y and Z." "Thank you," and sit down.
MR. CLARKE: Well, I do have some other questions.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Clarke. Thank you, counsel.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may commence redirect examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKE
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir, with regard to your describing the approximate frequencies for mixtures that you just spoke about with Mr. Neufeld a few moments ago--
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: --what's your opinion about whether or not such frequencies should be placed on mixed samples?
DR. WEIR: I think they're totally misleading. They completely ignore the fact that there is a mixture. We are trying to interpret the evidence of a matching stain in a mixture. Not to take into account that it is a mixture I think is misleading.
MR. CLARKE: Okay.
THE COURT: Doctor, why don't you pull the microphone all the way to you.
DR. WEIR: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. CLARKE: In particular--and let's set aside for the moment the way Mr. Neufeld asked you or had you calculate frequencies for some of these mixtures. Aside from that, what about applying the frequency to mixtures at all? How do you feel about that?
DR. WEIR: Well, it is useful to--we have the--the evidence is that there's a mixed stain and the profile in the mixture matches that of known people, and it may be sufficient to stop there in saying that there's a match for failure to exclude those people. But it is useful to say if this is an astonishing event or not and it gives us some sense of whether we should be surprised to see such a mixture.
MR. CLARKE: Now, you've described the fact that you had previously not testified in any other case to these approximate frequencies for mixtures; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: In this particular case, were you asked to calculate frequencies for the mixtures in these results?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Yes, I was--believed I was asked late in may to do that.
MR. CLARKE: Who were you asked by?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. CLARKE: Were you in fact--well, let me rephrase that. Did you in fact calculate these frequencies for these mixtures--and I'm talking about now the stains that have more than one source so that we're clear about which samples we're talking about.
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. CLARKE: Were you in fact asked to calculate mixtures for those frequencies as a result of a direct order of the Court?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I understand I was.
MR. CLARKE: Have you been previously asked by any courts or ordered by any courts to present frequencies for mixtures in any other case you've been involved in?
DR. WEIR: No. I've never been involved in a case in which there were mixed stains.
MR. CLARKE: Now, I'd like to take you, Dr. Weir, if I could, to--
MR. CLARKE: And, your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would like to use the glove results board for a moment. For the record, your Honor, that's exhibit 272-B.
THE COURT: 272-B, glove results board.
MR. CLARKE: And in particular, if I can draw your attention, Dr. Weir--and I don't know if you can see it--but there is at the very top--
DR. WEIR: Excuse me. May I refer to my copy? It will be a little bit easier.
MR. CLARKE: Yes. You're referring to one of those smaller Xerox copies--
DR. WEIR: Yes, if that's convenient.
MR. CLARKE: --of the glove results chart?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: In particular, at the very top is an item described on the chart as "Inside back of wrist and back below little finger." Do you see that?
DR. WEIR: That's right, yes.
MR. CLARKE: To your knowledge, is that the only mixture that you were asked to calculate a frequency for that came about as a result of testing by the Los Angeles Police Department?
DR. WEIR: Yes. And that's indirect knowledge. I think it was you who brought that to my attention.
MR. CLARKE: Yes. And when were you actually--well, were you--I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. Were you asked by me to calculate a frequency as to that particular sample?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I was.
MR. CLARKE: When did I ask you to do that?
DR. WEIR: I think it was Wednesday evening of last week.
MR. CLARKE: Would that be the night before your initial testimony in this case?
DR. WEIR: That's right. I'm not sure if it was Wednesday or Thursday. It was one of those two nights.
MR. CLARKE: Is that--well, let me rephrase that. Is that the only sample that you were asked to calculate a mixture frequency for from the LAPD?
DR. WEIR: Yes, it is.
MR. CLARKE: Now, I would like to turn your attention to--
MR. CLARKE: With the Court's permission, I would like to put up the Bronco automobile result board.
(Brief pause.)
MR. CLARKE: Exhibit 260, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. 260, Bronco results board.
MR. CLARKE: And referring you--first of all, Dr. Weir, do you have a smaller version of the Bronco results board also?
DR. WEIR: Yes. I have it in front of me.
MR. CLARKE: In particular, I'd like to refer your attention to item no. 31 labeled the center console. Do you see that?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I do.
MR. CLARKE: You have described previously that you have reported frequencies for that mixture based on the 1.2 allele being actually present; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: You described both I believe last week as well as earlier today that you, when you calculate your frequencies, calculate those numbers based on the types that the analyst reports as being present.
DR. WEIR: That's right, yes.
MR. CLARKE: In that particular sample--and let's start with the results board--does that result in fact indicate the 1.2 is present?
DR. WEIR: Yes, it does. It has--does not have the word "Possible" or any other descriptive there. It's quite clearly there just by itself.
MR. CLARKE: Did you take any steps to verify the presence of that 1.2 allele by any conversation or communication with any testing analyst?
DR. WEIR: Well, I noticed that it was different from other instances where the 1.2 was written with "Possible." So I checked with Gary Sims.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what Mr. Sims said.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: You may continue.
DR. WEIR: I checked with Mr. Gary Sims.
THE COURT: All right. He checked with Mr. Sims period. Next question.
MR. CLARKE: As a result of that conversation, did you then--well, let me rephrase that a little differently. As a result of that conversation, did it verify in your mind the presence of the 1.2 allele in that sample?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Assumes hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I had no doubt in my mind that Mr. Sims thought that 1.2 was there.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection to what Mr. Sims thought. Strike that answer.
THE COURT: That will be stricken.
MR. CLARKE: What I'm actually referring you to, if I may, Dr. Weir, as a result of that conversation, did you then calculate--or actually let me rephrase that. Did it verify in your mind that your previous calculation was appropriate?
DR. WEIR: Yes, it did.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. CLARKE: Is it then correct that with regard to item no. 31 and the frequencies that are written off to the far right, which are for both two contributors, three contributors and four contributors, are then accurate?
DR. WEIR: Well, they haven't changed since Friday. So I have in my--well, maybe I should look and see what's there.
MR. CLARKE: All right. If you would in this instance.
DR. WEIR: These seem to be consistent with what we said on Friday. These results haven't changed.
MR. CLARKE: In other words, there was no need in your opinion to change any of the numbers on item no. 31 based on your conversation with Gary Sims as well as the data that had been presented to you before?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. Vague as to conversation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Now, I'd like to turn your attention, Dr. Weir, if I could to item no. 29. Do you recall Mr. Neufeld asking you some questions towards the end or very end of his cross-examination?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I recall that.
MR. CLARKE: And in particular, do you recall questions he asked you about whether or not the 1.2 allele in the sample no. 29--and I'm referring to the DQ-Alpha results--may or may not have been present? Do you recall that question?
DR. WEIR: Yes. He was asking me that.
MR. CLARKE: Now, with regard to that sample--and let's refer to the chart itself--there are actually results on item no. 29 at the DQ-Alpha marker from two different laboratories; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right. Both DOJ and Cellmark have results.
MR. CLARKE: Let's focus initially on the Department of Justice's results. That's the upper most of the two laboratories that are listed to the right of item 29?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Those results, do they make any statement about whether or not the 1.2 allele is present?
DR. WEIR: No. It's just listed without any descriptor.
MR. CLARKE: There's no language like "Possible"?
DR. WEIR: No.
MR. CLARKE: Referring you to Cellmark's results as well on that same item, is there any qualifier about the presence of the 1.2 allele for item no. 29?
DR. WEIR: No, there's not.
MR. CLARKE: I'd like you to assume hypothetically that the analyst testified in this case that with regard to item 29, the 1.2 allele is present based on their interpretation of the data. Would your frequencies under that hypothetical that you have listed off to the right--
MR. CLARKE: Well, let me rephrase that if I may, your Honor. I'm sorry.
MR. CLARKE: Have you made a recalculation of a portion of item no. 29 as far as the frequencies themselves?
DR. WEIR: A small portion of them, I have, yes.
MR. CLARKE: Okay. What does that relate to?
DR. WEIR: That's a different issue. It's--are we allowed to multiply together all the numbers in the profile, and there's a hint of some dependence in one of the FBI's databases, their black database. So for any calculation involving black database, I--oh, I'm answering too much. That refers to the polymarker. Excuse me. The DQ-Alpha I did not change. I'm sorry.
MR. CLARKE: Okay. That's what I'd like to focus your attention on--
DR. WEIR: Excuse me.
MR. CLARKE: --is--at the moment, the DQ-Alpha results.
DR. WEIR: Thank you. So I have not changed the DQ-Alpha.
MR. CLARKE: In your view, as a result--and again, assuming hypothetically that both analysts testified to the presence of the 1.2 allele, is there any reason that you should assume it is not present?
DR. WEIR: No.
MR. CLARKE: Now, your Honor, what I'm going to ask the witness to do is, with respect to certain calculations, we have prepared numbers in accordance with the recalculations already described by the witness, and I have magnetic boards that I would like to use with numbers already written on them.
THE COURT: Proceed. Have you shown these to Mr. Neufeld?
MR. CLARKE: No, I have not.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Clarke, why don't you start with the ones Mr. Neufeld already has had a chance to look at.
MR. CLARKE: First of all, with a number of these mixtures that you described earlier today, have you had an opportunity to recalculate them over the weekend?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I have.
MR. CLARKE: First of all, with regard to--and let's start initially with items 303, 304 and 305 that are from the center console of the Bronco.
DR. WEIR: Fine.
MR. CLARKE: Those all actually in your initial or original testimony about frequencies under these various possible combinations, those numbers were the same for all three of those items; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right and they'll remain so. The profiles are the same.
MR. CLARKE: As far as the calculations you described in your testimony last week, did you commit an error in making those calculations?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I did.
MR. CLARKE: Do you know how to calculate them properly?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I do. That's what makes me so angry with myself.
MR. CLARKE: Is it the case that what you left out was the assumption that the 1.2 allele for these three samples might not be there?
DR. WEIR: As it turned out, that was--I thought I was doing it correctly, but the way I had written--my computer program did not fill that in properly. I thought it had and it hadn't.
MR. CLARKE: The effect of assuming that the 1.2 allele may not be there, how did that impact your calculations? If you can describe that in a simple fashion.
DR. WEIR: Well, the profiles all appeared to be more common than I had reported on Friday.
MR. CLARKE: Did you leave out this possibility on purpose?
DR. WEIR: No, sir. I left it out for all the profiles that involved the 1.3 and the 4. Every time I should have made this accommodation, I failed to.
MR. CLARKE: Did you try to hide it when it was pointed out to you?
DR. WEIR: It was so obvious, there was no way. In fact, I--I've pointed out now that I did additional items.
MR. CLARKE: If outside of court Mr. Neufeld had pointed it out to you, that it was missing, would you have corrected it then?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. Calls for speculation.
MR. CLARKE: Would you have included it if anyone had pointed out to you that it was missing?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. Speculation.
MR. CLARKE: Would you have included it if you yourself had discovered it missing in reading your report?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Again, it's speculative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Absolutely. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Have you since last week made that calculation or those calculations for these three samples, 303, 304 and 305?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I have.
MR. CLARKE: Have you also made those calculations for a few other samples that the same occurrence happened in?
DR. WEIR: That's right. I have.
MR. CLARKE: Now, referring you, if I can, to what appear to be three magnetic covers labeled 303, 304 and 305. Those appear to have numbers written in the same manner as what's currently on the Bronco results chart for the possibility of two contributors, three contributors and four contributors; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: And do those three magnetic covers for items 303 through 305, do they appear to have the corrected numbers accounting for the possibility that the 1.2 allele was not present?
DR. WEIR: Yes, they do.
MR. CLARKE: All right.
MR. CLARKE: With the Court's permission then, I'd like to apply those to the board bearing in mind they can be removed because they're magnetic.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. CLARKE: Now, Dr. Weir, what I'm going to ask you to do is, as far as both the old and the new calculations for--and let's just take 303. Do you have each of those numbers in front of you so that you don't have to try to read the board from an angle?
DR. WEIR: I have one. Let me get the other one.
(Brief pause.)
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: Now, the original numbers reported--and I'll use 303--for the assumption of two contributors in the mixture was 1 in 1,400 as the most common; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: And the new approximate frequency is 1 in 570; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: How would you characterize that difference between those two?
DR. WEIR: Well, they're different numbers obviously. One's about little over twice the size of the other one. They both convey the impression that the profile is not especially rare. It's--I don't know if you have to have a particular good--I don't have a particularly good word to describe it, but it has the frequency in either the hundreds or the low thousands, whichever way we go.
MR. CLARKE: Okay. The least common for two contributors is 1 in 18,000; is that right? And I'm referring to the frequencies you provided in Court last week.
DR. WEIR: The old figures are 18,000, yes.
MR. CLARKE: And is the new figure at the upper range, that is the least common, approximately 1 in 10,000?
DR. WEIR: That's right, yes.
MR. CLARKE: Would your comments about the difference between 18,000 and 10,000 be consistent with what you just described about the difference at the most common number?
DR. WEIR: Yes. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Now, I'd like to turn your attention, if I could, to three contributors.
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. CLARKE: And when you comment about 303, your comments, do they not, apply equally to 304 and 305 as well?
DR. WEIR: That's right. It's the same profile and the same numbers are going to apply.
MR. CLARKE: Now, first of all, in terms of the actual results of the DNA tests themselves, there are three individuals in this case who are not excluded from the actual tests themselves on 303, 304 and 305; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: In other words, Mr. Simpson is not excluded?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Goldman is not excluded?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: And Nicole Brown is not excluded?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: The original frequencies that you reported for the assumption of three contributors last week, the more common number or most common was about 1 in 450; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: You have recalculated, and that new number, instead of 1 in 450, is approximately what for three contributors?
DR. WEIR: It's 1 in 320.
MR. CLARKE: How would you characterize the difference between 450 and 320?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. I would ask that if he do it mathematically, that I would not allow him to give opinions because the frequencies speak for themselves.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Well, the numbers are different. They differ by 150. That's less than a factor of two. I don't think that--I think both the numbers are conveying the same sense of the frequency of this mixture of three genotypes.
MR. CLARKE: The original number--and we'll look now at the upper end, that is the least common frequency--
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. CLARKE: --for three contributors again, appears to read 1 in 29,000 from last week; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: The new figure is 1 in 25,000; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Again, how would you characterize the differences between 29,000 and 25,000?
MR. NEUFELD: Again, your Honor, objection. Beyond his expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: It's difficult to say that they would give us a different impression. They are both saying the same thing. This mixture would occur with the frequency in the thousands.
MR. CLARKE: And then lastly, on the assumption of four contributors, the range--and perhaps we can do this a little quicker--the range that you provided us last week for the assumption again of four persons contributing to that mixture was between approximately 1 in 49 to 1 in 69,000; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: And the new figures provided today are between 1 in 41 to 1 in 65,000; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Would your comments about the differences between your original numbers and the numbers today that you described for two and three contributors be consistent with four also?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Now, while we're on the results from the Bronco, if we could, have you also prepared a magnetic cover reflecting what should be or what are the approximate frequencies for two, three and four contributors for the steering wheel, item no. 29?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I have.
MR. CLARKE: And showing you a new magnetic cover, would you take a moment to look at those and tell us if those are in fact accurate estimates?
DR. WEIR: Yes. These are the numbers I've calculated.
MR. CLARKE: And as far as the original number for two contributors, that was from 1 in 60 to 1 in 11,000; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: And the proper estimates would be from approximately 1 in 26 to 1 in 11,000?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: As far as assuming three contributors, the original estimate was 1 in 9 to 1 in 3500?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: And the new one is 1 in 2 to 1 in 3500?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: And then lastly, the old or former estimate was 1 in 1 to 1 in 3,000, and now it is 1 in 1 to 1 in 1300 approximately; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: And, your Honor, with the Court's permission, I'm going to place the 29 cover--
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
MR. CLARKE: --on the board.
MR. CLARKE: As far as these estimates, Dr. Weir, that you provided last week and in some cases provided additional numbers for those samples this week, do those apply only to the mixed samples in this case?
DR. WEIR: Oh, yes. These changes were only for the mixtures.
MR. CLARKE: So in other words, your comments today about different numbers from the same item number have nothing to do with the estimates calculated by the laboratories for stains from one source?
DR. WEIR: That's correct.
MR. CLARKE: Now, I'm going to return to the glove board, if I may again, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. CLARKE: And referring you, if I can, Dr. Weir, to that portion of the glove labeled area G10, do you recall that?
DR. WEIR: All right. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: As far as your calculations last week, was this another example where you did not consider the possibility that the 1.2 allele on that sample may not be present?
DR. WEIR: That's right. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Did you perform a recalculation similarly to that that you did with items 303, 304, 305?
DR. WEIR: I did.
MR. CLARKE: Showing you what's been labeled G10--
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. CLARKE: --and what appear to be frequencies or estimates for either two contributors or three contributors, do those estimates reflect the calculations you've performed over the weekend?
DR. WEIR: Yes, they do.
MR. CLARKE: Now, the original numbers on 310--I'm sorry--area G10 on People's exhibit 272-B were from 1 in 3900 to 1 in 19,000?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Assuming two contributors?
DR. WEIR: Yes. Uh-huh.
MR. CLARKE: And the new numbers are 1 in 1600 to 1 in 11,000; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Assuming three contributors, the most common number went from 1 in 4600 last week to 1 in 3200 today?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: And as to the rarest frequency, initially, it was 1--approximately 1 in 71,000, which is now approximately 1 in 63,000?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Can you describe for us--or how would you characterize those differences again?
DR. WEIR: Well, they're real. They're obviously different numbers. I don't think how--I don't think we get a different impression of their frequencies. They both have--both tell us the frequencies are in the hundreds to thousands.
MR. CLARKE: All right, your Honor. I'm going to place the G10 marker on 272-B.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Now, turning, if I can, to the glove. And I'm referring back to the first sample, that tested by the Los Angeles Police Department. In other words, what's listed as the first actual item on this chart. Do you understand which one I'm referring to?
DR. WEIR: Yes. It doesn't have an item number, but it's the first row on the chart.
MR. CLARKE: In other words, we can't refer to it as G1, G2 or G anything.
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: It's simply the first listed item for LA item no. 9.
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Did you also calculate frequencies for that particular sample as well?
DR. WEIR: I did.
MR. CLARKE: And showing you what's listed as another cover--rather on which is listed frequencies for two or three contributors, do those appear to be accurate?
DR. WEIR: Yes, they do.
MR. CLARKE: Perhaps you can tell us--if I just ask you to describe, can you tell us the difference between those numbers and what is currently listed on the board from your testimony last week?
DR. WEIR: Why don't I just read from the board? 1 in 30 to 1 in 190. Do I give the new figure?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
DR. WEIR: So the 1 in 30 becomes a 14 and the 1 in 90 becomes a 60. The three contributors, the 1 in 6 becomes 1 in 4. The 1 in 90 becomes 1 in 180.
MR. CLARKE: All right. With the Court's permission, I'll apply this cover.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: And now if we can deal with one in a set of three again, with regard to G1, G2 and G4, those three samples contain the same set of types as far as the PCR results; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Yes. They have the same profile. So they'll have the same numbers.
MR. CLARKE: So like 303, 304 and 305, can we deal with them all as one?
DR. WEIR: Yes, sir.
MR. CLARKE: Okay. Showing you covers for G1, G2 and G4, could you take a moment to look at those three.
(Witness complies.)
DR. WEIR: Yes. They're all accurate.
MR. CLARKE: Now, these recalculations were--
DR. WEIR: Excuse me. That's G1, G2 and G4?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
DR. WEIR: That's right. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: These recalculations were made as a result of your discovery of what that impacted the frequencies or the estimates you provided last week?
DR. WEIR: This is the same phenomena. This is the failure to account properly for the DQ-Alpha type.
MR. CLARKE: All right. Then let's go right to and let's just use G1 as our example.
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. CLARKE: Can you describe for us--and let's turn to the original estimates for these mixtures on G1 or this mixture. Your original estimate for two contributors was approximately 1 in 600 to 1 in 11,000; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: And is it correct that for that same assumption of two contributors, the estimate is 1 in 240 to 1 in 6300?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: As far as three contributors, your initial estimate was approximately 1 in 400 to 1 in 36,000?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: And would the new estimate for three contributors be 1 in 280 to 1 in 32,000?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: As far as the differences between these numbers and those described by you last week, would your comments that you made earlier be the same or apply here as well?
DR. WEIR: Yes, they would.
MR. CLARKE: And, your Honor, with the Court's permission, I'm going to put the cover on each of G1, G2 and G4, but only the PCR portion.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir, incidentally, as far as these magnetic covers, they can be removed to see what's underneath them; is that right?
DR. WEIR: I understand so, yes.
MR. CLARKE: Okay. And in fact, it does appear that I'm able to remove them and put them back. Turning your attention now to G3 and G9, do those two samples also go together as far as calculating these approximate frequencies for PCR mixtures as to those samples?
DR. WEIR: Yes, they do. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. CLARKE: Let's start with G3.
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. CLARKE: Your initial calculation on G3 was approximately 1 in 3900 to 1 in 22,000 for two contributors?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry.
DR. WEIR: Excuse me. I just said yes. Uh-huh.
MR. CLARKE: And the frequencies that you have provided today, instead of 1 in 3900, the more common would be or most common, approximately 1 in 1600?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: And as far as the initial calculation for the high end, assuming two contributors--
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: --was originally 1 in 22,000?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: And is that now approximately 1 in 12,000?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Turning to three contributors, that range as far as G3 again was originally from 9,000 to 150,000?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: And now that range is approximately 6500 to 229,000?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: With the Court's permission, I'm going to cover again the PCR portion of G3.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. CLARKE: And lastly, as to the glove, Dr. Weir, showing you what's labeled G9, these are supposed to be the same numbers as G3; is that right?
DR. WEIR: They should be, yes.
MR. CLARKE: One of those numbers looks like it's actually been smudged; is that right?
DR. WEIR: It does.
MR. CLARKE: Can you tell us what that number should be?
DR. WEIR: The number should be the same as the G3, 1 in 229,000.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. CLARKE: Perhaps I can take a red pen and make that clearer, but that--
DR. WEIR: 229,000.
MR. CLARKE: So that with regard to G9, these would be the same ranges as G3; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right. That should be the same, yes.
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, I would like to put this cover on G9 as well.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Now, using this example, before I put the cover on, Dr. Weir, it appears, for instance, that with regard to the assumption of three contributors, the calculations that you've made and described just now in court, that the upper range is even rarer than the original range that you provided for three contributors on this sample; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Yes. It's just more difficult to arrive at that--that range. It's a little difficult to make general statements about how the numbers will come out, but it's a rare event when I do it properly.
MR. CLARKE: So, in other words, it's not necessarily the case at all that when you make your calculations based on the assumption the 1.2 allele may not be present, that in fact the range may show us that it's something that's even a rarer event?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Misstates the evidence, only the upper range.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. CLARKE: Is it the case, Dr. Weir, that when you perform your recalculations, at least one of the ends of the range may be rarer than you calculated it last week?
DR. WEIR: Yes. Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. CLARKE: And lastly, your Honor, I'd like to refer to--as far as these mixtures, to the Bundy results board.
THE COURT: Yes. Is this 78?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir, referring you to item no. 78, and in particular, the PCR portion of the frequencies off to the right of that particular item?
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. CLARKE: That's the drop from Ronald Goldman's boot; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. CLARKE: Did you also recalculate the possible range or estimates for the range of the characteristics from that particular item based on the PCR markers only?
DR. WEIR: I did.
MR. CLARKE: And have you calculated those and are they accurately reflected on another magnetic cover labeled item no. 78, PCR?
DR. WEIR: Yes. This is accurate.
MR. CLARKE: Could you tell us the original range and that reflected on the magnetic cover as well?
DR. WEIR: Let me read from the board. So 78, the--we had the hundred--the 1--looks like--your writing is worse than mine, Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: It does appear bad.
DR. WEIR: Looks like 1 in 285 to 120,000. That becomes 1 in 110 to 1 in 16,000. So three contributors, 1 in 60 to 1 in 490,000 becomes 1 in 42 to 1 in 44,000.
MR. CLARKE: Could you verify in your calculations--can you tell us whether the old number for two contributors was 1 in 285?
DR. WEIR: You'd just have to give me a minute. That sounds right. I need to check. Item 78 was--yes, the lower end was 1 in 285. 285.
MR. CLARKE: So it's 285?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: And the new number is what?
DR. WEIR: 110.
MR. CLARKE: And as far as the three contributors, what would be the most common? In other words, if you could tell us the old and the new number as far as three contributors in the most common end of the range.
DR. WEIR: The old number was 1 in 61 to 1 in 490,000 and now it's 1 in 42 to 1 in 44,000.
MR. CLARKE: All right. And, your Honor, I would like to put that cover on the board also.
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir, could you describe for us approximately how many calculations you've had to do in this case? And I'm referring to--and I'm having you, if you would, set aside recalculations. Just the calculations you did initially?
DR. WEIR: Just on the mixtures?
MR. CLARKE: Everything.
DR. WEIR: Everything. I don't think so. There are many, many items of evidence on these charts. Many of them have multiple loci, and I've done a lot of things with them. So certainly several hundred calculations.
MR. CLARKE: As far as these frequencies that you have recalculated, those involve mixtures alone; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: In terms of these frequencies on the mixtures and on the current board, the Bundy board, item no. 78 appears to be the only mixture; is that right?
DR. WEIR: I think that's right, yes.
MR. CLARKE: As far as those frequencies are concerned, do they take into account in any manner any of the known types of either Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman?
DR. WEIR: No, they don't. None of the calculations I do take into account the included people.
MR. CLARKE: What does that mean? Can you describe what you mean by that?
DR. WEIR: Well, we have--we have an item of evidence and a DNA profile which matches some known people. And we set that aside. We say there's a match. Well, I mean, the investigation proceeds because there is a match. Having the match--once the match has been declared, that is set aside for all these calculations, and then we say where we have this profile, how likely is that profile if there were unknown contributors, people we don't know anything about. So all these numbers refer to the unknown people.
MR. CLARKE: So, in other words, your frequencies for all of these mixtures are calculated without regard to whoever they may or may not be consistent with in this case?
DR. WEIR: That's right. Yes.
MR. CLARKE: As far as your recalculation--well, I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. These calculations, not taking into account any of these known people, is that different in any way from the calculations done for a single source stain; for instance, anything but 78 on this Bundy results board?
DR. WEIR: No. The single stains are just the same. If there's a single stain, it has a profile which matches a single person. That person is set aside, the calculation is done to get the chance of getting that profile typed if there was an unknown contributor.
MR. CLARKE: And again, going back to the mixtures then, for example, on just the PCR results alone on item no. 78, when you say that if there are two contributors, the frequency is approximately 110 to 16,000, that's just looking at two contributors at random on the entire planet?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, I was going to shift topics. Is the Court going to take a recess?
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a brief recess at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We'll be in recess for about 15 minutes. All right. Dr. Weir, you may step down.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we ask the jurors to rejoin us?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Could I see the cup again?
THE COURT: No. You don't really want to see this. One of my father's day presents.
MS. CLARK: It's beautiful.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: That's all.
THE COURT: That's it? All right. Let's have the jurors, please. Mr. Douglas.
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I was just given at the break 33 pages of notes including perhaps 28 pages of handwritten notes by Miss Susan Brockbank and a five-page report. Messers Blasier and Bailey are in the back reviewing the documents, but expressed some amount of concern at the process of having to cross-examine a witness today upon receiving rough notes from that witness only this afternoon.
THE COURT: Well, why don't we take that up as soon as we conclude Dr. Weir, assuming we are going to conclude Dr. Weir this afternoon.
MR. DOUGLAS: Very well.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Clarke, do you have much more?
MR. CLARKE: No.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Dr. Weir, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir, while we're on item no. 78, if I could ask you just one or two more questions.
DR. WEIR: All right.
MR. CLARKE: There were also estimates made by you of frequencies for this mixture based on the RFLP results; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Yes, that's right.
MR. CLARKE: And for two contributors, they range from 1 in 300 million to 1 in one trillion approximately; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Yes. Uh-huh.
MR. CLARKE: And for three contributors, from approximately 1 in one million to 1 in 300 million; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: The fact that you made changes or recalculations, as to the PCR estimated frequencies, do those have any effect whatsoever on the RFLP estimates?
DR. WEIR: No, they don't.
MR. CLARKE: Now, I'd like to refer you, if I could, to one of the Defense exhibits, and I believe it's exhibit 1208, the drawing that Mr. Neufeld did about mixture frequencies.
DR. WEIR: Of the chart, yes. This morning? Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Do you recall that mixture frequencies chart?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I do.
MR. CLARKE: I believe that is exhibit 1208, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir, you expressed a desire to explain one of your answers to Mr. Neufeld. What did you want to explain?
DR. WEIR: Well, I wanted to explain how to interpret a mixture. There are some mixed stains, and we would like to assign a frequency to those mixtures on the assumption they came from some people unknown to us. So we need to calculate the frequency of two or three or four people, however many people we think are likely to have contributed to the mixture. And if we don't know, we'll just give the range of answers. And I've been trying to think of an appropriate analogy, and I was thinking of maybe playing a slot machine where in order to win, we had to have three different fruits showing, a lemon, a cherry and an orange. And we will win only if the whole three different fruits show. It just has three wheels on it. So what I've calculated is the frequency of getting that set of three fruits showing, a lemon, an orange and a cherry.
MR. CLARKE: So in your example, there's only a payoff if a lemon, a cherry and an orange show up, one on each of the wheels?
DR. WEIR: That's right. The whole three have to be there. It doesn't matter on which wheel, but we've got to get the whole three. Now, before we even walk into the casino, we know it's going to be a rare event. That's the way things are stacked. Anyway, this is what we have to get to--we need to get the whole three. What Mr. Neufeld had me calculate was the frequency of getting some of them, either two of them or one of them. It depended on the circumstances. Two out of three doesn't pay. One out of three doesn't pay. I don't care how often an orange shows up. I've got to get an orange, lemon and cherry to pay off.
MR. CLARKE: Now, how does that relate to--and there's this third column on these mixtures frequencies. First of all, the first two columns relate to frequencies that you estimated last week and then testified to today; is that right?
DR. WEIR: Those first two columns, one of them is much better than the other, they give us the frequency of the set of three; in this case, set of DNA bands, and my example, the set of three fruits. What Mr. Neufeld's--what the NRC's number is the chance that any of the three show up. Now, supposing there were only three fruit on the wheel. All three are going to--and the mixture is the three-fruit mixture, the chance of getting any one of the three is a hundred percent because those are the only three possible. So in some of his examples--in the polymarker examples, he said it wouldn't exclude anybody. Well, that's right. If you spin the wheels, you're going to get something showing up. So nothing is excluded. If there are more than three fruits on the wheel, there's also bananas which we don't see, then the frequencies won't be a hundred. But the essential thing is, this is a mixture. I think everyone has agreed it's a mixture because there's more than two bands that are probed that was contributed by more than one person. The question is, how unusual is this mixed profile to have come about if there were more than one contributor. It doesn't matter how many times the cherry shows up. It's the whole three needed for payoff.
MR. CLARKE: Then what's wrong with this column labeled "NRC" where these numbers 1 in 4, 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 2 are written?
DR. WEIR: It doesn't give us the frequency of the evidence. The frequency of the evidence, if there were two people unknown to us or if there were three or if there were four, that's what we have to calculate. It's the frequency of the evidence.
MR. CLARKE: And in your view, is that third column a scientifically appropriate way of describing the relevant frequencies of these mixtures?
DR. WEIR: No, it's not.
MR. CLARKE: Incidentally, is there any relation between proficiency tests and whether a mistake was made in this case?
DR. WEIR: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: No, there's not.
MR. CLARKE: Do either proficiency tests or whether a mistake was made in this case affect your calculations at all?
DR. WEIR: No, they do not.
MR. CLARKE: Now, you described, Dr. Weir, the fact that--and you expressed some reservations about being a witness for a criminal defendant. Do you recall that?
DR. WEIR: Yes. There was some conversation, yes.
MR. CLARKE: Are you biased against criminal defendants?
DR. WEIR: No, I'm not.
MR. CLARKE: Are you biased against this Defendant in this case?
DR. WEIR: No, I'm not.
MR. CLARKE: Are you biased against any criminal defendant?
DR. WEIR: No, I'm not.
MR. CLARKE: Are you biased against any attorney on this case on either side?
DR. WEIR: No, sir. No, sir.
MR. CLARKE: As far as your testifying, is that because your university has a contract with one of the laboratories in this case?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: No. I'm here as a private citizen.
MR. CLARKE: Why did you agree to testify in this case?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I'm very concerned that the statistical interpretation of DNA evidence is done correctly. I've been very angry over the last four years at some of the statements made in courts about the statistics attached to DNA profiles. I am very anxious that they be done correctly and I am therefore willing to testify when possible.
MR. CLARKE: If a criminal defendant wanted you to present evidence about statistics or frequencies attached to either a match or a mixture using the proper scientific manner of doing so, would you so testify for that Defendant?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Yes, I would if I had the time.
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir, how much are you being paid for your work in this case?
DR. WEIR: I'm not--
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I'm not being paid.
MR. CLARKE: How much are you being paid for your testimony in this case?
DR. WEIR: I'm not being paid for any aspect of this case.
MR. CLARKE: As far as the university is concerned, what is your status while you're out here in Los Angeles testifying?
DR. WEIR: I'm on vacation.
MR. CLARKE: Now, these numbers that are presented on these boards--and we have before you and the jury exhibit 259, the Bundy results boards. But let's take all five of the results boards into account. What are these numbers that are written up there? Are they exact numbers?
DR. WEIR: Oh, no. No. They're estimates of the frequency with which these various profiles would arise from unknown people.
MR. CLARKE: What do numbers in the millions or billions mean?
DR. WEIR: Well, there's two parts to that. They convey a very real sense how rare these profiles are. I think they're very good at doing that. But specifically, numbers in the billions are a little hard to understand. We don't have experience in having to deal with numbers in the billions. The only time we see them written down anywhere is to do with the national debt. I don't think anybody understands that. We just have these enormous numbers. They're good at saying this profile or that profile is rare, and I think when they are so rare, they're based on so many loci, I would be happy to just leave it at that.
MR. CLARKE: I would like to direct your attention or I would like to have you direct your attention to a few of the stains on this board, in particular, item no. 47.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Beyond the scope, your Honor, of cross-examination.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: And would it help you first of all to use the smaller charts that you have in front of you?
DR. WEIR: Yes, it would.
MR. CLARKE: I would like to direct your attention to items 47, 48, 49, 50, 52. First of all, amongst that group, that includes PCR results, and as to 52, RFLP results as well; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: And then lastly, 115, 116 and 117. Do you see those?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, objection. All of this is beyond the scope. None of this goes to cross.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: And 117 has RFLP results as well; is that right?
DR. WEIR: It doesn't show on my copy of the chart, but I see it is on that, yes.
MR. CLARKE: From a population genetics standpoint as well as a statistical standpoint, what do those results tell us in terms of the evidence presented on this particular board?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. No foundation and vague as well.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's vague.
MR. CLARKE: As far as those results are concerned, do those results--I'm sorry--results reveal a rare profile?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. No foundation. The numbers speak for themselves.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: Yes. But--well, especially the RFLP frequencies. When they're in the millions, that certainly indicates a rare profile.
MR. CLARKE: And as far as RFLP results, are you referring now to what would be one of the Bundy walkway stains, item no. 52, as well as the rear gate, item no. 117?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I am.
MR. CLARKE: And do those results reflect RFLP matches with any particular individual?
DR. WEIR: Mr. Simpson is not excluded from having contributed to that stain.
MR. CLARKE: What can you tell us about the meaning of that evidence in terms of--
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. As to meaning, it's not his province either.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: What can you tell us, Dr. Weir, about the meaning of those pieces of evidence referring to the RFLP matches from a statistical and population genetics standpoint?
DR. WEIR: Well, the statistics and population genetics is concerned only with determining how frequent that profile is in the general population and people other than--in some unknown person. So we--the numbers represent that frequency.
MR. CLARKE: As far as Mr. Simpson is concerned, is he an individual that's simply not excluded or is this evidence from a frequency standpoint something more powerful than that?
DR. WEIR: Well, the evidence is that it's very unlikely we would see that evidentiary profile if it came from somebody else.
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to put on the easel the Rockingham residence results board.
THE COURT: Let me see counsel with the court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at sidebar. Counsel, aren't we beyond the scope of cross-examination?
MR. CLARKE: Well, I don't think so. I think during cross-examination, there was obviously a serious attack on not only databases that were used, but also the manner in which laboratories calculated their frequencies, whether or not this witness felt it was appropriate to calculate frequencies in the manner that was done, the validity of the databases.
THE COURT: Where are you going with this?
MR. CLARKE: My intent is simply to refer to item 12, the Rockingham foyer, and in the same manner I just did, and then lastly, on the socks as to the RFLP matches with Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I never went into--at any time on cross-examination, I didn't go into any of the Rockingham stains. I didn't go into any of these Bundy stains at all. And all I said was, I questioned the databases. But he's not rehabilitating. He's just using this assumption to reemphasize all the missing numbers they have on other items of evidence, none of which I went into on cross-examination. This is all beyond the scope at this point.
MR. CLARKE: I don't think so at all when you talk about the confidence limits and their use, whether or not these laboratories--for instance, as to the databases, the Court can remember the attack that was made. This witness has compared these results with the databases obtained by both Cellmark database as well as FBI, both of which Mr. Neufeld brought out during cross-examination.
THE COURT: You're going back to rehabilitating on database on this--
MR. CLARKE: No. To demonstrate the means of these results with the witness taking into account his own calculation that he knew to describe the fact that he had made calculations during that time.
MR. NEUFELD: Judge, he was limited to challenging the source of database. I never made any attempt at all on any of these numbers other than A. and he's not questioning now on the database or the source of the database. He's simply going off into other things that came through other witnesses which I never even got into at all on cross. We never mentioned the Rockingham stains. This is total bootstrapping at this point. It really is.
MR. CLARKE: I don't think it's bootstrapping at all when an attack is made during cross-examination on this witness' ability to make comments about various pieces of evidence from a statistical standpoint. There's a clear implication that each of these pieces of evidence were being attacked. I mean yes, he didn't call them item by item, but I think when there's a general attack on these laboratories and their calculations--
THE COURT: The attack was on DQ-Alpha.
MR. CLARKE: It was also an attack on databases and how--
THE COURT: I'll allow some questioning on the databases, but that's what it's going to be restricted to.
MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry. So that--
THE COURT: That's what it's restricted to.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Weir, in terms of your analysis, you examined two databases from Cellmark; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right. The one that they used in their own reports and the subsequent one developed in 1994.
MR. CLARKE: And was that what was referred I believe last week to the `92--1992 Cellmark database as well as the 1994 Cellmark database?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: You also examined the FBI database; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes. The FBI's RFLP and PCR.
MR. CLARKE: So in your analysis of the various databases used in this case, would it be correct to say you examined three separate databases?
DR. WEIR: Well, I also examined the Cellmark PCR. So it's actually four.
MR. CLARKE: Okay. So would it be three different RFLP databases?
DR. WEIR: Yes. If we take the two Cellmark's as being different, yes. Uh-huh.
MR. CLARKE: And as far as PCR databases, how many would that include?
DR. WEIR: For the PCR, Cellmark has--has the Caucasian and African American, and the FBI has the four racial designations.
MR. CLARKE: And did you evaluate the evidence in this case on all of these results boards using and comparing all of those databases?
DR. WEIR: I didn't use the Cellmark's PCR data, but I used all the Cellmark's RFLP, all the FBI's RFLP and all the FBI's PCR on all the items on the boards.
MR. CLARKE: As a result of your comparison of those databases, is it your opinion that the RFLP results on all of these boards where they exist are in fact good estimates?
DR. WEIR: Yes, they are.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. CLARKE: As far as these databases and comparing results from each of them, do they in fact demonstrate the fact that these various RFLP profiles for the three known individuals in this case are very rare?
DR. WEIR: Well, I'd like to rephrase that the profiles found in the evidentiary items are very rare and they--they match the three known people.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you.
MR. CLARKE: Nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, a moment ago, you said that you weren't receiving any financial awards for testifying in this case; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes. My travel expenses are paid.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And would it be fair to say, doctor, that sometimes people say something for money and sometimes people say something because they have a certain political agenda or certain philosophical statement they want to get across. Is that a fair statement?
DR. WEIR: As long as you don't apply it personally, it's a fair statement.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And I believe you said a moment ago, sir, when you were describing yourself and the issues that have arisen in forensic DNA typing, you said that you've been very angry at the way these issues have been described in courts over the last several years; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: In some instances, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you also said that you were very anxious to get yourself on to the witness stand so your position could be heard by a large audience; is that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: I think that's overstating it a little.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you use the word "Anxious," sir, to describe your own feelings?
DR. WEIR: "Anxious" to present the proper analysis in general, not in this particular case.
MR. NEUFELD: And you feel that other people in other cases have been presenting an improper analysis, correct?
DR. WEIR: On occasions, I do.
MR. NEUFELD: And you also felt that the NRC report was presenting improper scientific conclusions, correct?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Vague. Argumentative also.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Haven't you written letters to publications criticizing the NRC report?
DR. WEIR: I have criticized the errors in the report.
MR. NEUFELD: And haven't you gone to gatherings of scientists or forensic employees and made public statements criticizing the NRC report?
DR. WEIR: I have pointed out the errors, and by doing so, I've criticized it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you consider yourself as one person who has a certain philosophical or political agenda in this particular issue, sir?
DR. WEIR: No, I wouldn't.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you calculated these new numbers for the mixtures today on redirect examination from Mr. Clarke, did you take into consideration the extra step that you talked about last week, namely, the FST for substructure?
DR. WEIR: I haven't completed those numbers, but I have a very good sense of what the numbers will be because the same number of bands in the mixed profile occur in some of the single stain profiles or the same magnitude of the fix will be present.
MR. NEUFELD: But did you in fact include that calculation and that factor in the numbers that you put on this board for Mr. Clarke a little while ago?
DR. WEIR: Oh, those numbers aren't on any--for any of the profiles, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you also testified last week that one of the extra steps that you engage in to be more conservative is that you provide what's called a 99 percent upper confidence limit on a frequency estimate. Do you recall that?
DR. WEIR: I do.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you, when you did these calculations for Mr. Clarke and put on the board this afternoon, first take into consideration the 99 percent upper confidence limit for those numbers?
DR. WEIR: Well, you don't do it first. You do it afterwards. I haven't done it yet, but I know what the effects will be based on the comparisons I've done in similar sized profiles from the mix from the single stains.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, didn't you tell this jury last week that both those steps, namely, calculating the FST for substructure and providing a 99 percent upper confidence limit will render the frequencies somewhat more common than the regular point estimate would? Isn't that true, sir?
DR. WEIR: I think I said it goes both ways. Certainly the upper confidence limit is in that direction.
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And that the FST is also in that same direction as making it more common; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: If we use a positive value. We could use a negative value as suggested by the data and go in the other direction.
MR. NEUFELD: But if you use the positive value and you use the 99 percent upper confidence limit, you will generate a frequency more common than the numbers you just put on the board for Mr. Clarke in your redirect examination, wouldn't you?
DR. WEIR: That's true.
MR. NEUFELD: And didn't you also say, sir, that one of the ways that you depart from the other laboratories is that you believe both of those things should be done; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's true. And--
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry?
DR. WEIR: And I haven't changed.
MR. NEUFELD: And, in fact, even now, when you recalculated these numbers after the weekend and you did these new numbers for Mr. Clarke, you again failed to include those two adjustments which would render the frequencies more common than they are on that board; isn't that correct, sir?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. I think counsel is arguing with the witness.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. It was also compound.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: It was also compound.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, had you made the adjustment for substructure that you've characterized before before you put these numbers on the board, wouldn't that have generated frequencies more common than the ones that you put on the board?
DR. WEIR: Yes. The amount depends on the frequency itself.
MR. NEUFELD: But it would be more common?
DR. WEIR: The number I would presume is more common. I would--we could calculate it in both directions. We only presented one way, but of course we don't know which way the reality is. So that's true.
MR. NEUFELD: But when you said, "We only presented one way," you presented it in a way that if you had done that calculation, it would have made these frequencies even more common than the ones that you put out there; isn't that right?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if you had been asked to put in the 99 percent upper confidence limit for these same mixture numbers that you put on the board for Mr. Clarke this afternoon, that too would make the frequencies more common than the ones you put on the board; isn't that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: The upper limits would, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And you didn't do that either, correct?
DR. WEIR: I had to sleep between midnight and 5:00 A.M. this morning as you know.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, when were you first asked to provide frequencies for mixture in this case?
DR. WEIR: It was in May sometime.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you provide even a preliminary report as early as May 11th, sir?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I did.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, just looking at the numbers that you just generated--
MR. NEUFELD: What number are we up to, your Honor?
THE COURT: 1216.
MR. NEUFELD: 1216?
(Deft's 1216 for id = chart)
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, it appears from your redirect testimony that there were even more errors in your calculations than it first appeared when we discussed it on cross-examination on Friday; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: You'll have to be more specific.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, there were more item numbers that you had to change.
DR. WEIR: Oh, I see. I understand. No. In fact, there was only one error. I applied all those profiles using the same computer program. There was one mistake. It affected all the profiles that we discussed.
MR. NEUFELD: It affected far many more profiles than we even discussed on Friday, correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes. And I--
MR. CLARKE: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: And I called you last night and told you that as soon as I found out.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, under the new data that you just provided this afternoon to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for instance, on item 29, you expressed a range for two contributors from 1 in 26 all the way up to 1 in 11,306; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes, I think so.
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. CLARKE: Also beyond the scope.
MR. NEUFELD: And on this new data, sir, that you provided on redirect examination, this range reflects one difference and one difference only; namely, it depends on the race or ethnicity of the two contributors, correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: So the profiles don't change. What you're simply saying is, depending upon the race of those contributors, the frequency of that particular profile could be anywhere from 1 in 26 in the population to 1 in 11,306; isn't that right?
DR. WEIR: It's almost right. It's based on the four databases I used, the Caucasian and African American and two Hispanics. It could have been, for example, that I had four Hispanic databases and got similar range. I don't know. So there is a difference by self-reported racial designation and also a difference just by the sampling of different people.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, doctor, when you say on four different Hispanic databases, you're speculating because you haven't looked at four different Hispanic databases for these particular genetic types, have you?
DR. WEIR: I think if you remember what I said, I said I don't know. If I had four Hispanic databases, I would get four answers. I don't know what the range would be.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, doctor, let me ask you this. Given this range, simply depending on the race of the people who make up the mixture, Mr. Clarke asked you a question, when comparing certain numbers and certain frequencies, how would you characterize that number or characterize that difference. And now I'll ask you the same question, Dr. Weir. How would you characterize the difference between 1 in 26 versus 1 in 11,306?
DR. WEIR: Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Clarke did not ask me that question. He asked me to compare the results from Friday and the results from today.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm going to ask you to compare 1 in 26 to 1 in 11,306, sir. Is that a small difference, a medium difference or a very large difference?
DR. WEIR: Well--
MR. CLARKE: Objection. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I would say that example is a very large difference.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, again, you started using a gambling analogy under redirect examination. Let me ask you this question, sir. If you were told that the probability let's say at a horse race that you attended at the track for a certain horse coming across the finish lane was 1 in 26 and someone else told you it was 1 in 11,306, is that a meaningful spread that you could evaluate before you decide to bet on that horse?
DR. WEIR: I think in that circumstance, I wouldn't bet anymore than I would place a specific number on this profile. I think we've been very honest to convey to the Court the frequency estimate of that profile from the knowledge we have available to us. We don't have a precise value. We are laying it all out. The frequency of that profile in a mixture could be somewhere in this range. I think I said these are not enormously rare profiles at the PCR level. I haven't--we haven't hidden anything. That's--that's the range in this particular case.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, is there anything else you would like to say on that? Is there?
MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry. No question.
MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm just asking, is there more to that answer?
DR. WEIR: No, thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Nothing further.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you. No further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Weir, thank you very much, sir. You are excused. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we're going to switch to a different witness at this point. I'm going to ask you to step back into the jury room. We need to change some exhibits and things, and we'll have you back out here as soon as we're ready to go.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Counsel, what's your pleasure? Who is your next witness, Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: Miss Lewis.
THE COURT: Is she available?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I think Mr. Bailey and Mr. Blasier are looking at charts.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I have one application to make as well, which is that--Dr. Weir is still here. I hope he is. Well--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Good. Dr. Weir furnished us with a few hundred pages of tables for the pairings for the two and three contributor assumptions to the data in this case, and he didn't give us the tables and hard copy for the four because he just said it was too voluminous. And I certainly accept that. In order though for our own experts to independently evaluate his calculations and what he's done here, what we would like to have and what we need to have is simply a copy of his computer program because I believe we already have the data of the frequencies; and I would simply ask the Court to ask the Prosecution to simply have Dr. Weir make a copy of that program available so our experts could independently evaluate it prior to their taking the witness stand in this case.
MR. CLARKE: We have no opposition providing the Defense the data itself, but I don't feel that Dr. Weir has to provide everything in his laboratory that relates to this type of matter. In other words, not the program.
MR. NEUFELD: It's not everything. It's just that there's no way we can check his numbers unless we have his program. That's the whole point. I'm not asking for everything in his laboratory. He has a computer program.
THE COURT: I'm sure it is a proprietary program though.
MR. NEUFELD: I'll put it under protective order, your Honor. We will not let anybody else see it or expose it to anybody. And if we give it to one or two of our experts to evaluate, they too can sign a protective order if that's the concern. Other than that, since he relied on that computer program to generate this data, we're entitled to it. I'm not asking him to create something that doesn't exist. He already has the program.
MR. CLARKE: They are welcome to the data, your Honor, but I don't think there's any basis to order somebody to turn over a program and how to interpret the data. If they have the data, then the Defense expert can interpret it just as well.
THE COURT: All right. When can you have that date available?
DR. WEIR: In just a few hours. Soon. Today.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: The data is inadequate for our experts to determine whether or not he in fact conveyed these or did his calculations properly. His calculations are predicated on his computer program. The only way we'll know if he did it right is to at least rely on the same computer program. It can't be done any other way.
THE COURT: Have the data valuable tomorrow.
MR. CLARKE: Very well.
THE COURT: The request for the computer program itself is denied. All right. Next witness. Mr. Blasier, good afternoon.
MR. BLASIER: Good afternoon, your Honor. Before we do the next witness--I'm assuming we are getting into hair and trace evidence--we were just presented with I think 33 pages of new discovery on the next two witnesses. One is a five-page typed report from the first witness we had nothing from before. The rest of it are handwritten notes by Susan Brockbank, which we have other material from her. This is new material. We object to the late discovery. There is also a large board that they want to use that we've never seen before until just now. It has a lot of chain of custody information on it. It may be perfectly fine, but we haven't had a chance at look at it. I've reviewed Miss Lewis' report. I'm prepared to go ahead with her today. I am not prepared to go ahead with Miss Brockbank. Her handwritten notes, I have to sit down and go through them and correlate them to her old notes before I am prepared to cross-examine her. So we need some time to look at their chart before we can start with--and anything else that they might want to use with this first witness.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, is this the chart?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you bring that up. Why don't you just lean it up against the jury rail there, please. All right. Mr. Blasier, you want to take a look at that and see what your concerns are?
MR. BLASIER: Well, I don't have all these dates in my head, your Honor. I can't--
THE COURT: No. I mean, just wanted to know what the nature of your objection--or you said you hadn't had a chance to look at it.
MR. BLASIER: Correct. I haven't had a chance to correlate the numbers and the dates. They sent us one other chart on exemplars which we're prepared to stipulate to that did have dates on. We could cross-compare those. But there's a lot of information on this chart and we just haven't had a lot of time to absorb it. We've had a couple of minutes.
THE COURT: Well, how much time do you need, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: I don't know how many items they're going to cover with Miss Lewis. Do you know, Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. We'll do the--it will be basically all the knowns.
MR. BAILEY: Exemplars?
MS. CLARK: Exactly. It will be--not all the knowns obviously. Just the items that came from the Coroner's office, item 73, 79, 81, 83, 86--
THE COURT: And 122?
MS. CLARK: That's it on that board.
THE COURT: What about 122?
MS. CLARK: No. That doesn't pertain to Miss Lewis, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That's all you're going to cover with this witness?
MS. CLARK: That's correct.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: May I have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: And I take it Miss Lewis is readily available?
MS. CLARK: Yes. With respect to the records that Mr. Blasier referred to, your Honor, he got them as soon as I got them. I haven't even read Susan Brockbank's notes and I was reading Denise Lewis' notes that he's talked about during this witness.
THE COURT: Well, there's no objection to Miss Lewis, and I assume that tomorrow morning, we'll hear about Brockbank if there's a problem.
MS. CLARK: All I'm saying is that the notes did not exist until this morning. So it's not late discovery. That's when they were written.
MR. BAILEY: Just for purposes of calculating time, I understood from Mr. Darden this morning in chambers that the main emphasis on comparison will be with Deedrick and not the whole litany with Brockbank.
MS. CLARK: That's exactly right. There's not going to be any testimony about comparison with Brockbank at all. At all.
THE COURT: Who is your comparison expert?
MS. CLARK: Doug Deedrick of the FBI. I've attempted to make sure there's no overlap. So--
THE COURT: All right. So how many hair and trace witnesses are we going to have?
MS. CLARK: Three.
THE COURT: Got it. Okay.
MS. CLARK: And that's why I just proposed a stipulation concerning the taking of other exemplars to prevent the calling of other witnesses to just say "I took an exemplar," and they've agreed I believe.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Deputy District Attorney.)
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: We do have objections--we're not prepared to stipulate to the collection of any evidence items by the Coroner's office or by Mr. Yamauchi. There are exemplars, and we presented a stipulation--the fingernail kit, the hair kits, those--
MS. CLARK: The fingernail kit and the hair kit are already done by business records. The only thing I'm asking you to stipulate and is already in the stipulation you looked at is the collection of exemplars from the clothing by Yamauchi and Raquel.
MR. BLASIER: Fabric samples are fine. I have no problem with that.
MS. CLARK: And the Bronco carpet fiber exemplars.
MR. BLASIER: I have no problem with that either.
MS. CLARK: That's all you asked for. That's all we need.
MR. BLASIER: Well, we aren't agreeing to anything done by Ratcliffe at the Coroner's office. We aren't agreeing that the clothing of the victims was properly preserved by the Coroner's office, and we would object to testimony about what happened to that clothing unless it's subject to connection at some later point in time.
MS. CLARK: We are putting in the clothing of the victims and the hair samples taken from the victims. Mr. Kelberg laid the foundation through business records as far as the Coroner's office is concerned. We pick up the chain from Denise Lewis who will identify by Coroner's number and packaging exactly what the items were that she recovered from the Coroner's office that was attributed to the decedents, and we believe that's sufficient to complete the chain. If Defense wants to call witnesses that pertain to that in their case in chief, they're welcome to do so. But I don't think the People are required to do anything further other than identify from the packages--unless the Defense can make a challenge that there's something wrong with the chain under People versus Riser, we can do so by the identity of numbers on the packaging and the descriptions of the items themselves, and we intend to do so with the witnesses that we will call.
THE COURT: All right. So what's the roadblock at least starting with this witness this afternoon?
MS. CLARK: None.
MR. BLASIER: No. I have no objection with going ahead with this witness. I just want to make it clear we're not stipulating--for instance, with the clothing, the shirt obviously was not properly collected because it was moldy and smelly by the time it got to the crime lab. We've had testimony that if it was collected properly, that wouldn't happen. So we know presumptively that wasn't collected properly and we are not agreeing that it was.
MS. CLARK: I'm not asking them to do either.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: I'm just saying that that was the shirt collected.
THE COURT: I just wanted to know the perimeters of what the objections are. But if there's no objection based upon the report that was disclosed this afternoon to proceeding with Miss Lewis, let's proceed with Miss Lewis. All right. Anything else?
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach without the reporter?
THE COURT: Yes.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, would you turn that down, please, so the jury can't see it until it's going to be used.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, Mr. Fairtlough indicated that he would fax me a copy of that tonight so that we can take a look at it over the evening break.
THE COURT: Fine. All right. Counsel, anything else before we invite the jurors to rejoin us? All right. Let's have the jury, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. People may call their next witness.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. The People call Miss Denise Lewis.
THE COURT: Miss Lewis.
Denise Lewis, called as a witness by the People, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. 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?
MS. LEWIS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state your first and last names for the record.
MS. LEWIS: Denise Lewis, D-E-N-I-S-E, Lewis, L-E-W-I-S.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Miss Lewis.
MS. LEWIS: Good afternoon.
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, please, what you do for a living?
MS. LEWIS: I work for Los Angeles Police Department. I'm a laboratory technician assigned to Scientific Investigation Division. I've been with Los Angeles Police Department since 1981.
MS. CLARK: If I could ask you to please slow down for the court reporter and try and keep your voice up just a little bit, okay?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Are you a little bit nervous?
MS. LEWIS: Very.
MS. CLARK: All right. Tell us what that means. What does a lab technician do?
MS. LEWIS: My function with Los Angeles Police Department, I'm assigned to go out in the field with the criminalist, help gather evidence at crime scenes. I also--one of my primary responsibilities is to handle all Coroner's evidence, evidence from the Coroner's office into our lab for analysis. I assign booking numbers to it, itemize them.
MS. CLARK: Now, do you have some kind of a background in science?
MS. LEWIS: Yes. I've got a bachelors in biology and I've got a postgrad class at UCLA in biochemistry.
MS. CLARK: And when did you begin with LAPD?
MS. LEWIS: In 1981.
MS. CLARK: And were you--have you continuously been with LAPD since then?
MS. LEWIS: I've been on the books with Los Angeles Police Department the entire time, but I have been off--there was a period of time, two years, where I because off due to work comp situation.
MS. CLARK: And when you say "Work comp situation," what was that?
MS. LEWIS: I had a slip and fall downstairs while at work.
MS. CLARK: Is that an injury you currently still suffer from?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Are you back to work now?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I am.
MS. CLARK: And when did you return to work?
MS. LEWIS: June 1993.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, did you receive some training in the handling of items concerning hair and trace that may be on those items?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Now, when I say hair and trace, tell us what that means.
MS. LEWIS: Hair, the obvious, different hair. Trace, you've got soil debris. You also have carpet fibers. Anything--minute items that might have been dropped from various items.
MS. CLARK: How about clothing fibers?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what is it exactly that you've learned with respect to how items that may contain hairs and fibers for analysis should be handled?
MS. LEWIS: Could you rephrase, please?
MS. CLARK: Sure. When you are handling items that are recovered from a crime scene, items of evidence that may have hairs or fibers on them that need to be preserved for analysis, is there in general something that you're required to do that you know you must do in order to preserve the hair and fiber evidence?
MS. CLARK: Well, basically we've got various ways of collecting the items. First, we have to--when we observe the items--which we can use opaque lighting for observation of hair and trace evidence. Once we discover it, we're going to use gloved hands, gather the evidence, put it either into a plastic container or a paper bindle or we also use sticky lifts or a tape type lift to gather the evidence.
MS. CLARK: Now, do you take any particular care with the items of evidence that are recovered to make sure that hair and trace is not lost or transferred to another item?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, we do.
MS. CLARK: And what kind of measures are those?
MS. LEWIS: Well, as an example, with the sticky lifts, that's one way of, you pick it up and it's not going to go anywhere because you take it from the tape and then you put it on a--like a cardboard or sometimes we use a fingerprint card in the field. And that will preserve it and it won't allow cross-contamination with other items. We also--when we pick up a trace--hair or trace, we put it into a plastic envelope that will keep it. We keep everything separate. We don't cross mingle things.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, when you are handling items of evidence that are recovered from a crime scene for the purpose of preserving them in some manner, how are you dressed?
MS. LEWIS: When I'm at the crime scene itself?
MS. CLARK: No. When you're at the lab.
MS. LEWIS: When I'm in the lab, I'm either wearing our cloth or cotton lab coat or I'll wear a disposable lab coat. And depending on if I'm handling bulky items such as clothing or other carpets or whatever, I'll have additional protection of disposable sleeves on plus I wear gloves. And occasionally I'll wear eye protection.
MS. CLARK: Now, when you say "Lab coat," what color is that coat?
MS. LEWIS: It's a white coat.
MS. CLARK: Is that standard wear in the lab?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And with respect to gloves, what kind of gloves do you use?
MS. LEWIS: They're latex.
MS. CLARK: When you say disposable sleeves, can you describe what those are?
MS. LEWIS: It's a paper like material and the sleeves come up to the elbow, goes from my wrist to my elbow. It's just added protection for my wrist area and my elbow since you tend to--you can brush your arms on things that will gather evidence. I don't want that to be transferred onto my person or make a chance--you know, to make sure I don't cross-contaminate anything.
MS. CLARK: Now, have you ever processed--how many Coroner's cases have you processed in the past?
MS. LEWIS: Well over 200.
MS. CLARK: Was this case that's now before this Court and this jury a Coroner's case for you?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: And what does that mean?
MS. LEWIS: It means it was evidence that was picked up from the Coroner's office and brought to me for handling and booking of the items, make the police report and then put it back into our what we call evidence control unit, which controls the evidence; and from there, it goes into the lab for analysis.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you also assign item numbers to the items that come from the Coroner's office to you?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: In this particular case, what did those items in general consist of?
MS. LEWIS: Physical evidence consisted of the EDTA swatch, which is a blood swatch from the victims, also decedent's hair kit, fingernail kit, blood scrapings, soil and debris, clothing. I think that's it that I can think of.
MS. CLARK: Now, did you personally come into contact with any of the items of evidence found at the crime scene at Bundy or at Rockingham?
MS. LEWIS: No, I did not.
MS. CLARK: So you did not process a knit cap, item no. 38, found at Bundy?
MS. LEWIS: No, I did not.
MS. CLARK: Or a glove found at Bundy or a glove found at Rockingham?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Did you ever come into contact with a piece of carpet recovered from the Defendant's Bronco?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Did you ever come in contact with a cap recovered from the Defendant's Bronco?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Did you ever come into contact with the Defendant's hair sample?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Or with the Defendant's socks found in his bedroom?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: You touched none of those items, never saw them?
MS. LEWIS: I did not touch any of the items. I believe I saw a couple of the items, but that was just while they were being worked on by somebody else. I never went near them.
MS. CLARK: And when in relationship to the work you performed in this case was it that you even saw those items?
MS. LEWIS: The items were observed when--when Collin was working on the gloves I believe and a cap was observed when it was being worked on in our trace unit or looked at. I don't remember the exact particulars of it.
MS. CLARK: At that point, had you even done the processing on the Coroner's items that you worked on in this case?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, directing your attention to the date of June the 27th, 1994, on that date, did you receive evidence from the Coroner's office pertaining to this case?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And who did you receive it from?
MS. LEWIS: Deputy Degrandis, who was our evidence control officer at the time.
MS. CLARK: And what does she do?
MS. LEWIS: Her assignment at that--her function for that day anyway was to go to the Coroner's office and actually physically pick up the items for me. She brings them back to Scientific Investigation Division, where at that point she hands it off to me, and then I take the items that are in my custody at that stage.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So what did you get?
MS. LEWIS: Once again, I received EDTA swatches from both victims, decedent's--
MS. CLARK: Wait. Wait. Let me hold up. I don't want you to repeat. What I mean, in terms of the packaging, what physically did she give to you?
MS. LEWIS: I received two manila envelopes, one for each victim, which contained items, and two mesh bags. Each bag contained items per victim.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So she physically handed you two manila envelopes?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And two mesh bags?
MS. LEWIS: Correct.
MS. CLARK: Those are white mesh bags?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: In each mesh bag were items for each victim?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: So the victims' items were separated?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: With respect to the bag for Ron Goldman, can you tell us, was there a Coroner's number in that mesh bag identifying that mesh bag as containing his items?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What was that Coroner's number?
MS. LEWIS: Is it okay if I look at my notes?
MS. CLARK: You need to refresh your memory?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Please do.
MS. LEWIS: Mr. Goldman's Coroner case number is 94-05135.
MS. CLARK: And what did his mesh bag contain?
MS. LEWIS: The mesh bag contained a bag that was listed as containing shoes, pants. Third bag also contained a shirt.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, when you say "Listed," was there something written on the bag itself?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: All right. So the--was this a brown bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Was it sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And so was there a brown bag on which was marked "Shoes"?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And was that sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And a brown bag marked "Pants"--was that the only item in that bag?
MS. LEWIS: No. It was pants, socks.
MS. CLARK: And was it marked as "Pants, socks"?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Also sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And with respect to a third brown bag, you indicated "Shirt"?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: So that was alone in its bag?
MS. LEWIS: There was a shirt and there were other items in it, but it was only listed as a shirt bag.
MS. CLARK: And was it sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And Nicole Brown's mesh bag, what did that contain?
MS. LEWIS: It had one brown bag inside of it.
MS. CLARK: And do you know offhand the Coroner's number that was contained in that mesh bag?
MS. LEWIS: Offhand, no. Refer to my notes, I can give it to you.
MS. CLARK: Do you need to refresh your memory?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, please.
MS. CLARK: Go ahead.
MS. LEWIS: 94-05136.
MS. CLARK: And what--was there a tag or something on that mesh bag that said that number?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did it also have her name?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Same for Ron Goldman?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And you said it had one brown bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what was that--was there a marking on it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What?
MS. LEWIS: "Dress, panties."
MS. CLARK: Was it sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: So you have these two large manila envelopes, and do those have some kind of identifications on them?
MS. LEWIS: Both envelopes have a Coroner case number on them.
MS. CLARK: And what Coroner's case numbers were on them?
MS. LEWIS: On Mr. Goldman's, it was 94-05135 and Miss Brown's was 94-05136.
MS. CLARK: What did you do with those two manila envelopes and the two mesh bags after you got them from Deputy Degrandis?
MS. LEWIS: They were taken to the evidence processing room.
MS. CLARK: And is that someplace in SID?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: What is that?
MS. LEWIS: It is the secured area that is available for the criminalists and myself to go through evidence, to itemize them. It's for booking from crime scenes and for my purposes of the Coroner's evidence.
MS. CLARK: Now, when you took those items into the evidence processing room, what did you do first?
MS. LEWIS: Could you rephrase, please?
MS. CLARK: Yes. You took the items into the evidence processing room?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What did you do first when you got there?
MS. LEWIS: Put the bags down.
MS. CLARK: Okay. After you put the bags down.
MS. LEWIS: Then I prepared to go through the--the items to find out what I have for listing basically to start categorizing for my police report.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, did you do the--both Ronald Goldman's and Nicole Brown's items at the same time?
MS. LEWIS: No, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: How did you set that up as far as organization?
MS. LEWIS: I started with Mr. Goldman's items first. Nicole's was put on the side.
MS. CLARK: So you--who did you begin with? You said Ronald Goldman?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What did you do to prepare to examine his items?
MS. LEWIS: Gowned up, number one.
MS. CLARK: "Gowned up," meaning you put on your lab coat?
MS. LEWIS: Lab coat. The sleeves were on, put gloves on, and then I prepared an area on the counter, what I consider a clean area so I can work on it, make sure that I don't contaminate the counter or contaminate the items I'm working with.
MS. CLARK: So you were wearing a lab coat with disposable sleeves and latex gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What did you do with the counter area to make it a clean area?
MS. LEWIS: I laid down two layers of disposal terrycloth towels.
MS. CLARK: Why did you do that?
MS. LEWIS: It is a small working area for myself. It just keeps everything nice and confined. It's close. It makes sure I don't contaminate the counter, also make sure nothing contaminates the items that I'm working with.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And what did you do first?
MS. LEWIS: I removed the items out of the manila envelope first, out of Mr. Goldman's manila envelope, pulled them out for identification.
MS. CLARK: And what items were in that manila envelope?
MS. LEWIS: The EDTA swatch and an envelope that is marked "EDTA" and a second envelope that is marked "Decedent's hair kit."
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, what is the EDTA--the EDTA envelope or swatch?
MS. LEWIS: It is a blood preservative. It is a cotton swatch I believe and it is soaked with EDTA, which is, as I said, a blood preservative; and the Coroner uses this to gather a sample of the victim's blood while doing the autopsy.
MS. CLARK: All right. So the envelope that contains the sample of the victim's blood is in one envelope, small envelope by itself?
MS. LEWIS: Correct.
MS. CLARK: Is that like a coin size envelope?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Was it sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you unseal it?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: And you said there was a decedent's hair kit in there as well?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: I'm going to ask you to direct your attention to the monitor.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I ask that this photograph be marked as People's next in order, 412?
THE COURT: 412.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 412 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: See what's there on 412?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Is that familiar?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Please tell us what it is.
MS. LEWIS: That is the decedent's hair kit.
MS. CLARK: For?
MS. LEWIS: It's difficult to read. One moment, please.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: Would it help if we zoomed in there? Hey. Thank you.
MS. LEWIS: Much better. It's for Mr. Goldman.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
MS. CLARK: If you can pull it back out, John. Thank you.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, there's three coin envelopes to the right of the larger one marked "Decedent's hair kit." Were they contained inside that envelope marked "Decedent's hair kit" when you saw them?
MS. LEWIS: I never opened up the decedent's hair kit to verify what was inside the envelope. I--I can say that the three envelopes marked what the Coroner has marked on the envelope as being contained, but I can't confirm it.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Well, when you received that larger envelope on the left-hand side that it's been titled "Decedent's hair kit," was it sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: Did you ever open it?
MS. LEWIS: No, I didn't.
MS. CLARK: And, counsel, may it be stipulated that Miss Lewis received that decedent's hair kit envelope in a sealed condition and never opened it at any time?
MR. BLASIER: So stipulated.
THE COURT: All right. The stipulation is accepted by the Court.
MS. CLARK: Now, when you removed that item and the EDTA swatch from the manila envelope for Ron Goldman, did you assign it item number?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And what did you assign to what?
MS. LEWIS: EDTA swatch, I assigned no. 72, and the decedent's hair kit, I assigned no. 73.
MS. CLARK: And that was the number shown in the upper right-hand corner of that photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And let the jury see that too. Is that your handwriting there on the envelope?
MS. LEWIS: The "73" is, yes, and my writing on the bottom, yes.
MS. CLARK: Where on the bottom is your writing?
MS. LEWIS: My initials "Dl" and my serial number and the 6-27-94 is my writing.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: Is that the second line at the very bottom there?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: All right. That's fine. Thank you.
MS. CLARK: What did you do with the envelopes, the decedent's hair kit that's at the left side of that photograph and the EDTA swatch after you gave them item numbers?
MS. LEWIS: I created an analyzed frozen envelope. It is a white envelope that we use to actually book it into our property room. I filled out the information on it and I put these items into that envelope.
MS. CLARK: And I'm showing you now a photograph that I would ask to be marked People's next in order, 413?
THE COURT: All right. 413.
(Peo's 413 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize what's being shown to you here?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: What is it?
MS. LEWIS: It is the analyzed frozen envelope.
MS. CLARK: And is that the frozen envelope that you placed item no. 73 and item no. 72 into?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Do you see your initials on it or your writing on it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And where is that?
MS. LEWIS: The fourth line down, "Lewis D., Charles 9013."
MS. CLARK: That's you?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And then it lists item numbers. Are those the item numbers, the items contained in that envelope?
MS. LEWIS: They were.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, if you put the decedent's hair kit for Ronald Goldman and the EDTA swatch for Ronald Goldman with the item numbers into this white envelope, what did you do next?
MS. LEWIS: At that time, I thought I was completed with Ron Goldman's physical evidence. So I proceeded on to Nicole Simpson's physical evidence.
MS. CLARK: And in that respect, what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: I--
MS. CLARK: To prepare?
MS. LEWIS: To prepare for it, I discarded--well, excuse me. I first looked at the terrycloth towels that I had down to make sure nothing seeped through, that I didn't have any trace evidence or any blood on them. They were clean. They were discarded. My gloves were discarded and fresh gloves were applied and new terrycloth towels were placed down on the counter.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do then?
MS. LEWIS: Then I proceeded to grab the or pull out the manila envelope that had Miss Brown's information, her physical evidence.
MS. CLARK: And by that, you mean--"Her physical evidence," you mean--
MS. LEWIS: Her physical evidence meaning hair, the blood swatch, some blood scrapings and fingernail clippings.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, the manila envelopes for Ron and Nicole that you're referring to, were those--those are the large envelopes that contain the smaller ones you've just described?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Were they closed in some manner?
MS. LEWIS: It's just--they're closed with just the metal clasp on it.
MS. CLARK: Is that a clasp that you just spread out and flatten?
MS. LEWIS: Right. It's just an eight by 10 envelope.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Contained inside the manila envelope with Nicole Brown's identifying information on it, you found what?
MS. LEWIS: An EDTA swatch, a decedent's hair kit, a fingernail kit and two physical evidence envelopes that contained blood scrapings per the Coroner's office.
MS. CLARK: Were those sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, they were.
MS. CLARK: Did you open the seals on any of those smaller envelopes?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: And, counsel, may it be stipulated that Miss Lewis received the decedent's hair kit from Nicole Brown on June 27th in a sealed condition from the Coroner's office and never opened the seal?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. The stipulation is accepted by the Court.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: So you had--with respect to the decedent's hair kit, do you recognize what's being shown to you in the photograph now before you?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Ask that this photograph be marked People's 414, your Honor.
THE COURT: 414.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 414 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: What is it?
MS. LEWIS: It's the decedent's hair kit. It's marked for--could it be focused a little bit better, please? For brown Simpson, Nicole with Coroner case no. 945136.
THE COURT: All right. Let me just ask, Miss Fitzpatrick, apparently our monitor in front of juror no. 1 is not working; is that correct, juror no. 1? Can we check that real quick? Mr. Fairtlough, you want to check that?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Back on. All right. Proceed. Thank you. Did we forget to turn it on?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor. It just needed to be turned on.
MS. CLARK: High tech, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: And that is the decedent's hair kit for Nicole Simpson?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: All right. What did you do with the decedent's hair kit that you had gotten a sealed condition, the EDTA swatch, fingernail kit and the blood scrapings, all those sealed envelopes? What did you do with them?
MS. LEWIS: The items were all--I added the reporting number, the district reporting number, the DR number, my initials, serial number, the date that I received the items from Miss Degrandis and the item number for the--each individual item number.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, I see a number crossed over there on decedent's hair kit.
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Is that your doing?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is, with my initials.
MS. CLARK: You had to change that number at some point?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: All right. We'll get back to that. It's "75" there that's crossed out, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Correct.
MS. CLARK: But are those your initials next to that?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, they are.
MS. CLARK: And underneath that, number 83?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: You wrote that down?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And is number 83 the item number that it actually is assigned?
MS. LEWIS: May I refer to my notes?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: All right. After you got done initialing and itemizing by number all of the items for Nicole Brown from the manila envelope, what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: Once again, I looked at the terrycloth towels to make sure there isn't any trace evidence that was left. Nothing was observed. The cloth towels and my gloves were discarded.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do with those actual envelopes?
MS. LEWIS: Those were also--
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MS. LEWIS: Those were also discarded.
MS. CLARK: The envelopes?
MS. LEWIS: The envelopes--are you referring to the smaller envelopes or are you referring to the middle envelopes?
MS. CLARK: I'm referring to the smaller envelopes.
MS. LEWIS: The smaller envelopes were put into the frozen--the analyzed frozen envelope, the white frozen envelope.
MS. CLARK: The one that we just saw on the screen before, People's 413?
MS. LEWIS: Yes. The same one as Mr. Goldman's.
MS. CLARK: The same one?
MS. LEWIS: It's the same envelope as what I put Mr. Goldman's evidence into.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, if we could go back to 83 for a minute. With respect to this photograph no. 414, right here before you you see only item no. 83, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Correct.
MS. CLARK: The other envelopes you're referring to, the EDTA swatch and the fingernail kit and blood scrapings, were separate envelopes?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, they are.
MS. CLARK: Were they as big as the decedent's hair kit, if you remember?
MS. LEWIS: Not all--no, they're not.
MS. CLARK: But they got their own item numbers, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, they did.
MS. CLARK: So after you put the decedent's hair kit and the other envelopes into the white frozen envelope, what did you do next?
MS. LEWIS: I sealed the envelope.
MS. CLARK: And then what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: The envelope was placed into the freezer that is inside our supply room area, which is also a secured area.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, you indicated I believe also that you changed your gloves and threw away the terrycloth towels?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What--did you--was there any paper down on that table?
MS. LEWIS: I then placed paper down for the next stage of the itemization.
MS. CLARK: What kind of paper is it?
MS. LEWIS: It's butcher block paper.
MS. CLARK: Okay. What was the next thing that you did after you put that butcher block paper down?
MS. LEWIS: Then I gathered Mr. Goldman's--the white mesh bag and started preparing to go through those items.
MS. CLARK: Who did you begin with?
MS. LEWIS: Mr. Goldman's items.
MS. CLARK: And where were Nicole's items while you were doing that?
MS. LEWIS: They were on the side on another table.
MS. CLARK: Were any of the bags with her clothing opened at that time?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Sealed shut?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: The white paper that you put down, is that clean?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Which item did you begin with for Ron Goldman?
MS. LEWIS: I started with a bag that was marked "Shirt."
MS. CLARK: What did you do with that bag?
MS. LEWIS: The bag was opened up, and inside I observed a heavy shirt and also a white, a large white bindle of paper.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, the bag containing the shirt, was it sealed in any manner when you got it?
MS. LEWIS: It had Coroner's tape seal on it, yes.
MS. CLARK: I have a photograph that is now on the screen, your Honor, I would be marked People's 415.
THE COURT: 415.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 415 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize the item and the bag that's in front of you now on the monitor?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And what is that?
MS. LEWIS: That is the shirt that came--that's Mr. Goldman's shirt or identified from the Coroner's office as being Mr. Goldman's shirt and that is the bag that I placed the shirt into.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, that is not the bag that you first received the shirt in, correct?
MS. LEWIS: No, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: And can you describe the bag that you received the shirt in?
MS. LEWIS: It's a brown paper bag very similar to that (Indicating.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Okay. When you opened the bag, you saw that there was a bindle in that bag as well as the shirt?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Were there any other items of clothing in that bag?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: And what did the bindle look like?
MS. LEWIS: It was a large bindle, folded paper. I couldn't--the approximate size would have been about six by eight inches thereabouts.
MS. CLARK: And was it sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: Did it have some writing on it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it did.
MS. CLARK: What writing if you remember?
MS. LEWIS: Is it all right if I refer to my notes?
MS. CLARK: Do you need to refresh your memory?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: You may.
MR. BLASIER: May I look, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
(Brief pause.)
MS. LEWIS: It states "From under Ron Goldman's jacket, examined by G. Siglar and Dr. Baden."
MS. CLARK: Is there a date?
MS. LEWIS: I don't have that in my notes. No, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Is there a description on that bindle?
MS. LEWIS: That is the only description from them.
MS. CLARK: Okay. When you noticed that there was a bindle inside the bag, what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: I contacted my supervisor, Mr. Matheson, to verify that I continue with my normal procedure on handling evidence.
MS. CLARK: And what is your normal procedure?
MS. LEWIS: Anything that I cannot identify for my report, I open up to verify what the contents are so I can appropriately describe them for my report.
MS. CLARK: And what did Mr. Matheson tell you to do?
MS. LEWIS: Proceed as usual, open up the items.
MS. CLARK: Did you?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Tell us exactly what you did with that bindle.
MS. LEWIS: Well, over the butcher block paper that I had down myself, clean butcher block paper, I opened up the bindle and looked to see what was inside. I unsealed the bindle, looked to see what was inside and discovered dirt and debris, and then I resealed the package.
MS. CLARK: Where was the shirt when you did that?
MS. LEWIS: It was still in its bag and put aside on another table.
MS. CLARK: So the shirt was not near the bindle as you opened it?
MS. LEWIS: No, it was not.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Two photographs, your Honor, ask that they're going to be marked, the upper one with the bindle closed, no. 77 on it People's 416.
THE COURT: So marked.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you.
(Peo's 416 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: And below that, your Honor--could we make that 416-A?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 416-A for id = photograph)
THE COURT: Which is apparently the bindle unfolded.
MS. CLARK: Exactly.
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize what is shown to you in 416 and 416-A?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Please describe for us, please, in 416, what's that?
MS. LEWIS: 416 is the way the bindle--basically the way the bindle looked when I received it except for the Los Angeles Police Department evidence seal on it and my initials.
MS. CLARK: Was it sealed when you first found it inside the shirt bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes. It was, with the Coroner's office seal.
MS. CLARK: And the description that you read to us earlier?
MS. LEWIS: Is what is written partially underneath that seal of mine.
MS. CLARK: Is it soil or debris under Ron Goldman's jacket? Oh, from under Ron Goldman's jacket?
MS. LEWIS: Right.
MS. CLARK: All right. Is that the writing you found on the envelope when you first saw it on June 27th?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And when you opened it, you saw what is reflected in the photograph 416-A?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And that is the--that is the same bindle, but open, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Correct.
MS. CLARK: When you saw the contents of the envelope, what did you do? Did you touch the soil and debris?
MS. LEWIS: No, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: You just looked?
MS. LEWIS: Just looked and folded it back up and sealed it.
MS. CLARK: Resealed it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do with the bindle after you resealed it?
MS. LEWIS: It was placed on the counter with other items.
MS. CLARK: Did you look at your gloves after you resealed that bindle?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What--for what purpose?
MS. LEWIS: Just to verify that they're clean, that nothing got on--no transfer of any trace evidence.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Did you look at the butcher paper that was on top of table under the bindle that--when you looked at it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And for what purpose did you look at that butcher paper?
MS. LEWIS: For the same thing, to make sure no trace evidence had fallen out from the bindle when I opened it up.
MS. CLARK: And did you see any?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: So what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: The butcher block paper was removed. It was--my gloves and the paper were both put in the trash. They were clean.
MS. CLARK: What happened next?
MS. LEWIS: At that stage, I put fresh paper down on the table, and then I pulled out the shirt to look at it for identification purposes.
MS. CLARK: Now, at this point, did you actually number this bindle?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, ma'am, I did. It later got crossed off.
MS. CLARK: What number did you initially give this?
MS. LEWIS: Initially it was given--I have 74 on there. It was initially given 74 and that was crossed off. There was one thing that happened between this stage before I gave it the 74 that I forgot.
MS. CLARK: Oh, tell us. What happened?
MS. LEWIS: That was, when I discovered that I had this soil and what I consider as additional physical evidence, I like to keep my items--basically, my physical evidence with the physical evidence that belongs to the individual. This was physical evidence that came with--that belonged to Ron Goldman. So I went back into the freezer where I had put the frozen evidence envelope, gathered that up, brought it back into the evidence processing room, removed it--opened--unsealed it, removed the items in it and crossed off the numbers that I had assigned initially to Miss Brown's items so I can keep Mr. Goldman's items all consecutive, and I assigned him 74, which got crossed off again due to an additional item that I found later on.
MS. CLARK: All right. So is it unusual to find bindles in the packages concerning the clothing from the Coroner's office?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: So when you process the Coroner's items, in general--when you say items of physical evidence, are you talking about the hair kit, the blood, the fingernails, that sort of thing?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I am.
MS. CLARK: And so you keep those consecutive for each victim?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And then you keep the clothing consecutive for each victim?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: When you discovered this bindle in Ron Goldman's shirt bag, that's what caused you to go back and start the renumbering all over again?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: When you retrieved the frozen analysis envelope back out of the freezer, it was sealed, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you have to break that seal?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And why is that?
MS. LEWIS: The only way to get back into the envelope is to break the seal.
MS. CLARK: And you decided you were going to put this bindle with soil and debris into the frozen analysis envelope?
MS. LEWIS: No. It was decided that I was going to have to renumber Nicole's items. So I had to get into the--into the bindle to cross off those numbers.
MS. CLARK: When you say renumber Nicole's items, you mean her hair kit and fingernail kit, that sort of thing?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: On the front of that frozen analysis envelope, that white envelope, do you have a description by item number of what is supposed to be contained in it?
MS. LEWIS: The item numbers are on it, yes.
MS. CLARK: Did that--would that have to be changed too?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it did.
MS. CLARK: So did you just cross off the numbers on the front of it?
MS. LEWIS: No. I made a whole new envelope, which is the one that we saw earlier.
MS. CLARK: That's the one that was in the photograph marked People's 413?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: That one (Indicating)?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So after you broke the seals and you crossed off the numbers for Nicole Brown's items like her hair kit, fingernail kit, blood scrapings, et cetera, then what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: After I crossed her items off, then I proceed--I went back to--well, her items were placed on the side on the counter. Basically the counter is a clean area. No--the clothing, the loose clothing, nothing is left over there. Everything--anything that is on the counter is going to be kept sealed.
MS. CLARK: So did you put Ron's decedent's hair kit and Nicole's decedent's hair kit both into the new frozen analysis envelope?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Along with the other items you've mentioned that you had in there previously?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And that would be items 73 and 83 for the hair kits respectively?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, this time, did you seal it and put it into the freezer?
MS. LEWIS: No, I didn't.
MS. CLARK: And why not?
MS. LEWIS: I received one surprise from the Coroner's office. I wanted to double-check, wait until I went through all the items to make sure that there weren't--there wasn't anything else mixed in with other items.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, I believe you testified that the bindle that had been in the bag with the shirt you had folded up, resealed and put to the side, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And then you said you changed your gloves and the butcher paper?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Then what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: Then at that stage, I went to the next bag and brought it to the--I'm sorry. Did I say I put down fresh butcher block paper?
MS. CLARK: Yes, you did. Did you examine the shirt?
MS. LEWIS: Yes. I also examined the shirt.
MS. CLARK: And in what manner did you examine the shirt? Please describe for us how you did that.
MS. LEWIS: Well, the shirt was taken out of the brown paper bag and the shirt was laid on the clean butcher block paper that I had laid down.
MS. CLARK: What, if anything, unusual did you observe about the shirt?
MS. LEWIS: Mold. Moldy areas.
MS. CLARK: Moldy?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: How did that look?
MS. LEWIS: Green fuzz.
MS. CLARK: In any--was there what appeared to be blood in the areas of green fuzz on the shirt?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Was there a lot of what appeared to be blood on that shirt?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Was it damp when you took it out of the bag?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Dry?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. When you took it out of the bag, were you wearing your lab coat?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Were you wearing clean gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Were you wearing disposable sleeves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And you took it out onto the clean butcher paper?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you shake it?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Did you twist it?
MS. LEWIS: No. It was just laid out on the butcher block paper. You try not to disturb the clothing as much as possible.
MS. CLARK: And why is that?
MS. LEWIS: Keep all trace evidence that came with the clothing on the clothing.
MS. CLARK: So you purposely avoided shaking or moving it a lot?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Other than the mold, what else did you see?
MS. LEWIS: Mold and blood. Nothing else was--I wasn't looking for any real trace evidence. I'm just looking for abnormalities. I check the make of the or the style of the shirt, the type of shirt for identification for descriptive purposes.
MS. CLARK: So that's not your function then, is to collect trace evidence? You're not doing that?
MS. LEWIS: Not when I'm dealing with Coroner's evidence, no.
MS. CLARK: What is your primary purpose then in taking the items out of the bags and looking at them?
MS. LEWIS: For descriptive purposes to be able to identify them in court.
MS. CLARK: And is it an inventory control to make sure you're getting what the Coroner claims you're getting?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: After you looked at the shirt, after you laid it down and looked at it, then what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: The shirt was put back into a clean bag.
MS. CLARK: Did you fold it in some manner?
MS. LEWIS: It was folded and then it was put in the bag and then I observed--
MS. CLARK: Go ahead.
MS. LEWIS: Then I looked at the butcher block paper to make sure--to see if there was any trace evidence or anything left on the paper.
MS. CLARK: After you put the shirt into the bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, the bag that's up in the upper left-hand corner--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, just another photograph of the shirt, and I would ask it be marked as People's 417.
THE COURT: 417.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
(Peo's 417 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: And you see the item marked 417?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize what that is?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What is it?
MS. LEWIS: It is the shirt that I received from the Coroner's office that was assigned to Mr. Goldman.
MS. CLARK: And is that how it appeared to you on that day?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, the photograph that was previously marked as People's 416, do you see the bag in that photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And do you see the item of clothing in that photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What is the item of clothing?
MS. LEWIS: It is the shirt.
MS. CLARK: And the bag, is that the one you made up?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: So you transferred Mr. Goldman's shirt from the brown bag that the Coroner submitted it to you in a sealed condition into a new bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Why is that?
MS. LEWIS: Because this item--it came in with two items. I received the shirt and the--the white paper bindle that had the soil and debris in it, and I have been trained to keep my items separate.
MS. CLARK: So you created a new bag for the shirt?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And is that what you put it into, this bag shown here (Indicating)?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, your Honor. There was one photograph I forgot to show the Defense and I don't want to--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I just wanted to ask a question of the witness.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney, Defense counsel and the witness.)
MS. CLARK: Two more photographs, your Honor, if I may.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: 418.
(Peo's 418 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: And if I may, 418-A.
(Peo's 418-A for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you far away and then close-up these two bags. You see the one, 418, has the word "Shirt" written on it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And, John, if you could show her the lower right-hand corner.
MS. CLARK: Do you see a number in the lower right-hand corner of that photograph containing the photo of the bag marked "Shirt"?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what number is that?
MS. LEWIS: 81.
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize that number?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And what does that number refer to?
MS. LEWIS: It refers to the number I assigned the shirt in my police report.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And dropping down to 418-A, what is that?
MS. LEWIS: That is the same bag, just a different side of it.
MS. CLARK: And what is that bag?
MS. LEWIS: It's the bag that came from the Coroner's office with the shirt, the original bag.
MS. CLARK: So after you repackaged the shirt into the new bag that you previously identified, you kept that original bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: What did you do with it?
MS. LEWIS: It was packaged with the final packaging for the evidence processing room--I'm sorry--the evidence control unit.
MS. CLARK: How did you preserve it? Did you fold it? Did you--
MS. LEWIS: It was folded.
MS. CLARK: After you put the shirt into the new bag, did you seal the bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do with the bag after you sealed it?
MS. LEWIS: After it was sealed, it was placed on the counter with other sealed items.
MS. CLARK: Was that somewhere apart from where you were doing your examination?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: After you finished examining the shirt, you--did you look at the paper you had examined it on?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Did you notice whether there was anything on that paper?
MS. LEWIS: Yes. On this--the butcher block paper after I took care of the shirt, there was some soil on it.
MS. CLARK: What did you do with that soil?
MS. LEWIS: I tapped it into the bag with the shirt, the new bag with the shirt.
MS. CLARK: So that the soil would be kept with the shirt?
MS. LEWIS: Exactly.
MS. CLARK: And after you did that, what did you do with the paper?
MS. LEWIS: Then the paper was discarded along with my gloves.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do after that?
MS. LEWIS: Then I gathered another--I'm sorry. I placed down fresh butcher block paper, picked up some fresh gloves and picked up a new item.
MS. CLARK: And what was the next item you picked up?
MS. LEWIS: Is it all right if I refer to my notes?
MS. CLARK: Do you need to?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, please. The next item was a bag marked "Shoes."
MS. CLARK: What condition was that bag in?
MS. LEWIS: What condition?
MS. CLARK: Yeah. Was it open or closed?
MS. LEWIS: It was sealed.
MS. CLARK: All right.
MS. CLARK: People's next in order, your Honor, People's 419.
(Peo's 419 for id = photograph)
THE COURT: So marked.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize the original bag in which you received the shoes of Ron Goldman in this photograph, People's 419?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And which bag is that?
MS. LEWIS: It is the brown paper bag on the top.
MS. CLARK: And it has a number on it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes. It has no. 78 on it, and it's marked as "Boots." But at the time, it did not have "Boots" marked on it.
MS. CLARK: So was that--it has the date 8-24-94 on it.
MS. LEWIS: Excuse me. No. That isn't the same bag. I'm sorry.
MS. CLARK: Different bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Move down on the photograph. Do you recognize the bag below that?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Tell us what that bag is.
MS. LEWIS: That is the bag that I assigned--the new bag that I gave the boots.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: All right. Showing another photograph I'd like to mark--
MS. LEWIS: It's upside down.
THE COURT: All right. Time out.
MS. CLARK: Time out.
THE COURT: Yeah.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, you may continue.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. I ask that this be marked People's 420.
THE COURT: 420.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 420 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you see a bag in this photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And do you recognize the bag that is being shown at this point?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: It says "Shoes" and "Lg bindle"?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And "Ic of dirt"?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And "Dl"?
MS. LEWIS: Correct.
MS. CLARK: Who wrote that?
MS. LEWIS: I did.
MS. CLARK: Now, is that the bag that originally contained the shoes that came from the Coroner's office?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And that was the one that was in a sealed condition when you saw it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: At the time that you opened up that bag, were there any other items around that that were not sealed, that is items of clothing?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: When you opened up the bag, what did you see?
MS. LEWIS: I discovered another white paper bindle that was inside the bag and also a small brown bag that was sealed along with the boots or shoes.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last word.
MS. CLARK: Boots, shoes. Another photograph, your Honor, I ask it be marked People's 421.
THE COURT: People's 421, photograph of what appears to be a watch and paper bag.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 421 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: You see a bag in the center of that photograph with number 74 on it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize that bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: What is it?
MS. LEWIS: It's the bag that came in with the larger bag from the Coroner's office that was--had the--contained the shoes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And that bag, was it sealed when you recovered it from the bag containing the shoes?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: Did you unseal it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Was that on clean paper?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: Were you wearing clean fresh gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I was.
MS. CLARK: And you opened the bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: You broke the seal?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: What did you see in it?
MS. LEWIS: Hair.
MS. CLARK: Did you take the hair out?
MS. LEWIS: No, I didn't.
MS. CLARK: Did you touch it?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: What did it look like?
MS. LEWIS: My recollection is, it was a light color hair, somewhat longish. Wasn't real short, crop or anything.
MS. CLARK: And after you saw that, what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: I sealed it back up.
MS. CLARK: Where did you put it?
MS. LEWIS: It was then put back on the counter with the rest of the other physical evidence.
MS. CLARK: Now, you didn't touch the hair, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Correct.
MS. CLARK: And other than looking inside the bag, you didn't touch any item associated with the shoes or the hair inside the bag?
MS. LEWIS: No. I did not touch anything.
MS. CLARK: So after you sealed that bag and put it to the side, what did you do next?
MS. LEWIS: Looked at the paper that I had down, checked my gloves for anything, to make sure anything--something may have fallen out. Nothing did. Everything was clean. The paper was changed, gloves were changed and then I opened up the paper bindle that I had received with the--with the shoe bag.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: People's next in order, your Honor, People's 422.
THE COURT: 422.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 422 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Now, the bindle that you're referring to had some writing on it when you recovered it from the bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it did.
MS. CLARK: And was that bindle sealed when you recovered it from the bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: Do you recall what was written on that bindle?
MS. LEWIS: I need to refer to my notes.
MS. CLARK: To refresh your memory?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Go ahead.
MS. LEWIS: This bindle stated, "This large bindle from under Ron Goldman's shoes when opened for exam by Dr. Baden and G. Siglar."
MS. CLARK: Dr. Baden and who?
MS. LEWIS: Baden and G, G as in George, Siglar.
MS. CLARK: Do you know who either one of those gentlemen are?
MS. LEWIS: No, I don't.
MS. CLARK: And when you opened that--you opened that bindle did you?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Again, on clean paper with clean gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: What did you see?
MS. LEWIS: Soil and debris.
MS. CLARK: Did you touch it?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Just looked at it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And then what?
MS. LEWIS: Resealed it.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do with it?
MS. LEWIS: After it was resealed, it was placed on the counter with the rest of the sealed items.
MS. CLARK: At some point after you looked at the bindle, did you examine the paper that it was lying on?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And did you see anything on there in the way of hair, trace or soil?
MS. LEWIS: No. It was clean.
MS. CLARK: And did you check your gloves as well?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: After sealing up that bindle, then what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: The paper was discarded and the gloves were also discarded. The new gloves--new gloves were put on and fresh paper was placed down.
MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated earlier that with respect to the soil and debris items, you did not intend to put them into the frozen analysis white envelope, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Correct.
MS. CLARK: But you found that brown--little brown bag with the light colored hair in it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: That you resealed again I take it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do with that?
MS. LEWIS: That is considered physical evidence. It was physical evidence that was received with Mr. Goldman's items. So it was going to go with the physical evidence, the rest of his physical evidence, his blood swatch and his hair. I mean--correct, his hair, decedent's hair kit.
MS. CLARK: So what did you do with the little brown bag that contained the light color hair?
MS. LEWIS: It was placed with the rest of his items at this time.
MS. CLARK: In the white frozen analysis envelope?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And after doing that, what did you do next?
MS. LEWIS: Then I proceeded to go into the third bag that I had received from the Coroner's office from Mr. Goldman.
MS. CLARK: And at this point, do you have fresh butcher paper down?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Clean gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And this bag, was it described in some manner? Was there some writing on it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes. It was described as pants, socks. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I'm sorry. May I mark one further photograph, be--
THE COURT: 423.
MS. CLARK: And if we could, 422-A. This is the bindle opened up.
THE COURT: All right. 422-A.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 422-A for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: I'm showing you the photograph that is now below 422 that has been marked 422-A. Do you recognize what that is?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: What is that?
MS. LEWIS: It is an open--it's the white bindle that's opened up.
MS. CLARK: And is that the soil and debris that you found inside the envelope when you opened it on that date?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And that you resealed then?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And now with respect to the third bag for Ron Goldman that you received from the Coroner's office--
MS. CLARK: Photograph, your Honor, I ask that it be marked People's 423.
THE COURT: 423.
(Peo's 423 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize the bag that's shown you in this photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Is that the bag that you got from the Coroner's office?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And it was in a sealed condition, was it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: Did it have that writing on it that's shown right now in this photograph, People's 423?
MS. LEWIS: It had the "Pants," "Socks" on it. I believe I added the "Debris."
MS. CLARK: So what did you do with this bag?
MS. LEWIS: The bag was opened up over the clean--the clean butcher block paper, and once again, I found another bindle inside.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And what did the bindle look like?
MS. LEWIS: It was another white sealed bindle like the others, the other two.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do with that bindle?
MS. LEWIS: The bindle was removed from the bag and the bag was placed aside. It was closed up and placed aside.
MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to all three of these bindles that were opened that were recovered from the shirt bag, the pants and socks bag and the shoe bag, were the items themselves, that is the pants and socks, the shoes, the shirt, kept separate from where you were looking from when you opened the bindles?
MS. LEWIS: Yes. They were on another table.
MS. CLARK: And the--you see a photograph in front of you, ask that it be marked People's 424.
THE COURT: 424.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
(Peo's 424 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize what's being shown you in that photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: What is it?
MS. LEWIS: It is the white bindle that I received out of the--the shirt, pants--oh, correction. I'm sorry. It was out of the pants, socks bag.
MS. CLARK: Whose writing is that on it?
MS. LEWIS: That's my writing.
MS. CLARK: When you found it inside--when you first recovered it from the bag containing Mr. Goldman's pants and socks, was it sealed?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: What did you do with it?
MS. LEWIS: I opened it up, unsealed it.
MS. CLARK: And showing you now--
MS. CLARK: I would ask this photograph be marked People's 424-A if I may.
THE COURT: 424-A, bindle opened.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 424-A for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you see what's been marked as People's 424-A?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And what is that?
MS. LEWIS: It is the bindle that's been opened.
MS. CLARK: And I see some dark stuff in there. Is that what you saw?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Was it soil?
MS. LEWIS: Soil and debris, yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you touch it?
MS. LEWIS: No, I didn't.
MS. CLARK: After looking at it, what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: Resealed it again. Closed it up, resealed it.
MS. CLARK: And where did you put it?
MS. LEWIS: It was placed on the counter with the other items.
MS. CLARK: What other items?
MS. LEWIS: The other sealed items.
MS. CLARK: What sealed items?
MS. LEWIS: The other white bindles that I had gathered from the other bags that came from the Coroner's office and the physical evidence that was on the counter.
MS. CLARK: So you had the white frozen analysis envelope?
MS. LEWIS: It was on the counter, yes.
MS. CLARK: And then you had the sealed bindles?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Off to the side?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: After you resealed this one, did you look at the butcher paper underneath it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And did you see any trace or soil or debris?
MS. LEWIS: No, I did not.
MS. CLARK: And did you look at your gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: What did you see on them?
MS. LEWIS: They were clean.
MS. CLARK: And then what happened?
MS. LEWIS: At that stage, then the gloves and the butcher block paper was thrown in the trash, discarded. New gloves, new butcher block paper was laid down.
MS. CLARK: Now, what was the next item that you looked at?
MS. LEWIS: The next item--at this stage, I had gone through all the items that--all the bags that I had received from Mr. Goldman, and now I decided to start numbering to get the physical evidence taken care of, get that altogether, and I--at this stage, I put the hair that I received that I found with the--the boot--boot or shoes. I made that item no. 74.
MS. CLARK: And--all right. So now you knew everything that Ron--that was assigned to Ron Goldman by the Coroner?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And you renumbered?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: After assigning no. 74 to the hair, the small bag that came in the bag with the shoes for Ron Goldman, what did you number next?
MS. LEWIS: Next, I numbered the debris, and the debris that was no. 75 was the debris that came with the shoes also, that was in the bindle with the shoes.
MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 422, do you see those three white bindles there in this photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Are those the debris bindles that you were referring to?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, they are.
MS. CLARK: Do you see no. 75, 76 and 77 on them?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And are those the numbers you assigned?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, they are.
MS. CLARK: And 75 was for the soil and debris that was found with what item?
MS. LEWIS: 75 was found with the shoes.
MS. CLARK: And 76?
MS. LEWIS: Found with trousers.
MS. CLARK: And 77?
MS. LEWIS: Found with his jacket or shirt.
MS. CLARK: And then did you assign envelopes--okay. You said 74 went into the white frozen analysis envelope?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it did.
MS. CLARK: What about the clothing? Were they assigned numbers?
MS. LEWIS: Not at this time. I next renumbered Nicole's items, her physical evidence.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
MS. LEWIS: I'm sorry. No. That's not correct.
MS. CLARK: Oh. What did you do?
MS. LEWIS: In this case, I stuck with Mr. Goldman's items because I didn't want to have the same thing happen to me with when I was going over Miss Brown's items in case the Coroner added some things to her clothing. I kept all my notes--booked all of his items together. I did his physical items first such as your hair and nails and the blood--the EDTA swatch, then I did the debris and then I proceeded on to get the descriptors of the clothing so I can list them. So I kept all of Mr. Goldman's items together.
MS. CLARK: All right. So after you finished the numbering of the soil and debris bindles, 75, 76, 77, then you went back to itemize the clothing of Ron Goldman?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated to us earlier that you had already examined the shirt and resealed it into a new bag.
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Was that done before you went back to the other items of evidence?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: When you went to the other items, the shoes, the pants and the socks, did you reopen his shirt bag?
MS. LEWIS: No. There was no reason to.
MS. CLARK: So that was never opened again?
MS. LEWIS: Exactly.
MS. CLARK: So what item did you go to and look at?
MS. LEWIS: The shoes were next.
MS. CLARK: With--did you examine them with clean paper down and clean gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And did you repackage those into a new bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: We already showed you that one, didn't we, in a photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And did you reseal it?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: What item number did you give it?
MS. LEWIS: I assigned it no. 78.
MS. CLARK: And did you mark the bag in some other fashion as well?
MS. LEWIS: I put the DR number on it that's assigned to this case. I put my initials, my serial number and the date that I sealed the bag.
MS. CLARK: And the DR number that's assigned to this case is?
MS. LEWIS: 94-0817431.
MS. CLARK: You sure?
MS. LEWIS: Uh, yes.
MS. CLARK: And that's what you wrote on the bags?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: All these bags?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And then did you examine the paper for hair, trace or soil after you examined the shoes?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And your gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you see any?
MS. LEWIS: No.
MS. CLARK: Did you change paper and gloves?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And then what did you do?
MS. LEWIS: Then I proceeded on with the next item.
MS. CLARK: And that was?
MS. LEWIS: Next item were the pants.
MS. CLARK: I'm showing a photograph next in order People's 4--
THE COURT: 425.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
(Peo's 425 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize what's shown there?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And what is that?
MS. LEWIS: Blue jeans covered with blood that were received from the Coroner's officer for Mr. Goldman.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, when you recovered it originally from the Coroner's office, were they packaged alone or was there something else in them, in that bag, another item of clothing?
MS. LEWIS: In the pants bag, there were socks that were also packaged with them.
MS. CLARK: They were in the same bag, were they?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, they were.
MS. CLARK: And after looking at the pants, what did you do with them?
MS. LEWIS: After looking at the pants, they were put into a fresh bag.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And do you see a bag in the upper left-hand corner of this photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And can you tell us if you recognize the writing on that bag?
MS. LEWIS: It's my writing.
MS. CLARK: Is that the new bag you put them into?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: What did you do with the old bag that originally contained these pants and socks from the Coroner's office?
MS. LEWIS: The old bag was folded over and put aside with the old bag that the shirt came in.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Showing you what's been marked as People's 420, we're going to zoom in on the right-hand side of the photograph. Can you tell us whether you recognize the bag shown in this photograph?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: What is that?
MS. LEWIS: It's the pants, sock bag that was received from the Coroner's office.
MS. CLARK: So again, you preserved that original as well?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And did you preserve that bag in the same manner as you did the original bag with the shoes?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: After you examined the pants, what did--you put them into the new bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Did you seal the bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, they were.
MS. CLARK: And then did you examine the paper, the butcher paper?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Did you see anything on it?
MS. LEWIS: No, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do with the paper?
MS. LEWIS: At this time, I still had the socks that came out of the bag. So that was still left. So I examined the socks, then put the socks back into the new bag also.
MS. CLARK: Now, why didn't you change paper between the pants and the socks?
MS. LEWIS: Because the socks and the pants came in the same bag from the Coroner's office. So if there's any cross-contamination between the two items, it had already occurred.
MS. CLARK: It was too late?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. When you examined the socks, did you notice any obvious soil or hair or debris?
MS. LEWIS: No, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: After examining the socks, what did you do with them?
MS. LEWIS: They were placed into a new bag.
MS. CLARK: Next photograph, your Honor, People's--
THE COURT: 426.
MS. CLARK: Thank you. 426.
(Peo's 426 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize that bag, ma'am?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: It's a better view of the bag you put the--the new bag you put the pants into?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Is that your writing?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And then with respect to the socks, you've already identified the original bag because it came in the bag with the pants. Do you recognize the bag that's shown underneath the photograph of the socks in these two photographs?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And how do you recognize it?
MS. LEWIS: It's got my writing on it.
MS. CLARK: That's the new bag you put the socks into?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Above that is a photograph I would ask be marked People's 427, your Honor.
THE COURT: 427, photo of socks.
(Peo's 427 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you recognize those items?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: What are they?
MS. LEWIS: They're the socks that I also received from the Coroner's office that were assigned to Mr. Goldman.
MS. CLARK: And is there a number there?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, there is.
MS. CLARK: And what--do you recognize that number?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: What number is that?
MS. LEWIS: It's no. 80.
MS. CLARK: And below that photograph is another photograph, that's the one of the bag, I would ask be marked 427, your Honor--428, your Honor.
THE COURT: 428.
(Peo's 428 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: And that's the new bag you put the socks into?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And did you seal that bag?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: After examining the socks on the butcher paper, did you examine the butcher paper for hair, trace or soil?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Did you see any?
MS. LEWIS: No, I did not.
MS. CLARK: How about your gloves?
MS. LEWIS: They were also clean.
MS. CLARK: All right. At this point then, you had already examined all of the clothing, first the shirt, then the shoes, then the pants and socks, correct?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what did you do with respect to the numbering of each of these items?
MS. LEWIS: I don't understand the question. I'm sorry.
MS. CLARK: Well, you told us earlier that you had marked the soil and debris bindles as 75, 76 and 77?
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And that you then went on to number the clothing.
MS. LEWIS: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what did you number the clothing?
MS. LEWIS: The shoes were numbered 78, the pants no. 79, the socks no. 80 and the shirt 81.
MS. CLARK: At this point, had you completed all of your processing with respect to Ron Goldman?
MS. LEWIS: Yes, I had.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss this case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you; also, don't allow anyone to communicate to with you with regard to the case. Also, with regards to two of the jurors, I asked Mrs. Robertson to collect from you two books that I need to take a look at to see if there's any problem material in those. So hopefully there won't be, and we'll get those back to you tomorrow. All right. All right. Counsel, anything else? All right. We'll stand in recess as far as the jury is concerned until 9:00 o'clock and that special proceeding tomorrow morning 8:00 o'clock. All right. And, Miss Lewis, you may step down. You are to return tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. All right. Thank you.
(At 5:00 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Tuesday, June 27, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California,)
Plaintiff,)
Vs.) No. BA097211)
Orenthal James Simpson,)
Defendant.)
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Monday, June 26, 1995
Volume 175 pages 33694 through 33973, inclusive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 175 pages 33694 - 33973
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Monday June 26, 1995 A.M. 33694 175 P.M. 33783 175
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden D Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Weir, Bruce 175 (Resumed) 33697n (Resumed) 33786n 33821gc 33875n
Lewis, Denise 33899c 175
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Weir, Bruce 175 (Resumed) 33697n (Resumed) 33786n 33821gc 33875n
Lewis, Denise 33899c 175
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
412 - Photograph 33914 175 of the decedent hair kit envelopes for Ronald Goldman - item 73
413 - Photograph 33917 175 of an analyzed frozen evidence envelope for Nicole Brown Simpson
414 - Photograph 33921 175 of the decedent hair kit envelopes for Nicole Brown Simpson - item 83
415 - Photograph 33926 175 of an unfolded shirt with brown bag
416 - Photograph 33930 175 of a closed bindle - item 77
416-A - photograph 33930 175 an open bindle - item 77
417 - Photograph 33941 175 of a folded shirt and brown bag - item 81
418 - Photograph 33943 175 a brown bag with the word "Shirt" written on it
418-A - photograph 33944 175 of brown bag with evidence tape - item 81
419 - Photograph 33947 175 of two brown bags with two shoes described as belonging to victim Ronald Goldman - item 78
420 - Photograph 33948 175 of brown bags, bindles and a watch
421 - Photograph 33950 175 of a watch - item 41
422 - Photograph 33952 175 of an envelope and three bindles--items 75, 76 and 77
422-A - photograph 33956 175 of an open bindle - item 75
423 - Photograph 33957 175 of a brown bag with the words "Pants/socks" written on it
424 - Photograph 33958 175 of a closed bindle - item 76
424-A - photograph 33959 175 of an open bindle - item 76
425 - Photograph 33966 175 of a pair of jeans with a red substance on them described as blood item 79 it
426 - Photograph 33969 175 of a brown bag - item 79
427 - Photograph 33970 175 of two white socks - item 80
428 - Photograph 33971 175 a brown bag - item 80
DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1206 - Chart 33723 175 written by Mr. Neufeld
1207 - Document 33755 175 article by Bruce Weir entitled "Population genetics in the forensic DNA debate"
1208 - Chart 33772 175 frequency numbers written by Mr. Neufeld
1209 - Document 33791 175 table entitled "Percentage of population included in DQ-Alpha mixture 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 4"
1210 - Document 33794 175 table entitled "Percentage of population included in D1S80 mixture 18, 24, 25"
1211 - Document 33795 175 table entitled "Percentage of population included in DQ-Alpha mixture 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 4 and D1S80 mixture 18, 24, 25"
1212 - Document 33797 175 table entitled "Percentage of population included in D1S80 mixture 24, 25"
1213 - Document 33798 175 table entitled "Percentage of population included in DQ-Alpha mixture 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 4 and dS180 mixture 24, 25"
1214 - 3-Page document 33802 175 described as notes from Cellmark
1215 - 3-Page document 33807 175 entitled "Amplitype users guide"
1216 - Chart 33881 175 frequency numbers written by Mr. Neufeld