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. Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. Counsel, is there anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors in?

MR. SCHECK: I just want to ask, I spoke to Mr. Harmon about indicating to us when he was going to introduce frequencies so that instead of objecting in front of the jury, or just working out the groundrules as to what this witness can and cannot testify to. Particularly since Dr. Weir is coming, what databases he is going to be using or not using, I want to work it out at the side bar.

THE COURT: All right. But I take it we are going to go through more autorads this morning?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. At best we will get to the statistics before lunch, so at best--

THE COURT: At best. I think at best as well.

MR. HARMON: I do, too.

MR. SCHECK: One last thing, and that is in a friendly way I would request that Mr. Harmon not bring up teaching with this witness and his personal--there were some references--I didn't object to it at the time--but I thought that those were inappropriate.

THE COURT: Not particularly relevant at this point.

MR. SCHECK: I think it is vouching and it should be--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, I'm going to direct you to let me know when you move into the statistics part, the analysis part of the evidence.

MR. HARMON: Presenting statistics?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, I have--I am a little confused on where we are with 47 and 50 right now because there is some more foundation I can lay with Mr. Sims and I don't want to violate--it is kind of fuzzy where we are with it and I would like you to remind me where we went yesterday so--

THE COURT: What do you have left to do? I thought we were doing probes.

MR. HARMON: Well, we were, but because I thought it was clear where we were before yesterday, I--Mr. Sims hasn't carefully described what was on the bindles when he received them, and I intend to--to have him do that as a matter of the chain of custody of these items.

THE COURT: What was on it when he received it?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: I mean, you know, then--anybody can subtract what is on there now, so--

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: And I want him--I will be very careful with this, but as a matter of the chain of custody, I intend to, with the Court's permission, to elicit what was on--what was on those bindles when he received them and then I intend to show him the board, 47, 50, and ask him, not what Mr. Scheck doesn't want me to ask him, but are those the bindles that he received and leave it at that.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: If he directs him to say which initials were on it when he received it and puts them away and doesn't do any French pastry or any schtick, you know, that is what your ruling was.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: So I can show him the board?

THE COURT: You can show him the board.

MR. HARMON: Limit it to that?

THE COURT: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: And let me see Mr. Darden and Mr. Cochran without the court reporter, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(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 that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, would you please resume the witness stand.

Gary Sims, 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, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to back up to a couple of items, before we resume, where we ended yesterday. I believe in describing your evidence processing and how you open things, did you carefully note any names, initials, any descriptive terms that were on specific items when you received them and opened them for the first time?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did. I photographed those and I also wrote down what the information on the envelopes and bindles was.

MR. HARMON: So you have photos of the items which show all the descriptive names and dates and initials?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And you also noted them in your lengthy notes?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: If you would, I would like you to refer to your notes, if you need to, to remember the exact descriptions concerning item 47, which was one of the drops from the Bundy walkway.

MR. SIMS: Yes. That was one of the early items that we looked at, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And when you first opened and examined and noted the descriptions that were on both the coin envelopes and the bindles, what was on them?

MR. SIMS: On item no. 47, that was a sealed envelope. The seal had the name "c. Yamauchi, G8880 8/11/94," and then on the front of the envelope was "94-0817"--I'm sorry, "94-0817431," the initials "C.Y." and then "G8880."

MR. HARMON: Anything else?

MR. SIMS: There was also then--for that particular item there was--it was circled with a "b" and then "item no. 47".

MR. HARMON: Anything else written on either the coin envelope or the bindle?

MR. SIMS: No. I believe that is all--on the coin envelope that would be it. Now, when you actually get to the bindle--

MR. HARMON: Right. Would you--

MR. SIMS: --which is inside the sealed envelope--

MR. HARMON: Sure. Would you describe what writing you saw on the bindle.

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is now on the bindle which is inside the coin envelope for item no. 47. It said, "to DOJ, 8/11/94 C.Y. G8880" and on the back of the bindle it said the sign for number, the symbol for number "112," which is 112 and it looked like the initials "D.F." and then "C.Y. G8880."

MR. HARMON: Is that it?

MR. SIMS: That's it, and then I put my own initials, case number and date on the bindle.

MR. HARMON: What did you put on them?

MR. SIMS: I put on--the bindles and the coin envelopes would have my case number, which is DNA-0040-94, the date that I received it or the date that I actually examined it in the case of the bindle, and then also my initials "G.A.S."

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we shift to item 50, one of the other Bundy walk drops and the same questions. What writing did you see on the coin envelope and the bindle?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Again there was a sealed envelope. On the seal it said "c. Yamauchi, G8880, SID, 8/11/94." on the front envelope "94-0817431 C.Y. G8880," and then for this--now, this is item no. 50, it said--there was an "e" with a circle around it, "item no. 50."

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you also took a picture of that item?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And you wrote--did you write the same things on item 50 that you wrote on 47?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I would write our case number, our initials and our date. The only difference would be that I also put our DNA item numbers that are different for those two items on those.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Those--the correlation between the LAPD item numbers and your DNA lab numbers are reflected in your chain of custody records?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Yes, they are.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, we are going to put People's exhibit no. 210 up on the easel there. I would like you to look at photographs that purport to reflect items 47 and 50. And the only question I want to ask you, and I would like you to consider when you look at it, is are the items in the photographs that purport to be 47 and 50 the same items which you received in the DOJ lab and processed in the way that you've described? Okay?

MR. SIMS: I understand.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: I recognize the items by the writing that I placed on.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, when you say the items, you are referring to there are two photos in the column labeled "item 47.". Do you recognize--what do you recognize in the two photos that--one over the other, in "item 47" column on People's 210 for identification?

MR. SIMS: I recognize that--I recognize the initial writing that I mentioned earlier. For example, the "94-0817431" and "item no. 47" with the "d" circled around it. I recognize my case number "DNA-0040-94."

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, you are going to have to turn a little more toward the jury. They are having a hard time hearing you.

MR. SIMS: I recognize my case number DNA-0040-94. I recognize the date and my initials and then our DNA item number in this case, it was DNA 5 and I also recognize the "C.Y. G8880," et cetera.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we shift to item--strike that. When you seal these packages, do you use a specific color tape?

MR. SIMS: Yes. We use--for the outside of the items we use a whitish tape that has red lettering.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's shift to item 50, if you would.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Do you recognize the items that are in the two photographs under item 50 on People's 210 for identification?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do. I recognize the writing that I mentioned earlier, such as 94-08-17431, the no. 50 with the "e" circled, my case number, my date and my initials and the item number, and then I also see some of that information again on the bindles. You can see it in one of the photos.

MR. HARMON: And do you see item 50 with the same white tape with red lettering?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The coin envelope I did seal with that. The bindles I would just use scotch tape because it is much easier to work with.

MR. HARMON: You pointed to the top of the photograph in item 50. There is white tape with red lettering. Is that the tape you sealed it with?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You can resume your seat.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this point I want to mark some more autorads that relate to some of the exhibits that we showed yesterday. With respect to yesterday, we marked as People's exhibit 270-A through C the three autorads from analytical membrane 625. Today I would like to mark additional autorads for that same membrane AM625 and I will--and if--to make sense, I would like to start with 270-D and I will describe the a number for the record so we can keep track of these.

THE COURT: All right. That is appropriate.

MR. HARMON: There are five additional autorads for AM625. I would like to have marked as 270-D the autorad labeled A11. As 270-E, the autorad labeled A24. As 270-F, the autorad labeled A15. And as 270-G, the autorad labeled A22. As 270-H, the autorad labeled A24.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 270-D for id = autorad)

(Peo's 270-E for id = autorad)

(Peo's 270-F for id = autorad)

(Peo's 270-G for id = autorad)

(Peo's 270-H for id = autorad)

MR. HARMON: And then additionally, with respect to the membrane that we were discussing when we broke yesterday, that series was marked 271-A through C, the first ones that we were in the process of showing, today I would like to add as 271-D the autorad labeled A19--A18, I'm sorry, and as 271-E, the autorad labeled A19.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 271-D for id = autorad)

(Peo's 271-E for id = autorad)

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: And that was for membrane 626?

MR. HARMON: 626.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we get--we didn't capture the photograph of A16 when we broke yesterday, which is 271-A, so could we get that back up on the board.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I'm going to ask you to recreate--

MR. SCHECK: To save time, I would stipulate to them putting the arrows in as we did yesterday.

MR. HARMON: Could we do that on the break, set it up on the break and capture that on the break?

THE COURT: Yes, please.

MR. HARMON: So we will come back to A16 during the break. Could I have 271-B, which is A17.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, why don't you come back up here and if you would address your answers to the jury.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, yesterday you had described A16, which is the autorad for the probe D1S7, and today we have A17 which is the autorad for D2S44 for the membrane AM626 and could you just describe again the samples that are up there and we will go through them and I will have you mark them as best you can.

MR. SIMS: Okay. Just to reorient you again, in lane 1 this is one of the ladders, the size standards that we mentioned.

MR. HARMON: Could you get a different color for that. That won't show up really well.

MR. SIMS: Is that better?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: Again, this is lane 1. This is the size standard. Lane 2 is the K562. That is the national standard that we use. Lane 3 is the quality control, the blind sample. Lane 4 is another size standard. Lane 5 and the next two lanes now I will talk about, these are the reference bloodstains from Nicole Brown, and then next we have the reference bloodstain from Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is it easy to distinguish between Miss Brown and Mr. Goldman at their--by their reference sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: You don't need a computer to do that?

MR. SIMS: No, you don't.

MR. HARMON: What conclusions could you reach between the comparison of the evidence stains G1, G2 and G4 on the glove, no. 9, and the two reference samples?

MR. SIMS: Well, the key on this particular autorad is--is to see that if you first start with G1--

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. SIMS: --start with G1, that particular sample and it is hard to see, but I believe there is a band down in this area, (Indicating). It is hard to see on the--on this display, but the bands that we see in G1, there are four bands. I will just go slowly through them; 1, 2, 3 and then 4 I believe is down there, (Indicating), and that pattern is composite--that pattern is consistent with a mixture of the samples of Nicole Brown and also Ronald Goldman. In other words, those four bands are consistent with that mixture pattern.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What about G2? What did you observe in trying to compare G2 with any of the reference stains?

MR. SIMS: In looking at G2 again one can see four bands, and this gets pretty subtle and we may later want to look--we may later want to look at the light box to see it better.

MR. HARMON: So you can actually see what you are describing there better on the light box?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I can.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. SIMS: But I believe you can still see four bands in this particular pattern; 1, 2, 3, 4, and what is of interest to me is that now this--this middle set, these are the two bands in the middle here, now they are starting to get weaker, but you will notice that the band up here is still quite strong, (Indicating), and the band out here is reasonably strong, (Indicating). It is the ones in the middle that are starting to get weaker. And those bands are consistent with the pattern--they match the pattern of Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's just pause and talk about G1 and G2 and their relationship to one another. What is your explanation for the fact that that two-banded pattern appears to be fading and the other two bands seem to be staying there?

MR. SIMS: I think--I think what we are seeing is that the DNA contribution from one of the individuals is maintaining itself at a certain level where we are getting less DNA from the second contributor.

MR. HARMON: Is that because there is less DNA there?

MR. SIMS: I think there is less DNA there from the second contributor, yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't we move to G4 then and explain how that fits in with what you just provided us.

MR. SIMS: G4 again can--the trend continues in G4. You can see a band up here, (Indicating). I think you can see a band down there, (Indicating), and again we will look at these I think on the light box to see it a little more clearly and now these have almost faded out entirely.

MR. HARMON: When you say "these," you are pointing the arrow to the two-banded pattern that is consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Those are the two bands that are--that are consistent with Nicole Brown. They are fairly close to each other.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And I believe you mentioned this yesterday as the explanation for why the Defendant's reference blood is not on this gel and that is because he was excluded as a source of any of these stains on the basis of PCR typing?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. In other words, we looked at--we did additional tests prior so we had that information.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And this is glove no. 9?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. From Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: The additional PCR tests were done on DNA that was extracted from these very stains?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It is the same DNA.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's--we are not going--I'm not going to ask you to mark this one because we have marked the first one for demonstration purposes. Why don't we move on to a 25 which has been marked 271-C. Okay. Everything is in the same relative position because these samples are all from the same gel; is that right?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Why don't we just jump over to the reference samples. Can you easily distinguish between Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman at this marker which is the D5S110?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is D5S110.

MR. HARMON: You don't need a computer to do that?

MR. SIMS: No. One can clearly see the difference in the banding patterns for Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And as far as the stained glove G1, the no. 9 glove from Rockingham, what can you say about the pattern that you see there?

MR. SIMS: Well, again we see this four-banded pattern; 1, 2, 3, four bands, (Indicating), and again this--at this level the mixture appears fairly equal. In other words, all the bands are fairly close in intensity.

MR. HARMON: On the stain G1?

MR. SIMS: On the stain G1. And furthermore, again the four bands are consistent with a mixture of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and I think you can--

MR. HARMON: You can't exclude other possible mixtures as the source of that four-banded pattern?

MR. SIMS: No, not--not just on the basis of this four-banded pattern, no.

MR. HARMON: You can't pair up any two of the bands in that four-banded pattern scientifically; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's true. For example, just looking at this G1 pattern, these two bands, for example, could be from one person and these two bands could be from a second person. That would just be one example of the ways a pattern like that could break down.

MR. HARMON: Okay. But now as you move on to the stains G2 and G4, is what you see in those stains or on this autorad, does that help you pair up the banding patterns that you see?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does, and I think this autorad is--is a very good demonstration of what I was talking about earlier. If you look at the G2 pattern now, you can see two bands, I will stop for a second there, (Indicating), and there, (Indicating), that are consistent with the bands seen in Mr. Goldman's pattern and those bands are fairly similar in intensity to the pattern in G1. You can see the intensities, comparing the G1 and G2 lanes you can see the intensity for those two bands are pretty close. But now when I go to these bands that are weaker in G2, here and here, (Indicating), one can see that those bands are consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's profile and it is interesting to me that they are now weaker. In other words, it appears that those two bands have gotten weaker while these other two bands have maintained a fairly similar level of intensity.

MR. HARMON: And the other two bands that you refer to are ones that are--that appear to match Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they appear to match Mr. Goldman's bands.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you discuss G4 then in the same context and what the implications of the pattern that you see there are.

MR. SIMS: G4 I think again the trend continues and we are not looking at a pattern like this. I think it is very informative to look across those samples because I think you do gain information about interpretations by studying those patterns and how they check across the sample. And in G4 again we see bands in this position, (Indicating), and this position, (Indicating), that visually match the band from Mr. Goldman. They are of similar intensity now all the way across. Slight variation there, but it is pretty close, I think you will see, whereas now those last two bands in G4, the weaker band here, (Indicating), and the weaker band here, (Indicating), those visually match the bands of Nicole Brown and they faded out quite a bit. And you can see in this position, if you look across the band, you can see the fading and I think here you can see the fading, (Indicating), and the relative intensities I believe are very informative in this case because now this tells me that these--the bands in G4 that are in this position, (Indicating), and this position, (Indicating), tend to be associated with Mr.--

MR. HARMON: So you described from top to bottom the top one and then the third one down?

MR. SIMS: Yes, the top one and the third one down, one would tend to associate those now with Mr. Goldman, whereas the ones in the second and fourth position, one would now tend to associate with Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And without addressing the PCR test results, which we will address shortly, in reflecting back to the stain from the glove no. 9 from Rockingham that was labeled G3 on the previous membrane, what sorts of conclusions can you draw from your RFLP analysis alone of stains G1, G2, G3 and G4 from glove no. 9 that was found at Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: The conclusion I would draw was, first of all, that the G3 one that we looked at earlier was--that pattern was consistent only with Mr. Goldman's banding pattern, and that therefore he could be the source of that DNA. And then looking at G1, 2 and 4 we can also see Mr. Goldman's pattern and also I think we can pick out separately that Nicole Brown Simpson's pattern is there also.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So at this point, based on your RFLP results, on G1, G2, G3 and G4, you have identified Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman as possible sources of those stains, either singly as in G3 or in combination, in a mixture, in G1, G2 and G4?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you also--and we just had them mark--did a couple of other probes for this same membrane; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.

MR. HARMON: And were there actually a couple of probes or a couple of autorads that were produced for this membrane that were not used in your ultimate opinion?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And why was that?

MR. SIMS: There was one probe for which we had a problem with the hybridization and I rejected the data. I would not use it.

MR. HARMON: Did those results tend to exclude what you have already concluded and described for the jury here?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: A technical problem?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the other autorad?

MR. SIMS: The other autorad, as I recall, the locus on that--can I refer to my notes?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Yes. On the other locus that we mentioned that I haven't mentioned yet was our D4S139 locus and in that locus the two individuals tend to share a band or they have a very close band so you don't see these four-banded pattern in the mixture.

MR. HARMON: Did those results in any way undermine the conclusions you have already related to the jury?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. We will show the remaining autorads to the jury in a little bit. Okay. Mr. Sims, why don't you go back up to your seat.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, in reviewing all the tests that were done in this case, both the RFLP and the PCR and in discussing the results with your colleagues at the Department of Justice, is it your opinion that all the tests that were done in this case were performed properly?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

MR. HARMON: In accordance with the scientific literature?

MR. SCHECK: Hearsay, irrelevant, discussions with--

THE COURT: Overruled, but why don't you rephrase the question as it is leading.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do you have an opinion about--which is based on the scientific literature, protocols in your lab and whatever user guides were provided to you, about whether or not the tests were performed properly and in accord with that information?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the form of this question with respect to unnamed literature.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: If he wants to state his opinion, that is fine.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes. All of the results that we reported would meet those criteria.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, at this time I would like to--actually we haven't resolved a couple of the boards, but I can do the Rockingham board now and then--

THE COURT: Let's proceed with that.

MR. HARMON: Could we have the Rockingham board.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: 120.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, this is People's 120, this particular board?

MR. HARMON: Yes, it is, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: That is the Rockingham exterior photo board. And then we want to display People's exhibit 261 for identification, which Dr. Cotton has already testified about, the Rockingham result board.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, was one of the stains which the Department of Justice performed DNA analyses on in this case what was--what has been described as item no. 6 from the Rockingham trail?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what sorts of tests were performed on item no. 6 by the Department of Justice?

MR. SIMS: On item no. 6, which is from the Rockingham trail, that was our item number DNA-4, LAPD no. 6, PCR-based tests, DQ-Alpha and D1S80 were performed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And were similar PCR tests, DQ-Alpha and D1S80 performed on reference samples from the Defendant, Miss Brown and Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And would you look at the top of People's 261 for identification and see if the chart, which describes the reference sample typing results, if that reflects the typing results of the Defendant, Miss Brown and Mr. Goldman.

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe it does, although I will quickly check the notes just for accuracy.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Yes. Those reflect our results.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And were you successful in obtaining PCR results from item no. 6 from the Rockingham driveway?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What were those results?

MR. SIMS: From the Rockingham driveway?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Item no. 6, the DQ-Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2, the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And were those results consistent--

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me, your Honor. I have a matter with respect to D1S80 results. May we approach?

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. There has been no foundation whatsoever laid for D1S80 results with respect to the technology, with respect to its foundation, with respect in particular to this witness' expertise and knowledge for reporting these results. The testimony has been that he is the lead analyst in the case, but the person who performed the D1S80 tests and has the requisite specialized knowledge is Miss Montgomery. So there has been no explanation and no foundation laid as to the D1S80 system whatsoever through this witness or any other witness, so at this time it seems to me the wrong witness and there is a lack of foundation and I object to that result coming in.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, do you think you have an adequate foundation?

MR. HARMON: Yes, I do. I mean, we could call in the guys that stripped the membranes, too, and spend the next couple of months doing that. If you recall, Robin Cotton didn't actually do any of this.

THE COURT: No, no, I'm not worried about the comparison. Have you laid a foundation for Mr. Sims to testify to the D1S80?

MR. HARMON: Yes, I have. Robin Cotton has explained the technology. We even discussed DQ-Alpha with him. I could spend half a day discussing DQ-Alpha generically with him if that is what Mr. Scheck wants.

THE COURT: That is not the objection. The objection is to the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: D1S80 is in the same category. We have explained it sufficiently for him to describe the results. I will have Renee testify. I mean, if that is the problem, if they want to hear from Renee--

THE COURT: Is Miss Montgomery going to testify?

MR. HARMON: Absolutely, absolutely.

THE COURT: I will overrule the objection subject to a motion to strike.

MR. HARMON: No question.

MR. SCHECK: That be made clear that--there is--at the present time there is no foundation and my concern--

THE COURT: I--I understand.

MR. SCHECK: But what I'm asking for is an instruction to the jury that the D1S80 result is being taken subject to connection through the testimony of another witness because right now there is no foundation. And what I'm fearful of, if you take a look at the D1S80--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: --results, they look like RFLP results in the sense that they have banding--you know, they have marker lanes and bands on them, but it is a different system with different principles. If the Court recalls, at the time that this witness testified at the griffin hearing, this laboratory had not even reported out a D1S80 result, as of August, so it seems to me that there is a 352 problem in terms of conflating (sic) the two systems just by their appearances and the foundation of the two systems is different. And I am afraid by letting it in in this fashion is a chance of spill-over prejudice. So what I would ask the Court to do is instruct the jury that the D1S80 result is being taken now subject to connection, explain what the subject to connection is to be connected up with another witness; not this witness.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled subject to a motion to strike.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Harmon, proceed.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, what were the results that you obtained on your PCR analysis of the item no. 6, the Rockingham driveway drop?

MR. SIMS: This is item no. 6?

MR. HARMON: Uh-huh.

MR. SIMS: The PCR results were as follows: The DQ-Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2, the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Those were consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they were.

MR. HARMON: Could you approach People's exhibit 261 and remove the two covers that reflect those results.

MR. SIMS: Do you want me to stand over here?

MR. HARMON: Just remove them and let the jury see them. We just want to make sure they are what you just described for us. Do the PCR results appear to reflect the results you obtained?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And under the "not excluded" column those are consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: Does that mean he is a possible source of those stains?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: We will discuss statistics in a little bit on that. Okay. You can have a seat again.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I had wanted to discuss the glove and the socks results and we never finally resolved those boards. I'm sorry, I hadn't thought of it before we started this morning.

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask jury to step back into the jury room briefly.

(The jury exits the courtroom and the following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Let's have it quiet, please. All the jurors have withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Harmon, which board are we talking about?

MR. HARMON: Umm, the boards in question are the glove photo board, no. 9 photo board that we have not yet marked.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: And then the glove results board which have not been marked.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: And there were some--Mr. Scheck had expressed some concerns about the way we have presented the information there, so can we start with the glove photo board, put it up there.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. There was going to be used in conjunction with the results board.

MR. HARMON: Yes, which we will show you next. It might make sense to look at them both together since they will be displayed together. Could you do that for us?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, any comment?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, it is the same objection we made before and I think that--I think the difficulty for the Court at this point in time is that to be consistent in the results that have been made with the previous boards, if I were in your position, umm, at this point, and in the interests of moving on, I might be inclined not to be consistent in the rulings. But the point is, is that these objections were made known to them a long time ago with the boards and they have done nothing to conform them. The problem here is the 352 problem and the argumentative problem that the Court has been dealing with with respect to boards and has been consistent and very, very strict in the rulings. If you look at the Rockingham blood result board, what they are trying to indicate here is that for various different stains, G10, for example, G9, that that is Mr. Goldman's blood. For G12 that that is Mr. Goldman and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's blood, even with respect to the mixtures, umm, they are making assertions that these are the mixtures of the blood of these various different individuals, as opposed to--as opposed to, umm, simply stating that they are markers and markers that have different frequencies and dramatically different frequencies. Some of these, umm, results that are reflected in the "g" numbers on the Rockingham glove result boards, umm, are RFLP test results, umm, which concededly will have frequencies which are much rarer, dramatically rarer than the mixture--the--the D1S80 results with respect to Mr. Simpson on the glove, which is extremely common, and then when the aggregate frequency comes in with respect to the mixture, necessarily extraordinarily common. So it seems to me that it gets extremely misleading and it is a terrible 352 problem. We have tried to be very careful in not, umm, mixing up people with respect to these results. I pointed out to them just the other day that it is going to be--umm, the prejudice of the glove result board, umm, is compounded by the fact that they are giving "g" numbers. You know, if they want to say, well, we won't mislead the jury because we are giving statistics and not excluded results on the result board, umm, it is going to be very hard to link them up because they are having even different numbers. Now, they knew that this was a problem, they knew what the Court's rulings had been on the previous boards. They made absolutely no effort to conform. This has been pending, you know, really for--umm, ever since we dealt with the first board with Mr. Clarke. They knew exactly what the problem was, exactly what the rulings had been, exactly how they should be conformed and they just didn't bother. And so now the Court is confronted with a situation where we all want to move on with this testimony, we all want to get through this. And they think they can, you know, slide it past and the Court won't be consistent with its rulings and I just urge you to be consistent in your rulings.

THE COURT: So your objection is that the names of the individuals that are not excluded should be taken off of the Rockingham glove blood results and that the items number G1 through 13 should remain--excuse me--G1 through 14 should remain to indicate where on the glove the samples were taken?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: My turn?

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Just so I understand your objection.

MR. SCHECK: In fact, your solution was better than the one I proposed the other day, which is not uncommon when it comes to the boards.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I promise you that I will never show one board without the other board. If I could hinge them together to ensure that that will never happen, even when I'm not here, I would do that, but our easel couldn't hold it. Here is the problem. We have the same names over there that we have here, and if the jury is going to see them all together, how argumentative is it to have--is it to have the same names there that we have here? For example, G13, you want, I can uncover G13 and you see it says it is consistent with a mixture of Ronald Goldman, Nicole Brown and Orenthal Simpson. That is what we have over there. That is the same mixtures we have on G11. So while it may be devastating to see the same thing in two places, how can it be prejudicial if I assure you to the best of my human ability that they will never be seen separately?

MR. SCHECK: If the Court--the frequencies are all different, the statistical significance, even assuming all this comes in, is all different. The mixture numbers aren't even here. The rarity of these mixtures and the significance one can draw with them, which is the essence of understanding DNA evidence, is all different and this board is purposely designed to say this is whose blood it is and this kind of mixture form, and that is argumentative with respect to these results.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. SCHECK: They should just get rid of the names.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Should I say something, your Honor? They are going to be seen together. There is nothing different here. What they are doing is it is the same whipsaw that forced us to calculate mixtures when virtually everything is shaded there, and we will do that later, and I--you heard how we just explained just the RFLP results and what he can say and what he can't say about it. There--and given the eloquence and the credentials of Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld, there is no question that if I overstate the significance of anything, we will be humiliated and the commentators will have a heyday with us overstepping.

THE COURT: Your first mistake is to listen to the commentators.

MR. HARMON: I didn't say I did.

THE COURT: Much less to--since they don't know what they are talking about either. All right. Here is the problem, though. We do have various different results because we have different tests. This board gives the impression that these are results, not results that--not non-exclusions, which is what these really are. I agree with you, it will be very helpful. It is helpful to me to look at this exhibit. It has great probative value telling me where these samples were taken on the glove. This is the first time that I can now picture where the samples were taken and it allows the finder of fact to think more clearly as to how that blood got where it is.

MR. HARMON: Could we have a "not excluded" patch? Would that help to--do we have a "not excluded" patch? We have a lot of them so--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: We have a "not excluded" patch. You see, this board started out with a possible source. Now we can say possible source, but we can't put it on the board, so we have been forced to put "not excluded" on the column there, so to get a little symmetry here let's put "not excluded" on this board.

THE COURT: Have you got a non-excluded?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: You know what, if we can--if we can get--I will defer until after the lunch hour if a "not excluded" patch will suffice on the top of the board and we--we had "possible source" on it and just got rid of it because of the anxiety that that created.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. Let me see it with a "non-excluded" after the lunch hour. All right. Let's proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could--just in--that is not going to solve the problem with respect to the mixtures and the different probabilities. My suggestion is that--is the one that the Court raised and could they also prepare something that, umm, would take this board in conjunction with the result board which I think would be a far more accurate and not confusing way. I mean, whereas you would see, in connection with the result board, exactly which location is referred to in terms of the different patterns, the "not excluded" and the frequencies, so they would be linked up, but does not, umm, make the confusing and argumentative kind of assertions here. So if you could ask for the--I would ask that they prepare a back-up system of patches just in case.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to direct the Prosecution to prepare a "not excluded" addition to the Rockingham glove blood results board and when we mark these for identification purposes they will be to whatever it is, A and B, so that they are always part of the same exhibit. All right. That is the order. Let's proceed. Let's have the jury, please. Take the glove photograph down.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, we could take a "not excluded" patch--

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, maybe we could take one off the Rockingham board right now and put it up and we will make sure that that doesn't ever get shown to the jury.

THE COURT: Is it removable, Mr. Fairtlough?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor, it is.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

(Brief pause.)

(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. Proceed, Mr. Harmon.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: Can we proceed with that as we--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this point I would like to have marked as People's next in order--

THE COURT: 272.

MR. HARMON: --272, a photo board showing item no. 9.

THE COURT: No, not the photo board. The agreement was after lunch that was going to be taken care of.

MR. HARMON: Oh, I misunderstood. I thought we would do that now.

THE COURT: No. That wasn't done. Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And we didn't address the sock board either, which is--

THE COURT: Well, move on.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Moving right on to exhibit no. 172, the Bronco photo board--your Honor, what time does the Court intend to break today?

THE COURT: 10:30.

MR. HARMON: 10:30. Okay.

MR. HARMON: And could we show that in conjunction with the Bronco results board, which has been marked as exhibit 260.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, while the photo board is being found, did the Department of Justice perform DNA analysis on LAPD item no. 24, which was marked as your no. 15?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your department or your laboratory also perform DNA analysis on item no. 29 from the Bronco steering wheel, which you marked as DOJ 16?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your department perform DNA analysis on item no. 30, LAPD item no. 30 from the center console of the Bronco, which you marked as DOJ DNA 17?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your lab perform analyses on item no. 31 from the Bronco center console, which is your no. 18?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your laboratory perform analyses on item no. 34 from the Bronco driver's sidewall which you marked as item 20?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your department perform DNA analysis on item 293 from the carpet driver's side which you marked as your no. 29?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your department perform DNA testing on item 303 from the center console which you marked as DOJ 52?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did your department, your laboratory, perform DNA testing on item 304 from the center console which us marked as DNA 53?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And finally, from the Bronco, did your lab perform analysis on item 305 from the center console, which you marked as item 30?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's go back to the top then. Item number--I'm sorry--24, which you marked as DNA 15, what sorts of tests did you perform on that sample?

MR. SIMS: The tests--the test that was performed was DQ-Alpha typing, PCR DQ-Alpha typing.

MR. HARMON: That is the only test you performed?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What result did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The type was 1.1, 1.2.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is that result consistent with the known type of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Would you step to the board and remove the covers on item 24, your no. 15. Can you reach it?

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And that reflects DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: Was the Defendant excluded as a possible source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: No, he was not.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that column.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And item no. 29, did you perform DNA testing on that sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: And again when you are saying "me," that is our laboratory.

MR. HARMON: The laboratory, sure.

MR. SIMS: On item no. 29--I'm sorry--this is--

MR. HARMON: Item no. 29, your no. 16?

MR. SIMS: Yes, yes, okay. That test was the DQ-Alpha test.

MR. HARMON: And what were the results?

MR. SIMS: The result was that we found mainly what we considered to be a 1.1, 1.2 with a weaker 4 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the cover.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Are the results accurately depicted on 260, the exhibit board?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And let's just talk about--this is one of the samples you sent extracted DNA to Cellmark from; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And as far as--the only test in common that you and Cellmark performed, if the chart is correct, is the DQ-Alpha testing; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And you have described a weaker 4. What is the significance of seeing a 1.1, 1.2 weaker 4?

MR. SIMS: With the weaker 4 allele--well, first of all, by my interpretation, I saw the 1.1, 1.2, which is consistent with the Defendant's own type, which is 1.1, 1.2. I noted the weaker 4 allele. And in my interpretation, because there was so little DNA in this sample, I was hesitant to make much of a conclusion of that weaker 4 as to who could be the source.

MR. HARMON: Is this one of the ones you struggled with in terms of how to describe the significance or the conclusions of your results?

MR. SIMS: Absolutely. It is a difficult interpretation.

MR. HARMON: And it is clearly a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what is the significance of the low amount of DNA with respect to being able to draw a conclusion on this sample alone?

MR. SIMS: On this sample alone my concern was with that very low level of DNA to begin with, and given that it is a mixture, I would be concerned that we may not detect one of the weaker alleles in a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Now, when you say there was a low level of DNA to begin with, you performed some sort of quantitative analysis of the DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.

MR. HARMON: And when you performed that sort of quantitative analysis, are you--is that a quanitation of the total amount of DNA that is in the mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: But not the relative contradictions of the different sources?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. In other words, we just knew the total DNA but we wouldn't know the breakdown of the mixture from that procedure.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is this one that you actually--it was difficult for you to describe in terms of what your conclusion was about who was excluded and who was not excluded?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And is your--I'm going to ask you to describe it to the best of your ability the way you described your conclusion in your report. Do you have your report memorized in terms of how you concluded who was excluded and who was not on this stain?

MR. SIMS: I--I don't have it memorized, but I have my report in front of me.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would it help to just read it over and do the best you can with that?

MR. SIMS: yes. (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: How did you describe your conclusions in terms of comparing your results with the reference samples in this case?

MR. SIMS: Well, the main point I made again was that I saw this particular combination of 1.1, 1.2 as being the major component of this--of this pattern. And so I--from that I concluded that Mr. Simpson could not be excluded as a possible source of that sample.

MR. HARMON: And is that clear, that that was not--you did not exclude him on this stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is--that is correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Where did you go from there?

MR. SIMS: Well, where I went from there was I saw this 4 by itself. I did not see Mr. Goldman's type in full which was the 1.3, 4, but I was hesitant to make an absolute exclusion of Mr. Goldman on that basis.

MR. HARMON: Why?

MR. SIMS: Well, what this kind of result tells me is that this is probably a good sample for additional testing, which is one reason we sent it to Cellmark because this information was just limited to my conclusion of Mr. Goldman. You know, at the same time I want to point out that I think is--I don't think it is proper for me to stand here and say, oh, yes, that 4 came from Mr. Goldman. That is not the kind of point I'm trying to make at all. The point I want to make is that when you are talking about absolute exclusions we said that we could not make a clear-cut exclusion of Mr. Goldman on that sample. I'm not suggesting for one moment that he is the source of that 4.

MR. HARMON: So you can't exclude him?

MR. SIMS: I could not make what I called a clear-cut exclusion.

MR. HARMON: But you are not saying he is included either?

MR. SIMS: That is exactly right. I think that would be very prejudicial.

MR. HARMON: For that matter, can you tell us how many people could produce the combination of types that you see in your results?

MR. SIMS: With just the major--major type--

MR. HARMON: How many people--can you actually put a limit on how many people total could have contributed to that mixture?

MR. SIMS: Well, it would be very difficult with interpreting that very weak 4 and not knowing what else may be there in the components.

MR. HARMON: I guess my question is not clear. What is the maximum number of people that could have contributed the mixed results that you obtained, you alone obtained on that sample?

MR. SIMS: Well, the maximum number, if you start thinking of all the different possibilities, that would certainly add up. I mean, you could have two people, for example, that are of the same type to contribute to a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Let me just give you a general question. Without knowing the types of this group, could you exclude like the starting line-up of the L.A. Lakers?

MR. SIMS: If I knew their types.

MR. HARMON: But just by the number of them?

MR. SIMS: No. It would be very difficult to make that kind of determination, but again, I can only speak to what I see. I can't--

MR. HARMON: Sure. Are your results necessarily inconsistent with Cellmark's conclusion in any way?

MR. SIMS: Oh, not at all. For example, if one wanted to say that Nicole Brown could be there because her 1.1 allele is present and she is a 1.1, 1.1, then certainly that is a possible combination.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And given the way you've questioned it, do you feel there is any point to put Mr. Goldman's name in the "not excluded" column?

MR. SIMS: I think this is sort of an asterisk situation. I don't feel comfortable putting him there. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable putting him as a possible source. I think that would be incorrect.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on to item no. 30 from the center console, no. 17.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: What results did the lab obtain on your analysis of no. 17?

MR. SIMS: In that--on that particular sample we did 27 different PCR systems. We did the--the DQ-Alpha typing and will D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: What were those results?

MR. SIMS: The results were DQ-Alpha, the no. 30, was 1.1, 1.2, the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: Were those results consistent with Mr. Simpson, the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove those two covers from item no. 30.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. The board 260 accurately depicts the results that you just described?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move to item no. 31 from the center console, your no. 18. What sort of test did the lab perform on those?

MR. SIMS: The lab performed DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests.

MR. HARMON: What were the results?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows: on the DQ-Alpha test we determined that there was mainly 1.1, 1.2 and we also saw what we considered to be a weaker application with 1.3 and 4 alleles.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the--how were you able to determine this stronger-weaker conclusion?

MR. SIMS: When one is looking at one of these typing strips, one can see that there is a stronger contradiction, a stronger dot for particular types than for some of the other dots, and it is analogous to the process I was showing you on the RFLP. It is a different typing system, obviously, but it is the same idea about picking out what goes--what two alleles might go together because they are stronger and what two alleles or dots might go together because they are weaker.

MR. HARMON: So sometimes you can sort them out by the relative strengths of these things?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And sometimes you can't?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And would that same general provision apply whether it is RFLP or PCR?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you remove the strip covering the results for 31.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: As well as the "not excluded" category.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So would you describe--you have listed in the "not excluded" category the Defendant in this case. Why did you include him in what you saw in the mixture as a result that you saw from item no. 31, the center console?

MR. SIMS: We included the Defendant because his types are present in the sample, 1.1, 1.2 for the DQ-Alpha and also 24, 25 for the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the weaker 1.3, 4, who is that consistent with?

MR. SIMS: That is consistent with Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And let's talk about Mr. Goldman's D1S80 type and Renee Montgomery will be testifying next and demonstrating some of these results.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard that last comment.

MR. HARMON: Sorry.

MR. HARMON: Umm, how can you sort out, from looking at the reference types of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, and Mr. Goldman, it appears they have something in common with D1S80; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they do. They both share the 24 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So how can you determine that if you see a 24, 25, as you did in this case, is there anything about the results that help you sort out the mixture?

MR. SIMS: In some cases there are. There are clear distinctions. It varies from sample to sample, however.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So let me make sure I understand or we have explained this--you have explained this to the jury. The results from 31, are they are clearly a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And they are clearly a mixture that is consistent in the stronger regard on DQ-Alpha with the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And then the weaker 1.3, 1.4 (sic), could that have come from the Defendant in this case?

MR. SIMS: The weaker 1.3, 4 could not have come from the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: And it is consistent with Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Let's just stop for a second and talk about inheriting patterns from parents. Is this mixtures stain--could this mixture stain that we are talking about, item 31, be consistent with an offspring of the Defendant and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: No, not--if you look at, for example, the DQ-Alpha types for the Defendant and also for Nicole Brown, their children would be either 1.1, 1.1 and looking up here now, (Indicating), or 1.1, 1.2.

MR. HARMON: And that is because an offspring would have to inherit a 1.1 from Nicole?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And would have to inherit either a 1.1 or a 1.2 from the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That is just DQ-Alpha?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And now D1S80?

MR. SIMS: With regard--

MR. HARMON: What combination of types could an offspring have of the Defendant and Miss Brown?

MR. SIMS: Well, again with the idea that one comes from the mother and one from the father, the D1S80 types for the offspring of Nicole Brown and the Defendant would be 18, 24 or 18, 25.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So the D1S80 type alone that you obtain from item 31, the console, that alone could not be from an offspring of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And the DQ-Alpha mixture alone could not be consistent with an offspring of the same two people?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to item no. 34, the driver's sidewall in the photograph--

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: --down at the lower left-hand column, your no. 20. What sorts of tests did you perform on that stain?

MR. SIMS: That was just DQ-Alpha typing.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The type was 1.1, 1.2 for no. 34.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the covers from that one.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And the possible or the not excluded, who did you not exclude?

MR. SIMS: Mr. Simpson, the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: And so that result is consistent with him?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: He is a possible source?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Now, that is the same result that you obtained on item 24, the instrument panel; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, why didn't you do any more tests on those two items?

MR. SIMS: As I recall, there was very limited DNA in those samples.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And taken at face value, given your--what you just told us about the hereditary nature of those samples, that result could be consistent with an offspring of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move on to item no. 293, the carpet on the driver's side. This is in the photo at the bottom in the middle with the pointer.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: What sort of tests did you perform on that sample?

MR. SIMS: We performed DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests.

MR. HARMON: And what were the results of those tests?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows: For DQ-Alpha the type was a 1.1, 1.1. We noted that there was a possible trace of 1.2 present. For D1S80 the result was 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is that--other than the possible trace that you've described, whom are those results consistent with from among the three reference types in this case?

MR. SIMS: Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: Would you remove the cover on those results and the "not excluded" column.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Could those--we are going to move that up momentarily.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Do those results, the combination of the DQ-Alpha and the D1S80 types, could those have come from an offspring, a child of the Defendant and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: For the same reasons you've described?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What is this possible trace 1.2 in there? What does that mean?

MR. SIMS: Well, when one performs this kind of testing, one can get, especially with these 1 types, what we call these 1 subtypes, one sometimes sees very faint dots and you can't always be sure if those very faint dots are attributable to an actual type or if they may be an artifact from the typing process.

MR. HARMON: So in the context of this case could you say that based on the total of your PCR results, that Mr. Simpson's type could also be in there because he is a 1.1, 1.2?

MR. SIMS: You could not exclude him on that basis if there was some of his DNA present; however, we find no evidence of his DNA in the D1S80 type.

MR. HARMON: And is the D1S80 test, based on your review of the literature and your use of these protocols, is that as equally sensitive--

MR. SCHECK: Objection to this witness--

THE COURT: Sustained, foundation.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Do you feel, based on your observations, your review of the data in this case--I notice we don't have the Defendant's name in that "not excluded" column--are you saying that it is your opinion that he could be included in that stain, based on all the results?

MR. SIMS: I think there is a possibility of that, although not seeing his type on the D1S80, I wouldn't have that information.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike the last part of the answer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: And Mr. Goldman is excluded or not included as the result of these tests; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: We do not find his type so he is excluded.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And item no. 303, the center console stain, which is in the lower right-hand photograph on the board, exhibit no. 172, what sorts of tests did you perform on item 303?

MR. SIMS: We performed DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests on that sample.

MR. HARMON: And what were the results of those tests?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows: For the DQ-Alpha, 1--DQ-Alpha 1.1 allele was present, possible 1.2 allele present. 1.3 and 4 alleles were also present, indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Would you remove that under "PCR results."

MR. SIMS: Would you like me to state the--

MR. HARMON: And the D1S80. Sure. I'm sorry.

MR. SIMS: The D1S80 results were mainly the 24 and 25 alleles along with a weaker 18 allele, again indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So clearly it is a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would you remove their cover from the PCR results.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: From among the three reference samples that were provided to you in this case, whom could you not exclude?

MR. SIMS: All--all three of the individuals, the three principals, the two victims and the Defendant, are consistent with being part of that mixture.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover from the "not excluded" column. Does that mean, at least as far as the three reference samples that were provided to you in this case, that the Defendant, Mr. Goldman, and Ms. Brown, were--are possible sources of the stain on 303?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything about--just focusing on DQ-Alpha, the relative intensity of the DQ-Alpha results--that help you sort out the relative strengths of this things?

MR. SIMS: No. On this particular sample with the DQ-Alpha, the intensities were all very similar.

MR. HARMON: So this is one where the relative intensities don't help you?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Unlike the glove RFLP results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And unlike 29, the steering wheel?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Umm, now you are not saying they are the only three people who could have contributed that mixture, are you?

MR. SIMS: That's correct, I'm not saying that.

MR. HARMON: And without knowing the starting line-up of the San Antonio Spurs, you can't exclude them as being the possible contributors of that?

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike that and I take a strong exception to naming certain basketball teams--

THE COURT: Speaking--

MR. SCHECK: --and not others.

MR. HARMON: I will get to the Knicks next.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Can he answer that, your Honor?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Could you answer that?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I could not exclude the San Antonio spurs.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Just the starting line-up?

MR. SIMS: The starting line-up.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to 304, the center console stain, your no. 53.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What sorts of tests did you perform on those stains?

MR. SIMS: Again it was DQ-Alpha and D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The results are--to make it simple, the results were the same for three--I'm sorry, for 52 and 53, gave the same results with DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: So could you remove that cover from that column.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And the same as far as possible sources?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you remove that.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And would you characterize them the same? In other words, you cannot exclude the three people that are listed in the "not excluded" column as possible sources of that mixture?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Let me ask you just a general question about 303 and 304. When you say it is a mixture, are you saying that the types that you see in 303 and 304 in total are more than you would expect to see from a drop of blood from the Defendant in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: He could not be the sole source of stain 303 and 304?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And you can't tell us, for example, if these things were--these different mixtures were deposited on top of one another at different times?

MR. SIMS: I couldn't tell that.

MR. HARMON: You can just tell us what was there at the time you tested it?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to 305, the center console, which again is in that photo in the lower right-hand corner. What test did you submit stain 305 to?

MR. SIMS: That was the DQ-Alpha typing and also the D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: For that particular sample 305 the DQ-Alpha was 1.1, possible 1.2 and then weaker 1.3 and 4 alleles, indicating again a mixture.

MR. HARMON: And then how about D1S80?

MR. SIMS: D1S80, mainly 24 and 25 alleles with weaker 18 allele, again indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, would you--why don't you remove the covers from that.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, how would you compare--it looks like you have described 305 somewhat differently than 303 and 304; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what can you tell us about why you've described them differently?

MR. SIMS: They were--they were described differently because in this particular case with 305 one now sees that the 1.3 and the 4 alleles are weaker than the 1.1 and the possible 1.2.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you have already described that Mr. Goldman's type, DQ-Alpha type, is 1.3, 4; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And when--is this somewhat like the RFLP mixtures, when you can see things stronger and thing weaker than others, that helps you pair types up?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading and no foundation.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Does it help you pair types up in the DQ-Alpha marker when you see some dots stronger than others?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is that the basis for your describing 1.3, 4 as weaker?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is it fair--would it be fair to say that 303, 304 and 305 produced consistent results between and among one another?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Overall they are consistent, those three.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything inconsistent between or among any of those three stains?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No. There is nothing inconsistent other than the weaker 1.3, 4 on 305, but otherwise they are very similar patterns.

MR. HARMON: Would this be a good break time, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take our break for the morning session. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case--don't discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will stand in recess for fifteen. And let me see counsel for both sides, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(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. Let's have the jury.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I have "not excluded" tags on both boards. I've shown Mr. Scheck during the break. I'm just trying to move things along here, Judge.

THE COURT: Do you have anything bigger than that?

MR. HARMON: How about if I yell, "it's not excluded, that's all it means," every time we show this. I wish--

THE COURT: Let me see it.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: The big problem, your Honor, is with the glove or with respect to the mixtures because at this point, there's a serious 352 problem. They're not putting in frequencies, and we all know that the frequencies are vastly different there. And I think it can be depicted in a way that makes it very clear to the jury which spot they're talking about on the result board corresponding to which thing on the glove without the argumentative kind of statement as to attribution and be done very clearly if they just eliminate the names.

THE COURT: The Court's ruling stands.

MR. SCHECK: Which is--I didn't know you made a ruling.

THE COURT: Yes. I directed them to put the "not excluded" on both boards.

MR. HARMON: So I can use those boards now, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Let's have the jurors, please. With the direction it also be used with the result board.

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. I'll put the result board up first.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. The record should reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination of Mr. Sims.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to go back to item no. 6 that you tested from the stain at Rockingham. Was there a substrate control you tested along with that?

MR. SIMS: Yes, there was. There was a substrate control that was tested in I believe D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Does it matter in terms of testing the substrate control for the presence of any biological material on it whether you test it with the DQ-Alpha marker or the D1S80 marker?

MR. SIMS: Well, either test is capable of detecting very low levels of human DNA. So by that criteria, we didn't detect anything in the substrate control for that item that would indicate there was some human contamination.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the same with respect to the Bronco stains that you tested. I'm not going to put the board back up there, but would you please describe which of the stains from the Bronco that your lab tested that also tested substrate controls.

MR. SIMS: Yes. For those particular samples, wherever we presented a DQ-Alpha or a D1S80 result, we also tested in that particular system the substrate control; and in all cases, those were--those were all negative.

MR. HARMON: So every item that was on the Bronco result board, which was exhibit 260, you also tested a substrate control. Is that what you're saying?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. In each one of the systems that we tested, whether it be DQ-Alpha and/or D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Fine. Let's move on if you would--

MR. HARMON: And I would like to have marked as People's next in order a board described as "the glove no. 9 results board." and may that be 272?

THE COURT: 272.

MR. HARMON: The glove results.

THE COURT: Yes, and?

MR. HARMON: And then 273 for the glove photo board.

THE COURT: How about 272-A and b?

MR. HARMON: Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot, your Honor. 272-A and 272-B.

(Peo's 272-A and B for id = boards)

THE COURT: I think we need it up a little, Mr. Fairtlough.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, have you had a chance to see 272-B, which is the photo board that has photos of the glove inside and out?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: And are the photos on 272-B, are they actual photos that you took?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And on 272-B, which is the photo board, there are numbers G1, G2, G3, et cetera. Do they correspond to your item number?

MR. SIMS: Yes. They are--red lines point to the approximate locations where I sampled those stains with those designations.

MR. HARMON: And actually your item number, the main number that you assign to the glove from Rockingham was what number?

MR. SIMS: That was DNA 13, which is LAPD no. 9.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then the g numbers are the numbers you assigned to individual stains that you collected?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And if you'd look at 272-A, the result board, are those items under the column entitled "Cellmark/DOJ number," the g numbers?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: And all the results that you obtained are represented by the numbers that are listed there, G1, G2, G3, G4, G9, G10, G11, G12, G13 and G14?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's step back just for a moment and talk about your examination of the glove, just for a couple of questions. And if you would, it probably would be better, step up to the board here, and if you'd use the long pointer so all the jurors can see.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, right there.

MR. HARMON: And let's start with the back of the hand inside photo. Could you just in numerical order describe what the substance is or what the material is that those stains were removed from?

MR. SIMS: The substance that the stains were removed from is this material that forms the inside lining of the gloves.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, as far as the stains on the inside of the glove, did you make any attempt to correlate the location of those stains to stitching or seams on the outside of the glove?

MR. SIMS: Well, I noted that the gloves were stitched especially along the fingers. We don't see it here, but along the back of the hand, there's stitching and there's also stitching along this thumb area down here (Indicating). I think there were also some holes in the glove when I received it. But those are various locations where--the main thing was the stitching. That's what I was interested in.

MR. HARMON: And what if anything is the relationship of the stitching to where you found stains on the inside of the glove, if you can generalize?

MR. SIMS: Yes. In general, particularly when we're talking about the fingers and out towards the--it was the finger areas, that's where the stitching is, and I made the determination that that--that the vast quantity of blood from the outside could have followed that stitching sort of waking up into the inside. That was my--what appeared to have happened to me.

MR. HARMON: Now, were you provided a substrate control for any or all of the stains in this case?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: For the glove. I'm sorry.

MR. SIMS: No. The problem with the glove is that there's so much blood all over it, that it would be very difficult to find an area that didn't have traces of blood on it.

MR. HARMON: And would that be unusual with an item that was as heavily covered with blood as this glove was on the outside to not have a substrate control?

MR. SIMS: That would not be unusual.

MR. HARMON: And does the failure to have a substrate control in the results that you're going to be describing in a moment, does that in any way in your opinion undermine the results that you're going to be presenting?

MR. SIMS: No, I don't think so. And I think in particular, with that sort of situation, what I did was to look at some multiple areas to try to see if certain types would be reproduced consistently or in different areas so that it wasn't just a one-shot determination.

MR. HARMON: And how might that address the failure to have a substrate control, testing from diverse areas on the same item?

MR. SIMS: Well, by looking at diverse areas and seeing diverse results, that would give an indication of what the different mixture patterns, for example, might be.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we--you can have a seat up there.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Why don't we start out from item no. 9, the right-hand glove from Rockingham. Would you please--

THE COURT: We need Mr. Sims, because of his voice, to turn and face the jury.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: And he also keeps blocking juror no. 7. So why don't you stand on this side of the--

MR. HARMON: So if you'll stand over here.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Would you describe what sort of tests were performed on G1? I think you've already described generally the RFLP results. We showed them on AM626. Is that--is that the results that correspond to G1?

MR. SIMS: Yes. What we saw on G1.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover of the RFLP column, please?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you've already described those RFLP results as being possibly a mixture; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what PCR results did you obtain from that mixture stain?

MR. SIMS: From that mixture stain, the results were that we had DQ-Alpha and D1S80 results.

MR. HARMON: And what--specifically what results did you produce for the analysis of the stain at G1?

MR. SIMS: For DQ-Alpha, 1.1, possible 1.2, 1.3 and four alleles indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. When you say "indicating a mixture," why is that an indication of a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Because, again, there were more than two alleles.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And does that accurately describe what you've just told us?

MR. SIMS: It also includes the D1S80 results which I didn't state, but the--

MR. HARMON: Okay. What were they?

MR. SIMS: 18 and 24 alleles were detected.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you've described that the RFLP results were consistent with a mixture of two people, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. What can you tell us about the PCR results?

MR. SIMS: The PCR results would also be consistent with a mixture of those two individuals.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove under the "not excluded column" the cover of that?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And is it true that the PCR results in essence do not exclude Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: As well--as well as a whole bunch of other possibilities?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Moving on to G2, you've already described on AM626, we've seen three autorads showing RFLP mixture results from that. Is that the sum total of the RFLP results that you obtained in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Three or how many?

MR. SIMS: I'm sorry. There were four actually.

MR. HARMON: All right. Would you remove the cover of the RFLP result column for G2 which you've previously described and shown to the jury?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And there's actually one more autorad that shows a similar result?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That there was a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the mixture was consistent with whom?

MR. SIMS: The mixture was consistent with Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: And what PCR tests did you submit that stain to?

MR. SIMS: That was tested for D1S80 and DQ-Alpha.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows for DQ-Alpha: 1.1, possible 1.2, 1.3 and four alleles, again indicating a mixture, and D1S80, 18 and 24 alleles.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the cover for the PCR results for G2?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Does what's described there accurately depict your results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And are those results consistent and corroborative of the RFLP results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In what way?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, they're consistent with a mixture of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Do they help you say anything else?

MR. SIMS: Well, there are only certain possibilities. Yes. That's all I can say with regards to those principles--

MR. HARMON: Okay. Are you saying that Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman could have produced the mixtures that were seen in G2?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: As well as a number of other possibilities?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Can you remove the "not excluded" column?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, let's just talk about G1 and G2 together for a moment. Do the known types of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman account for all of the RFLP and PCR results that you've described so far?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In other words, there's nothing in there that's foreign or extraneous to a mixture of those people?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Is that correct? Okay. G3, you've previously described your RFLP results; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And how many actual probes or genetic markers did you test G3 for?

MR. SIMS: I want to just review to make sure I've got that correct.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Eight.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry?

MR. SIMS: Eight.

MR. HARMON: Eight? And what was your conclusion just based on the RFLP results?

MR. SIMS: Just on the RFLP results?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Well, that--that provided very strong evidence that that was Ronald Goldman's blood on the glove, the RFLP alone.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove the cover there?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll come back to what you've described as very strong evidence in a little bit. Did you perform PCR testing on that stain?

MR. SIMS: On that particular stain? Yes.

MR. HARMON: What tests did you submit that stain to?

MR. SIMS: DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: For DQ-Alpha, 1.3, 4, possible 1.2 and possible trace of the 1.1 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove the cover, and we'll talk about that, make sure it reflects what you've just told us?

(The witness complies.)

MR. SIMS: And again, the D1S80 type is 24, 24.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you've got possible 1.2 and possible trace 1.1 in there. Can you tell us why you've used those terms to describe what you saw?

MR. SIMS: Yes. One of the limitations of the DQ-Alpha typing system is that the 1.2 allele cannot always be determined in a mixture because there's no unique probe for that 1.2 allele as that test is performed. So one has to--by looking at the pattern of dots, one has to make an inference that it may be there. And if it may be there, then we would say possible 1.2.

MR. HARMON: Is that in all mixtures or just certain mixture of types?

MR. SIMS: Just certain mixtures.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Go ahead. Let's talk about the 1.1.

MR. SIMS: The 1.1 is also a situation where with this particular typing system, you can sometimes see a weak signal at the 1.1 dot because of a phenomenon that's called DX-Alpha. It's a--not to get overly technical, but one has to know that sometimes you can see a weak signal at that 1.1 dot even though there's not a 1.1 present.

MR. HARMON: Is this phenomenon described in scientific literature?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It's well described in the scientific literature. It's part of the user guide that comes with the kit, and anybody that's using this should be aware of that.

MR. HARMON: Now, before we talk about the "not excluded" column, you're not saying that it's possible that Mr. Simpson's blood is in there, are you?

MR. SIMS: I--I would not make that conclusion based on those results.

MR. HARMON: Even though there's a possible 1.--or a possible 1.2 and a possible trace 1.1?

MR. SIMS: Well, I--I--I do not see his D1S80 type there. So I wouldn't make that inference that--

MR. HARMON: Okay. Before we undercover the "not excluded," what about Nicole Brown? What could you say--you're not saying that she's not excluded as a result of these tests, are you?

MR. SIMS: I--again, I don't see her 18 there. So there's no evidence for there. Is it possible, for example, that she or Mr. Simpson could be making a very minute contribution to this? Yes, it's possible, but I--

MR. HARMON: That's not your opinion?

MR. SIMS: No. I see no evidence of that and I don't think that could be stated.

MR. HARMON: Could you--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike "possibility" from the record.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the "not excluded"?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So is it your opinion that Mr. Goldman could be--the strong evidence of Mr. Goldman could be the source of the stain on area G3?

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike the term "strong evidence."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll move on to G4 then. You've previously described G4 and shown some autorads on AM626. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the jury got to see three of the autorads. How many autorads, genetic marker tests did you actually submit this stain to?

MR. SIMS: Umm, one of--at this point, it's probably a good idea to make a correction. There were four probes originally on G1, G2 and G4. But as you'll recall, we added the D5 later, which I think is one we showed. So these are actually now five including G4. Those should all actually be five.

MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll get a patch sometime during the day for G1, G2 and G4.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: So why don't we talk about, just summarize your observations about G4. You've described it as a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes. With the RFLP.

MR. HARMON: And--with the RFLP. What sorts of PCR tests did you subject G4 to?

MR. SIMS: G4 was subjected to DQ-Alpha and DS180 typing.

MR. HARMON: And what were your results?

MR. SIMS: The results were that for DQ-Alpha, 1.1, possible 1.2, 1.3 and four alleles, mixture indicated.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So clearly it's a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And that--that's corroborative of what you saw with the RFLP results; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover from the PCR results on G4?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, is the result from G4 any different from the result on G2, the PCR results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Yes, it is?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And could you describe what it is that's different about G4 from G2?

MR. SIMS: The clear difference that was seen here (Indicating) was that for G4, the 18 allele and DS180 was weaker than the 24 allele.

MR. HARMON: What's the significance of that?

MR. SIMS: Well, the significance--

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike for this witness, objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: I'll withdraw--I'll withdraw the question.

MR. HARMON: Anything about the DQ-Alpha results?

MR. SIMS: The DQ-Alpha--

MR. HARMON: That's different--

MR. SIMS: --results were reported in the same fashion. No. They were reported in the same fashion.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And are your PCR results corroborative of the mixture that you've already described and demonstrated to the jury from G4, from glove no. 9 at Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: How?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, the RFLP results and the PCR results are consistent with the mixture of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the "not excluded" column?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, you've got Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown listed there. Does that mean they're the possible source?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And when you say "a possible source," there are many other possibilities; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There are many other possibilities.

MR. HARMON: On the other hand, is all of the data that you observed in the RFLP results and the PCR results on G4, is that all accounted for when one combines the types of Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: So there's nothing foreign to either of--well, either Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown in any of the stains that we've discussed to this point, G1, G2, G3 and G4; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Let's talk about G9, okay? That is not one of the stains that was subjected to RFLP typing; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: What sort of tests did you subject G9 to?

MR. SIMS: G9 was tested for DQ-Alpha and D1S80, PCR markers.

MR. HARMON: And what results were obtained?

MR. SIMS: For G9, DQ-Alpha was 1.3, 4, possible 1.2 with possible trace, 1.1.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that cover from that column of PCR results, please?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, are these results different than--the PCR results in G9, are they in any way different than the results from, say, G4?

MR. SIMS: Well, they're different in that we do not detect the 18 allele, for example, in--in--in G9 which we did detect in G4. Also, the--there is a difference with regards to the 1.1 allele. It is--it was determined to be clearly present in G4, but now it's dropped down to the category of possible trace in G9.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So just move up one notch then. Are the results that you obtained from G9 from the glove at Rockingham, are they consistent with the results, just the PCR results that you obtained from G3?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. The possible 1.2 that you've already described the explanation for?

MR. SIMS: Right.

MR. HARMON: And a possible trace 1.1; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, you're not saying that it is your opinion that based on those possibilities, that Mr. Simpson is not excluded, are you?

MR. SIMS: Can you rephrase that? That had a lot of negatives.

MR. HARMON: Couple of negatives in there, huh? Are you saying that Mr. Simpson is not excluded as a result of your analysis on G9, the glove?

MR. SIMS: Well, I find no evidence, for example, of these 25 alleles. So I--I wouldn't say he's in that category.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And from among the three reference types in this case, whom have you not excluded as the source of G9?

MR. SIMS: That would be Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So G9 is not a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Well, there's no clear mixture there. Is it possible that there's some traces that are causing a mixture? Yes. But it's not what we would call a clear-cut mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And everything that you see concretely, could that be accounted for from the typing that you performed on Mr. Goldman's reference sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move on to G10 then. No RFLP results on G10?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: What sorts of tests did you subject that stain to?

MR. SIMS: That was subjected to PCR test, DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: For DQ-Alpha, 1.3, 4, possible 1.2 and then weaker 1.1 allele, indicating a mixture. For D1S80, 24 allele and then a weaker 25 allele, again indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: So we got something new in the mix here, huh?

MR. SIMS: That's--that's correct. This is where we first found the 25 allele.

MR. HARMON: And the 25 allele from among the three reference types in this case, is there anyone that has the 25 allele at the D1S80 locus?

MR. SIMS: The Defendant has the 25 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you uncover the results from G10?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And do those--are those results accurately described for G10 on our result board?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, let's talk about DQ-Alpha. Is there anything about your observations of the DQ-Alpha results that helps you sort out how many people are involved here?

MR. SIMS: Well, it's still difficult to say exactly how many. But one notices that there's information there about the 1.1 allele being weaker than the 1.3, 4 alleles.

MR. HARMON: And what's the significance of that?

MR. SIMS: Well, that gives us some information as to whether or not which alleles might go with the other alleles.

MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude from among the three reference types in this case as a possible source of what you saw in stain G10?

MR. SIMS: We were able to exclude Nicole Brown because we didn't find her 18 allele on the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So you were able to exclude Miss Brown as a possible source for the mixture that you saw there?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You were not able to exclude Mr. Goldberg?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You were not able to exclude the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Now, is all of the data, all of the types that you observed in the DQ-Alpha results and the D1S80 results consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is consistent with a mixture of those two individuals.

MR. HARMON: So there are no alleles that are unaccounted for from what--if you mix Mr. Goldman's blood and Mr. Simpson's blood?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Are there any alleles unaccounted for in your results when you compare the mixture results you obtained with a combination of the types of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: And is--is this stain different than every other stain you've described to this point, G1, G2, G3, G4 and G9?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the term "stain."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is different in that the key finding is the 25 allele on D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on to G11. No RFLP testing done on this stain?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: What sorts of tests did you perform on this stain?

MR. SIMS: The only test that was performed was the D1S80 test.

MR. HARMON: And why was that?

MR. SIMS: We haven't performed any DQ-Alpha type yet on this series.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What were the results of the D1S80 testing on G11?

MR. SIMS: On G11? The finding was the 24 allele and then weaker 25 and 18 alleles, again indicating a mixture because there's three alleles.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove that cover from the stain at G11?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And is what's on the board accurately describe the results of your D1S80 testing on G11?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude--or I'm sorry. Withdraw that. From among the three reference types in this case, whom were you not able to exclude as a possible source of the D1S80 mixture that's on the board?

MR. SIMS: I could not exclude any of the three individuals, the Defendant, Nicole Brown or Mr. Goldman.

MR. HARMON: And why is that?

MR. SIMS: Because this pattern is consistent with their types. In other words, their D1S80 types, those alleles, which would be 18, 24 and 25 all found in that stain.

MR. HARMON: And if one were to mix Nicole Brown's blood sample with Ronald Goldman's blood sample--

MR. SCHECK: Objection to this question, sample, blood.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: If one were to combine the types of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman for the D1S80 marker, what would the combined types be?

MR. SIMS: If you combined just those two individuals?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: You would see the 18 allele and the 24 allele.

MR. HARMON: You would not see the 25 allele?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. It's foreign to both of them.

MR. HARMON: So the 25 allele could not have come from Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: The 25 allele could not have come from Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And could you remove the cover of the "not excluded" column that describes your conclusions?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, you're not saying, are you, that the D1S80 results could only have come from a combination of those three people, are you?

MR. SIMS: I'm not saying that, no.

MR. HARMON: Are those results consistent with a mixture of those three people?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move on to G12, if you would.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: No RFLP testing on that stain?

MR. SIMS: No. Only D1S80 testing.

MR. HARMON: And what sorts of D1--of testing--of D1S80 testing was done? I'm sorry.

MR. SIMS: It was just D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: That was a 24 allele and then a weaker 18 allele, indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, the 25 allele or marker for the D1S80 genetic marker is not in G12; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. The 25 allele is not present in that sample.

MR. HARMON: Could you step over to the photo board here, and let's talk about where the relationship of the G10 to G11 and G12. And we'll do this again with G13 and G14. It's a dark object. I'd like you to start out with G10 and then describe exactly where it is and what kind of surface it's on.

MR. SIMS: G10 is on the inside lining of the glove. This would be towards the thumb down near the wrist watch. It's--the arrow--the red line is very close to it. It's actually a little bit closer in now where I'm pointing now, and it's in that general area. This was a--this small area of bloodstain that I--that I detected in that particular area (Indicating). And that's G10. Then G11 is now on the outside of the glove. This is now the palm or surface of the glove. G11 is here to the side of this wrist notch that I discussed earlier (Indicating). That's G11. And then G12 is on the--excuse me--the outside palm or surface also near the wrist notch (Indicating). Then G13 is along this stitched border of the wrist notch area (Indicating). And finally, G14 is on the inside back surface near the--near the wrist (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry. G14?

MR. SIMS: Is--did I--I'm sorry. It's on the inside lining.

MR. HARMON: Inside. Right.

MR. SIMS: That would be the back of the hand.

MR. HARMON: Right.

MR. SIMS: Near the wrist.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we go back up to the board there, the result board, Mr. Sims. The G12, you only found 24 and in 18, were you able to exclude anybody from among the three reference types in this case from the two victims and Mr. Simpson, the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: We were able to exclude Mr. Simpson because we did not find his 25 allele on this particular sample, G12.

MR. HARMON: And whom are you not able to exclude?

MR. SIMS: We were not able to exclude Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: could you remove that cover?

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: G13, you did not perform any RFLP test on that stain?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. Only D1S80.

MR. HARMON: And what were the D1S80 results from G13?

MR. SIMS: The D1S80 results where the 24 allele was present along with weaker 25 and 18 alleles.

MR. HARMON: So the 25 allele is there again; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And from among the three people, the two victims, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and the Defendant, who's the only one that has the 25 allele?

MR. SIMS: That is the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover for that?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And were you able to--from among the three types that were provided to you in this case, the two victims and the Defendant, were you able to exclude any of those people, the three people as a possible source of that mixture stain?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that cover, please?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, is it fair to say that every stain that had the 25 allele in it, G10, G11 and G13, was in close proximity to that notch on the wrist?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you step back to the board and just go G10, G11 and G13?

MR. SIMS: G10 again, as I mentioned earlier, is a little closer to the notch than the red line shows. G11 is on the outside near the notch area, and then G13 is along that stitch along the notch, along the palm or surface near the wrist (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we finish with G14 from the Rockingham glove, no. 9. What--no RFLP tests were done on that stain?

MR. SIMS: On G14, no RFLP. Only D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Only D1S80? What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows: The type was determined to be basically a 24, 24 with a possible trace of the 18 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you remove the cover from that board?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And the 25 is not in that stain or you did not detect it; is that right?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Were you able to exclude, based on that, Mr. Simpson, the Defendant as a possible source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: We did not detect the 25 alleles. So we were able to exclude him on that.

MR. HARMON: And are those results consistent with a mixture of the two victims?

MR. SIMS: Well, the way we phrase that was that it is--certainly the 24, 24 by itself was consistent with Ronald Goldman's D1S80 type. We noted that it was poss--there was a possible contribution from Nicole Brown on the 18 allele, the basis of the 18 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we move on to the sock testing results.

MR. HARMON: I would like to--or the sock result board has previously been marked as exhibit 262, and we should have 262-A then for the sock photo board then.

(Peo's 262-A for id = sock photo board)

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to stand up and take a stretch while we're waiting to locate the exhibit, go ahead. Mr. Fairtlough, did we check the hall?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: It was between two boards, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, would you step up to the photo board that we've marked as 262-A and just examine the photo board and make sure we've got things accurately labeled?

(The witness complies.)

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And we--the board depicts two photos of sock a; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And then one photo of sock b?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And for consistency, sock a is the one that had the cut out that Greg Matheson sent you?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the substrate control?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you performed additional sampling and testing on stains from sock b?

MR. SIMS: Yes. As well as sock a.

MR. HARMON: As well as sock A. And are there still a number of these minute areas that you detected blood that have never been tested?

MR. SIMS: Well, they've never been tested by me since I sent them back in November.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That you have never tested?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we start out with 42A1. 42 is your designation for LAPD item 13 which were obtained from Mr. Simpson's home?

MR. SIMS: Yes. 42 is our designation.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the A1, what does that specify?

MR. SIMS: That specifies the cut-out stain that we received from Mr. Matheson.

MR. HARMON: In the little tube you described yesterday?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you step up to the result board, 262, if you would.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And you described yesterday and we showed just a few of the RFLP autorad results for 42A1. How many actual RFLP autorads or genetic marker tests were performed on 42A1, the cutting that Greg Matheson sent you from the socks, no. 13?

MR. SIMS: In our laboratory, we have now looked at it at 11 genetic marker--11 loci.

MR. HARMON: 11 loci--11 probes?

MR. SIMS: 11 probes.

MR. HARMON: 11 genetic markers?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the cover from that?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And yesterday, you described I believe that the sock--that sock stain, 13A1 or your 42A1, was actually run on two different gels or two different sets of RFLP tests; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the sum total of different probes or different genetic markers from those two tests is 11.

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Did you subject DNA, extracted DNA from that same stain to PCR testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The PCR testing on that particular sample was done by Steve Myers in our laboratory.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what sorts of tests were performed?

MR. SIMS: That was DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests.

MR. HARMON: And what results were obtained?

MR. SIMS: The results that were obtained were a DQ-Alpha type 1.1 and a D1S80 type 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: And whom are those PCR results consistent with?

MR. SIMS: Those would be consistent with Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: And not consistent with Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: It's not consistent with him?

MR. SIMS: Not consistent with the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the "not excluded" cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And this is a stain that you sent extracted DNA to the--to Cellmark diagnostics; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: How many--if we assume that the Cellmark results are accurately depicted on that chart, how many different separate genetic marker tests were performed on stain 13A which Greg Matheson cut out from the socks, 13?

MR. SIMS: Now, this is just with DNA markers?

MR. HARMON: DNA markers.

MR. SIMS: Excuse me. The five here, we would subtract two from I believe because Cellmark looks at two probes that--uses two probes that we use. So that's 14.

MR. HARMON: Could you explain that again to the jury a little bit?

MR. SIMS: Yeah. The--Cellmark uses a different enzyme for restriction than we do, that they look at two of the same probes that we do. So there is some correlation in those results. I don't know off hand exactly what that correlation is, but those are not entirely independent results obviously.

MR. HARMON: So we'll throw them out. We won't count them.

MR. SIMS: For our purposes of what we're talking about now, I would throw those out.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How many genetic marker tests were performed aside from conventional serology?

MR. SIMS: We would now have 11 plus the three, which would be 14. The DQ-Alpha would be 15. D1S80 would be 16, and then I believe we had five for the poly-marker. So that's now I believe 21.

MR. HARMON: 21 genetic marker tests?

MR. SIMS: 21 genetic marker tests.

MR. HARMON: Now, if the chart is correct, you obtained the same DQ-Alpha results as Cellmark did on the same DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on to the stain that you have designated 42A2, which is from sock 13A. Could you come over here and show us--could you use that long pointer?

MR. SIMS: 40?

MR. HARMON: 42A2.

MR. SIMS: 42A2 is now on the upper part of the sock. It's opposite of where the LAPD--the opposite side from the LAPD cut out. So it's up here (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. What sorts of tests did you subject that stain to?

MR. SIMS: 42A2 was subjected to DQ-Alpha and D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The DQ-Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2, the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And whom are those results consistent with from among the reference types in this case?

MR. SIMS: Those would be consistent with the Defendant, Mr. Simpson.

MR. HARMON: And are they inconsistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are they inconsistent with Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Any question about that?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove the--from the "not excluded" column the cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So are you saying that Mr. Simpson could be the source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Not that he is the source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman are not the source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: They would be excluded.

MR. HARMON: 42A3 from sock 13A?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you show us where that is?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is now on the same side as the LAPD cut out, which is where I'm pointing to the LAPD cut out. You move up the sock, and 42A3 is up in this region (Indicating). It's in the general area, but on the opposite side of 42A2. So--yes. It's on the opposite side.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what sort of tests did you perform on that?

MR. SIMS: The tests that were performed were DQ-Alpha and D1S80 and I'm currently performing an RFLP analysis on that stain.

MR. HARMON: On that same stain?

MR. SIMS: On that same stain.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain from that stain?

MR. SIMS: The PCR results were DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2. D1S80 results were 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And whom are those results consistent with from among the reference types?

MR. SIMS: Again, that would be consistent with the Defendant's types.

MR. HARMON: Inconsistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And inconsistent with Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: No question about that?

MR. SIMS: No question.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the "not excluded" cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So you mentioned you were performing additional tests. Those tests could not change whose excluded, could they?

MR. SIMS: Well, for example, if those tests excluded the Defendant, they would change that. But they're not going to change the results with regard to Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Right. 42A4, the stain which is on sock 13A, the toe region, could you show us where that is?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I don't think we mentioned this one yesterday when we were looking at the video, but this is down in the upper toe area of the sock a (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what sorts of tests did you perform on that stain?

MR. SIMS: That was subjected to PCR test, DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: What results?

MR. SIMS: The results were DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2. D1S80 results were 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And those are the same results you obtained on 42A2 and 42A3; are they not?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: Could you uncover the PCR results?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And could you uncover whom you did not exclude from the three reference samples provided to you?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And Nicole Brown is excluded?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Ronald Goldman is excluded?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: No question about whether those two--the two victims in this case are excluded?

MR. SIMS: No question.

MR. HARMON: 42B1--now, we've moved over to sock 13B. Would you show us where that is on the photo board?

MR. SIMS: Yes. 42B1 is in this area where I showed there was--on the video, there were a lot of additional stains (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Could you - let's talk about that for a moment. When you say there are a lot of additional stains in the area of 42B1, could you elaborate for a moment?

MR. SIMS: Well, the elaboration would be that when looking at that into the stereomicroscope, there are a number of other stains in that particular area that I examined.

MR. HARMON: And how do they compare in size with the stain that you've analyzed as 42B1?

MR. SIMS: Generally--generally they're smaller.

MR. HARMON: Can you quantify about how many there are?

MR. SIMS: I'd have to look at my notes again, but I think they were in the neighborhood of 10 on that side, something like that.

MR. HARMON: Could you--let's be accurate. Would you do that?

(Witness complies.)

MR. SIMS: From my notes, I count about 12 areas.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And--and--

MR. SCHECK: Can I see?

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: While you're at it, we're going to talk about your results in 42B2. What's the relationship of 42B1, 42B2 and these other 12 tiny little stains?

MR. SIMS: Well, they're all in that same general area, and some of them are significantly smaller than 42B1 and 42B2.

MR. HARMON: When you say general area, can you give us a--why don't you show us up on the photo board 262-A.

MR. SIMS: The general area I'm talking about--it's somewhat hard to see because those logo marks give me my math point and they don't show up very well in the photograph. But it's basically down in--I'll sort of mark the lower boundaries--down this part of the sock up to about here (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: So if we drew a band around the sock from--that's kind of bordered by B1 and B2 on that side of the sock that's shown in the photo, is that the general area they were in?

MR. SIMS: Well, I would go up about--yes, about as far up as B2. That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. SIMS: So somewhere in this general area (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we talk about the type tests you performed on 42B1 on sock 13B near the ankle.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: What tests did you do?

MR. SIMS: The tests that were performed on 42B1 were the PCR test, DQ-Alpha and DS180.

MR. HARMON: What were your results?

MR. SIMS: For DQ-Alpha, the type was a 1.1, 1.1. There's a possible trace of the 1.2 allele. Then on the D1S80, it was 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you uncover those from the result board?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's talk about this possible trace of 1.2. You've described that previously with some of your other results. How--what does that mean in the context of this case? Are you telling us this is a mixture?

MR. SIMS: No. I can't say for sure that that's a mixture. I can not decide between two possibilities. One is that there really is a trace of that 1.2 allele present from some other individual. The second possibility is that this is showing up as a weak, a very faint dot in the typing system.

MR. HARMON: Now, if there were really a trace of a 1.2 in there, would you--or strike that. I'll come to that in a second. From among the three reference types in this case, were you able to exclude anyone as the possible source of 42B1?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Who?

MR. SIMS: I was able to exclude Ronald Goldman and I felt also that we could exclude the Defendant based on the fact that we didn't find his 24, 25 on the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you're saying you can exclude him even though there's a possible trace of the 1.2 in there?

MR. SIMS: Well, I'd have to feel more secure about there being a definite 1.2 before I would make a statement that he--

MR. HARMON: Okay. So would you remove the cover from the "not excluded" column?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And I believe you mentioned that part of the reason you feel comfortable excluding Mr. Simpson is that you didn't see anything of his in the D1S80 genetic marker?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Setting aside the possible trace 1.2 for a moment, is everything that you saw in 42B1 consistent with the genetic marker test results for Nicole Brown's reference sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That DQ-Alpha type is 1.1, 1.1 and the D1S80 type is 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on. And we still have--

MR. HARMON: We're getting a patch, your Honor. We have a misnumbering here.

MR. HARMON: It's described--it's your 42B1 and it's actually--the chart has sock 13A and it's actually 13B. Jonathan is getting us a B label for that.

MR. HARMON: Can we proceed for the moment?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: And that's also near the ankle. You've already shown us where that was. What sorts of tests did you subject this stain to?

MR. SIMS: Again, that was subjected to DQ-Alpha and D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The results were the same as for B1. In other words, B1 and B2 gave the same results. DQ-Alpha type would be 1.1, 1.1 with possible trace 1.2. The D1S80 type was 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the results from the PCR results and would you remove the "not excluded"?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Whom are you not able to exclude?

MR. SIMS: That would be Nicole Brown. Again, I was not able to exclude her.

MR. HARMON: And in spite of the possible trace 1.2, the same explanation; you feel that there's no reason to include Mr. Simpson in those results?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Was there a substrate control that was submitted to you or that you cut out to conduct testing in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There were substrate controls taken from the socks.

MR. HARMON: How many different substrate controls did you take?

MR. SIMS: The substrate controls that I took were, first of all, the LAPD cut out. I used that one. And then I used one for 42A2. In that general area, I cut one out near stain 42A2, which I used to serve as a control in that upper area of the socks. So it served as a control for both A2 and A3. And then also, for 42A4, there was a substrate control area. That was the one down towards the toe. And then finally, for 42B1, I took one control for that general area to cover both stain B-1 and stain B2.

MR. HARMON: And you