Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. Good morning, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The jury is not present. Anything we need to put on the record before we have Mr. Sims conclude his testimony? All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Sims, why don't you come on up and save us a few moments.
(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. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
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. Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing recross-examination by Mr. Scheck. Good morning again, Mr. Sims.
MR. SIMS: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Sims, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your--nice tie--cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE JURY: Good morning.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, just a few more questions. When I left off yesterday when we were talking about Dr. Blake coming into your lab and documenting the evidence as you received it with photographs before you altered it and taking pictures of the test results. Do you recall that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you issued your first major report on the results of your work on January 4th?
MR. SIMS: That was the first major report, yes, was on January 4th of 1995.
MR. SCHECK: Of 1995?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That was after the jury selection had been completed in this matter?
MR. SIMS: I don't know when the jury selection was actually completed. I thought it was around that time.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And then you continued doing testing as the testimony of this trial continued, did you not?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you issued a second major report on April 6th, 1995?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That--I believe that is the correct date, April 6th. Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: And we were into our fourth month of trial at that point?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that--
THE COURT: Well--third.
MR. SCHECK: Whatever the numbers are.
MR. SCHECK: We were here a few months?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe the trial started in January, so--
MR. SCHECK: It is getting hard.
THE COURT: January 24th.
MR. SCHECK: January 24th.
THE COURT: Yes. Opening statements.
MR. SCHECK: Now, the Department of Justice laboratory did not turn over photographs to the Defense of these matters. We relied on Dr. Blake's photographs?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes. As far as my 35 millimeter photographs were concerned, that is true, although there were some Polaroids that were given to Dr. Blake at about the time that we took our photographs, too.
MR. SCHECK: And so the way this worked is that as you finished your test results on an item, Dr. Blake would come to your lab and would take pictures of the test results and it was your understanding he was free to report your findings to the Defense as you went along?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation. It is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, on redirect examination I believe that you said that it is a challenge to sort out mixtures in a bloodstain?
MR. SIMS: It can be, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And would you not agree that the difficulty of such a challenge is increased when the bloodstain mixture consists of primary contributors and a number of unknown lesser contributors?
MR. SIMS: Well, sometimes if you see primary contributors, then it is a little easier. I would say it is more difficult when they are all equal. That could be more difficult to sort out than if you see a distinct, say, two of these dots that tend to go together and two other dots that tend to go together because they are weaker. Those are actually perhaps easier to sort out than when all the bands are equal.
MR. SCHECK: Umm, and I believe you also said on redirect that when you have such a mixture in bloodstain evidence that it is important to look at as many different markers as you can?
MR. SIMS: Well, some markers are more informative certainly in sorting out mixtures than others, so the more markers you have, the more you can tend to sort it out.
MR. SCHECK: Now, I would like to direct your attention to your analysis of the blood smears found on the console in the Bronco.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Do you have that in mind, sir?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you may want to consult your report.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Looking at all the data, did you not reach the conclusion, in terms of the DNA you found, that Mr. Simpson could not be a minor contributor to any of the blood found on the console? You did not characterize him as a minor contributor with respect to any of those stains in terms of the DNA types found?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is compound.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: In your report you came up with three kinds of categories to characterize the level of contributions that you attributed to various different DNA patterns, did you not?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: One was minor contributor?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: The other one was main contributor?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then there was another in between category of contributor?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You couldn't say whether--now, with respect to Mr. Simpson, on all the different swatches off that console, you never characterized the DNA pattern there consistent with Mr. Simpson as being a minor contribution?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is correct.
MR. SCHECK: In fact, your findings say that the genotypes consistent with Mr. Simpson was the only one found on stain no. 30 of the console?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that you characterized the DNA types on the DQ-Alpha and D1S80 system consistent with Mr. Simpson as being the main contribution to item 31?
MR. SIMS: Yes, with the DQ-Alpha.
MR. SCHECK: And the main contribution to item 305?
MR. SIMS: The only complication is that 305 you recall on DQ-Alpha we had the possible 1.2 allele on that. There was a little bit different interpretation because in that case the 1.2 was the possible.
MR. SCHECK: But your report characterizes that he could be the main contributor to stain 305? Those are your words?
MR. SIMS: Now, this is with regards to--
MR. SCHECK: 305.
MR. SIMS: --to 305? No, I think in that one we listed him as contributor. If you look at the verbiage in the report, he is listed as contributing as well as contributing to DNA 30, which is 305.
MR. SCHECK: And with respect to the person who contributed the 4 allele to stains 31 and 305, you characterized as minor contributor?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Just a few questions on controls. Would you agree that with respect to contamination due to the handling of samples or PCR carry-over contamination, that: "Such contamination can be signaled by the appearance of product in blank controls and of mixed or inappropriate types in samples and in positive controls"?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that is compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Let's take it step-by-step then. Contamination due to handling, can it be signaled by the appearance of product in blank controls?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Can it be signaled by the appearance of mixture of inappropriate types in samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Can it be signaled by the appearance of product in positive controls?
MR. SIMS: By--I'm not sure I understand "By the appearance of product in positive controls."
MR. SCHECK: Yes. In other words, in the DQ-Alpha system, for example, it would be dots sliding up?
MR. SIMS: In other words, if the wrong dots slide up in a positive control?
MR. SCHECK: Well, you say "wrong" dots slide up that are not expected or inconsistent with interpretation?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that could be a signal on that.
MR. SCHECK: For example, in your lab you have a positive control you run for DQ-Alpha that is 1.1, 4?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You run that in every case?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we do.
MR. SCHECK: So the expected genotype you see when you run the strip is 1.1, 4?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And if you see a dot light up at some intensity--and I understand that in your lab you have gradations, you have hints, you have traces, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes. As far as, for example, looking at cross-hybridization type signals, yes, we characterize those.
MR. SCHECK: It could be cross-hybridization and in some instances it could be contaminants?
MR. SIMS: In other words, could a very weak signal be due to contamination?
MR. SCHECK: (Nods head up and down.)
MR. SIMS: If that is all the information you had then yes, that is true.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you agree that these negative and positive controls should be used rigorously?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I agree with that.
MR. SCHECK: And do you agree that these controls are important for monitoring general contamination in a laboratory, not just the results of any particular test or experiment?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, you monitor these on an ongoing basis for the entire laboratory? Is that the question?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. SIMS: I would agree with that.
MR. SCHECK: And if a blank control is positive in one experiment, does it not indicate a potential problem, not just for that one test or experiment, but for any tests performed at about the same time?
MR. SIMS: Well, again, I think what one would do would be to try to determine what the cause of a particular signal on a blank was and that may be isolated so that one would know that that is only due to a specific instance and not a general contamination phenomena.
MR. SCHECK: Just so that we are all clear on this, when we are talking about, for example, this is the PCR system, you run a tube, right, a series of tubes?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And we've--for example, in this case we've heard sometimes they will give a number like run no. 60, run no. 61. You have similar labeling in your laboratory?
MR. SIMS: Well, we--I actually number with the case number and the item number is how I label them.
MR. SCHECK: All right. But let's say in--if there were--in the number of cases prior to this one, if there were the controls indicated that contaminants were appearing in a laboratory, that could raise concern about the results in the test in a particular case even if the controls in the test in the particular case were blank?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it would raise concern.
MR. SCHECK: And that is true even in a laboratory contaminated with PCR carry-over, blank controls do not necessarily become contaminated on every occasion?
MR. SIMS: That's true.
MR. SCHECK: Now, would you agree, given the problem of contamination due to handling and carry-over, that laboratories must incorporate contamination control into their standard operating procedure?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And would you not agree that outbreaks of contamination and the steps to correct the problem should be carefully documented?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think those kind of instances should be reviewed and it should be the sort of thing where the laboratory takes an interest in what may have happened and track down, if possible.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. My last few questions.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is Defense 1196, Mr. Yamauchi's diagram of the glove.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Sims, since we last talked, before you came back before the end of your redirect examination, did you have an opportunity to examine the diagram that Mr. Yamauchi made of the glove on June 14th?
MR. SIMS: I've only seen this briefly in seeing Mr. Yamauchi's testimony, but I haven't studied this diagram, no.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, let me just ask you a few short questions about the glove.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: You have discussed the role of substrate control and how important you thought it was that substrate controls be systematically alternated by the laboratory personnel collecting and handling the evidence?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, there are substrate controls along with the stains, then those should be systematically processed, yes.
MR. SCHECK: There were no substrate controls with the glove, were there?
MR. SIMS: I--I did not collect any substrate controls with the glove, no. I felt it was--the entire glove had blood in almost all places.
MR. SCHECK: Well, more importantly--withdraw that. LAPD didn't take any substrate control for the glove? You didn't receive any, did you?
MR. SIMS: I--I don't know if--if they did actually select any areas or investigate any areas. I'm not--I'm not clear on that.
MR. SCHECK: My question to you, sir, in terms of samples you received, did you ever receive any substrate controls for the glove?
MR. SIMS: Well, again with the glove, I only received the glove itself. I didn't receive any of the cut-outs that LAPD had made from the glove, so I just had the glove itself to work with.
MR. SCHECK: Right. But for example, you didn't receive any cuttings as substrate controls the way you did, for example, with the--with other swatches, other items?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And have you ever seen a photograph of the glove prior to--other than ones at the crime scene, have you ever seen a photograph of the glove taken in a laboratory setting that reflected its condition before cuttings and alterations were made on it?
MR. SIMS: I don't recall seeing a photo like that, although I'm having trouble recalling any LAPD lab photos of the glove. I don't know if I have seen any of their photos--
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.
MR. SIMS: --of the--of the glove.
MR. SCHECK: Now, could you point out on this diagram the area where you found a piece of tissue?
MR. SIMS: Would you like me to point out in that is what you are saying?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. Could you just do that.
MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.) I have to look backward here because high notes are with the glove inside out. It would be on the thumb side underneath this area here, (Indicating), where I'm pointing.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.
MR. SIMS: In that--in that vicinity.
MR. SCHECK: Now, have you seen, either in a form of a photograph or a document or a drawing or any form of documentation, an indication of where Mr. Fung removed a hair from the glove on the morning of June 14th?
MR. SIMS: I haven't seen any of that documentation.
MR. SCHECK: So you would have no knowledge as to where, in what area Mr. Fung touched the glove on the morning of June 14th?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: You have no idea of what area he removed the hair from?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is argumentative.
THE COURT: Just rephrase it.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know from what area he removed the hair?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. SCHECK: Umm, and you are looking at your notes there?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In order to figure out what you did and the order in which you did it?
MR. SIMS: Well, I was looking at it to figure out the exact location as best I could show it on the diagram.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Could we just show that note for a second on the monitor here so the jury has an understanding of what you are looking at in terms of your notes.
MR. HARMON: I think we will have to mark it, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Could we just mark this--
MR. SCHECK: Well, are these--what are these pages from 69--69, 70 and 71? What do those reflect?
MR. SIMS: These pages are copies that reflect my actual examination of the glove itself.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And these reflect the examination when you cut out G1, G2, G3 and G4?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is included.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Could you--let me just show briefly those diagrams on the monitor, if I may, and I will mark those pages--what are we up to, I'm sorry?
THE COURT: What about the whole package as 1191? Excuse me, Mr. Scheck. Mr. Sims, are those your original copies? Those are copies.
MR. SCHECK: I have another copy and I will conform my copy.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: I'm sorry, 1193. Mr. Douglas, 1193 for this exhibit.
(Deft's 1193 for id = Mr. Sims' notes)
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Can you just focus in on the top for a second. And so that is your diagram and these are the kind of notes you write that indicate, as you are going along, exactly what you are doing and how you are doing it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you directed--this is page 71, is it not?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let me just briefly go back and start at page 69. That would be the beginning of your examination?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is the--that is the beginning of the examination of the glove.
MR. SCHECK: And you noted exactly what you did and who was present and you made a diagram?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: And then page 70, as you made the cut-outs, you made additional diagrams and listed exactly what you did and the order in which you did it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And we have looked at page 71, and--okay. Those are the ones that deal with G1, G2, G3 and G4; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, thank you very much. I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Scheck. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Just a moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, because you haven't seen a photo of the glove before it was sampled, does that mean to you it doesn't exist?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: You just haven't seen one?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Let's start with the mixtures, and I don't intend to ask you specifics about them, but Mr. Scheck asked you questions about the challenge in sorting out mixtures. Do you recall that just a moment ago?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Now, in addition to sorting out mixtures, have you encountered cases where the fact that there is a mixture is of significance to you as a forensic scientist?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Without being able to sort them out?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: You talked about what--seems like another lifetime ago--the blood mixtures case that you had? Do you recall that?
MR. SIMS: Yes, right. I talked about the blood being present from the two different individuals or consistent with the two different individuals.
MR. HARMON: Where you were unable to sort them out?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In that particular case it was not easy to sort them out, as I recall.
MR. HARMON: Okay. This case is one of those cases; is it not?
MR. SIMS: Well, I think in particular when you look at any one stain, that can be difficult to sort out, and to me I tend to look at the totality of the--the interpretations.
MR. HARMON: For example, Mr. Simpson alone could have been the source of no. 30 from the Bronco console?
MR. SIMS: I believe that's correct.
MR. HARMON: All right. If you need to look at your notes, that will be fine.
MR. SIMS: Let me look at my notes again. (Witness complies.) Yes.
MR. HARMON: But when you moved to 31, it wasn't consistent with Mr. Simpson alone; is that true?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: And regardless of your ability to sort it out, was that mixture consistent with two people who had recently been brutally murdered?
MR. SIMS: Well, it was--in 31, for example, it would be consistent with Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, along with one of the victims--
MR. HARMON: With one of the victims in this case?
MR. SIMS: --in this case.
MR. HARMON: And in 305 and 303 and 304, that was not a mixture--that was not a stain that was consistent with Mr. Simpson alone?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: It just happened to be consistent, those three stains, with a mixture of Mr. Simpson and two other people who had recently been brutally murdered; is that true?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is correct, as far as those three samples that you mentioned.
MR. HARMON: And just to distinguish between sorting out mixtures, this has nothing to do with sexual assault cases where there is a way to sort out the sperm DNA from the epithelial cell DNA?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: When you looked at the glove and when you saw that tissue, you couldn't see that with your naked eye, could you?
MR. SIMS: When I originally looked in that area of the glove, I looked for--there was a reddish stain in that notch area, and then I looked under the stereomicroscope and that is where I noted that there was a possible piece of tissue. Now, once I knew what that piece looked like, then if I got the light real strong and just right on it, I could--I could see it with the naked eye, but I had to use the strong light to see that.
MR. HARMON: So what you were able to--the way you were able to initially visualize it was through the stereomicroscope?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: And then knowing that it was there, using some other lighting source, you were able to see it with your eye?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Well, let's talk about the socks then in that same process.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: A did Greg Matheson communicate to you about the socks before you ever examined those socks?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: It is not offered for the truth of the matter.
THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Harmon, where are you going with this?
MR. HARMON: This relates to whether or not things were visible and how they were visible. Matheson tells them I've already typed one stain that is consistent with Nicole so he knows before he even gets them that there is blood on there and this relates to the show and tell that Mr. Scheck did yesterday because--I mean, I can ask it in a different way that says did he tell you anything that helped you focus on it? Yes. What was that?
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. HARMON: Because the first stains are only noticeable because there are circles and arrows pointing to them and it is the whole sequence about whether or not the stains were visible.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have no objection to him calling attention to the circles and arrows, but he was cross-examining this witness and began to ask him about what communications he had with LAPD about cut-outs and blood on the glove and the sock and everything else. Mr. Harmon was the one that was objecting to hearsay and all those objections were sustained.
MR. HARMON: That was before the show and tell yesterday.
MR. SCHECK: Oh, no.
MR. HARMON: About the visibility on it.
MR. SCHECK: I think what is relevant here is what you can see and Mr. Matheson has testified about what he could see and when you can see it, and I think the testimony should be restricted to that. I understand he wants to say that there was an item--I have no objection to him eliciting from the witness did you know that LAPD performed conventional serology before you received the sock and did you see marks on the socks, that is fair game, but to get into this conversation is unfair.
MR. HARMON: That is what is in the conversation.
THE COURT: You can ask him if he was aware of LAPD testing on the sock and where.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
THE COURT: And by looking at the sock could you tell where it was.
MR. COCHRAN: While we are up here, if--I understand that neither one of them--off the record if we can.
THE COURT: Off the record.
(Discussion held off the record.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Harmon, proceed.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, before you received the socks, item 13, from--sent from LAPD, were you made aware that Mr. Matheson had conducted some conventional serological testing on those socks?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And when you were made aware of that, were you made aware that the conventional serological testing was performed on blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Then you received the socks?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And I want to just go through your initial observations on some of those socks, okay?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: But before I do that, I would like you to define for us what you mean when you use the term "Visible to the naked eye."
MR. SIMS: Well, in the context of this kind of examination, I'm talking about situations where with the proper kind of lighting, intense lighting, for example, at an angle, you can see contrast with the naked eye. In other words, you don't have to look under the microscope if you have the right lighting.
MR. HARMON: So can we--can--just to paraphrase it, can we say not aided by some sort of amplification device?
MR. SIMS: Yes, not aided by some sort of amplification device.
MR. HARMON: Or magnifying device?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Is that what you meant when you used that term yesterday?
MR. SIMS: Yes, in the context of this sock examination.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So you get the socks, you already know there is some blood on them. Which of the socks did you--
MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike. That is a statement by Mr. Harmon.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. HARMON: Okay. When you got the socks you already knew there was some blood on them; is that right?
MR. SCHECK: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: When you got the socks, Mr. Matheson had already told you there was some blood on them?
MR. SCHECK: No.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: When you got the sock you already knew that Mr. Matheson had conducted conventional serological testing for blood on those socks; is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Which sock did you examine first?
MR. SIMS: The initial exam was on the one that turned out to be 42B.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, before you looked at those socks were you aware that there were any markings on the socks?
MR. SIMS: I'm not sure I understand. Before I looked at them?
MR. HARMON: Before you looked at them were you aware whether or not there were any markings on those socks, either a or b?
MR. SIMS: Well, when I first looked at them it was the markings that caught my eye.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Were you aware that there had--that those socks had previously been marked?
MR. SIMS: No, I don't believe I was aware that they had been previously marked.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And when you first looked at them, you see some markings?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There were some white against the black of the sock markings.
MR. HARMON: I believe you said that you looked at b first?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Can you describe what first caught your attention when you looked at b?
MR. SIMS: The--there was a white outline around one particular area.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What did you do then after you saw the white outlined area?
MR. SIMS: I--I looked at the sock under the stereomicroscope.
MR. HARMON: Okay. At that point had you noticed any other areas of discoloration on the sock before you resorted to the stereomicroscope?
MR. SIMS: No. The only--the only other markings that I noted at that time was that there was--looked like a 10 to 13, like a size indication on the sock.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Were you looking at the sock or--strike that. This area that was outlined, did you ultimately designate that as a stain area and test it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What area was that?
MR. SIMS: That was B1.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, when you are looking at it with no--you were looking at it with the naked eye?
MR. SIMS: Initially, yes.
MR. HARMON: Initially. Okay. Then you used the stereomicroscope?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What did you see?
MR. SIMS: Well, I noted that there was some reddish staining in that area.
MR. HARMON: Now, is that the first time you noticed any reddish coloration?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I don't believe I saw any reddish until I looked under the stereomicroscope.
MR. HARMON: Okay. At some point did you then look at the other side of the sock?
MR. SIMS: Yes, and I--yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And were you using the naked eye at that point?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe so.
MR. HARMON: Did you notice any apparent discoloration on the other side, opposite of 42B1?
MR. SIMS: No. The only note that I made was there were no markings on that other side.
MR. HARMON: And ultimately you did find some areas of interest on that--on the side that you flipped it over to; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: This would now be the side opposite of the B1 stain?
MR. HARMON: Yes.
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did find some areas of interest.
MR. HARMON: So when you first looked at it with the naked eye you didn't notice any areas of discoloration?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: And there were no markings on that side?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's shift to sock A.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: How did you first examine that sock?
MR. SIMS: Again it was just a visual examination.
MR. HARMON: Okay. No amplification?
MR. SIMS: (No audible response.)
MR. HARMON: No magnification?
MR. SIMS: No. The first thing was just the visual.
MR. HARMON: Did you notice any markings on it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Is that what you noticed first?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I noticed the--there was some writing and then there were some arrows, that sort of thing.
MR. HARMON: And what did you notice when you looked at the end of the arrow, the direction the arrow was pointing?
MR. SIMS: Well, there was--there was in this particular area--now, this was what ended up being called A2--there was some--some discoloration along one of the logos that is present on this sock.
MR. HARMON: When you say "Discolored," are you telling us it was red at that point?
MR. SIMS: Well, again I--it is only when I go to the stereomicroscope that I noted the reddish of--of the stain.
MR. HARMON: And is that what you did next?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And you could see that it looked red?
MR. SIMS: Yes, under the stereomicroscope I could see the reddish staining.
MR. HARMON: And did you then examine the other side of the sock?
MR. SIMS: Yes, and I am not sure if I examined the other side and then did the stereomicroscopic exam on both or if I did one side and also looked at the stereo.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: It is not clear from my notes.
MR. HARMON: What did you notice when you looked at the other side, the side opposite 42A2?
MR. SIMS: The side opposite 42A2 had that cut-out near the ankle area. It had an arrow and it looked like it said 13A pointing to that. There was also a cut-out down more on the foot where there was a C. This is again in white. This white is used as the marking.
MR. HARMON: Then did you use the stereomicroscope to examine them more carefully?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Is that the first--did you notice that those stains were reddish color?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Again I noted with my initial stereomicroscopic examination there was some reddish still in that area around the cut-out.
MR. HARMON: Is that the first time you noticed the reddish coloration, when you looked at it with the stereomicroscope?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe that was.
MR. HARMON: And at some point did you take photos of these stains before you did any cuttings from the socks?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: Use any kind of special lighting for that?
MR. SIMS: Well, I--I took some shots to just show the overall socks using floodlights, for example, with a 35 millimeter set up on a camera stand.
MR. HARMON: And under those--how would you describe that kind of lighting?
MR. SIMS: These are just intense tungsten lightbulbs. They are very intense bulbs that give off a lot of light.
MR. HARMON: In taking the photographs of the stains that you have just described, were you then able to see other stained areas on the sock?
MR. SIMS: Well, once--once I was at the point where I was taking the photographs and using that intense light, in that part of the process I noticed some other discolorations on the side opposite of the LAPD cut-out on sock A.
MR. HARMON: And is that the first time you noticed them under that intense lighting?
MR. SCHECK: Object to the--
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. HARMON: Is that the first time you noticed those stains, when you put the intense lights on them?
MR. SCHECK: No. It is still leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: When did you first notice those stains? Was it when you put the intense lights on them?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it was during that process, and it is pretty clear to me from my notes that that is the point which I noted those additional ones which after this photograph I set up.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Yesterday Mr. Scheck asked you a question about DNA concentration, the difference between concentration from a reference tube that is taken from someone and concentration of DNA and something that comes out of somebody's artery. Do you remember that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Is there any difference in DNA concentration between those two sources?
MR. SCHECK: Objection to the characterization of the questions I asked him. That misstates the questions I asked him.
THE COURT: Sustained. Just ask him the general question.
MR. HARMON: Do you remember the question he asked you yesterday?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What was it?
MR. SIMS: As I recall the question, it was whether or not the blood from a tube, a reference blood tube, would be more concentrated in terms of its DNA than other types of shed blood.
MR. HARMON: And your answer was no?
MR. SIMS: My answer was no.
MR. HARMON: Because if it comes out of your artery it has got the same concentration?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Scheck asked you some vague hypotheticals about cross--inadvertent cross-contamination yesterday.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, why don't you rephrase that question, please.
MR. HARMON: Do you remember the hypothetical Mr. Scheck asked you yesterday about inadvertent cross-contamination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And I believe you expressed an opinion that the fact--the fact that there are multiple swatches in these individual stains is a safeguard against inadvertent cross-contamination; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And could you just briefly explain why that is?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we could go on forever if we keep on doing this. I think he has explained this a number of times.
MS. CLARK: Speaking objection.
THE COURT: It is.
MR. SCHECK: Objection, cumulative.
THE COURT: Also comment by counsel not conducting the examination as well. Overruled. Briefly.
MR. HARMON: Briefly?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The idea that inadvertent contamination would be expected to be a sporadic sort of thing so that one swatch may receive some of this contamination but other swatches wouldn't. That is the concept.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, Mr. Scheck had some questions of you about LAPD items 45 and 51. Do you recall that yesterday?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Those are the front gate and the hand railing sample, I believe.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And without going over things again and again, would the fact that there is foliage nearby and soil and biological material, would that be of significant interest to you in deciding whether bacterial contamination could cause degradation?
MR. SIMS: In other words, if those things in the environment contributed to the material on that substrate, yes.
MR. HARMON: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I would like to have marked as People's next in order a photograph of that area showing the front gate at Bundy.
THE COURT: 291.
MR. HARMON: 291.
(Peo's 291 for id = photograph)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims--can I put it up on the elmo, your Honor?
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, would you look at 291 for identification and I would just like you to take in the whole picture there; vegetation, dirt, things like that. Have you had a chance to look at that?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I can see that.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And what can you tell us in terms of potential for biological material contributing bacterial input to any bloodstains that may have been collected in that area?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have a foundational objection to this from the photograph in this fashion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, again, I note that there is--there appears to be foliage overhanging that general area and this is--that is the main thing that I see in this photograph.
MR. HARMON: And is this a potential source for biological material that could contribute bacteria that might contribute to degradation of bloodstains?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it would have biological material such as that.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I'm going to show--you might want to cut the feed. I want to show a previously marked exhibit, People's 42 for identification. That is a little more distant shot.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Have you had a chance to look at that, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Just I want you to assume that 45 and 51 are from the--45 from the handrail, that you can see in the foreground there, or the background, rather, and 51 from the bottom part of that gate. And what could you tell us about the potential for biological material contributing to degradation of bloodstains that may be collected in those areas?
MR. SIMS: Well, as this perspective shot shows, it appears that that gate swings out into an area of vegetation.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And could that be the source of biological material that could cause bloodstains to be degraded?
MR. SIMS: Well, again, if there is biological material, then conceivably there is bacterial growth in that area and that sort of thing, yes.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I would like to have marked as People's next in order a photograph of that handrail. May that be 292, your Honor?
THE COURT: 292.
(Peo's 292 for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: May I put it up on the elmo?
THE COURT: You may.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, assume that is where 110 is, item 45 that you just saw in the other photograph. This is just a close-up photograph of that, okay?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Umm, is this the kind of area that might have bacterial or bacteria on it that could impair your ability to type those bloodstains?
MR. SIMS: Well, again any--any surface such as that could have some bacterial growth or some bacteria on it.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, Mr. Scheck asked you questions about substrates and similarity of the front gate painted surface and the rear gate painted surface. Do you recall that yesterday?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Is substrate just one factor in determining what might impair your ability to type stains such as the Bundy walkway stains and such as 45 and 51?
MR. SIMS: Well, by substrate, for example, if we are talking about a painted metal surface? It depends a lot of what kind of environment--microenvironment that surface is in, actually. If it is near an area where there is more soil and vegetation, that would be different from a cleaner area, basically.
MR. HARMON: So environment is more important than the substrate?
MR. SIMS: It can be, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. In fact 45 and 51 do show the same signs of bacterial-induced degradation as 47, 48, 49 and 52; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Well, I think this were three that we definitely saw that in from the Bundy drop and it is the same thing that we saw, the same pattern that we saw in 45--I'm sorry--45 and 51.
MR. HARMON: And does bacteria come--if a person dropped a drop of blood on a clean substrate, would you expect to find bacteria in there?
MR. SIMS: Well, there are bacteria everywhere in the world. Bacteria are everywhere. It is--it is whether or not the bacteria are placed in a moist environment where they can--warm environment that is moist where they flourish. That is really the issue.
MR. HARMON: Could there be--so would the fact that stains that were collected already having bacteria on them and put in a plastic bag in a moist condition, how would that impact on the bacteria that is already there?
MR. SIMS: Well, under those conditions those bacteria would be thriving, they would be reproducing, growing, so they would--there would be growth of the culture and so then that would lead to more degradation of the DNA in the blood.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this time I would like to have marked as People's 292 for identification a photo of the rear gate at Bundy.
THE COURT: 293, I believe.
(Peo's 293 for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: 294 for identification, another photo of the rear gate.
(Peo's 294 for id = photograph)
MR. SCHECK: I think these are June 13 photographs.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. May I put 293 up?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. HARMON: And 294. We can do them both at the same time.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I would like you to take a look at these photos and I'm going to ask you to assume that they are photos of the rear gate at Bundy where 115, 116 and 117 were collected from on July 3rd. Okay?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do you see any signs of the same kind of vegetation in the area of 115, 116 and 117 as you did in--with respect to 45 and 51?
MR. SIMS: Can I--can I actually see that photograph, the lower photograph?
MR. HARMON: Sure. Could I hand it to him, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly. Why don't you hand him both photographs.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: It appears there is a little bit of iceplant if that general area if I'm seeing this correctly, but it is not as--it doesn't appear to be as dense growth as in the other--the front end samples.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, I just want you to assume, for purposes of this question, that 115, 116 and 117 had been in the same kind of biological environment as 45 and 51.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Okay? If those stains were dried after collection and not stored in a hot truck in plastic bags for several hours--okay?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: --would you expect the same kind of bacterial-induced degradation as you found in 45 and 51 and 47 and 48 and 49?
MR. SIMS: No. Again, I think the key is to get these samples collected and dried as soon as possible, because it is that incubation period when there is the moisture and the heat that allows for the bacteria to thrive and for the culture to grow and that leads to the degradation of the blood.
MR. HARMON: In fact, you didn't see the same kind of bacterial-induced contamination in 115 through 117?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Scheck asked you a question about systematically alternating between substrate controls and stains just a little while ago. Do you recall that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Do you feel that is an important safeguard?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: How important do you feel as a safeguard is using only one coin envelope opened at a time?
MR. SIMS: Well, that--that to me is--is especially critical because that is not only a check on cross-contamination, but it will tend to prevent sample mix-up. There is only one sample you are dealing with at a time so you are not likely to go mix it with another sample.
MR. HARMON: How about having one microcentrifuge tube opened at a time?
MR. SIMS: I think that is very important because then the contents of one can't get into the contents of another tube.
MR. HARMON: And finally, Mr. Sims, I want you to assume that 45 and 51, 47, 48 and 49 were collected on June 13th.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: And furthermore, 115, 116 and 117 on the rear gate were collected on July 3rd.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Given the different environments in which the group of 45, 51, 47, 48, 49 and 50 were collected from--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: --when compared with only 15, 116 and 117--are you with me so far?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And given the different dates of collection of the two groups of samples--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: --is there thinking about the differences in the amount of DNA in these stains which tells you scientifically when 115, 116 and 117 were deposited on the rear gate?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this hypothetical with respect to foundations concerning, a, the environment.
MR. HARMON: That is a speaking objection, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Well, foundation--how else--
THE COURT: Foundation.
MR. SCHECK: And times.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: Thank you. No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck?
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, some stains on the sock were more apparent than others?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is vague as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: The--the only stain that seemed a little bit more apparent to me would be that--that one that was on the logo that I think we called 42A2, that was more apparent to me, and again, keep this mind, I didn't see A1 until after it was sampled.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. But you got the sock, you looked at it and you saw, visible to the naked eye, red discoloration, discoloration that you characterized as a bloodstain in A1?
MR. HARMON: Objection, vague as to time, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Can you--I'm sorry.
MR. SCHECK: Sure.
MR. SCHECK: First time we discussed this on cross-examination, in fact I think it was even on your direct examination, didn't you indicate that when you looked at sock A1, without the aid of the stereomicroscope, you saw by that arrow the discoloration that you identify as the bloodstain at A1?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is compound, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think you could see some discoloration in that general area.
MR. SCHECK: And then on that same sock there is a cut-out?
MR. SIMS: Well, the--I think what you are saying is the cut-out that is adjoining whatever is left?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. SIMS: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: There is a large cut-out in the ankle area of the a sock?
MR. SIMS: Yes, there is a large cut-out.
MR. SCHECK: And I think you've testified that the material of this sock, and we've seen it, is smooth, silky kind of material?
MR. SIMS: It is smooth, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in the areas where you identified bloodstains, the material tends to become, in your words, crinkled and puckered?
MR. SIMS: Yes, in some of those areas it did.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Harmon asked you questions again about that B1 area of the sock that we saw yesterday under the stereomicroscope, correct?
MR. SIMS: Well, that is--we looked in that general area, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. That is the one that everybody got out and looked at under the stereomicroscope?
MR. SIMS: Well, actually that stain was an unsampled area that was just below B1.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Would it be fair to say that those areas that we spent time looking at with the stereomicroscope were the ones--were the areas where you first identified the stain, looking under the stereomicroscope.
MR. HARMON: Objection. That misstates what happened yesterday.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm talking about your examination. You've told us that there was--that to the best of your recollection, and you are not completely sure of it, there was one stain area that you first were able to visualize under the stereomicroscope as opposed to seeing it first with your naked eye without enhancement?
MR. SIMS: Well, there were several areas that I couldn't see with the naked eye that I could only see with the stereomicroscope.
MR. SCHECK: All right. In terms of the ones you sampled, that was the only one that you first saw with the stereomicroscope as opposed to looking at it with the naked eye? I'm talking about the ones you cut.
MR. SIMS: I'm sorry, can you restate that?
MR. SCHECK: All right. I think we have testimony on it. Let me just get to this: The area that we were looking at yesterday under the stereomicroscope, would it be fair to say that that was one of the areas that was harder to visualize with the naked eye in terms of seeing the discoloration, as opposed to other areas?
MR. SIMS: Well, again, the only other area that I would say would be easier to see it would be that one on the logo, that A2 stain.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And you can't tell us what the cut-out area would have looked like in terms of the blood on it before you saw it because when you got it it was cut out?
MR. SIMS: Well, that's right, and that is why I looked at the margins under the stereomicroscope and that is when I saw the reddish in that area.
MR. SCHECK: So there was even reddish in that area after the cut-out had been done?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you look at that fringe area of the cut-out with a naked eye without the stereomicroscope, you can see the discoloration?
MR. SIMS: I think there is some subtle discoloration in that area, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, Mr. Harmon asked you some questions about the console and the Bronco. Can you tell us the order in which biological material was contributed to the console from your tests?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. SCHECK: You can't tell us what biological material might have been on the substrate of the console before what appears to be blood was deposited on it?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Harmon I think before asked you questions about bleeding noses. Do people have runny noses when they have colds?
MR. SIMS: I do.
MR. HARMON: Beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Do children have runny noses?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Do adults have runny noses?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Do people touch substrate on consoles in cars, in your experience, with their hands?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of other contributors to the smears on the console, you found other genotypes than Mr. Simpson's?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And from your tests you can't tell us whether the other genotypes came from one person, two people or even three people?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you found--and on the steering wheel on the trip you looked at, the only dots visible were 1.1, 1.2 and 4?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: This is now on the steering wheel sample?
MR. SCHECK: Item no. 29, the only dots you saw on the strip were 1.1, 1.2 and 4?
MR. SIMS: Well, again, control dot.
MR. SCHECK: Talking about what you saw.
MR. SIMS: The control dot was present and I believe the "all but" dot was present.
MR. SCHECK: And Cellmark's result was that that was a--the conclusion was that that was a 1.1, 1.2 and a 4 and they excluded Mr. Goldman?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Harmon asked you about single coin envelopes being a good control against cross-contamination in sample mix-up, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You think it would help, in terms of controlling against sample mix-up, to count the number of swatches when they are collected and put counts on the kind envelopes and the bindles where they were originally collected?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It is compound, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Would counting the number of swatches at collection and putting that number on a coin envelope or a bindle, would that assist in terms of guarding against sample mix-up?
MR. SIMS: It might.
MR. SCHECK: Would that assist in maintaining the integrity of evidence in terms of chain of custody?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I think at some point it would seem reasonable that if there are--if these swatches are going to be sent out that there should be a count at some point.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you were asked a series of questions about the handrail and the front gate, correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Contrasting it to the substrate on the back gate?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you were asked--and you have never been to Bundy, have you?
MR. SIMS: I have never been to the crime scene, no.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's look at this--I guess we will start with the handrail. Will you look at those.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, which photograph is this?
MR. SCHECK: I'm using P-291 and P-292.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, comparing the state of the paint on that handrail to the back gate, would it be a fair statement that the paint on that handrail shows less evidence of flaking and rusting than the back gate?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Well, have you looked at a picture of the back gate?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I have seen a picture of the back gate.
MR. SCHECK: And in the picture of the back gate do you not see on that lower rung of the back gate there is some flaking of the paint?
MR. SIMS: I recall seeing some--something like that on that, but again, I would like to see that photo again if that is an issue.
MR. SCHECK: We will show it to you in a second. And would you not agree that flaking of paint would be an indication of exposure to moisture.
MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Would moisture be a factor in enhancing bacterial degradation?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: A significant factor?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In other words, from the microenvironment, as you characterized it, if bacterial agents got on a substrate, exposure to moisture would hasten or accelerate the bacterial degradation?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, do you have the front gate picture there, by chance?
MR. SIMS: No. Those are just the rear gate, I believe.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: While we are waiting for the other one, why don't I show you--look again at these back gate pictures.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Incidentally, the typing on the front gate did not give genotypes consistent with Mr. Simpson?
MR. SIMS: On the--I would have to check what those results were. That is some of the very recent work that we did.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--oh, gosh. Could we focus first on this photo which is People's 78. Can we get it any brighter than that? Can we go tighter than that?
THE COURT: Do you want tighter or brighter or both?
MR. SCHECK: I guess what distresses me a little bit it is that it appears to be much clearer on the monitor than up here. Can we brighten that at all?
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, can you get the lights.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: There we go.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's look at the microenvironment of the back gate. Does it appear to you that there are a number of berries and other foliage material across the steps leading up to the back gate?
MR. SIMS: Just--just from this view, it appears that there is that sort of material.
MR. SCHECK: And on the substrate at the top of those stairwells you see more what appear to be berries and foliage?
MR. SIMS: Well, now I thought we were talking about the rear gate as opposed to the--you are talking about the substrate now being the top step there?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. I'm talking--I'm focusing your attention from the top step going back towards the rear gate. Do you see more foliage--do you recall it from the other photograph being berry material in that area?
MR. SIMS: I can't really see the berries, but I think that looks like foliage.
MR. SCHECK: And the substrate where sample no. 50 was collected, you know from photographs is just in front of that rear gate?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that's correct, although I don't know the exact dimensions on these.
MR. SCHECK: Umm, and no. 50, which is collected on that substrate right near the rear gate--
MR. HARMON: Object to the characterization "Right near," as misleading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: 50, which is collected in the area of the rear gate, without going back and getting the exact number of feet, that bloodstain you found to be severely degraded?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what that indicated.
MR. SCHECK: And you don't know how long 115, 116 and 117 were in plastic bags on July 3rd?
MR. SIMS: I don't have that information.
MR. SCHECK: You have no idea how hot it was?
MR. SIMS: No, I don't.
MR. SCHECK: You have no idea how long Mr. Fung kept those around before he took them to the evidence processing room and went through whatever procedures he did to dry them?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I don't have that information.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, looking at 294--before I do that, let's just take a look at People's 97, the front gate picture taken on June 13th.
THE COURT: I don't believe so. Is that the front gate?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. All right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you understand, do you not, Mr. Sims, that given the numbering system of LAPD, this is photo i.d. No. 116 but item no. 51? Do you have that in mind?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is my understanding, is that that 116 in the photograph goes with the photo number but not with a booked item number.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So this is item no. 5 would be the front gate sample collected on June 13th? Is that your understanding?
MR. SIMS: I believe that's correct, but I can check something on that.
MR. SCHECK: Now, does it appear to you that the gate here is peeling?
MR. HARMON: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: In this--in this photograph I don't see any evidence of that.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, this gate, you indicated before, opens up into an area where there is some foliage, correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It looked like there was actually some foliage that actually hangs over it when it is opened.
MR. SCHECK: Let me show you what is People's 294 and let's see if we can get as tight on this as we can to the gate itself. Let's just stop there for a second. Now, will you agree that it appears as though we have berries and leaves and soil material on the substrate leading up to the gate?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In general I can see what you are talking about. I can't see those as berries unless somebody told me those are berries, but that looks like leaves and soil and that sort of thing, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And over time, would you not expect in mornings that there might be moisture or dew over, let's say, a three- or four-week period, three-week period?
MR. SIMS: Well, umm, certainly there may be some--some dew formation.
MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for speculation, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I have had a lesson on conditions in June and July in Los Angeles.
MR. HARMON: I'm going to object to this.
MR. SCHECK: In Brentwood.
THE COURT: Overruled. Have a seat.
MR. HARMON: Is that a question?
THE COURT: Let's--I think it was in response to the Court's comment about witnesses from out of town talking--making assumptions about weather conditions in Los Angeles.
MR. HARMON: I understand that, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see if we can finish this.
MR. SCHECK: Let's move on.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, over a three-week period would not exposure to moisture and the biological material that you just see in the substrate in terms of wind blowing it against the gate, would that not be a factor in terms of assessing bacterial degradation of any bloodstain on that gate?
MR. HARMON: Objection, assumes fact not in evidence, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: I'm sorry, I didn't understand what was being blown on the gate.
MR. SCHECK: Well, would it be--I'm asking you to assume that over a three-week period wind will blow materials, such as you see on the substrate in this photograph, onto the gate area.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: That is part of--when you were answering Mr. Harmon's questions with respect to microenvironment, you were making assumptions, it was part of your reasoning, was it not, that some of these bacterial agents from the foliage would become airborne and deposit themselves on the substrate?
MR. SIMS: Well, for example, from droppings and that sort of thing, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And that would apply to this rear gate as well as it would apply to the front gate?
MR. SIMS: Well, again, if this is material that drops down onto it, that would be true.
MR. SCHECK: Well, could we go a little tighter to the--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: I show you 166. Now, did you see how the door from the rear gate opens onto an area where there is foliage?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think I noted that earlier.
MR. SCHECK: And you see some what appears to be leaf-like material just near the gate, don't you?
MR. SIMS: Do you mean where--now, touching the gate?
MR. SCHECK: The larger chunks at the gate itself?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that looks to me like iceplant.
MR. SCHECK: And you even see part of the plant sticking up through and touching the gate on the--where it hinges on the right-hand side? Do you see that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you haven't--you haven't actually been to this scene to inspect these microenvironments, have you?
MR. SIMS: I have not.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: And you did some examination of fibers from the Bronco, did you not?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Did you see any evidence of berry-like material in the fibers from the Bronco examination?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is still beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: No further questions.
MR. HARMON: Just a couple questions, Mr. Sims.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON
MR. HARMON: This rear gate microenvironment with the berries and the dog chew and everything back there and this hypothetical about wind blown stuff up on the gate--
MR. SCHECK: Excuse me.
MR. HARMON: It is introductory, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Misstates a fact.
THE COURT: Sustained. Ask a question, counsel.
MR. HARMON: Do you know anything about wind blowing berries up on the rear gate?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: Do you think the wind could blow a berry up on 117? You have seen that picture?
MR. SIMS: Would it have to be a very strong wind, I would think.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, the bottom line: Is there anything about what you saw on 115, 116, 117, even in Mr. Scheck's microenvironment, that undermines the fact that they could have been there from June 13th?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: And let's talk about how long those stains may have been in plastic bags in a truck on July 3rd when Mr. Fung collected them. Do you remember the question?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Is what is important whether or not you see bacterial contamination causing degradation?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It is sort of the bottom line is what do you see when you actually look at the yield gels on these particular samples and whether or not the phenomenon has occurred as indicated by the yield gel.
MR. HARMON: And you didn't see the same kind of degradation in 115, 116 and 117 as did you in the ones in the walkway?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Even if they had been in the truck as long as they had been on June 13th, is what is important the fact that you don't see the degradation?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: I don't have any other questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: The bottom line of the fact, Mr. Sims, about how much bacterial degradation you saw on 115, 116 and 117, you didn't see it?
MR. SIMS: I did not see that same pattern that I saw on the other samples from Bundy.
MR. SCHECK: And no. 50 collected from the substrate in the area of that gate, you saw it?
MR. SIMS: I believe that was one of those that showed up on the yield gel, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the substrate of the front gate, you saw bacterial degradation of that--those stains--item no. 51 that was collected on June 13th?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I saw that pattern on the yield gel.
MR. SCHECK: And from the handrail, that substrate, you saw bacterial degradation on the sample collected on June 13th?
MR. SIMS: I saw that same pattern, yes.
MR. SCHECK: But from the samples that were collected on July 3rd from that back gate, 117, 116, 115, you didn't see that bacterial degradation, did you?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Sims, I think we are finished.
MR. SIMS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, as far as the court session this morning is concerned, we are going to take our recess we are going to shift to a different focus of the evidence, I'm told by the attorneys, shortly, and the parties who are involved in that presentation are not available until tomorrow morning. So we are going to stand in recess, as far as the jury is concerned, until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. Please remember all of my admonitions. Do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, nor are you to allow anyone to communicate with you with regard to the case. I see jurors mouthing the words with me. Thank you. All right. Just as long as you remember them all. All right. You all have a pleasant evening and we will see you tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. All right. We will stand in recess. Mr. Sims, you may step down.
(At 11:55 A.M. an adjournment was taken until, Friday, June 2, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)