PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 14, 1996 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 8:51 AM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Morning. JUROR: Morning, Your Honor. THE CLERK: You're still under oath. Would you please state your name again. THE WITNESS: Robin Cotton. THE CLERK: Thank you. THE COURT: You may proceed. ROBIN COTTON, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT (Continued): Q. Good morning, Dr. Cotton. A. Good morning. (Displayed board entitled "Results of DNA Analysis - Bundy Crime Scene.") Q. I'd like to go back to the results board from the Bundy crime scene. This is exhibit 291, Your Honor. Item number 52, this is the item you received the RFLP result on? A. Yes. Q. As you explained yesterday, these frequencies represent the commonness or uncommonness of that blood drop in the population generally, or that DNA result, in the population, generally? A. Yes. Q. So it's true to say that 1 out of every 170 million people, up to 1 out of every 1.2 billion people, would have that combination of five genetic markers; is that -- A. Yes. Q. Could we see the next one, please? (Displays chart entitled "Results of DNA Analysis.") Q. This is the results board from Rockingham and item number 12 at Rockingham, that has the same rate of frequency at -- as item 52 at Bundy? A. Yes. Q. Why is that? A. It's the same banding pattern, that is the Bundy item 52, and the Rockingham foyer pattern from item number 12, those patterns are the same. Q. Okay. So let me see if I understand this, the five probe banding pattern for item number 12 patch, matches that for item number 52? A. It does. Q. And both of those match Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. And 1 out of every 170 million to 1.2 billion people would have that banding pattern? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Can you take down the Rockingham? (Mr. Foster complies) Q. Now, as you mentioned yesterday, Dr. Cotton, in addition to the various items that you've testified to on this results board, there were other items that you tested at Bundy, including the blood under Nicole's fingernails and other item as well; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Now, for all of the tests that you performed on all of the evidence at the Bundy crime scene, did you ever obtain results showing the presence of any alleles that could not have come from one of Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman? A. There were no genetic markers, alleles present that were not consistent with one of those three people. Q. Okay. Good. Would you explain, just one more time, what an allele is? A. An allele is simply a version of a gene. So in ABO blood groups, one is one allele, B is another allele and O is another allele. In the polymarker system, A is one allele and B is another allele and for every locus, you will have, and all people will have, two alleles present; one from each parent. Q. So for all the blood evidence that you tested at Rockingham, all of that evidence at Bundy, I'm sorry, all of that evidence is consistent with having come from one of the three people listed on the board up there? A. Or someone else with those same -- Q. It varies -- A. -- Types. Q. Same types. A. But there are only three groups of types present. Q. Okay. Thank you. And then let me ask you about one other item that you tested that we haven't talked about, and that's item 29. Do you recall that item being tested? You might have to look at your notes for this one. A. Can you tell me where that's -- Q. Item 29 is from the Bronco -- A. Yes. Okay. Q. -- automobile. And you tested that. Was that an evidence item that you got from LAPD or from the Department of Justice? A. I have to look that up. Q. Okay. (Witness reviews notebook.) A. I don't think that I included -- okay. Wait a minute. You want to know whether we got that as already extracted? Q. Yes. A. DNA from the Department of Justice? Yes, we did. It was DNA that we obtained from the Department of Justice. Q. And what was your test result on that item? That's another page? A. Yeah. I'm sorry. I -- I assume you don't want me to read all types here but -- Q. Just tell me what you -- overall. A. The overall result is that there are two people. There's more than one person present in the DNA from that item. Q. And one of the people that was present, is that -- could that be consistent with Mr. Simpson? A. Let me change your wording a little bit. Q. Okay. A. Mr. Simpson can't be excluded as being a contributor to the DNA in that item. Q. And the other possible contributor, can you include or exclude anybody from that item? A. Nicole Brown is excluded. And in our report we also excluded Ron Goldman. Q. And could you explain why Mr. Goldman was excluded from your report? A. There is a DQ Alpha 4 allele in that sample. Ron Goldman has a DQ Alpha 4 allele, but he also has a 1.3. The 4 was very light. We did not see a 1.3. So based on the results that we could see, we excluded him. Q. Is it scientifically possible that the 1.3 was there, but just too light to be seen in your test? A. That's possible. Q. Now, let's go back to this board for just one more minute before you put it down. The frequencies that you calculated for the PCR base test, that is the DQ Alpha and the polymarker match, do those frequencies include any information based upon the D1S80 runs? A. No. Q. This board, which is exhibit 297, is the results of DNA analysis of the Rockingham socks. Is that one of the evidence items that you tested, Dr. Cotton? A. Yes. Q. And what kind of tests were you able to do on that evidence item? A. We did a DQ Alpha polymarker test and an RFLP test. Q. What were your results from the DQ Alpha polymarker test? A. The DQ polymarker test gave results that were the same as the types of Nicole Brown. Q. And the RFLP results, what were you able to obtain with that? A. The RFLP banding pattern matches the banding pattern of Nicole Brown. Q. And once again, were you able to obtain banding patterns at all five of your genetic probes? A. Yes. Q. So the possible source of that evidence item is who? A. Nicole Brown. Q. And are Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman excluded as possible sources? A. Yes they are. Q. And were you able to calculate frequencies for those results? A. Yes, we were. Q. Can you put those up on the board? A. Sure. (Witness draws on exhibit.) Q. So let me see if I understand the results here, Dr. Cotton. For the polymarker in DQ Alpha result, your figures would indicate that those patterns could come from one in 2500 to one in out of one and -- 26 -- let me start again. Your frequency numbers would indicate that those patterns could come from one in 2500 to one in 26,000 people? A. Right. That's how often you might see those -- that group of types. Q. And when you did the RFLP result, we obviously get much more substantial numbers. Could you explain those, please? A. All that's saying is that this banding pattern would be expected to occur in -- given that we gave, three numbers all together. The lowest frequency that we got was 16.8 billion people. That means you would have to go through a whole lot of people before you would find or you would expect to find a banding pattern that is the same as the pattern that's common to the socks and Nicole Brown. Q. And that would be a pretty rare pattern? A. Yes, it would. Q. Let's -- we are going to put up on the television screen here -- would you please identify for the jury what this document is. This is evidence item 285. Exhibit 285. (The instrument herein referred to as "Autorad Produced from Socks" displayed on TV screen was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 285.) A. That is the first autoradiograph or Autorad that was produced with the sample from the socks. Q. And this is the kind of Autorad that we showed the jury a sample of earlier? A. It's not exactly because we showed the jury a sample of an Autorad where one probe had been applied. So that for each sample on that example, there were two bands. What's done in our lab as a first go around with the data, is to apply four probes at once. And this Autorad shows the results from the application of four probes all together. So if each probe produces two bands, you would normally see eight. Sometimes they may overlap, so you might not count eight but there would normally be eight there. It may be occasionally six or seven. So this does not look exactly like the example we showed. Q. This is a little more complicated? A. It's a little more complicated. Q. But it's the same principle that you discussed yesterday? A. Exactly. Q. So can you point out for the jury, item number 13, the socks that you tested? A. Sure. The pattern that you see from top to bottom right here, is the pattern from item number 13. Q. And would you point out what you compared that to, to match it to Nicole Brown Simpson? A. Well, we compared it to all -- all three known individuals. Mr. Simpson's pattern is here. Nicole Brown's reference blood pattern is here and Ron Goldman's reference blood pattern is here. And the pattern from the socks is not the same as Mr. Simpson's. It's not the same as Mr. Brown's. If you compare the two patterns from the sock and Nicole Brown, each place there's a band in the sock, there's a corresponding band in Nicole Brown's pattern. This data is repeated when you do -- go back and do one probe at a time and generate other Autorads and the pattern from the sock does match the pattern from Nicole Brown. Q. And that was also confirmed by the computer analysis of these bands? A. Yes, it was. Q. The sock sample that you are showing us up there, evidence item number 13, is that -- we talked yesterday a little bit about degradation of evidence samples. Is that a particularly degraded evidence sample? A. No, it's not and it's in quite good condition. Q. And can you tell by looking at this Autorad, that it's not particularly degraded? A. Well, I can tell from looking at the Autorad. We don't normally put our Autorads up on a TV screen. You just look at them on a light box, so -- and that's a lot -- it's a better way to be looking at them. But it's not -- it wouldn't give you -- to you in such a big format. So both from looking at the TV screen here and remembering what the Autorad looks like, that sample is in good condition. Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks, evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample? A. Yes, it could. Q. Why could it? A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well. If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot of humidity, that's not as good. Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you? A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation. Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like. Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that explain that relative state of degradation? A. Yes. Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks? A. Yes. Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation? A. Yes. Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested? A. No, it's not likely. Q. I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Cross-examine. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LAMBERT: I did forget to introduce my exhibit. May I do that before we start? THE COURT: You may. MR. LAMBERT: Exhibits 2179. THE CLERK: One moment. MR. LAMBERT: Sorry. THE CLERK: Okay. MR. LAMBERT: Maybe I should try to do it in numerical order THE CLERK: It doesn't matter. MR. LAMBERT: It doesn't matter. 2179, 273, 2180, 2181, 276, 274, 275, 2182, 2183, and 285. THE COURT: Okay. They're received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2179 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 273 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2180 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2181 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 276 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 274 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 275 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2182 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2183 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 285 was received in evidence.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Dr. Cotton, can you give us an estimate of the amount of time that you spent on this case when you were working for the prosecution, just approximately? A. The number of hours I put in? Q. Yes. A. I don't know. A lot. Q. A lot. Didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And the tests that were done on the 23 items were paid for by tax payers of Los Angeles County, correct? A. Yes, they were. Q. And all of your time that you spent in the criminal case were paid for by the taxpayers of Los Angeles County? A. That's correct. Q. Now, it's -- have the plaintiffs reimburseed taxpayers of Los Angeles County for any of that work. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) How many hours have you spent working for the plaintiffs in this case? A. Probably, including the time that I've been here? Q. Yes. A. Probably about eight or nine days. Q. And what do you charge per day? A. For my time here, the company will charge $1200 a day for time that I spend in the office. Some of that time is in short chunks and doesn't really get charged at all and if it's a substantial block of time, it would be $200 an hour. Q. You have no personal knowledge as to how the evidence was collected, preserved and packaged before it was sent to your lab? A. That's right. Q. Would you agree with your -- that your test results are only as good as the evidence that you're given by an outside agency? A. Of course, Q. And if you're given evidence from an outside agency that has been contaminateed or degraded or tampered with or whatever, you can't make it any better, can you? A. No. Q. So your test results are only as reliable as the evidence that you get? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I need to get some exhibits back here. ( Pause in the proceedings.) (Chart entitled "Where is DNA Found" displayed.) MR. BLASIER: I think that's exhibit 273. Q. (BY R. BLASIER) Doctor, can you see that from where you're sitting? A. Sure. Q. Now, I want to ask you a couple more questions about what DNA is to try and give us a conceptual framework of what we're talking about. Every cell that has a nucleus has DNA in it, correct? A. Yes. We have about six trillion cells in our body, correct? A. I don't know. Q. That's an estimate that's given. A. If it's in some text book somewhere, I would certainly accept that. Q. That's 6 million, million, right? A. Yes. Q. And most of those are nonred blood cells, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now every one of those cells has the same DNA in it as every other cell? A. Yes. Q. So if you take some DNA from hair, it's going to be the same as DNA from your blood from your skin, from other bodily tissue, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's one of the ways you can compare hair sample with blood sample with DNA technology, correct? A. Sure. Q. Now, going back down to the lower level here, the structure of DNA, you described it as a ladder type structure? A. Yes, I did. Q. It's like a coiled up ladder, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it's made up of only four molecules, correct, that are of significance to us. A. Yes. Q. That's the A, C and the G and T? A. Yes. Q. Now, in a single cell the DNA in one cell is you have 6 billion of these base pairs or 6 billion rungs of the ladder in every cell, correct? A. Exactly. Q. And 3 billion of the cells, ru --- rungs you get from mom and 3 billion you get from dad. A. Yes. Q. We can think of it in terms of a tinker toy ladder that has two hubs and a stick in the middle through the rung. And the left hub is going to be an A and the right hub is going to be a T. The right hub could be a C and the left hub could be a G? A. Yes. Q. You can figure out how these go together, round letters go together. A and C and G -- I'm sorry, guess you can't do that. Anyway, they only go together one way, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, 3 billion base pairs, if we want to try and understand the scale of this, if you think about a little toy ladder, like a kid might have on a fire engine, if the rungs of that ladder are half an inch apart, the entire DNA, if it was stretched, end to end, would be 3 billion half inches, correct? A. Yes. Q. I didn't do the math. It turned out to be about 25 thousand miles. Does that sound right? A. I haven't done the math. Q. You can assume that hypothetically. A. Fine. Q. Once around the world. And the second 3 billion pairs of rungs, that comes from the other parents, is the same length, correct? A. Yeah. Yeah, about. Q. Okay. So you can think of this as two ladders that are side by side that go around the world? A. Well, only if the base pairs are half an inch apart. Q. Right? A. Which they're not. Q. You can't see it without a microscope? A. Yes. Q. And you can't even see the individual molecules without extremely sophisticated equipment? A. That's right. Q. Now, when you do an RFLP test, would you say, is the -- let me ask you this: Isn't it true that if you have the DNA from a piece of evidence and the DNA from a suspect, if there is a single rung of that ladder that is different from one to the other, it came from different people? A. Yes. If you have two RFLP patterns and you have a band in one that is different than -- Q. That wasn't my question, Doctor. A single base pair difference -- A. Oh. Q. -- Between evidence and suspect means they didn't come from the same person, correct? A. Well, that theoretically is correct, but you -- Q. Thank you. And when you do an RFLP test, what is the average fragment lengths that you look at? A. Your -- the range of fragment length that are looked at on our gels are 1600 to about 23,000 base pairs. Q. Okay. So from 1600, which is about 800 inches, under my scenario, to 23,000 half inches or about 12,000 inches, correct? That's all you look at? A. Yes. Q. Out of the whole 25,000 mile ladder, correct? A. Yes, we're just looking at a small section of DNA. Q. An extremely small section of DNA? A. Yes, compared to the total, sure. Q. And the polymarker system that -- the alleles that you look at in the polymarker system are even smaller, aren't they? They're in the neighborhood of 250 base pairs, correct? A. Yes. Q. Or 120 inches, like ten feet compared to the whole chain? A. If we -- Q. Isn't that correct? A. I don't know about your numbers. If we just stick with base pairs, then I'll be able to answer your questions a little bit better. Q. 250 out of 6 billion, correct or 3 billion? A. For each locus you're looking at a small piece, which may be about 250 base pairs. Q. You're not looking at any of the rest of the 6 billion base pairs, are you? A. No. Q. Now, you actually don't have one continuous piece of DNA that goes all the way around the world. It's broken down into 23 sections? A. It's broken down into 46 sections. Q. For each ladder is 23, one from mom one from dad, correct? A. Right. Q. That corresponds to the chromosomes? A. Yes. Q. So it's, you know, one twenty-third, approximately, of the ladder is going to be one chromosome and scientists have given these numbers, chromosome number 1, number 2, et cetera? A. Yes. Q. And if you go down below, within a chromosome, they're broken down into the smaller segment or they're blocked out in smaller segments that are called genes, correct? A. They can be, yes. Q. Okay. And a gene is simply a series of base pairs that could have a wide variations in length, but it's just by definition, scientists have defined certain things to be a gene? A. A gene is a functional unit that actually conveys information to the cell, yes. Q. So a particular section of the ladder that might have 100,000, 200,000 base pairs scientists might say, we think that this is connected to hair color, for instance, and so that's a gene that might be conected to hair color? A. Yes. Q. An allele is a fairly short segment of DNA, that's all it is, correct? A. An allele could be very long. It could be very short. It doesn't -- there's no connection between an allele and length. Q. But the alleles you look at don't go any higher than 23,000 base pairs? A. Well that's correct for this test. But you could have an allele of a gene that was 100,000 base pairs. Q. For purposes of this test, you're only looking, at the most, 23,000 base pairs? A. For one, for one locus. Q. Okay. If the roughly 10,000 base pairs average from 1600 to 23, -- 20,000 -- excuse me -- and in it's 5 probe matches that you were talking about, there are two bands for each probe, correct? A. That's right. Q. And again, we're talking about two side by side segments of the ladder; one from mom, one from dad in each probe? A. Yes. Q. And those five segments total together, if our average is 10,000 base pairs per segment, is only 50,000 base pairs that you're looking at for an RFLP test? A. For five. Q. For five probes? A. Yes. Q. And this is the one that you say conveys the most information of all -- of all the tests? A. Yes. Of the testing that people -- labs are doing today, this is the most powerful test. MR. BLASIER: Now, can we get the diagram board, Phil? MR. P. BAKER: Yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Doctor, what is a nanogram? A. It's one times ten to the minus ninth grams. Q. It's a billionth of a gram, correct? A. Yes. Q. And how many grams are in a pound, 454? A. I believe so, yes. Q. So a nanogram is an extremely small amount; is it not? A. Yes. Q. How many nanograms are there estimated to be in a single drop of blood? A. I'm not sure how to -- The way to answer that question is to think of a drop in a more precise volume. We get about 10,000 nanograms from an amount of blood that would be a little less than the size of this pen top. Q. This is exhibit 987. (The instrument herein referred to as chart entitled "Small Amounts of DNA From Specs of Blood" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 987.) Q. You heard the figure that there are 1,000 to 2,000 nanograms per -- I'm sorry. Give me that again, your figure of how many nanograms in a -- in a size of blood the size of -- A. We get about 10 micrograms, which is about 10,000 nanograms in about 700 microliters of blood. Q. Okay. A. So you could calculate, sort of. You could go down and workout how many -- what volume of blood would produce a certain amount of nanograms and I haven't done that recently. Q. Okay. Just to get a rough estimate, 20 nanograms of blood is going to be extremely small; is it not? A. Yeah. It's going to be small but I can't tell you how small. Q. Okay. And two nanograms is going to be, of course, one tenth as small as 20; isn't it? A. Yes, of course. Q. How many drops of blood are there in a CC, cubic centimeter? A. I don't know. I mean, how big a drop is, is a very subjective thing. So in the laboratory, you don't measure things in terms of drops. So I don't really have a figure for you -- for that. I don't know. Q. Have you heard the figure 20? Is that an approximation? A. I haven't heard any physician -- I don't know a common figure for a drop. I'm not aware that there's a common figure for a drop. Q. Have you heard an estimate of 20 drops per -- MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for hearsay. Irrelevant. THE WITNESS: There may be such an estimate. I'm just not aware of it, you know. That's just the state of what I know. Q. Let's -- can we put the pad up for a second? (Counsel displays drawing pad.) Q. Can I borrow your black pen there? A. Sure. Q. I'm going to try and draw this. Now there are a number of different terms that are used in forensic science for when two things appear to be -- or could come from the same source, aren't there? A. Yes, sure. Q. And I've used the term "match" in the context of DNA testing, correct? A. Yes. Q. And none of the tests that you do are capable of establishing or do establish unique identity, do they? A. No, I don't agree agree with you. Q. Well, the estimate that you come up in terms of numbers are statistical estimate based on some formulas that you do, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you cannot possibly look at all of the DNA in a sample. You're only looking at a very small part of it, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And these tests do not establish a unique identification the way I've used them, do they? A. If you do, if you have available to you, a series of a large enough series of problems on an RFLP test. I'm not saying that five is necessarily large enough. I'm just saying if you have enough, I would say perhaps ten or more, I don't think there's a scientist who would argue with you that you've established identity. Q. But no scientist will tell you that with five probes you've established a unique identification, will they? A. I don't think that. Yes, I agree that five probes would not be necessarily considered to be an identification. Q. And you've heard the term "match" used in the context of, for instance, hair and fiber evidence where it means a hair could have come from the suspect or, then again, it might not have, right? A. Yes. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Excuse me. There's an objection. Objection sustained as being beyond the scope. MR. BLASIER: Okay. MR. LAMBERT: Like the answer to be stricken. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm trying to name what a match is for purposes of the jury's understanding this. Okay, Doctor? A. Okay. Q. Now, with RFLP technology, which provides the most information, you look at bands on an X-ray, correct? A. It's not an X-ray, but you look at bands on a -- on the spray film. Q. Okay. But -- and if we consider one band to be from the evidence and one band to be from the suspect -- you with me so far? A. Um-hum. Q. And with RFLP, you look at an average of 10,000 base pairs per band, an easy round number, okay? So let's say that you have determined that the evidence band is 10,000 base pairs? A. Yes. Q. In order for your suspect to match the evidence, the suspect's corresponding band has to be 10,000 base pairs correct? A. No. Q. Well, let me rephrase it. In order for the DNA from the suspect to be identical to the DNA from the evidence, it has have the same sequence and the same number of base pairs? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So for identity to be established, would this one section, anyway, you've got to have 10,000 base pairs from the suspect that matches exactly the 10,000 from the evidence, correct? A. Right. But -- Q. Okay. A. Let -- that wouldn't establish identity. Q. Correct. Well, okay. Even that's not enough to establish identity? A. Of course not. Q. The sequence itself could be different? A. Even if the sequence was identical, you'd still not have established identity. Q. You have a lot of other DNA that you're not even looking at, you're only looking at one small piece? A. Yes. Q. This is what you look at with one band of one probe? A. Yes. Q. Correct. Now, if it turned out that your suspect band was 9,999 and your evidence band is 10,000, those two samples came from different people, correct? A. In theory, that would be correct. Q. In truth that's correct; isn't it? A. In practice, we can't make that determination. Q. Doctor, In theory that's true; isn't it? A. Yes. But you didn't -- Q. Thank you. A. You -- Q. We'll do this step by step. Okay? Now, for 10,000 base pair segments, what is the window size that you use -- explain that in a minute. Explain to me what the window size is approximately in percentages? A. I think it's around probably 2.6 percent. Q. Plus or minus 2.6? A. Yeah. I don't have those figures with me but that will have to do as a -- Q. Okay Let's take plus or minus 2.5, little easier number to work with. A. Okay. Q. Now, if you have a suspect sample, that is, percentages are 9,500 base pairs long and your evidence sample is 10,000, you know that these came from two different people if you know those numbers precisely? A. If you knew the numbers precisely, you would know that. Q. Okay. And further you would know that if the suspect's base -- Fragment was 10,500 base pairs long you would know, if you were able to determine those numbers precisely, that these two samples came from different people, correct? A. Yes. Q. And virtually all there are a thousand possibilities between 10,500 and 9,500 of base pair lengths, correct? A. Yes. Q. Only one of those, 1000 possibilities is going to be identical to your evidence, correct? A. Yes. Q. 999 of them are going to be a different person, correct, if we're able to measure this? A. If you're able to measure it, that would be correct. Q. Now, you're not able to measure it this way are you? A. No. Q. And because the measurement techniques that are used are not sophisticated enough to measure fragment length you give yourself a window within which to call something a match, don't you? A. Yes all RFLP labs do that. Q. What you say is gee, since we can't measure this very precisely we're going to say if it's 10,500 base pairs, we're going to call it a match to 10,000, aren't you 'cause that's within your window; isn't it? A. Well, forgetting the math for a minute, if it's within the window, then it's called a match. And if it's not within the window, then it would either be an inconclusive or an exclusion. Q. Okay. So every one of the thousand possibilities in here within this range, you will call a match. But only one of them out of the thousand is truly a match, correct? A. Theoretically, if you were -- theoretically, yes, what you're saying is absolutely true. Q. Okay. Thank you, Doctor? A. But we don't have that information. Q. You're not -- you can't measure it good enough, can you? A. It's not a measure -- matter of measuring it good enough, it's what is the technique able to do. Q. The technique is unable to measure it with any, or more precision than this, correct, Doctor? A. Yes. That's correct. Q. And the wider this window is, the more -- the greater the chance is that you're going to call somebody a match, a suspect and an evidence band as a match, when it came from different people, correct? A. I don't think that follows, no. Q. Oh, you don't. Okay. And this is true, this window that you use, because of measurement, is used for every one of the problems that you use in RFLP, correct? A. There is a window, a size window, yes, that you compare for each probe, for each band. Q. So for a five probe match, where you're looking at ten bands, you've got this, plus or minus, roughly five percent. I know it changes for the size of the band, but for the sake of discussing it, you've got this same window, if you will, on every single one of those bands, don't you? A. Yes, you do. Q. Could we have this marked next in order, please? THE CLERK: 2184. MR. BLASIER: 2184. (The instrument herein referred to as a Hand Drawn Diagram by Mr. Blasier was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2184.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The one you gave was 530 billion. I think it was a five probe match using this technique. Would you allow yourself a large -- or a window -- I won't say a large window, to call something a match when you can't tell that it's the same, can you? A. We use this technique to come to that number, yes. Q. And your computer program that you talked about, that doesn't make it any more accurately than this either, does it? A. Computer program, I talked about the computer imaging system; is that what you're referring to? Q. Yes. A. The computer imaging system is what you use to come up with the number in base pairs that the bands are. Q. Okay. And -- but that's not a precise number either; is it? A. No. Each one of those measurements is as good as the technology will allow. Q. Okay. Of your 1 in 530 billion sample that you told us about, which was -- which one was that? Q. Do you remember what that was? A. The sock. Q. It's a five probe match, 10 band, correct? A. Yes. Q. You have your sizing sheet with you? A. Yes, I do. Q. Can I take a look at that these, please? A. Which one do you want to look at? Q. All of them. You don't have them on one page? Do you have them on one page? A. All of the bands for? Q. For that match? A. No. The sock? Q. Correct, for that 1 in 530 billion that you gave us. A. Yeah. It will take me a few minutes to find it. Q. Okay. Your Honor this might be a good time to give her a chance to -- THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.) MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I wanted to raise one evidentiary objection to the line of questioning that Mr. Blasier has been following that has to do with the request for admission that we intend to read into evidence later. They have admitted all of these RFLP results. For example, request No. 387 asks that they admit that the blood contained in the item identified as evidence item 12, matched Mr. Simpson's blood banding pattern at all five of the single locus probes tested by Cellmark. They admitted that request for admission. They admitted all of the RFLP results. I think this line of questioning is irrelevant and an undue consumption of time. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the line of questioning is to show what it means to say something matches. We did admit those. I'm exploring with this witness, what a match is and what isn't. THE COURT: Read that request for admission, please. MR. LAMBERT: I'll read it specifically the way the language is, Your Honor, and this is for all of them. I'll read one. This is number 12, admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 12, matched your blood's DNA banding pattern at all of the five single locus probes known as MS1, MS31, MS4 -- THE REPORTER: Excuse me, can you repeat MS ... MR. LAMBERT: MS1, MS31, MS43, G3 and YNH24 when subjected to an RFLP test by Cellmark. MR. BLASIER: We agree we admitted that. I'm not suggesting that they don't match under the way that term is defined. I'm exploring what that really means, that it doesn't mean that they're the same. That's the important point that I can make on cross-examination. MR. LAMBERT: I would certainly make a 352 objection, Your Honor, that it's been hours and hours of time talking about what a match means is unnecessary. They can simply ask her what a match means and that should do it. MR. BLASIER: I don't think -- they don't like I'm making points with their witness, Your Honor. THE COURT: How much more of this do you have? MR. BLASIER: On this line, not a lot. THE COURT: What's a lot? MR. BLASIER: Ten minutes. THE COURT: Okay. I'll permit ten minutes worth. Bring the jury in. THE BAILIFF: Jury walking in. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were resumed in open court in the presence of the jury:) THE COURT: Okay. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Cotton, one of the items you testified to was item number 12, a Rockingham drop, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the frequency that you gave for that five probe match was 170 million to 1 in 1.2 billion, correct? A. Yes. Q. And as we said before, a five probe match means you're looking at 10 bands, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you determined that under the way you used the term "match," all of those matched, correct? A. That's right. Q. Now, you use a computer to estimate how long the fragments are of those bands, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's from your Autorad, correct? A. Yes. Q. Of those ten bands, tell me how many of them your computer said were the same length as the evidence band, identical lengths? A. Okay. But let -- give me just a minute. Q. So what you want to know is based on our estimated band sizes. Were any of those identical in length between the DNA banding pattern in the foyer and the DNA banding pattern from Mr. Simpson? Your computer comes up with an estimate that this band is 10,120 base pairs, right? Isn't that what your computer comes up with? Where is it? A. There's no size on here. That's what you just said. Okay. Q. So it doesn't measure the number of base pairs, does it? A. Yes, the -- your estimating the number of base pairs that makes up each one of those bands. I was just trying to clarify and make sure I was answering the question that you asked me. Q. Okay. A. Then you didn't say anything so I -- that helped me with that so -- Q. Well -- A. -- I didn't know what to do. Q. When you get something from your computer, does it say I estimate this band to be a specific number of base pairs? A. Right. Those are the numbers on these two sheets. Q. Okay. So it looks at the suspect bands, looks at the evidence bands and it estimates each of those bands, correct? A. Yes. Q. Tell me, of the ten bands that you looked at for item number 12, how many of those did your computer say had the same number of base pairs? A. Three. Q. So seven of them, your computer said had a different number of base pairs, right? A. Yes. The sizes are different. Q. And if you have a different number of base pairs, it's a different person; isn't it? A. If you knew that then, the answer would be yes. Q. Okay. And your 1 and 1.2 billion doesn't take into account the fact that you are just estimating fragment length. You cannot say they are the same, can you? Can you, Doctor? A. I can't answer your question because those two things aren't exactly related. Your question doesn't make sense to me. Q. In terms of the formula that gets you to the 1.2 billion, does it make any difference whether your computer says two bands are very close together or two percent apart? A. No. Q. So you score a band, two different bands. If there's a difference in the evidence of the suspect of two percent, you still call it a match and it counts such -- just as much as if your computer says they're the same, right? A. Yes it does. Q. I'm going to switch to PCR for a second. PCR is a much less discriminating system than the RFLP system we've been talking about, correct? A. In terms of looking at difference between people, what we have now, the answer is yes. Q. There's less information that you can glean from, to put into a formula, correct? A. Right, for the PCR, things that we're testing. Q. That's because there is not as much variations among people in the segment of DNA that you look at with PCR type tests, right? A. Yes. Q. Now, PCR is not exactly a type of test. That's the process by which you start with a little amount of DNA and make it into a big amount? A. Yes, exactly. Q. And that process is called amplification, correct? A. Yes, it is. (Counsel displays chart.) (The instrument herein referred to as a chart entitled "PCR Amplification" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 988.) MR. BLASIER: This is number 788. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And what happens in this process is that you don't actually make copies of the whole DNA. You cut out a small section like we talked about, for instance, for the DQ Alpha system, each segment that you look at is about 254 base pairs, correct? A. Yes. Q. It's a very, very small segment? A. It's 254 base pairs or whatever it comes to be. Q. Right. And what you do is if you have a very small amount of DNA in your evidence, you have to use this process to evaluate it at all, correct? A. Yes. Q. The RFLP system is not sensitive enough to evaluate small amounts of DNA, correct? A. That's right. Q. And what you do is you take those fragments and you go through a process which we don't really have to understand but essentially it goes through cycles and it doubles the amount of DNA with each cycle, correct? A. That's right. Q. So if you started out, just hypothetically, with one fragment, 254 base pairs long and you went through and you put it in your little machine and it goes through 32 cycles, theoretically, if it doubled each time, you wind up with a whole heck of a lot of fragment? A. Yes. Q. If you had this many fragments, that's enough to do some analysis on, correct? A. That's right. Q. Whereas the smaller amount is not? A. That's right. Q. Now, it is also true, is it not -- this is 989. THE CLERK: I think that last exhibit is 988. MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry 988 that makes sense. (The instrument herein referred to as a chart entitled "PCR Amplification with Three Copies" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 989.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It is also true, if you have a tiny amount of DNA from more than one source in a sample, when you put it through these cycles conceivably every component also multiplies and doubles each time you do it, correct? A. Yes. Q. So if you have a couple of fragments that came from one source and let's say a contaminant, which can be a DNA from another source is -- if there's a small amount, when you amplify it the contaminant gets amplified? A. Assuming there's enough of it. Q. The process by which you do this amplification is what gives you the great sensitivity with PCR test that you don't have with RFLP tests, right? A. That's right. Q. By the same token, it's also the biggest weakness in the sense a contaminant gets multiplied also, correct? A. Yes. Q. So that you have to take many extra precautions while you're doing PCR work that may not be as necessary with RFLP work to protect genes against contamination, giving you the wrong results, correct? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Lambert asked you about degradation. I'm going to to put up -- MR. P. BAKER: This is 1034. MR. BLASIER: We're going to go through a series of slides here as an exam -- Can you focus that a little better? (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1034.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This is just a hypothetical situation, you have DNA from person number one. And just -- my example is you have four different pieces of DNA and the type is one. You got me -- you with me so far? THE COURT: I think he's defocusing it. Q. Doesn't have to be clear to understand what we're doing here? A. We have four pieces of DNA and they're all A1. Q. You with me so far? A. Yes. Q. Now, the process of degradation is the DNA actually breaking up into pieces, right? A. Yes. Q. And as a piece degrades, for instance, if you have DNA wet, a wet blood sample for instance, that's out, not sealed into plastic for a period of time, wet, that can cause degradation, can it not? A. It might. Q. And that would mean that you would perhaps, less -- DNA as it breaks into pieces, you'd have less DNA to analyze, correct? A. You don't physically have less DNA. The DNA isn't going away but the pieces that are there are getting smaller. Q. Right. The portion of it that you can analyze is getting smaller, right? A. Yes. MR. P. BAKER: 1035 is displayed. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1035.) MR. BLASIER: Now 1036. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1036.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Heat is another mechanism by which DNA can degrade, correct? A. Yes. Q. And so, if we add heat to our mixture here, you might wind up with less DNA you can analyze, it's still there in pieces but there's less you can analyze, correct? A. Yes. Q. If we add moisture to that -- MR. P. BAKER: 1037. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1037.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1037. Moisture's also factor that can cause DNA to break down even further? A. Yes. Q. If we add all those things together, we might take a sample of DNA, and we add all those things and you wind up --it's so broke up that you have too little to test? A. That's possible. Q. It's not going to change the type, but you don't get any type, right? A. Right. MR. P. BAKER: 1038. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1038.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1038. We might end up at the end of the chain with broken up DNA that you can't tell anything about? A. Yes, that's possible. Q. And if you tested that, you wouldn't get a result? A. Right. Q. I want to talk about contamination. The term "contamination" can mean several things? A. Sure. Q. One of the things it can mean is a little DNA from another source getting into a sample, correct? A. Yes. Q. And let's say you start it, hypothetically, with a sample that had been subjected to plastic, heat and moisture and had degraded to the point where there wasn't enough there to really analyze. And you add blood from a second person, small amount of blood from the second person. You with me so far? A. Well sort of, but you said there wasn't enough to analyze, but you still got one there. Q. Okay. Well, let's -- you can -- you can -- there is a lower amount beyond which you can't analyze. It's still there, but you can't analyze it? A. Right. On your last thing, when you said there wasn't anything, there was no one there so -- Q. Okay. Assume there's no one there. MR. P. BAKER: 1041 displayed. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1041.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let's say a small amount of DNA from another person gets in that sample through whatever mechanism. Okay? A. Okay. Q. And one mechanism might be that if there was a small amount of blood on the hand of the person examining a cloth swatch, for instance, it might be transferred from the person's hand into the swatch, correct. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence, improper hypothetical. THE COURT: Overruled on the hypothetical. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's one mechanism you can get a contaminant into a sample, correct? A. If you have -- you had blood on your -- let's say glove, which would be -- and that blood was wet and you physically touched the swatch, could you transfer some? Q. Yeah. A. Possibly so. Q. And again we're talking about PCR. We're talking about extremely small amounts that you can amplify, correct? A. Yes. You can amplify extremely small amounts and then you also have to worry about, does your test detect that, so . . . Q. Right. A. So there are limitations there. Q. So when you amplify this particular sample and we're assuming there's not enough here in the one to come up with a type (referring to exhibit 1041), I have four -- I have four times as much as one. Let's say there's no one there when you amplify this, you're going to amplify all these twos each cycle, correct? A. Yes. There's no one there and you add those four twos of -- you'll amplify the twos since there's no one left over. Q. Okay. And at the end, if you test that because you're not -- Because you've made much, much more, we'll assume there's no -- MR. BLASIER: What slide is this? MR. P. BAKER: 1043. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1043.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1043. That's going to look like when you test the blood, consistent with person number 2; isn't it? A. Yes. Q. Now, the amounts of DNA and the various samples you tested, 23 samples I think you said? A. Yes. Q. Most of those samples had an -- a very small amount of DNA; isn't that correct? A. No. Some of them had fairly substantial amounts of DNA and some of them didn't. Q. Okay. You were only able to do RFLP tests, I think, on two or three? A. We did RFLP tests, got results for RFLP tests on the sock. On the Bundy drop, number 52 -- Q. 52 and 12? A. And 12 from the foyer. Q. That's out of the 23, three of them had enough DNA for an RFLP test? A. Yes. Q. What's the minimum amount of DNA that you need to get an RFLP result? A. You can generally get an RFLP result with about 25 nanograms. Q. Okay. And if a drop of blood has, hypothetically, 1 to 2 thousand nanograms, 50 nanograms is a very small amount? A. Is 50 a small amount of 2,000? Q. Yeah. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And sample number 52, the Bundy drop, you were able -- 52 -- able to test that to see approximately how much DNA was there before you did the RFLP test? A. We did some test that give you an indication of amounts of DNA, yes. Q. And for 52, it was a very small amount; wasn't it? A. Actually 52 is in such a small amount. Q. What was your estimate in terms of nanograms? A. The estimate, when you go back and you look at how much -- how much you get on the tests that's designed to do this, you come up with about 200, 250 nanograms in that -- in that sample. Q. Now, you also did, on the other Bundy drops, you did a similar analysis to try and find out how much DNA was in the other Bundy drops, correct? A. Yes, we did. Q. And do you -- that by means of a test called a slot blot? A. That's right. Q. We don't have to understand how that works. They just have a way of measuring quantities, correct? A. That's a way of -- Q. Estimate? A. -- Estimating how much human DNA you have present. Q. And you did that for item 47, which was the first Bundy drop and you didn't find any human DNA, did you. (Pause for witness to review documents.) A. You just asked me about 47. Q. Correct. A. That's right. We did not. On that slot blot test, we're not detecting any DNA. Q. And isn't it true that for all of the other Bundy drops, other than 52, and 47 which has none that you detected, the amounts were extremely small? A. For the other Bundy drops, the amounts were in the range of 50 and less. Q. And some of them were down. One of them was like 1.8 nanograms, approximately. These are rough estimates; aren't they? A. I actually have redone these estimates and I can't remember where I put the paper where I wrote those down right this second. But there were estimates in the range of 55. I don't remember if there's one, one specifically at 1.8. That wouldn't surprise me. Q. We're talking about small amounts on the Bundy drops with the exception of 52? A. With the exception of 52. Q. Which is a small amount of RFLP. It was enough to get a result. A. Yes. Q. And the kit that you use for taking DQ Alpha testing is warranted to amounts no smaller than 2 nanograms, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. It's all been admitted. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: What grounds? THE COURT: What's the relevance of the warranty? MR. BLASIER: If their using amounts less than what the test is warranted for, that's relevant. MR. LAMBERT: It's been admitted. MR. BLASIER: What's been admitted? THE COURT: Is there a request for admissions? MR. BLASIER: This goes to it's weight. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. BLASIER: This goes to it's weight. THE COURT: You said you were going to develop some numbers. Fine, develop the numbers. I don't think it would go to the warranty of the testing. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you follow the instructions in the manual that comes with the kit with respect to the minimum quantities that it's warranted for? A. No, we don't. MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now I'm going ask you a couple questions about accreditation. There is -- there's an organization in the country that evaluates forensic labs, crime labs to accredit them? A. Yes. Q. What's the name of that organization? A. It's the American Society of Crime Laboratories, Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board. Q. And there's a fairly complicated process that you have to go through to show that your lab is up to speed in terms of following all the required protocols and doing good work before you can be accredited, correct? A. Yes. Q. And your lab is accredited; is it not? A. Yes. Q. In fact, it's one of the very few. There's only five in the country that's accredited? A. There are many labs in the country, but we are the only private lab in the country that's currently accredited. Q. Police Department SID lab is not? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you indicated when you were talking about your background that you have some connection to the Association of Blood Banks I think you said. A. American Association of Blood Banks. Q. And so you're familiar with the way blood banks do their jobs, correct? A. Actually, I'm not at all familiar with the way blood banks do their jobs. Q. Are you familiar with the proficiency testing that is used in that industry? A. Only as it applies to paternity testing. Q. Okay. Now, proficiency testing is a way to kind of monitor yourself to see how well your people are doing, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the form of proficiency testing that is the most desirable in terms of giving you the most helpful information is called external blind proficiency testing, correct? A. That's one form of testing, but I don't agree that it's necessarily the most desirable. Q. Well, that's external, means somebody other than you makes up the test, right? A. Yes. Q. And blind means you don't know you're being tested, right? A. Yes. Q. And there are lots of studies that show that if you know you're being tested, you may perform differently than when you don't know you're being tested. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Lack of foundation, irrelevant, outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. Direct examination inquired about proficiency tests. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Would you agree with that? A. I don't know about the proficiency tests that are done in DNA typing labs. I don't know anything about studies that may be done about what kind of proficiency tests show what -- Q. Isn't that -- your in charge of all the people that work in your lab, aren't you? A. Yes. Of course, I am. Q. Isn't that something that you would want to be familiar with? A. The area of proficiency test in general, and whether they are blind or not blind and how that mentally affects the person that is taking them, is outside my area of expertise. Q. So you don't care about that? A. I didn't say that. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. MR. BLASIER: You don't monitor any studies about that? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You're not subjected to external blind proficiency testing, are you? A. We are not. I don't know any lab that is. Q. External blind proficiency testing is used all the time within the medical field, with blood banks, that sort of thing; isn't it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, irrelevant. THE COURT: That's irrelevant. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now Mr. Lambert asked you about a couple of proficiency tests that you -- that you took. One was in 1988 and that was put on by the California Association of Crime Lab Directors, correct? A. Yes. Q. And in that test you were given, your people knew they were being tested, correct? A. Yes, we did. Q. And you were given 44 different samples, correct? A. 49. Q. 49? And you had one error, one false positive out of 49, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that error was a, what's called, a "false positive," correct? A. It was an incorrect match. Q. In other words, if that had been a forensic sample, you would have said the sample matched the suspect and you would have been wrong, correct? A. That's right. Q. And what was the frequency when you applied your formula to that one test that you got wrong? What was the frequency that your match revealed, using your statistics? A. I have no idea. Q. It was 1 and 1.8 billion people; wasn't it, Dr. Cotton? A. Mr. Blasier, I have not reviewed those numbers in many years and I do not know what the number is. Q. Would you like to review that study? It was a very rare number; wasn't it? A. Any RFLP match is generally a rare number. I'm sure there was a number and I'm sure it wasn't a common one. Q. And it was wrong, correct? A. Well, the number was okay but the match was wrong. Q. It doesn't come from the two samples -- didn't come from the same person? A. It's numbers are saying how common that pattern was that we had. What was important was that the match was not correct. Q. So the number says nothing about the accuracy of the test that you're doing, does it? A. It doesn't tell you whether that match is correct -- Q. Thank you. A. -- No. Q. Now, you made some changes in your procedure as a result of that error, did you not? A. Yes, we did. Q. And what procedure did you change? A. We changed our labeling procedure and we bought an additional piece of equipment that allowed us to handle large samples, physically large stains. Q. And you were able to determine, were you not, that what happened in that particular test is somebody mixed up a sample and you didn't know, correct? A. Somebody mixed up two twos which were portions of a sample, yes. Q. And now, as a result of that error, you don't want to have that error occur again. So you now have two people witness. Every time you put a sample from one tube to another, you have two people witness it? A. That was in place at the time. So that's why we changed our labeling procedures. Q. So there were two people looking at it? A. That's right. Q. Now, in 1989 you were tested again by the same organization, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that one had 50 samples, correct? A. That's right. Q. And you made one false positive in that test as well, correct? A. Yes, we did. Q. One out of 50, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you made changes in your procedures as a result of that, correct? A. Yes, we did. Q. What changes did you make? A. We changed the procedure so that the DNA extraction from the evidence samples was done at a separate time as any of the known standards so that they were not handled for DNA extraction at the same time. Q. And by known samples, you're talking about such things as reference samples from a suspect or from a victim? A. That's exactly what I mean. Q. That's because a reference sample from a suspect or victim is blood that might come from the person's arm or from an autopsy that's rich in DNA, correct? A. Well, it didn't. It didn't have anything to do with whether it was rich in DNA. It had to do with -- if you didn't have them out at the same time in the same location, side by side, you couldn't mix them up. Q. But the problem is because you've got so much DNA in a reference sample, very tiny amount of it, if it gets into your evidence, which may be a small amount to start with, is going to compromise your results; isn't it? A. Of course. Q. So you now don't do your reference samples at the same time and place as your evidence, do you? A. That's right. Q. LAPD does it the opposite way? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, no foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, in your first two years on those two tests, you got two errors out of roughly 100 or 1 in 50? A. Yes. Q. There's a concept in DNA forensic technology known as error rates, correct? A. I'm sure you could apply that concept to anything, not just DNA. Q. Sure. And error rates refers to how often does a lab make a mistake? A. Yes. Q. And one way to measure that is with these kind of proficiency tests to determine how often do you screw it up, right? A. Yes. Q. And in these two years, in the two tests that your lab took, you screwed it up once every 50 times, right? A. Absolutely not. Q. I'm sorry? A. You in those -- Q. Those two tests? A. In those two tests, we have 2 errors. That comes down to a fraction of 1 in 50. That doesn't say anything about all the other work that was done in the lab during those two years. Q. Right. You don't know one way or another when you made a mistake. And you can assign a number to that, it's called an error rate. Is -- there's a lot of controversy about how you do this; isn't there? A. Yes, there is. Q. But if you -- if you have error rates in the neighborhood of 1 in 50 or 1 in 1000; isn't that a much more significant figure than 1 in 530 billion? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. You can argue that to the jury. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Doctor, You use, in your procedure, you use for PCR tests what's called a laminar flow hood, correct? A. Yes, we do. Q. And that is a device -- it's kind of like a work station that has a fan that creates a wall of air that circulates from the bottom to the top, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it allows your sample to be inside this wall of air and you kind of put your hands through the wall of air to work on it? A. Right. Q. And the purpose of that is to keep possible contaminants from the outside coming in to your sample or contaminants from your sample going to the outside, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's considered to be required, correct? A. No. Q. That -- it's good practice; isn't it? A. It's a very good practice but there are many labs who do not have laminar flow hoods who do perfectly acceptable work. You just have to have another precaution to be clean. Q. It's a procedure that you feel is necessary in your lab, correct? A. We had the hoods and we use them. If we didn't have them, we would have to do something else. Q. Now, you also require, when you do testing, that you change the paper on the bench from one sample to the next, correct? A. Paper inside the laminar flow hood. Q. No. I'm talking about when you were working with evidence samples on a work bench. A. When we're working with evidence samples on a work bench, you might -- you would put a clean piece down and then when you're done with that sample, you would put another piece down. Q. That's because you know, particularly with dried blood stains, for instance, there can be flaking. You can get very tiny flecks of something from an evidence sample. You might not see it and you want to protect against that contaminating the next piece of evidence. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. All irrelevant in light of the admissions. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: It goes to the weight, Your Honor. This is a procedure that they described. THE COURT: Well, I'm having a little problem with respect to your request for admissions and this course of examination. Didn't seem to have any relevance at all. MR. BLASIER: The procedure that the lab used doesn't have any relevance? THE COURT: You stipulated to the results. MR. BLASIER: I'm talking about the procedure they used by which they got the results. MR. BAKER: We stipulated to the numbers, not how they got the numbers. THE COURT: Well, your argument was that the meaning of the results are debatable in terms of when windows of errors, et cetera; not as to the results. MR. BLASIER: This is a completely different area, Your Honor. THE COURT: No. I sustained the objection. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you wipe down the area that you work with samples with bleach between each sample? MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you testified on direct that you processed some of the control or substrate controls sent to you by LAPD, correct? A. Yes. Q. Those substrate controls, by the way, you didn't process a substrate control for every -- for every sample, did you? A. No. We don't have all the substrate controls. Q. In fact, when LAPD sent them to you, they had been separated from the evidence samples and they didn't even send you the substrate controls. You asked for them, correct? A. Well, actually none of what you said is correct. We didn't ask for them. Q. They weren't sent at the same time, were they? A. They weren't sent at the same time and we simply analyzed the samples that were sent to us. We didn't request any particular samples. Q. Now, when you prepare bindles from samples, you know what a bindle is? A. The little wax paper thing. Q. Yeah. You always put your initials on it, don't you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: Well, nobody in my lab is preparing any bindles. We're opening bindles, but we're not preparing them, since we're not ever getting evidence as it comes in directly from the crime scene. So when we open things, when we close them up, we put our initials on the outer packaging, not on the immediate thing that the evidence is contained in. Q. Okay. THE COURT: Mr -- Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The unbindled drops you got from LAPD -- THE COURT: Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. THE COURT: The scintillating examination is having an affect on our jurors. MR. BLASIER: Well -- THE COURT: I -- one of them. So I think we better take a recess. Okay. Ten minutes, please. (Recess.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury:) MR. BAKER: May we approach? THE COURT: Yes. (The following proceedings were held at the bench:) MR. BAKER: Your Honor, juror 15 was asleep through most of this case. THE COURT: She has -- I had -- I have to admit that. MR. BAKER: I would appreciate it if the Court -- I know that it isn't intentional, but when you say something in cross-examination -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. It was a joke and I apologize. MR. BAKER: I understand. You were very attentive to her on direct and overruled one of our objections on her direct. It was very clear to anyone watching you that you were very attentive to her on direct, and then to say that, I know it wasn't intentional, but I would sure appreciate it if we could not have that. I agree to stipulate to dismiss juror number 15 from the panel. I think she has been asleep throughout a long period of this trial. MR. PETROCELLI: We don't agree. MR. BAKER: I would request the Court to remove her from the trial. Let me just finish that. She has been asleep through major portions and, of course, I'm glad that she got to sleep -- to sleep through the plaintiffs' case. MR. PETROCELLI: I would ask if Your Honor wants to say something to her, that's fine. There's no cause to dismiss her right now. Also to -- THE COURT: I am quite troubled with her sleeping through. She seems to have some sort of metabolic problem that causes her to have an inability to stay awake. MR. PETROCELLI: Can you speak to her? THE COURT: What good is speaking to her. She missed already, quite a bit of the -- bit of the testimony. MR. PETROCELLI: Do we know if she missed, Your Honor. Let's see what she's missed, question her about it. MR. BAKER: How do you question somebody about what they missed? It's like talking about a negative. But I'll leave that to the Court's discretion I think we have plenty of alternates right now and this is one who really, if she were to move to the regular panel, I would object to it just because she's been kind of heavy lided throughout most of the proceedings so far. MR. PETROCELLI: The juror in the top corner sleeps a lot too. MR. BAKER: I noticed that. MR. PETROCELLI: On the panel, number 7, number 7, she's sleeping quite a bit. MR. BREWER: Very often. MR. PETROCELLI: I don't think it's any different than that alternate. MR. BAKER: Okay. THE COURT: I'll keep a further eye on her. If I find that she is attempting to sleep, I will reconsider that. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: Mr. Blasier if you want, I'll make an apology to you before the jury. I didn't mean to demean your examination. I think what I meant to say was the whole topic was -- MR. BLASIER: I would appreciate it. THE COURT: Not exactly scintillating in terms of juror interest. MR. LAMBERT: Can I reiterate one other point? I would ask that Mr. Blasier be instructed to ask no more of these questions about, did the LAPD do that or did the LAPD do this. All the objections have been sustained. He should stop asking the questions. THE COURT: Well, I think my rulings in that regard -- and I think it would be helpful if you don't ask questions. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Bring the jury in. THE BAILIFF: Jury panel walking in. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury:) THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, before Mr. Blasier continues, I want to apologize to Mr.'Blasier for referring to the examination as scintillating and having an effect on the jury. Numbers are a very important part of the defense in this case, from the defense point of view. And so, the fact that the numbers tend to be dry sometimes, and may have an affect on some of you, jurors should not detract from the importance of the case and I should not have referred to Mr. Blasier's examination as scintillating. But that's the nature of the subject matter and I do apologize for that. Now, if you get drowsy, please let me know. You know, he didn't want to spend all of his effort in this examination to have it wasted on you if you're not able to pay attention. It's very important that you do pay attention. And if you find that you're drifting off, let me know. There's no reason why you should be embarrassed to let me know because it's important that you all pay attention. So raise you hand or do something. Okay. Also, I have to be looking at you and everybody else in this courtroom is looking at you, so you know, if you -- if you feel you concentrate by closing your eyes or something like that, have some second thoughts about that because everybody's going to be thinking your drowsing off. All right. (Laughter.) THE COURT: You may proceed. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. Q. Dr. Cotton, the tests that are done in forensic applications of DNA applications are very complicated, aren't they? A. Yes. Q. We're just really touching the surface of a lot of this, aren't we? A. We are. Q. And if we wanted to get really technical, we could go on for days, couldn't we? A. I'm sure we could. Q. We won't do that. A. Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. (Laughter.) MR. BLASIER: Thank me. When you got evidence sent to you by LAPD what -- particularly the Bundy drops, it was in the form of swatches, correct? A. Yes. Q. In bindles, correct? A. Yes. Q. None of those bindles that you got from the Bundy drops had Andrea Mazzola's initials on them? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Not to my recollection. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. Thank you. I need a new number, please, 2185? THE CLERK: Correct. (The instrument herein referred to as DNA "DQ Alpha Strips" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2185.) Q. Doctor, the dots we haven't talked yet about. We've looked at Autorads, but we haven't talked about -- right there for now. We haven't really talked about what a PCR test result looks like. Isn't it correct that with PCR test, you don't get something that looks like an Autorad, you get something called a testing strip that has dots on it? A. That's correct for PM and DQ Alpha. THE COURT: Excuse me. It was clearer when you first -- when you first put it on. MR. P. BAKER: Somebody touched the button. MR. BAKER: You ought to see our family photo album. (Laughter.) THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, could you have your tech help him. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Your Honor, bail him out, Steve. MR. BLASIER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) We'll zoom in so you can see it better. I just want to just, very briefly, go over how you look at results from a PCR, DQ Alpha test. These happen to be DQ Alpha strips, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the dots, of course, they have little numbers next to them which correspond to the alleles that you're looking for, correct? A. Yes. Q. And again, the allele, that's just all we're talking about, is a piece of DNA at a particular location on a chromosome, right? A. Yes. Q. And we get one of those from dad and one from mom? A. Yes. Q. And sometimes we might get the same one from mom the same one from dad, in which case our type would be 1.1, 1.1 correct? A. Right. Q. In fact, Nicole Brown Simpson is a 1.1, 1.1, correct? A. Yes. Q. So that the dots that would light up would be the ones that would correspond to the 1.1, correct? A. Right. Q. And -- A. Well, and you have -- Q. There's a dot? A. There's another dot you can't see on your blow-up there. Q. We'll talk about that in a second, yeah. Can you back it out. There's a 1 here too? A. Right. Q. So a 1.1 would light up this dot and this dot, and there's another column at the far right that says all but 1.3 and that lights up when you get any allele that's different from 1.3, correct? A. Yes. Q. So 1.1, 1.1 would light up those three dots? A. Yes. Q. This happens to be, if we back out a little bit so Dr. Cotton can look at this. This is a DOJDQ Alpha testing strip and it includes item number 29. Stop. Let's zoom in on the number, I mean, on the label here. Okay. See that, Doctor, LAPD number 29? A. Yes, I do. Q. And that's the stain that was found on the steering wheel of the Bronco, correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. That Mr. Lambert asked you about? A. Yes, that's right. Q. And you performed a similar test to this on the same stain, correct? A. Yes, we did. Q. And I'm going to slide this over a little bit. We can see -- let's zoom in on the 4 right there. There is a faint dot at the 4, correct? A. Can I come down and look at this? Q. Sure. A. Actually, Yes, I think I see one there. Q. Sometime it's really hard to see these dots. A. Well, it would actually be better if we --I were looking at the photo itself. Q. But your test results, the board lit up? A. That's right. (Referring to view screen.) Q. Somehow, before you made it bigger. Let's back off a little bit. That's better. That tells you there is a 4 allele in that sample, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, you ruled out Mr. Gold -- ruled out Mr. Goldman from this sample because he is a 1.3 and there is no dot at the 1.3, correct? A. Well, I don't know about this strip but we didn't get a dot at the 1.3. Q. That tells you that Mr. Goldman's DNA wouldn't be there, correct, as far as the test results? A. We couldn't detect it, yes. Q. Well, are you saying, Doctor -- A. Well, I'm saying exactly what you alluded to earlier. There's a specific level of detection. And if you don't see something, doesn't necessarily -- that just means you can't see it. So we didn't see it. And therefore, based on what we saw, we ruled out that he was there. Q. Are you saying, Doctor, that this test in some instances you have, can have DNA in there that won't show-up? A. Of course. Q. That's not a particularly good test; is it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: This is a very good test. I can't think of any test that you could do that doesn't have some limit to what you can detect. And this has a limit to what you can detect, like every other DNA test that I'm aware of. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You can have somebody else's DNA in here and not know it from this test, correct? Small amounts? A. That would be true of every DNA test. Q. And would you also agree with me that from this test result on number 29, there is a contributor to this sample that is someone other than either of the victims or O.J. Simpson? A. I wouldn't agree. I don't think -- I think that would be an over statement of the data. All that you can really say is that there is another person here and. Q. Let me -- A. You can't say anything about who it is or isn't because the data that tells you that another person is there, is very faint. And it's in our test, it was below the control dot. So that tells you that it's not necessarily a reliable result. What that means when it's below the control dot is there could be some other alleles there and you may or may not be seeing them. So all you can say is there's another person. There are two people in this -- in this DNA and -- Q. There could be three people? A. Oh, yeah, sure. Sure. Q. There could be four people? A. Oh, yeah, sure. I didn't really state that well. Q. And this result is consistent with somebody being in there that's a type 4, 4, correct? A. Well, that's what I'm saying is, I don't think that that's an accurate interpretation. It's consistent with somebody being in there who has a four. And we may -- they may be a 4, 4 or they may be a 4 something else and we may not be seeing what that something else is. So to just say it's a second person or a another person with a 4, 4 would be an over statement of the results. Q. So -- well, let's just look at the dots that are there for a moment. Okay? They're consistent with someone who's a 4, 4, right, being in that sample? A. That's one interpretation that you could make, yes. Q. And that doesn't match Mr. Goldman, Ms. Brown Simpson or O.J. Simpson, does it? A. That's right. If that was -- if that's the scenario that there's a person with a 4, 4, then that can't be any of those people. Q. And there could also be a 4 -- I mean a 1.1 and a 4, couldn't there? A. Yes. Q. That doesn't match any of the three people, does it? A. It -- That's right. Q. That would have to come from somebody unidentified? A. Of course. Q. Now, would you agree that there is certainly a fair amount of subjectivity that goes into interpreting these kind of strips in testimony of whether there are dots there or not and how strong they are and how weak they are? A. Yes, there is. Q. And isn't it true that one examiner might interpret that same data differently from the way you've interpreted it? A. That's possible. Q. And that's not particularly good for a forensic test, is it? Do you prefer to have tests where the data -- where the same data is interpreted the same way, wouldn't you? A. You would always prefer to have your test results be consistently interpreted but there are certainly always, with RFLP and PCR, going to be some variation in interpretations. Q. And the numbers 1 in 530 billion don't take that into account? A. No. They're just the frequency group. Q. Estimated frequency of the group? A. Estimated frequency of the group. Q. Doctor, I asked you to locate the polymarker testing strip for the reference samples. Were you able to do that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you have Nicole Brown Simpson? A. Yes. Q. You have the GC locus there? A. Yes. Q. Let me borrow this. I'll give it back to you at the end. Let me ask you-- Let's do it this way. This is civil 1275. (The instrument herein referred to as a chart entitled "Testing Results NBS and RG Reference Samples" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1275.) Q. Obviously, you have to look at reference samples so you can compare your evidence to the people, right? A. Sure. Q. And the reference samples that you use, supposedly come from the people you know -- you know they come from and presumably it's a pretty good DNA, right? A. Yes. Q. And you wouldn't expect to see evidence of more than one person in a reference sample, would you? A. No. Q. Isn't it true, that when you were -- you ran Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample, this is supposedly blood from her autopsy, in the GC system you found evidence of a B allele? The B lit up, didn't it? A. Just faintly. Q. Thank you, Doctor? A. I'm looking puzzled 'cause I don't -- I don't understand why you're pointing to the chart. It doesn't -- Q. Actually, I'm only pointing to this. As far as you're concerned, you found a faint B in her reference sample, did you not? A. Yes, a GC. She's a type AC and there is a very faint B. Q. She doesn't have a B, does she? A. No, that's -- Q. O.J. Simpson has a B, doesn't he? A. Yes. But that's not . . . Q. Thank you, Doctor. MR. LAMBERT: Could she complete her answer? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Your reference sample should be the complete answer -- THE COURT: You can get her on redirect. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) -- Shouldn't it? A. Yes. Q. If everything's done properly, it shouldn't be contaminated. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I object and ask she be allowed to answer. THE WITNESS: There's no indication that this is not a perfectly clean sample. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Oh. So you have evidence of somebody else's DNA in her reference sample? A. I don't think anybody else's DNA is in her reference sample. I think that faint B is there because there's a fair amount of DNA in that sample and that is a typical -- The correct term is cross-hybridization. That's a typical thing that can be seen. When you have a fair amount of DNA in a reference sample, you might have another dot lighting up just faintly. Q. Are you saying, Doctor, in that test sometimes you have a dot light up and it isn't DNA, right? A. I didn't say it wasn't DNA. I said it was due to cross-hybridization. Q. If the test is done properly, you shouldn't get cross-hybridization, should you? A. That's not correct. Q. You're talking about a dot lighting up that is DNA or type of DNA that shouldn't be there, correct? A. What I'm saying is that the fact that there is this faint B, would you -- would you be incorrect to immediately jump to the assumption that there is any contamination in that sample because there are much more common technical problems that can cause that faint B that have nothing to do with contamination of a sample. Q. All right. So the dot that can show-up, that, you don't attribute to a person's type, correct? A. For reference sample, yes. Q. And for any sample, you get 1.3's a lot, don't you that you say this isn't really a real dot we're just going to -- A. No. We don't do that. We write down exactly what we see on our records. We write down in our records, there's a faint B here. Then you go through and interpreting that, and is that meaningful; and what do you know about the test; and have you seen this before and has -- Is this reproducible? You see it in other reference samples where you have a GC type AC and you do. And so you could -- there are two causes. One is it's a -- it's an artifact of cross-hybridization and it's typically seen. And the other explanation is what you were proposing; that is contamination. Those two explanations have to be considered and there is no way to definitely tell one from the other. Q. All right. Artifact means something appearing real that isn't, correct? A. That's not too bad a definition. I don't think I can come up with a better one right this second. Q. So that dot can be explained one of two ways. Either it's contamination or it's a dot that appears real, but isn't? A. Well -- Q. Right? A. It's real. It's there and there's a real reason why that can happen. And it's a common reason why that can happen. So the dot's real. The color's real. It isn't -- it's part of the fact that you're asking, you're doing a DNA test and every DNA test does not necessarily give you an absolutely tidy clean result every single time. Q. And your figures that you come up with in frequencies don't take that into account either, do they, Doctor? A. I think I've agreed with you, many times, the frequencies only tell you how common or rare this group of traits is. Q. Now I want to ask you about fingernail scrapings. You did some DNA tests on Nicole Brown Simpson fingernail scrapings, correct? A. Yes, we did. Q. Now, fingernail scrapings, when you scrape something from under a person's fingernails you're going to get more than just blood if there's blood there. You're going to get skin tissue. You can get dead cells. You can get all sorts of things, sort of biological material, correct? A. Sure. Q. And that constellation of biological material all has DNA in it; isn't -- doesn't it? A. It's biological material, it will, yes. Q. And your RFLP test or whatever test you run on an DNA test, doesn't distinguish whether it's blood that you're looking at or tissue, does it? A. That's correct. Q. So isn't it true, that you would always expect, when you take scrapings under a finger -- person's fingernails and did a DNA test on it, you would expect to see their, find their DNA under there? A. Sure. Q. That's not unusual at all; is it? A. No, it's not. Q. Now, if you found evidence of blood that -- let me rephrase that. Red blood cells are tested for a genetic marker known as EAP, correct. A. Yes. Q. That's different from what you're looking at with your DNA test? A. Correct. Q. And if you had evidence of blood under those fingernails with an EAP type, different from Nicole Brown Simpson, that would indicate blood under there from a different person? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Hypothetical. A. Yes, it could. Q. Okay. The fact that her DNA is there from blood tissue, whatever, is not unusual in and of itself, correct? A. No, that -- we see that a lot. Q. Okay. Now, the sock stain that you testified about, that had a lot of DNA in it, did it? A. Yes. Q. And did you come up with an estimate of the quantity on that? It had over a thousand, didn't it -- thousand nanograms? A. I know that we did an estimate. I haven't looked at that, so I don't know how much it had. Well, besides, I don't know if we got everything that there was. Q. What you got had a lot, didn't it? A. Yeah, it did. Q. Much more than any other sample in the case, didn't it? A. I can't answer that without going into my notes and figuring that out. Q. Well, I don't want you to take time to do that. Do you remember any stain that had more DNA than that one? A. I can't answer it, may have had the same amount as in the Rockingham blood drop. I mean, I can't answer that without going into my notes and doing the calculation and then telling you. Q. Now, the Autorad we looked at had one lane for Nicole Brown Simpson and one lane for the sock, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the lane for Nicole Brown Simpson was from reference blood? A. Yes. Q. You indicated that a reference sample for -- might not necessarily be always clean, right? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence. THE COURT: I think that does. You may rephrase it. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you were talking about Ms. Brown Simpson's blood before, you said that you wouldn't always necessarily expect to have a completely clean sample, right? A. I don't remember if I said that. What do you mean by clean? Q. Well, the lane that's on there is from her reference sample which is the same reference sample that we already talked about, correct? A. Yes. Q. That's the B allele, whatever it's caused by shows-up? A. Yes. Q. And the lane that's on there for the sock, that can be -- you have no way of knowing the source of the blood on -- or how that blood got on that sock, do you? A. Of course, not. Q. Okay. And blood can be taken from a reference file and put on a piece of cloth and wiped on a sock and you can get a test result, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence. Improper hypothetical. THE COURT: Overruled. Hypothetical. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Correct? A. So are you asking me, could someone take some blood and wipe it on a sock and then you would get a type? Q. Yes. A. Sure. Q. Or you could take some blood and wipe it on a cotton swatch and then wipe it on a sock, couldn't you? A. That would be harder, but, yes, you could. Q. There are all sort of ways you could do that; aren't there? A. Sure. Q. You can't tell from the intensity of the lanes on that Autorad where that blood came from, can you? Whether it came from a reference tube or a wound, can you? A. No, I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in that film. Q. You said there wasn't much degradation, didn't you? A. I said there's virtually little to no degradation. Q. Thank you. A. That had been made from sock. Q. It's very clean? A. It's very clean. Q. Reference samples are very clean, usually, aren't they? A. This one is not in terms of degradation. Q. Now, I want to talk about the formula that you used to get these big numbers called the product rule, correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. And again, the estimates of frequencies from populations of how frequently you might see a particular banding pattern from a particular population, correct? A. That's right. Q. Now, you don't actually go out like for your 1 and 530 billion there aren't 530 billion people in the world. A. I don't think so. Q. You don't go out and measure that many people, do you? A. Obviously not. Q. By the way, the number that you give is not a number, that's the probability of guilt; is it? A. Of course, not. Q. It's not even the probability that someone other than Mr. Simpson is the source of the stain; is it? A. No. It's just simply how often you would expect to find this particular group of genetic characteristics. Q. Isn't it correctly stated that as the chance if you went out and picked somebody in the world at random, the chance that they would have the same pattern? A. Yes. Q. Now, since you can't measure everybody in the world, you have to take a sample of people, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, there's an issue, when you're talking about comparing a band from one part of the DNA, one allele to another allele from the same person's DNA as to whether there's any relationship between the two, correct? Do you know what I'm getting at? A. No. Try it again. Q. Okay. Let me use analogy. If you were concerned about trying to figure out how many people in the Norwegian population had both blond hair and blue eyes, you could go and count the number of people that have blue eyes and find out what percentage that is, find out what percentage the people with blond hair is. But it would be inappropriate to multiply those two numbers together, wouldn't it? A. For the two traits that you're talking about, possibly that's true. Q. That's because there's some connection between the two? A. That's right. Q. And the rule that you use, it's called the product rule, and all of these calculations assumes that there is no relationship between those two fragments in a given person's DNA, correct? A. Right. It means that if you have type A, that you're not anymore or less likely to have as your second type an A or a B or a C, for that matter or whatever. Q. And there's been a substantial controversy among scientists in the last five or six years about whether that's true or not with these kinds of testings, haven't there? A. There's been a lot of discussion about it but I think that controversy, as you phrase it, is pretty much settled. Q. Doctor. You've been testifying in the last five years about this controversy, have you not? That's primarily when you testify. It's in hearings about that controversy; isn't it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I testified many times about this, but that's not the primary focus of most of the testimony. But yes, of course, I've testified a number of times. Q. Now, A. About that tissue. Q. The field of discipline that we're talking about here are molecular biology, population genetics and statistics, right, theories, the kind of three areas that you borrow expertise from to do these calculations? A. That's right. Q. And to -- so in order to use this product rule, when you're talking about multiplying frequencies together, it doesn't work if there's a relationship between one band on a person and another band? A. Right. The genetic characteristics have to be inherited independently. Q. Okay. A. That would be the correct term. Q. Now, there's another thing going on here as well, is there not? That is, that you can only sample a certain number of people by which to get frequencies from. For instance, if you counted up in a group of Norwegian people, how many people had blond hair and blue eyes, let say you got a figure of 50 percent, it would not be appropriate to say therefore, 50 percent of the Caucasian population all over the world is going to be half blond hair, blue eyed, correct? A. No. That might be a good figure for Norway, but it wouldn't necessarily be a good figure for everywhere else. Q. That's because groups of people in different locations, in different ethnics sorts, have different characteristics, don't they? A. Yes. Q. And one of the major issues that has been the subject of testimony in scientific discussion in this field is whether or not the groups that you use to come up with these large numbers are really representative of the whole group of people, correct? A. That's right. Q. And that's the issue. There is called substructure, population substructure, correct? A. That's one thing. That's part of that issue and the issue is more specifically by the groups that you have representative of other groups. For our purposes, would be -- are they representative of other groups in the United States. We don't need to worry about the whole world, but we do want to worry about, are they're representative of people in the United States. Q. Okay. Doctor, now for item number 12, where you gave us a number 1 and 1.2 billion, by the way, is that the African American data base or do you know? A. I don't believe so. Would you like me to just pull the result report? Q. Sure. A. Yes, it's not. Q. Okay. For African persons, what's the frequency number for that sample? A. 1 in 170 million. Q. So that figure of 1 in 170 million is based on how many people that you tested? A. About 200. Q. 200? A. Yes. Q. And for that five probe match, how many African persons were tested at all by probes? A. Very few. Q. Two, correct? A. Not sure if that's correct, but it's very few, so could be two, could be ten, but nonetheless, all that qualifies as not very many. Q. That's the underlying data from which you get a number from 1 in 170 million, correct? A. Yes, it is. MR. BLASIER: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. LAMBERT: Yes, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Dr. Cotton, I'd like to touch on a few of the topics that Mr. Blasier talked about on cross-examination. First he talked a little bit about the fact that he tried to give you this example of making the DNA big enough to go all the way around the world. Remember that example? A. Yes. Q. It's not that big? A. No. Q. It's much smaller than that? A. Yes. Q. And of those -- I think he said 3, is it 3 billion base pairs that are in a DNA strand? A. 6 billion. Q. 6 billion in the DNA strand? A. In the whole nucleus, all the chromosomes comes to about 6 billion. That again is an estimate. Q. And of all that DNA, I think you testified previously that some percentage of it is common to all of us? A. At least 99 percent is common to all of us. Q. So there would be no reason to test any of that DNA that's common to all of us, would there? A. No. That wouldn't tell you anything. Q. So what you test is the portion of the DNA that's unique from person to person? A. That's right. Q. So there's no reason to try to test this long strand of DNA, but rather focus your tests on the portion that is unique; is that right? A. If you're asking a question about identification, then you only want to bother to test those portions that are different from one person to the next. Q. And therefore in these RFLP probes, you've been talking about where I forget how many base pairs you said you tested in the RFLP probes, each one of them was about how many? A. Well, the average is going to be maybe 8 or 10,000. But even so, even if you added up all the number of base pairs that you're testing, you're still testing a very small amount, even of the part that's different. But you're testing the part that's giving you an enormous amount of information. Q. And the tests are described, designed and focus on areas where you can gather a lot of information about identity? A. Yes. Q. And these same tests, Doctor, are used medically as well? A. Yes, they are. Q. And for what kind of medical reasons are they used? A. Let me give you two examples that are connected, tissue transplantation, if somebody is looking for a kidney or a liver or a heart. Those tests are looking at particular parts of the DNA and those tests are generally done using PCR and not too different from what we're talking about here. In cases of bone marrow transplants where you have a person who's ill, they're getting the transplant and you have a donor of the transplant, those people may be related because they're related. It's harder to tell them apart, even with their DNA and RFLP testing. It's typically used to monitor bone marrow transplants to show as -- After the transplant, as that patient progresses, you can see whether or not that patient is continuing to make cells that are from the donor, which the -- which is the outcome that you want, or the patient is going back to making cells from themselves, which is not the outcome that you want. And that's done, that monitoring is done over a period of time and it's done using RFLP testing. Q. So in this life or death situation of a bone marrow transplant, the same RFLP test that you've been talking about here today are used? A. Yes. Q. There was also some discussion, Doctor, about using these narrow windows to make a band match judgment. Do you recall that Mr. Blasier asked some questions about that? A. Well, yes. He was asking about the window that you use to call a match and your calling it narrow. He was calling it wide. You use a window that's appropriate for your system. Q. And would you describe how that window system is used? A. Because the procedure that you're using does not allow you to figure out the exact lengths of the fragment in base pairs, that is, I can't tell you if something is exactly five thousand on a system that's used here. That's -- the system doesn't have that technical capability. If I see a band and the computer imaging system estimates that it's 5,000, it could be 5,005 or 5,010 or 4,900. And, you know, 80, whatever. So each laboratory has to run multiple samples to assess how much variation you see in as a matter of routine. And then you use that window, that plus or minus figure of how much variation you see routinely to assess how, whether two fragment size estimates are close enough to be considered a match. Q. Is that same system used by all DNA scientists that use the RFLP method? A. Every lab that I know of that's doing an RFLP testing, we're talking about 50 or so labs, all use some kind of window to know whether or not they're going to call a match in the same manner that was described earlier. Q. And is a match called when you just find a match of one band? A. Well, you do each band individually. You compare one band with the comparable band and the other sample and you look at those sizes and you decide whether they're close. You have -- occasionally they're identical, but are they close enough to be considered a match? And you do that and then you go on, do all the bands in the pattern. Q. And for example, in this case, you were looking at bands at five separate genetic locations; isn't that right? A. Yeah. There are ten bands altogether. Q. You look at all of those bands before you declared a match? A. Yes. Q. And does using this system that you've described, affect in any way, the power of the RFLP system and the results that it generates? A. No. This is part of the RFLP system. This is -- it's something that you have to understand in order to understand how to do the interpretations. And if you were to ignore this and ask that every band be identical in size, you would be ignoring an enormous amount of data and you wouldn't be doing an appropriate scientific job. Q. And once again, the same system is a system that's used medically and in diagnostic areas in a lot of other areas of science besides forensic? A. Yes. Q. Now, I want to touch briefly again on this question of item number 29 on the steering wheel. First of all, Doctor, would you find it surprising if there was some DNA that shows up generally on a steering wheel in an automobile? A. No, I wouldn't be surprised to find that. Q. Cause someone else could have had a cut on their hand or been perspiring and left DNA at some other time? A. Sure. Q. Secondly, is it your testimony that based upon that little Department of Justice DQ Alpha type that he showed you, that although there are various possible combinations, as Blasier pointed out, one scientifically possible combination is a 1.3, 4, which would match Ronald Goldman? A. Right. Let me be clear. Q. Okay. A. There's a 4 that you can see. It's very, very faint. It's below the control dot. That means there may be another allele that you can't see and that other allele that you can't see can be any other allele that that system tests for; could be a 1.1, a 1.2 so and so on and so on. And it could be a 1.3. Q. Now, let's go to the polymarker test result that you got on Nicole Brown Simpson's reference file. A. Yes. Q. You -- on that, there was a faint B that lit up at the GC cite. Am I saying that correct? A. Yes. Q. In your professional opinion; is that faint B lighting up the at GC cite a result of contamination? A. No. Q. What is it a result of? A. In my opinion, it's a result of cross-hybridization. Q. Is that something that you, as a professional DNA scientist see and are familiar with? A. Yes. Q. So is it a common kind of occurrence? A. It's a common occurrence. You can see it in our validation studies. You can see it in work from many other laboratories. You can -- I think it's even mentioned in the manual that comes with the test. Q. Finally, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about the application of the product rule to the evidence samples in this case. In your professional judgment was there anything at all improper about using the product rule in this case? A. No, there wasn't. Q. In -- and the sample sizes that the data basis are based upon, are those statistically proper sample sizes? A. They are. Q. The amount of nanograms that were found in some of the evidence samples in the case, is it unusual to have a relatively low number of nanograms in a crime scene evidence sample? A. No, it's -- that's extremely common. Q. And the PCR test is a test specifically designed to enable you to get results on low nanograms amounts; isn't that right? A. Right. That's the whole value of that test is that you can use that test on samples where you cannot use any other test. Q. And the reason that the level of nanograms may be low at a crime scene as opposed to blood taken out of someone's arm is what, Dr. Cotton? A. I'm assuming that people don't intend to leave bits of themselves. Q. And the blood found at a crime scene is usually not something that is in a unique laboratory environment? A. Of course, not. MR. LAMBERT: No further questions. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. All right. Let's just talk about the one percent where there's variations. That's 60 million base pairs; isn't it? A. Yes. Q. And you only look at extremely small percentage of that, don't you? A. Yes that's what I just said a few minutes ago. Q. And the 99 percent, that's the same? That's an estimate too; isn't it? A. Yes, it is. Q. Now, Mr. Lambert asked you a question that you only look at the portion that is unique from person to person. That's not correct, is it? You don't look at the portion that's unique from person to person, do you? A. Well, you -- Q. That's -- yes or no? A. No, it's not. I can't answer that yes or no. Q. The fragment that you look at, are they unique only one person has the fragment? A. No. No on these tests, the pieces that we're looking at are not necessarily unique, but they are. Q. That's what you use? Go ahead. A. They are as a group, part of what makes someone unique. I didn't mean to imply that a PM result for example, was unique to a given individual and hopefully I haven't given you that impression. Q. And now, let's talk about medical application transplants. There's a is substantial difference between forensic use of DNA technology and medical use; isn't there? A. There are some differences. Q. You don't, for transplants, you don't go and scrape something, a piece of blood off the ground, do you, to analyze it? A. Presumably that's not how they're getting it. Q. You always have clean samples and you always know where they came from, don't you? A. Actually, you should always have clean samples, yes. And do hospitals occasionally mix things up, yes. Q. Okay. And that gets back to error rates, doesn't it? A. For the hospital, yes. Q. And errors occur much more frequently than 1 in 530 billion. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. MR. BLASIER: I'll withdraw it. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you're doing bone marrow transplants, you have an unlimited amount of DNA to work with. You can do multiple tests to see if you get the same result, correct? A. I wouldn't say you have unlimited, but you possibly have enough to do multiple tests. Q. Okay. You're not estimating a frequency in a population for a bone marrow transplant? You never do that? A. There's no need to do that. All you need to do is make sure that the donor and recipient have different patterns. Q. So the whole part of this technology that generates these large numbers is relatively unique to the forensic area; isn't it? A. Possibly so, yes. Q. And this technology wasn't developed in the forensic community, was it? It was all developed in the medical and research community? A. It was all developed in the research community. Q. Now, you used a phrase, as long as these fragments are close enough to be considered a match. Isn't it true, what you mean by that is because of the measurements and precision, I can't tell you whether they are the same or not so I'm going to allow myself a window to call something a match when I can't really tell you it's the same, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, did the steering wheel -- Are your saying that might be DNA from another person, some other time and not blood? A. I'm just saying, yes, there's no way for me to know. I didn't collect that sample, number one. So even if there was blood on that steering wheel, could there be something under that, some other cells under that? Sure. I don't -- it's a steering wheel. People are going to grab onto it with their hands. Q. That could be true for the console too, couldn't it? A. I suppose it could be, sure. Q. Do you have kids in a car that sneeze or bloody noses and wipe them on the console, you're going to get their DNA there, aren't you? A. If they do that, you would get their DNA there. Q. O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson's kids are going to have very similar if not the same banding patterns as their parents? They get half of their DNA from one, and half from the other, correct? A. Banding patterns, they will share characteristics, but the banding patterns wouldn't be the same as either Nicole Brown or Mr. Simpson for the PCR tests. The kids, theoretically, since those characteristics are not so powerful at distinguishing one from another, could any of the kids have as a type that ends up being the same as one or the other parent, yes, they could. Q. And these statistics don't work at all where you're talking about possible sources from relatives, do they? A. Well, you would do a different calculation. Q. These calculations don't work for that, do they? A. It isn't that they don't work, it's that they wouldn't be appropriate. Q. They don't give you an accurate answer, do they? They don't give you an accurate estimate, do they? A. They don't tell you anything about relatives. Q. Okay. Let's talk about number 29, the blood on the steering wheel. There was a substrate control taken, that is a sample taken from right next to that blood stain, correct? A. I believe so. Q. Was there any DNA on that? A. No. Q. Isn't that an indication that what was taken in that blood stain, that the blood in there from an unidentified third person, is in that blood stain and wasn't there before? Wouldn't you, if it had been there before, you'd expect to find it on the substrate control, wouldn't you? A. You might. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. No further questions. MR. LAMBERT: Nothing further. THE COURT: You're excused through 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions. (At 11:58 A.M. a recess was taken 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 14, 1996 1:30 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, before we call the next witness, I'd like to move in the exhibits that I referred to with Dr. Cotton, which are 988, 989, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1041, 1043, 2184, 2185, and 1275. MR. BLASIER: We object to the handwritten one, if that's a -- one of those -- your handwritten drawing. THE COURT: Which one is that? MR. LAMBERT: The one that Mr. Blasier was, himself, writing on the board, I object to that. It's irrelevant. It's his own testimony. THE CLERK: 2184, that's the objection. THE COURT: I think it was in the testimony. Overruled. It may be received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 988 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 989 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1034 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1035 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1036 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1037 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1038 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1041 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1043 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2184 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2185 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1275 was received in evidence.) MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. May we call our next witness? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LAMBERT: We call Renee Montgomery. RENEE MONTGOMERY, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Renee Montgomery, R-E-N-E-E, M-O-N-T-G-O-M-E-R-Y DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Ms. Montgomery, where are you employed? A. I'm employed by the State of California, Department of Justice at the Berkeley DNA Laboratory. Q. And what's your position there? A. My title is senior criminalist. Q. And how long have you worked for the California Department of Justice? A. I've worked for DOJ for approximately eight years -- actually, a little over eight years. Q. And how long have you been working in the Department of Justice's DNA Laboratory? A. I've been at the Berkeley DNA Lab for -- in excess of four years. Q. Would you tell us briefly your formal educational background. A. Yes. I have a bachelor of science in environmental toxicology from the University of California at Davis. I took courses in biochemistry environmental toxicology, biology, and other science courses. And after I graduated, I continued my education by taking course work through the University of California, Berkeley Extension, through the University of Virginia, through the University of Northern Colorado, and through California State University, Hayward. Q. And did any of those courses that you took have anything to do with DNA? A. Yes, they do. Q. Which one? A. All of them that I mentioned, or all of the universities that I mentioned. The courses at California State, Hayward. The course was genetics which dealt with DNA. At the University of Northern Colorado, the course was on DNA sequencing. At the University of Virginia, it was a six-unit graduate-level course work; and that was on forensic DNA analysis, both practical laboratory work and theoretical. And through the University of California, Berkeley Extension, the courses that are relevant have been molecular biology, two semesters, biostatistics. I believe those are the two courses that are relevant. Q. Since you've been working at the Department of Justice DNA Laboratory, have you done work in connection with the D1S80 test there? A. Yes, I have. Q. When did you first begin doing that? A. I began work on the system in June of 1993. Q. And when did the DOJ lab first begin doing D1S80 work? A. For case-work analysis, we began D1S80 in the spring of '94. Q. And before doing case-work analysis, have there been studies done in the DOJ Lab with the D1S80 technique? A. Yes. We went over nine months examining the system. Q. Since the DOJ Lab began using that system, has it continued to use it to today? A. Yes. Q. Is it used by other labs around the country, as well? A. Yes, it is. Q. Can you briefly describe the process Dr. Cotton already told us about, PCR in general, and the different kinds of tests. Perhaps you could describe the D1S80 test for us. A. The D1S80. Actually D1S80 is a location on the genome. The D1 means, DNA 1 chromosome. So Dr. Cotton described two techniques to you, PCR and RFLP. Well, this process, this particular region we're looking at, is a combination of both the PCR method and the RFLP method. The PCR method, where we take this region, this D1S80 region, and we make multiple copies of that particular region through PCR. Then, using something similar to RFLP, we use electrophoresis, or we use a gel system, where we separate the different bands based on size. Based on molecular weight, as they described to you, with RFLP, you can see a series of banding pattern where the heaviest bands are closer to the top and the lighter bands -- or the smaller bands migrate farther in a gel. And that's how the D1S80 system works. Q. And Dr. Cotton told us how there are ways to describe, again, between different DNA types, using a sequence difference and a length difference. Which difference does this test work for? A. This is using the length difference. Amplified fragment lengths, polymorphisms, also known as -- I believe he talked about VNTR, variable number of tandem repeats. An example would be the box cars of a train. Q. So by "box cars of a train," you mean if there are repeating sequences of the AT/GC base pairs that we saw before, they can repeat like the box cars of a train; is that what you're saying? A. Correct. MR. LAMBERT: Perhaps we could put this up on the Elmo here, and ask you if it would be helpful if it was turned a little down further, here, I think. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Is this the bottom? Are we all the way down at the bottom? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. BLASIER: Can we have a number? MR. PETROCELLI: 275. MR. FOSTER: 326. MR. PETROCELLI: Oh, sorry. 326. MR. LAMBERT: 326. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you identify what this is, and perhaps describe generally how -- again, how they're used. A. This is a copy of a D1S80 gel, and what you can see on this gel is a series of bands. This is the origin at the top. And this is where the DNA migrates to. And you can see that there are a series of banding patterns here. The sample at the bottom is a small S, meaning it has the small S number of repeats. The one at the top is the largest; it has the largest numbers of repeat. The samples you see with multiple bands are called composite ladders. These are like rulers, used for comparison. And you can see also on this gel that there has been labeling. This was obviously put on after the gel was run. And you can see banding patterns with the various individuals and locations. Q. And these banding patterns that you see on -- on this gel, are they given a particular letter or number designation? A. Yes, they are. Q. So you describe a person's type as D1S80 by doing what? A. Yes, you describe their type based on the number of repeats that are present in the sample. For example, on this particular sample, Mr. Simpson's, there are two bands. They would be called a 24 and a 25. The 24 has 24 repeats of certain bases, and the 25 has -- therefore 25 repeats. Q. And how about for Mr. Goldman? A. For Mr. Goldman, he has a single-banded pattern. He's a 24 homozygote. That means from his mother, he inherited a 24 repeat, and from his father, he inherited a 24 repeat. Q. And for Nicole Brown? A. And for Nicole Brown, she's an 18 homozygote. Once again, that means she has an 18 inherited from her mother and an 18 from her father. Q. Thank you. Ms. Montgomery, did you some testing on this case, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the testing did you was, you did the D1S80 test? A. Yes, I did. Q. And who at the Department of Justice DNA Lab was in charge, overall, of testing on this case? A. Gary Sims was in charge of the case. He was the lead analyst. Q. Now -- but your particular role was to do D1S80? A. Yes. Q. Looking at this board here, this is the result board for the Bundy crime scene. The evidence items on the left are the LAPD evidence items. When the Department of Justice gets an item of evidence in to it for study, does it put its own number on it? A. In this case, yes, we put our own numbers. Q. These numbers that we have up there, those are the Department of Justice numbers where we see number 5? A. Correct, the second column. Q. So what I'd like to do is, just to have you go through with us your D1S80 results on -- on these particular blood drops. First, let's take item 47. What result did you get on that? A. On -- Q. And I guess we actually have something up here to look at, don't we? (Referring to board) A. I'm having a hard time seeing it from my vantage point. I could either step down there or -- MR. LAMBERT: Just turn it slightly, can you? THE WITNESS: That's better, much better. MR. GELBLUM: Exhibit 291. THE CLERK: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Can you see it now? A. Yes. Q. For item number 47, what was the D1S80 result that you got? A. From item 47, the D1S80 result was a 24, 25. Q. And that is consistent with Mr. Simpson's D1S80 type? A. Yes. Q. So he is a possible source for that item of evidence; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And that's consistent with the types we have up here for DQ Alpha, that and polymarker, as well; is that right? A. Correct. Q. And for item number 48, did you do a D1S80 test for that? A. Yes. Q. What result did you get? A. I found that result sample was a 24, 25. Q. Comma? A. Comma 25. Q. For item number 50, did you do a D1S80 test? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what was the result on that? A. I found that to be a 24, comma, 25, which is consistent with Mr. Simpson. Q. And for item number 52, what result did you get on that? A. Once again, for D1S80, I had a result of a 24, comma, 25, which is consistent with Mr. Simpson. Q. Okay. Now, item 115, which is a blood drop taken from the rear gate at Bundy, did you do a D1S80 test on that one? A. Yes, I did. Q. What was the result that you got? A. The result for that was a 24, comma, 25. Q. And who was a possible source for that result? A. Mr. Simpson. Q. And is either of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman a possible source for that item of evidence? A. No. Nicole Brown could not be the source because there was no 18 allele present. And by looking at it, there is no indication of any sample from Ronald Goldman, either, by looking at the DQ Alpha that results. Q. For that one, for the time being, until we saw the DQ Alpha, that we want until we see that before we determine if he was completely excluded? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay. Let's just go through the last two, number 116 from the rear gate. There's another item of blood evidence from the rear gate and your D1S80, results were what? A. A 24, comma, 25. Q. That can is consistent with whom? A. That is consistent with Mr. Simpson. Q. And finally, for number 117 from the rear gate, what were your results there? A. That was a D1S80 type 24, comma, 25. That's consistent with Mr. Simpson. Q. So the results that you got for these various blood drops at Bundy were what you tested, were all consistent with Mr. Simpson? A. Yes, they were. Q. And the D1S80 test is it completely separate and apart fro the DQ Alpha test? A. Yes. Q. And from the RFLP test? A. Yes. MR. LAMBERT: Why don't we do the next one. Number 296 is the next one, Your Honor. (The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Rockingham Residence, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 296.) (Counsel displays Exhibit 296 on easel.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, on this board, it looks like there's only one D1S80 test that you did at Rockingham -- on the Rockingham results that are listed here; is that right? A. Correct. Q. And which item was that? A. That was item number -- LAPD item number 6. Q. And what result did you get there? A. I found a D1S80 type of a 24, comma, 25 which is consistent with Mr. Simpson. Q. Okay. MR. LAMBERT: Why don't we do the next board. The next number is number 293. (The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Bronco Automobile, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 293.) (Counsel displays Exhibit 293.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this board lists various items of evidence that were tested from the Bronco automobile of Mr. Simpson. The first one that seems to have a D1S80 reference is number 25. Is that one of the items that you tested? A. Yes, it is. Q. And what did you get on that test? A. I found a D1S80 type of a 24, comma, 25, which is consistent with Mr. Simpson. Q. Okay. And how about item number 26, the driver-side floor mat? A. On item number 26, I found a D1S80 type of a 24, comma, 25, once again consistent with Mr. Simpson. Q. And item 30 from the center console? A. Item 30 of D1S80 of a 24, comma 25. Once again, I cannot exclude Mr. Simpson as being a possible source. Q. And item 31, this is another item from the center console. What was your D1S80 test? A. Item 31, I found there was a 24 and a 25 present; and I could not exclude Mr. Simpson as being a possible source of that. Q. And then item No. 33 slash 293 from the carpet on the driver-side door, what was your D1S80 test result on that? A. On that sample, I found a D1S80 type 18, comma, 18 which is consistent with Nicole Brown, but -- Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. I'm sorry. -- but excludes Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman. Q. So the only one of these three people who could be the possible source of that particular item is Nicole Brown; is that right? A. Correct. Q. And then the next item on this list, the center console, 303, what was your result on that? A. I found a 24 allele present, a 25 allele present, and a weaker 18 allele present. Q. And based upon those test results, who could possibly be the sources for those evidence items? A. Nicole Brown could be the source; Mr. Simpson could be the source; and also, with any 24 that's present, Mr. Goldman can also be a source, since he's a 24 homozygote. Q. Is that the kind of test where we need a little bit more information before we can decide who's excluded or included? A. Yes. Q. And 304, another center console item, what was your result there? A. I found a 24 allele, a 25 allele, and a weaker 18 allele. Q. And tell us what -- would you tell us what that tells us about the possible included persons? A. Once again, of the three individuals, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Goldman, and Ms. Brown, I cannot exclude any of them. Q. Okay. And finally on this board, item 305, another item taken from the center console of the Bronco, what were your test results there? A. I found a 24, a 25 allele, and a weaker 18 allele. And once again, I cannot exclude any of the three individuals. Q. And when you say that you found a "weaker allele," what do you mean by that? A. I mean that allele is less intense than the other two. For example, 24, comma, 25, that means those two alleles are darker than the 18. Q. You mean darker on gel than we previously saw on the television? A. Exactly. Q. So if one of the bands is darker and another one is lighter, you make note of that? A. Correct. Q. And what does that usually tell us? A. It tells us that a mixture is present on that sample. Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, let's go to the next board, which is No. 300 -- no, 320. Sorry. (The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Rockingham Glove, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 320.) (Counsel displays Exhibit 320.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This shows various test results for a glove found on Mr. Simpson's property at Rockingham. Did you do a D1S80 test on that glove? A. Yes, I did. Q. And I see a list from the -- in the left-hand column here -- perhaps I can point to it -- of various areas that are listed, G1 through G14. Can you tell us what those numbers mean? A. Yes. Those numbers are particular areas on the glove that were sampled by Gary Sims. Q. So Mr. Sims sampled various -- I guess 14 different areas on that one glove? A. Yes, he did. Q. And then you took the samples that he had prepared and did D1S80 tests on some of them? A. Correct. Q. Let's just go through them quickly. Number -- area G1 --