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 15, 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
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1996
9:18 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

THE COURT: There's a motion by Plaintiff Goldman with regards to an
audio tape.

MR. GELBLUM: Yes, Your Honor.

We asked for this document February 15, and we served our document
demand, the very first document served in the case.

The response was that everything he had, had been turned over to the
LAPD or the DA was equally available to us. It turns out not to have
been true. This other tape we never heard of until it was aired on
national television, and we'd like it.

MR. BAKER: I have no such tape; my client has no such tape. And the
assertion that we have such tape and it was withheld is, of course,
without assertion at all.

THE COURT: It would appear from the moving papers that there is no
declaration indicating that the defendant has any such tape or
identifies the tape being in his possession.

MR. GELBLUM: The defendant recorded the tape.

THE COURT: Excuse me. There's not even a declaration in support of
anything in your moving papers.

MR. GELBLUM: I'll be happy to submit a declaration, if that's what it
takes.

There's no dispute the defendant recorded this audio --

THE COURT: There has to be a declaration that is a legally sufficient
declaration; that is to say, it cannot simply be on the basis of
hearsay, or you heard somebody say the tape was played on the radio or
television or whatever. That's all you have here.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I have --

THE COURT: You say Schiller played some tape. What tape? That doesn't
identify the tape.

Why don't you ask Mr. Schiller?

MR. GELBLUM: We did ask Mr. Schiller. He asserted the reporter shield.

THE COURT: You don't have that in your declaration.

MR. GELBLUM: I don't know if we need to ask Mr. Schiller, if Mr.
Simpson has the tape --

THE COURT: There's nothing to indicate that he does, because --

MR. BAKER: That is absolutely false.

MR. GELBLUM: -- that he recorded.

MR. BAKER: That is absolutely false. He does not have any such tape.

To make that assertion in open court, when you have no facts, is
absolute misconduct.

MR. GELBLUM: We have the facts. He recorded the tape; it was played;
he knows it was played. He's not denying that he made the tape.

And I think it's suspicious, at best, to hear that he apparently
doesn't have one, doesn't have a copy. Mr. Schiller has a copy.

MR. BAKER: That's reckless disregard of the truth, to say anything
like that.

THE COURT: Based on what you've got in your moving papers, I don't
find any sufficient facts on which I can base any order.

MR. GELBLUM: I'll bring the tape in, the portion of the tape that was
played on national TV; you can play that in court and listen to the
defendant's voice.

THE COURT: Why don't you use that as secondary evidence?

MR. GELBLUM: It's an excerpt. It's a very small excerpt that was
played, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you haven't satisfied me that the defendant has the
tape. You don't have any declaration to support that conclusion, other
than your say-so, which is not very sufficient.

MR. GELBLUM: It's --

MR. PETROCELLI: You know --

MR. GELBLUM: You're right, Your Honor. And obviously, it's impossible
for me to know what the defendant actually has in his possession.

I'm working on a reasonable inference here, Your Honor, that the
defendant recorded it. Mr. Schiller has a copy of it, and that's --
and if he wants to say that he, in fact, doesn't have it under oath
and everything --

THE COURT: How do I --

What is there? How can I assume that you know that Schiller didn't
tape it and has the original? How? How do I know that, you know, that
that is not the fact?

MR. GELBLUM: We'll submit additional material.

MR. PETROCELLI: You're going to subpoena Schiller.

MR. GELBLUM: We did subpoena Schiller.

We did subpoena Schiller. He asserted the reporter shield.

THE COURT: I don't care what you do. I'm telling you, based on what
you've given me, that the motion is insufficient on its face.

MR. GELBLUM: We'll submit additional material.

THE COURT: Motion is denied on its face.

MR. PETROCELLI: We're going to bring in Mr. Schiller.

THE COURT: I don't care what you do.

Bring in the jury.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Good morning.

JURORS: Morning.

THE CLERK: You are still under oath.

Would you please state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Gary Alan Sims.

GARY ALAN SIMS, the witness on the stand at the time of the
adjournment on November 14, 1996, having been previously duly sworn,
was examined and testified further as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Sims.

A. Good morning.

Q. Can you tell me -- give me an approximation of the amount of time
that you've spent on this case, working for the plaintiffs?

A. Just The civil matter now?

Q. Yeah.

A. I would estimate on the order of about 20 hours, something like
that.

Q. Now, do you keep a detailed billing of your hours?

A. Yes. I've kept records of the time that I've spent. And that --
that 20 hours didn't include the testimony part.

Q. Okay.

And do you charge the plaintiffs for the time that you spend on the
case?

A. The state -- the state has some kind of a policy where they bill
the attorneys for my time on the case, yes.

Q. Do you know whether this -- the state has been paid anything for
the work that has been done so far?

A. To date -- no bill has been issued to date.

Q. In preparing for your testimony, how much time did you spend with
Mr. Lambert?

A. Well, I would estimate about 16 hours, two days, something like
that.

Q. And did he have a whole set of questions all typed out, ready to
ask you?

A. He had an outline of some of the issues that he wanted to bring up
on his direct, yes.

Q. Were they typed questions that you went over with him?

A. They were -- They weren't questions; it was just an outline that I
reviewed with him.

Q. Okay.

One of the things you talked about yesterday was the ability of DNA
testing to be used to exclude people.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you have an exclusion, it means that you can tell from
whatever test you've done, that clearly two bands or two of the dots
on a testing strip or whatever, clearly show that the DNA from the
evidence is different from the DNA from the suspect, correct?

A. Yes; I think that's a pretty good definition.

Q. That's all you need to do to reach an exclusion, correct?

A. Yes, in most cases, and assuming the test was run properly, et
cetera.

Q. Okay.

And where you have an inclusion, or where you can't rule somebody out,
that's where you get into the area of interpreting band lengths and
statistics and coming up with numbers, one in so many billion,
whatever, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That whole aspect of the technology has no relevance to exclusion,
does it?

A. You would still do band lengths, for example, to an exclusion.

To show an exclusion, you can visually see it in most cases. You would
also do that part of it.

As far as the statistics, you wouldn't need to; you'd just have an
exclusion.

Q. Okay.

And you indicated that in your lab, when you're sent evidence and
reference samples from suspects, you exonerate people up to 25 percent
of the time, correct?

A. Something like that.

I think I gave a figure of 20, 25, something in there.

Q. Some labs, like the FBI, said 30 -- or a third?

A. Yes, some labs have higher.

That may be due to the fact that we sometimes have prescreening tests,
conventional serology, for example, that's done first. So there may be
more likelihood that we would include on that basis, if earlier tests
have also included.

Q. And that's people that have been arrested, in some cases charged,
and in some cases are in prison, correct?

A. We -- I don't think in our laboratory, we've done any cases where
somebody is already in prison. There have been others nationwide --
there are other cases like that, though.

Q. So is it accurate to say that of the cases that are sent to you,
where the police have focused on somebody as a suspect, you're able to
show that they're wrong 25 percent of the time?

A. Well, it's -- as far as that focus, we've been able to exclude that
individual.

Sometimes these are just sort of checking the -- checking somebody's
DNA against a sample, for example, that is not necessarily a prime
suspect, for example, something like that.

I understand what you're saying, basically. That's basically it; that,
in other words, there is some suspicion of an individual, and the DNA
tests show that that's not the individual who is contributing the DNA.
That's -- yeah.

Q. So there's a substantial percentage where the police have got the
wrong guy, and you're able to show that, right?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. Misstates the evidence, assumes
facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Sims, I want to ask you some questions about
the procedures you're using in your lab.

And let me do the Elmo first.

MR. P. BAKER: This will be next in order, Erin.

THE CLERK: 2187.

(The instrument herein referred to as Orange Diagram Re Degradation
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2187.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Putting up on the Elmo, 2187.

THE CLERK: Right.

MR. BLASIER: I'll write that down.

Back that out a little bit.

This is a relatively low tech peel away exhibit.

Q. Now, I want you to assume for the purposes of the questions that
I'm going to ask you, that this is intended to depict a blood spot or
blood drop on the left.

A. Okay.

Q. And I'm going to ask you questions about what causes degradation of
DNA.

You have that in mind?

A. Okay.

Q. And again, when you're talking about degradation, you're talking
about the DNA breaking up into smaller and smaller pieces, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And as it does that, it limits your ability to analyze it, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It doesn't change the type of the DNA; it just inhibits your
ability to examine it?

A. That's correct.

Q. And can affect how it shows up on an Autorad or dots on the strip?

A. Yes.

Q. The only way you could have someone else's DNA show up is there is
contamination, correct?

A. Yes, that's basically it.

MR. BLASIER: Phil, can you focus it better?

THE COURT: There's part of the degradation, I think.

(Indicating to TV screen.)

(Laughter.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Looking at the first column there, it says sample
and surface.

Can you get the one on the bottom? If you have a swatch made from a
stain, the type of surface that you put it on can affect degradation,
can it not?

A. Yes.

Q. So if you have two different stains, one of them black and one of
them is red there, and they are put on two different surfaces, that
might affect the quality of the DNA; you might have a difference in
quality at that point?

A. Yes.

Q. And the next column is for the history of the stain. If one stain
is treated differently in terms of how long it's refrigerated, whether
it's frozen and thawed, whether it's in a room with high humidity or
low humidity, all of that can affect the quality of the DNA on that
sample, correct?

A. Yes, to some extent.

Q. So that if you have two different samples from the same blood drop,
and one has a different history in terms of how it's preserved and how
it's looked at and how many times it's examined, that can affect the
quality of the DNA in the samples?

A. Yes. Especially when you talk about those like preservation; that
would be important.

Q. Okay.

And, in fact, in drying a stain, if you have a stain that you transfer
to, let's say, a thick paper surface, and you put it in a closed-in
area, with no air circulation, that may be warm, that may be humid,
that can cause the DNA to start breaking down, correct?

A. Well, especially if there are other environmental factors that have
been introduced to that sample, as opposed to a pristine blood sample.

Q. The one converse is if you have a stain that's put on a thin piece
of cloth, for instance, that allows air to circulate through it and
it's a fairly porous, that can dry more quickly and preserve the
quality of the DNA, correct?

A. Yes, that would -- that would tend to negate against the
deleterious aspects of the environment.

Q. Now, if you take a sample from the same stain at different times,
you might wind up with different qualities of DNA, correct?

A. Well, for example, would it be a stain that's set out in the
environment for that long a period of time and then was collected at a
later date, is that it?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes.

Q. Can we see the next column, please.

(Indicating to exhibit on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Actually, the manner in which a stain is processed
once it gets to the lab can affect -- that can add -- that's another
factor that can affect the quality of the DNA, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you have two different samples from the same source,
processed at two different times, depending on if you vary the
conditions under which they're processed, that might affect the
quality of the two samples, correct?

When I say "difference" --

A. Can you be a little more specific on that?

I'm not quite following you.

Q. Sure.

Let's say the extraction phase where you're removing the DNA from
whatever it happens to be on, and coupled that with the phase where
you had what are called enzymes, restriction enzymes -- correct?

A. Yes.

Q. The purpose of those are, that's what breaks it up into pieces that
allows it to go in an Autorad from top to bottom --

A. Yes.

Q. -- by size?

A. Yes.

Q. That's a mechanism where you're trying to break up the DNA?

A. Yes; you're trying to break it up in an orderly fashion.

Q. And if you use this one sample on one day, you use a little less
DNA -- the same amount of restriction enzyme -- than you use on the
second day, that can affect -- you could start degrading the sample if
your restriction enzyme is in there a little bit too long, if it's a
different quantity?

A. That's -- I don't think that's a significant factor. I wouldn't say
that with the restriction enzyme, as far as the protocols go. The
restriction enzyme or the restriction usually can go for a fairly
broad period of time without any major differences. That's not
significant.

Q. All of these factors that we've talked about can lead to an Autorad
that has two samples from the same source that look different because
one's more degraded than the other, correct?

A. Well, yes, all of those factors would go into that.

Q. And the fact that one is more degraded than the other, tells you
nothing about whether or not they came from the same source, does it?

A. Now, when you say "the same source," are you saying --

Q. Same original source.

A. Same person or same stain? Or that's where --

Q. Let's talk about a stain first.

A. Okay. Okay.

Q. Is that correct?

A. In -- In a laboratory setting, if you were to, say, sample a blood
stain and take it through your process, and then sample that same
stain in the laboratory, now, I wouldn't expect to see much difference
there.

Q. Okay. But let's talk about the other factors before that.

A. Okay.

What happens prior to it getting to the laboratory, that could be very
important.

Q. Okay.

So you can't really tell from looking at the Autorad at the end of the
line, for two different samples that were handled differently, just by
how good the banding pattern -- how clear, how crisp the bands are.

You can't really tell anything about the original source of the
sample, can you?

A. I think we need to be more specific. I'm not quite following.
You're talking about source. Are you talking about the same
individual? Are you talking about --

Q. Yes.

A. Are you talking about --

Q. Yeah.

A. Okay.

One would notice that one sample, if they're substantially different
in terms of degradation pattern, I think you can make an inference
there that something happened to this sample that didn't happen to the
other sample.

Q. And that can account for differences in the way the bands appear,
not where they are, but how clear they are?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let's change the hypothetical just a little bit. And rather
than a blood spot, we have a reference tube.

A. Okay.

Q. And let's say you take a sample out of that reference tube and put
it on a thin fabric, like a sock --

A. Okay.

Q. -- that's allowed to air-dry quickly.

A. Okay.

Q. And the more quickly it's allowed to dry, the better the quality is
going to be in the DNA, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And let's say sample number 2 is taken from the reference vial at a
different time --

A. Okay.

Q. -- put on a different surface, such as a piece of paper, and is
allowed to dry in a different way from the sock; that can result in a
difference in the DNA, correct, in terms of how it's degraded?

A. Yes.

And also, I would include the factor that the longer that it's in the
liquid state, we see some degradation just from that.

Q. Okay.

That's just because water is the -- is a real enemy to the DNA in the
sense that it really enhances degradation, correct?

A. Well, and there are processes going on inside a liquid blood tube
that don't occur once you dye it out on a stain.

Q. Okay.

So that the quality of the blood in a reference tube is going to
change over time?

A. Yes, it will.

Q. And if you take a stain, or if you take a sample from a reference
tube, shortly after it's been collected, it's going to be higher
quality DNA than if you take a sample a month later?

A. In most cases, you'll see some -- some differences.

Q. Okay.

And the same reasoning applies to an Autorad. At the end of the line,
if you have two samples that came from the same reference tube, but
were collected at different times, put on different surfaces,
subjected to different conditions, it would not be unusual at all to
have one of them high quality and one of them not so high quality?

A. You threw in the word "unusual." I'm not sure I would use that
term.

Can you give me that hypothetical exactly again.

Q. Sure.

If you have two samples taken from the same reference tube, but taken
at different times --

A. Okay.

Q. -- Put on different surfaces, one on a thin cloth, one on a piece
of paper --

A. Okay.

Q. -- subject to different preservation in terms of one may be frozen
and thawed many times, or may be left unfrozen for a period of time,
as opposed to the other one, it would not be unusual for you to see a
difference in quality of those two samples when you do your Autorad?

A. I would expect in that case, the biggest factor would be how long
the liquid was in the tube. That would be correct unless there was
something grossly different in the processing.

Q. Well, if the blood that was put on the piece of paper was left in a
room or a closed in room with no air circulation, and took longer to
dry than on the piece of cloth, that's going to affect the quality of
the DNA, too, isn't it?

A. That could.

But again, if we're talking about a tube sample, it's a fairly clean
sample to begin with, so it should be a pretty clean sample to begin
with.

Q. To begin with?

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, when you examined the reference samples in this case, you
actually -- you don't -- you don't just accept the typing that was
done by LAPD; you retype them yourselves, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you're sent a reference sample, they don't send you the
blood vial, do they?

A. Most of the time, we get a swatch or a stain card that's been
prepared.

Q. And in this case, the reference samples that you got from LAPD were
on what are called Fitzco cards, weren't they?

A. There were -- there were three sets of victim reference samples in
this case. Two of them came in on the Fitzco cards, the paper, and
then one of them -- the one I used, not RFLP, came in on like, a
swatch material and a gauze sort of cloth.

My understanding is, it was the gauze ones that were actually prepared
by the coroner's office. The stains were prepared by the coroner's
office, is my understanding.

THE COURT REPORTER: May I have a spelling for Fitzco?

MR. BLASIER: F-I-T-Z-C-O.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And if you had a sample that was on a different
surface from your reference sample, subjected to different conditions,
even though it came from the same place, there's a difference in
quality on the Autorad, would not be surprising?

A. You could see some slight difference, yes.

Q. Let me show you -- this is Criminal Exhibit 269-A.

MR. P. BAKER: Civil 308.

MR. BLASIER: 308.

(The instrument herein referred to as copy of "Autorad" - 1 was marked
for identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 308.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does this look -- do you recognize this as one of
your Autorads?

A. Yes, I do. That looks like -- I don't remember which probe that is
offhand, but can you show me the bottom of the Autorad?

Q. Sure.

I'm not going to ask you about the probe, but sure.

A. Yes. Okay.

There's AM616/D1S80. I can see my initials on it now.

Q. And the lane here is the reference sample that you ran for Nicole
Brown Simpson, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the lane here where it says sock, 13A, is the large stain on
the sock, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would agree that the quality of these two look pretty much
the same?

A. I would say they're comparable.

Q. And with your other Autorads on those same samples, do you recall
whether there was a difference in quality between -- let me show you
this one.

MR. BLASIER: This is 269B criminal.

MR. P. BAKER: 309 civil.

MR. BLASIER: 309 civil.

(The instrument herein referred to as copy of "Autorad" - A2 was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 309.)

THE WITNESS: Yes. That one, I think, is D1S7.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And there it appears -- and again, this is the
same DNA, isn't it?

A. I would say on the basis of the -- of the number of probes there's
a very high likelihood that that sock DNA came from Nicole Brown.

Q. Okay. Now -- that was a bad question.

Each Autorad that you make is from the same sample, from the same gel?

A. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. That's correct.

Q. So we're not looking at a different rung; we're looking at a
different -- different sections of the DNA on the same gel?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you would agree that in this one, the socks appear to be a
little more smudgy or not as tight and crisp as the reference sample.

A. I would say those are comparable, also.

Q. The point is, you can't, by looking at the differences in the
quality from the reference sample to the evidence sample, say that
they couldn't come from the same source, would you?

A. Now, when you -- again, when you say "same source," are you talking
about the same person?

Q. Same person, or same reference file.

A. With just --

MR. LAMBERT: Misstates the evidence in terms of reference file, Your
Honor; misstates the evidence, assumes facts not in evidence.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let's talk about the same person first.

A. Okay.

So the -- no. I mean, certainly I would say that those bands match all
the way down through the probings.

Q. What I'm talking about now is the quality of the bands themselves.
The fact that there may be a difference in quality, that doesn't mean
they came from different sources, does it?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

And the same would be true of two samples taken from a reference vial
at different times under different conditions?

A. Well, if they looked -- in other words, if they looked the same,
the same type of degradation or lack of degradation.

Q. Or differ doesn't mean it came from the same source, does it?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

Now, I want to ask you some questions about the -- about
cross-contamination.

A. Okay.

Q. In cross-contaminations, you can have DNA from one source get into
a second source, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And with PCR, where you're amplifying small amounts of -- of
evidence, if you've got a contaminant in there, that amplifies, as
well, correct?

A. Yes it can, if there's a sufficient contamination.

Q. And the problem of contamination and PCR test, that's kind of the
biggest potential problem that you can have with that kind of testing,
isn't it?

A. Yes. It's something you really have to watch for.

Q. And you take very careful precautions to avoid doing things that
can result in cross-contamination, correct?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: We're having a little blinking problem, but bear with me.

(Indicating to screen for Elmo).

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I want to ask you questions about some of the
things that can cause cross-contamination, some of the factors.

A. Okay.

Q. This isn't cross-contamination; this is degradation. We talked
about how the DNA can break up and how you can't get a reading.

A. Yes.

Q. You've seen these slides, haven't you?

A. They do look vaguely familiar.

Q. If you have two samples, one that has very high quality DNA, high
molecular weight, good DNA, and an evidence sample that has small
amounts, maybe not so good DNA; you want to avoid those samples being
processed at the same time, if possible, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Because the amount of DNA in the good one, there's been -- there's
too much DNA; you don't want it to get into the bad one?

A. Yes.

Q. If you have evidence samples from different crime scenes -- in this
case, two different houses, a condo and a house, and a third crime
scene being a vehicle, you would be careful not to process samples
from those three sources together, correct?

A. Yes.

And when we say "together," I mean I wouldn't want to do it right
together unless, you know, as a general policy -- I know, for example,
in our processing of these samples, we process the initial -- the
initial contains -- we looked at -- one was from Bundy, one was from
Rockingham -- at the same time, but I did separate them by another
sample so that they couldn't touch, they wouldn't be contiguous.

Q. They couldn't cross-contaminate each other?

A. That's why I took the precaution.

Q. And by the same token, you don't process reference samples which is
rich in DNA from a blood tube, for instance, with an evidence sample?

A. Yes, that's correct; we never co-extract those at the same time. We
do -- we separate them by time and/or space.

Q. And that's an important consideration, is it not?

A. I believe it is, yes.

Q. And you try not to process the victims' and the suspects' reference
samples together, as well, correct?

A. Well, if they're both high quality reference samples, I wouldn't be
too concerned about that.

I would -- generally, in a case, I would process the reference samples
as its own set, but I would keep them together. I don't see a problem
with that.

Q. Okay.

If you try to run too many samples at once, you try to do too much
work in a short period of time, that creates a danger of making
mistakes, too, doesn't it?

A. I think if one extracts an extreme number of samples, the more
likelihood of something going wrong in that area than if you're
keeping it down to a lower number.

Q. Okay.

A. I try to keep it to a lower number.

Q. All right.

Now, I want to ask you some questions about how blood or other
biological material can move from one place to another.

You can have what's called an aerosol effect by opening a blood tube,
and if you're not careful, you can get, actually, a little aerosol
spray of blood, can you not?

A. Yes, you can.

Q. And if you process samples on a piece of paper on your lab bench --
let's say you dried some swatches in a test tube and you scraped them
out after they're dry onto a piece of paper, you can very easily get
little, tiny flecks of blood that come from the sides of the test tube
on that paper, can't you.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. Beyond the scope; irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, that would be a concern, depending on the care one
takes in doing that. So you would -- you would have to be very careful
in doing that.

I would change the paper.

Q. Okay.

You change the paper between each sample, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's because of that possible source of cross-contamination?

A. Well, that more. Just as we process anything, we like to change the
paper between the samples.

Q. Okay.

And if you get something on your gloves from one sample and then you
process a second sample, that's another source of contamination, is it
not?

A. It's a potential source, yes.

Q. And the instruments that you use to process a sample, if you use
those same instruments without doing anything to them and go on to the
next sample, that can transfer blood or spray biological material from
the first to the second, can't it?

A. Yes. This is, again, a potential source of contamination.

Q. In fact, you, in your lab, between samples, you flame your tools,
do you not?

A. I personally rinse them and wipe them and then flame them.

Q. And flaming them means putting them under a Bunson burner to make
sure you're killing off any of the DNA that might have been on there
from the sample you just processed?

A. Yes; that's the approach I use.

MR. PETROCELLI: What exhibit was that?

MR. BLASIER: What exhibit was that?

We'll have the collection of slides as the next in order.

THE CLERK: 2188.

MR. BLASIER: 2188.

(The instrument herein referred to as a collection of slides was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2188.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you would agree, would you not, that there
are approximately between 1,000 and 2,000 nanograms in a drop of
blood?

A. That's a reasonable figure, something like that, about a thousand
nanograms or a microgram.

Q. And there are about 20 drops of blood in one cc, as an estimate?

A. Somewhere around there, yeah.

Q. So there would be 30 drops in one and a half cc's?

A. Something like that, yes.

Q. And in those 30 drops, there would therefore be anywhere from
30,000 to 60,000 nanograms of DNA?

A. Yes, there would be somewhere in that range.

Q. And all of the DNA in this case that you processed, anyway, was
total, far less than that amount of nanograms, correct?

A. Well, except -- not reference samples.

Q. Correct.

A. All the evidentiary samples, that's correct.

Q. Yeah.

Now, I want to ask you a couple questions about your statistics.

You use the same concept when you calculate frequencies that Cellmark
does, correct?

You use the product rule?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also, because of imprecision in measurement, you have a
window, as well, that you use, correct?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. And that allows you to declare things that are matches, even though
your -- they have different lengths, correct, or look like they have
different lengths?

A. Yes.

In other words, there's a plus or minus that you give to any of these
measurements that's acceptable.

Q. Okay.

And you would agree, would you not, that if the -- the length of a
fragment in your suspect evidence and the length of a fragment in your
evidence are different in any respect, they came from different
people, correct?

A. If -- If there's no, for example, what we call band shift or
something like that, there are phenomenon you have to be aware of as
an examiner. But in general, what one would see was that the bands
were clearly off, and even if they matched at one probe, then sooner
or later, they're going to be off in another probe.

MR. BLASIER: I think this might be a good time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(The notes of the proceedings at this point were ordered sealed by the
Court, not to be opened, transcribed, or destroyed except upon order
of a Judge of the Superior Court.)

(Pages 33 through 34)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, one of your number has
been excused. You're not to speculate as to the reason why or concern
yourself as to the reason why.

Okay. You may proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You said, Mr. Sims -- at the break, we were
talking about windows. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And your lab uses a window to -- because of the limitations of the
technology and the limitations of your ability to really measure these
fragments precisely, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is the size of your window?

A. The -- the window that we have is plus or minus 1.8 percent, for a
total of 3.6 percent.

Q. Mr. Sims can you see from here?

A. Just slightly more of an angle, I can see it.

(Indicating to exhibit.)

Q. If you need to come down, you can come down.

A. That's fine.

Q. So your window is 3 or 3.6 percent, correct?

A. That's the total.

In other words, if two samples were to be declared a match, they would
have to be no more than a total of 3.6 percent apart, and that would
define the extremes.

Q. Okay.

So hypothetically, a band that is -- if we talk about a 10,000
base-pair band, you would declare that to match to a band that is as
small as 10,000 minus 360, right?

A. Well, there's one technical glitch here, and that is that our match
criteria only applied below 9,416 base pairs you're up at that high
end where we don't have a match criterion. That's why we don't use
those bands in the statistical calculations, either.

Q. So you -- you've just ruled those out; you don't even measure
those?

A. We visually look at them -- that's important -- that's the first
part of the process, to decide visually if they match.

We would do the sizing after that. They can be more at that high end
because we don't have the match criteria that's the same up there.

Q. Okay. Your cell markings go all the way up to 3,000 base pairs?

A. I'm not aware of that. I don't know.

Q. For our hypothetical, let's assume 10,000, an easy number to work
with.

A. Okay.

Q. Under your match criteria, the lower end of what you would declare
a match is 10,000 minus the 360 approximately, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. I think that misstates the evidence.

Q. 3.6 percent, 10,000?

A. Can I just do the . . .

Q. Sure.

(Witness performs calculation.)

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. What's that number?

A. That would be -- that would be 9640.

Q. And the upper end of that would be 10,000?

A. Plus.

Q. Plus 360?

A. Yes.

Q. And I can't reach -- (indicating to handwritten diagram).

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. What number is that?

MR. BLASIER: This is 2184.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So you would declare a match for any bands that
your computer told you were within this range, correct, when you're
comparing it to a band here?

A. When -- yes, when we're comparing it to a band there, at that -- at
that particular point, then we could go 3.6 percent in either
direction for that particular band.

Q. And you would agree, would you not, that in reality, if there is a
single base-pair difference between your -- this one and this one,
it's from different people, right?

A. If -- Well, you would possibly see more like a 16 base pair,
something like that.

It would be a different repeat. You know, there's a technical reason
for that.

Q. Right.

A. Yes. Different people.

Q. And you don't have the ability to measure it down to that
tolerance, do you?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, your window is a different size window from other labs, isn't
it?

A. Yes.

Q. And Cellmark -- your testimony was approximately plus or minus 2.6
percent. We used 2.5 because the numbers are easier. It means 5
percent below and 5 percent above.

So you would agree, would you not, that under your window, if
something fell outside of your range, you wouldn't call it -- you
would say that it did not match; whereas, another lab with the same
data might say it's a match?

A. It -- well, again, part of the assessment, though, too, is the
visual assessment when we see something at that level, say 3.6 percent
-- I mean, I would be very suspicious that those two samples would
match, just because it's so rare that unless there's some real change
in the sample, that you would see that much of a shift.

Q. Okay.

A. That's an incredible shift. And so that's why we do so many of
these probes, is to see that they line up all the way down, across all
the Autorads.

Q. You would agree that you allow yourselves this much of a tolerance
in your measurements, don't you?

A. We do on a single-band basis. And again, we would -- we would have
to see that consistently through all the probes.

Q. Okay. And a band -- two bands that your computer told you were two
percent apart is treated just the same as -- just as good a match as
two bands that your computer says are really the same, right?

A. Well, when you when you look at it on the -- on the basis of a
single band, that's correct.

But part of this whole assessment is looking at the entire profile
across all the Autorads. And I would never expect to see a change of
that sort of magnitude in one direction and then a change in the other
direction of that sort of magnitude. That wouldn't happen.

Q. Okay.

But you -- tell me, the most -- the highest number -- highest RFLP
number for a stain consistent with Mr. Simpson was what?

Do you remember?

A. No. I'd have to go through all the data to see what it is.

Q. You had one that was a -- did you have a nine-probe match?

A. Yes, I believe we did, on the rear gate and one of the sock stains.

Q. Okay.

A nine-probe match means you're looking at 18 bands, correct?

A. Well, it could be that there's a single-band pattern in one of
those, but I think -- I think Mr. Simpson was a double-band pattern in
all those loci, I think. That's my recollection.

Q. So of those bands, can you tell me how many did your computer tell
you were actually the same?

A. Were exactly the same?

Q. Yeah.

A. I'd have to go through the data.

I doubt if any of them were exactly the same.

Q. Okay.

So your computer told you that none of those bands were identical,
correct?

A. Well, I'm not sure on that. I'd have to check the data on that,
that none of them were.

Q. Well, to save you a little bit of time, isn't it true that in most
of these cases, the computer tells you that the bands are not the
same?

A. Generally, there's a slight variation; that's correct.

Q. You were asked about the back gate stain, 117. Do you remember
those?

A. Yes.

Q. And we were talking about the quality of the DNA or the quantity of
DNA in that back gate stain, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were asked questions about the fact that drops that are
picked up off the concrete might have different quantities of DNA than
blood that is on a surface like the gate, correct?

A. Yes. I would think the gate would be less absorbed. For example,
Mr. --

Q. Okay.

You tested DNA sample number 44, which was LAPD item number 51,
correct?

Remember that?

A. I'm sorry. Could you give they me those numbers again.

Q. Yeah. LAPD item number 51.

A. Okay.

Q. And you gave that DNA sample number 44?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And that was a stain from the front gate at Bundy, was it not?

A. Yes.

I want to check the notes on that.

Q. It might help you to know that was LAPD photo item number 116.

A. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, that is our number 44, LAPD number 51, blood stain collected from
the front gate.

Q. That was collected on June 14, was it not, along with the Bundy
drops?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. And that was the same kind of surface as 117 on the back gate that
was collected three weeks later, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Let's assume hypothetically -- I mean, it's the same kind of gate
surface as 117, isn't it.

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know?

THE COURT: If you know.

A. I remember seeing some photographs and I think -- I think it looked
somewhat similar. I don't remember if they're both white or what
exactly -- if they're the same, but they're similar sort of metal
surfaces, as I recall, painted metal surfaces.

Q. Okay.

A. There's that in my memory.

Q. You're aware that 117 on the back gate wasn't collected until July
3 or thereabouts?

A. That's my understanding, yes.

Q. Now, you did testing on item 51 from the front gate. And the DNA in
that sample was severely degraded, was it not?

A. Yes, it was; the DNA was degraded on that sample.

Q. And the DNA from 117 on the back gate was much, much higher in
quantity, was it not?

A. It was. Actually, the overall total quantity of human DNA was
estimated to be about four times more on the gate, but the DNA on the
-- on the front gate was degraded human DNA.

Q. Okay.

Now -- and the amount of DNA on the rear gate, also, when you try to
quantitate how much is there, again, these are your estimates, are
they not?

A. Yes, these are estimates. Some of them are based on slot blots for
a human probe; some of them are just based on total yields of DNA.

Q. And the back gate stain had more DNA than the Bundy drops and the
Rockingham drops, correct, in the Rockingham driveway?

A. Can you say that again? Which ones?

Q. The Bundy drops and item number 6, which is a Rockingham drop?

A. Had more DNA? I'm sorry.

Q. At 117, had a lot more DNA than those, correct?

A. It had about twice as much as one of the Rockingham drops.

Q. Okay. You remember we went through calculations in the criminal
trial --

A. Yes.

Q. -- on quantity. And the estimate at that time was that number 6 --
that 117 had four times as much DNA as number 6. Do you remember that?

A. Yes. I think when we did this, though, we did some kind of
calculation where we looked at nanograms of DNA per milligram of
swatch material, because all these samples were weighed.

But as far as the overall yield, the number 117 had about 1008
nanograms; whereas, the number 6, the Rockingham sample, had about 56
nanograms. So it was about twice as much on the rear gate as the
Rockingham drop in terms of total DNA from all the swatches and that
sort of thing.

That's one of the variations in these kinds of calculations, how these
samples are collected and how concentrated the swatches are, how much
variation there is among and within swatches.

Q. And you calculate or calculated that item number 47, the first
Bundy drop, that 117 had about 27 times as much DNA as 47, correct?

A. Yes, on a nanogram per million gram, basis that's correct.

Q. 47 had an extremely small amount of DNA, did it not?

A. Yes. It was -- it was a -- it was about 4 nanograms that we got out
of it, 4.3 nanograms. Some of the other ones had less.

Q. Okay. Bundy drop 48 had -- 117 had 45 times as much DNA as Bundy
drop 4, did it not, approximately?

A. Yes, again on a nanogram of DNA per million gram of swatch basis.

Q. Bundy drop 17 had about 270 times as much DNA as Bundy drop 49?

A. Yes, again, on that same basis.

Q. Bundy drop 50, item 117, had about 50, 51 times as much DNA as
Bundy drop 50, correct?

A. Yes, again on that same basis.

Q. Now, 52, you got more DNA out of 52 than in any of the other Bundy
drops, correct?

You were able to do it?

A. Excuse me.

No. On our -- there was a little difference here because our sample of
52 was a very small, little piece of the swatch. So on the basis of
what we got out of that one swatch that we tested, because there were
two that came back to us, we tested one of those and got about 3.6
nanograms out of that.

Q. Okay.

So that's much, much more than 11 times. 117 is much more than 11
times of 52?

A. I think, again, as we look at this on the basis of this nanograms
per -- nanograms DNA per milligram of swatch, it's about -- that's
about right, 11 times.

Q. All right.

And you're aware, are you not, that 52, there was enough to get an
RFLP result?

A. Yes, that's my understanding, that's the sample that Cellmark got
the RFLP result on.

We tested it for just the PCR markers, DQ alpha and D1S80.

MR. BLASIER: Can we have the slide next in order, Phil.

MR. P. BAKER: I have.

MR. BLASIER: Phil, 1118.

(The instrument herein referred to as chart entitled "Comparison of
Swatched DNA Samples to 117" was marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1118.)

THE COURT: That's without the flashing.

MR. P. BAKER: Without the flashing.

(Indicating to TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, item number 117, stain from the back gate,
had a great deal of genetic information in it, didn't it?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. You didn't -- in processing item 117, you did not do anything to
that stain that would have added EDTA to it, did you?

A. I did nothing that would deliberately add it.

I mean, the samples -- we use EDTA as part of our chemicals in our
laboratory on a routine basis. We weighed some of these swatches out
on an analytical balance that was probably about, oh, three feet from
a couple kilograms of EDTA, but we took measures to prevent any of
that EDTA, certainly, from getting on any of those swatches.

So -- but when you do the actual extraction, then you do use EDTA as
part of the chemicals. We left a portion of that sample by itself
untested.

Q. Well, then the use of EDTA, that's something new, is it not?

A. Well, it's been in forensic laboratories for years. EDTA is a
chemical.

Q. In terms of your using it in these kinds of tests, that was a
change of protocol that happened after your work in this case, was it
not, based on an article that came out?

A. No. I think you're confused here, because EDTA is a standard
chemical used in any molecular biology laboratory.

Q. But not put in these samples and not put in 117?

A. It wouldn't be added to the swatches, but when you take the -- some
of the swatches and do the extraction of the DNA, to get the DNA out
of the blood stain, there's EDTA in the chemicals that you add to that
blood stain. Okay.

Q. Okay.

But you don't -- you don't put it in the swatch?

A. No. I mean we would research a portion of the swatch that we don't
add any EDTA to.

Q. Okay.

Now, I put up the Bronco automobile board, which is -- I'm not sure
what number it is. I think it's on the back. I think it's 131.

(Referring to Exhibit 293.)

Q. One of your results from the center console, stain number 31, you
indicated had a weak 4 and a very weak 1.3, correct?

A. I remember that they were both weak. I don't remember the averb
"very" being put on the 1.3, but it is present on the exhibit there.

Q. There was a difference in intensity between the dots on the 4 and
the 1.3, wasn't there?

A. I think the 1.3 was a little bit weaker than the 4.

Q. And even though they had different intensities, you concluded that
that was consistent with Ronald Goldman, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And when you get a sample from evidence, you're going to get an
equal amount of one allele as the other allele, correct?

A. Well, one of the limitations of the test, for example, when you
look at Mr. Goldman's reference blood, you don't see a perfect,
absolute balance of those two alleles, and you can even see that in
our graphs.

So they're balanced, what we call balanced, but they're not perfectly
balanced. You might discern a slight difference, even though they're
all the alleles from one individual.

MR. P. BAKER: The exhibit board is 293.

MR. BLASIER: 293.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's another limitation of this technology,
correct?

A. Well, yes. The dots respond in a balanced fashion, but it's not
what I would call a perfect balance.

Q. Let me show you 2185.

Let me show it to you in person, make it easier.

These are some testing strips from your lab run out samples, among
others, in the Bronco?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

(Witness reviews Exhibit 2185.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, if we look at item 29, which is the stain
from the steering wheel -- correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And we zoom in a little bit on it, you called this 4. That faint
dot at 4, you called that as a real allele, correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And you also -- I think you testified on direct that you're not
going to rule out that there might be a 1.3 there, as well.

Did you say that?

A. Excuse me. I don't see a 1.3 at all on the strip.

What I'm saying is that I couldn't absolutely rule out the possibility
that that weaker DNA -- this is a mixture, right? This is a mixture.
And I couldn't absolutely rule out the possibility that there was an
allele from a second individual who has a 4 dot, but who also might
have another dot that is just not showing up in that sample.

Q. So that would be even much less than a hint, would it not? It's not
even there?

A. It's -- well, the point of that is that this is a very technical
issue and it revolves around the fact that the main type is a 1.1,
1.2, and that there are similarities between those alleles with this
1.3 allele, such that when we do the PCR amplification, potentially we
could lose the 1.3 compared to the 4.

Q. There's no 1.3 there?

A. There is no 1.3.

Q. But you're not ruling out that that's a type 1.3, 4, are you?

A. I'm -- this is a very difficult thing to explain for me.

Q. Yes?

A. What I'm saying is, I could not rule out the possibility that there
was a weaker contribution; therefore a 1.3, comma 4 individual.

I certainly don't think there's anything in that sample that says, of
course, that's what happened. I'm not saying that at all. Because, for
example, you could have a second individual who's a type 4, 4 or a
second individual who is a 1.1, 4 or a 1.2, 4. There's a lot of
possibilities there.

So when I see this kind of sample, what it tells me to do is, let's
look at some other markers, get some additional data.

Q. This is completely consistent with a contributor who is a 4, comma
4?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And that doesn't match anybody that you know of in this case,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's unambiguous, isn't it? That's an unambiguous interpretation
of this, is it not?

A. Well, I think that is one interpretation, and it's certainly a
reasonable interpretation.

Q. Now, the dot here at number 4, is that a hint, a trace, weak, very
weak? How do you describe it?

A. That's a weak dot.

But the other thing that's important when you're looking at these dots
is, you look within one of these strips -- in other words, you study
this strip horizontally, you don't go up to the one above it, you
don't go down to the one below it. And if you look at this particular
strip we are amplifying, I believe, in this case, in this sample, on
the order of about 400 picograms, as I recall, of DNA, which is an
extremely minute amount of DNA.

And it's reflected in the fact that the dot that's to the right of the
letter C is also very weak. And so what we do on any given strip is,
we score the dots in relationship to that C dot.

So in this case, that C dot was present. It was weak; we called the 4
dot at the same level as the C dot. Whereas, if you look at the right
and see the 1.1 dot, you see that is greater than the C dot.

Q. But that 4 dot, you said, is a real allele and it's an allele, and
it's a very faint dot?

A. It's a real allele.

One of the things about this system is that, when you have a nominal,
what we call a nominal dot is those dots to the left, that those are
definitely real dots, and you can see them.

MR. BLASIER: Do you want to take that down?

(Indicating to TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, on the Bronco (indicating to Exhibit 293) --
on the Bronco, all of the stains that have the lower numbers, you're
aware, were collected on June 14, correct?

A. That's my understanding, that those were collected on the 14th.

Q. And the only sample that you say is consistent with any blood from
either of the victims is number 31, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence, Your Honor. Number 33,
as well.

MR. BLASIER: 33?

MR. LAMBERT: 33.

MR. BLASIER: I don't see a 33.

Oh, all right.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This is a sample from the carpet inside the car,
correct?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. That's 33, which I think is also 293; is that correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. And our number is 29, I believe.

Yes.

When that fiber was actually taken off the carpet, it was given the
number 293, correct?

A. As I understand it, the carpeting material was collected on the
14th, and then later it's given a number of 293.

I don't -- I don't know exactly the history there.

Q. Okay.

The actual sample here on the carpet that the fibers -- that were
taken off the carpet and then tested, that wasn't done until much
later than June 4; is that your understanding?

A. That's my understanding, yes.

Q. All of the -- all of the other ones with the low numbers were done
on June -- collected on June 14, correct?

A. That's my understanding, yes.

Q. And the only one of those that indicates the contents with either
of the victims is number 31, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. What is the -- what is the function of a positive control?

A. A positive control is used to evaluate if the test is working
properly.

Q. And a positive control is known DNA, you know, what the type is
going in, and you hope to see the same type on your testing strip,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you don't, that indicates a problem, doesn't it?

A. Well, it depends on how severe the irregularity is.

Q. Well, the tests are designed so that the positive controls come out
the same type that they are known to be, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And if they don't, that indicates something, doesn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. It indicates that there might be contamination, correct?

A. That's a possibility, yes.

Q. It indicates there might be cross-hybridization?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, cross-hybridization is something that happens when you put too
much DNA in the sample, correct?

A. That's one of the possibilities.

Also, if hybridization conditions are such that they're a little bit
off, you could get some cross-hybridization from that, too.

Q. When you say "a little bit off," you mean a little different than
what the manual says to do?

A. Well, they may be off by, say, a degree or something like that in
temperature, something like that, but just slightly, slightly off.

Q. But that can be a very important difference, can it not, Mr. Sims?

A. I'd say anything more than a degree could be significant, yes.

Q. So the test is designed, if you do it precisely the way the manual
says to do it, you should not get cross-hybridization, correct?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. Isn't that correct?

A. No, I'd say that's not correct. It is a matter of degree.

In our laboratory, you will sometimes see traces of
cross-hybridization, and you can still understand that as being
cross-hybridization; it doesn't change the types.

Q. But it can also be contamination, can it not?

A. You always have to be concerned with contamination. That's why you
run a lot of these negative strips that have no DNA.

Q. Okay.

When you ran the sample for items 30 and 31 from the Bronco console,
you ran a positive control, did you not?

A. Well, excuse me. I believe these were actually run by Renee
Montgomery when the typing was done on the 30 or 31.

Q. But it's done in your lab?

A. Yes.

Q. You've seen this board before, have you not?

A. I believe I have, yes.

Q. And this is Criminal 1279.

The above control in that run showed up a very faint 1.3 dot, did it
not?

A. On which? I can't quite see.

Q. You can step down, if you like.

The positive control.

(Referring to Exhibit entitled Bronco console stains collected
6/14/94.)

A. No; that was negative, if I'm reading the right set.

Which date is this?

Q. When you ran 30 and 31.

A. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the right page now.

There was -- there was what was called a hint of that 1.3 dot there.

Q. You can see it; it's very faint, but it's there, isn't it?

A. I think you can see something there, yes.

Q. That's one of the shortcomings of this test, trying to make these
kinds of assessments of whether there's even a dot there, isn't it?

A. Well, the shortcoming is when one tries to overinterpret these
results, clearly one can see what the dot pattern is.

Q. Okay.

The positive control is a type 1.1, 4 it has no 1.3 in it?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's an indication that either contamination or
cross-hybridization occurred, correct?

A. I would say cross-hybridization is most likely due to the fact that
the other controls, the negative controls, are all negative.

Q. Mr. Sims, can it -- it can be contamination, as well, can it not?

A. It could be, yes.

Q. What is a QC sample?

A. A quality control sample. We have QC samples. These are samples
that the analyst takes and processes at the same time as the evidence
samples are being processed.

And those samples are blind to the analyst. The analyst doesn't know
what the correct results are.

Q. But you know -- I'm sorry?

A. Well, we did something like 20-some of those in this particular
case, and we got them all right.

Q. QRC -- you got them all right.

QC 816, what was the correct type to QC 816?

A. That was a 1.2, 1.2.

Q. But you got a 1.1 and a 1.3, didn't you?

A. There were hints of those dots, yes, that was stained.

Q. You can't explain a 1.1 by cross-hybridization, can you?

A. There can be some cross-hybridization, but it's more likely to be,
more like what we call DX amplification.

Q. This is another artifact that we're just going to say it's not DNA?

A. You have to be concerned with that; you have to realize that this
can show up in these typing results; that's why you don't want to
interpret those very faint dots.

Q. Let's look at LAPD item number 31.

A. Okay.

Q. This has a very faint 1.3 dot, does it not?

A. I think that one's different.

Q. You think it's different. Okay.

You called this one a real allele, did you not?

A. Well, I did.

Q. Okay?

A. Ms. Montgomery did.

Q. Mr. Sims, thank you.

You didn't?

A. I did.

Q. Whereas, the 1.3 here and here, you said we're going -- those were
okay; that's not DNA; we pass the test, right?

A. I think on this particular set of strips, that the controls were
such that --

Q. Mr. Sims --

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I'd like to ask him --

THE COURT: He's he trying to answer your question, Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: My question had called for a yes or no.

THE COURT: I don't think so. You said he passed the test. He's a
trying to explain to you what he passed.

MR. BLASIER: Let me withdraw the question.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't run it over again, did you?

A. No, we did not.

Q. Even though you got hints or traces or whatever you want to call
them, of alleles that shouldn't be there, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Thank you.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, LAPD item 30, there's a dot at 1.3 there, as well, correct?

A. Is this is now what LAPD item?

Q. 30.

A. Which is our item -- is that 17?

Q. I'm not sure what your number is.

A. Let me check that.

Yes, that's our item 17.

Q. Okay.

Did you call that an allele?

A. No, that was considered too faint to be considered an allele.

Q. Okay.

Now, development time out here.

This figure represents the lengths of time that you allowed these
strips to soak in the substance that has the DNA, correct, to develop
the dots?

A. Well it's a color development. At that point, the DNA is -- has
already come and gone, at that point there. Then there's a color
development phase that goes on.

Q. And in fact, the lengths of time that you use to develop these
things can affect how intense the dots are, can't they?

A. Well, once you get to about 20 minutes, there's not much change
after that.

I mean there -- most of this result takes place within the first five
or ten minutes. But in our laboratory, we let them go from 20 to 30
minutes.

Q. There are differences, are there not, with different development
treatment times in terms of the intensity of the dots?

Isn't there?

A. I think once you get out to 25 minutes, you're very close to a
plateau that's not going to change significantly.

Q. There was a paper that came out not too long ago that showed that
if you let these develop more than 20 minutes, you could have some
dots that actually disappear, correct? Particularly from the
polymarker system?

A. That polymarker, I don't recall seeing that in the DQ alpha
literature.

Q. Do you recall a change in protocol being made in the DQ alpha, as
well as the polymarker testing, because of that phenomenon?

A. No, not in our laboratory. I don't -- I don't know of that.

Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Do you have another board, Bob?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah. Let's actually keep that one.

Put this one up.

(The instrument herein referred to as "Bundy Blood Drop, LAPD item 52,
DOJ Typing."s was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
1281.)

MR. LEONARD: Can you see this?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This is board number 1281. And these are testing
strips for Bundy drop number 52, correct?

A. Yes; that's the first time that 52 was tested.

I did a retest on that, also.

Q. And the bottom one is the retest.

You want to take a look at that?

You rehybridized it?

A. Yes, that's it.

Q. Okay.

Now, 52 is a Bundy blood drop that you have said is consistent with
O.J. Simpson and only O.J. Simpson, correct?

A. Well our -- our testing was only DQ alpha and D1S80. It was the
RFLP testing was done and Cellmark.

Q. Your testing -- your conclusion was that it's consistent with O.J.
Simpson and not either victim, or not some third party with a
different type, correct?

You call that as a 1.1, 1.2?

A. Well, among the three principals; that's correct

Q. The 1.3 dot lit up on that strip, as well, did it not?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. You decided that's not DNA, correct?

A. Well, I --

Q. Isn't that correct --

A. I made that --

Q. -- Mr. Sims?

A. No, because I did a retest on that.

Q. This test strip, you said there's no 1.3 DNA in there, correct?

A. Once I did the retest, I was convinced that it was
cross-hybridization.

Q. The retest also showed a 1.3 dot, did it not?

Very faint, but it's there, isn't it?

A. I think -- I thought I saw something on that one that I called -- I
guess you say it was very faint traces in the wording, but there's
barely something there, yes.

Q. Mr. Sims, isn't it accurate that in deciding these faint dots, you
interpret them in a way that helps the side that you're working for?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. You don't think so?

A. No.

Q. So, picking up the other board, board 1279, the 1.3 dot that you
said was real and the one on the other board which is not real, they
are very similar in intensity, are they not?

A. I would say that they are similar, yes.

Q. Thank you.

Now, you also, as you said before, did your own typing on the victims'
reference samples, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, this was from the -- from the cards, not from -- you
weren't sent the reference file, correct?

A. That's correct.

These victims' samples relate to the swatches that we tested.

Q. Looking at board 1275, isn't it true, Mr. Sims, that you found in
Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample, a possible 1.3 allele and a
possible 1.2 allele?

A. I'll have to look at my notes on that.

I identified a trace in the 1.2 dot and what I call a faint trace,
which is a weaker result, in the 1.3.

Q. Either of those could have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

A. Well, as far as I know, no. She's a 1.1, 1.1.

Q. And the only source among the people that have a 1.2 is O.J.
Simpson, correct?

A. Of those individuals.

Q. Correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And one Goldman's sample, you also found an indication of a
possible 1.2 and a 1.3 -- I'm sorry -- and a 1.3?

A. No.

Q. I'm sorry. 1.1?

A. Yes. In the 1.1, there was what we call a faint trace in the 1.1.

Q. The only source among these three people of a 1.1 and a 1.2 in Mr.
Goldman's reference sample is O.J. Simpson, correct?

A. Well, the 1.1 is Nicole Brown's type, also.

Q. Could this have come from either, consistent with either, correct?

A. Well, I mean, that's a very hypothetical type of question, I think.

Q. This is the result you reported, is it not?

A. But --

Q. Is it not?

A. I'm looking at the photograph.

And clearly, I -- I -- perhaps we should pass this around to the jury
-- but these dots are extremely faint, and I don't think they're
necessarily representative of any true alleles showing up.

These look like the types that you see from cross-hybridization or the
DX phenomenon that I mentioned.

Q. I'm sorry. We'll call these "not real," right?

A. Well, I don't believe these are the real alleles, and I think --

Q. Thank you.

A. If you look at the photo, you can see that.

THE COURT: Let's take ten minutes.

(Recess.)

THE COURT:

(The jurors returned to their respective seats.)

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

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Sims, as we said a few minutes ago, the hints
and traces of dots that I had on my board that we just talked about,
those were taken from your laboratory's results, correct?

A. I believe they were, except there was that one use of the word
"vary." I don't think that was from my actual worksheet.

Q. Well, that's one of their boards. I was talking about the Bronco
board.

The testing strips that were on it had traces and hints?

A. You were showing --

Q. Yes, I --

A. Yes, I think by and large, that was the language.

I didn't look at each one against my recent sheets, but that sounds
familiar.

Q. You would agree, would you not, that the problems of interpretation
of these things become more complicated when you're dealing with very
small quantities of DNA and faint dots like this?

A. Yes.

Q. And sometimes it's not unusual to look at a picture and not see any
dots at all, and then look at it in a little different light, and all
of a sudden, you see a hint of something, correct?

A. Well we -- in our laboratory, we really struggle with dots. We
really look at them in such a way that we don't want to overlook
anything. We call it very close.

We look to see if there's anything at all there, we'll call it. We're
very -- what's the word -- persnickety about that.

I don't know if there's another right word.

Q. Is -- one of the reasons for that is the only thing that can light
up any of those dots is DNA?

A. The only thing would be DNA, unless there's something totally wrong
with the dot; that's correct, yes.

Q. Okay.

So if you see a hint, a trace, a smudge or little tiny dot, you know
that there is DNA on there; it may be from contamination, may be
cross-hybridization, may be a DX gene, but you know it's DNA?

A. There's definitely a dot there; that's due to DNA.

Q. Now, getting back to the Bronco for a quick second --

A. Okay.

Q. Stain number 303 was a stain that was taken from the console area
on August 24. You're aware of that, are you not?

A. That's my understanding; it was somewhere at that time.

Q. And stain number 30 is a stain taken from the same area or similar
area on June 14, correct?

A. I believe it's about that time, yes.

Q. Now, is it accurate that you found more DNA in 303 than you did in
30?

A. I'd have to check my notes on that.

It's 303 versus?

Q. 30.

A. 30. Okay.

(Witness reviews notes.)

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. Thank you.

Now, I want to talk about the Bundy drops for a minute.

The swatches that were sent to you from LAPD for the Bundy drops were
in bindles, correct? In envelopes?

A. Yes.

Q. None of those bindles had any initials of Andrea Mazzola, did they?

A. I don't recall seeing AM on any of those Bundy bindles.

Q. Now, one of those bindles for Bundy drop number 47, you made note
that there was a transfer -- a wet transfer of a blood stain on the
bindle itself. Do you recall that?

A. Yes. I believe that was the right number, but I'd like to check my
notes on that.

Q. Okay.

A. The number 47 is the one you mentioned?

Q. Correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And that's consistent which a swatch being put in that bindle while
it's still wet, is it not?

A. Yes.

In other words, there would be some dampness to it that would transfer
the blood to the bindle material.

Q. And I want to close by asking you some questions about the socks.

When you got the socks, you could see several stains with your naked
eye, could you not?

A. Well, when I got the socks, I saw, for example, cut-out areas and
circled areas, so I knew to look at those areas first.

Q. You could see them with the naked eye, couldn't you?

A. I could see them with the naked eye to some extent where I -- when
I knew where to look, yes.

Q. Okay. And you got the socks approximately when?

A. That would be in September, I believe.

Q. Okay.

A. That was September 26 of 1994, we received the socks.

Q. Now, you testified on direct, I believe, that you saw part of the
ankle stain of the -- one of the socks had a big cut-out on it.

A. Yes.

Q. You were actually sent some of the patches that had been cut out of
that center area, correct?

A. Yes. There were cuts in a tube.

Q. There's the large sample that RFLP results indicated 11 probes, I
think, Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also observed, if we look at a sock and consider a sock as
having four surfaces on it, the outside, the inside, and the inside of
the other side, and the outside?

A. Yes.

Q. One, two, three, four. We can talk about surfaces one, two, three,
and four?

A. Yes.

Q. If we define the area of the cut-out as surfaces one and two -- you
with me?

A. Okay.

Q. You saw blood on the opposite side of the sock on surface three
that corresponded to that cut-out area, did you not?

A. Well, I don't think that really characterizes what I saw.

In fact, when I did that examination, what I noted in my notes is that
it did not appear that there was any transfer to that third surface.
There were some fibrils with blood on them that had flaked off; and it
had appeared to me, once you start cutting this sock material the,
fibrils can come -- they start to ravel, basically.

Q. I thought you said on direct, you saw some blood on that third
surface.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence; didn't say anything
about it.

THE COURT: It's a question.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't see any blood on the fourth surface,
did you?

A. I did not.

Q. Now, you were sent four swatches from that big cut-out stain, were
you not?

A. I believe there were four, yes.

Q. And you did what's called a yield gel, which helps you determine
how much DNA is on those stains; and you did that process on three of
those swatches, correct?

A. I believe that's correct.

Q. And on those three swatches, which aren't even the entire stain,
you found an estimated 1315 nanograms of DNA, correct?

A. Something like that.

But I'd like a second to check my notes on that point.

Q. Sure.

A. Yes, I took three of the four pieces and I -- after I ran my yield
gel, I had about 1350 nanograms left.

Q. And of all of the stains, I think you said there was 108, or over
100 that you processed in this case, that was by far the largest
amount of DNA in any stain, correct, other than the reference samples?

A. I believe that's correct.

Q. Thank you.

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't put any EDTA on those swatches, did you?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. LAMBERT: Just a little bit, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: I might need a moment to get some charts out.

(Pause in proceedings.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Mr. Sims, Mr. Blasier was asking you some questions before about
cross-hybridization and your reading of some of these DQ alpha strips.

I'd like you to explain to the jury this cross-hybridization
phenomenon.

A. Yes.

The cross-hybridization phenomenon can occur because some of those
alleles are very similar in sequence and the differences are very
slight among the probes that we're looking at.

So, for example, sometimes you will have samples that are similar in
their sequence because the sequence that's on the probe that's, say
for example, the 1.3 probe, so that you can get a little bit of a back
-- what we call a background or cross-hybridization result.

Q. And by sequence, Dr. Cotton had explained during her testimony that
one of the ways that we can distinguish between people's DNA is by the
sequence of the base pairs.

And are you saying that the sequence of the base pairs in these 1.1,
1.2, 1.3 alleles is not that far apart?

A. Well, that's correct.

And so what you can see is that this is not always an all-or-none
phenomenon. I mean, anything that happens in chemistry, we will
generally have a little bit going one way, or all we have is some of
it going one way.

But I'll also have some going such that you could see
cross-hybridization. That's why it's a weak reaction.

Q. And how many DQ alpha strips did you say you've reviewed in your
career?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I would say hundreds of them.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And as part of the system at the Department of
Justice, when somebody makes a call on one of the DQ alpha strips,
like was done on item 31 here on the Bronco, how many people look at
that DQ alpha strip before it goes out into the Department of Justice
report?

A. There would be three individuals. The first person who does the --
actually typing analysis; then we have a second reader look at them;
and then a supervisor then reviews them before they're reported.

Q. And did that happen in regard to item 31?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. And you concurred in your professional judgment with this reading
of item 31?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did the --

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. This misstates the testimony. He
didn't -- he said -- he didn't say very weak.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BLASIER: That misstates his testimony. He didn't concur with the
way it's characterized on the chart.

MR. LAMBERT: You mean the word "very" wasn't --

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Take out the word "very;" call it weak.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you concur with that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your supervisor?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, when that item 31 was read, who else was present
besides the Department of Justice personnel?

A. Dr. Blake.

Q. Dr. Blake, representing Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Blasier also showed you the reference chart that he has,
showing the testing of the reference samples?

A. Yes.

Q. And trying to imply in his questions that there was some
contamination in those reference samples; do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. You wanted to show us the actual strip for that?

A. Yes, I would like to display that.

Q. Okay.

Explain to the jury what we're looking at here.

A. This --

THE COURT REPORTER: Does this have a number, please?

MR. LAMBERT: We'll have to get the Court number for this. I'm not sure
what it is right now.

I'm actually using Mr. Sims' copy of this, but there is --

MR. PETROCELLI: You mean the exhibit number?

MR. LAMBERT: There is an exhibit number. I have to supply it later.

THE WITNESS: What we're looking at is a photograph of the typing
strips. And this is just a portion of those strips.

You'll recall those; there were nine dots all along that. So it's a --
we're looking at a couple of the dots.

This is Mr. Goldman's reference blood sample extract that's being
tested for DQ alpha type. 1.3 allele is present. We can't see it over
here, but it also has a 4 allele; and those two combined to light up
this dot also.

As you'll recall, in the cross-examination we talked about there being
some faint activity in the 1.1 region of that dot, and I wanted to
show just what -- how faint this is, what we're talking about.

In other words, the point is, I'll let you draw your own conclusion,
certainly, but it's extremely faint.

(Witness refers to typing strip.)

Q. On this strip down here, do you see any activity on these two dot
areas?

MR. BRASIER: I'm going to object; there isn't any foundation about
what that strip is.

THE COURT: Overruled. I think's he's just illustrating faintness of
dots.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

There is the strip for Nicole Brown. Her type is a 1.1, 1.1. What we
were talking about is being maybe very faint in the background, was in
this 1.2 region and the 1.3 region. And if I really strained my eyes,
I might be able to see something in those regions, but it's just --
it's extremely faint.

There's another point of this. This is what we're talking about.
There's no doubt to me about what these particular types are. And
sometimes you do see this weak background, and that's just to show you
how weak the background really is.

Q. And in your professional judgment, Mr. Sims, was there any
contamination in the reference samples?

A. No. I think that's a pretty far-fetched idea, particularly when one
remembers that these reference samples contain very large amounts of
DNA.

And so that if you were to take any kind of traces of contaminating
DNA, those contaminating traces would have to be extremely large to
even show up in a reference sample, because now we're talking about a
sample from this, the victims' reference samples that have a lot of
DNA associated with them, micrograms.

And so that any contamination to show up, even at a trace level, would
have to be extremely -- would have to be extremely substantial.

Q. And you don't see that in these results?

A. No.

Q. Now, let me turn to another subject.

Mr. Blasier talked to you a lot about the amount of nanograms in
various evidence items.

Is it, in your experience, routine to have varying amounts of DNA in
the evidence samples that you receive?

A. Yes. We see a great deal of variation of cross-samples.

Q. What kind of factors can affect how much DNA is in a particular
sample?

A. Well, it goes to how much was collected, how uniform the sample is
across a swatch, the kind of micro environment the stain is in, how
long this stain's been out there. All those things are factors that
could affect that. And so we typically see a tremendous amount of
variation.

Q. And the Department of Justice Laboratory, did it also get all of
the swatches for any particular evidence item, or did it just get some
portion of it?

A. I think it was both. In some cases, we got portions. In other
cases, I believe we got almost all, but I'm not sure of that.

Q. For example, item number 52, where Mr. Blasier was comparing the
amount of nanograms in 52 to 117, which is the back gate, Cellmark
actually got swatches for item 52, as well?

A. Yes. They -- for example, on that item, they certainly got the
lion's share of those. We got little bits of cuttings, two little bits
of cuttings.

Q. When you were sharing, I think you said something like 3.5
nanograms that you got in your item 52, that doesn't take into account
the 200 nanograms that Dr. Cotton talked about that she saw in item
52; is that right?

A. Well, she tested different portions of swatches, basically.

Q. Okay.

Now, let's talk a little bit more about this concept of identifying
bands in the RFLP test.

(Counsel displays chart entitled "Results of DNA Analysis, Rockingham
Socks.")

Q. Mr. Blasier asked you how you declare band matches using the RFLP
test.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that something that is done by DNA laboratories other than
yours?

A. Yes; it's done by DNA laboratories all over the country.

Q. And for how long has it been done that way?

A. That RFLP procedure with that type of approach has been done, now,
for -- going on ten years.

Q. And is the technique that you're -- that you have described, a
commonly accepted technique in the scientific community?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, haven't there been some national committees that have
discussed that very technique?

A. Yes.

Q. National committees of what organization?

A. Well, the National Research Counsel, for example, has issued two
reports.

Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A. And they've basically validated the procedure; they've said it's a
proper procedure.

Q. And when you do this, these band matches to declare a match between
an evidence item and a possible person, do you rely on just one probe
match, or do you always require more than that?

A. Well, we get -- you know, we get several matches. We wouldn't rely
on just one.

Q. So, and the more matches you get, the more evidentiary value that
it has?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you get a nine-probe match like you did on the socks,
matching to Mr. Simpson, with the frequency of 1 in 57 billion to 1 in
150 billion, what level of confidence do you have in that match?

A. I have a great deal of confidence because if it weren't from that
particular individual, or there was really not a true match, you would
see some shifting at some point that they were clearly different.

They were not.

Q. Now, one final point.

Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about the tests that you did on
the socks.

And I'll put this up, just to remind everyone what you're talking
about.

First I've got to turn this on. (indicating to Elmo).

Let's see if you can -- if we can focus this.

This is my first time.

MR. BAKER: Don't give it to Phil.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay.

Now, you tested -- compared in your tests here, some portion of the
sock evidence to get these bands to some of Nicole Brown's blood;
isn't that right? Blood from Nicole Brown?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the comparison that you made, what was the source of the
Nicole Brown reference blood that you used?

A. Those samples, it was my understanding, were the ones that were
made by the coroner's office. In other words, the stain was made by
the coroner's office because there was some indication that the other
reference samples, that the other stains that had been made, had some
problems with degradation.

Q. So, in other words, what Dr. Cotton testified about, which was the
reference vial taken by the coroner that was degraded, that's not what
you --

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: That's not what you tested?

THE WITNESS: No?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the testimony. Dr. Cotton never said
she tested the reference vial.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Dr. Cotton testified that the blood she tested,
which was taken from the reference vial, was degraded. That isn't that
same source of blood, is it?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. That misstates her testimony.

MR. LAMBERT: That's exactly her testimony.

THE COURT: Show me where it's not.

MR. BAKER: Why doesn't he show where it is?

MR. LAMBERT: Can we have the answer?

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This isn't the same source, is it?

A. It's a different reference blood stain is the point.

Q. So can you explain for us, to make that point clear, what -- how
the coroner's office sometimes takes a swatch and a reference vial?

Are you familiar with that procedure?

A. Yes. I --

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation; outside the scope.

THE COURT: He says he's familiar. Lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) How are you familiar with that procedure, sir?

A. Well, I'm familiar with some of the operations of the coroner's
office, having worked there at one time; but also, more presently, my
familiarity is with how they prepare samples from homicide victims,
for example, and they make blood stains on cloth.

And that's what I was informed was the situation here, was that there
were these blood stains that the coroner's office had made on the
cloth, and we tested those because the ones that were on the Fitzo
cards showed some degradation.

Q. The reason that you asked for the blood stains on the cloth is
because the Fitzco cards taken from the reference vials showed
degradation?

A. Well, I -- that's correct, except I don't think we asked for it; I
think there was some information from the District Attorney's office,
on talking to Cellmark, that there was this problem.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. No further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Sims, the reference vial wasn't sent to Dr. Cotton, was it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. No foundation.

Q. BY MR. BLASIER: Do you know?

A. I -- I know that they did not.

I know what they did receive. They did receive some swatches of
reference samples. That's what I do know.

Q. All right. And the swatch -- and the surface that is used, if it's
a different surface, you can get a different quality of DNA, correct?

A. If it's -- you mean a card versus a piece of cloth, for example?

Q. Or card, piece of cloth versus a vial.

A. Well, again, your example, we talked earlier where it sat in the
vial for longer.

That could cause a difference, yes.

Q. To degrade. So if you took blood out of the vial on day one, it
might be higher quality than if you took it out on day thirty?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And the cloth swatches that you got from the coroner's office, do you
have any idea whether they were made from the reference vial or they
were done at the autopsy from blood directly from the victims?

A. I don't know that personally.

Q. Now, Mr. Lambert asked you about the fact that some of these
alleles are very close together in terms of their base pair sequence.
Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's what can cause cross-hybridization, a DX gene; those are
alleles that you -- one allele you can excuse for a another one
because they are close together?

A. The DX is another phenomenon. But, for example, in the
cross-hybridization, there's not that much difference, say, between
some of the probes and sequences on the alleles.

Q. That's why you can have confusion between a 1.1 and a 1.3. You can
have a 1.3 show up that's not really there in the sample, but it's
cross-hybridization from the 1.1 or the 1?

A. Again, you're talking about degrees of showing up.

When you put it that way, for example, all we still see, the true
type, but you may see some of the background reaction.

Q. And in this case, where we have the 1.1 alleles involved and the
1.3 alleles involved, that becomes more of a consideration because
those are the ones that can get confused, correct?

A. Well, yes, to answer your question.

Q. Thank you.

And the reference sample might chart the typing on the reference
sample. Those results are from your documentation, are they not, the
hints and the traces?

A. Yes.

Q. You saw them there, didn't you?

A. When I looked at them in the laboratory, I saw some very faint
background dots, yes.

Q. And only DNA will cause that to light up unless the strips's bad,
right?

A. Yes; only DNA will cause that.

Q. Now, let's talk about -- Mr. Lambert asked you questions about the
formula, the product rule --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in one of the national commissions, he asked you about the
National Research Council.

Tell me what that body is.

A. The National Research Council is a group of scientists -- I don't
know all the administrative details -- but what they do is, they form
committees to study questions in the -- scientific questions in the
public interest; for example, a recent study they did had related to
the effects of living near high voltage lines, that sort of thing.

They may do a study on something like is fluoride is good to have in
the toothpaste for dental reasons.

In this case, they addressed the issue of the use of DNA in the
forensic context.

Q. And the committee is made up of highly regarded highly respected
scientists, correct?

A. Yes, they are scientists. Sometimes they're lawyers and judges,
also.

Q. But they're represented by population geneticists, molecular
biologists, statisticians, and people that are knowledgeable about
these kinds of statistical ideas, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the National Research Council did a lengthy study and they
issued a report called the NRC report, did they not?

A. Yes; that was in 1992 was the first report.

Q. And they concluded that you shouldn't use the product rule because
of population substructure potential problems because -- did they
suggest a different formula?

A. Well, they still incorporate in the product rule, but they used a
different formula for the allele individual band frequencies.

Q. That's called the ceiling principle, right?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And if you use the ceiling principle that they recommended, you
come up with much more -- much different numbers, don't you?

A. Well, the numbers, you can move the decimal point around a few -- a
few degrees, but the numbers are still extremely significant.

Q. You can get vast differences in the magnitude of the numbers by
applying the ceiling principle, rather than the product rule, can't
you, Mr. Sims, depending on the particular alleles; but that can
happen, can't it?

A. It could vary like across several of these, that when you look at
this many loci, you can see it shift a few decimal places, yes.

Q. That created tremendous controversy in the scientific community
about using the product rule, didn't it?

A. No, it created a controversy about whether or not that approach to
the allele frequency is correct. Nobody ever challenged the use of the
product rule in those NRC reports.

Q. There has been litigation in the last five years, at least, that
you've been involved in -- that you've been involved in on this very
point, as to whether you can use the product rule because of
population substructure problems.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, it's your job to litigate.

(Laughter.)

MR. BLASIER: And we win a lot of time, don't we?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative; irrelevant.

THE COURT: I'll sustain that.

Q. BY MR. BLASIER: The NRC appointed a committee of a second set of
scientists to do another report, and they came up with a different
conclusion, didn't they, about which formula to use?

A. They abandoned the idea of the ceiling principle; they felt that
was not a good approach.

Q. They suggested some other factor, adjust for population
substructure that hadn't been suggested in the first report, correct?

A. Well, they --

Q. Isn't that correct?

A. They did on some of the PCR markers, for example, when we're
looking at very limited discrete allele systems, but they basically
concurred with this approach that we've used in the RFLP analysis.

Q. There are studies going on to determine whether population
substructure is a statistically significant problem when you use the
product rule, correct?

A. Well, now, you've got a lot in that question. Because you talk
about statistical significance and whether or not there's practically
any significance -- I don't think there's any argument now that
practically it's not significant.

Q. Mr. Sims, my question was --

MR. LAMBERT: He was in the middle of his answer.

MR. BLASIER: I move to strike it as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: I think it's responsive.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: He is responsive.

MR. BLASIER: Go ahead.

THE COURT: You may finish.

THE WITNESS: We talk about statistical significance versus the
practical significance. And the NRC second report has basically said
that this approach that we used in this case is a valid approach.

Q. And the concept you're talking about is, there were studies done to
determine whether there were significant differences among subgroups
of people that might affect the use of the product rule, correct?

A. Well there's been -- more data has been gathered and analyzed, yes.

Q. There's been a lot of work done in that area, hasn't there?

A. Yes.

Q. Those studies have shown that, yes, there is a statistically
significant difference among subgroups of people that affect your
ability to use the product rule, correct?

A. Statistically significant?

There may be some statistical significance there, yes.

But now we get very -- it gets very complicated here, because we're
talking about differences, for example, among say, African persons
versus Caucasians, and then there's differences there, too, with
regards to -- say you know you're European group rest is another
European, something like that.

The critical point, though, in all this is that the variations that's
really out there is among individuals.

It's where the variation is, in other words, sure there are some
differences, for example, between whites and blacks, but the real
variations among us as individuals is vast amounts.

Q. There are studies that showed statistically significant
differences. When they came out, you folks in the forensic community
came up with a concept of well, we'll say they aren't forensically
significant, didn't you?

A. Well, I didn't invent that term.

Q. That was invented by somebody.

A. Somebody came up with it, yes. Not me.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you. Nothing further.

MR. LAMBERT: Just a couple questions on this final point, Mr. Sims.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. The 1996 most recent NRC report, it endorsed the product rule that
you applied here, didn't it, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Even the 1992 report, that did endorse the product rule?

A. Yes.

Q. These little nuances between subgroups, would that change
dramatically the 1 in 57 billion to the 1 in 150 billion number that
you have up there?

A. No.

MR. LAMBERT: No further questions.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Any more witnesses for today?

MR. LAMBERT: Just RFAs, Your Honor, is what we have for today, which
we could do -- it's possibly -- maybe we could talk a little bit about
how we can shorten it. I can do it maybe in a half-hour.

THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen.

Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions.

(At 12:00 P.M., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the
same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA;
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1996
1:37 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we wanted to go over scheduling.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: The -- we gave Your Honor, and the defense, a list of
witnesses for next week. They include Mr. Simpson. We anticipate that
he would have to take the stand on Friday, if the other witness go
according to plan.

Mr. Kelly and Mr. Baker had a conversation where apparently there was
going to be resistance on the defense making Mr. Simpson available
here.

As a courtesy, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Baker are going to go down and talk
to the judge in Orange County. They'd like to do that on Monday to see
if Mr. Simpson can be excused from that proceeding for a couple of
days to testify here; or just generally, talk to the judge about it.

But in any event, I just want to make it clear for the record that
we're not a party to that proceeding. We've asked Mr. Simpson to be
here and to testify, and I have given advance notice and, I guess, we
can take it up with Your Honor if we have a problem.

But we're expecting to see Mr. Simpson in this courtroom some time
near the end of next week and maybe a day or so on to the following
week.

Now, I will also add that next Friday is dark, I'm told, in the Orange
County proceeding. In any event, so that Friday may not present a
problem.

The next week we have two court days, Monday and Tuesday, I think, Mr.
Simpson in our case. You know he will be on the stand for a couple of
days, thereabouts. And then after Mr. Simpson, we have a handful of
other witnesses, but they're quite short in duration. And we think the
trial, our side of the case, will wrap up not long thereafter.

THE COURT: Well, how about the other witnesses that you have on this
list for next week?

How long are they going to be?

MR. PETROCELLI: Well, all of them are going to be fairly short, except
Colin Yamauchi, I'd say, is about a half-a-day witness, and Bill
Bodziak is about a half-day witness, sort of like what we had with Dr.
Cotton and Dr. Douglas Deedrick.

And the other witnesses that follow Bodziak and Yamauchi are shorter.
Some of them are very short. Okay. Kato Kaelin and Alan Park, I would
say, are also about half-day witnesses as well.

So I think that if all those witnesses go according to plan, we'll end
up coming to Friday, perhaps, and not having any witnesses except for
Mr. Simpson.

But it may turn out that those other witnesses take up the whole week.
In any event, I wanted to alert the Court to the problem.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: In addition, Monday afternoon, Mr. Baker and Mr. Kelly
wanted to go down and talk to the Orange County judge. And I wanted to
know what the Court's plan was to hold session on Monday or to maybe
kick the trial over until Tuesday morning to accommodate their desire
to go see the judge.

I'm not going -- we don't have any standing in that case. I just what
a clarification whether we're supposed to be here Monday and have
trial or not.

MR. P. BAKER: Our point is, Your Honor, it's already been discussed
with you, he's been available for four weeks. They put themselves
behind this eight ball, and the point is, if we want to be dark Monday
afternoon, we can continue with Yamauchi. We don't need to take a down
day on Monday and it was my chief belief as of an hour ago that Mr.
Bodziak was available Monday afternoon. I guess he's not available
Monday afternoon but I would just ask that we be able to do Yamauchi
until he's finished on Monday.

Bob Baker has to go down in the afternoon. We can cover the fort here
for a couple hours. I don't think we need to be dark on Monday.

MR. KELLY: Well, in all fairness to the younger Mr. Baker, I've spoken
to his father.

What we had discussed was perhaps coming in the morning, taking care
of whatever miscellaneous matters we had in the late morning, heading
down there, being dark later in the morning and in the afternoon so we
could start right on schedule Tuesday and go right through with
witnesses.

As Mr. Petrocelli indicated, that if we worked it that way, that it's
anticipated that we would be getting to Mr. Simpson on Friday, which
is a dark day down in the Orange County proceeding.

But Mr. Baker indicated that he was going to possibly oppose our
application for an adjournment and he wanted to be down there with me
when the application was made. He agreed that we'd head down there,
subject to your approval, late Monday morning, Judge.

THE COURT: How long is that matter supposed to be?

MR. P. BAKER: What I understand, Mr. Petrocelli may know better than
I, I'm not very familiar on family law.

THE COURT: I don't mean the Monday session, I think -- how long is
that proceeding?

MR. P. BAKER: A week and a half.

MR. KELLY: My understanding is it may be as long as a month. Mr.
Simpson was the first witness down there. He already completed with
his testimony. The Court is dark this Friday. It's my understanding
there are a couple of independent experts set to testify the following
Monday and Tuesday -- Tuesday, which I think arguably really doesn't
require Mr. Simpson's presence down there. Just like up here, he
hasn't been present on many occasions.

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, that custody battle is very important. They've
had four weeks to call him. Now, you've said and ruled that it's up to
the Orange County judge. If the Orange County judge makes that
determination, then we'd be certainly -- we'd certainly abide by it.
But there's no reason to have him pulled out of there if the Orange
County judge doesn't find that it's proper.

We brought this up two weeks ago with the court, that he was available
and ready to testify and they knew it.

MR. KELLY: Judge, we made -- we indicated we weren't -- at that time
we indicated that we were going to make, at least -- so it's two weeks
that the guardianship was going on the week of the 4th and the 11th,
and those weeks have come and gone.

He's been down there. If he has his whole week down there once again,
and we're just trying to, after three weeks of that case, put the
defense on notice, indicate that we've come to our order of proof
where we intend to call him and workout an accommodation between this
court and the court down there.

THE COURT: What's the name of the judge down there?

MR. P. BAKER: I don't know.

MR. KELLY: I don't have that on me.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you get it for the judge, John?

MR. KELLY: Sure. I can get a call, and -- you want me to make a call?
I can make a call right from the courtroom.

AUDIENCE MEMBER MANUEL MEDRANO: You know, I know the name of the
judge, if you like. Nancy Wiebon Stock, Superior Court.

MR. KELLY: Wiebon Stock, Superior Court, Orange County.

AUDIENCE MEMBER MANUEL MEDRANO: W-I-E-B-E-N --

MR. PETROCELLI: W-I-E-B-O-N S-T-O-C-K.

THE COURT: The Court will make an inquiry.

MR. KELLY: Judge, they're not in session today by the way, I'd suspect
she'd still be there.

THE COURT: She only works four days a week?

MR. KELLY: No. No.

(Pause in the proceedings.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay. Bring the jury in.

THE CLERK: They're on the way.

MR. LAMBERT: I -- just to raise a minor point about the request for
admissions, while we're having the jury come out.

These are similar to the set of request for admissions. I read in
regard to the conventional serology test earlier, in a few of them --
actually more than a few, in many of them, there's in part of their
response, there's a qualification as to time that we discussed in some
motions earlier, your Honor.

That is: That they say in admitting this request for admission, the
defense will adopt the plaintiffs' definition as communicated to the
defendant at that point in time when an item was tested by an outside
laboratory as opposed to the time of the collection or any other point
in time. I'd prefer just to read that ones at the beginning of the
request for admission or perhaps to have the Court instruct the jury
that that's the point in time qualification, rather than read it in
the answer to every single request for admission.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LAMBERT: Similarly, in a few of them, they define the term "match"
to be one that -- to mean cannot be excluded as a contributor as an
evidence fragment. I'd just as soon read that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LAMBERT: The second point I'd like to raise, Your Honor, these all
go to various items of evidence. Their listed by evidence item number.
I'd like to put up the boards which list the evidence items numbers as
I go through each session so the jury can follow along which evidence
item this particular request relates to.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you.

MR. BAKER: All these requests for admissions -- I went through them
after lunch -- are cumulative as to what the three persons testified,
Cotton, Montgomery and Sims. I'd like to form an objection.

I don't mind saving time. I would prefer that he read all the request
for admissions and then we have the response read at one time so that
it doesn't mislead the jury that we're admitting things when we have
qualifiers.

THE COURT: I didn't understand your last sentence.

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

In other words, if there's ten requests for admission in a row that
have the same qualifier that he just read, for the request of
admissions, then we read the one response instead of subtracting the
qualifier and an just having it read as "admit" in front of the jury.

THE COURT: Okay.

To satisfy Mr. Baker's concern, you will read a qualification at the
beginning. We can read all of the requests for admission and
admissions at the conclusion. You may again restate the qualification
that it applies to all of these admissions that were made.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

How long is this going to take?

MR. LAMBERT: Without having to read the qualifications every time, I
think it will be pretty quick because the requests themselves are
relatively short.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LAMBERT: Maybe half an hour, something like that.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. P. BAKER: They got me out from behind the Elmo.

THE COURT: Yes. You moved up in the world.

(Laughter.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Could I see counsel at bench without the reporter?

(A bench conference was held which was not reported:)

THE COURT: At this point the Court will give you an instruction with
regards to what's going to happen now.

In this case, the plaintiff served on the defendant, a written request
to admit the truth to certain facts. All facts which were expressly
admitted by the defendant or which defendant failed to deny, must be
accepted as conclusively proved.

Mr. Lambert is going to read a series of these requests for admission
and admissions or whatever responses he's going to read to you. It
will have the affect that I just read to you insofar as the legal
affect is concerned, and how you will be using that in your
deliberations.

Okay. You may proceed.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

Pursuant to section 2033 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiff Fredrick Goldman requests that the defendant Orenthal James
Simpson admit the following specified matters of fact.

(Reading:)

Request number 7: Admit that your HLA DQ alpha blood type is 1.1, 1.2.

Admit. The response is admit.

Request number 214: Admit that Ronald Goldman's HLA DQ Alpha blood
type was 1.3, comma, 4.

Response: Admit.

Request number 215: Admit that Nicole Brown Simpson's HLA DQ Alpha
blood type was 1.1, comma, 1.1.

Response: Admit.

As to the following requests for admissions. The defendant adopts the
plaintiffs' definition as communicated to the defendant as that point
in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to
the time of collection or any other point in time. (Reading:).

Request number 14: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 47 had a HLA DQ
Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence
item 47, dash, control, tested negative for DNA when tested by
Cellmark.

Response: Admit.

Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 48 had an HLA DQ Alpha blood type 1.1,
comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request number 43: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 48-Control tested negative for DNA when
tested by Cellmark.

Request number 91: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 49 had a HLA DQ
Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit. "

Request number 49: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 49, dash, control tested negative for DNA
when tested by Cellmark.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 110. Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 50 had a HLA DQ
Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request number 55: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 50, dash, control tested negative for DNA
when tested by Cellmark.

Response: Admit.

Request number 129: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 52 had a HLA DQ
Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 61: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 52, dash, control tested negative for DNA
when tested by Cellmark.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 175: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 52 matched your
blood's DNA banding pattern at all of the five single-locus probes
known as MS1, MS31, MS43, G3, and YNH24 when subjected to a RFLP test
by Cellmark.

Response: Admit. The term "matched" as used in this and in all other
request for admissions means "cannot than be excluded" as a
contributor to the evidence fragment.

Request Number 144: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 115 had a DQ
Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 153: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 116 had a DQ
alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 162: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 117, had a DQ
Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 180: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 117 matched
your blood's DNA banding pattern at the genetic marker known as D1S7.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 181: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 117 matched
your blood's DNA banding pattern at the genetic marker known as D2S44.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 182: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 117 matched
your blood's DNA banding pattern at the genetic marker known as
D4S139.

Response: Admit.

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I think we should use the qualifier when we're
using the word "match." It wasn't made apparent to the jury.

MR. LAMBERT: I read it the first time it was used.

MR. P. BAKER: But only on that one response.

THE COURT: What we're going to do, at the conclusion of --

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

THE COURT: -- This portion that you're reading, Mr. Lambert, you're
going to reiterate the qualifier.

MR. LAMBERT: Yes. It applies to several of them as it goes, and I'll
read it again at the end and I will indicate.

THE COURT: And you will indicate to the jury what portions they apply
to?

MR. LAMBERT: Yes. (Reading:)

Request Number 183: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 117 matched
your blood's DNA banding pattern at the genetic marker known as
D5S110.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 184: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 117 matched
your blood's DNA banding pattern at the genetic marker known as
D10S28.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 185: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 117 matched
your blood's DNA banding pattern at the genetic marker known as
D17S79?

Response: Admit.

MR. LAMBERT: He can change the board now.

MR. LAMBERT: I'm told I didn't read in a response for item 43.

THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: There isn't an item 43. Which board?

MR. P. BAKER: Request for admission 43.

MR. LAMBERT: Oh, the request for admission 43.

THE COURT REPORTER: Uh-huh.

MR. LAMBERT: Oh. The response is "admit." (Reading:)

Request Number 343: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 6 had an HLA DQ
Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 350: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 6, dash, control tested negative for DNA
when tested by DOJ.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 343: -- I'll skip that.

Request Number 354: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 7 had an HLA DQ
Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 365: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 7, dash, control tested negative for DNA
when tested by Cellmark.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 369: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 12 had an HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 380: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 12, dash, control tested negative for DNA
when tested by Cellmark.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 387: 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 at as MS1, MS31, MS43, G3 and YNH24 when subjected to an RFLP
test by Cellmark.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 232: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 24 had an HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 239: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 24, dash,
control tested negative for DNA when tested by DOJ.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 269: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 25 contained
DNA segment which matched your DNA segment.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 280: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 26 contained
DNA segment which matched your DNA segment.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 285: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 26, dash, control tested negative for DNA
when tested by DOJ.

Request Number 248: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 30, contained
DNA segment which matched your DNA segment.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 253: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 30, dash,
control tested negative for DNA when tested by DOJ.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 257: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 34 had an HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 264: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 34, dash,
control tested negative for DNA when tested by DOJ.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 291: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 293 had an HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.1.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 305: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 303 contained
DNA segment which matched your DNA segment.

Response: Admit.

Request 306: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at
the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 303 contained DNA segment
which matched the DNA segment of Ronald Goldman.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 307: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 303 contained
DNA segments which matched the DNA segment of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 308: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 303, dash, control tested negative for DNA
when tested by DOJ.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 325: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 304 contained
DNA segment which matched your DNA segment.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 326: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 304 contained
DNA segment which matched the DNA segment of Ronald Goldman.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 327: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 304 contained
DNA segments which matched the DNA segment of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 338: Admit that the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 304 tested negative for DNA when tested by
DOJ.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 396: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 13 matched
Nicole Brown Simpson -- Nicole Brown Simpson's DNA banding pattern and
all of the five single-locus probes known as MS1, MS31, MS43, G3 and
YNH24 when subjected to an RFLP test by Cellmark.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 399: Admit that the blood DNA banding pattern contained
in the item identified at the crime trial as LAPD evidence item 13
matched the DNA banding pattern of the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson
at 11 separate loci as tested by DOJ.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 405: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 13A had an HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 416: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 13B had an HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.1.

Response: Admit.

Request Number 426: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 9 included HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.2.

Request Number 427: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 9 included HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, comma, 1.1. Admit --

Response: Admit. I forgot to read that item.

Request Number 428: Admit that the blood contained in the item
identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 9 included HLA
DQ Alpha blood type 1.3, comma, 4.

Response: Admit.

Admitting these requests for admissions the defense adopts the
plaintiffs' definition as communicated to the defendant as that point
in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to
the time of collection or any other point in time and the term matched
is used in this and all other request for admissions means cannot be
excluded as a contributor to the evidence fragment.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Is that all of it?

MR. LAMBERT: That's it.

THE COURT: Okay. Any follow up with -- for admission by defense?

MR. P. BAKER: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Then we're done for the day?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume Monday. Schedules might be a little
bit up in the air, but hopefully we'll get it ironed out.

So I'll order you back at 8:30. Don't talk about the case. Don't form
or express my opinions. Don't read any newspaper or other print
material on the subject. Don't watch anything on television or listen
to anything on the radio about this matter.

Don't let anybody talk to you about this case and don't let anybody
attempt to ask you questions about this case. And if anybody makes any
effort to inquire of you or to impose their opinions on you, regarding
this case, please let me know. Okay?

Have a nice weekend. We will see you Monday at 8:30.

JUROR: Thank you, Your Honor.

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

THE COURT: We haven't got a connection yet. I want you to be apprised.

MR. P. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: That's the best we can do is have a conference.

MR. P. BAKER: So hang around?

THE COURT: Hang around.

(At 2:20 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Monday, November 18, 1996
at 8:30 A.M.)