Visit other Geopages
Times Square 1900 block
BHI's TimesSquare
Visitors and Counting
Scheck: NOW, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THERE WERE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE FEET BETWEEN DROPS NO. 4 AND 5?
Fung: APPROXIMATELY.(DEFT'S 1072) SID SURVEYOR'S DRAWING OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE.
Shows: 250 feet from Gate to where glove was found.
Fung EVIDENCE COLLECTION READ "THE GLOVE" -- UNDER "LOCATION OF ITEM," "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL"?
{04/13 testimony, unfolded item was folded before inserting into coin envelope. This indicates Fuhrman used his hands to pick it up.}Fung: THE PLASTIC THING -- CONTAINER WAS ALMOST PARALLEL TO THE GLOVE, SO I MADE AN ESTIMATE AS TO ITS LOCATION.
Goldberg: AND WHAT WAS THE LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU CAME INTO POSSESSION OF WHILE YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION IN THE AFTERNOON?
Fung: THAT WAS A AIRLINE LUGGAGE TICKET ON THE BENCH OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR.
Items people's 246 {copied as 256}DR. COTTON: Okay. Let me just start with telling you that this is the right way to hold it. The dark lettering, or the dark background to the lettering, at the top I want to be up. The lettering across the top is simply the number of the gel that these samples were loaded on. "f" is on there because it is a forensic case and not a paternity case. If it was a paternity case, that would be a "p." 08/09/94 is the date the gel was run on and "15a" is simply the number of the gel tank that the gel was run on. And this lettering is actually essentially burned into the film, that is, it is exposed at the time the film is made, so it can't be erased or taken off in any way, and this is our permanent record that this film goes with a particular case. Now, on your films, although it is not shown on the screen, you can see that there is handwriting at the bottom and that handwriting at the bottom is written on here by the analyst who is doing the test, and he or she is taking that record from the case folder where it is listed, the order that the samples were loaded into the gel, and so these are our sample numbers across the bottom, and then the case number and the gel number is written again and then you see the letters "SLC." That refers to the fact that this film is locus cocktail. The reason--if you remember in the example that we have talked about so far, we keep talking about for one genetic location you will see two bands. Well, obviously here, and now you can sort of move to the screen, you see that there are multiple bands on--in many of the lanes here, and that is because four different probes were added to this film. This is done in our lab. It is the first addition of probes. And then--and we haven't mentioned this before. Once you add probes to a membrane and you allow them to bind and you get your x-ray film off, you can strip those probes away without moving--removing very much of the DNA on the membrane and come back and then do another probe on that membrane, get another film, finish that, strip that probe off and come back and do it again. And depending on the amount of DNA that you have on that film, you may be able to do that many, many times.
If we are comparing evidence samples and known samples and the evidence and the knowns are not consistent, that is, the known people that we have for a case are excluded from being donors of the evidence, that becomes apparent immediately on having a group of four probes like this. So it allows us, if in fact the result is an exclusion, it allows us to see that very clearly right away. We report that right away and then we don't go on any further until we are requested. And we've done our film in the lab this way from the beginning. Most other labs just do them one at a time. This is an instance where there isn't a right or a wrong. This isn't better or worse than anybody else's; it is just customary at Cellmark. Okay. So the next important thing to notice, and I will--we will go to the pen here, okay, this lane on the far left, the second lane in, this middle lane and the two lanes on the right are what are referred to as markers. They are one of the--one of the types of controls that is on an RFLP test. Each--let's talk about this marker first, (Indicating), because it is the easiest to visualize. Each one of these bands is from a DNA fragment whose size is exactly known. The marker is purchased from a biotechnology company, and although I'm not going to remember the exact sizes, I could easily go look them up. And in--as a very close approximation, this band is 2000 base pairs. This one, (Indicating), is 3000--whoops. Let's undo that. So we have 2, 3, 4,000, 5000, 6000, 7000 up here, (Indicating), 8000, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The purpose of that marker is to later on use that with the computer imaging system to help make an estimation of the fragment sizes in the other samples. And as long as we are talking about that, let's just use an example. If this is 2 and this is 3 and this is 4, this band, (Indicating), in Mr. Goldman's pattern is clearly between 3 and 4, and remember that what we are concerned about is the samples were loaded across the top here in about the same positions as the bottom of each of the labels, approximately. And the DNA from each sample moved through the gel, down in this direction, (Indicating), and the smaller pieces would move faster and further through the gel than the longer ones. And that is illustrated again by the marker. Here is this lowest one is about 1600 and then 2000 and so on. So by eye you can make an estimation that this lowest band in Mr. Goldman's pattern is somewhere between 3000 base pairs and 4000 base pairs. Now, the computer system can actually do measurements. The measurements reflect the distance migrated through the gel. And the computer system will then do a calculation that will give you a more precise estimate that you can do just by eye. You don't have to have a computer system to do it. You could measure them yourself and plot it out on a piece of graph paper and your answer would still be quite good. The second marker up here, (Indicating)--well, let me go back to the labels. This marker is labeled 1 KB. It stands for one kilobase. That is each of the bands in that marker is 1000 base pairs larger than the band below it. The second marker is a viral DNA that is commonly used as a marker. It is labeled lambda and really we are only using this top band as a--to give us a band that is larger than 12,000 base pairs. And this top band in lambda is approximately 23,000 base pairs. So this--the combination of this 23,000 base pair and the 1 KB marker is what we are using to estimate sizes. There are two additional samples on this film that does not relate specifically to this case. One of them is over here it is labeled TDS on your film. It is DNA from a blood sample from one of the lab staff at Cellmark. This person has been gracious enough to provide us a blood sample every four or six months or so and we have been using his blood sample as a control sample for a long time. We know exactly what his pattern should look like and we have many measurements of the sizes of the DNA bands in that pattern, and that is an example of one of the controls that I mentioned the other day where we know what this pattern should look like. Should it look different than usual, we would--that is, should the band sizes be different than usual, that would be of concern to us.
Well, he is pretty cooperative. And the same goes--the same scenario is true for the two markers, the lambda and the 1 KB. You can see that this 1 KB marker has a very typical appearance with the distance between adjacent bands getting shorter and shorter and shorter as you go up the gel. If that marker didn't have that very typical appearance, it would tell you immediately that something was wrong with the gel that you had used, and so that is just another indication or another example of what I meant when I said you get accustomed to looking at these, you know what they should look like. It has been described either by many measurements or by use in many labs over time, for example, for the marker, that this is what it should be like. There is another control on this film, it is labeled k562. It is DNA from a cell line that you can purchase, and it is a commonly used control in forensic case work for labs all over the country. This control became available after we had already been using the control from the person in our laboratory. We include it on all of our--or some of our gels. It may not be on each one, but when there is room for it, we will run that as well. The three remaining lanes contain the known samples from Mr. Simpson in this lane, (Indicating), from Nicole Brown in this lane, (Indicating), and from Ronald Goldman in this lane, (Indicating).Return
...the autorad {or x-ray} that has already been marked People's exhibit 246 and which we have made copies or had prepared copies for each of the jurors, which I believe are marked People's exhibit 256, that autorad in fact contains the known DNA from the three parties in this case;
MR. CLARKE: That would include Mr. Simpson? Nicole Brown? And Ronald Goldman?
Does that autorad demonstrate any differences in their DNA patterns?
DR. COTTON: Yes, it does.
MR. CLARKE: Does that autorad also have a particular item of evidence that was tested at the same time?
DR. COTTON: I believe it is item 56.The significance of this Testimony Item 56 -- a blood-stained shoeprint degraded, produced no result.DR. COTTON: Because there was--since there was no evidence--since there was no information obtained from the evidence, we didn't go through the process of doing each probe by itself, because there is just no DNA there from the evidence, so there is no--nothing to be gained by doing that.
{Peo's 257 for id = autorad} {May 10 testimony} blood mixture from Ron Goldman's shoe. DR. COTTON: There are two other evidence samples displayed on this film. They are item 52 and item no. 12.{MR. Clark:} ...with respect to this particular autorad there is what the witness has just described as a "cocktail," and then there are associated autorads that basically look at the individual loci one at a time, so would the Court like that, for instance, marked 257-A through whatever?
DR. COTTON: The best indication from the banding pattern that it is a mixture is that the intensities of the bands in the pattern are different and there are more than eight bands in the cocktail. And in the individual probes there is at least one probe where you see three, so the total number of bands and the differing intensities of the bands confirms that in fact you have more than two people there.
- (Peo's 257-A for id = autorad cocktail)
MR. CLARKE: All right. How many autorads total are there in this one particular RFLP test?
DR. COTTON: Seven.
MR. CLARKE: With respect to those autorads, would it be appropriate to begin with what has been referred to as the cocktail autorad?
DR. COTTON: For this purpose I would say yes.
MR. CLARKE: And then with respect to the remaining autorads, do they then represent individual loci or individual genetic markers typed one at a time?
DR. COTTON: Yes.- (Peo's 257-A(1) for id = autorad)
MR. CLARKE: ...I would ask that this particular x-ray film that has these arrows on it be printed and marked as a People's exhibit.
- (Peo's 257-B for id = autorad)
MR. CLARKE: Would it be appropriate to mark the first individual genetic marker test, ms1, as the letter b?
- (Peo's 257-C for id = autorad){dated 10/11/94}
MR. CLARKE: Would it be appropriate to mark as next in order that autorad that deals with the probe ms-31?
- (Peo's 257-D for id = autorad){dated 11/1/94}
MR. CLARKE: All right. And with respect to the second autorad dealing with this genetic ms-31, what date is it?
- (Peo's 257-E for id = autorad)
MR. CLARKE: With regard to e, would it be appropriate that that be the particular genetic marker that is the autorad resulting from the test of the genetic marker ms-43?
- (Peo's 257-F for id = autorad)
MR. CLARKE: So f would be g-3.
- (Peo's 257-G for id = autorad)
MR. CLARKE: And g would be ynh-24?
- Return
Nicole's blood was strongest on Goldman's shoes, indicating she was killed first.Process of identifying Mixture "Cocktail" MR. CLARKE: Now, as far as the--as the results that are shown there, do they demonstrate the existence of a mixture?
DR. COTTON: If you count up the number of bands, if I remember correctly in this cocktail there are eleven. The cocktail is a group of four probes, so if you expect to see two bands maximum with each of four--with each probe, then for a single person with a group of four you would expect to see eight. You can see that the lower three bands are much different in intensity than the upper bands--than the band above them and that is the second clear indication that you have a mixture there. --essentially you are making comparisons with all the known individuals on the autorad and two of the known individuals { Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman} on the autorad are consistent with being contributors to item 78. For that sample, the conclusion would be that you do have two people there and the possible contributors from the known individuals that we have would be the major amount of DNA coming from or consistent with Nicole Brown, and the minor amount of DNA consistent with some of the bands in Mr. Goldman's pattern. There are not all of his bands there in this cocktail; there are only three.
In using the individual films, there is a small additional amount of information. One is on the ms-1 film there are four bands seen. Two are consistent with Nicole Brown and two are consistent with Mr. Goldman, and one of those bands that is seen on that film is not visible on this cocktail. That brings the total number of bands consistent with Mr. Goldman to four and that is the total number of bands through all the testing on 78 that were consistent with Mr. Goldman. There is--I think if I remember correctly, one other piece of information on one of the other probes where you can--you see again one of the three bands that you saw initially and that may be the g-3 probe, although I would have to check to be sure, so you can identify one of the three bands from the cocktail as coming from a specific probe, one of them coming from ms1, one from another one, I think it is g-3. That leaves you a third band on that cocktail that you can't identify which probe it came from and it adds the ms1 individual film, adds a fourth band, giving you a partial pattern of a second person.
MR. CLARKE: What conclusions were reported?
DR. COTTON: We reported that the DNA banding pattern--that the DNA banding pattern from item 78 consisted of two separate patterns. One matches Nicole Brown and there are four bands remaining. Those four bands match four of Mr. Goldman's pattern. And that Mr. Goldman could not be included or definitively included or definitively excluded as the donor of those additional four bands. ...the result is basically inconclusive with regard to Mr. Goldman, and we get that based on our opinion that the result was inconclusive.MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, there is a sentence in the NRC report which says that: "if a suspect's"--and I quote--"if a suspect's pattern is found within the mixed pattern, the appropriate frequency to assign such a match is the sum of the frequencies of automatic genotypes that are contained within the mixed pattern," unquote. All right?DQ-alpha the results on item 78:
DR. COTTON: There is a 1.1, a 1.3, a 4 and there could be in there a 1.2 and you can't prove that it is there or prove that it is not there, so for purposes of this it would be prudent to include that as a possible fourth type, so let's include the 1.2.
Problems inclusion reaches point where exclusion can't happen:DR. COTTON: Yes, you are. There is something else that nobody has said here, and you--that is, when you do this summing process, you have to make an assumption, do I have two contributors? And then based on two, you would sum everything up. If you said, well, maybe I have three contributors and you summed from that perspective, then your frequency would be still yet more conservative, or if you postulated four contributors, so in doing that summation and doing that calculation, you have to make some assumption I'm going to do the calculation based on two possible contributors and then do it from there. If you did it based on three, it would give you a different result, and then in--also in doing it, you would need to say am I going to assume these people are Caucasian or Hispanic or African American and various combinations would also change the result.
MR. CLARKE: In your view, scientifically, is it scientifically appropriate to simply conclude from a mixture that you are unable to exclude an individual or individuals?
DR. COTTON: Yes, I think that is scientifically appropriate.
I don't think it is misleading. Clearly if you say these two people can't be excluded, you might also be saying other groupings of people can't be excluded also. If you get my--that is, if I was asked can these two people be excluded, the answer is no, they cannot. Can other combinations of people also not be excluded? The answer would be that's correct, they can't be--other combinations of people can't be excluded either.MR. NEUFELD: First of all, Dr. Cotton, if you have 21 genotypes and you know which alleles are not present, you could take all the possible heterozygous and homozygous type frequencies for those alleles that are not present and add up the sum of those frequencies, could you?
DR. COTTON: Yes, the ones that could be present plus the ones that couldn't be present equal the total.
MR. NEUFELD: Exactly. So if you start out with a hundred percent and you subtract the genotype frequencies which could not be present--which could not have contributed to that mixture and you subtract that from a hundred percent, you are left with some number, right?
DR. COTTON: Yes.Did the controls fail? MR. NEUFELD: Okay. What you should know is that we now know from her direct testimony that one of these three negative controls wasn't used at all mainly on the substrates, that the reagent control, that is the very initial control that is used, failed with respect to the various item numbers {78, 56, 52, 47 & 12} that I have just given, and that the amplification blank, which is the only remaining control, occurs further on down the line, such that if the initial control fails, that trumps any subsequent control, so consequently you have a failure of the controls or an absence of the control. And you have the laboratory in this particular case not using the generally accepted methods to arrive at a result. And so on purely foundational grounds we would object to the introduction of any evidence as to those particular items.
The three known samples Simpson -
Brown - This sample has a considerable amount of degradation in it.
Goldman - The same is actually true for the sample from Mr. Goldman, although on this particular film the sample from Nicole Brown looks slightly more degraded than the sample from Mr. Goldman.The three evidence samples: evidence lanes didn't have very much DNA in it.
no. 52 the Bundy walkway {smallest DNA} - The lane that doesn't have very much DNA is the lane where we have sample, no. 52DR. COTTON: From this particular film you can--let's look at each piece of evidence individually. Item 52 has three bands close to the top, another grouping of three bands, and a single band down here, (Indicating), and that pattern is consistent and looks to be the same as the pattern from Mr. Simpson which also has a group of three, another group of three and a single band down at the bottom.
no. 12 the Rockingham foyer {most DNA}
Because it also has the same pattern, let's go on to sample 12. It also has a group of three bands, another group of three bands, and a single band way down at the bottom, so the DNA banding pattern from item 52 and item 12 are--I'm now speaking as if I was making an initial interpretation from this film--they are certainly consistent with the pattern from Mr. Simpson. Later on, after doing some measurement, you would make a determination that--where you would say the patterns match or they do not match, but at this point they are visibly the sameDR. COTTON: I will make the same designation for the two groups of three bands in item no. 12 and the single band down towards the bottom, and the group of three from the known sample from Mr. Simpson, the second group of three, and the single band down at the bottom, (Indicating).
no. 78 Mr. Goldman's boot {middle amount DNA}Standards:
{a k562 lane, a TDS standard}.MR. CLARKE: Now, from looking at these--from looking at these particular samples--and let me focus your attention on what appear to be the three evidence items, no. 52, the Bundy walkway, no. 78, Mr. Goldman's boot and no. 12, the Rockingham foyer--what can you tell usabout the relative amounts of DNA in those three items from this x-ray?
DR. COTTON: From this film, no. 12, would have the most in comparison to those three. No. 78 would have sort of a middle amount and no. 52 would have the smallest amount of DNA.
BUNDY - July 3rd - - {Photo: people's 166}
Goldberg: NOW, AT SOME LATER POINT ON JULY THE 3RD OF 1994, DID YOU RETURN TO THE BUNDY LOCATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING SOME ADDITIONAL STAINS? AND HOW WAS IT THAT YOU GOT NOTIFIED TO RETURN TO THE LOCATION?
Fung: I WAS REQUESTED TO RESPOND TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY BY TELEPHONE. LIEUTENANT OR DETECTIVE LANGE CALLED ME. I ARRIVED THERE AT 11:30. I SAW BROWN COLORED STAINS ON THE REAR GATE. I COLLECTED THEM AT APPROXIMATELY 1:45 IN THE AFTERNOON.
BUNDY - April 4th 1995
Item #7 - stain, presumptive test then photo.
Item 12 - people's 121 - three red stains from foyer collected as single item.
Item 49 -- Photo ID # - PT - {Mazzolla} collected from steps.
Item 56 -- a blood-stained shoeprint degraded, produced no result. Return
Visit other Geopages