Simpson Defense Adds to Conspiracy Theory Framework

Lawyers for O.J. Simpson probed the intricacies of DNA testing and laid the groundwork for a novel aspect of their police conspiracy theory Monday, eliciting testimony about when certain DNA tests were performed in an effort to link a local television station to the alleged police plot.

On Sept. 21, KNBC-Channel 4 committed the best-known media mistake of the Simpson case, erroneously reporting that DNA tests of Simpson’s socks had revealed the presence of Nicole Brown Simpson’s blood. In fact, no such tests had been performed at that time, and the socks were not submitted for DNA testing until Sept. 26.

Simpson’s attorneys have made much of that mistake, suggesting that the story was fed to the station by police sources who knew the DNA results in advance because those same people were involved in planting the evidence. But while the defense lawyers have discussed the subject in interviews, Monday marked the first time that the jury has heard testimony about it.

“So on Sept. 21, 1994, you had no DNA results consistent with the DNA typings of Nicole Brown Simpson from that sock?” defense attorney Barry Scheck asked during his third day of cross-examining Gary Sims, a senior criminalist with the state Department of Justice who spent all last week on the witness stand.

“That’s correct,” Sims said.

Scheck was not allowed to pursue that line of questioning, but he did press ahead on other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, asking about the amounts of DNA found in various bloodstains and pointing out that some of the samples collected weeks after the murders had more DNA than some of those collected the day after the killings.

That, he suggested, was suspicious, since DNA generally degrades when left exposed to the elements. Simpson’s attorneys have argued that the samples were planted, which they say explains their high DNA content. Prosecutors dispute that contention, and Deputy Dist. Atty. Rockne Harmon derided the defense theories in front of the jury Monday afternoon and elicited Sims’ opinion that some elements of those theories struck him as “not really conceivable.”

Asked a long hypothetical question about whether a vial of Simpson’s blood could have been used to contaminate evidence, Sims responded: “I don’t see how that’s possible.”

Simpson has pleaded not guilty to the murders of his ex-wife and Ronald Lyle Goldman, whose slashed and stabbed bodies were found outside Nicole Simpson’s Brentwood condominium just after midnight on June 13. His attorneys have steadfastly proclaimed Simpson’s innocence and have alleged a police conspiracy to frame their client.

The conspiracy theories Monday were intertwined with dense, scientific testimony that at times seemed to be conducted in a private code shared by Scheck and Sims. Still, even they seemed to confuse each other at times during the cross-examination.

“Mr. Sims, would you answer my question?” Scheck said sharply at one point, turning on a witness he at first had treated gingerly, even deferentially.

“Well, I don’t understand,” Sims responded with a mixture of frustration and anger.

“Wait, wait,” Judge Lance A. Ito intervened, as the lawyer and witness stared at each other.

“Don’t argue with the witness,” the judge said to Scheck. Turning to Sims, he added: “Don’t argue with the lawyer.”

Conspiracy Theories

The defense has reached toward a variety of sources to bolster its claims of a police conspiracy, suggesting that the presence of a preservative in some blood samples may back up their claim that police used test tubes of blood taken from O.J. Simpson and Nicole Simpson to taint evidence.

Prosecutors dismiss that allegation, however, and have produced tests from the FBI in which an analyst concluded that while there were traces of the preservative, it was not enough to support the contention that blood from the vials was the source of the stains.

The defense has alleged other elements of the conspiracy, suggesting, for instance, that Detective Mark Fuhrman and various other police officers might have planted evidence or tampered with it after collecting it.

Searching for other ways to bolster their claim that the police were out to discredit Simpson or even to frame him, the defense has twice referred in court to news reports about the case. During his cross-examination of Cellmark Director Robin Cotton last week, defense attorney Peter Neufeld asked whether she or her laboratory had released results of testing in early September to the media--a reference to a story in The Times disclosing results of DNA testing by Cellmark before those results were made public.

Cotton denied that anyone from her laboratory had leaked that information, but the defense has suggested that the release was part of an attempt to discredit Simpson or taint jurors. Neither the prosecution nor the defense challenged the accuracy of The Times’ article.

The KNBC story has attracted greater interest from the defense team because of the odd fact that while it was incorrect, the results it reported were borne out by subsequent tests. Although the station first stood by its story, even after Ito and the attorneys publicly denounced it, the station manager later wrote to Ito conceding that the sources for the report had expressed concern about at least some aspect of it.

The KNBC reporter is on the Simpson team’s witness list, but Anne H. Egerton, a lawyer for the station, said no subpoena had been received for the reporter to appear and testify at the trial.

Simpson’s lead trial lawyer, Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., said he hopes to put her on the witness stand to ask whether she accurately reported the information that her sources had told her. If so, Cochran said, he will argue that the sources gave her that information because they could predict what the results of the DNA tests would be.

“To your knowledge, has anyone from your laboratory, including yourself, ever communicated DNA test results to members of the press prior to communicating them to the prosecution or the defense. . . ,” Scheck asked Sims on Monday before Harmon interrupted with an objection.

Ito overruled that objection, and Sims responded simply: “No.”

Blood in the Bronco

As he tried to call attention to test results that the defense considers suspicious, Scheck focused on several bloodstains that were not collected immediately after the June 12 murders. Most of the stains were collected within a day or two after the killings, but others, including those from a pair of socks in Simpson’s bedroom and several from inside his Ford Bronco, were not examined until much later.

On Monday, Scheck paid special attention to the stains found inside Simpson’s car, which was broken into while in police custody. The defense alleges that the break-in compromised the results of any blood swatches collected after that point, a position that Scheck attempted to put before the jury Monday.

“In your opinion as a forensic scientist, is it important to preserve . . . the integrity of biological evidence, whether it is found in an automobile or on the street?” Scheck asked.

“Yes,” Sims responded.

“Is it a good practice to permit individuals into an automobile for . . . over two months before swatching the inside of an area for biological materials?” Scheck asked.

Prosecutor Harmon objected, and Ito sustained that objection.

“Well,” Scheck pressed, “do you think it would be a good practice . . . of forensic science to permit a car to be burglarized before you go in and swatch biological material from the area.”

Harmon objected again, and this time Ito specifically told the jury to disregard the defense attorney’s question. With that, Scheck changed the subject.

Before concluding his cross-examination, Scheck presented strips of DNA tests with faint results displayed, attempting to make the point that the interpretation of the tests is a highly subjective matter, not a precise, objective science. That line of questioning was part of another running defense theme, the allegation that DNA scientists are overstating the significance of their findings.

But demonstrating that was a highly technical matter requiring detailed examination of DNA testing strips and discussion of the various markers and controls--items known by numbers and off-putting names such as the “C-dot.” By the end of Scheck’s cross-examination, some jurors had given up taking notes.

Prosecutor Strikes Back

Given his chance to question Sims again, Harmon began in the sarcastic tone that he often uses to belittle the Simpson team and its arguments.

Harmon asked whether the hypothetical questions that Scheck used to make various defense points were based on fact or whether they merely raised the question of whether even far-fetched theories are possible.

“Anything is possible,” Sims responded with a smile.

Acknowledging that people other than Simpson and the victims could have been the source of blood drops inside Simpson’s Bronco, Harmon used a question to suggest that logic ruled out that possibility even if science did not.

“Is there something funny about Broncos that causes nosebleeds?” he said.

Predictably, Scheck objected. Ito, shaking his head slightly, sustained the objection, so Sims did not answer. Although Ito ruled in favor of the defense on that occasion, he sided with prosecutors later, allowing Harmon to ask a series of hypothetical questions about the possibility of evidence being contaminated.

Each time, Sims responded that he considered it unlikely that the defense theories were valid.

“My opinion would be that there was certainly no indication that such contamination occurred,” Sims said. Scheck, his anger with Ito evident, shook his head and glared at the judge.

Harmon also used his questioning in an attempt to undermine other aspects of the defense’s cross-examination, getting Sims to say that no other experts to his knowledge had challenged his interpretation of evidence and subtly reminding the jurors that the defense has had the chance to do its own testing.

“If somebody disagreed with these results,” Sims said at one point, agreeing with Harmon, “then they could retest the evidence.”

Under questioning from the prosecutor, Sims said that although he cleans his instruments by putting them over a hot flame, that procedure is not essential for handling blood evidence.

The defense has said that the Los Angeles Police Department’s handling of the evidence was sloppy and has attempted to contrast Sims’ care with the LAPD’s procedures.

Monday, however, Sims said he only uses the flame technique because he was involved in a recent trial in which his handling of evidence was questioned. Once that was over, he said, he concluded that it was easier to take extra care than to face questions about it: “What I decided to do was to say ‘OK, let’s remove that argument. Let’s just burn these things.’ ”

Jurors Fly Blimp

In contrast to many previous witnesses in the Simpson trial who have undergone round after round of questioning, Sims’ examinations moved briskly Monday. In part, that was the result of Ito’s stern comment to the lawyers that he would keep the trial in session Monday until Sims finished so that the witness could leave Los Angeles.

Ito ultimately relented--Sims will not be in court today but is expected to return later this week. Still, the judge’s threat seemed to speed up the process, which Ito has tried to do in an effort to pacify his demanding jury. Just last week, the panel asked Ito to schedule longer days on Fridays and even to hold Saturday sessions to move the trial along.

Ito has yet to rule on that request, but he has tried to accommodate the jury as often as possible, barking at the lawyers to speed up their questioning and even chastising audience members for laughing during humorous asides in the testimony.

“This is not an audience-participation function,” he reminded the spectators Monday. “Next time I hear a reaction, I’m going to clear the courtroom.”

In contrast to Ito’s gruffness with the lawyers and spectators, he is unfailingly patient and warm toward the jury. At the beginning of Monday’s session, he asked how the jury had enjoyed its weekend.

“Did we enjoy our activities over the weekend?” Ito asked, smiling broadly.

Several nodded enthusiastically and one exclaimed: “That was great.”

“That was something I wanted to do myself,” Ito said without elaborating. “That’s how you got that.”

Outside court, a spokeswoman said the jurors had been allowed to ride in a blimp. They boarded in small groups and each got a chance to steer, she said.