Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Escobar. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. The Court instructed us to prepare photographs of the crime scene at Bundy in the manner in which it currently appears, and I have done so. I gave a copy of these photographs to the Defense and this is the Court's copy. Would you like me to give it to the clerk?

THE COURT: Why don't you give it to the clerk and I will take a look at it when we are in recess. Thank you, counsel.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I believe last week you instructed the Defense to provide us with a witness list this morning.

THE COURT: I don't see Mr. Douglas. Mr. Shapiro, are we anticipating Mr. Douglas' arrival shortly?

MR. SHAPIRO: I believe so, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. As soon as Mr. Douglas arrives, we will take care of that, since he is the person appointed by the Defense to handle those discovery matters, but I anticipate we should resolve that this morning.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Goldberg would like to address the Court very briefly if he may.

THE COURT: As to what issue?

MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: As to what issue, counsel?

MR. GOLDBERG: We just wanted a clarification on the Court's ruling regarding Mr. Harmon not being allowed to contact Mr. Mullis. It seemed pretty specific to us and it seemed to us that that would not prohibit the People from sending letters to other experts to invite them to interview with our office.

THE COURT: That was a specific request by Dr. Mullis not to be contacted any further.

MR. GOLDBERG: That is all we wanted to clarify. Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, the witness currently giving evidence has colored charts which relate to color absorption across the spectrum, graphs, and I'm just wondering if we have received all that he has, because we would like to copy them in color. The ones we have are black and white and they really don't tell us what we would like to know.

THE COURT: Do you have those available?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have them.

THE COURT: Do you have copies available?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey, do you want some additional time to take a look at them or are you prepared to go forward.

MR. BAILEY: We would like to look at them and make copies at Kinko's during the recess.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: We think there may be some we haven't seen before.

THE COURT: Miss Clark tells me that you have seen everything she has got.

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

MR. BAILEY: Well--

THE COURT: All right. Then we will talk about making copies available over the lunch hour.

MR. BAILEY: All right. I have an idea these things may be displayed this morning.

MS. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: I assume--

MS. CLARK: No, we won't, and as a matter of fact, Mr. Morton and Mr. Deedrick were just comparing notes and Mr. Morton has more charts than we do currently here.

MR. MORTON: I have one that he didn't have with him and there are some we don't have or at least I don't have.

MS. CLARK: That you don't have.

MR. MORTON: Right.

THE COURT: All right. Well, we will play trading cards with these exhibits at the noon hour.

MS. CLARK: But I don't intend to use the charts, and if any change in that occurs, we will approach the bench and I will let counsel know.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else? All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: I trust we all survived the 4th of July. Good. All right. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume your place on the witness stand, please.

Douglas W. Deedrick, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Good morning again, Mr. Deedrick?

MR. DEEDRICK: Good morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Deedrick, sir, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Miss Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Now, Mr. Deedrick, when we left off we were talking about a hair consistent with those of the Defendant found on Ronald Goldman's shirt. Do you recall that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, I would like for you to assume the following facts for the purpose of a hypothetical: If you would, sir, please assume that at some time in the morning hours of June the 13th, after 10:00 A.M., a detective placed a white blanket over the body of Nicole Brown and that that blanket was never placed over the body of Ronald Goldman. Okay?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Now, if that blanket contained the head hairs of the Defendant, where would you be most likely to find those hairs if they were to transfer from the blanket to any other place? I'm talking about the blanket that was on the body of Nicole?

MR. BAILEY: Object to the form.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: The most likely individual that may have a hair or hairs from an individual--another individual, that is from that blanket, would have been Nicole Brown, since she had direct contact with the blanket, based on your information.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And if that blanket was never placed on the body of Ron Goldman, what is the likelihood that any hairs that may have been present on that blanket would transfer from the blanket onto his body?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, insufficient foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: If the--

THE COURT: The problem with the question, counsel, is "Likelihood."

MS. CLARK: Likelihood? Okay.

MS. CLARK: In your experience, sir, when an article of clothing or a blanket is responsible for a hair or fiber transfer, in your experience have you commonly found that the hair or fiber flies onto some other object or body with which it has no direct contact?

MR. BAILEY: Object, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ground.

MR. BAILEY: No showing he has expertise in crime scene investigation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. From my experience of examining evidence that is submitted from crime scenes, the individuals most likely to have evidence of hair or fiber transfer would be those individuals that had some contact with an item, such as body bags we often get in, blankets and transport sheets that are often submitted along with other items from the victims. That is where you generally see the contact and generally see the fiber or hairs transferred. It is just common sense.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you examine the hair and fiber removed from the body and clothing of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And did you find any hairs consistent with those of the Defendant on her body or clothing?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: And if the blanket had been the source of the head hair you found on Ronald Goldman's shirt that was consistent with the Defendant's, where would the likely place to find it--where would the most likely place you would expect to find it be?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Counsel, the problem is "Likely."

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: In your experience where would you expect to find that hair if the blanket was the source of it?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if the blanket is covered with hairs from an individual or from any other source, and that blanket comes in contact with a person or the clothing of that person, because of the primary transfer and secondary transfers that are going on, that person would be the most likely candidate to have a hair on the clothing of that individual.

MS. CLARK: Okay. By the way, did you find any head hairs on Nicole's body or clothing that were consistent with the head hairs of Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Sir, if a stabbing occurs in which the victim offers little or no resistance and there is primarily arm's length contact, what impact does that have on whether or not there will be hair or fiber transferred to the body or clothing of that victim?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Is the lack of any hairs consistent with those of Ronald Goldman or those of the Defendant consistent with her having been rapidly incapacitated and murdered while unconscious?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: How would you explain the lack of any hairs consistent with those of Ronald Goldman or any other foreign hairs consistent with those of her attacker perhaps on the body of Nicole Brown?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: My problem with that one is foundational regarding his expertise to tell those things.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Sir, you processed, I think you told us before, 4000 hair and fiber cases in your time?

MR. DEEDRICK: Around 4000 cases. I've also done crime scene investigation, too.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Would you please explain to us, sir, what you have done in that connection.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, within--within the area of crime scene investigation I have attended a course at the FBI academy on how to examine crime scenes and collect evidence from crime scenes. I also lecture national academy individuals, in-service agents taking training at the academy, people that come through, through the hair and fiber school down at the FBI academy, and other people, on how to collect evidence at a crime scene, so I am familiar with the collection and preservation of physical evidence. And I'm also familiar with what one--an individual might expect to find on clothing items or blanket items or other items that are recovered at a crime scene and knowing what one might expect to find helps in the actual examination of a crime scene so that the evidence can be collected properly.

MS. CLARK: In light of that and your expertise, sir, in hair and fiber examinations, on how many occasions have you examined the clothing, hair and trace recovered from the clothing and bodies of stabbing victims?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, many times, many times.

MS. CLARK: And on any of those occasions were you aware of the--the facts of the case in terms of how the stabbing occurred?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sometimes yes; sometimes no.

MS. CLARK: In any of those cases was there a confession, for example?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: In those--based on that experience, sir, and the knowledge you acquired from those cases, can you tell us whether the lack of any foreign hairs on the body and clothing of Nicole Brown is consistent with her having been rapidly incapacitated and murdered while unconscious?

MR. BAILEY: Object. Ask to approach, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled on the request to approach. The objection to the question, though, is sustained.

MS. CLARK: How do you explain or how can you account for the lack of foreign hairs or fibers on the body of Nicole Brown?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the lack of hair and fiber evidence would indicate to me that there was limited contact with a surface that contained either hair or textile fibers. The lack--the less--the less the amount of contact, the less the force of the contact would result in less evidence being found.

MS. CLARK: Now, I think you said earlier that you found some limb hairs of black origin collected from the evidence in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And by "Limb hairs" I think you defined it before as from the hand or the arm or the leg?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And which items of evidence revealed black limb hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been Ron Goldman's shirt as well as the glove recovered at Rockingham.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you receive any limb hair samples from the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: What is your habit and custom with respect to the comparison of limb hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they are not routinely compared in a forensic laboratory because of their limited nature.

MS. CLARK: What do you mean by that, "Limited nature"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, limb hairs do not have enough individual microscopic characteristics, like head hairs and pubic hairs, for me to say or for forensic examiners to say that this person is a likely candidate of this particular hair as being the source. There is too much overlap that we find. There is some broad conclusions that can be reached. That is, a person with blond limb hair is going to look different than an individual that has black-colored limb hair. It is possible to distinguish race in some instances, but they are not as good as head and pubic hairs for comparison purposes.

MS. CLARK: What kind of reliability is there then in the conclusion that you reached concerning the race of the limb hair you found on Ronald Goldman's shirt and the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: These are all just pieces of information that--that are collected from the analysis of trace evidence. That is, the little bits and pieces that may have been exchanged during some contact between the assailant and the victims and from the clothing that they may have worn. It is just another piece of evidence, piece of information.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And is--is the conclusion you reached, the result you reached, concerning the racial origin of that limb hair on Ron Goldman's shirt and the Rockingham glove, is that reliable?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Yes, the identification is fine as far as I'm concerned.

MS. CLARK: Where on the Rockingham glove was the limb hair found?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was on the inside.

MS. CLARK: Were there any--were there any head hairs of black origin found inside the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was a head hair fragment, yes. It was not suitable for meaningful comparison purposes.

MS. CLARK: And that is because you could not compare it because--

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was a fragment that was called opaque, that is, it is black and you cannot actually pass light through it enough so that you can look at the internal microscopic characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Sir, if an African American individual would wear those gloves, the Rockingham glove in specific, would that be consistent with the limb hair that you found inside the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: It would.

MS. CLARK: And again, if the attacker, if the murderer of Ron Goldman were an African American individual, would that be consistent with the limb hair you found on his shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it would.

MS. CLARK: Now, we've talked a little bit about your experience in previous stabbing cases, sir, and I wanted to ask you is it common in your experience to find head hair transfers in stabbing cases?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is not very common from my experience, no.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, certain types of cases don't lend themselves well for a transfer of hair evidence. Cases like sexual assault case where you have bed sheets and clothing and worn by the individuals are often probably the better items of evidence to collect--to collect hair and fiber material from. They are large items, they tend to hold hair and fiber for a longer period of time. But in stabbing cases I just haven't seen it. And I would have expected in stabbing cases, being violent as they are, that--that I would find a lot of hair transfers, such as head hair transfers, but I just don't see it. Once in awhile you do, but it is uncommon.

MS. CLARK: And under what circumstances and in what cases did you have head hairs and fibers for comparison in a stabbing case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Specific cases?

MS. CLARK: No, generally what circumstances?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, any--

MR. BAILEY: I'm going to object as irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled, but it is vague.

MS. CLARK: It is vague?.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not real clear, but any stabbing case that is submitted to the laboratory for analysis to determine if there are hair or fibers that may have been exchanged, they come in from all around the country from mostly local and state police agencies, but we also investigate crimes on government reservations and Indian reservations that come under our jurisdiction that involve often very violent crimes.

MR. BAILEY: Objection, nonresponsive, move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: It proves the question was vague. Let me ask a more specific one.

MS. CLARK: In stabbing cases what--let me ask you this: In prior stabbing cases have you had a situation where clothing of the perpetrator--items of clothing of the perpetrator were left behind?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, that has happened. Probably the best example of where you would might--might find hair evidence or fiber evidence, rather than on the clothing itself of the victims.

MS. CLARK: And an example of that in this case, like the knit cap that was found at Ron Goldman's feet?

MR. BAILEY: I object, your Honor, and ask to approach.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, this is an example of an item that would be of extreme value, from my standpoint, to--for the presence of hair and fiber evidence, because it may be something left behind by the assailant. Not knowing information about a case, the laboratory examiner, like myself, would identify the materials not knowing if the hat or glove or any other item belonged to anybody. There is no information that is given to me, it was just submitted to me for analysis, but in a struggle, this may occur. And that gives us the best information and often that is what I end up testifying about. After bank robberies, they drop clothing. After violent crime, they drop clothing. Or they may try to discard and get rid of clothing and they discover the clothing. Those are good examples.

MR. BAILEY: I object, your Honor. Way beyond the question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: I will move to strike.

THE COURT: Ask another question.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Let's move on to fiber. Did you do some fiber examinations in this case, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: With regard to those fiber examinations you conducted in this case did you examine Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I would like to mark the next chart. I think we left off with--

THE COURT: 482.

MS. CLARK: Was it 482?

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: 482. That is next in order? The photograph being shown on the screen, your Honor, is from this board.

(Peo's 482 for id = chart)

THE COURT: All right. I will need that on my monitor as well.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, first of all, sir, what kind of fibers the shirt of Ronald Goldman is made of?

MR. DEEDRICK: They are made of cotton fibers; primarily two colors, an off-white and a sort of a brownish color, light brown.

MS. CLARK: When you examined the fibers collected from the glove at Rockingham, did you find any fibers that matched the fibers on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: I object, your Honor, and ask to approach.

THE COURT: Sustained. We are not going to approach, though.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: When you examined the Rockingham glove, did you find any fibers that were consistent with the fibers of Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what did you base your conclusion on, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been a microscopic comparison.

MS. CLARK: When you examined the fibers collected from the glove at Bundy, did you find any fibers that were consistent with the fibers on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And what method of comparison did you use for that?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been the same, a microscopic comparison.

MS. CLARK: Were there any other items at the crime scene that you found that were found to contain fibers consistent with those of Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been the knit hat that was recovered at the crime scene.

MS. CLARK: And again, what method of comparison did you use for that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Microscopic comparison.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Now, off-white cotton fibers, isn't that fairly common?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is common, yes, yes.

MS. CLARK: Was there something about the appearance of these particular fibers that you found on the Rockingham and Bundy gloves and on the knit cap that strengthened your opinion that those fibers were consistent with those of Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there did appear to be blood on these fibers which tended to place to me a little bit more significance. The fact that they are off-white cotton does not have significance, but the fact that they appeared to have blood and may be in some way linked to the event, I felt they were important.

MS. CLARK: Did you cause photographs to be taken of the fibers that were collected from the Rockingham and Bundy gloves and the knit hat that you determined to be consistent with the fibers of Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the neck board we would ask that it be marked People's 483 entitled, "Known cotton fibers from Ronald Goldman's shirt."

(Peo's 483 for id = chart)

MS. CLARK: All right. Mr. Deedrick, if you wouldn't mind stepping down with the pointer, can you tell us, first of all, the photos at the top that are labeled K18, can you tell us what that is?

MR. DEEDRICK: K18, these--this is the specimen number for the--for the shirt. That was the number that we gave it in the FBI laboratory. The off-white cotton fibers are represented in the upper left-hand portion of the chart again marked K18. On the right-hand portion of the chart they are the brownish-colored fibers that make up the shirt that Ronald Goldman wore that evening, and again that is also marked K18. The bottom photographs I have six photographs in all and they are so labeled as to where the fibers originated. The first photograph I took from Goldman's shirt, Q23, to give you an idea of what the fibers looked like from actually debris that came off this shirt. K3B is the center photograph. It is from the right glove. That is the glove from Rockingham. K1 from again the glove from Rockingham, which is to the right of that photograph. Q8B2 is from the knit hat and that is the outside of the hat. Q76 from the left glove, that is the glove from Bundy. And K47 from the knit hat as well and I believe that is the from the outside of the hat.

MS. CLARK: And the Q47 fiber, was this part of the Q47, that is part of the debris that you yourself collected from the hat?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That would have been the debris that I--that I processed from the hat in the laboratory.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. And if I may, your Honor, I would like to remove the result mat.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Mr. Deedrick, if the murderer of Ron Goldman wearing the gloves found at Bundy and Rockingham and the knit hat found at Bundy attacked and stabbed Ronald Goldman through his shirt, would those--would those set of events be consistent with the fibers of Ronald Goldman's shirt that you found on the Bundy and Rockingham gloves and on the knit cap?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: It could be consistent, especially since there would be damage to the fabric, damage to the shirt that would cause a greater loss of fibers.

MS. CLARK: And if the murderer, wearing those gloves and knit cap, were to have held Ronald Goldman from behind with his left arm and his left hand in contact with Ronald Goldman's shirt, might that account also for the fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's shirt that were found on the Bundy glove?

MR. BAILEY: Same objection.

THE COURT: It is leading.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir--well, in terms of--I will frame my hypothetical. Assume the following: That the murderer attacked Ronald Goldman from holding him from behind with his left arm wearing the Bundy glove and that the Bundy glove was in contact with Ronald Goldman's shirt. Can you tell us whether that set of events, hypothetical, would be consistent with your findings of the fibers on--of Ronald Goldman's shirt, the fibers consistent with those of Ronald Goldman's shirt on the Bundy glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: If--if the glove, for instance, came in actual contact with the shirt and the glove had any type of fluid on it, possibly blood, that would be an excellent source of the fiber being present because of the actual contact. The glove, a dry glove is not going to hold onto fibers like a damp glove would and the fiber, I believe, did appear to have blood on it.

MS. CLARK: From the Bundy glove as well?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, Ronald Goldman's shirt was long-sleeved, was it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it was.

MS. CLARK: Assume again, for the purpose of a hypothetical, sir, that if in the struggle Ron Goldman reached behind him to grab his attacker and grabbed the knit cap off of his head, would that account for the fibers from his shirt, the fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's shirt being found on the knit cap?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading and argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, if the fabric from the victim's shirt came in physical contact with the hat, certainly that would be a logical explanation for the fibers being present on the hat.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, are you saying that is the only logical explanation that there could be for that finding?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, no. It is just a reasonable explanation based on what I see.

MS. CLARK: And is it also based, sir, on your judgment and your experience and expertise over these last 17 years?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, again, that is why I look at clothing items that are submitted from victims and suspects in cases, because of transfer that can occur between them during physical contact. It can be easily explained by identifying these materials and then doing comparisons, and seeing that over the years supports the contention that you are bringing here, that when two objects do come in contact there is a good chance that material can be exchanged.

MS. CLARK: Now, assume further, hypothetically, sir, that the murderer, while wearing the Rockingham glove, stabbed Ronald Goldman in which--in a manner that brought his glove into contact with Ronald Goldman's shirt, say, stabbed him in the left abdomen, in the left side. Would that--would those set of events be a reasonable explanation for your finding of fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's shirt on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, there--

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: There are two events that are happening here. One, you have contact between the surface of the glove and the surface of the fabric. The second thing that is happening is that the fabric is being damaged so that a number of loose fibers are now being released. The two events would--again, I would expect a transfer in this instance, especially on a damp bloody glove.

MS. CLARK: And in that regard, sir, do you have any similar observations to those that you made concerning the adherence of the fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's shirt to the Bundy glove as you do with respect to the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, both gloves had bodily fluids on them. They were damp possibly from blood. Both gloves would be likely candidates for fiber transfers, especially from the shirt, because of it being damaged.

MS. CLARK: Did you also, sir, examine Ronald Goldman's jeans?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you examine hair and trace recovered from those jeans, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Did you, in your experience of hair and fiber, find any fiber that was consistent with the fibers of Ronald Goldman's jeans?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what method did you use to examine and compare those fibers that you found to be consistent with the jeans of Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that would again have been a microscopic comparison.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, from which items of evidence the fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's jeans were collected?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these fibers were found on both gloves, the Rockingham glove and the Bundy glove, and also on items of clothing submitted from Ronald Goldman.

MS. CLARK: And when you say "Items submitted from Ronald Goldman," what did his shirt--did you find any fibers consistent with his jeans on his shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: Now, is that, in your experience, sir, common, to find transfer of fibers from one item of clothing onto another item of clothing that someone has worn?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is not very surprising. I would expect that, yes.

MS. CLARK: So, for example, if you are wearing two or more items of clothing, say, a shirt and pants or pants and socks, is it common in your experience to find fibers from your shirt on your pants?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: Or from your pants on your socks?

MR. DEEDRICK: It wouldn't surprise me. I would expect that.

MS. CLARK: Come back to that a little bit later.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: May I pull off the results?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Did you, in your examination of fibers collected from the evidence in this case, find any that were consistent with the dress of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And again, what method of comparison did you use to arrive at that conclusion, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been almost the entire battery of tests that we routinely conduct, microscopic comparison, an instrumental comparison, visual comparison, polarized light comparison, all of the normal tests that we run.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And when you say "All of the normal tests that you run," earlier you indicated to us there were certain tests that could be performed on manmade fibers that you could not perform on the natural occurring fibers like cotton?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Were all of those additional steps and tests used in the case of the dress Nicole Brown was found in?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, because her dress was composed of synthetic or manmade fibers.

MS. CLARK: May I have a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. (Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. I would like to mark as People's next in order a photograph of a dress as People's 484.

THE COURT: 484.

(Peo's 484 for id = photograph)

MS. CLARK: Did you examine the dress itself, sir, at some point?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And we are showing you the picture that has now been marked as People's 484.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: We are going to try and lighten it up there on the screen. That is great.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Now, where--on what item of evidence were fibers consistent with the dress of Nicole Brown found, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were found on Ronald Goldman's shirt. They are actual yarns.

MS. CLARK: What do you mean by that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it appears to be a knitted fabric, and when knitted fabrics are damaged they often will break, and depending on the fabric and depending on the fibers, they will actually break off in yarns. And the dress is made--it is a very tight knit and the yarns are very small.

MS. CLARK: Was there any damage that you observed on Nicole Brown Simpson's dress that could account for the yarns you found on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the only damage that I saw was in the zipper area on the back.

MS. CLARK: Is it possible for you to see that on your monitor?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, no. It would have to be enlarged quite a bit. Just a small area near where the zipper is attached to the fabric. It appeared to be pulled apart in one location.

MS. CLARK: Can you see it there, sir? For the record, we have enlarged and zoomed into the zipper area described by the witness.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it would have been at the base, the base portion of the zipper at the bottom portion where it--at its full open point.

MS. CLARK: At the bottom? You mean where--in a position where the zipper would have been opened at the bottom?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, no, the zipper may have--again, I have to think about this a little bit now. The zipper itself was right near--again it was a low-cut back. It would have been at the top, I'm sorry, right at the top portion of the zipper where it closed.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Right at the top?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: And can we zoom in there?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: There we go. Okay.

MS. CLARK: Can you see the damage you refer to in this photograph, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is difficult to see. There wasn't a great deal of damage. Just at the point where the zipper made contact with the fabric it was pulled apart. Not a great deal of damage.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Can you--is there a logical explanation for how yarns from the dress of Nicole Brown came to be transferred to the shirt of Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: I object to this.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Assume the following facts for a hypothetical, sir: That the murderer attacked Nicole grabbing her on the back of the dress, throwing her down, at which point the dress was ripped, yarns came--from the dress came into his hand that he used to throw her down, then grabbed her dress with, and that he then went over to Ronald Goldman using that same hand to touch Ronald Goldman on his shirt. Would those events be consistent with the finding of yarns from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress on the shirt of Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading, argumentative, speculative.

THE COURT: You add assumes facts that aren't in evidence?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Well, sir, in your experience is this--would it be reasonable to infer from the finding of the yarns on Ronald Goldman's dress that are consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's dress--did I just say "Dress" twice? In your experience and your judgment, sir, would it be reasonable and logical to infer that the damage to Nicole Brown Simpson's dress caused yarns to come off in the hand of the killer and get transferred to the shirt of Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Objection on the same grounds.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let me see counsel over at the side bar, without the reporter, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You have described to us the damage you saw on Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, that's correct.

MS. CLARK: And did you see any loose yarns in the area of damage you have just described?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, there was damage. Difficult to say a lot of damage because of the knitted fabric.

MS. CLARK: How many of those yarns consistent with her dress were found on Ronald Goldman's?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were four.

MS. CLARK: Would a bloody glove be a good medium for the transfer of those fibers from her dress to Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it would.

MS. CLARK: All right. In your experience, sir, of the fibers selected from the evidence in this case, did you find any that could have come from the blue knit ski cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: We are going to show you a photograph on the monitor that is already contained on the board marked as People's 483.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: It has been individually marked as well as People's 441.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. From what items of evidence were fibers consistent with those of the blue knit ski cap collected in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: They would have been collected from the--from Ronald Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: And again, what was the method of comparison used for this blue knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it could have been all of the tests that we normally do with manmade fibers.

MS. CLARK: The blue knit ski cap, what were the fibers that you found on Ronald Goldman's shirt consistent with those, what kind of fibers were they?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were acrylic fibers.

MS. CLARK: So did you perform all of the methods of comparison that you earlier described to us that could be done on manmade fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. The first test would be a simple microscopic comparison, that is, taking a look at them visually to see if they look the same, and then if they do, the follow-up tests to confirm that.

MS. CLARK: Did you prepare photographs of these fibers to show the jury?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you mount all the photographs or all of the fibers that you saw in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I believe there were at least one or two fibers I didn't photograph.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I just took representative samples.

MS. CLARK: Okay. When you do a comparison, sir, do you compare photographs?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, no. The examinations are done visually in a field of view of the microscope. Photographs are just aids to allow jurors to see what I was seeing.

MS. CLARK: And I would ask that this be marked People's 486 or 485.

THE COURT: 485.

(Peo's 485 for id = photograph)

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson says 485.

MS. CLARK: 485.

MS. CLARK: How many fibers consistent with those of the blue knit cap were found on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were three or four.

MS. CLARK: If you wouldn't mind, sir, could you step down and show to the jury what is shown on these photographs on the chart marked as People's 485?

MR. DEEDRICK: (Witness complies.) All right. This particular chart has photographs of the known fabric from the--from the knit hat that was submitted. It is marked here as K47. It is actually Q47 known sample. Okay. So it is actual fibers from the knit hat and that would be the top two photographs on the upper left-hand side. The photographs at the bottom would be photographs of fibers recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt. In the known sample of fabric from the hat there were larger diameter fibers, as well as finer diameter fibers, and they were both present in the questioned and the known materials. The photograph on the far right, listed as K17, is just the fibers that make up the dress of Nicole Brown. The fiber on the lower right is from the--is one fiber taken from the yarn, one of the yarns from Q23, which would be Ron Goldman's shirt, and this does appear to have some blood on the surface of the fiber.

MS. CLARK: All right. Then is the--is Q23 a fiber that you found to be consistent with the fibers of Nicole's dress?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I testified about this previously. This is just one of the fibers taken off Ron Goldman's shirt and it exhibited the same characteristics as the dress fibers Nicole Brown.

MS. CLARK: And then in the other four photographs, the upper two are the exemplars, the sample actually from the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Those are fibers taken actually from a cutting from the knit hat, so those are fibers that make up the hat. The questioned fibers on the bottom would be just loose individual fibers that were recovered from the debris in the victim's clothes.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. And if I may pull off the result on the result board.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Now, your finding of fibers consistent with those of the knit hat on Ron Goldman's shirt, does that indicate to you, in your experience and judgment, that there was contact between the wearer of that hat and Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: How could that--in your experience and judgment, sir, the finding of fibers consistent with those from the knit cap on Ronald Goldman's shirt, what kind of transfer mechanism or what kind of transfer would that be, would have caused that finding?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation, assuming facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Fibers, and I have said this a number of times already, that I find on an item of clothing are the result of either a direct physical contact with the fabric or indirect. There could be events that are taking place at some point in between that one might say could have happened. It is difficult to know. Either they got there directly from actual contact between the hat and the shirt, or they got there because some--something else came in between. Something maybe removed the hat, maybe there was contact with the victim and the hat, maybe there was contact with the assailant and the hat and then the victim. There could be a number of events that are taking place which could result in the presence of those fibers.

MS. CLARK: Hypothetically speaking, sir, would it be reasonable then, given your findings, are your findings consistent with Ronald Goldman having been attacked by the person wearing that cap, in the course of the struggle Ronald Goldman reaches behind him to pull the cap off? Would that set of events be consistent with the finding of the knit cap fibers which were consistent with those from the knit cap being found on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: I think we are assuming facts that aren't in evidence for the purpose of that hypothetical.

MS. CLARK: All right. Hypothetically speaking, sir, if Ronald Goldman were attacked by the wearer of the knit cap, in the course of their struggle the knit cap came off, off the murderer, would that event be consistent with your findings of the fibers consistent with those of the knit cap found on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, we know one thing, that the fibers on the shirt look like the fibers from the hat. It could have been a direct contact while the person was wearing the hat or during the process of removing the hat could have resulted in the transfer. There is really no way to know that for sure. All I do know is that there were fibers on the shirt that looked like the hat fibers.

MS. CLARK: Well, let me ask you this, sir: You told us, I believe, that you found fibers consistent with those of Ronald Goldman's shirt on the knit cap, did you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Would that finding also be consistent with the hypothetical I just gave you of the--of Ronald Goldman being attacked by the wearer of the knit cap, the knit cap coming off in the struggle?

MR. DEEDRICK: A two-way transfer is--it increases the likelihood that there was actual contact directly or indirectly, but it shows a close relationship between those items and each other.

MS. CLARK: Now, you--you recall testifying concerning your findings of the--concerning the examination of hair and fiber taken from the dress and body of Nicole Brown, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, that's right.

MS. CLARK: And you indicate that you found--did you find any fibers consistent with those of the blue knit hat on Miss Brown's clothing?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: And what, if anything, does that indicate to you with respect to the amount of contact she had with her attacker while he was wearing that knit hat?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there may not have been any contact then between the individual wearing the hat or with the person that had fibers on their hands or arms when that contact took place. Sometimes--sometimes you see fibers; sometimes you don't, and it is difficult to know exactly how they got there. One can assume certain things, but the fact is, I did not find any fibers like the hat on Nicole Brown's dress.

MS. CLARK: Would that finding be consistent with having had the murderer having had limited contact--limited physical contact with Nicole Brown and her being rapidly incapacitated offering little resistance?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: If the knit cap, hypothetically speaking, came off early in the struggle with Ronald Goldman and prior to the major wounds inflicted on Nicole Brown, would that be consistent with your failure to find any fibers consistent with the blue knit cap on the dress of Nicole Brown?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation, assuming facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. The--it is--this is persistence that is taking place. This persistence of fibers. How long the fibers are going to remain is coming into play here, besides actual transfer, so that if an individual comes in contact initially with an item and fibers are transferred onto that person, and in this particular case if the hat is removed early on, but there was a transfer of fibers from the hat onto the assailant and then onto a victim, these fibers will dissipate in number and in fact they won't persist on the--on the subject or the assailant. So that if there is subsequent contact, it is reasonable to believe that less fibers, if any, might transfer onto the next person because of a loss of these fibers. You only transfer so many. You are not walking around with large fuzz balls all over you. You transfer a few things and then you move on to the next item and you may not even transfer to the second item. But sometimes persistence of fibers and the number of fibers that one finds may indicate order, that is, order to an event, and I have seen it before in case work where you can determine possibly that one victim may have been killed first and then a second victim and then a third victim and a fourth victim, and you can see that actually on--from the fibers that one finds, that the fiber numbers drop off. And the last victim may not have anything, whereas the first victim may have a lot of fiber evidence.

MS. CLARK: And what do you attribute the rapid loss of fiber--that dwindling amount of fibers that you find on the bodies of successive victims to?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there is only a certain amount of material that is ready to go, ready to transfer, either on the surface of the fabric or from the actual fabric, and a lot of the fibers are the loose fibers that are laying on the surface of the fabric. They are not really bound into the fabric unless there is some damage to it, and then the fibers will become free, up those loose fibers are--there is maybe a set number, depending on the fabric. The transfer occurs, contact occurs and then a transfer takes place. A certain number of fibers then will be removed from the surface of that fabric onto that victim. A second victim may come into play and there may not be as many. The third victim, the fourth victim, you will see an ever decreasing number until you might not find anything.

MS. CLARK: And I think you indicated earlier as well, sir, that fibers are not as persistent in terms of whether they stay on an object as hairs are?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's--

MS. CLARK: Do you recall that?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is true. The fiber evidence is extremely useful in cases where you have dead bodies because they are not moving and the fibers that one finds on these dead bodies often indicates last contact, because that is the last bit of fiber transfers that are taking place, whereas an assailant who leaves the scene within hours, the fibers will be lost, and if you don't get the item from the assailant within short order, the evidence of a fiber transfer may not be seen because they are lost. We just--because we brush things off, we get off the ground, we brush ourselves, we wash our clothes, we do a number of things, like we normally we sit in a car, we lose fibers on the seat. So many things happen that can cause the loss of fibers, but with dead bodies they are not moving and they are often a very good source of fibers of the last contact they may have had.

MS. CLARK: So the finding of fibers, does this assist you in determining whether there has been recent contact or the recent deposit of evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is possible to draw some conclusions from that. There are always going to be fibers that one cannot account for, but certain populations of fibers on certain items may take on increased significance, yes.

MS. CLARK: In your experience of fibers collected from the evidence in this case, sir, did you find any that could have originated from the lining of either the Bundy or the Rockingham gloves?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And can you tell us what kind of fibers make up the lining of those gloves, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Those are cashmere.

MS. CLARK: And on what items did you find those fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: One fiber was found on Ronald Goldman's shirt, another fiber was found on the knit hat left at Bundy.

MS. CLARK: And you made that finding based on what kind of comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been a microscopic comparison. Those are hairs.

MS. CLARK: Those are hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Those are untreated, undyed natural hairs from a goat.

MS. CLARK: And what--after you made the comparison of the fibers from the knit hat and Ronald Goldman's shirt, when you compared those to the lining fibers of both gloves, Bundy and Rockingham, what conclusion did you reach?

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Why don't you rephrase your question. You are referring to it as fiber.

MS. CLARK: Right. Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: When you compared those hairs from Ronald Goldman's shirt and the knit cap, the blue knit cap, to the hairs recovered from the interior of the lining of the gloves at Bundy and Rockingham, what conclusion did you reach?

MR. DEEDRICK: I may be a little confused here. Talking about hairs and fibers. We are mixing the two. Hairs become fibers when they end up on fabric, so essentially they are animal fibers. And when I compared those fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt and on the knit hat, they could have come from either glove, because both gloves had the same types of fibers or hairs.

MS. CLARK: Now, can you tell us, sir, that those fibers could have only come from the Bundy and Rockingham gloves?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I can't say that.

MS. CLARK: What can you say?

MR. DEEDRICK: That they could have come from those gloves or another glove or another fabric that had exactly the same animal hairs or animal fibers present.

MS. CLARK: And may I remove the--

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, if the attacker wore these gloves during the murders and during the struggle with Ronald Goldman one of those gloves was pulled off, would there be fibers from the lining of that left glove on his bare hand?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: They would--there would be probably a number of fibers from the inside of that glove on the hands of the individual.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: And if the murderer continued to pursue attack on Ronald Goldman after that glove came off his left hand, would those fibers on his hand be transferred to the body of Ronald Goldman, if there was contact?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

MR. DEEDRICK: It could have, but just again, this transfer that is taking place here, it would have been a secondary transfer in this instance because the primary transfer takes place between the glove and the hand. Secondary transfer then from the hand to the victim, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Well then, can you, sir, tell us, if that is the case, I think you indicated to us that numerous hair fibers from the lining of that glove would have come--on have been on the bare hand of the attacker when the glove came off?

MR. DEEDRICK: It could have been any number. I don't really know for certain. Likely more than one.

MS. CLARK: And you indicated--how many of the fibers on Ronald Goldman's shirt did you find that were consistent with the lining of the gloves?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was one, just one.

MS. CLARK: Well, why only one?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is all that I found.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Is there any explanation, based on your experience and judgment, that could account for the fact that only one such fiber was found on the shirt of Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the action of the contact here may have resulted in the loss of fibers, again, that there may have been a larger population initially deposited. The contact caused the loss of the fibers and they could be on the ground. I mean, there is no way to know where they were or if more fibers were even transferred. Maybe only one fiber was transferred. Maybe in the processing technique we just didn't find it. Maybe they are still there. I only looked at what was recovered and submitted to me and in that debris there was only one fiber.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, did you receive a fiber mounted on a slide that had been found in the Coroner's jar containing the neck tissue of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And were you able to associate that fiber with any of the known clothing standards submitted to you in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I could not.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe for us the appearance of that hair that you--was submitted to you mounted on a slide?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was a blue cotton fiber.

MS. CLARK: I think you earlier indicated to us, sir, that the off-white cotton fiber of Ronald Goldman's shirt was a very common one. What, if any, observation would you make in that regard with respect to the blue cotton fiber that was on the slide that you saw?

MR. DEEDRICK: I wouldn't say necessarily it was common. Cotton fibers are relatively common. The color blue is a common color, but there are many, many shades of blue. Blue jean fibers, that is too common. We don't even consider blue jean cotton. This didn't appear to be a new jean type fiber. This appeared to have come from some type of processed fabric with a reasonable dye absorption and the color was sort of a purplish blue almost, so it would have been significant to compare if I had a fabric that looked like it.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to this fiber that was found in the neck tissue excised from Nicole Brown Simpson's body, can you tell us, sir, whether you know what the Coroner's employee who put that tissue into the jar was wearing at the time that they put the tissue into the jar?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't.

MS. CLARK: Do you know what the Coroner who actually excised that neck tissue was wearing at the time that he did so?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do not.

MS. CLARK: Do you know whether that fiber may have already been in the jar her neck tissue was placed into?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: At the time it was placed into it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I wouldn't know.

MS. CLARK: Do you know what the Coroner investigators who first handled her body at the scene were wearing?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: And if Nicole's body had been covered with a blanket which contained blue cotton fiber like that you saw on the slide that was prepared from her neck tissue, could that fiber have been transferred by the placement of the blanket on her body to the neck wound?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is possible, yes.

MS. CLARK: Many things are possible?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you have to look at what you have and sometimes you can speculate, but you have to basically fall back on what you have.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Did you examine fibers collected from the evidence in this case that consisted of carpet sample from the Bronco owned by the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And were the known carpet samples collected from the Bronco and submitted to you at your request, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were, yes.

MS. CLARK: And why did you make the request for carpet samples from the Bronco to be sent to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, found on the Rockingham glove, as well as on the knit hat, were two rose beige carpet fibers. Fibers like these were also found on the towel, the shovel and the plastic that were recovered from the Bronco. I saw no differences between them. For this reason I requested samples from the Bronco to see if they may have originated from that source.

MS. CLARK: So before you requested the carpet sample from the Defendant's Bronco, you saw fibers recovered from the towel, plastic and shovel which you knew to have been found in that Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There was one fiber on each of these items that--that exhibited the same characteristics as the single fiber found on the Rockingham glove, as well as a single fiber recovered from the knit hat at Bundy.

MS. CLARK: So the items that you knew to come from the Bronco, those fibers exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the fibers that were found on the knit cap, the glove--

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: They looked the same to me. They had an unusual cross-section. I had not seen it before, so I wanted to get a sample from the Bronco to see if it could have come from that source.

MS. CLARK: And what is it that you found to be unusual about those carpet fibers, in your experience, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I had not seen this particular cross-section before. I called it earlier the jack cross-section with the knobs on the end.

MR. BAILEY: I'm going to object and ask to approach.

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. I take it, Mr. Bailey, your objection is the scope, the prohibited scope running the rarity of the fabric?

MR. BAILEY: I would ask that you give the Prosecution some guidance. I think we are walking perilously close to the information.

MS. CLARK: I already asked the Court about this. I previously asked the Court, outside the presence of the jury, as to the permissibility of asking his conclusions and findings made prior to the Masland inquiry. The Court indicated that that would be acceptable, that was within the bounds, and that is all we are doing.

THE COURT: He can say that he examined it, compared it with the known carpet fibers. He can say it looked unusual to him by his initial microscopic examination, the triangular shape of it. He can say, yes, it was unusual, and they appeared to be the same.

MS. CLARK: Right. And that is all we are doing. We are not going to talk about what he discovered after.

MR. BAILEY: We are stopping right there?

MS. CLARK: He can talk about what he knew at the time he was making the examination. He can discuss his--his opinion of the fiber he saw based on what he knew at the time that he was making that comparison, as I understand it, but he cannot talk about the further inquiry that he conducted and that is all we are doing.

THE COURT: Are we going to do any light absorption, anything like that?

MS. CLARK: Yeah. We have a couple of charts that we had looked at but I decided--

THE COURT: I just wanted to know if we are going to wind it up in the next 15 minutes and the answer is no if we are going to explain light absorption.

MR. BAILEY: 6:00 today, Judge?

THE COURT: Wednesday is a five o'clock day.

MS. CLARK: But we might finish cross today you think? Why not?

THE COURT: Maybe. He is a cut-to-the-chase kind of guy.

MS. CLARK: He is. He is. I know, so maybe we will.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. You were indicating that based on your prior experience and previous case work that you saw something unusual in the carpet fiber--carpet fibers that were recovered from the knit cap, from the glove and from the items that were taken out of the Bronco; the towel, the shovel and the plastic. And what was that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was the cross-section of the fiber, right. I had--I have worked for many years with carpet fibers and I had not seen this particular cross-section before.

MS. CLARK: And that was, I think you described it to us earlier, was that the tri-lobal aspect you described?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It was a three-lobed nylon fiber that had little knobs on the--knob on the end of each lobe. I called it the jack cross-section.

MS. CLARK: May I have one moment, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Sir, did you ever examine a piece of carpet from--taken from the Defendant's Bronco known as item no. 33, LAPD identification number?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: I have a photograph that was previously marked as People's 440 that I would like to show to you, as well as People's 439. And ask you if the carpeting depicted in People's 440 and 439 appears to be the same as the carpet piece that was sent to you at your request?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the piece that I got was not this particular piece. I did get vacuum sweepings from it--from this particular item. The actual sample came from different areas within the vehicle, right.

MS. CLARK: So you--can you tell us, sir, what exactly you requested with respect to exemplars--with respect to carpet samples taken from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I requested samples from all the fabric surfaces that were present within the vehicle. And an interior of a vehicle is often comprised of a lot of different fabrics. It is a little world in itself. There is carpeting, there are floor mats, there is door panel fibers, there are seat cover fibers, in this particular case I believe they were leather, and there is also seat back fibers. There was a back portion of the vehicle, cargo area, that had fabric, so an interior of a vehicle is a source of many different types of fibers, and I asked for all fabric surfaces and I--and I received samples from several areas.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. When you received those samples--when you received those samples, sir, can you tell us whether you conducted some form of comparison with respect to the fibers collected from the towel, the shovel, the plastic, the knit cap, the blue knit ski cap, the glove found at Rockingham?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Initially tests that were conducted before I got the known material were done on the--on just the material taken from the inside of the Bronco, as well as from the--from the knit hat and from the--from the Rockingham glove. A number of tests were conducted there. Ultimately I wanted to get samples from the vehicle. Those were submitted in about a week later or so, and I did--I did the entire battery of tests again on all of those--of the known standards. In the carpeting, the main body of the carpeting of that vehicle was the nylon, tri-lobal, rose beige, jack cross-section fiber.

MS. CLARK: Of all of them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Of all of the carpeted surfaces, right. The door panels were different, seat backs were different. One was polyester, one was an olefin fiber, but all of the actual carpeting was--was the same type.

MS. CLARK: And when you say you used all the usual methods, these were manmade fibers, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Manmade fibers. First a visual comparison under the comparison microscope, polarizing microscope, fluorescent microscope, microspectrophotometry, FTIR, and SEM, which is scanning electron microscope.

MS. CLARK: With the use of all of those methods, when you perform the comparison from the known carpet sample from the Defendant's Bronco to the fibers you found on the knit cap, the Rockingham glove, as well as the towel, the shovel and the plastic, what conclusion did you reach?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, all of those fibers, the questioned fibers from the--from the towel, the shovel, from the plastic, from the Rockingham glove and also from the knit hat could have originated from that Bronco.

MS. CLARK: And if I may, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Sir, did you look at any tapings from the Bronco of A.C. Cowling?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And what kind of carpet--was that a Bronco as well, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was a Bronco.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. "Tapings"?

MS. CLARK: Yes. Maybe I will ask.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, please, what are tapings?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, tapings are used to collect trace materials, just like a vacuum sweeper might be used. A piece of sticky tape when placed onto the surface of a fabric will cause loose fibers and hairs to adhere. These--these tapings would--could be placed on a number of different surfaces. They could be placed on clear plastic sheets. In this particular case they were placed on petrie dishes, plastic petrie dishes, and then covered over.

MS. CLARK: And is that sticky tape a common method of fiber collection?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is one method, yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And is it commonly used for the collection of samples, for known samples, to compare questioned items to?

MR. DEEDRICK: It can be used for that purpose, right. When actual known samples are not collected, you will pick up actual fibers from that surface on the tape, as well as questioned material.

MS. CLARK: When you--and after having examined the tapings, the known samples collected by the tapings from A.C. Cowling's Bronco, can you tell us, sir, whether or not the fibers that were found on the knit cap, the carpet fibers that were found on the knit cap, the Rockingham glove, could have come from A.C. Cowling's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could not have.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, his carpeting was blue.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: Same fiber cross-section, though.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you prepare a chart, sir, that shows the fiber associations that you've just told us about, the carpet fibers on those items we have listed?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: I have a chart, your Honor, that I would ask be marked as People's 486.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 486 for id = chart)

MS. CLARK: All right. If you wouldn't mind stepping down, sir, and take the pointer and please explain to us what you are showing us on this chart.

MR. DEEDRICK: All right. This chart, which is titled "Known carpet fibers from O.J.'s Bronco" indicates the top three photographs being from--actual fiber standards from the interior from the carpeting. K14 is one source of fibers and I don't recall specifically if it was from the rear floorboard or the front floorboard, but that--these are fibers from the floor carpeting. K9 in the center, that is a cross-section that was done using the scanning electron microscope of a carpet fiber from the interior of the Defendant's Bronco. The photograph on the lower left, 3C, that is a fiber from the glove recovered at Rockingham. On the right-hand side is a picture of a fiber that was recovered from the knit cap that was found at the Bundy scene. The center picture is a section of that fiber on the left-hand side and it is a photograph using a scanning electron microscope just to show you what the cross-sections look like for both of them.

MS. CLARK: So the photographs shown in the center of this chart, the upper one labeled K9, first of all, that one, that is from a known sample taken from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And that is the scanning electron microscope photograph?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: The one below it, which is labeled "Q3C fiber from the Rockingham glove, SEM," is that the photograph taken with the scanning electron microscope on the questioned fiber that was found on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It would have been this fiber here, (Indicating). There is only one fiber that was recovered from the glove as well as one fiber from the knit cap.

MS. CLARK: And when the witness referred to this fiber, here, your Honor, he was referring to the photo to the far left on the bottom row as you face this chart.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you can--I see some spots up here on the SEM picture of K9, the known sample of the Defendant's carpet, brock carpet fiber, that I don't see down here, (Indicating). Can you explain what that is and why that didn't preclude you from saying that these fibers could have come from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you don't--you don't see them here on the bottom picture of 3C from the Rockingham glove simply--you see a couple, but not the same number that you see on the top picture from the carpeting and it could have been just from the source. That area was dirtier. Tri-lobal fibers are used for that purpose. They tend to hide dirt very well. That is why you have them inside your house as well as in vehicles, so dirt often collects down in the lower portion of the lobes and in a vehicle they often tend to get pretty dirty, so this happened to be where that particular fiber came from.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, what significance, sir, does the finding of fibers consistent with those of the carpet in the Defendant's Bronco on the Rockingham glove and the blue knit cap have?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is significant from the standpoint of transfer. That is, if you are trying to find a relationship between items recovered from a crime scene or from an area from the Defendant, with a particular item that may be associated with the Defendant, it becomes significant in that regard, because it is possible then to possibly link all of these items together.

MS. CLARK: And given what you told us earlier, sir, about how easily fibers are moved around, does that play any part in the significance of your finding of those carpet fibers on the blue knit cap, the Rockingham glove--

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there is going to always be loose fibers that are present on the seats, on consoles, in different areas of a vehicle just because they--they shed. They get loose and they are moved around. Finding them on the seat of a vehicle that--that looked just like the carpeting is not significant, but it becomes significant when an individual may have contact with the surface of that interior of the vehicle, like a seat, and then through--through secondary transfer then actually picks up the fibers on the clothing and then may deposit them on items--other item. So fibers tend to move a little bit and again they only move so far--

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: --because of persistence.

MS. CLARK: Because they do fall off more easily?

MR. DEEDRICK: Carpet fibers are big, they are actually pretty big fibers. One would not expect to find an awful lot of carpet fibers transferred between items unless you have a dead body laying in a car and then dumped out of a car you might find a few more.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, sir. How does the largeness of the fiber impact on its mobility, how easily it will be transferred or fall off an item?

MR. DEEDRICK: The bigger the fiber, the more likely you are going to brush it off. It is not going to become lost in all of the hundreds of fibers that may be found and actually become part of the fabric. It will tend to lay on the surface of the fabric as opposed to becoming part of it.

MS. CLARK: Which would expect in a smaller fiber?

MR. DEEDRICK: Smaller fibers will tend to make their way into the fabric. Because of the contact and the force that may be applied between two fabrics, it tends to go within it more, whereas a carpet fiber is big, it is actually pretty big, and you can see it with the naked eye pretty easily. It will lay right on the surface, and depending on the nature of the fiber, it may be brushed off more easily.

MS. CLARK: Sir, how many--do you want me to break here? Do you want me to keep going?

THE COURT: Good place?

MS. CLARK: Good place? Pardon?

THE COURT: Good place to break?

MS. CLARK: That's fine.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the noon hour. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M.

(At 12:02 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1995 1:00 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. And counsel, over the noon hour did everybody have the opportunity to see the exhibits, color exhibits?

MR. BLASIER: We have a copy of them, your Honor. We don't have a color copier so we are going to have to try and transcribe them onto a black and white and perhaps over the evening break if we could take them and have copies made.

THE COURT: All right. But you have had the opportunity to examine them?

MR. BLASIER: Just briefly.

THE COURT: And Mr. Darden, you had a question earlier about a witness list from the Defense. Have you received a witness list?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor, I have. The Defense handed us a witness list at noon today. It contains the names of apparent witnesses for whom we have no statements for and no discovery. There are others for whom we have discovery; however, it would appear that any testimony they might offer would be irrelevant to these proceedings. In any event, there will be 352 objections to just about everyone on the list and we will take that up at a later time.

THE COURT: All right. I just wanted to make sure the list at least had been exchanged. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please.

Douglas W. Deedrick, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Good afternoon again, Mr. Deedrick. Miss Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: All right. Mr. Deedrick, when we left off we were talking about the carpet fibers that you found on the knit cap, the Rockingham glove, that exhibited the same characteristics as the fibers in the sample taken from the carpet of the Defendant's Bronco. Now, can you tell us, sir, in what manner carpet fibers from the Defendant's Bronco could have been transferred to the knit hat found at the crime scene at Bundy and the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if the fibers originated from the Bronco, they could have gotten on these items either through direct physical contact with the carpet or indirect or secondary transfer from an occupant or from laying on a surface of a--such as a seat that may not have carpeting.

MS. CLARK: By indirect or secondary transfer, would an example of that be, for example, if the Defendant touched the carpet and then touched the cap, the blue knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.

MS. CLARK: Would a primary transfer example be that the knit cap was laying on the carpeted floor of the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Or that the Rockingham glove at some point was in contact with the carpet in the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, that's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, how many carpet fibers that exhibited the same characteristics as those of the Defendant's Bronco, how many of those did you find on the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just one.

MS. CLARK: And how many carpet fibers that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant's Bronco did you find on the towel, the plastic and the shovel that were actually recovered from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was just--just one fiber per item.

MS. CLARK: Only one per item from items that we know were found in his Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just one.

MS. CLARK: Why would there be so few carpet fibers items that were kept in the car?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is compound as well.

MS. CLARK: Why would there be so few carpet fibers found on those particular items, the towel, the shovel and the plastic?

MR. BAILEY: Object.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is compound, counsel.

MS. CLARK: All right.

MS. CLARK: Why would you--you said there was only one fiber found on the towel that was recovered from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: In your experience and judgment, sir, can you explain to us as an expert, based on your expertise, how you can account for only one fiber being on that towel?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, one fiber could be there because of--that is all that was left on the surface of the fabric on the carpet when the towel made contact with it. When the towel was collected, if there were more present, maybe a couple fell off. Maybe there were more to begin with, but all I ended up with was just one. I don't even know when it got there.

MR. BAILEY: Object as speculation; move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Is there something--there is anything unusual about that, sir, about having found only one carpet fiber on the towel?

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

MS. CLARK: Given the fact that the towel was found in the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. BAILEY: Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is just a fact that fibers can be transferred either directly through a primary contact or secondarily from indirect contact. If the towel were laying on the surface of the carpet, one might expect that a fiber or two may have transferred and they may not have also. It is possible to collect an item from a carpet surface and not actually find a fiber on it. It just depends on what you find, what transfers.

MS. CLARK: And again the plastic that was also recovered from the Defendant's Bronco, you only found one fiber--one carpet fiber that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant's carpet--Bronco carpet fiber on that item as well?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And that was an item found inside that Defendant's Bronco, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe it was, yes.

MS. CLARK: Can you explain or do you have any different explanation for why there is only one fiber on that particular item, given your experience--

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: This is not a big deal. I mean, as far as numbers and fibers, items that are taken out of the inside of the Bronco, you find carpet fibers like the Bronco, it doesn't really matter that much to people, I don't think. One fiber, more fibers may be transferred. You just get what you get.

MS. CLARK: So is there anything unusual in the fact that you found only one such fiber on the towel, one on the plastic, one on the shovel?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: Even in light of the fact that they were items actually found in the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. I think we've covered it.

MS. CLARK: Sir, there was some testimony earlier concerning the brown--there is a plaid cap found inside the Defendant's Bronco. Do you recall testifying to the examination of hair and fiber collected from that item?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I do.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Did you find--on that plaid cap that was found in the Defendant's Bronco, did you find, in the analysis of hair and fiber evidence recovered from that cap, any carpet fibers like those from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Well, how can you explain that?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is a fabric item. The item was from the flooring, actually laying on the carpet. It was collected and processed by the crime lab in Los Angeles and no fibers like the carpet were found.

MS. CLARK: All right. I'm showing you the photograph that has been previously marked as People's 439. If the cap was found in that position in the Defendant's Bronco. As shown in this photograph, is there anything unusual in the fact that no fibers collected from that cap proved to be carpet fiber of the type that could have come from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, that is not--it is not a significant thing to me. The fact is there were none found. I mean, we have a picture of it. It shows it laying in there. The purpose of my work is to--is an attempt to link objects into physical contact. If you have an actual photograph of something laying on an item, well, you don't need me, but if there is question about where that item was, and there might be a fiber on that item that links it to a source, like a carpet, that is--you might ask me to talk about that, but if there is a photograph of it laying on the carpet, it serves no purpose for me to be up here talking about it.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And did you answer, is there anything unusual in the failure to find Bronco carpet fiber--fibers consistent with those from the Defendant's Bronco on that cap?

THE COURT: I think you have already asked that question.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. I wasn't sure.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Now, given the fact that items may or may not pick up fibers as they travel through the world, in your experience, sir, has it ever happened that you have found fibers on pieces of evidence at a crime scene that were not, you could not associate with any of the known clothing standards or cloth from other aspects of the case?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would not be unusual. That is very common to find.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would be surprised not to find it, just to find only things that associate to an item submitted, because as we go through life, the clothing that we wear at any given time comes into contact with the people we meet, with the chairs we sit on, with the loose fibers that are in our environment, but most of the material would likely somehow associate us with where we live, our family, the kind of vehicles we might drive. It is just part of our identity. Each person has his little cluster of debris we walk around with everyday. We drop a little bit off as we go and we pick a little bit more up, and depending on where you stop that event, if a person dies, it stops, but if you can stop a person, a living person at a given time, you can get some idea as to where they've been or who they have been with or what kind of vehicle they may drive or what kind of sofa they have in their living room. Because you tend to collect some of that material and carry it with you, but only for a short while, and then you start to drop it off. Then you collect up new stuff. We kind of walk around as little garbage collectors. We pick things up as we go and then we drop off some. That is where I come in, when that time period is stop, whether it is a dead person or a suspect who has been arrested, and at that time I get the clothes and I try to report on what I find at that particular time.

MS. CLARK: Then why in your experience, in cases that you have seen, has there ever been a case where you did not have fibers that--let me see if I can frame that in the positive. Has it been--in all of the cases you have done, sir, has every case presented you with some fibers or some hairs that could not be associated with any of the known individuals or other items of evidence in the case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Almost--I would say every case where there is fabric involved, and most of them have fabric, there is going to be fibers that cannot be accounted for. Their relevance to a particular case may never be known and you just--you just use what you have, what is submitted, what you are asked to compare, and you try to derive conclusions from that. To identify the source of every little fiber that is found on a fabric is--takes a little bit too much time and you may not be able to do that, because fabrics themselves don't last forever. We give them to the salvation army or we donate them or we destroy them. We get a rip in them, we just throw them in the garbage. Fabrics themselves don't last a long time. They are transient. They stay for a while and then we get rid of them.

MS. CLARK: Is this case any different in that respect? Were there fibers found on the various pieces of evidence submitted to you that could not be associated with any known standard?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were some, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated I think with respect to the blue knit cap, sir, there was a carpet fiber consistent with those of the Defendant's Bronco on that item and you indicated I think to us earlier that you picked off--some items off that blue knit cap yourself?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Was this carpet fiber that you picked off the hat one of those items that you picked off yourself?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. It would have been from a scraping process.

MS. CLARK: Can you explain to the jury how--what you mean by the scraping process?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the hat is taken into a room where there is some paper spread out on a table and the item is just scraped. It is like a large cake decorator, a spatula, and scraping the item will remove any loosely adhering material. This fiber you couldn't see. This particular piece of fiber was very small.

MS. CLARK: You were not able to see it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, you can't see most of the little fibers in a case. Some larger fibers you can, but if you just pick, you are not going to get very much.

MS. CLARK: Well, I thought you said earlier that the fibers from the exemplar from the Defendant's Bronco were large, that all these carpet fibers in fact were large?

MR. DEEDRICK: They are large in terms of their diameter, they are very fat fibers, but some of the lengths can be very short lengths, just depends on what you get, but carpet fibers are the easiest to see in terms of fiber evidence.

MS. CLARK: Was the--the fiber--you also indicated that you saw--that there was fiber removed from the Rockingham glove that was consistent with the carpet fiber of the Defendant's Bronco. Do you recall that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall where on the glove or in the bag that fiber was found?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe that came from the bag that held that particular item.

MS. CLARK: Now, in your experience, sir, in all of the cases that you have had, has it ever occurred before that items of hair or fiber are found in a bag in which evidence is contained?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: How common or unusual is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is not unusual. That is why we always examine the interior of the bag or the container that had an item, because just as hairs and fibers can cling to an item from contact, they also fall off, so they could--easily and they often do fall off inside the container, inside the bag.

MS. CLARK: And that is a routine thing that is done, at least at the FBI, to examine containers in which evidence is held for hair or trace that might have come off?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: Now, are you aware, sir, that there was a piece of carpet marked as item no. 33 that was wrapped up in paper and taped up and placed into a box which also contained bags containing the items of the blue knit cap the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: Is that a question?

MS. CLARK: Yes. Are you aware of those facts, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know if I know all of those facts, no, as to how they were originally contained.

MS. CLARK: Then let me pose a hypothetical to you. Assume the following facts: That a piece of carpeting marked as item no. 33 removed from the Defendant's Bronco was folded inward with a fiber inward, that it was then wrapped up in paper and completely taped closed so that no carpet was showing. That item was placed in a box along with bags containing the following items of evidence and each of these bags is sealed shut with tape, folded over and taped shut: The knit cap, that is, the blue knit cap, the Rockingham glove, Bundy glove, and the plaid cap that was recovered from the Defendant's Bronco and the Defendant's--the socks found in the Defendant's bedroom. Each of those items separately packaged in their own paper bags and taped shut. They are all in the box along with the carpet from the Defendant's Bronco, that it is wrapped in paper and completely taped shut. Assume those facts, sir. Did you find any Bronco carpet--any carpet fibers that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those from the Defendant's Bronco on the Defendant's socks?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Or on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: And I believe you earlier indicated that you also did not find it on the plaid cap that was taken from his car?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Now, what, if anything, does the lack, the failure to find any carpet fibers consistent with those from the Defendant's Bronco on other items contained in that same box with the carpet sample as the items that you found to contain carpet fibers consistent with those of the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is a mouth full.

MS. CLARK: What does that mean to you in terms of whether or not the carpet fibers found on the Rockingham glove and the knit cap were found as a result of cross-transfer from being stored in the same box as the carpet sample, item 33?

MR. BAILEY: Object to the form.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, we--we have fibers on some items; we don't have fibers on other items. If care and attention were taken when the item--the carpeting was sealed, and there was an attempt made, an effort made not to allow loose fibers to be inside that box, I might not expect to see trace fibers on other items. Even if there were a lot of loose fibers, because of sloppy handling perhaps, then I might expect to see fibers on all of the items, simply because they were all in the same box. But again, you find what you find and it is difficult to know precisely. I would say if they are all sealed and there is an effort made to seal the items carefully, then it would minimize the risk of contaminating evidence.

MS. CLARK: And the fact that no carpet fibers consistent with those of the Defendant's Bronco were found on other items in the same box, does that contribute in any to your--let me rephrase that. The fact that you did not find carpet fibers consistent with those of the Defendant's Bronco on other items kept in the same box, does that support your conclusion that the carpet fibers found on the knit cap at Rockingham were not the result of transfer from being stored with the carpet sample item 33.

MR. BAILEY: Object, asked and answered, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that would be consistent with that, that the fact is if it appears that the carpeting was sealed up adequately, and if it weren't I might expect to see the fibers on all the items. It just depends on how loose it is and how many loose fibers are floating around in there. It is a real hit or miss thing. But if you only find it on a couple items and you don't find it on others, one might be led to believe that the fiber was actually originally on this item and not a contaminant.

MS. CLARK: Now, what does the--the finding of the carpet fiber on the Rockingham glove, what does that indicate to you with respect to the manner in which it could have been transferred--that carpet fiber could have been transferred to the Rockingham glove from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, either--as I said before, either a direct or indirect contact could result in that fiber being present.

MS. CLARK: Would the Defendant necessarily have had to be wearing the Rockingham glove at the time he was in the Bronco for it to pick up the carpet fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: So if, for example, all he did was get into the car, the Bronco, carrying--and take off the Rockingham glove and throw it on the seat or on the console next to him, could the glove pick up carpet fibers just by that mere presence on the console inside the car?

MR. DEEDRICK: It could--it could be the source, yes, that is possible.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Testimony was presented in this case that as of 9:45 on the night of June the 12th the Defendant was wearing a dark blue or black cotton type sweatsuit. Did you find any fibers like that in any of the fibers collected from the evidence that you examined in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: What is the objection?

MR. BAILEY: Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Can you please tell us from which items you found such fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the socks from the Defendant's bedroom.

MS. CLARK: Can I--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Now, did you actually examine the Rockingham glove, the shirt of Ronald Goldman and the Defendant's socks?

MR. BAILEY: I object and ask if we can approach, please.

THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Bailey, what is the objection?

MR. BAILEY: There is no evidence whatsoever and she has asked him to assume that the Defendant was wearing dark blue clothing at 9:45 that night.

MS. CLARK: Well, Kato testified to--

MR. BAILEY: He testified that it was dark clothing period. He didn't say cotton, wool or anything.

MS. CLARK: Oh, yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: No, he did not.

MS. CLARK: He most certainly did.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Let me go get it. I have got it.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. What do you have?

MS. CLARK: I didn't bring mine down with me, Dana went up to get it, but I know what he said and I had it pulled ahead of time.

MR. COCHRAN: Blasier found it. Why don't you use his and save some time. He didn't say cotton; he said like cotton.

MS. CLARK: Okay. I will correct it. I don't think that is all that he said, though. I think you have only pulled out a part of it.

MR. BAILEY: Black or blue like cotton.

MS. CLARK: And that is so much different than what I said?

THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. That is close enough.

MR. COCHRAN: Shouldn't she restate it?

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MR. COCHRAN: Restate it, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Rephrase the question, though, in terms of Kaelin's testimony.

MS. CLARK: Yeah. But didn't he say dark blue or black like cotton?

THE COURT: Sweat outfit.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: That is all we are asking.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MS. CLARK: I will rephrase it.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Blasier, for finding that in your database.

MS. CLARK: Sir, in this case testimony was presented that as of 9:45 on June 12th, 1994, the Defendant was wearing dark blue or black like cotton type sweatsuit. And in the question I posed to you earlier you indicated that you did find fibers like that in some of the evidence that you collected in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you examine the actual items, the Rockingham glove, Ronald Goldman's shirt and the Defendant's socks?

MR. DEEDRICK: I looked at debris that was removed from these items.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: And did you also see the items themselves?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did at some point, yes.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Cut the feed for this, your Honor. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you have examined the crime scene photographs, some of them in this case, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have, yes.

MS. CLARK: Were you able to determine where on Mr. Goldman's shirt you found the blue black cotton fiber?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: People's 167, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: The Defendant's socks depicted in this photograph, sir, did you actually examine the items themselves?

MR. DEEDRICK: I saw the socks at a later date, yes.

MS. CLARK: Were you able to determine where on the socks the blue black cotton fiber was found?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, what conclusion you reached concerning the blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, Ron Goldman's shirt and the sock found in the Defendant's bedroom?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they all could have originated from the same fabric.

MS. CLARK: What appearance would those fibers have in a piece of fabric in terms of color?

MR. DEEDRICK: They would be black. It would look black.

MS. CLARK: May I pull off the result, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, does that complete the items on that board?

MS. CLARK: I believe it does, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Then I would ask you to bring it down to this end of the jury box, because it is hard to see the detail.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

(The exhibit was displayed to the jury.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Now, Mr. Deedrick, did you have a photo board prepared to demonstrate to the jury the blue black cotton fibers that you were able to match that you found on Ron Goldman's shirt--that you found consistent on Ron Goldman's shirt?

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. BAILEY: I object and ask to approach.

THE COURT: No. It has been rephrased. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: The blue black cotton fibers that you found to be consistent with each other exhibited the same microscopic characteristics that you found on Ron Goldman's shirt, on the Defendant's socks and on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did prepare a board.

MS. CLARK: Ask to mark this as People's 4--

THE COURT: 87.

MS. CLARK: --87. Thank you.

(Peo's 487 for id = posterboard)

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. If you wouldn't mind stepping down with a pointer to explain to us what we see on this board.

MR. DEEDRICK: (Witness complies.) Okay. The board consists of eight photographs, the top three being from the Rockingham glove on the left, from Ron Goldman's shirt in the middle and from the socks from the Defendant's residence. Numbers--the numbers we have are Q3B in the laboratory, which refers to the Rockingham glove, Q23 from Ron Goldman's shirt, and Q37 which would have been our item number for the socks. The photographs that you see, these would be the cotton fibers, the dark ones with the blue accent or portions of the fiber that are blue. The brownish fiber in the background would be from the cashmere. That is the lining fibers. Q23, that is a clump of fiber here from Ron Goldman's shirt and this is a fiber from the socks from the Defendant. The next three photographs depict again another photograph from the Rockingham glove fiber, a fiber from Ron Goldman's shirt and another fiber that was removed from the Defendant's socks. The bottom two photographs, another fiber here which appears to have blood on the surface from the Rockingham glove and another fiber located next to a hair that--that hair was like the hairs of Nicole Brown and that is one of the fibers that was lying next to it.

MS. CLARK: So Q23 at the bottom here of this chart actually shows a hair that you determined to be consistent with those of Nicole Brown associated with one of the blue black cotton fibers that you determined to be consistent with those found on the Defendant's socks and the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. You are right, all from the same item. And again, I said before, there were a number of hairs that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, I object and move to strike the statements "All from the same item."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And this Q23 that was taken off the--that was found on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. All three center photographs were photographs of the fibers recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, what this--this blue black cotton fiber, this would have been a natural fiber, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Natural plant fiber.

MS. CLARK: And what method of comparison or examinations did you use with respect to those blue black cotton fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the fibers are compared microscopically with a comparison microscope. They are also compared with fluorescent microspectrophotometry by the color, so the color is compared as well instrumentally. That would be the methods that were employed.

MS. CLARK: Now, given what you said earlier about fibers and the fact that they come and go, what is significant to you about this new black cotton fiber that you found on the three different items of evidence in this case?

MR. BAILEY: Object to the form.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. I stated previously that fibers don't exist a long time and routinely the fibers that you find on an item often reflect the last contacts that they have occurred with that item. The blood associated or what appears to be blood associated with the Rockingham glove fiber probably caused the fiber to adhere, so that appears to be a contiguous or an event that is happening about the same time, fiber coming in contact with the glove, it sticks to the glove and that is how we end up finding it. The shirt, the shirt fibers are the same thing. Any fibers that you find on an item of clothing, at least within a certain number of fibers that you find, again may reflect the recent contact and there is no absolutes here, but you do find that recent contacts will result in fibers that you do find. The clump of fibers here associated with the cashmere like fibers that you see on the upper left, again it is a clump of fibers, a group of fibers that are found, as opposed to just a loose fragment.

MS. CLARK: A clump?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it appears to be a clump. A clump. There is actually a group of fibers here, maybe two or possibly three fibers in this particular region.

MS. CLARK: On the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: The same with Ron Goldman's shirt, another clump which may have been just a loose clump of fibers that we often find on our clothes, a tuft of fibers.

MS. CLARK: Now, you saw a lot of fibers in this case, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: A lot, yes.

MS. CLARK: Was there something unusual about these particular blue black cotton fibers that drew your attention or made you pay particular attention to them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Well, cotton fibers themselves they are common. There is a lot of cotton fibers out there. What gives cotton fibers significance is that when you add color to them in a specific way, some you see more, maybe less likely than others. These particular--these are--actually it is a real dark blue, it looks black, but in some areas the dye was not absorbed the same and this may be where the yarns are attached to the fabric. The same thing appeared also on the fibers that were recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt. The bluish area, also present here. It was recovered from the Defendant's socks, (Indicating). The bluish area here, (Indicating), is starting to show. Some of these areas can--can better be shown using instrumental techniques with color, because the eyeball sees this as a shade of blue, this as a shade of blue and so forth. The instrument, the microspectrophotometer can actually break down this color, its components, and then you compare the absorption spectra which is an assistance to the eye comparison.

MS. CLARK: I think you sometime last week marked a chart showing the wave patterns of light absorption?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: You indicated that that was a method you could use to compare fibers to one another to see if they could have had a common source?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It is a tool that is used to help the examiner to make a decision on whether the fibers are alike or different.

MS. CLARK: Was that method used with respect to the blue black cotton fibers in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was, yes.

MS. CLARK: And a chart was generated?

MR. DEEDRICK: I think there were several charts generated, yes.

MS. CLARK: And what did those charts indicate?

MR. DEEDRICK: It indicated to me that the absorption spectra were the same. That is the dye components that were present that make up the color that we see are the same. Still can't say that they all came from the same fabric. You have to understand all it says is that they appear to exhibit similar properties, both instrumentally and visually.

MS. CLARK: Did you prepare another chart, photographs pertaining to this blue black cotton fiber?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, this other chart has three photographs on it and it shows the known cotton fiber from Goldman's jeans on the left-hand side as you face it and two other photographs concerning the blue black cotton fiber. Ask that it be marked People's 480--

THE COURT: 488.

MS. CLARK: If I could ask Jonathan to hold it for the brief period of questioning for Mr. Deedrick.

(Peo's 488 for id = photograph)

THE COURT: All right. That is Mr. Fairtlough.

MS. CLARK: No, I meant--for Mr. Deedrick. Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough. Oh, I said Jonathan. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Can you please describe to us what you have attempted to depict on this chart that has been marked as People's 488?

MR. DEEDRICK: A couple things here. One, just give you an idea what the blue jean cotton fibers look like. The blue jean cotton fibers, you see areas where the dye is absorbed to lighter than others, and the more fading that you have with blue jeans, the color just bleaches out and you will see some white. Even though they look blue, there is actually white fibers that are mixed in there with it. But the purpose of showing you this photograph was to show you the difference between this particular fiber and this particular fiber down here, (Indicating), that are also cotton, but they are colored differently.

MS. CLARK: For the record, when he said this particular item and this particular item, he was referring to the photographs labeled as Q23.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DEEDRICK: Now, both of the photographs that you see on the right-hand side of the photograph were fibers that were recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt. The one in particular at the top right, you can see how closely associated it is with a hair that exhibited the same characteristics as Nicole Brown. In fact, it somehow wrapped itself around the hair.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, let me ask you a real quick question here. This item Q23 on this chart that was recovered from the shirt of Ronald Goldman shows the blue black cotton fiber wrapped around the hair that you describe as being consistent with those of Nicole Brown. How could it have come--become wrapped around in that manner?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the hair has to actually roll, it has to roll across the fiber. Either that fiber is a loose fiber that happened just to land on it and rolled over it, or the hair rolled on the fabric. If the hair rolls on a fabric surface that is comprised of these fibers, there is a good chance that that hair, depending on what type of material is on the hair, can actually cause the roll effect and the fiber will roll right around the hair. That is how it ended up in that state.

MS. CLARK: Do you have an opinion as to how it occurred in this particular case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is difficult to know exactly how that fiber got there. Perhaps again the two methods I mentioned; one being maybe a little more likely than the other. If it actually landed on the fiber and rolled, that would be less likely, in my opinion, than if it actually came in contact with the fabric, which would be a more likely event.

MS. CLARK: So for example, if--if the Defendant wearing a dark cotton sweatsuit that had fibers like those you have described here in these charts, the blue black cotton fibers, and he attacked Nicole Brown with his sleeve coming into contact with her hair, could that account for the manner in which you found the fabric wrapped around hair like those of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is possible it could have happened that way. Sweatsuits tend to have, because of their plush nature, tend to have longer, looser fibers on the surface.

MS. CLARK: Now, the bottom photograph here, is that another area of the same hair and fiber depicted in the upper photograph?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe so, no. That is another fiber.

MS. CLARK: Another blue black fiber on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There were what, a number of fibers, I don't recall the exact number, that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: And just above it, is that a hair above it there, (Indicating)?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Again, I had 35 hairs, remember, off of this that were like Nicole Brown's on Ron Goldman's shirt and these are on those slides, the same slides.

MS. CLARK: So is this hair depicted in the lower photograph next to the blue black cotton fiber also consistent with the hairs of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe that hair is. Again, I'm only going by a fuzzy photograph here, but a lot of the fibers and hairs were in close proximity. I'm not implying and I don't want to imply in this instance here that this fiber is like this fiber in the sense of how it is oriented. It just happened to land on the hair.

THE COURT: Juror no. 7, can you see this exhibit.

JUROR NO. 795: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Could we take this chart down to the end, your Honor. Mr. Fairtlough. Thank you.

(The exhibit was displayed to the jury.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Mr. Escobar is assisting me. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, we spoke earlier about it being common to find fibers of one item of clothing on another item of clothing worn at the same time by the same person. Do you recall that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do.

MS. CLARK: And I think you discussed it in the context of having found fibers from Ron Goldman's shirt or fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt on his jeans.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. The blue black cotton fiber that you have just described as having been found on the Defendant's socks, what reasonably logically can you infer about how that fiber came to be transferred onto the Defendant's socks, based on your expertise?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right. Is the finding of the blue black cotton fiber you found on the Defendant's socks consistent with the Defendant having worn an item of clothing made of such blue black cotton fibers at the time he wore the socks?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: It is certainly not inconsistent with it. He could have come in contact with an outfit, that is how the fibers got there, or some other way.

MS. CLARK: And what other way would that be?

MR. DEEDRICK: Walked on the fiber.

MR. BAILEY: Object, your Honor, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: You also found the blue black cotton fibers on the Rockingham glove. Is that finding consistent with the Defendant having worn a dark--dark blue to black cotton sweatsuit at the time he wore that glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: How many fibers of the blue black cotton fibers did you find on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall. I believe there were several.

MS. CLARK: And if the Defendant were wearing a dark blue black cotton sweatsuit at the time he wore the Rockingham glove, would that account for the transfer of those fibers, the blue black cotton fibers, onto that glove where you found them?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Is the finding of the blue black cotton fibers on the Rockingham glove consistent with the same phenomena you described earlier when you found--when you testified that you found fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt on his jeans?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: No. That would be the same if you are assuming then that the individual who wore the gloves also had the dark sweatsuit on at the same time. The same principles are taking place, that is, in--in the process of wearing an item of clothing loose fibers are going to be present making contact with that item of clothing with the glove or whatever could result in a transfer, yes.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I think we have gone over the manner in which fibers or hairs are transferred now about eight times.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Let me just ask you this then, sir:

MS. CLARK: Given all that you have told us about fibers and the manner in which they are transferred and how easily they are moved and lost, what is the significance of your findings concerning the blue black cotton fibers which exhibit the same microscopic characteristics on three different pieces of evidence; one, at Rockingham, the Rockingham glove, Defendant's socks and Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation, compound.

THE COURT: Sustained. He can form an opinion as to any possible relationship between the three.

MS. CLARK: What, if any, opinion do you have concerning the significance of your finding the blue black cotton fiber on the Defendant's socks, on the Rockingham glove and on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. The issue is, is there a relationship between the three?

MS. CLARK: I understand.

MS. CLARK: What opinion, sir, do you have as to the relationship of the blue black cotton fibers you found on the Defendant's socks, the Rockingham glove and Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. It is for the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I had previously stated that persistence is a phenomena that is very important here as well as how fibers can be transferred. The fibers that you find on a particular item of clothing often reflect--reflect last contacts. If all three items have--have fibers that are alike microscopically, that would suggest that all three items had last physical contact with an item of clothing that had exactly the same fibers in it. It could be one item, I'm not saying it is, but it could be one item of clothing.

MS. CLARK: And the blue black--how many blue black cotton fibers did you find on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were more. There were a number of fibers. Again, I don't have an exact count on that. The population was greater.

MS. CLARK: Does the presence of that number of fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt indicate to you what--what does it indicate to you with respect to the manner in which it could have been transferred to that shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Does the number of those blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt indicate there was some contact between Ron Goldman's shirt and someone wearing a fabric comprised of that kind of fiber?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Leading, counsel.

MR. BAILEY: Same question.

THE COURT: We have established the transfer and all of that.

MS. CLARK: Does the number of fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt of the blue black cotton variety indicate anything of significance to you with respect to the nature of the contact that transferred them to his shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, same question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: The more rigorous the contact, the longer the duration. The more forceful contact often results in greater fiber exchanges up to a certain number. Again, it just depends on the nature of the fibers. It depends on the nature of the contact, but the greater force, the more surface area coming into actual physical contact in the common sense kind of, but they show this through studies, that you will transfer more fibers that way. Just like if you walk through the mud, the more you walk through the mud, you get more mud on you. It is kind of all the same principle.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Good afternoon, Mr. Deedrick. Mr. Deedrick, do you prefer to be called agent Deedrick or Mr. Deedrick?

MR. DEEDRICK: Mr. Deedrick is fine.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. That is what we will use then. You have testified, I believe, that you have handled about 4000 cases, as you sit here, since becoming a hair and fiber examiner at the FBI laboratory?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell me when it was that you first went over the thousand mark? At what point in your career?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't even recall. It was some time ago.

MR. BAILEY: Well, do you do any kind of annual reports that indicate what your activity has been during a calendar year?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe those records are kept, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Well, can you tell me approximately how many cases you have done per year since you became an examiner?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, probably the average was around thirty cases plus probably per month, so over 300 cases per year probably on an average.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is that pretty consistent from year to year or does it vary greatly?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was pretty consistent there for a long time, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Now, your duties have changed twice, I believe, since you became an examiner. First you became in charge of training sometime in the eighties?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I had--that actually was just an added duty. It didn't detract from my case load. I still got plenty of cases to work.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So your handling of cases remained consistent despite that additional chore?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, remained pretty consistent.

THE COURT: Excuse me, gentlemen. You are both going to have to finish to allow the other to finish speaking.

MR. DEEDRICK: Sorry.

MR. BAILEY: How about when you became section chief, did that alter your work routine at all?

MR. DEEDRICK: After I was officially assigned as unit chief in hairs and fibers, yes, my case load dropped, so I don't handle many cases any more.

MR. BAILEY: How are cases distributed among the examiners who work in your section?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they are distributed on the basis of expertise, length of service, how quickly they can turn a case around, type of examiner they are. It depends upon the individual. Cases are assigned based on those reasons.

MR. BAILEY: And who do they come to initially within the section?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they are--they come into the unit chief or acting unit chief and that person then will assign the cases to a specific examiner to look at.

MR. BAILEY: Does that mean if you are present you will do the assignment, and if you are not, you have a deputy who carries out that function?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Who would that be?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, Robert Framm is the next one in line as far as time in the unit. He has got about six or seven years, and I normally have him do it, but it could be any other individual in the unit who is an examiner, qualified examiner.

MR. BAILEY: Is this a case that you assigned to yourself when it arrived in Washington?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: How did that happen?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the section chief, James Kearney, asked me to work it when it came into the laboratory.

MR. BAILEY: Is he, for all intents and purposes, your boss?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. He is my immediate supervisor.

MR. BAILEY: The person to whom you report?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Let me ask you a few questions about your background, Mr. Deedrick. Have you written any papers for journals connected to the profession of forensic science?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've written a couple articles regarding feather identification, but nothing regarding hair and fiber.

MR. BAILEY: You were trained in feathers by a lady from North Carolina who specializes in that?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And that is the comparison of feathers, known and unknowns, as you have described it here, relating to hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, as well as identifications.

MR. BAILEY: Is that part of the FBI's academy training program now?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I like to teach all the new people a little bit about it just so I can expose them to it as a potential type of evidence they may encounter.

MR. BAILEY: Have you written a paper in a fine publication having to do with determining sex from the examination of fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have. I guess I was a co-author on that, regarding sex determination of forcibly removed human hairs, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Any other publications that you have authored?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe so.

MR. BAILEY: How about any books? Have you written any books on this subject?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Are there any associations or professional societies devoted strictly to hair and fiber experts?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there are a couple organizations that have been established over the past few years that deal specifically with fiber identifications and fiber examinations. There is a European fibers group and there is also the technical working group for fiber examiners in the United States, but for the most part, most scientific associations deal with all the various phases of forensics, none specifically dedicated to hair and fiber that I know of.

MR. BAILEY: What would you say is the leading association of forensic scientists in this country?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, probably the academy--American academy of forensic science.

MR. BAILEY: Are you a member of that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I am not.

MR. BAILEY: Have you ever held an office in it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, not in--not in a scientific organization, no.

MR. BAILEY: Do you belong to any organization?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do not.

MR. BAILEY: Have you ever written any publications for the journal of the academy of forensic science known as the journal of forensic science?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe I have, no.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What publications do you regularly read that track the developments in this area of the profession?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, we have a forensic science information resource center in the laboratory that sort of tracks all the different documents and articles and journals that--that are published on a monthly basis, either in the American academy or forensic science, which is the journal of forensic science, used to be the journal of forensic science society, and there are a number of other forensic journals that come through. The microscope by the Macrone Institute and there are also forensic publications, books that come out, forensic science handbook and others that we refer to periodically.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Which of these, if any, do you review on a regular basis when the articles pertain to your specialty?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, all of the journal of forensic science articles that come out are circulated, as well as again--I don't recall what the new name for the forensic science society is in England, but all of those come through on a routine basis.

MR. BAILEY: Are these things that you read when they appear to pertain to hairs and fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is this a matter of routine? When these articles come out and they arrive at the laboratory, you will review them?

MR. DEEDRICK: I try to keep up with them, yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: And have you reviewed any number of studies that have been published, for instance, in the journal of forensic science?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have read quite a few, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you tell me what would be the average number of pieces of materials that would be involved in a case, as such, this being a case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Oh, an average case may be ten to twenty items perhaps, an average.

MR. BAILEY: Do you recall testifying earlier that it may be hundreds, a hundred or more pieces in a case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, it could. I mean, I have had cases with thousands of items, but if you took all the--all of the cases across the board and did an average on--an all of the cases, we get a lot of cases that are pretty small, so it is probably ten to twenty. Twenty might be--is probably correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What is the work routine in your laboratory? How many days a week are you there, when you are not traveling?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. The normal workday is five days a week, Monday through Friday, and it is a ten-hour day for all the examiners, so it is supposed to be 9:00 to 5:30. We get in about 6:40 in the morning and close up shop around 5:30.

MR. BAILEY: What percentage of a ten-hour day would you say you spend at the comparison microscope on an average day?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, each examiner has a little different method, depending on how they work. Some people are morning people and some people are afternoon people. I've always been a morning person in terms of looking through the microscope, so I will spend perhaps from seven o'clock to noon steady doing microscope work, and after that point I find that my eyes get tired because it is a strain, and I do mostly administrative work, reading and try to do some miscellaneous work, but heavy scope work is morning.

MR. BAILEY: So I guess what you are telling us is that when you are in the laboratory you probably average five hours a day at the comparison microscope looking at various materials, known and unknown?

MR. DEEDRICK: Probably steady heavy comparison microscope work about five hours a day.

MR. BAILEY: All right. How many weeks a year are you permitted a vacation?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, let's see. I accumulated up to the maximum. I probably get 26 days a year.

MR. BAILEY: That you take?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if I can, yes. I may have to give some up this year.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Is it fair to say that you probably work, taking out weekends, holidays and so forth, about 250 days a year?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have never really thought about that, but there are a number of days this we get off, yes, work holidays and weekends.

MR. BAILEY: And vacation?

MR. DEEDRICK: If you can get a vacation in there, yes, that's right.

MR. BAILEY: Well, does that sound a reasonable number?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. That sounds fine.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. When you testify in a case you necessarily spend some time in preparation with the lawyers and others who have called you and asked you to appear, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sometimes you do and--yes. It is a good idea, right, to spend some time.

MR. BAILEY: Has anybody ever put you on the witness stand without talking to you about what you were going to say?

MR. DEEDRICK: It has happened a lot, yes.

MR. BAILEY: You just get called in the door, introduced to the lawyer and pile on the stand, is that it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It is a little uncomfortable.

MR. BAILEY: That didn't happen in this case, did it?

MR. DEEDRICK: I had a chance to discuss the case, yes.

MR. BAILEY: You spent quite a bit of time in the preparation for your testimony in this case, have you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I came out a couple times, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you give us, including travel time, an estimate of the number of hours that you have spent getting ready to testify here in this case?

MS. CLARK: Well, objection to travel time. What is the relevance?

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. First give me the number of hours that you have spent preparing, and if that includes some of the time you were on the airplane, please include that, too, assuming that you are flying back and forth?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, flying, yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: I probably spent a good ten days or maybe a little less than ten days in direct contact with the Prosecutor, with the D.A.'s office, in preparation for the case. As far as office time preparation, it took a while to prepare some photographs and also to have the charts made by the special projects section. It is difficult to say, but there has been quite a bit of time in preparation for this case.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you translate that into an approximate number of hours?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe I can.

MR. BAILEY: Several hundred?

MR. DEEDRICK: I really don't know. A hundred, couple hundred. Maybe so.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you tell me the average length of time involved away from your facility when you testify in a case?

MR. DEEDRICK: (No audible response.)

MR. BAILEY: And I mean just the average?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. Well, an average testimony you will probably go out the day before, testify, and I try to get back that same day of the testimony, so one day out overnight, so two days.

MR. BAILEY: All right. But if the case is some distance away, such as this coast or Alaska, it may be considerably longer than that?

MR. DEEDRICK: It might be a week. It might be.

MR. BAILEY: Would you say that the average that you spend when you have to testify in a case, including your preparation, your appearance in court and whatever waiting around you have to do for whatever reason while the trial is in progress, would average two days perhaps?

MR. DEEDRICK: Two days is a good average I think for a testimony, to travel and testify.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So with the 400 cases in which you've testified prior to coming here, it would be 800 days that you were not present in the laboratory?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't--well, I don't know if that is the average or not, but I mean, when you consider a lot of testimony are non-travel testimony. A lot of them are in the District of Columbia, so it is just walk down the street and testify. I have testified in Fairfax County a few times, a lot of--I consider testimonies, depositions. We get a lot of depositions. People travel to Washington and take a deposition, so I included those, not just travel testimonies.

MR. BAILEY: These were not trials then, as you said before? Some were merely the giving of a deposition?

MR. DEEDRICK: Some were--I would have included depositions regarding testimony.

MR. BAILEY: Can you give us any help there as between the time you give a deposition and the times you appeared in a Judge in a courtroom with or without a jury?

MR. DEEDRICK: The--probably 50 or so depositions maybe over the years.

MR. BAILEY: That leaves 350 trials?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, about. That is quite a few.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, a few moments ago you thought it quite reasonable to estimate that the average testimony was a two-day affair. Do you wish to change that?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, that sounds fair, a couple days.

MR. BAILEY: If that is so, 400 testimonies would be 800 days?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And none of these subsequently take place on weekends or holidays, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I have--you know, the testimony--I have testified on Saturday. I have testified on holidays.

MR. BAILEY: How many times?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well--

MR. BAILEY: Were these judges?

MR. DEEDRICK: Probably ten times or fifteen times, but that is a rare event.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You alluded to the exhibits that were obviously prepared for the case of People against O.J. Simpson. Is it fair to say that this is a rather larger number of exhibits than you normally use in a criminal case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, yes, in a regular criminal case.

MR. BAILEY: Is it fair to say that it is probably the largest number of exhibits that you ever prepared for your testimony in a criminal case?

MR. DEEDRICK: It could be at the record level, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Normally you don't bring anything this elaborate to the courtroom with you, do you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that is not--normally I don't think that is correct. Anytime that I make a fiber association any more, even hairs, I will be photographing. It is not something we used to do years ago, but I felt this could be quite beneficial as far as being able to show what--what I look at and what I associate. So I--it is very common for me and for the unit to go out on a trial and take charts of any associations, but not often do we have this many associations.

MR. BAILEY: Are those charts in other cases generally made up for that case or are they generic and illustrative, such as you use for teaching?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Well, both. Some--some make up charts for training purposes, education, and a lot of the others are prepared from fiber associations or hair associations.

MR. BAILEY: And how many of your cases have you made up boards of random hairs, known hairs, et cetera, similar to those which you have used here?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I've done this before in a couple major homicide investigations in the State of Virginia and in Alaska, I used boards in those two cases, and there may have been a couple others.

MR. BAILEY: Talking about the Hughes case in Virginia?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Caleb Hughes?

MR. DEEDRICK: Caleb Hughes, that's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is it a fair statement, based on your extensive experience within the FBI, that the bureau takes a good deal of pride in the quality of its work.

MS. CLARK: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.

MR. BAILEY: And that would be true of each section, would it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: We--we try to hire the best people and try to train them as best we can and hope that they put out a good work product.

MR. BAILEY: And you like to show, particularly since you have become section chief, a good level of performance among those working under you, do you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. We like to think that they are doing their job like we expect them to.

MR. BAILEY: I understood you to explain on direct examination that your examiners are subjected about twice a year to blind internal testing.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they are not blind; they are internal proficiency tests, right.

MR. BAILEY: Is the examiner aware that he is being tested?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So he is told in advance this is a test?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: As you would be if you were in school or college or law school?

MR. DEEDRICK: This is a test, that's right.

MR. BAILEY: Are these tests that you have designed over the past fifteen years or so?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, no. The proficiency tests are routinely prepared by the unit chief or designee. I have not been involved in preparing proficiency tests except for the past couple years.

MR. BAILEY: Since you became the unit chief?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, that's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, did I understand you to say that all the examiners pass all of the tests all of the time?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, in 1986 it started and in going back through all the records there hasn't been a problem since 1986, so--

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, if you test a class and everybody gets a hundred, what does that tell you?

MS. CLARK: Objection, that is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: In a properly difficult test would you not expect that there would be some misses?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think they are properly difficult enough. The tests are designed in such a way to simulate actual case work type experience. That is, questioned hairs are recovered at a crime scene, known hair standards are submitted. The question is could any of these questioned hairs could have originated from any of the known standards? And many of the tests are designed that way and it is up to the examiner to make a decision as to whether they exhibit the same characteristics or not based on their experience.

MR. BAILEY: Do you follow reports of other kind of tests that are taken or given to other groups of experts in your specialty?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I have--I have helped the collaborative testing services prepare tests for other crime laboratories where I have provided the test samples for them and prepared the tests. But as far as hairs, there aren't a whole lot of hair tests that are submitted annually around the country.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What other crime laboratories have you visited that have specialty sections such as your own for doing hair and fiber examination and comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I have been here, I have been to Toronto, I have been--

MR. BAILEY: Would Toronto be the RCMP?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. It is the Met lab. It is a city crime lab.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. DEEDRICK: I have been to San Diego, some of the major cities. I don't recall all of the different labs that I have been to. Some do several things. Some crime laboratories have a unit that may do other things and not just hairs and fibers. There are major crime labs in North Carolina, Florida, and also in New York that they may specialize in some hairs as well, hair and fiber and not do other things.

MR. BAILEY: Have you examined the standards in any of those facilities?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I have not gotten to that point yet where I've evaluated their testing standards.

MR. BAILEY: Are you familiar with the methodologies that are used in laboratories other than your own?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe I am, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Have you had any contact with the laboratory in the Connecticut State Police?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have--yes, I have worked cases with them or for them over the years.

MR. BAILEY: And do you know Dr. Henry Lee?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know him. I know of him, yes.

MR. BAILEY: What about the RCMP in Canada, do you follow any of the work that they do?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have worked or at least spoken with Barry Gaudette with the Royal Mounted Police crime laboratory and we don't have routine contact as to what they are doing or what we are doing. We may meet--the groups may meet at either symposia or academy--American academy meetings, but--

MR. BAILEY: What about Interpol?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the English, again that would--the European group, European fibers group is a good way for different laboratories to discuss their techniques, their methodologies and the studies that they are currently involved with. With regards to hairs--well, I am not really sure how far they go in Europe with hair examinations. For instance, the English didn't do hair examinations and after the mid-eighties I believe they started working with hairs more.

MR. BAILEY: Have you worked at all with Scotland Yard in England?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have not, no, personally.

MR. BAILEY: That would be the English counterpart of the FBI, would it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I--I suspect so, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And Interpol is a collage of countries joining together--

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: --for law enforcement and detection purposes, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe you are correct, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Have you been in their laboratories or talked with any of their examiners as to how they go about their duties?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I haven't.

MR. BAILEY: You are familiar, of course, with a book written by John Hicks and published by the FBI had 1977 entitled "Microscopy of hair"?

MR. DEEDRICK: I am, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Has that book been updated, revised or in any way changed?

MR. DEEDRICK: It hasn't changed, no.

MR. BAILEY: Has the technology changed in any meaningful way since this book was published, to your knowledge?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think there have been some major advances in the examination of hairs beyond simple microscopy. We are doing--we have done sex typing of forcibly removed human hairs. I don't believe there is anything in there on that. We have--we have involved the analysis of tissue surrounding the root of forcibly removed hairs to do DNA testing. We are engaged in a research project right now and probably will implement this year, the analysis of DNA sequencing of human hair shaft, so yes, we have moved forward a little bit; we just haven't gotten around to revising that manual.

MR. BAILEY: None of the techniques that you just described were used in this case, were they?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. There have not been efforts in the past to make more precise the comparison of human hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: There have been, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Are you familiar with neutron activation analysis?

MR. DEEDRICK: I am, yes.

MR. BAILEY: When was that tried first, if you know?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that could have been sixties or seventies. I'm not really sure when--when the technique was first applied, but it is a technique where the hair is exposed to radiation and then by measuring the half lives of the elements present in the hair shaft it is possible then to determine what kind of elements are present. And it was a way that scientists thought that they could show that one person's hairs have these elements and another person's hairs have these elements so that they can differ and you can see differences. And the idea was if you associated a hair to an individual, they should have the same elements and this was their purpose.

MR. BAILEY: But the technique didn't work, did it?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, it kind of fell flat and they haven't really pushed neutron activation analysis in years.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What about the ABO blood group determination from hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the Japanese have had more success with ABO blood group of hairs than we have in the United States. On occasions there have been some problems with certain blood groups being very inconsistent. That is, by tapping the hair you could determine what the blood group was of the individual, but there have been some problems and inconsistent results with I believe the a group, if I'm not mistaken, but the Japanese have had some success.

MR. BAILEY: But this is not a technique that you use in your laboratory?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. We don't.

MR. BAILEY: It was not used in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, it wasn't.

MR. BAILEY: What about the medullary index defined by Houseman some years ago? Are you familiar with that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Leon Agustus Houseman, yes. Houseman and others attempted to take measurements of hairs such as how wide the medulla was in relationship to the thickness of the hair and they were trying to determine if that was significant, that is, if you associated a hair--if the index was--was a certain number, then that was significant. Over the years they have done a lot of things. They have tried a lot of different things to try to get away from having somebody tell you that I looked at these hairs and they looked the same microscopically. They all wanted some measurement. They want something that they can hold on to without ever having to look at the hair and see these numbers are the same, so they must have come from the same person, but medullary index being one of those, hasn't--

MR. BAILEY: Hasn't panned out, has it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Hasn't panned out. It kind of fell flat.

MR. BAILEY: Did you know Dr. Paul Leland?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't. I've read crime investigations of his and some of his other publications, but I never met him.

MR. BAILEY: Do you remember the studies he conducted trying to see if the count of the number of scales in a hair shaft could be of significance in the identification?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, right. He did scale count as well as refractive index testing where he indicated that--that females have a certain refractive index in their hair and males have another one, and it was another way of distinguishing males and females based upon refractive index. And when I say "Refractive index," it is just if--how the hair interacts with the light, and it is like fibers do the same thing, how they interact with light in a particular medium, how they bend the light or change the directionality of the light. But scale counts, medullary index, refractive index, none of those are used.

MR. BAILEY: None of those have become part of the routine?

MR. DEEDRICK: (No audible response.)

MR. BAILEY: In examining hairs and fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, believe it or not, all of those techniques, besides the neutron activation analysis, all of those are considered when the hairs are compared, that is, how--how much contrast the hair has in a mounted state, how--how big the scales are, how thick the medulla is. All of these--these things are looked at and evaluated, but we don't assign a number to them and that is what they tried to do.

MR. BAILEY: Now, I think you said that sex determination from hairs was something that had arisen since the publication of this book?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, for us it did, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Could you explain why it is described in this book.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I can't even recall exactly what they said about sex typing. Perhaps if you could read to it me.

MR. BAILEY: Does the name Dr. Cecil Jacobson help you?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: Page, counsel?

MR. BAILEY: Dr. Cecil Jacobson page 26, George Washington University medical school?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know him.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you in 1977 learn to determine sex from hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Do you do it today, without DNA, with something on the root?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, we don't, and there is a reason for that, because--because of the other information that can be derived through DNA.

MR. BAILEY: Are you familiar with ion micro probe mass analysis?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I have read something about it. I am not an expert in that.

MR. BAILEY: That fell the same way as neutron activation analysis, did it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Most of the instrumental techniques never really got off the ground.

MR. BAILEY: How about cross-section diagnosis? Are you familiar with such a technique?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, cross-sections are done--optical cross-sectioning is common for hair examinations. That is, by focusing up and down on the hair one can get an idea about the shape of the hair. You can also see in--from a stereo binocular examination you can see the shaft configuration or the shape, but it is not common for us to take a hair off a slide and make a section of it, actual section.

MR. BAILEY: Now, in your direct testimony you indicated the use of scanning electron microscopy with respect to fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Do you use that technique with respect to hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, we don't, not routinely.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. All right. As compared to fingerprint identification or foot impression identification, or the identification of projectiles fired by weapons, this is a much more subjective science, is it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: The courts have never recognized hair examinations as a positive means of identification and we don't either.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: And with regards to bullet comparisons, shoeprint comparisons or fracture--fracture comparisons, with fingerprints, yes, all those you can make positive associations.

MR. BAILEY: That's right. Is it also fair to say, Mr. Deedrick, based on your experience within the profession, that each of the failed efforts that we just finished discussing was an effort to reach higher on the scale of certainty to improve on the old technique of comparison by microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And none of those efforts have ever been accepted within the profession?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, they really never got accepted at all.

MR. BAILEY: You are still doing what you have always done, pretty much?

MR. DEEDRICK: We are still relying on the old eyeball, that's right.

MR. BAILEY: Yes. Now, do you find that examiners in other facilities, which have laboratories similar to yours, at least in some respects, have the same amount of success in periodic testing that your examiners do? That is, a common result, that everybody passes every test?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation.

MR. BAILEY: If he knows.

MS. CLARK: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't know. I don't know what failure rate or success rate these other laboratories have with regards to hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Have you read any studies where it was attempted to be shown that examiners could consistently independently come up with similar results?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know if I quite follow that. Maybe could you clarify that?

MR. BAILEY: All right. Let me rephrase it. Everything that is truly a science involves some kind of repeatable phenomena, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: So that if you compare two hairs and say they could have come from the same source, you would expect other persons to look at the same two hairs, without being privy to your opinion, and come up with the same result, if they were competent, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's--that's the idea, right, you would like to see that happen.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, my question is, do you know of any studies conducted by responsible laboratories and professionals where that idea has been tested?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the only one I can think of would be the Gaudette studies and there was some independent comparisons done there. I can't recall any others specifically.

MR. BAILEY: Did you read in 1989 in the journal of forensic science that you review each month, when it relates to your profession, the Wickenheiser and Hepworth study?

MR. DEEDRICK: The names vaguely ring a bell, but I don't recall the study.

MR. BAILEY: Any idea what it was about?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall.

MR. BAILEY: Do you recall a study where two examiners independently examined over 900 hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't.

MR. BAILEY: Is it fair to say that in 1989 that study was published?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is going to hearsay now. The witness is not familiar with it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Is it fair to say that in 1989 you were reading the articles about hair and fiber in the journal of forensic sciences?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have been reading since 1977, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey, we are going to need to take a break at this point.

MR. BAILEY: Very well, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you. We will take one of our mid-afternoon breaks. And remember all my admonitions to you. And see you back here in about fifteen. Mr. Deedrick, you may step down.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Bailey, you ready?

MR. BAILEY: Yes, I am, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let's have the jurors, please.

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please. And, Mr. Bailey, you may continue with your cross-examination.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BAILEY: By the way, Mr. Deedrick, does any governmental authority to your knowledge license examiners of hair and fiber?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe so.

MR. BAILEY: You don't hold any license in that regard, do you?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've never heard of that, no.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. During the recess, toward the end admittedly, did I show you a copy of an article from the journal of forensic sciences?

MR. DEEDRICK: You did, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Is that one that you've seen before?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have seen that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And that--you've mentioned a fellow named Gadett I believe with the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Is that, by the way, the Canadian organization that would be the nearest counterpart to the FBI; would you say?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I would.

MR. BAILEY: The federal police of Canada?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And are they generally reputed to have pretty responsible forensic scientists?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've only spoken with Mr. Gadett, and he has done some work with hairs.

MR. BAILEY: But you have read about some of the studies that they've done in an effort to demonstrate the repeatability of one examiner agreeing with another on--

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I've read his papers and I've read papers by Barnett and others refuting what he did.

MR. BAILEY: Well, in this specialty like any other, the experts are frequently in disagreement with one another, aren't they?

MR. DEEDRICK: Experts will disagree, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Now, that doesn't often happen when it comes to fingerprints, does it?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation, beyond his expertise.

MR. BAILEY: If he knows.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Is it not true that in the areas we mentioned earlier where identification is possible, positive identification, that experts seldom disagree on a frequent basis--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Speculation.

MR. BAILEY: --in your experience?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I don't have a whole lot of experience with their distinctive areas. That is, one would expect that if it's a science that is recognized as a means of positive identification such as comparing striations and bullets or ridges of fingerprints, one would expect them to agree a great deal.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, when you were taught at the FBI academy initially in your class in hair and fibers, were you taught to use a checklist of criteria?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was--it was a method that was--was shown to us and it's something that I used initially.

MR. BAILEY: You used it for a number of years, didn't you?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did for a while there and then I decided that it was not really useful.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell me anything about the checklist you used when you were a neophyte in the specialty?

MR. DEEDRICK: The checklist is simply a number of microscopic characteristics that might be present in the cuticle, the cortex and the medulla and other characteristics about the hair such as if it's curly or wavy or straight, cross-section, the color, racial characteristics. These are just a number of points to remind the new examiner to look at and to check on just to make sure that you're looking at all the characteristics you should be looking at and it's an excellent tool, starting tool for new examiners.

MR. BAILEY: Well, at what point do examiners normally abandon the use of the checklist in your experience?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, we've had examiners that used it all the way through.

MR. BAILEY: That is a somewhat more formal and regulated approach to the comparison process; is it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's--it's--again, it's a way to document what you're seeing, and if you feel like that is necessary, then you would do it.

MR. BAILEY: But the position you frequently take, Mr. Deedrick, in these cases is that the breath of your experience is such that you no longer need the guidance of a checklist; is that not so?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't need it written down on paper. The checklist is pretty much in my head as to what I should look at and pay attention to, and I don't compare checklists, I don't compare notes, I don't compare photographs. I just compare hairs that I actually see in the same field of view.

MR. BAILEY: Are you familiar with the checklist which was urged as proper in the study that we've just discussed by the RCMP?

MR. DEEDRICK: In the Wickenheiser study?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. DEEDRICK: It was a computer data type checklist that they used.

MR. BAILEY: That's not what I'm referring to. Did you see published in the study a checklist which the authors considered to be essential?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't recall all of the--all of the points in that particular checklist, but I know different--different studies that have been done have utilized checklists and also computer cards.

MR. BAILEY: Is it not true that some of your colleagues in the profession view the use of these kinds of checklists as mandatory to a valid hair comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, some--some laboratories may require a checklist.

MR. BAILEY: Well, do you consider the RCMP to be a responsible group, law enforcement?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe they are.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. BAILEY: Put that up, Mr. Harris, please. Can you bring that down?

MR. BAILEY: First, I want to show you the top section of the table published in that study and ask you whether or not you recognize these as valid characteristics to be looked at when studying hair. In other words, are these some of the things that you look at in an informal way?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. The medullary index is not something that that is measured. And again, I believe that this classification system could be incorporated and maybe the intent is to incorporate it into some type of computerized searching method.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, for the record, may this be designated Defense 1218?

THE COURT: 1218. Mrs. Robertson says 1220.

(Deft's 1220 for id = medullary index)

MR. BAILEY: You see where each of the differing characteristics in each category is given a numerical or assigned number in those seven categories?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I see that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would you agree that unless the numbers match in each of the seven categories between a known and a questioned hair, that the comparison must be discarded?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe so, no.

MR. BAILEY: You don't?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I don't--I don't compare or reach a conclusion based upon the checklist or--

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would you illuminate the lower part of the chart.

MR. BAILEY: Would you look at what's described as secondary characteristics and tell us whether or not these are things that you look at informally when you do your comparisons?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct. That's pretty much.

MR. BAILEY: Do you see that these different kinds of characteristics within a category are also given numbers?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Do you understand that one of the authors of the article to which we are referring is the head of the hair and fiber section of the RCMP?

MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't know that, no.

MR. BAILEY: And that the other one is an examiner like you in the RCMP now?

MS. CLARK: Well, objection. Is counsel testifying? The witness is indicating he doesn't know. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know that in the study which is described in this article, that it was suggested that it was mandatory in order to reach a comparison for all of the first seven groups to match by number and that there was a second requirement for the secondary group that we are looking at now?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't buy that. I mean, I wouldn't agree with that.

MR. BAILEY: And that is, that if you vary by more than one number in the secondary category, that too would defeat the comparison. Do you agree with that?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. No.

MR. BAILEY: Do you even look at these things, Mr. Deedrick?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you look at them and you compare them, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. Do you know the results of the two examiners used in this study who compared 930 hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't have really a time to really digest--digest the article.

MR. BAILEY: Would it surprise you that one could compare only seven pairs and the other six?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay. Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Did you not read this journal article at some point?

MR. DEEDRICK: I recall reading it. I don't recall--I didn't--wasn't able to finish it completely and properly digest it and understand it.

MR. BAILEY: I mean when it was published.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I can't remember. I do remember reading it, but I don't recall the contents entirely.

MR. BAILEY: Well, assuming that my suggestion is to what the authors insist are proper criteria is true, that is that's what the article says, if you had read something with which you disagreed so sharply, wouldn't you remember it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I disagree with the methodology of employing a numerical value to characteristics such as this methodology is here. We attempted to do the same thing back when the international hair symposium was set up in 1985, and the effort was to see if all examiners would characterize a particular hair exactly the same. And there are some differences where some person might say the pigment granules were medium, one might say fine or fine to medium. So assigning a particular numerical value to the characteristics became a little arbitrary and difficult at least to computerize, to place a value on an association. But that doesn't mean that--that two examiners who are looking at the same hair would not associate that questioned hair with the same individual. It doesn't mean that at all. It just means that based on their experience and what they observe, they see certain characteristics and they make a note of it. And that's one of the difficulties with using this particular methodology, because there may be some variation in the range of experience of the examiners.

MR. BAILEY: And there are advantages to not using this methodology; are there not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't see necessarily an advantage to using it. The only advantage that you may get out of this is that you make sure you look at certain characteristics. But to assign a value so that you could determine the--what--if it's a good match or a good association, I don't think that that's something that should be done.

MR. BAILEY: When it comes to the sciences of identification that we discussed, are there not certain minimum requirements before an identification can be asserted within each of the professions, if you know?

MR. DEEDRICK: And again, are you incorporating all the different areas of forensics such as fingerprints?

MR. BAILEY: What does the FBI--excuse me.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MR. BAILEY: What does the FBI require for fingerprints, minimum points of id, if you know?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've spoken with different examiners and gotten different responses on that. So I'm not sure. You might have a person that has 20 years of experience and they may not need seven points of comparison or six, whereas a person just starting out, they may require more. I don't know if they have a set number. They may.

MR. BAILEY: If they do and an examiner came to the stand with less than the set number, that would be a basis for cross-examination, wouldn't it, not meeting the standard?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I think if there was a standard set by the group and it was below the standard, perhaps it would be subject to some rigorous cross-examination, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Is it not true that departments other than your own advocate the use of lists, checklists of criteria?

MR. DEEDRICK: They do. I've seen it.

MR. BAILEY: For instance, I think you told me that you have visited the Connecticut state police.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I haven't visited them. I've had--I worked some cases that they've sent down to me to look at.

MR. BAILEY: Do you read any of their publications on forensic investigation?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've never seen that, no.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, do we need this up on the screen, especially since there was a People's objection to hearsay under 721 of the evidence code.

THE COURT: Are you done with this?

MR. BAILEY: I'm done with that exhibit.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: I'm going to show you a checklist from this manual and ask you if you agree with its use.

MS. CLARK: May I see it?

MR. BAILEY: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Could I ask that the witness be shown this before?

THE COURT: I think he indicated he hadn't seen it.

MS. CLARK: He hadn't seen it.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Could you put that up, please, Mr. Harris.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, there would be an objection unless the witness adopts--

THE COURT: I think we need--we have a foundational problem here.

MR. BAILEY: I believe you testified that it is your understanding that other forensic laboratories do advocate the use of formal checklists in evaluating hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I am aware that other labs will use checklists.

MR. BAILEY: And I just showed you one of those from the Wickenheiser study from the Canadians. I'd like to show you one used by the Connecticut state police.

MS. CLARK: May I ask that the witness be shown this before it's put on the screen, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. We have a foundational problem here, counsel. Take it down.

MR. BAILEY: May I show him in the book?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BAILEY: Showing you a book called physical evidence published by Dr. Henry Lee and others under the aegis of some organization, I guess the Connecticut state police, I refer you to page 143 and see if you recognize that as a checklist used by some examiners.

MR. DEEDRICK: That looks like a checklist.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Are you familiar with all of the criteria that you just saw on the list?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't--I don't think I gave it that much time and attention that all of the things went into my brain at once.

MR. BAILEY: Would you be willing to go through it with me and see which ones you used?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would be glad to.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Would you put it up, please.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, there's still foundation lacking.

THE COURT: Sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I haven't been shown any of these items, and counsel is basically throwing them at the witness without even letting me see what he's doing. I thought before cross began, we were supposed to be shown exhibits which were intended for use.

THE COURT: What's your objection?

MS. CLARK: Objection, discovery as well as foundational as to this--he's asking to show the witness this exhibit and ask him if he's familiar with it and if he relies on it or refers to it in some manner.

THE COURT: But let me ask you this, Miss Clark. Let's assume that true, we may have a 721 problem because he hasn't referred to this particular item in reaching his conclusions. This is just a listing of all the various basic and accepted characteristics of hair.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And he's going to say, "Yes, I considered all of these things with the exception of the DNA stuff."

MS. CLARK: Right. I have no problem as long as he is allowed to look at it ahead of time and say--given a fair opportunity to examine the list and say, "Yes, these are the things I looked at." That's fine. But I mean, I'm not an expert, Judge, so I don't know--

THE COURT: Well, counsel, you can take two minutes to look at that and you can tell that those are the basic standard hair comparison characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Why don't you let the expert do that. That's all I'm saying. Have him study it enough to--

MR. BAILEY: He's testified to all these things.

THE COURT: I know.

MS. CLARK: I'm just--

THE COURT: How about if I have Mrs. Robertson step back and shoot you all a copy, give him an opportunity to look at it for a few moments. But if you look at them--I know them all. You know them all. Even Mr. Cochran knows half of them.

MS. CLARK: I don't know about that. Any other exhibits counsel intends to use?

MR. COCHRAN: This may be released. Take umbrage to that.

MS. CLARK: I think the record should reflect this is all tongue and cheek and we're laughing. We're laughing, right, Johnnie?

MR. COCHRAN: Right.

MS. CLARK: Are there any other exhibits Mr. Bailey intends to use with the witness?

MR. BAILEY: There's a similar list in the book you were holding published by the FBI, which I presume won't come as a surprise to him.

MS. CLARK: That will not. Anything else?

MR. BAILEY: That's the only thing. Just so I understand the rules, your Honor, realizing we are winding down the cross-examination by the Defense, what are the requirements of previewing cross-examination with the opponent?

THE COURT: No. If you are going to have some exhibits, we need to see them. They don't necessarily--they don't have to be shown to the witness themselves, but anything that you're going to use as a demonstrative exhibit, you need to show to counsel before we start.

MR. BAILEY: That from time to time could reduce some of the value of the items.

THE COURT: Oh, I know. That's why you don't show it to the witness. Mr. Bailey, two to you, Miss Clark. And, Mr. Bailey, you can share one. Why don't you give him the book.

MR. BAILEY: I was going to give him the book.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Deedrick, if you would, just take a moment and review the categories that are listed on table 14 there. And let us know after you've reviewed it and if those terminologies or characteristics are familiar to you.

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. The--with regards to scale pattern--

MR. BAILEY: Well, before you start, may we put it up so people can see what you're talking about?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, yeah. Let's do that.

THE COURT: All right. You're familiar with the terminology there, Mr. Deedrick?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've seen all those words before, yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Defense 1221, your Honor.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Deft's 1221 for id = checklist)

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You have the book in front of you. You can also see on your screen that we have faithfully reproduced it. Do you agree with that?

MR. DEEDRICK: It looks the same to me, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, there are some words on there that are just plain English words and some which may be peculiar to what you do. Would you, for instance, explain to the jury what the word "Imbricate" means?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, "Imbricate" is the common scale pattern that's found in human hairs. It's very irregular. It--it doesn't have any particular regular shape to it whereas coronal, coronal scales, they're really only found in infants, very young infants, just newborns; and as to adults, you don't see coronal scales hardly at all except in very fine hairs, and those aren't even considered for comparison. Spinous scales, spinous scales are not commonly associated to human hairs.

MR. BAILEY: You mean fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Spinous, spinous scale patterns with human hairs. Generally--

MR. BAILEY: Are you reading from item 1?

MR. DEEDRICK: Item number--scale pattern. That's number--right.

THE COURT: Well, there seems to be a terminology difference between what you have there and what we have as table 14.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, there's a little difference.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Go ahead and comment on spinous. It's not common to humans, is it?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Spinous scales are normally found in mink hairs, they're found in dog hairs and some other animal hairs, but they're not common for humans.

MR. BAILEY: Definition of the word "Imbricate," Mr. Deedrick, means laying one over the other like the leaves of an artichoke, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's right. Or they lay like the shingles on a roof, but they're very irregular. Instead of smooth, they're choppy looking and they're not--they're not very uniform.

MR. BAILEY: Now, within the category of "Imbricate," which applies to all human hairs, adult human hairs, do you find differences that help you in your comparison studies?

MR. DEEDRICK: Generally, "Imbricate" is terminology--a term that's used just in general for human hair scale characteristics.

MR. BAILEY: The point is, within that term, which encompasses a description of all adult human hairs, there are no further divisions recognized in your profession, are there, any other terms--

MR. DEEDRICK: I wouldn't recognize necessarily--although there probably have been some people over the years that have tried to break that down too, but I think imbricate is just one large group.

MR. BAILEY: Dr. Kirk tried to do that in his study and it didn't work, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, again, Houseman did it and a few others did it as well trying to break down scale patterns to I don't know how many different groups, but with humans, we generally refer to the scale pattern on humans as "Imbricate."

MR. BAILEY: Right. Okay. So that is not basically--except as between humans and animals or humans and infants, it is not a basis of differentiation?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Everybody is imbricate, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: Pretty much so, yes.

MR. BAILEY: The next category, the medulla, is that the same as in your book, no. 2?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's the same, yes.

MR. BAILEY: That is a very useful basis much of the time in differentiation; is it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: It can be, yes.

MR. BAILEY: One of the first things you look for when you get to your microscopic, the existence or absence and type and nature of the medulla?

MR. DEEDRICK: You do see that readily apparent.

MR. BAILEY: And that is the dark line in the center of the cortex that you pointed out to us in a number of the exploded views that you showed on your cards, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And do you, when you examine hairs, look to categorize the medulla as is done on line 2 or do you have other and further things that you look for to differentiate?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sometimes I'll use the term "Trace" as oppose to "Fragmented."

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell the jury what you mean when you say there is a trace of a medulla?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the tissue that's found in the center, it's a little bit different than the rest of the hair. It's made up of a little different type of carotin, which is the protein that makes up hair, may be--may be in just small dots or just real short links, and it could be black, which has air surrounding it, or it might be clear. So you could have a trace clear, trace dark or you could call it fragmented. Just depends on what you like.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But it's indicated there that in some hairs, there is no medulla, it's absent.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. And there is some argument on that too.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, have you seen hairs where you weren't able to locate any medulla?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I have.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You mean some people disagree with you that it can be absent?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, some people say it's there, but you just don't see it. Well, if I don't see it, then it's not there.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, the medulla pattern as distinguished from the medulla itself, could you look at those terms and tell me whether or not you recognize those as valid bases of definition?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't--again, I don't--let me check to see if the two lists are the same. Okay. I don't. These--some of these terms are not used for human hairs. Uniserial, multiserial, vacuolated and lattice, they are not common terms used for human hairs. Those are common terms used for animal hairs. Uniserial and multiserial are common in the rabbit group. Vacuolated hairs may be found in the rodents as well as other animals. Lattice medullas are found in the deer family. Amorphous, that's common for humans. Most of human hairs are amorphous, either amorphous dark, amorphous clear or they may be cellular, and apparently it doesn't have cellular there, and I even found one that I saw a wafer, which is unusual.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So these would be divisions if they appeared on this list within amorphous, the only category applied to human hairs that you see?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, amorphous and cellular bulbous, those are--those are the two--two major categories.

MR. BAILEY: For the benefit of the uninitiated, would you define the term "Vacuolated"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, "Vacuolated" again is just a--amorphous is no form. It has no particular form. Vacuolated just looks like large vacuoles or large chambers that you see in the center of the hair.

MR. BAILEY: Air pockets?

MR. DEEDRICK: They could be, yes. Air pockets is a good example of that. With uniserial and multiserial, uniserial means just like a bead, a long string of clear or dark medullary material. And in rabbits, rabbits have very fine hairs which have uniserial medulla. And in the larger hairs, they're called multiserial, and looks like corn, like a piece of corn cob or something. All the medulla looks like that, looks like kernels of corn.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, in your direct testimony, you made reference to diameter as having some importance in several respects.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It can have. It can play a role in the comparison.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, first of all, the amount of diameter may be helpful in determining race, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: The thicker hairs being Asian generally speaking?

MR. DEEDRICK: Generally speaking, that's right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. The constancy of the diameter from the proximal end or root to the distal end or tip can be significant in making comparisons; is that true?

MR. DEEDRICK: It can be, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And is that something that you would note when you were examining hairs under the comparison microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would make a note of that as to how variable the diameter is along the length.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. The length of the hair, what significance might that have?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the length of the hair plays a role in the comparison. You don't always have the same length in the questioned hair as the known hairs, but it's something you must consider.

MR. BAILEY: Is there a minimum length with which you need to work before you can call a comparison as similar?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe there's a set length. It depends on the characteristics of the hair.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. What's the smallest fragment that you've worked with in obtaining what you viewed as a positive result?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe I've gone down to maybe an eighth of an inch or so.

MR. BAILEY: Eighth of an inch?

MR. DEEDRICK: About an eighth of an inch.

MR. BAILEY: Incidentally, on Friday, you did a calculation for us and said that if you magnified a 12-inch hair from Nicole Brown Simpson 250 times, you would have a picture 25 feet long. Do you remember saying that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah.

MR. BAILEY: Would you like to recalculate it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'm not a mathematician. What does it come out to be?

MR. BAILEY: Well, 10 times 250 would be 250 feet long, wouldn't it, if you start with a 12-inch piece?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. Well, that sounds okay. It's pretty big I know.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In any event, the color of the hair you always take into account I take it, and you've talked about that on your direct examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And do you always as well take into account what is called the reflectivity? First of all, do you use that term "Reflectivity" for that category?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Well, do you distinguish between opaque, translucent, transparent and clear hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. If it's opaque it's one thing, but the other qualities are not commonly referred to in descriptive notes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So apparently some examiners feel there is a distinction between the latter three and you do not. Is that a fair statement?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's not something we've ever taught nor have I even heard.

MR. BAILEY: At the FBI academy?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I talked to a lot of hair examiners around the country, but I've never seen those.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. This is the first for you coming out of the Connecticut state police?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that's where it came from, it's a first to me, yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, you said you knew who Henry Lee was. You do know he heads the laboratory?

MR. DEEDRICK: I think we probably all heard about Henry Lee.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. As to the tip, do you agree with those categories published there as differentiated?

MR. DEEDRICK: That looks fine.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What about the root? Are those different categories that you inspect in trying to identify or distinguish unlike hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know what a normal root is, the word "Normal." Stretched, I might refer to hair that's been forcibly removed and I may indicate that it either has tissue or no tissue. If it's absent, I'll make a note of that. Follicular, that may be referring to there's tissue present. Bulbous and germ, I have an idea where he's going with that, but I may make a special note of it if there's some characteristics that in my experience are unique as to the root.

MR. BAILEY: Does it not appear that absent is the contrary of the other five categories?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that's right. If it's not there, the other five don't apply.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. As to the cross-section, I believe you told us that race can be indicated by a cross-section of hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It's a--it's one of the characteristics that can be applied to racial determination.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And the pigment, I think you talked about a number of things referencing pigment. First of all, if the pigment is absent, what color is the hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it would be gray, white.

MR. BAILEY: That is a transition you have accomplished in the past few years?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, I have. Yeah, I have a few pigment granules left in there, believe it or not, but yeah, most of them are turning that way.

MR. BAILEY: A product no doubt of cross-examination.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think it started when I got this case, right.

MR. BAILEY: What is granule pigment? Have you ever noticed pigment which you would call granule?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have, yes. Sometimes in hairs, when you're looking at them microscopically, it looks like there's sand grains in it. They're just--it's just very present, very obvious. They're not grouped in any particular clump or chain or patch, but it just looks sandy. That's what I would call granular.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And "Chain," "Clump," "Dense" and "Opaque" are also terms that you would use in describing different kinds of hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: I might, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Have you in the past?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have--I do comment on pigment density, yes, whether it's clumping or streaking. Chaining, I generally refer to as streaking in that category as opposed to chaining although--

MR. BAILEY: Essentially they mean the same, don't they?

MR. DEEDRICK: Pretty much the same.

MR. BAILEY: Right. Okay. "Cortical fusi" is something that you mentioned that you look for. My question is, do you agree with the differentiation as set forth there, six categories, as being distinct from one another?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. You're referring to the four areas, right, the absent--

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry. I'm one line above you, both beginning with absent. The four categories.

MR. DEEDRICK: Four categories; absent, few, bunched. Yes. Generally I refer to the size, shape and distribution of them.

MR. BAILEY: So these are things that you would note at the comparison microscope both as to the K and the Q hair that you're looking at?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would do that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, distinguish, if you will, the cortical pigment from the pigment no. 12.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry. The cortical pigment as opposed to pigment.

MR. BAILEY: 15 as opposed to 12. What are the differences in the two kinds of pigment? The cortex is, of course, the center body of the hair, is it not, the main body?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. Well, all the--pretty much all the pigments located in the cortex. I think they're referring to here on pigment distribution, which is centrally located, which you find in red-haired individuals. Peripherally located, which is located out more towards the cuticle to one side, which we've already discussed, and the pigment is found more down towards the root of the hair. I don't know if I see that so much. Most of the time, what you see is the pigment might be out toward the tip because the hair is starting to gray a little bit and it starts graying from the bottom up. So I don't know about that.

MR. BAILEY: Cosmetic treatment, you see a lot, don't you?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, not really. We see it because we see a lot of hairs, but that's--that's significant, when you see cosmetic treatment.

MR. BAILEY: Well, there was some in this case, wasn't there?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Do you remember which hairs had been cosmetically treated?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I do.

MR. BAILEY: And whose were those?

MR. DEEDRICK: Nicole Brown's were treated.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. DEEDRICK: There were some questioned hairs that were treated.

MR. BAILEY: Were those questioned hairs the hairs in the cap that you deemed to be not similar to those of Mr. Simpson?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. And also, there was one that on Q15, which was from the cap, that was--appeared to be dissimilar to any of the knowns.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell the jury what you noted about those six hairs dissimilar to Mr. Simpson's hair that caused you to use the word "Treated" in describing?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, not all of the six were treated. There were at least three, maybe four hair fragments that appeared reddish brown and they appeared to be treated. Really not the greatest hairs to compare. The fact that they were treated led me to believe that they couldn't have originated from that individual.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you examined quite a number of K hairs that were known to be pulled from Mr. Simpson, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Did most of them have some part of the follicle or tissue with them, the ones that were forcibly removed rather than being combed?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I would think most of them had a root in some form.

MR. BAILEY: Did you get any combed hairs taken from Mr. Simpson?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what about the two victims? Did you have any combed hairs from them?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: No. All right. Did you find any evidence of treatment on any of the K7 hairs that came from Mr. Simpson's head?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you make any inquiry directly or through the investigators here in Los Angeles as to the history of Mr. Simpson's care of his hair through his barber or whomever to see if any treatment had ever been applied?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe I ever asked that.

MR. BAILEY: You have no information in that respect?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I have no way of knowing that.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, damaged hair, cut, crunched, broken and burned. I think three of those terms are pretty obvious. Tell us what is meant in your specialty by "Crunched."

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that would be an indication of where the hair may have had--made impact with a solid object. Could be a hammer, could be a mallet, it could be an ax, it could be a window, like a windshield. But that may indicate that the hair has been crushed in some form. It's difficult--actually, it's pretty difficult to crush a hair. So when you see a crushed hair, there's been some pretty heavy hitting on it.

MR. BAILEY: Well, you testified in the past that you've seen hairs that were crushed by a blunt instrument--

MR. DEEDRICK: I have.

MR. BAILEY: --by striking it, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have.

MR. BAILEY: And do you not suspect that if I were mean enough to take a hammer and hit Miss Clark in the head hard enough to knock her out, that you'd find a number of crushed hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think the chances would be improved greatly.

MR. BAILEY: Did anybody ever submit to you any hairs from Nicole Brown Simpson for your examination as to whether or not they had been crushed?

MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't observe that at all.

MR. BAILEY: Were any submitted to you that were associated in their submission with some kind of alleged blow to the head?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe any of the hairs that I found, either questioned or known, exhibited that crushed characteristic.

MR. BAILEY: Has there been explained to you in the preparation for your testimony the theory advanced in this court as to how Miss Simpson was felled and then slain?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've heard a few different ideas and that perhaps is one of them.

MR. BAILEY: You heard the theory of the medical examiner, have you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, yes, indirectly. I did hear that she may have been hit on the head.

MR. BAILEY: When was the first time that you ever heard that theory, Mr. Deedrick?

MR. DEEDRICK: It may have been during the testimony during the case. Someone may have mentioned it or I'd overheard it.

MR. BAILEY: Nobody ever mentioned it to you when you were working on the hairs, did they?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I try to stay away from theories when you're working hairs up.

MR. BAILEY: Well, Miss Brockbank came out to see you with you a bunch of exhibits in August. Did she tell you anything about the victim having been hit on the head?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did anyone else tell you before you heard it on the news?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe so, no. I don't recall anybody saying that to me. But it really didn't matter to me. I mean, I didn't see any evidence of that. I couldn't support it one way or the other.

MR. BAILEY: Well, no hairs were submitted allegedly from a specific spot on the top of her head accompanying an injury, were they?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I don't even know if the hairs came from an injured area.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. We can skip I think race since you covered that, except I would like to ask you about a mixed hair. What do you mean by "Mixed"? A mixture of one of the two or more of the first three?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. Yes. Right. You may find that hairs exhibit characteristics that are shared by the models. If the person exhibits a very large diameter hair, it has a reddish coloration, yet it has a lot of buckling and perhaps clumping of the pigment, that might tend to indicate it might be an Asian black mix. Sometimes you find that the hairs will exhibit microscopic characteristics, that they share a couple racial groups, and that--you might say that those are mixed exhibit, mixed racial characteristics.

MR. BAILEY: Is that something you look for when you're making your examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, I believe you have said that this is still the current booklet I assume passed out to students of hair and fiber when you teach.

MR. DEEDRICK: We still hand that out, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And have you reviewed it recently?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't know how long ago it was, but I have one in my office.

MR. BAILEY: Do you teach from it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not really. Not really. It's mainly an introductory type manual for beginners and it's very--they find it useful because it has some pictures in it. But we just try to use it as a supplement to our normal teaching course.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, we'll get to the pictures in a little while. But is it not a fact that when young examiners come out of the academy and are assigned to your section for the year of training that you've described in your direct examination, that they are generally encouraged to use a checklist in examining hairs such as is contained in the teachings of this book?

MR. DEEDRICK: I--I normally recommend for all new people when they're just starting to learn it--and I start this day one, not after the year--that it might be helpful if they get a checklist so that they can make sure that they're touching base with the characteristics that--that are important and that you're going to evaluate when you're comparing hairs. After the year, I don't care if they use the checklist. If they want to, fine. If they don't, that's their business.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Would you just take a quick look at the list that is derived from this booklet over several pages and see whether or not it's something that you teach.

(The witness complies.)

MR. BAILEY: Do these appear to be a number of the same terms that we looked at on the list published in the manual by the Connecticut state police?

MR. BAILEY: 1222, your Honor, if the Court please.

THE COURT: 1222.

MR. BAILEY: Is that the whole thing?

(Deft's 1222 for id = (List of terms)

MS. CLARK: May I see a copy of it, please? Your Honor, this is not--may I have a moment to review? This is not taken from the book exactly.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Perhaps, Miss Clark, you could give that to Mrs. Robertson and we could make a copy so the witness wouldn't have to try to read it off the screen.

MS. CLARK: The monitor is not working?

THE COURT: The monitor is working, but it's not the easiest thing to read all the time.

MS. CLARK: May we?

THE COURT: Yes. Mrs. Robertson.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and the witness.)

MR. BAILEY: If you could examine, Mr. Deedrick, only sections 1 and 2. I don't propose to get into animal hairs at the moment.

MS. CLARK: May I ask that the witness be shown the book--that this is an edited version. May I ask the witness be shown the book so he can--

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I'll give him a copy.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm ready.

MR. BAILEY: My understanding is that you agree that an examination should consider each of these aspects of a human hair when seeking comparisons, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: One would consider these characteristics, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And one teaches neophytes in the business to refer to this sort of list, perhaps the manual itself for the first year or so you say of doing examinations?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. All of these points and characteristics are discussed and shown, shown to the new people.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, at the end of a year, the students, now examiners encouraged to abandon considerations of these criteria and just go off on their own?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no. No. All of the--the characteristics are always there, I mean whether you decide to use a checklist or whether you decide to just make some rough notes which might include some of these characteristics.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, you're certainly not suggesting that examiners ought to be in the position of a famous Judge who once said, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"? You don't do that, do you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, no. We try to deal with objective criteria to make subjective determinations.

MR. BAILEY: And you should be prepared if asked to explicate the reasons that you believe two hairs could be similar or dissimilar?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. You should be able to try as best as you can to do that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And should you have made some observations in each of the categories set forth in the FBI handbook?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I don't think so.

MR. BAILEY: Which ones do you not need to look at when looking at the average hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I mean, you need to look at--you need to consider all of the characteristics that are present in the questioned hairs and the known hairs as to what you see. The questioned hair may exhibit certain characteristics that may not be present in some of the known hairs, but are present in some of the others. So that's something that you would make a note of, but you may not write it down in a checklist.

MR. BAILEY: You may not?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I mean, I don't.

MR. BAILEY: Do you have an independent memory of the hair comparisons that you make with your comparison microscope from case to case?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I don't think my memory is that good and it's getting worse.

MR. BAILEY: Not possible for you to sit here today and visualize the images that appeared in the comparison microscope when you were working on the Simpson case, is it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Some are very vivid, yes. It's not--you're talking about past cases. It tends to drift away, but this case is still pretty fresh. I have some recollection. I can't tell you exactly how the hairs were laying on the slide, but I have a pretty good idea.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would you describe for us the length and shape of the Q23 hair which you believe could have originated from Mr. Simpson that was found on Ron Goldman's shirt? What does it look like on the slide?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was on the right side of the slide about half an inch off the right side of the cover slip, art shaped, eighth of an inch perhaps, maybe 3/16, one-sided pigmentation evident on the lower side of the hair, thin cuticle. I can picture it. It's there. I don't know if I could tell you all the characteristics off my mind, but I know what that hair looks like.

MR. BAILEY: And at some point, did you slide it next to a known hair on the comparison microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. That's what you do. You line it up end to end and see if you can make that mirror match we call it.

MR. BAILEY: Move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Just to assure that we're all on the same wave length, Mr. Deedrick, there are some words that have been used in your testimony, and I would like you to explain what you mean when you use those words perhaps as against what Noah Webster had in mind. What does the word "Different" mean to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: "Different." As regards to hair associations.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection as vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if the--if the--the differences that may exist in hairs if it reaches a certain point where they're sufficiently different, exclusion would be a result. That is the hair would be excluded from possibly coming from a source. Some differences may not be significant, and that is somewhat subjective because it's based on the experience of the examiner. You might find that similarities and differences might be a no conclusion. Different, when you say two things are different, that means that would in a broad sense might be exclusion. And this is not the same as this.

MR. BAILEY: When you--

MR. DEEDRICK: That would be one definition.

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me. When you use the word "Different" in your testimony, you are generally talking exclusion; is that correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Generally--I believe when I used the term, I was speaking in the broader sense.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What is your definition of the word "Like" when you use it in connection with describing what you see in the microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if two hairs are alike, exhibit the same microscopic characteristics, that indicates to me that there are no significant differences when I compare them side by side. That means the hair could have come from that individual.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would you accept the word "Like" as being defined as also meaning similar?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I tend to define "Like" more definitively. "Similar," I think "Similar" sometimes may be leaning away from "Like," but--because many things are similar, yet not the same. But they may be in some terms interchangeable.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know that Webster defines "Like" as being similar?

MR. DEEDRICK: I know. I know what he says.

MR. BAILEY: But you don't like that, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I know he uses it, and I think people have their own impression about what "Like" and "Similar" are and--

MR. BAILEY: You understand what we're trying to do is pass your thought to the jury intact--

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: --without having a verbal problem.

MR. DEEDRICK: I am following right with you on this.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What about the word "Random"? What does that mean to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: "Random," not in any particular order, intermittent.

MR. BAILEY: Intermittent?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I mean, in terms of spacially, random spacing of material--of characteristics perhaps.

MR. BAILEY: Now, when you exhibited a board of hairs, sample hairs of an African American origin, I believe you said that they were randomly selected.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. In that--in that vein, "Random" would mean that they were selected without any preconceived notion or plan. They were selected as a representative of the hair that I had to photograph. I selected a random area. "Random" could also refer to collection of hair samples. You select them randomly so you get a good range of characteristics.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In your definition, if you will, of the word "Same," what does that mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, "Same," meaning that there are no distinctive differences, no significant differences between two compared pieces whether they're hairs or fibers.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You have used the word "Same" in describing what you saw when you looked in the comparison microscope; have you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have used the word "Same." I know in my notes--I think I have even used--probably used several of those words.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And I take it once again, you disagree with Mr. Webster, whose first definition of "Same" is identical, alike in every respect?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't--I don't consult with a dictionary when I draw conclusions from hair examinations. I draw from my own experience and my training, and those terms are standard.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So what you're saying is that in your profession, the word "Same" is used even though there may be differences between the samples?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if they're the same, the differences are not significant differences.

MR. BAILEY: But there may be differences in samples that you call the same; is that correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, you may. There may be some differences. The differences would have to be weighed in relationship to the other characteristics that you find to be the same.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And what does the word "Similar" mean when you use that?

MR. DEEDRICK: "Similar" may be used in a general sense, that two things are similar, yet perhaps don't have exactly the same microscopic characteristics. It may group a hair or fibers into a particular category. The size of hairs in some instances in relationship to the known standards may--may force a "Similar" word into characterizing it as opposed to the "Same." When you're comparing a hair that is 10 inches long to a hair fragment that's three inches long, the word "Similar" may be employed, for instance, in the descriptive notes. It still would not eliminate that hair or hair fragment as originating from the individual.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. All right. Thank you for that assistance. Now, let's talk about the exhibits. When did you decide that you would make up these exhibits of hair sections such as are shown on the boards of various kinds that have been presented to the jury during your direct examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: Which--which hairs--are you referring to like elimination hairs?

MR. BAILEY: Well, we have the atlas hairs, the random selection of African American, we have Caucasian hairs, not apropos of anyone in particular, then we have Goldman hairs, Mrs. Simpson's hairs, Mr. Simpson's hairs--

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: --and so forth. When did you begin the process of making up these exhibits?

MR. DEEDRICK: After the--after the associations were made and the reports were written, these were--when I had time, when I had an opportunity to sit down and start taking photographs. Some of the photographs were taken right away because I presented those to Longetti, special master for disposition. Some of the other photographs were taken later. The preparation of the charts and boards were at a later date.

MR. BAILEY: Well, I wonder if you could give me a month. I mean you've said earlier and later and it doesn't really help.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to object as irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, we started in August. By the end of the year, I had done a number of photographs. I don't believe any of the charts were prepared at that time. Up through--early--actually we may have started making some of the charts by the first of the year, but there were also--there was material that was coming in after the first of the year and the elimination standards and the--and the atlas hairs, as we've called them here, some of those were prepared much later in probably closer to summer.

MR. BAILEY: Were each of these made from mounted slides?

MR. DEEDRICK: Except for the education boards.

MR. BAILEY: Right. No. I mean the ones that relate to this case.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. All prepared slides.

MR. BAILEY: The education boards are in part drawings; are they not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Some are my own drawings, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And you use these in teaching at the academy and other places?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, some of those I did for the purposes of this case, but also to use at a later date for teaching other people.

MR. BAILEY: Would you agree that as magnified, the segments of hair that you have shown in the photographs which are mostly eight by 10 I think--

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: --would be a half a millimeter long only?

MR. DEEDRICK: They'll be small. That may be correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you agree that each hair exhibited is much shorter than an eighth of an inch?

MR. DEEDRICK: Each hair in the photograph.

MR. BAILEY: Yes. The part that people can see in the photograph.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It's pretty small. That's probably right.

MR. BAILEY: Would you agree that no examiner would use those photographs as a basis for giving testimony on comparisons of differentiations?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't--I don't see any problem with giving testimony as long as it's couched with the understanding that it's not a photograph of the entire hair, nor is it a way to associate hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Have you ever in a case made a judgment based on photographs of this type rather than using your comparison microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not as a basis for a conclusion. I wouldn't do that.

MR. BAILEY: You have never testified in a court of law based on anything less than a view through the comparison microscope of a known with a questioned item, hair or fiber, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe that's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And you could not, if you walked into this case cold, draw reliable conclusions from a mere examination of your exhibits, could you, conclusions to which you would be willing to testify under oath in an important litigation?

MR. DEEDRICK: Uh, I would have no problem coming into court and looking at photographs like these and saying they look pretty good to me. But the whole--the conclusion for the overall association would have to be based on my independent comparison with the microscope.

MR. BAILEY: With the microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Absent the microscope, you would not testify, would you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think two people that have some experience or anybody--any number of people that have some experience looking at hairs can look at those photographs and say those characteristics are good because the resolution is very good. The characteristics that you see, if you lined up those two areas within the comparison microscope, that's the way they'll look under the microscope.

MR. BAILEY: Now, you did that, didn't you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.

MR. BAILEY: This is an example of what you might see looking through your comparison microscope; is it not?

MS. CLARK: May I see what this is?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Your 463.

MR. BAILEY: This is an exhibit, Prosecution's 463, that we looked at during your direct testimony, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: This is a drawing that you made showing two hairs butted one against each other in the picture being compared?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's what it's tempting--

MR. BAILEY: In size, thickness of the cuticle, constancy of the medulla, placement of ovoid bodies, pigment and the shape and color of the cortex, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right on. That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Those are the kinds of things that you look for in comparison when you peer into that very special microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Have you brought with you any pictures of any comparisons that you did?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Not individual photographs which show the side by side like this shows.

MR. BAILEY: Well, Mr. Deedrick, if an examiner requires this kind of image to call the questioned and the known similar or dissimilar, how could lay people do any better without the image you say is essential to your craft?

MR. DEEDRICK: I--I don't see--I don't see that to be an issue because you actually get more of the photograph--more of the hair in the photograph the way it's done in this case than you would if you did a side by side.

MR. BAILEY: But you don't have any opportunity to match them end to end as the comparison microscope does and you have done in this drawing, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: You could take those photographs off and turn them however you want, on top of the other photograph, and you could do the same thing.

MR. BAILEY: Could you have, had you chosen to do so, have taken photographs through the comparison microscope and produced examples such as the one that is up on the screen in reality?

MR. DEEDRICK: I could have very easily.

MR. BAILEY: Would it have then been possible for you to show to this court the basis for which you found one hair to be similar with another category by category?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that would be one method, one way to do that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: That would be one way to do it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Would that not be the only way to do it, Mr. Deedrick?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't believe so. I believe the way I did it pretty much represents the associations that were made.

MR. BAILEY: Well, the way that you did it, you have agreed would not be sufficient for any reputable examiner to base his testimony on unless he had also had the benefit of this, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. The--the determination or conclusions that you reach regarding hair comparisons are made examining the hair along the length, all of the characteristics side by side; and what you try to do as an examiner is find areas that line up like this photograph here (Indicating). That's--that's the best--best scenario, the best situation.

MR. BAILEY: Are you telling us that as to each of the hairs where you have testified that you find similarity and cannot exclude consistent with or could have come from, you made this kind of inspection?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Are you saying that although your eyes were permitted to see that image--?

THE COURT: Go ahead and finish your question. It's an important area, if you want to finish that.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BAILEY: What your eyes saw, a camera presumably could record; could it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: It could, yes.

MR. BAILEY: So those that have to make the final judgment in this case could have the benefit of this kind of technology rather than the display that you have chosen to bring, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I could have--right. I could have done that.

MR. BAILEY: Did you consider doing it?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did you decide not to do it?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's a decision that I made. Sure. I actually attempted to use that technique over the years. I found this particular methodology much more informative.

MR. BAILEY: And much more flexible; is it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is a little more flexible, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let's take a 10-minute break. Remember all my admonitions to you. All right.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All the parties are again present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you for being alert, that little post-it that came up.

MR. COCHRAN: Oh, yes.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we have all of our jurors back from our comfort break. Ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to take this opportunity--you know, when we stop for our comfort breaks, I have to say that I appreciate your stamina, the dedication that you've given to this case. Nobody's gotten sick so we've had to stop the case. I mean you all are doing a great job. You're real troopers, and if we have to take a comfort break every now and again, well, you just sing out and let us know. All right. But hang in there. You're doing a great job. All right. Mr. Deedrick. In fact, I notice some of you have your fourth and fifth notebooks. Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, turning to the photographs that you did bring with you, these were taken through the lens of a very powerful microscope from 250 to 400 times magnification; is that correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Now, what is the depth of field of that lens? Is it almost zero?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's pretty flat.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. When we use depth in field in photography, we mean, for instance, a lens that could be focused on the gentleman seated to my right and on you and the court reporter all at the same time, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Depth of field means that you could see more in foc--it would be more in focus, right, depending on how far away it is from you.

MR. BAILEY: But the microscope that was hooked to a camera to produce these pictures almost slices through the various parts of the hair as you rack it up and down, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. It's very flat, plain.

MR. BAILEY: So that by turning the knob that controls the distance to the focal point--

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: --in the lens, you can look at the very bottom of the hair, the midsection or the very top?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: You may see different things at each level, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: You may. That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Not only that, but along the length of the hair, you may see some differences, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.

MR. BAILEY: As a matter of fact, people who let their hair grow long tend to have different characteristics towards the distal end or tip than at the proximal end or root because the hair is aging as it grows, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. And it's also being exposed to different things.

MR. BAILEY: Exposed to the environment, chemicals?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: All kinds of things?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And I believe that you testified on direct examination that the average hair grows about--on an adult grows about a half an inch a month?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So that if you were dealing with hair samples no longer than an inch, in other words, that are trimmed periodically so that they don't grow beyond an inch, you're dealing with hair which is probably no more than two months old, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's--that's probably about right, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And was that not true of all the K7 samples that you looked at generally?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were less than 2 inches I believe.

MR. BAILEY: Did you find many that were more than an inch? These are known hairs from Mr. Simpson.

MR. DEEDRICK: 1-5/8 probably was closer to the longest hair. And--right. There were other hairs shorter than an inch.

MR. BAILEY: Now, when you made these photographs, you selected the place on the hair where you would take a half a millimeter and photograph it, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It's--it's--it's a selection made by me.

MR. BAILEY: And you would select the depth of the hair from top to bottom where the camera was focused or where the lens was focused when you snapped the shutter, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I think most of the photographs though, what I try to do is get the cuticle sharp on both sides. In order to do that, it's somewhere in the middle.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You aim for the middle?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you try. And by getting in the middle, it depends on how the hair is laying. You try to get the cuticle sharp on both sides. And if it's an evenly round hair, that's pretty easy to do. If it's a more flattened hair, you may have one side in focus and the other one out of focus.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But ideally on a symmetrical hair, if you get at the midsection, you should get a sharp cuticle and it would be fuzzy if you were not at the midsection; is that correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. You may not--you may not get a sharp edge on the cuticle.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And you made each selection that appears on the relevant hairs as opposed to the atlas hairs in this case, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. All of these photographs were just selected by me.

MR. BAILEY: How many hairs do you normally need to pull from a human head for comparison purposes in order to account for variances within the range of that individual?

MR. DEEDRICK: That--that may vary a little bit, not knowing what the range of characteristics might be within a person's head. I've--I've heard of upwards of a hundred hairs from an individual taken at random from different parts. From that 125 or 30 hairs may be selected as a range of characteristics. We recommend to police officers and to crime labs that at least 25 full-length randomly selected hairs and including combings be selected. That may not be enough or it may be more than enough.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But with respect to the different parts of the head, what different places at a minimum do you like to see hairs drawn from to cover the range?

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, that may vary a little bit too. If the color of the hair is pretty uniform, then hair should be selected from the back and from the sides, from the top and from the front. You'll get differences in length and perhaps texture and so forth. And the way the hairs are cut is a good example. If the person has patches of color, then one might be sure to get samples from that area of the hair. I used to have a black spot. So you would take hairs from that as representative of possibly hairs that may come from that. It may not be within your four areas that you normally pick from, but you try to take them from four or five different areas.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, if you were dealing with an example like yourself where there was quite a range in color, you would want to get from separate areas of the head and also a sample of each kind of color; would you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. You would try to do that to represent the range.

MR. BAILEY: Can you place a hair in the comparison microscope for study purposes without mounting it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you can.

MR. BAILEY: Do you?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. No. It's not recommended.

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me. None of the hairs that you have talked about in this case for comparison purposes were viewed prior to your mounting them or having Miss Brockbank do it, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct. They would have been mounted on a slide.

MR. BAILEY: And any judgments that you made were as to mounted hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: To eliminate an individual from questioned hair samples, do you need to look at hairs from the various parts of the head in order to make a reliable judgment?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would be preferred.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is it not a fact that with respect to the police officers and other law enforcement personnel that appear on the elimination board, only two hairs were mounted in each case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't--I don't believe that to be the case.

MR. BAILEY: Do you remember how many you did mount of each example? Except for Miss Brockbank, I believe there were three.

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't--I don't believe that's the case, but I'd have to see--see the slides.

MR. BAILEY: Well, tell us the right number.

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall exactly how many were mounted.

MR. BAILEY: Could you eliminate someone with merely two hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would try not to.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony. Two slides, not two hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Did you mount hairs from the elimination suspects on two slides?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I felt--and again, my recollection is that each sample was a suitable sample in number, right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: Some were two slides. Some were three. Brockbank's were longer, so there were three slides.

MR. BAILEY: Well, most importantly, I take it you are confident that the unidentified Caucasian hair found on the Rockingham glove didn't come from any of the people whose samples you looked at?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I wasn't satisfied with any of their hairs as a possible donor.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And you have no idea who did deposit that hair, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You did eliminate both victims you told us on direct examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I did eliminate those and they're in the--it's in the report that way.

MR. BAILEY: Now, Mr. Deedrick, can you give us a little information about the manner in which you work with agencies other than your own? I know in the FBI pretty much what your routine is. But you work with many, many other law enforcement agencies as you've told us, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. From all around the country.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. And you work with different levels of expertise and sophistication as to their facilities, equipment and personnel?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Right? And is it fair to assume that those facilities that have their own laboratories, reasonably elaborate laboratories, consult the FBI generally in the more difficult cases rather than the ones that are pretty obvious?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there's a lot of reasons why some crime labs may request our assistance. It may be political reasons. It may be that they're overburdened and they can't handle a case of that type. They may feel it's a little more complex than what they're used to doing. So there could be a number of reasons why they select us or ask us to help them.

MR. BAILEY: Well, is this a case for political reasons do you know?

MR. DEEDRICK: I think politics plays a part in a lot of things.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Do you think that the Los Angeles Police Department was a little weary of this case and decided to put it in your lap?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative, calls for speculation.

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: In any event, when you are called in on a case, to what degree do you exercise some influence over the investigation so that you can make sure that you get the information you need and don't get surprised by information you didn't get?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, from the analysis of evidence in a case--and you're referring to this particular case or any case?

MR. BAILEY: Well, I'm interested in your practices and then if they were conformed in this case, fine, and if you took extraordinary steps, I would like to know that too.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. In a case where evidence is being examined, I may decide that I would like to get additional known standards. I may call out to the contributor. They may--they may have to go collect additional samples from the suspects or from the victims, if they're still available, or perhaps elimination standards from police officers or the crime scene personnel. I may request carpet standards, fiber standards to resolve certain information that I'm getting from looking at slides. I may find something that I feel might be useful in trying to link unusual fibers or unusual structures that I'm seeing. I like to get involved in the case at least from my standpoint with a local investigator to see if I can help out in any way.

MR. BAILEY: Do you require that they at least offer you samples of everything that they have collected that might relate to your studies?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, some of the decisions they make--they make. Sometimes they decide not to send some samples for some reason and sometimes they send it all. It really depends on the case and who they are.

MR. BAILEY: Do you ever direct or request that they go obtain additional information so that you can complete your responsibility?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do.

MR. BAILEY: Did you do that in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell the jury what it was that you asked for that was not initially submitted to you apart from the Bronco carpet I think you've testified to?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. Well, I--I found a number of--

MS. CLARK: Objection. We'd better approach on this one.

THE COURT: What else he asked for?

MR. BAILEY: Well, if she says approach--

MS. CLARK: I think Mr. Bailey would like to know--

THE COURT: Well--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ask whether or not you could see any samples of clothing belonging to Mr. Simpson that might relate to some of the fibers that you were looking at?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did--I did request samples of fabric, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you ever receive any samples of fabric?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Now, did you similarly request samples of fabric from others who were present in the vicinity of the places where these fibers, for instance, the blue black fibers were found?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did--I did request a number of different possible sources of fiber, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you give us an example of the kinds of requests you made for sources of fibers from people other than Mr. Simpson?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I had a number of fibers that were recovered on--in specific items, the gloves, the hat had a lot--a lot of fibers off the knit hat and those were the main items. The fibers off of the victims, I--I had--well, I had a few, but the key items I believe were the two gloves as well as the knit hat. And I made several requests regarding possible clothing. I gave a list of fibers and by color and by type and to see if these would be of value from an investigative standpoint.

MR. BAILEY: Did you receive any example, for instance, of an LAPD uniform?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know what color they are?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know how many uniformed officers were in and about the scene prior to the time that the victims were removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Are you concerned when you were attempting to make comparisons with possible sources of the fibers you're looking at?

MR. DEEDRICK: I thought you were going on with that. I was waiting for the punch line.

MR. BAILEY: No punch.

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh.

MR. BAILEY: No. Are you concerned about sources?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. It's a concern, sure, as you're trying to determine the origin of a particular fiber as to where it may have come from.

MR. BAILEY: If you thought a fiber looked significant and found that a day earlier, someone had thrown a hundred of them in the area, that would have a bearing on any inferences you might draw, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it has a bearing on what value you place on it, sure.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, are you aware of the circumstances that existed as between the two locations involved here, that is Rockingham and Bundy and the people who were common to both?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have some general understanding of that. I know there's some detectives that were at both locations.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But I'm talking prior to the crime.

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know whether or not Mr. Simpson regularly visited the Bundy location?

MR. DEEDRICK: I--I assumed that was a logical, logical thing.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know whether or not Mrs. Simpson visited the Rockingham location?

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, I assumed that that was logical.

MR. BAILEY: Did you know that the children were back and forth a good deal?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. I figured that also.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. Did you know that the vehicle, the Bronco, was used by both?

MR. DEEDRICK: I wasn't sure of that.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence. Motion to strike. Ask the jury to be admonish.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Did you know that the dogs would go back and forth between the locations?

MR. DEEDRICK: I figured that was a possibility, sure.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And in matters of primary, secondary, tertiary and whatever transfer, the movement of people back and forth between relevant locations is always a possible source for hairs, fibers and other things, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you can--you can eliminate that possibility, right.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. Now, do you know the condition of the soil in the vicinity of the place where Ronald Goldman's body was discovered prior to its being placed there by someone in the course of the killing?

MR. DEEDRICK: The soil?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did you know that the LAPD collected a sample of that soil?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't know that.

MR. BAILEY: Was it ever submitted to you for examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know whether or not it was loaded with hairs, both animal and human?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I wouldn't know what was in it.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would it be important for you to know in what parts of a property or a home people spent time or animals spent time in trying to assess the significance of hairs and fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: That--that may be--again, it's a point that the listeners to the results would have--it would have more meaning to them. It would have less significance if you found something that you'd expected to find a lot of stuff there.

MR. BAILEY: What I'm trying to learn is whether or not in this case you made all of those inquiries.

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know if I made all of the inquiries, but these are obvious questions that came to mind at some point.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you know that a number of police officers were at both locations sometime after midnight on the 13th of June, 1994?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I'm aware of that.

MR. BAILEY: And that some went back and forth like the detective, Bundy, Rockingham, back to Bundy and so forth?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you collect any samples of any of the fabrics as to what they were wearing that day while they were performing their duties?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: How about the medical personnel who were on the scene, Mr. Fung, Miss Ratcliffe and others from the Coroner's office?

MR. DEEDRICK: Nothing was submitted.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, did you ask, as you did with hairs--I assume that was your request that brought forth the elimination hairs; was it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Along with the fiber request.

MR. BAILEY: Right.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ask that the people who were wearing clothes that day, as we assumed all of them were, identify at least the color and fabric that they were wearing?

MR. DEEDRICK: That went hand in hand with the hair request--

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: --that it would be--it would be good to get elimination standards of clothing of personnel if there was a question about that.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And how many people was it reported to you were wearing a blue black fiber constructed garment that day?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Incomplete hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Nobody explained anything to me about what they were wearing.

MR. BAILEY: Well, what did you do with the information you received? You say you asked to know what everybody was wearing that day who was on the scene, and I assume you got a response?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe I asked them what everybody was wearing. I indicated that it might be useful information to know if we have certain fiber types if there's a question about their possibly originating from a police officer or detective or whoever else might have been there, and that request went out.

MR. BAILEY: And what response did you receive?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I got elimination hair standards at a later date.

MR. BAILEY: I understand that. And you've talked about that. I'm asking you, what response did you receive to the question who was wearing what who was at the crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't recall any specific response.

MR. BAILEY: You didn't get a response, did you?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Like I said, the only thing I got were the hair samples.

MR. BAILEY: You haven't the vaguest idea to this day whether 1, 10 or 30 people were wearing dark cotton clothing around that crime scene, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I--I don't know.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you inquire as to whether or not samples had been taken from either of the homes inside the homes?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Well, I don't believe I recall ever asking for samples except for perhaps from carpet samples.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: But as far as other furnishings or clothing, no.

MR. BAILEY: How about the clothing inside Mrs. Simpson's home? Did you ask to examine any of that, particularly any that might be dark blue or blue black?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did you receive a single garment from anyone for examination and comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I did not receive any fabrics from anybody or anyplace to try to account for the blue black fibers you're referring to.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Let's talk for a minute about the knit cap. Have you been made privy to the fact that a second knit cap was discovered?

MR. DEEDRICK: I had a number of caps submitted. I'm not sure which one--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates--

THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes facts that are in evidence.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry, your Honor?

THE COURT: Assumes facts that are not in evidence.

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor--15874, your Honor.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I stand corrected. One of the detectives who testified to that.

MR. BAILEY: Page 15874.

THE COURT: I had to recollect four months back.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

THE COURT: It took me five seconds to remember. Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Were you informed that a Defense investigator in the company of a lead detective in this case discovered in a closet on the second floor of the Bundy residence a knit cap similar in appearance to the one found near the body of Ronald Goldman?

MS. CLARK: Objection. "Similar appearance" misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I don't know if I received that particular cap or not. I did receive some additional caps at a later date. But if that's one of them, I wouldn't know.

MR. BAILEY: Well, if I tell you that the detective refused to book it, would you assume that you never received it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that's a good assumption.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: If you had examined that cap and found the hair compatible with or could have come from Mr. Simpson in the hat, would that have been of any significance?

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not sure how other than maybe left his hat in the house at one point in time.

MR. BAILEY: Would you have reported the fact that you found a similar cap with hairs similar to Mr. Simpson or could have come from located in the house of his ex-wife and children?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I would have reported that.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, I think you said on Thursday, if I recollect correctly, in the first part of your testimony, that you had examined some 500,000 hairs over the course of your career.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not sure if it was examinations or--I probably have. I probably have.

MR. BAILEY: Well, do you recall that testimony or not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do recall the words "Half a million." I don't recall if it was hairs or hairs and fibers or examinations or--but I think I've at least seen that many hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Half a million was in fact the words you yourself used.

MR. DEEDRICK: I recall those vividly, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And you meant for that to include the total 17 years that you've been devoting to this specialty. Does that include the year that you were sort of an intern?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, I take it with this many examinations or views of substances in your background, that it is not feasible to individually recall each experience to the point of being able to differentiate.

MR. DEEDRICK: No. You can't do that.

MR. BAILEY: For instance, if I were to ask you about evidence in one of the cases in which you've testified, you might or might not be able to remember what the objects look like, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And in cases that were of little moment, you probably would not, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: I probably wouldn't.

MR. BAILEY: And because of that, when you examine something through the comparison microscope, the only basis upon which you have formed opinions in the past, you make notes of what you see; do you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And that is because if someone should later challenge the correctness of your comparison, you will be able to give detail somewhat like the lists that we viewed earlier to back up the opinion that you have reached, whether it be exclusion or inclusion?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. That's not what I do.

MR. BAILEY: You don't? Well, if you don't make notes as to what characteristics there are in a questioned and known sample, how are you able to tell later on which characteristics seem sufficiently similar or dissimilar to you to reach a conclusion?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you do it at the moment when you--

MR. BAILEY: You do it at the moment?

MR. DEEDRICK: When you do your comparisons, right. The conclusions that I draw regarding whether or not a hair looks like another hair in a known standard, there are visual observations and some brief notes will be made regarding the hair, a brown Caucasian head hair. I may describe the roots. I may describe the length. I may describe the color or other characteristics, and I'll just put "Like K1," and that means to me that I compared all the characteristics that I felt were important and reached that conclusion.

MR. BAILEY: Is it the case then, Mr. Deedrick, that as to any of the individual comparisons about which you've testified in this case, you are unable to reconstruct what individual similarities led you to your opinion?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I couldn't do that from the notes.

MR. BAILEY: But isn't that, sir, very much like, "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, again, I don't--I don't know if it's quite the same, but the characteristics are compared visually. The conclusions are reached based on that observation. The notes are there just as reminders, that is all, and the notes are not intended to be the basis for a conclusion.

MR. BAILEY: The notes that you write are not the basis for your conclusion?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they're not--I mean in terms of--I mean obviously I put a draw a conclusion, I put in it my notes like K1. That's the conclusion I reached. But the notes themselves are not the basis. I couldn't have somebody look at the notes and say, oh, yeah, that hair looks like that hair. They couldn't do that.

MR. BAILEY: Well, now, Mr. Deedrick, examiners occasionally disagree on similarities and differences; do they not?

MR. DEEDRICK: They could and they do, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And whether or not they are sufficiently significant to warrant reaching conclusion a versus b?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Examiners may differ in their opinions.

MR. BAILEY: And when two examiners come to different conclusions in a lawsuit of this sort, somebody has to decide which one has used the better procedure. The more reliable procedure is the more credible, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, someone might have to, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Yes. And not having any individual notes as to what you were seeing in the microscope, but taking the position, "I made a judgment then even though I can't reconstruct it," is a wonderful Defense for cross-examination; is it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that's--I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by that.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. If you had a listed criteria for each comparison you made, that is to say, you found a trace medulla in both samples, you found similarly shaped and placed ovoid bodies, you found similar clumping of the pigment all located on one side of the hair as opposed to around the inner diameter of the cuticle and you found that certain twists or bends or buckles were in the hair, that would give another expert an opportunity to decide whether your application of those criteria of similarity or distinction were done correctly and professionally; would it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I don't think so. Again, that's just a matter of procedure and how one goes about this process of comparing hairs. If another examiner is going to look at the same hairs and reach a conclusion, they can write down whatever they want. If they want to use a chart, if they want to use a graph, if they want to draw a picture of it or take a million photographs, it really doesn't matter. They have to decide for themselves if it could have come from the source or is it different. That's their opinion and they have to base it on what they know and from their experience. The conclusions I reached are based on my experience, my observations at the time I conducted the examination. I think it's improper to go about trying to compare notes.

MR. BAILEY: Well, Mr. Deedrick, you are unable, I take it, except as these notes may disclose in an individual comparison to reconstruct what it is you were looking at that persuaded you to arrive at a judgment, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I can refer to the known standards, describe those from the notes. The questioned hairs that I found correspond in many respects, if not all, to the known--the notes prepared from the known standard. So I find it duplicity in going through--I could write them down. I could write all the characteristics and I could make sure that all the notes corresponded perfectly just so I could avoid this bantering on whether or not they exhibit the same characteristics. But that's not what I do. I reach conclusions based on my observations. The notes are just to help me along as I go through my exam.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You did make some notes; did you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Tell me about your habits in making notes. Do you date them, put them in any particular order?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't date them.

MR. BAILEY: Can we tell from your notes when you claim you made certain observations through the microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Can we tell from your notes how long you spent looking at a particular comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Can we tell from your notes what it was you thought you saw that entitled you to make a comparison or the lack thereof or a distinction?

MR. DEEDRICK: Probably not.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, why do you keep any notes?

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry?

MR. BAILEY: Why do you keep any notes? What do you need them for?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just to refresh my memory if I have to go testify or at least comment on the case at a later date for some reason.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, was there ever the slightest doubt in your mind that you would wind up on the witness stand in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not after the first couple slides. I realized I'd be here.

MR. BAILEY: Yes. And did you not note the fact that this is probably the most widely publicized case that you've ever been involved in.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, sure. I think we all agree on that.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And did you not realize as you made your notes that the world might one day look at what you had done and how you had done it?

MR. DEEDRICK: I wasn't--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That's argumentative.

THE COURT: That's irrelevant.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In any event, preparatory to turning to those notes, Mr. Deedrick, you turned handwritten notes to the Defense through the discovery process; did you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: The Defense had those typed up and submitted to you for any corrections or omissions or little hand scratches that couldn't be deciphered?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: You were kind enough to edit them and returned them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: They were corrected and returned to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: And this morning, you have given them back to me with just a few corrections, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Tonight, would you be kind enough to go over those notes so that we don't get bogged down. There are a few questions I have about the manner in which they were made and to be disclosed.

MR. DEEDRICK: Be glad to.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the afternoon. Mr. Deedrick, you can step down. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case or conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Have a pleasant evening. See you tomorrow morning 9 o'clock. All right. We'll stand in recess. Let me see Mr. Cochran and Miss Clark.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(At 5:00 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, July 6, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. Ba097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, July 5, 1995

Volume 180 pages 34991 through 35232, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 180 pages 34991 - 35232

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday July 5, 1995 A.M. 34991 180 P.M. 35063 180

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden D Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Deedrick, 180 Douglas W. (Resumed) 34997C (Resumed) 35066C 35107B

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Deedrick, 180 Douglas W. (Resumed) 34997C (Resumed) 35066C 35107B

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

482 - Chart 35010 180 entitled "Hair and trace summary"

483 - Chart 35013 180 entitled "Known cotton fibers from Ron Goldman's shirt"

484 - Photograph 35022 180 of a black dress

485 - Posterboard 35030 180 with photographs entitled "Known fibers from knit hat found at crime scene/known fiber from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress"

486 - Posterboard 35056 180 with photographs entitled "Known carpet fibers from O.J.'s Bronco"

487 - Posterboard 35089 180 with photographs entitled "Bluish-black cotton fiber association"

488 - Posterboard 35096 180 with photographs entitled "Known cotton fibers from Ronald Goldman's jeans"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1220 - 1-page document 35145 180 entitled "Hair classification"

1221 - 2-page document 35158 180 entitled "Hair and fibers"

1222 - 2-page document 35180 180 entitled "FBI guide"