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.)

(Pages 35233 through 35294, volume 181A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(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. Cochran, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Escobar. The jury is not present. The record should reflect that this morning the Court conducted an interview of each one of our jurors after the Court received information that one of our former jurors, who had been dismissed for misconduct for communicating and writing notes to other jurors, had indeed communicated with one of the sitting jurors. The Court had to conduct an inquiry as to whether or not such communications were received and what the content was. And the Court conducted an individual interview of each one of our jurors. And we will proceed. Anything else, counsel?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. We would like to put something on the record if we might. Perhaps the Court may want us to approach the bench.

THE COURT: What is the topic, counsel?

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the jury, we have a request.

THE COURT: A request?

MR. COCHRAN: A request, yes.

THE COURT: All right. Madam reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I hear remarks from the peanut gallery. I couldn't hear what was said. But your Honor, with regard to this, we spoke with our client after the interview, and we are in the process of trying to reach Professor Dershowitz and Dean Uelmen, but at minimal at this point, after talking with our client, we would request that we would like to have the Court get the first letter received by the juror from 353 to 1290, and we would like to see the contents of that letter because I think we are in a situation in this case where we will make another mistake, but at least seeing what the contents are. And we are going to specifically request that that letter--we need to see the contents of the letter specifically because there were messages to each and every juror or to several of the jurors, apparently.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: For that reason I thought we should do that, and as to anything else, we will give back to the Court. May I have just a second?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: The second thing we would ask, your Honor, would be that we get some kind of a declaration or something where we be privy to talk to the sheriff's deputies who read the second letter so we can get the content.

THE COURT: I have Sergeant Smith doing that as we speak.

MR. COCHRAN: We would like--another thing, we would like, if at all possible, to get an expedited copy of the proceedings there and we will keep it under seal and give it to our lawyers--of the proceedings this morning so that we can share them with Professor Dershowitz and Dean Uelmen.

THE COURT: Understanding that the court reporters are expediting other things right now.

MR. COCHRAN: I do, I do, as soon as possible.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that--I mean, we get each of the things we asked for?

THE COURT: No. I will at an appropriate time today ask 1290 to give the letter--the physical letter to the sheriffs, and I already have the sheriff's department interviewing the deputies who are involved in the other matters because I want to know what the content of the letter was.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right, counsel. Anything else? Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran, have you all had the opportunity to consult regarding the stipulations regarding the People's final witness?

MS. CLARK: I have proposed copy with me, your Honor, and I would like to give it to Mr. Cochran and let him look at that.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please. Deputy Magnera.

(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. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume 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: You are reminded that you are still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record.

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

MR. DEEDRICK: Good morning.

THE COURT: Sir, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Mr. Bailey, you may continue with your cross-examination.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you, your Honor. I have a learned treatise here which I'm handing to Miss Clark. May I hand the witness a copy, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you.

THE COURT: And what is this, Mr. Bailey?

MR. BAILEY: It is an article from the Journal of Forensic Science, if it please the Court. May it be marked Defense next in order? Published in `89 by certain people dealing with a topic raised by the witness, I believe in his direct, called thin layer chromatography.

THE COURT: 1223.

(Deft's 1233 for id = article)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, both the People and the witness need an opportunity to read this.

MR. BAILEY: I intended to let them have that. I am not going into it right now. That is why I gave it to them now.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, since we parted company yesterday, has a revised typed edition of the notes that we've been working with, your notes, been returned to you with some corrections made?

MR. DEEDRICK: They have, yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Have you reviewed that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I haven't had a chance to look through it thoroughly, but it looks pretty much in order.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In any event, can you tell us a little bit about the methodology that you use in keeping notes in your cases? Do you have any set procedure, things that you regularly do when it comes to creating these notes?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the first set of notes generally refers to the examination of the original item, how it was received, the condition of the item, perhaps any markings that may be on the container, if it was sealed, if it was opened or damaged. From this the item is then opened and notes are taken of the condition of the inside contents again, any markings, the container, the type of container and so forth. Once the material has been removed from an item, in this particular case most of the material was debris packets, so once that material has been mounted on a glass microscope slide, the analysis and the notes essentially are describing the questioned material first and then taking a look at the known characteristics, the known hair samples or the known fiber samples and then doing a comparison. The notes regarding hairs would generally be short notes as to type, race, body area, whether they are suitable for a comparison, maybe the approximate length and color. With fibers, first off, with most fiber examinations, the fibers are not explained routinely, simply because there is no way to know what significance a number of fibers may have that is found on a particular item. You look at the fibers and form some mental notes and then later compare those with the actual fabrics in question, maybe that are worn by the suspect in a case or by the victim. And the comparisons are then made and the tests are conducted and the notes are taken based on the tests.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Are there any dates on any of the notes that you produced in this case indicating when you performed certain tasks or made certain observations?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there are not.

MR. BAILEY: When you got your biology degree from Indiana did you take a course in chemistry?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Was the importance of sequencing observations stressed in your chemistry course?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'm sure it was. That is a long time ago.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. You know, by the way, most lawyers are premed students that couldn't pass chemistry, don't you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Perhaps for hair examiners, too.

MR. BAILEY: In any event, it is not your practice, I take it, to make any dates on the notes?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is not routine, no, to make date notations.

MR. BAILEY: Is it your practice to keep a sequence within the notes that accurately reflect the sequence in which you performed your duties?

MR. DEEDRICK: Generally that the note taking, as far as the number of the item, they generally follow a sequence, although there may be items that are placed in a different locations, depending on when the exams may have been conducted.

MR. BAILEY: Are the examiners in your section given codes to identify their notes with?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, all examiners have symbols, lab symbols instead of initials. Mine are UJ. It is just kind of an alphabetical sequencing that we have, just so we don't confuse initials.

MR. BAILEY: Who is QJ?

MR. DEEDRICK: QJ is Bill Bodziak.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And he is someone you worked with on this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And the number that appears at the top of the note, that is a case number, discrete case number?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That would refer to the--the year, month, day and the case number that was sequenced in the evidence control center.

MR. BAILEY: Do you remember, Mr. Deedrick, on June 25th and 27th of 1985 at the FBI at its Quantico facility hosted an international symposium in hair and fiber specialists?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, I remember that.

MR. BAILEY: Do you remember that a committee was appointed in order to attempt to define some standards that would attempt to be recognized within the profession?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I sat in on one of the panels.

MR. BAILEY: Were you a member of the committee that defined standards?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I was just was on one of the panels that was discussing atlas of hair characteristics.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Do you recall that the standards committee recommended using a checklist such as the one that we reviewed yesterday?

MR. DEEDRICK: They may have, yes.

MR. BAILEY: I take it that is something with which you had disagreed sometime before that symposium was ever held?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I don't necessarily disagree with the use of a checklist. I don't--I don't use it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with a checklist if it helps you conduct your examinations better.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Yesterday, by the way, you indicated no great degree of familiarity with the laboratory, the RCMP which yielded this proposed two-part checklist that we looked at. Is that an accurate reflection of your testimony?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I have never been there. I have only spoken to Mr. Gaudette, and if they use a checklist, I guess you furnished that to me.

MR. BAILEY: Isn't it true that in the past you have expressed some admiration for the operations for the RCMP in hair and fibers, under oath?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, yes. I--in the papers that I have read, the one by Barry Gaudette, I don't agree with everything in the paper, but the idea that he is saying is that hair examinations are significant and hair associations are significant. I agree with that. I think that that is the right idea.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Okay. Now, the first part of your notes merely reflects the receipt of certain materials and the assignment to these materials of Q numbers?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Meaning that at this stage of the game they are questioned?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. All those would be questioned items.

MR. BAILEY: Right. And do you use the word "Question" or "Questioned," just out of curiosity? We see it both ways in transcripts.

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, I--

MR. BAILEY: Which term is used in your laboratory?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't know if it matters.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: I have seen it both ways.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Fine. But known always means that you have some positive way of identifying the source of anything marked with a "K," right?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: After you have inventoried the things that have been sent in to you by whatever agency you are helping, you then go to examinations of questioned items, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: All right. I don't believe in your direct examination you mentioned that you examined a number of items that were retrieved from Chicago.

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

MR. BAILEY: Would you look at page 5 of your notes and tell the jury just a little bit about what it was that was submitted to you and what you found with respect to the materials from Chicago.

MS. CLARK: Objection, this is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: May we approach?

THE COURT: Not at this point.

MR. BAILEY: May I make him my witness on this point?

THE COURT: Not at this point.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. BAILEY: In any event, Mr. Deedrick, would you point to the first area in your notes where you begin to examine things, rather than just to describe and label them.

MR. DEEDRICK: All right. I'm there.

MR. BAILEY: What page is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would be page 7.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Page 7 of I believe 16, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I don't know what the total number of notes--note pages are.

MR. BAILEY: Look at the last page on the top and see if you see the number "16."

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. All right. Is this typical of the manner in which you go about examining questioned items?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is typical.

MR. BAILEY: Do you always examine the questioned items before exposing yourself to the characteristics of the known items that you seek to compare later on?

MR. DEEDRICK: Generally, yes.

MR. BAILEY: What is the reason for doing things in that order?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the one reason is not to open up the known in the same area and at least have them exposed on the surface of the counter where you are going to be looking at the questioned material. Sometimes it is useful, though, to look at the known just to get an idea of the color, the length, the curl, to get an idea what you might be looking for in questioned items of evidence if you have a large amount of quantity of evidence to look through. I do it just to familiarize myself with what type of person or surface this fabric may have had contact with, just to study it.

MR. BAILEY: If you were to look at the known in a given case and find that all three relevant people were blondes, it would save you a lot of time looking at brunette and Asian and other hairs, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. And again you may have racial differences between a suspect and a victim and you may be looking at first for a particular racial group.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, there are a great number of fibers and other miscellaneous materials described in your notes from your inspection in the microscope which have not been talked about in your testimony. Is that a fair statement?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's fair.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. When you examine hair characteristics, do you note those aspects of the hair you are looking at that seem significant?

MR. DEEDRICK: In the known characterization, yes.

MR. BAILEY: I'm talking about questioned now. When you are looking at a questioned hair through the microscope, before you get to the comparison microscope--this is a two-stage process, is it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: You first identify what it is that the naked eye might not be able to tell with one microscope and then when you get to the known you put them together, as we saw yesterday in your sketch, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: So on page 8, for instance, where we are looking at you examining hairs, at the top, for instance, dark brown, two dark brown Caucasian origin head hair fragments. Is that what "COHH" means?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Do you normally, as you make this observation, this threshold observation, see any of the characteristics which will become important in testing similarity later on? Is this microscope powerful enough for you to see the medulla, cortex?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, sure. You may use a range of magnifications, from low magnification up through 250 magnification or maybe higher, but at this point it is mainly just to scan and taking a look at what you have and not necessarily pinpointing specific microscopic characteristics.

MR. BAILEY: Pinpointing would be done in a comparison stage later on, if you get to that, as to a particular hair, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. If the hair is suitable for comparison, and once the comparison process starts, you take a real close look at the microscopic characteristics at that point.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And you repeatedly use in your observations an acronym NSFSCP, which means not suitable for significant comparison purposes, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: And that simply means you have to disregard that item when it comes to future procedures?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, generally that is.

MR. BAILEY: Does not have potential value?

MR. DEEDRICK: Generally those aren't compared.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is it fair to say, as you look over your notes on hair comparisons on pages 8 and 9, that there are very few characteristics described individually?

MR. DEEDRICK: There are very few, that's right.

MR. BAILEY: You may say that a hair is club and Negroid, but you don't make a practice of noting the medulla, the ovoid bodies, the pigments, the cuticle, the length, et cetera?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is--

MR. BAILEY: I take that back. The length you normally note, do you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I generally note how long the hair was.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And that is because you retain in your memory what it is that you are seeing even though you don't write it down?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you do retain a little bit, but you don't always retain all the characteristics. That is why you need to look at the hairs with a comparison microscope.

MR. BAILEY: But if I were to ask you, as to any of these individual hairs, the appearance of the ovoid bodies and the pigment and the cortex and so forth, I take it you might have some difficulty calling those to mind?

MR. DEEDRICK: Umm, well, yes, I wouldn't--I wouldn't recall specifically which hairs, although I have--on some of the hairs I have a pretty vivid memory, but others I don't.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, would you turn to page 16 of your notes.

MR. DEEDRICK: (Witness complies.) okay.

MR. BAILEY: Do I take it from the fact that this is the last page of your notes that this is the last operation you performed in working up this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it would have been--right. It would have been at a stage before the comparison process took place.

MR. BAILEY: Are the comparisons described earlier in the notes?

MR. DEEDRICK: Umm, well, they would have been, yes.

MR. BAILEY: You use the word "Similar" in some cases, do you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, right.

MR. BAILEY: You use the word "Like," correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: You use the word "Unlike"?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: You do not at any time in your notes use the word "Same," do you, Mr. Deedrick?

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

MR. BAILEY: No. Now, as to the known case, first of all, K7 is a whole series of hairs that were submitted as coming from the head of Mr. Simpson, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: You never received any limb hairs or pubic hairs from Mr. Simpson, did you?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: But you did as to both victims?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: You have three types of hair from Mr. Goldman, three for Mrs. Simpson and just the head hair for Mr. Simpson; is that correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: Object to the use of the term "Mrs. Simpson." Incorrect.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. I received a head hair sample from each person. I also received eye hairs from--and limb hairs from both victims, but I only received a head hair sample from the Defendant.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, without going through all of the notes, is it fair to say that your description, as you examine the known hairs, starting with K7, Mr. Simpson, is rather detailed?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is somewhat detailed, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Well, you cover quite a few of the characteristics that were showing up on our various lists yesterday, do you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they appear to be similar words, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And as to K4, Nicole Simpson, you, in similar fashion, are rather detailed in describing the various characteristics that you seem to find significant as you examine these hairs under the microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: This is not a comparison microscope at this stage; it is still the 50 to a hundred power, is it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no, no. The comparison microscope is two microscopes that are connected optically and you can shut off one microscope, so essentially the examinations are being conducted up to 400 magnification. It is a regular research microscope. When you do the comparisons you essentially turn on the other one so you can see both microscopes so it is a regular research compound microscope.

MR. BAILEY: With a combination of mirrors, I suppose, you appear to fit the images together even though they don't actually join physically in that fashion?

MR. DEEDRICK: If you go to the comparison phase, you would just essentially redirect the light through prisms for both microscopes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And as to Mr. Goldman, the K1 series of hairs that were taken from his head, you in like fashion have quite a bit of detail describing what that hair looks like, do you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do, yes.

MR. BAILEY: But when we go back through your notes and find that you are noting something is like or similar to one of the K hairs, none of that kind of detail is generally present? Is that a fair statement?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, that's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, Mr. Deedrick, is it not fair to say that the integrity of the work that you do in cases of this sort is in many ways limited by the integrity of what has been done prior to the time you received the samples?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: For instance, if someone were to mix up different kind of hairs so that you were informed that a hair came from one place when in fact it came from another, that would interfere substantially with the conclusions that you are able to draw as to probable source, would it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think the comparison would still be valid and the associations or exclusions would be valid, but the significance of the finding would be questionable.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. In other words--

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: --you have to know whether or not a fiber or hair that you find to be significant actually came from where it says in the papers that it came from?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. We are at the mercy of those that check and send the evidence to us.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. Did you ever go to this crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MR. BAILEY: Do you normally go to crime scenes when you are involved in a case of this sort?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I have in the past, but it is not--it is not very often.

MR. BAILEY: Do you ever give instruction to local police agencies that seek your services as to what they should do at the crime scene or how they should handle the evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have through either lecture or conversation given advice on how crime scenes should be conducted.

MR. BAILEY: Did you play any such role in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I came in after the fact.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. When was the first time that you came to Los Angeles in connection with the Simpson matter?

MR. DEEDRICK: That one--well, it was August 23rd, I believe I was here.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And for what purpose, if you can tell me?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I had a trial--a trial in federal court and I stopped over at the crime lab and also with the D.A.'s office.

MR. BAILEY: So this was more incidental than purposeful, I take it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It killed two birds with one stone, essentially.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And did you at that time attempt to interview any of the people who were involved in the collection process?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did speak with Detective Vannatter. I'm not--I did speak with Susan Brockbank. I spoke with Collin Yamauchi and that--that is about all the individuals I spoke with, I believe.

MR. BAILEY: Without going into what was said, did you quiz them about what they had done individually at the crime scene that might have some significance to the work you were expected to do?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, not so much at the crime scene. I was interested to know something about packaging, processing techniques, how they do processing in the crime lab. I was interested to know about cut marks that I saw on the gloves. I did take a look at the glove at that point. I saw some cut marks and I asked some questions about that.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever observe that one of the gloves appeared to be worn, the leather being worn? Did you notice that at any time?

MR. DEEDRICK: Worn? Both--well, both gloves appeared to have--to have been worn and also affected by body fluids, stained and misshaped.

MR. BAILEY: You saw on the gloves what appeared to be dried blood, is that a fair statement?

MR. DEEDRICK: Looked like little pools of dried blood in the crevasses of the blood, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever ask to see any of the photographs depicting--or videotapes depicting the handling and removal the body?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, no. No, I--I may have seen something like that on television, but I have never seen any actual footage as a viewing.

MR. BAILEY: Well, even if it was on television, do you recall seeing Mr. Goldman's body removed from the scene and placed on a gurney?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do recall that, but not specifically as to what he may have had contact with or--but I do recall the body being removed.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And did you see that it was actually sort of dragged across the ground for a little ways as it was coming out of the dirt area?

MR. DEEDRICK: I wasn't really paying too much attention at that point.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: I want you to look at a photo that is in evidence.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: P-56 and just ask you if you have seen it before?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: I have got it cut off, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BAILEY: You haven't been to the crime scene, Mr. Deedrick, but you were able to recognize earlier the hat and gloves, for the benefit of the Court and jury. Was that done because you had seen photos even though you hadn't seen the actual items?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, I saw some photographs.

MR. BAILEY: Is this a photo that you have seen before with the number "100" in the background?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't think I have ever seen that photograph.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. If the body of Mr. Goldman were dragged over the soil and there were hairs in the soil, similar to that of Mr. Simpson, might there not have been a transference there of the one hair that you found?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.

MR. BAILEY: You have no way of knowing from what part of the shirt that hair came; is that correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And it was almost too short to use for comparison, was it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was extremely small, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Next question. You were asked on direct examination about the two gloves. You testified that the Bundy glove had a coarse hair compatible with the Akita, Kato, on the surface of the glove, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe I testified to that effect, yes.

MR. BAILEY: You testified that the Rockingham glove had fur hairs consistent with the belly of that animal on it when you examined it, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it could have been from the belly or from the under fur off the back. There is--I don't even know if I would know where the known samples came from, but it could have been from either source.

MR. BAILEY: But you prepared a chart?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Purporting to show that the Rockingham glove had fur type hairs on it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, it had fur hairs.

MR. BAILEY: And that you have previously described those as being common to the under part of a dog, as opposed to the tuft or coat?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say under part, under fur, under the outer coat which could be on the belly, and it could be on the back, but it is just the soft fine hairs that are closer to the body.

MR. BAILEY: If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was at the Bundy residence, might you expect some fur hairs to be left behind in the soil?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would expect that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And if the Rockingham glove were deposited at any time on that soil, might that not explain the presence of those hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: It could, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Thank you. You showed us, I believe, at the outset of your testimony when you were educating the jury as to the science of hair and fibers, the analogy to a pencil. Is that an analogy that you used when you were a young examiner?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is right. That is in the formative years of hair testimony the pencil is often used.

MR. BAILEY: But by the sixth or seventh year of your career had you not discarded it as not very useful?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is always useful. Some people maybe picture a hair structure a little better by a pencil than maybe a drawing because it is three-dimensional. Some examiners still use it and I think I did here.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You testified in Alaska in 1988 against a gentleman named Anthony?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct, I did.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. May I see the transcript? What is counsel referring to?

THE COURT: Overruled. It is foundational at this point. I don't know that we are going to use anything.

MR. BAILEY: Was it--

THE COURT: But it seems we are leading to that.

MR. BAILEY: What is that?

THE COURT: I assume we are leading to a transcript.

MR. BAILEY: I tend to ask him whether he said certain things, certainly.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel is entitled to see that.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, I was unaware that one had to preview--

THE COURT: Let me see you at side bar with the court reporter, please.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, every other attorney--

THE COURT: Wait, wait. We are over here at the side bar. I take it there is a foundational objection at this point?

MS. CLARK: It is, as well as a discovery objection. Every other attorney has known how to turn over the materials at the beginning of cross that they intend to use. I don't want any more delays. We all want this case to end. Mr. Bailey's continual flourishing of new things that he intends to confront the witness with without having previously shown us or given us an opportunity to review is delaying this trial and is unfair, fundamentally unfair and improper, unethical practice. The Court's rules have been very clear about this. No one else has had difficulty abiding by those rules.

THE COURT: What we are talking about here is the list of the prior recorded testimony--

MS. CLARK: Correct.

THE COURT: --to impeach. There is a foundation that I haven't heard yet.

MS. CLARK: That as well.

MR. BAILEY: Furthermore, if the witness recollects something, I don't believe I need to furnish a transcript to the Prosecutor. If he says, yes, I said that, he said it. They don't have to preview the cross-examination by furnishing page and lists of transcripts. This is something he said under oath. I assume he will recall. And if he doesn't, I will refresh his recollection.

MS. CLARK: If the questions elicit answers out of context that are misleading and confusing and actually the opposite of what the People meant, do the People have an opportunity then?

THE COURT: Yes. Counsel, keep your voice down.

MS. CLARK: How can I do that if I am not furnished the transcript?

THE COURT: You are entitled to have a copy of the transcript that you are going to use.

MR. BAILEY: If I have to use the transcript to refresh his recollection?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

THE COURT: Because they are entitled to know whether or not it is in context, but you can ask him if he recalls giving testimony and if he may--as I am indicating to you, I haven't heard the foundation for the use of prior recorded testimony yet.

MR. BAILEY: Just to avoid coming back here, if I need to refresh his recollection by showing him the transcript, it seems to me at that point they are entitled to it.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. That is what I understood the rule to be.

THE COURT: All right.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

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

MR. BAILEY: Do you recall testifying in that case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Do you recall whether or not during your testimony you described the RCMP lab in Canada as having a pretty good set-up as well as a home office central research establishment in the met lab in England? Do you recall that reference?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe they probably do have good set-ups, although I haven't seen any of them. In terms of the data that they put out, the result, the studies that they conduct.

MR. BAILEY: What is the met lab in England, incidentally?

MR. DEEDRICK: The met lab, it is in London. Actually the met lab, it has actually changed since then. Met lab and the home office central research establishment which handle all the labs in England, they are merging right now, but they are two separate entities. Like the met lab in Toronto and the RCMP in Canada, two separate systems.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Do you remember saying, with reference to the pencil: "When we first get in training and start testifying it is kind of a nice prop, but I don't use it any more"?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection. Counsel is reading from a transcript the People have never seen.

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained. Foundational objection.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

THE COURT: It is called foundation and we stand when we make those objections. Proceed. The objection is sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Did you say in that case, if you can recall, that you don't use this analogy any more?

MS. CLARK: Same objection.

MR. BAILEY: In 1988?

MS. CLARK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, you have testified in quite a number of cases, have you not? 400 I believe you have said?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And in each of those cases you have been disposed to acquaint the Court and jury with your estimation of your experience in the field of hair and fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: I try to do that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: That generally involves some description of the number of cases that you've had?

MR. DEEDRICK: Generally it does, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And the number of places that you've testified; courts, state, federal, territorial, things like that?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And other information about your experience?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is it fair to say that in about 1984 you had been an examiner, after your one-year training period, for six years?

MR. DEEDRICK: Approximately six years, right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And were you then receiving about thirty cases a month for your own handling? I think that is the figure you gave us yesterday.

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall exactly how many I have gotten over the years. I would have to go back and take an average, but thirty cases could--would be probably about right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, you have told this jury in this case that you have examined 4000 cases in round numbers and testified 400 times.

MS. CLARK: Objection, misstates the testimony.

MR. BAILEY: Is that correct?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Wasn't that your statement on direct examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. In this particular case, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Are you a careful person when you give testimony, Mr. Deedrick?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. I try to be.

MR. BAILEY: You know that it may be of importance, in evaluating your, testimony for the jury to have accurate representations as to your experience?

MR. DEEDRICK: I try to be as accurate as possible.

MR. BAILEY: And you have been working steadily for the 17 years that you have been an examiner?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have.

MR. BAILEY: Did you testify in 1987 that you had already handled 4000 cases?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall. I may have. I don't know--I don't recall what you are referring to.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you testify in 1990 that you had handled 4000 cases, in New York?

MR. DEEDRICK: I kind of got stuck on the 4000. I actually stopped counting cases after a while. I used to keep records on all the cases that I worked, all the testimony that I had, and I probably have stopped counting, so it may be more than that.

MR. BAILEY: Did you testify in 1991 that you had handled 4000 cases?

MR. DEEDRICK: Like I said, I kind of stopped at 4000.

MR. BAILEY: Did you testify in 1993 that you had handled 4000 cases?

MR. DEEDRICK: Probably so, sure.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, in an effort to find out how thoroughly you examined each of these cases as such--and I assume a case means the involvement of multiple materials; hairs, fibers, what are?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it does.

MR. BAILEY: Sometimes I believe you said running into the hundreds?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, that's right.

MR. BAILEY: Certainly true in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. The amount of time available to you to spend on a case is of some significance as to whether you were seeing everything that you need to see, is it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It is relative.

MR. BAILEY: If you were forced to accept an overload because examiners got sick or whatever and it had to be done, it would minimize your opportunity to exercise care and be reflective?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I don't believe that it minimizes the attention you spend on a case. Obviously you have to prioritize your operations and the case work is pretty much the same. You give the case the same attention that you possibly can give it.

MR. BAILEY: When you look through the microscope initially at an object, hair or fiber, do you just glance at it? Do you study it? How much time would you estimate that you need at a minimum to form the necessary impression of the object being scrutinized?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it depends on the item. Some items are pretty quickly identified and others may take a little while.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Do you have any estimate at all as to the average amount of time that you need in order to make a proper observation?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, observations are made very quickly, and as you are going through the material that is on a slide, so that multiple observations can be made within--within a minute. You could identify most of the material on that slide.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what about the comparison microscope, if you get to that stage as to a certain questioned and a known object, do you take a little more time there in order to study the matter?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. It takes a little longer to do that.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. How many different cases would you say that you could handle in an hour at your laboratory, average type cases?

MR. DEEDRICK: In one hour?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if the average case is somewhere between ten and twenty items, each examiner has a technician who prepares material. Ten cases could be prepared and ready to work at one time. One could, depending on the size of the case, could work two cases possibly three a day as far as the comparisons go, depending on the size. Smaller cases you can turn around quickly.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You have testified that you do this in a five-hour day, generally?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well--

MR. BAILEY: That is from 7:00 to 12:00 you are at the microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. At the microscope, that's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Well, that is all I'm interested in for purposes of this line of questioning.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: As of 1987 in may you had been an examiner for how long?

MR. DEEDRICK: `87 would be nine years I guess.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. If you work five hours a day, 250 days a year for nine years and examine 4000 cases, do you have an idea at the rate of which you are going through those cases?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think we've already shown that your mathematics is better than mine.

MR. BAILEY: Do you want to take a stab at it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Like I said, if you work about three to 400 cases a year, in that range, in ten years you are closing in over the 3000--3000 mark, and that is what it averaged there for a long time. I was really working a lot of cases. It slowed down during the past few years.

MR. BAILEY: But it appears that you have increased not one whit since 1987 and we are still at 4000. Is that true, you have done no cases since then?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Like I said, I kind of got to the point where I stopped counting and I probably got stuck on this 4000.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sure I have worked more cases than that.

MR. BAILEY: Have you had a chance just to glance at the article I handed you? I don't intend to go into its text.

MR. DEEDRICK: I read it.

MR. BAILEY: Are you familiar with the subject that means TLC which does not mean tender loving care?

MR. DEEDRICK: I am, yes.

MR. BAILEY: That is a process that can be used to further define the likeness between suspect fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it could, could be used.

MR. BAILEY: Is it a process with which you are familiar?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have used it in the past, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And its technical name is thin layer chromatography, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: In essence what are you doing when you apply that technique to a questioned fiber?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is a method by which you can extract or take out the color or the dye that is present in the fiber and then separate that dye on a plate or a gel plate and in the dyes or the components of the color that make up the fiber will separate and you will have bands of color.

MR. BAILEY: Do you remember what you told us early in your direct examination about the amount of cotton fiber that is manufactured in the United States every year?

MR. DEEDRICK: Five billion pounds.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Do you have any idea whatsoever of the number of fabrics of a blue black nature that look black to the naked eye that were distributed in the Los Angeles area in the past five or ten years?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have no idea.

MR. BAILEY: Did you apply thin layer chromatography to the samples you derived if this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you. That's all.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: We may approach, your Honor, before I finish the cross? We have a matter to bring up.

THE COURT: Yes.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Blasier prepared a very short slide presentation as he used in cross-examining with one of his prior witnesses, and we showed it to Miss Clark. There is one objection that she has that we need your Honor to rule on.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BAILEY: I don't believe any of these were the subject of objection, but down here, (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: This one, Lee.

MR. BAILEY: "No hair consistent with O.J. Simpson on Rockingham glove."

MS. CLARK: There is two problems with it. In the Rockingham glove you have limb hair of black origin, which obviously includes Mr. Simpson. You also have a head hair that is of black origin but was not suitable for further comparison. But the racial conclusions are clear. Those are substantiated. So both include Mr. Simpson, so that is misleading and incorrect, misstates the testimony basically because there is hair consistent with him. Now, it is not on the level of the usual hair examiner terminology, which uses "Consistent" as their means of identification, but it is misleading to a jury who doesn't--are not that facile with the significance of the use of the term "Consistent." So I would ask that that entry be stricken and the rest of it is fine.

MR. BAILEY: If it please the Court, the Prosecution defined three possible findings with respect to hairs which came right out of the FBI book; "Consistent with," "Different than" and "Inconclusive." There are no hairs on the glove identified as "Consistent with" Mr. Simpson as that term has been used here. "Inconclusive" doesn't count for anything. And the mere fact that it is a black limb hair, when they never drew any of his, or a fragment too small, doesn't put it in the "Consistent" category. All we are saying that is none of the hairs of the type found on the cap deem consistent were found on the glove and that is his testimony.

THE COURT: All right. Any other comment?

MS. CLARK: Just that it is misleading and confusing as phrased. If it is deleted, counsel can certainly ask the questions on cross-examination to elicit the fact that nothing was positively linked to Mr. Simpson, but to put it up on a screen as though there was nothing found that included Mr. Simpson is false and it is in derogation of the testimony given.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: To the contrary.

MR. BAILEY: That is for redirect.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: May we have just a second, Judge, to make sure we have covered everything so that we don't have to come back up here? Can we have just a second?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. I think that is all.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, I'm sorry for the interruption.

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. We are waiting for one juror.

MR. BAILEY: Oh.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey. All right. We have all of our jurors present again.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, I want to ask you, with respect to certain items that have been referred to in your testimony, whether these assertions are acceptable, from your point of view, in other words, whether or not you find them to be true. First of all, as to hair found in the Bronco, would you agree that no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. With respect to fiber in the Bronco, would you agree that no fiber consistent with either glove was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Would you agree that no fiber consistent with Goldman's clothes was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to both gloves--I'm sorry--and that no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: With respect to both gloves, would you agree that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson, as you have used that term "Consistent," was on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And quite apart from the unidentified hairs, one limb, one fragment I think that you thought were from an African American, is it not also true that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to the socks that you examined, would you agree that no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman was found on the sock?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would.

MR. BAILEY: And that no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson was found on the sock?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to fiber with respect to your examination of the sock, would you agree that there is no fiber consistent with either glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would, yes.

MR. BAILEY: No fiber consistent with Goldman's clothes?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that the fact that 35 hairs with roots were found on Ronald Goldman's shirt area--I believe, that is where the bulk of them were located?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: --strongly suggest to you that those hairs were pulled out by an attacker before he attacked Goldman and that the directionality goes from Nicole Brown Simpson to Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: It appears from that evidence, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that you found in the hairs in the hat what appeared to be an indication of dandruff on the cuticle?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. There was dandruff in the known hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. DEEDRICK: In the known sample.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry, in the known sample?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Is it not true that you found no indication of dandruff in the knit hat?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Or on any of the hairs that you have said could have come from O.J. Simpson?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. That's correct.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: You have said that fibers tend to come and go as they cling to clothing and then fall off and so forth.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: What about hairs? Do they sometimes hang around for a long time once attached to a given object?

MR. DEEDRICK: They may, depending on the garment and what happens to the garment.

MR. BAILEY: Did you find some cat hairs in your examinations of the materials in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Could you tell the Court where you found them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Give me a second, please.

MR. BAILEY: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Do you want to mark Mr. Blasier's collage as an exhibit since it was exhibited to the jury?

MR. BAILEY: If we may, your Honor, next in order. Can we use the paper version?

THE COURT: Yes, we will use the paper version. Mrs. Robertson?

THE CLERK: 1224.

THE COURT: 1224.

(Deft's 1224 for id = collage)

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. Shall I just read them off as I find them?

MR. BAILEY: Tell us what you found with respect to cat hairs.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. Now, on Q4, which is the cap from the Defendant's vehicle, there was a cat hair. Q4 was the cap that was found on the floorboard. There was also a cat hair that was recovered from Nicole Brown--Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, I recall. There were a number of cat hairs recovered from the tapings from cowling's Bronco. There was a cat hair recovered from a Chicago item, which we haven't talked about.

MR. BAILEY: How about Q4, cap, did you mention that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Q4? Well, it would have been the same cap, right, from the Bronco, and there is also a cat hair on the shovel.

MR. BAILEY: Right. Okay. Now, cat hairs, like other hairs, can stay in place for quite some period of time?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, they can.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever inquire of anyone as to whether or not either of the Simpsons had a cat or the children? In other words, whether there was one around?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe it came up at one point. I don't recall the answer to that.

MR. BAILEY: Did you learn that Nicole Brown Simpson had not had any cat for more than five months prior to the murder?

MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: I will ask you to assume that fact and then ask you if it is unusual that there should be a cat hair on her dress in light of those circumstances?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. BAILEY: There is no way that you can tell, either at the time of your examination or today, how long that hair had been on that dress, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: There is no way to know that, no.

MR. BAILEY: There is no way that you can tell how long the K7 similar hairs inside and outside the Bundy cap had been there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Prior to June 12th?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way.

MR. BAILEY: There is no way to tell how the non-K7, that is, unlike hairs and hair fragments of African American origin found inside and outside the Bundy cap, some of which were treated, no way to tell how long they had been there, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And there is no way to tell, Mr. Deedrick, which came first, is there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way to know.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Sir, have you ever examined the hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have.

MS. CLARK: And in examining those hair samples of inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more have you noticed anything about their hair condition as a result of the incarceration?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it may change and dandruff is one good example that have.

MS. CLARK: Could you explain, please.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the hairs--hair characteristics, hairstyles, hair hygiene, a lot of things change, I would assume. I have never been in jail, but I would assume that conditions change to what you are normally accustomed to, and that being that might be one, that your shampoo changes, how you take care of yourself may change.

MS. CLARK: And so dandruff on the hair samples taken from inmates that have been incarcerated for a month or more, that is a common or uncommon thing for you to find?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is not uncommon to see that.

MS. CLARK: And the fact that the hairs inside the knit cap found at Bundy, which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant, the fact that they did not have dandruff, did that cause you to rule the Defendant out as the possible source for those hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, it is not one of the characteristics that is used for exclusion.

MS. CLARK: Why not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because it most often may be a temporary condition and also it may not be present on the surface of the hair for very long. If the hair is deposited on a clothing item, contacts or whatever may dislodge it. It is not something that is attached; it just happens to be there.

MS. CLARK: Now, you spoke of cat hairs. You said you saw some cat hairs on the items recovered from the Bundy scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There was one cat hair that was recovered from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you said you saw also cat hairs in the shovel and on the floorboard from the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There were a couple hairs, that's correct, from inside the Bronco.

MS. CLARK: Did the cat hairs from inside the Defendant's Bronco appear to originate from the same kind of cat that deposited the hair on Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't even attempt to make that comparison. I just made the identification.

MS. CLARK: That they were cat hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were cat hairs.

MS. CLARK: So you can't even tell us if they looked like they came from the same cat?

MR. DEEDRICK: I couldn't. It could be three different cats for all I know at this point.

MS. CLARK: Yes. And did you make any determination in that regard with respect to the cat hairs in the Bronco owned by A.C. Cowling?

MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't attempt to make a comparison. I had no actual known standards. There were more cat hairs from the tapings from A.C. Cowling's Bronco which suggests to me that perhaps he had a cat or more likely to have a cat.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And if a cat happened to walk through the Bundy crime scene after--shortly after the murders, might that cause hair from that cat to be deposited on either Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman or anywhere at the scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, yeah, that is possible. I mean, we can stretch this, I guess.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Let's. For example, if there was a cat that used to walk through the Bundy crime scene before it became a crime scene on previous occasions, might that cause its hair to be deposited on the walkway?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it might.

MS. CLARK: And then in falling on the walkway might Nicole Brown Simpson's body or dress pick up that hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is possible.

MS. CLARK: No way to tell?

MR. DEEDRICK: There is no way to know. I only see the end result.

MS. CLARK: You spoke, sir, of--yesterday on cross-examination concerning the appearance of crushed hairs when someone has suffered an injury to the head. Do you recall that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do.

MS. CLARK: In this particular case, sir, do you know whether the Coroner submitted to you hair samples taken from the area of Nicole Brown Simpson's head that received injury in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do not--did not appear to be a random sampling.

MS. CLARK: And when you say did not appear to be a random sampling, what do you mean by that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it appeared from the hairs that it was more like a clump of hairs and they were all pulled.

MS. CLARK: From one location on the head?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just appeared that way. It I had a pretty narrow range of characteristics.

MS. CLARK: And is that the preferred method for taking a standard--a hair standard from someone?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. The preferred method is a random sampling from different areas as well as combings.

MS. CLARK: And when you get--let me ask you about Ronald Goldman's sample then, sir. Did that have an appearance like that of Nicole Brown Simpson's, that is, a clump?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it appeared to be a rather uniform sample, which suggests a clump as opposed to random sampling.

MS. CLARK: A clump taken from one area of the head instead of the preferred method of all areas of the head?

MR. DEEDRICK: It appeared that way. It is not uncommon, from my experience, to get those types of samples in. It is not the preferred way.

MS. CLARK: And when you get that kind of a sample in, does that inhibit your ability to make the associations that you should be able to make, if you had a good standard, to questioned items?

MR. DEEDRICK: All right. It may limit--it may limit the comparison possess. That is some hairs which may have originated from the person may be thrown out. They may not be included as a possible source of that hair because they are a little bit outside the range of characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Because the range you got in your standard was too limited?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I had a better range of characteristics, for instance, from Ronald Goldman's shirt from the hairs that were damaged that came off probably during the struggle, than I did in the actual known hair sample.

MS. CLARK: Did you see any naturally shed hairs on Ronald Goldman's body?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well--

MS. CLARK: His shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not on the shirt, no. On the pants there was.

MS. CLARK: On his jeans?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There was one hair on the pants.

MS. CLARK: And how did that hair look in comparison to the hairs that you saw that had been collected by the Coroner, the hair standard?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was again very short, naturally shed, approximately one inch in length, and it was similar to the proximal portion of the known standard in a limited sense.

MS. CLARK: Was it similar to any other hairs that you examined in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was similar to the hair that was found on the Rockingham glove.

MS. CLARK: That brown Caucasian hair you talked about earlier?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, that's correct.

MS. CLARK: Which was also naturally shed, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right, same length, naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: Now, you spoke a little--I think you mentioned on cross-examination that it was rare to see hairs on the head of a person, a homicide victim, that had a crushed appearance. Do you recall that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I recall saying something like that, yes.

MS. CLARK: First of all, let me ask you this: If Nicole Brown had been struck on the head by the fist of her assailant, would that cause the appearance of her hairs, if hairs were taken from that area and submitted to you, would it cause their appearance to be crushed when you examined them under the microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, that wouldn't.

MS. CLARK: Why not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, hairs are very resilient and they are also very small. The injuries that one would sustain would be more to the underlying tissues, like the scalp, as opposed to the hair. The hair would just bounce back. You couldn't see that microscopically. You can actually hammer a hair sometimes, depending on the surface, and the hardness of the surface and not even see any evidence of that.

MS. CLARK: Well, what about if the murderer took Nicole Brown and shoved her against the wall causing her head to be hit--to hit against the wall to the extent that she had a brain contusion? Let me ask you this--or concussion. If the hair from that area of her head that hit the wall were submitted to you, would you expect to see those hairs appear crushed under the microscope?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, your Honor. Assuming facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: May we be heard, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: What kind of force would you expect--let me ask you in a general sense. If someone hit their head against the wall and was knocked unconscious, would you expect the hair in the area where the head hit the wall to appear crushed in your examination under the microscope?

MR. BAILEY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, with a clarification, are you asking about the hairs that are still on the head? Those hairs or the hairs that are stuck on the wall?

MS. CLARK: The hairs that are still on the head.

MR. DEEDRICK: All right. Probably wouldn't see any damage to them. Crushed areas on hairs are more commonly found when they are extracted and there is damage to that area. That is, the crushing causes the breakage. Windshield impacts on hit and run cases are good examples of that and also massive head injuries that may be accompanying actually a sharp instrument, you may see also some crushing as well.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. You talked a little bit yesterday also about the terminology "Same" versus "Different." If you were to take two head hairs from your head and examine them microscopically would they match in each and every way?

MR. BAILEY: I object and ask to approach.

THE COURT: Sustained. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Miss Clark, we are at the side bar. You asked whether or not it would match in every way and we were clear on the terminology. At this point I think it is no harm, no foul, because you asked on the same individual, if hairs came from the same individual that they matched. So I don't find it an egregious violation, but I find it to be a violation, Miss Clark. We will take it up later, but you are cautioned and warned again.

MS. CLARK: I apologize.

THE COURT: But in the context of the same individual I find it to be no harm, no foul.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: But be careful.

MS. CLARK: Right.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: If you were to take two hairs from your own head and examine them under the microscope, would you expect them--all of the characteristics to appear the same to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I wouldn't, not necessarily.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because the hairs differ a little bit on your own head and they are not mirror images of each other. There is some variation because they are biological structures. Some may have a medulla, some may not on your same head. Some may be lighter in color, some may be darker in color. So it is important that you get a random sampling to get a good idea about the kind of hairs that that person has on his head.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And the sampling that you received for the exemplar taken from Mr. Simpson, was that a good random sampling in your opinion?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It was taken pretty much at my direction or at least discussions with Susan Brockbank, that pulls as well as combings be taken, yes, and that was what the sample included.

MS. CLARK: And when you examined the known hairs taken from Mr. Simpson and compared them to the questioned hairs, for example, in the blue knit cap, were you able to see the same microscopic characteristics throughout the range of the kind of hairs Mr. Simpson has?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading and asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. The range of characteristics that was exhibited by the known standard was also reflected in the range of characteristics exhibited by the questioned hairs. That is in the photographs that were displayed. Some were relatively fine hairs, not heavily pigmented, not evidence of one-sided pigmentation, whereas other hairs were coarser hairs, fatter hairs, and they had definite ones that had pigmentation and so that is a consideration, an important consideration as a hair examiner when conclusions have to be drawn as to how the range corresponds.

MS. CLARK: And you found that in this case with respect to the Defendant's hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did. I found a good range.

MS. CLARK: You also discussed a little bit the photographs that you could have taken showing the field of view as you saw it through the microscope on the comparison microscope in which there was what we demonstrated for the jury in that chart, the circle with the line through it showing half and half which was actually two hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: You did not take the photographs in that manner for this case, did you?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not. I don't recommend doing it either.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there is problems inherent with the system. That is, when you are using two light sources, two microscopes, two sets of prisms and you are looking at--and using film that is extremely sensitive, color film that is extremely sensitive to color variation, color temperature variation--when I say "Color temperature," there is a temperature that the lightbulb has, the light source, and it is incorporated into the developing possess of your color film. And if there is just the slightest variation in the intensity of the light, that the eye might not even see, that would show up as a difference on one side of your negative and one side of your photographic print, so you might have a little difference in background illumination. It is much easier and it is better, because you show more of the hair, you get the whole field of view, as opposed to just half a field and allows you to see more of the hair, so I think there is more benefit as a lay person to see the characteristics better.

MS. CLARK: So in the other cases where you have prepared photographs to demonstrate what you have seen through the microscope, in terms of your comparison of known to questioned hairs, have you always done it in this manner?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have always done it this way. It is just too difficult, cumbersome and not as informative using the other method.

MS. CLARK: Concerning also the police officer elimination standard, you testified earlier to the fact that you received samples or standards taken from each of the police and lab personnel involved in the case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: And then I think you indicated on cross-examination that there were two, sometimes three slides for each of them, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. A representative sample of hairs was prepared and mounted on slides.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, two slides, does that mean two hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no. That representative sampling would mean an adequate number of hairs to compare, which could be twenty to thirty hairs perhaps.

MS. CLARK: Now, you also discussed the blue black cotton fibers at some length on cross-examination. With respect to whether or not they could have come from the uniform of a Los Angeles police officer, are the LAPD uniforms made of cotton?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the ones that I--that I have seen are wool.

MS. CLARK: And what does that mean to you in terms of whether or not you can exclude a uniform of an LAPD officer as being a possible source of the blue black cotton fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt, the Rockingham glove and the Defendant's socks?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they are different fibers. I mean, there is no way that they would compare, plus the uniforms are blue and the fabric that I'm referring to would look black to the naked eye.

MS. CLARK: What was it that was so unusual about this blue black cotton fiber?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well it was unusual from the standpoint of the blue areas, the areas that were not died, at least didn't pick up the dye like the rest of the fiber. I thought that was significant as to the randomness and appearance of that lighter blue area and it probably was a fabric cause--causation caused by the dyeing of the fabric.

MS. CLARK: Let me ask you something else: You said that there was like--correct me--did you say there was like a clump or bunch of those fibers on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There was a small clump, that's correct.

MS. CLARK: And I think you also testified earlier that it is common to--in the handling of bodies and the handling of evidence for fibers to be lost?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. You will lose fibers during the handling process.

MS. CLARK: So that the number of fibers that were actually found on Ronald Goldman's shirt may represent fewer than were originally there before his body was handled?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's a very reasonable statement, yes.

MS. CLARK: Given the number, or based on your examination of those fibers, the number, the appearance, et cetera, can you tell us what your opinion is in terms of how they came to be transferred to Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: I object, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us whether you think that is the result of primary or secondary transfer?

MR. BAILEY: Object, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is difficult to know precisely what caused fibers to transfer just by looking at them on a microscope slide. They could be transferred primarily through--as I said before, through direct contact or indirectly. Secondary transfer, in my opinion, probably would be less likely in this instance because of the numbers that we have. Direct transfer is more likely, although I can't exclude the other.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, these blue black cotton fibers that you examined, are they mounted on slides?

MR. DEEDRICK: They are.

MS. CLARK: And when you completed the examinations that you conducted in this case, was there--and the slides were prepared, the remaining hairs or fibers were replaced in their original bindles?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There weren't very much left over.

MS. CLARK: And then what did do you with the items after you completed your examination of them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they bounced around a little bit at different stages.

MS. CLARK: Where was the first place they went after you completed your examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they first went to a Defense expert for analysis and then they came back to me.

MS. CLARK: And then where did they go?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, then they were picked up by a representative from the District Attorney's office.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And those hairs and fibers that are mounted on slides, can they be examined again if anyone desires to do so to compare to anything?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. They are there to look at.

MS. CLARK: You spoke a little bit also about the hair that you found to be consistent with those of the Defendant on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one hair fragment, yes.

MS. CLARK: First of all, sir, can you tell us, when you examine hair under a microscope, can you determine, based on that examination, whether or not there is dirt on that hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.

MS. CLARK: Is that a difficult or an easy task?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just a simple observation of the--of what appears to the surface of the hair and the scales.

MS. CLARK: And with respect to the hair that you determined to be consistent with the Defendant that was found on Ronald Goldman's shirt, did you detect any dirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was nothing to indicate to me that it had been laying in the dirt or out in the weather.

MS. CLARK: And you made the observation that fibers would be lost in the handling of bodies in the natural course of things. Would that same observation apply to hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. There is kind of a natural loss. The more handling that takes place, the greater the loss.

MS. CLARK: And with respect to the fact that there was one hair you determined to be consistent with that of the Defendant on Ronald Goldman's shirt, is it possible also that there were more hairs that were lost in the course of processing the body?

MR. BAILEY: Object, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: With respect to the length of time hairs are--have been in a particular location at the point they are collected, you indicated, I think earlier, that there were hairs consistent with those of the Defendant that you examined that were collected from the plaid cap in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall testifying to finding chew marks on some of those hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do, yes.

MS. CLARK: What is the significance of that finding?

MR. DEEDRICK: Indicative of a hair that has been laying around in that environment for sometime, long enough for bugs to get at it.

MS. CLARK: Did you find anything like that on the hairs you found to be consistent with those of the Defendant in the blue knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: Let me ask you this, sir: The opinions that you have rendered today, are they confined to hair and fiber examinations that you conducted?

MR. DEEDRICK: Pretty much so, yes.

MS. CLARK: Do any of those conclusions take in together that blood drops to the left of bloody size 12 shoeprints at Bundy match the DNA profile of the Defendant?

MR. BAILEY: I object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Do your hair and fiber conclusions that you have told us about in your testimony take into account any of the DNA evidence that has been adduced into evidence?

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I wasn't even aware of any DNA results when I conducted my analysis. Conclusions reached are independent of that.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, you indicated in your--in your testimony thus far that the Defendant's hairs exhibited certain distinguishing characteristics?

MR. DEEDRICK: He had very distinctive hairs, in my opinion.

MS. CLARK: And did you find those characteristics, those distinguishing characteristics in the hairs you determined to be consistent with his in the blue knit cap?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And those distinguishing characteristics, did you also find them in the hair on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: You also testified--this is foundational, your Honor. You also testified that you found fibers that displayed certain distinguishing characteristics that you I think testified looked very unusual to you, such as the blue black cotton fibers on Ronald Goldman's shirt, the Rockingham glove and the Defendant's socks, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And such as the carpet fibers that you determined to be consistent with those fibers from the Defendant's carpet in his Bronco which were found on the knit cap the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was significant as well.

MS. CLARK: Based on all of the hair and fiber comparisons and examinations that you did in this case, sir, what is your opinion as to whether the hairs in the blue knit ski cap in fact originated from the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well--

MR. BAILEY: Object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Do the fiber associations that you've testified to in this case, sir, have any impact on the significance of your--of the associations concerning the hair examinations you've made on this case?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Concerning the transfer that you talked about from Nicole to Ronald Goldman, the hair and fiber moving in that direction, can you tell us whether the murderer went back and forth between the two of them more than once based on your hair and fiber examination?

MR. BAILEY: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, may the notes that we referred to in the witness' testimony be marked as I believe 1225?

THE COURT: I thought we marked--no. All right. 1225.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

(Deft's 1225 for id = witness notes)

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, I thought you told us yesterday when I questioned you about the use of the comparison microscope and the fact that you brought us no images of what you saw, I thought you said that a camera could have recorded what it was that you saw in the microscope. Did you not say that?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did. It could record those images, that's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And you could have brought to this courtroom the same images that you used when you wrote like or unlike in your notes without any supporting criteria, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: I could have brought those images, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And you chose not to do so, did you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: And by choosing not to take the photograph in that manner, were you attempting to mislead or confuse the jury in some way?

MR. DEEDRICK: I try to make it as simple as possible and it is difficult to take eighteen years of hair experience and fiber experience and in the short time that I'm talking to a jury get them to appreciate the value or the meaning or the significance of it, so I try to optimize it. I try to give up the best shot that I can and the way I did it I feel is the pest way to do it.

MS. CLARK: And you told Mr. Bailey that not many--not very often do you have this many associations. What did you mean by that.

MR. BAILEY: I object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is beyond the scope.

MS. CLARK: Ask to reopen.

THE COURT: No.

MS. CLARK: Has anything you have heard on cross or recross-examination, sir, changed any of the opinions or any of the results that you have found in your examinations?

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Nothing that I've heard, any of the questions that I have been given influenced my opinions on this case. I stand by my results.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Nothing further, but I ask to approach.

THE COURT: Mr. Deedrick, thank you very much, sir. You are excused. And I think we will take our recess at this point.

MR. BAILEY: May we put something on the record?

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted. And as far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until one o'clock.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, with regard to that time, may we just say one word to you, Miss Clark and I?

THE COURT: Sure. All right. With the reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. As far as time is concerned, I was just going to ask the Court, you might want to consider 1:15 or 1:30. We will have a stipulation when we come back and that will end it.

THE COURT: Are you asking for 1:30?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I think both sides would ask that.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: And I think we would have the stipulation when we come back and it will save some time in the long run, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Before the jury goes out, I would like you to instruct them to totally disregard the question when she used the word "Match" whether or not he had an opinion that this hair in fact came from the Defendant's head, knowing full well that is way beyond the capability of the science. It was an improper suggestion.

THE COURT: I don't think that was the question. Let me check my notes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Where is Mr. Bailey?

MR. COCHRAN: We are trying to pull it up, too. Apparently the Judge has the question.

THE COURT: "Question: And you told"--

MR. BAILEY: That is not the one I'm talking about.

MR. BAILEY: "Do you have an opinion as to whether the hair and the hat came from Mr. Simpson's head?" That is what my colleague seemed to recall.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BAILEY: And I asked to approach and you said "Not now."

MR. DARDEN: The objection was sustained.

THE COURT: Yes, you are right. That is what it said.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what it said.

MR. BAILEY: I suggest that that is as offensive as the use of the word "Match" and it was deliberate.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, Mr. Bailey lodged an objection at the time and there was no response by the witness. The question is not evidence.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to leave it at that. I think I sustained the objection. I instructed them several times that the--to ignore the implication of questions that I sustain the objections, so I think there is sufficient instructions to the jury on this matter.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you consider doing that again, the question has no meaning? It has been a little while since we have heard that, Judge. The end of the case. It will be appropriate.

MR. DARDEN: Ito's law?

MR. COCHRAN: If it is Ito's law, I would like to hear it one more time.

THE COURT: For the record, we will come back at 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: That will give us a little time.

THE COURT: I wish you had asked me that before so I could have made lunch plans.

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

MR. DARDEN: Nothing.

THE COURT: I don't have to carry it around.

MR. DARDEN: Will I have an opportunity to complain this afternoon about the lack of discovery?

THE COURT: We will get to that.

MR. DARDEN: That we received from the Defense?

THE COURT: Any other comment?

MR. DARDEN: On that subject?

MR. COCHRAN: Talking about on this subject. Stay in focus.

MR. DARDEN: That is not a nice thing to say to me. No, I have no other comment.

THE COURT: Okay. I have already instructed them. I sustained the objection and we will move on. All right. 1:30.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, the attorneys need some additional time to confer with each other regarding some stipulations hopefully and some other matters that I need to take up with them, so we will stand in recess until 1:30. All right. So you will have a little more time for lunch. All right. Remember all my admonitions to you. See you back here at 1:30.

(At 12:02 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995 2:20 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.)

(Pages 35382 through 35386, volume 181A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with counsel, People represented. The jury is not present. All right. Counsel, we've had an extended lunch hour to allow the attorneys to confer and hopefully to reach some stipulations. And, Miss Clark, have you consulted with Mr. Cochran regarding these matters?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, we have.

THE COURT: And have we reached agreement?

MS. CLARK: Yes, we have.

THE COURT: What are the stipulations? You don't have to read me the stipulations, but what are the topics of the stipulations?

MS. CLARK: Yes. The first stipulation is concerning the testimony of Juditha Brown concerning--the Court's I think familiar with the subject matter.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: The second would be stipulation concerning the admissibility of telephone records. These concern the phone bills for the home telephone of the Defendant and for Juditha Brown.

THE COURT: All right. This will be subject to our agreement that if at a subsequent time there are phone numbers that are not relevant to the case, those will be redacted.

MS. CLARK: Right. And even days--dates. At this time, it seems apparent that at least June 12th and 13th are relevant, but it may be that that's all that's relevant and the rest can be stricken. So neither side waives the opportunity to object on grounds of relevancy later on.

MR. COCHRAN: That is correct. That's my understanding, your Honor. Both sides reserve that right to object on relevancy and the fact that we want to maintain the privacy of these numbers if at all possible, and further, there are other people who may have made these phone calls other than the parties involved.

THE COURT: All right. And the third stipulation.

MS. CLARK: And the third stipulation concerns the photographs contained in People's 354, 358-B and 359 which I propose, when I read them to the jury, I want to be able to show the exhibits to the jury so they know what we are talking about. The only exception is 358-B, which depicts the cropped photograph of the front of the neck of Ronald Goldman, and I would simply say that it depicts the front of the neck of Ronald Goldman as found by the Coroner's investigators on June the 13th without showing it to the jury cause--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. And I would like to be heard with regard to a 352 objection, a further 352 objection as to exhibits 354 and 358-B for the record, and then we can proceed with the stipulation.

THE COURT: All right. Then I think we should--then I should hear the objections--352 objections as to 354 and 358-B. Let's start with 358-B. I do have that in front of me.

MR. COCHRAN: And the clerk was kind enough to place that before you, your Honor. I believe that--the Court will recall that Mr. Shapiro I believe had strenuously objected to this particular photograph. And that if the Court looks at that photograph--and even the Court has agreed in part because that is a cropped photograph, which certainly went along with our argument that the prejudicial effect of that photograph of Mr. Goldman and his injuries far outweighs any probative value. As the Court will recall, there are a number of photographs showing these injuries in this matter, and we felt that particular photograph was just beyond and above and unnecessary, and I wanted to renew that objection even for the stipulation, that we do not at this point waive our 352 objection even though it's been overruled at this point. And so I wanted to at least renew that.

THE COURT: All right. Your stipulation then as far as you're concerned maintaining your previous 352 objection is to stipulate to the authenticity of the photograph.

MR. COCHRAN: That is correct, your Honor. That someone would call for--to come in and testify who took that photograph and it's a fair portrayal. But the question of the portrayal is what concerns us, and we don't think it's necessary and we think, as I said, it's a 352 problem.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, do you want to respond to that?

MS. CLARK: Yes. Very briefly. The Court has ruled and ruled appropriately for the appropriate reasons. Those--the photograph, particularly the one in issue now with counsel, is very relevant to depict and to illustrate the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan, and the appearance of those injuries as the victims were found at the scene is critical to the foundation for his testimony and the formulation of his opinions, and the Court has already ruled pursuant to lengthy argument with Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Kelberg, who were more well versed in the issues involved. And the Court has seen and heard the testimony now and can see how relevant that photograph really was and how necessary it was as an illustrative tool for the witness' testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: The final thing I would say is, the Court does have the benefit now of hindsight and the Court has heard the eight days of direct of Dr. Lakshmanan. And then putting it in perspective, there is a real question of whether or not we need that photograph for his eight days of direct and Mr. Shapiro's perhaps a day of very, very four hours, which reminds me of very, very crisp and cogent cross-examination. I don't want to be self-serving, but I think that from this standpoint, if the Court pleases, that this photograph doesn't add anything and it tends to be extremely gruesome and disturbing. You used those words yourself. So I'll submit it. I think that that's my concern, and I don't think it adds anything that's necessary. I do appreciate the fact that counsel is not asking that that photograph be displayed to the jury at this point.

THE COURT: All right. Well, you're right, Mr. Cochran. I do have the benefit of hindsight at this point, and I have now and even--now, having heard the doctor's testimony, I have an even clearer idea in my mind as to the relevance of this particular photograph. So the Court's previous ruling will stand.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. As to the other photograph, 354.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Which one is that?

MR. COCHRAN: 354, again, with regard to these photographs--and the Court will see those depicted there. People's 354 shows various photographs of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's body, including the condition of her right and left hands. The jury has seen this before. And again, I wanted to renew our 352 objection. Again, these photographs are--the prejudicial effect of these photographs is outweighed by the probative value and they're not necessary further at this point. I would ask also that--given the 352 nature of it, I wanted to again reiterate that. I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever. So I think at this point of the case, we're now wrapping the case up, we expect the People to rest, and so I would submit it.

THE COURT: People.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. With respect to showing the jury the photographs we stipulate to, how are they going to understand what the stipulations mean or refer to if we don't? With respect to telephone records, that's self explanatory. Photographs is a different matter. And if we can't show them to the jury and we're entering a dry stipulation, when it comes time for them to look at the exhibits, they're not going to have any recollection at all to the fact that--to what is descriptive in the stipulation concerning the change in circumstances with respect to one and the condition that is specifically referred to in these photographs, which is the key point of this stipulation in the other. So--

MR. COCHRAN: May I be heard on that? I think, first of all, these are very intelligent people, your Honor. They have the numbers. They've seen exhibit 354. It's a photograph of, as we indicated, of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and 358-B is a photograph of Mr. Goldman. With regard to--and 359 and what that is. It seems to me it's pretty clear of what these areas portray. These photographs have been up so many times for this jury. And the Court will recall that on a couple occasions, the jurors had to take time out because of the nature, not necessarily of these photographs, but some of these photographs of the decedents.

And so I just don't think we need that at this point. I think we can enter into the stipulation, make it clear to the jurors we're talking about People's exhibit 354 and 359 and 358-B and move on. I mean I think that's what we were talking about here, although they don't ask to put in 358-B at any rate. But I think the other two are clear what we're talking before, and I think that we don't need to parade them around anymore and I would ask the Court not to do that.

THE COURT: All right. The probative value of 354, the board, I think is not only the individual photographs, but the group of photographs together because they give different perspectives to how Miss Brown Simpson was found and relative to the footprints and other things that are there. So the renewed objection under 352 is overruled for the previously stated reasons. I will allow the display, the brief five-second display merely to say, "This is what it is," five seconds so they can see which exhibit it is, and then it comes back down. Five seconds literally and I mean five seconds.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, if there's any TV, can we cut the feed on that? Is that necessary?

THE COURT: No. The--Mr. Bancroft will be directed not to take--capture any of those images as will the photographers.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact, your Honor, the People had anticipated doing it in that manner if we were allowed to do it and I've already requested that Dana, Mr. Escobar assist us in that he will simply hold it up and put it down. So we're ready to.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Is that it for stipulations?

MS. CLARK: Mr. Cochran has offered us to use his wristwatch. It goes a lot faster than mine.

THE COURT: Well, he bills for his time.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I don't Bill in those increments.

THE COURT: All right. Let's get back to serious matters, counsel. My understanding is that you've discussed these stipulations with your client and they're acceptable to him, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. I have discussed them with Mr. Simpson and it's--he understands these stipulations and it's agreeable to him at this point, and he appreciates that we will be reserving his rights under the stipulation regarding the phone records until a later time.

THE COURT: All right. One other matter. My understanding is that we are agreed that tomorrow we will take up the arguments regarding the admissibility of the Prosecution's evidence. We're waiting for Mr. Douglas to return from being out of state. Also, that you are reserving the right to make an 1118.1 motion.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. We at this point will be discussing that aspect tonight or whether or not that motion will be made and how if at all it will be made, and we expect to make that tomorrow and it to be brief. We expect Mr. Douglas will be returning to this state tonight. He will be charged with the responsibility of objecting to any inappropriate exhibits that we think there are. We expect to conclude this matter with regard to the exhibits and the motion pursuant to 1118.1 before noon. We would then, given the fact we have only have a half day tomorrow, would ask to begin the Defense presentation on Monday morning at 9:00 clock.

THE COURT: All right. You are giving the Court permission then to tell the jury that we will commence with the Defense case Monday morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, we are, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And you've discussed with your client his right at this point not to present a Defense, he understands he has the right to rest upon the evidence as it's been presented by the Prosecution?

MR. COCHRAN: He does understand that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that correct, Mr. Simpson?

THE DEFENDANT: That is correct.

THE COURT: All right. And you give the Court permission to advise the jury that you will be presenting a Defense tomorrow. Excuse me. Monday.

MR. COCHRAN: Can we just have one second?

THE COURT: Sure.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson's only concern was that if I proceeded with the motion, he said that if the motion were granted, we don't have to put on anything. But I told him that this is arguendo and we'll assume for the sake of argument you will not be granting that motion, and if that's the case--

THE COURT: Well, if I grant the motion, then the jury won't be here on Monday, will they?

MR. COCHRAN: That's right. So he has no problem with that.

THE COURT: All right. That's agreeable with you, Mr. Simpson?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

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

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, one thing. Could you read Juditha's stipulation for us?

THE COURT: It's offered by the Prosecution, counsel.

(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 now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: My apologies to you for the delay in getting started this afternoon. We had some loose ends to tie up amongst us lawyers and judges out here. And, Miss Clark, are you prepared to offer some stipulations at this time?

MS. CLARK: Yes, I am, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: First stipulation, counsel, with respect to the testimony of Juditha Brown: May it be stipulated that Juditha Brown was called as a witness, duly sworn and testified as follows: She's the mother of Nicole Brown Simpson, the decedent and named victim in count 1 of this action; on June the 12th, 1994, she attended a dance recital where her granddaughter, Sidney Simpson, performed; thereafter, she accompanied her daughter Nicole, granddaughter Sidney and other family members to the Mezzaluna restaurant for a post-recital celebration; upon arriving, she inadvertently dropped the pair of eyeglasses marked as part of the exhibit designated as People's exhibit 32, which were intact prior to that point, outside the restaurant; at approximately 9:37 P.M. on June the 12th, 1994, Juditha Brown telephoned the Mezzaluna restaurant and spoke to an employee named Karen Crawford, who has testified previously in this case; Miss Brown asked Miss Crawford to locate the eyeglasses and hold them for pick-up at a later time by Nicole Brown Simpson; Miss Crawford located the eyeglasses and agreed to set them aside for Nicole Brown Simpson; this conversation lasted approximately two minutes; at approximately 940 P.M., Juditha Brown telephoned her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson, reaching her at her daughter's residence located at 875 south Bundy drive in the city of Los Angeles; Juditha Brown conversed with Nicole Brown Simpson for approximately 2 minutes; Nicole Brown Simpson stated that she would arrange for the retrieval of Juditha Brown's eyeglasses; this was the last time that Juditha Brown spoke to her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson? It is further stipulated that Juditha Brown examined the eyeglasses contained in the exhibit marked People's 32 and testified these were the eyeglasses that she left at the Mezzaluna restaurant on June the 12th, 1994 and were the subject of her conversations with Karen Crawford and Nicole Brown Simpson. It is further stipulated that Juditha Brown testified that she was familiar with the handwriting of her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Juditha Brown testified that she examined the Bloomingdales Department store charge card receipt marked as People's exhibit 372-A and 372-B and that the signature "Nicole Brown" on those documents appeared to have been written by her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson. Counsel, may it be so stipulated?

MR. COCHRAN: So stipulated, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: And does the Court receive the stipulation, your Honor?

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. The Court will receive and accept the stipulation. And ladies and gentlemen, as I indicated to you previously, a stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to the facts of the case. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Secondly, counsel, may it be stipulated that the following telephone records, which include records that have been marked as exhibits in this case, were prepared in normal and regular course of business at or around the time of the information contained within the records and that the records accurately reflect the information contained therein? That is for the following records: One, the Defendant Orenthal James Simpson, his complete GTE telephone Bill dated June the 25th, 1994 for telephone number--I'd like not to read that out loud at this time.

THE COURT: We'll agree that it is the Defendant's--was the Defendant's phone number.

MR. COCHRAN: I would so stipulate, that that was his phone number.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, counsel. And, two, Juditha Brown's complete GTE telephone Bill dated July 4th, 1994, again, for the telephone number that is stated in the stipulation the jurors will see, but may it be stipulated that was her phone number as of that date?

MR. COCHRAN: So stipulated, yes.

THE COURT: All right. That stipulation is accepted by the Court.

MS. CLARK: Thank you very much, your Honor. Counsel, may it be further stipulated that the photographs contained in People's 354 now being shown to the jury fairly and accurately depict the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, including the condition of her right and left hands as they appeared at approximately 10:00 to 10:30 A.M. on June the 13th, 1994, when the Coroner's representatives examined her body? So stipulated?

MR. COCHRAN: Again, so stipulated, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: And, counsel, may it also be stipulated that the photograph contained in People's exhibit 358-B depicts the front neck area of Ronald Goldman and that it is a fair and accurate depiction of the condition of that area as it appeared at approximately 10:00 to 10:30 A.M. on June the 13th, 1994, when the Coroner's representatives examined his body?

MR. COCHRAN: Again, so stipulated.

MS. CLARK: Counsel, do you further stipulate that the photographs marked "CS" on People's exhibit 359, which is now being shown to the jury, fairly and accurately show the condition of the area depicted in each photo as it existed on June the 13th, 1994, after the police found the bodies of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson and that the photographs marked "S" on that same exhibit fairly and accurately depict the areas at 875 south Bundy near where the body of Ronald Goldman was found as of April 1995; and further, will counsel stipulate that in the scene photos taken in April of 1995, the foliage is more dense and includes the presence of more and longer shoots extending from multiple stumps and bushes?

MR. COCHRAN: Again, so stipulated, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Does the Court accept the stipulation?

THE COURT: All right. Stipulations will be received by the Court. Counsel, thank you very much. All right. Is there anything further from the People?

MS. CLARK: At this time, subject to the receipt of the People's exhibits into evidence, the People rest.

THE COURT: All right. People having rested, ladies and gentlemen, at this time in the case, the Prosecution, having rested the presentation of their case in chief, there are a few motions that I need to take up out of your presence. For example, I need to rule on which of the 488 exhibits that have been offered so far will be received into evidence. That will take me a few minutes. There are a couple of other motions that we will take up tomorrow morning that I need to spend with the lawyers. So we will be in recess as far as the jury is concerned until Monday morning at 9:00 o'clock. Monday morning at 9:00 o'clock, the Defense will then have the opportunity to call their first witness, and we will proceed at that time with the presentation of the Defense case. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. And just so you understand, we will be in session for the remainder of the day today and tomorrow morning, we'll be here working. But these are just a lot of matters that I need to take up. And because of the length and complexity of the case, it will take me some time to go through all these matters.

So you get to have another long weekend. I would like to trade places with you frankly. But--anybody want to trade? No. All right. Remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until Monday at 9:00 A.M. we will take a brief break at this point, and then we'll wrap up a few loose ends here. All right.

(At 2:45 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Friday, July 7, 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 Thursday, July 6, 1995

Volume 181 pages 25295 through 35407, inclusive

(Pages 35233 through 35294, inclusive, sealed)

(Pages 35382 through 35386, inclusive, sealed)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 181 pages 35395 - 35407

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Thursday July 6, 1995 A.M. 35295 181 P.M. 35387 181

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 181 Douglas W. (Resumed) 35302B 35350C 35374B (Further) 35375C

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Deedrick, 181 Douglas W. (Resumed) 35302B 35350C 35374B (Further) 35375C

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1233 - Article 35301 181 entitled "The selection of noncorrelated thin layer chromatographic (TLC) solvent systems for the comparison of dyes extracted from the transferred fibers"

1234 - 1-page document 35347 181 depicting 5 computer photographs of the slide presentation re hairs and fibers

1235 - 18-page document 35373 181 described as the notes of Douglas W. Deedrick