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 34333 through 34344, volume 177A, 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 his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Escobar, Mr. Wooden. Good morning, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor. Yesterday we were provided with two more charts or at least proofs of charts that the Prosecution intends to use with Mr. Deedrick. I wanted to bring our objections to the Court's attention now so that the Prosecution can have time to change these before Mr. Deedrick testifies. I don't know if the Court has been provided with these or not. These are two--
THE COURT: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: --comparison charts. Perhaps I could provide you with mine.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, would you make a quick photocopy for me, please, or do you have additional copies?
MR. BLASIER: No, I don't. I have my own here. The charts purport to show comparisons between various known samples and various evidence samples. They indicate that known samples are consistent with evidence samples and we don't have a problem with that. That is the way these things are described. What we have a problem with is two things. They have pictures on these to demonstrate what the known samples are. As you can see on the hair chart, they have "Defendant." Now, the proof that you have doesn't have the pictures on it. The picture they want to put on this is the mugshot of Mr. Simpson and then they have other pictures titled "Nicole, Ron," with pictures from the crime scene of the dead bodies. We feel that that is clearly unduly prejudicial, that it is intended to inflame the jury. It is certainly not necessary to have Mr. Simpson's mugshot to demonstrate that exemplar hairs came from him. All of these boxes do show the associations of the hair and fiber evidence for the evidence talk in terms of Ron's shirt, Nicole's dress and they are not referred to by their last names, which is the conventional way to do that in court. I think it is not coincidental that they use the names Ron and Nicole and Defendant rather than O.J. Simpson and Goldman. I think that was done for a specific purpose, to show a contrast between Mr. Simpson with his booking photo, and the victims, and I think it is unnecessary to the purpose of this chart and we object to those aspects of the chart. We would request that they use last names as they have used in other charts, I believe, and not be allowed to use the Defendant's mugshot.
THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you have the actual board available?
MS. CLARK: No, your Honor, and that is why I very much appreciate counsel's taking this up at this time, because once we finalize the boards, to change it is very difficult, and with the Court's ruling, this final ruling, we will be able to finalize the board. Let me indicate to the Court, no. 1, to obviate the one argument made by counsel, we are not using the crime scene photographs of the victims as they were found at Bundy for the identifying pictures in the hair summary board. We are using live photographs of them. With respect to--
THE COURT: All right. We've already scene two live photographs of both Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
MS. CLARK: I think they are the same two, your Honor, that we have used before.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, I think they are in the book, in the front box. Those are People's exhibits?
THE CLERK: 29 and 27.
MS. CLARK: Right.
THE COURT: 29 and 27.
MS. CLARK: Same ones and we are using the same ones again, only smaller.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Also--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: I take it you are not using the Time magazine booking photo?
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?
MR. COCHRAN: Or Los Angeles magazine.
MS. CLARK: I didn't hear the Court.
THE COURT: Never mind. Which booking photo are you using?
MS. CLARK: I'm not using the Time magazine photograph, no, your Honor. With respect to type--to the other objections, let me indicate to the Court, Mr. Scheck made certain objections to me about these boards and of the objections he made I found one to be a fair objection, which was we initially had the boards entitled simply "Hairs" and then the other one "Fibers." Mr. Scheck objected on the grounds that the arrows simply going from the Defendant, Nicole, Ron, Kato, the dog, for example, to the items, inferred identity or uniqueness where the witness' testimony would really just say "Consistent with," and even though I felt that his testimony would clarify that and would indicate with no--in no uncertain terms that we are not indicating through his testimony uniqueness and it was nice and simple this way simply, having the title "Hairs" with the arrows, fewer words, I thought that perhaps if there was any indication by such a title that we are trying to indicate uniqueness, that it would be unfair. And it is untrue and I intend to bring it out completely and fully with Mr. Deedrick, that we are not indicating uniqueness or identity so what we did is I asked that the board be modified to indicate "Fibers of" for the exemplar items, then "Consistent with" and "Fibers of," and the same thing is going to be done with hairs, so I did modify the boards to that extent.
THE COURT: So the arrows are gone?
MS. CLARK: No, the arrows are there because it indicates the transfer, but the title indicates that it is not identity we are saying. We are saying it is consistent with and that will be the testimony as well. So now there is no misleading--no arguably misleading aspect to it.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then the two things we need to discuss, from what I understand from Mr. Blasier's comment, is the use of the booking photo and the use of the first names, the use of Defendant and the comparison of Ron and Nicole. There is no objection to Kato, the dog.
MS. CLARK: I don't know what his last name is, your Honor. With respect to Ron and Nicole, we used their first name because they are shorter. I wanted to make these boards as simple as I possibly. I really honestly did not think, had no conscious thought of the psychological aspects that counsel is mentioning. It is simple and short. They have been referred to in testimony repeatedly as Ron and Nicole, and in fact, some of boards refer to the Defendant as O.J. We have section--"Item no. 213, fibers rear cargo, O.J. Bronco." I mean, people are referred to by their first names throughout this trial and this is no exception. I don't think there is the psychological impact that counsel is worried about. With respect to the use of the booking photo, it is a fair depiction of the Defendant. I will show the Court the photograph, but what are we supposed to do? Show him carrying the football over the--I mean, this is a fair depiction of the Defendant with his hair and the hair is the important thing here and it is one full head shot. There is nothing--
THE COURT: All right. May I see the photograph, please.
MS. CLARK: Certainly. I mean, there aren't numbers on his--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: That is usually the Defense objection to these kind of pictures is that the photograph includes the number and we do not have that, and I should indicate this is going to be in that fashion. Right now there is a name tag but it is going to be in this fashion.
THE COURT: A name tag.
MS. CLARK: There is a name tag.
THE COURT: A photo name tag.
MS. CLARK: Right.
THE COURT: All right. May I see the photograph?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: And then I should indicate to the Court the other photographs that are going to be used.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, I think the People have obviated your objection to the photographs of Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
MR. BLASIER: Not at all, your Honor. May I be heard?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. BLASIER: We strenuously object to the two professionally taken photographs of the victims and a mugshot of Mr. Simpson. We suggest--they don't need pictures at all. You don't need to look at a picture of any of these people. None of the hair comparisons are going to be done based on a photograph. They are going to be done on a microscopic analysis. If they have to use pictures, they can use driver's license pictures of all three. That would at least be equal. "O.J." Is a lot shorter than all the names on here. "Defendant" is shorter or longer than "Goldman." I think that is a ridiculous reason to give. They should all be stated in the same way.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, he is the Defendant. I mean, he is.
THE COURT: I realize that.
MS. CLARK: Okay. With respect to the photographs, I don't know, I think that too much is being made of this. The People are entitled to use the best photographs they took to depict what is in issue here and the photographs that we have selected had been selected because their hair is shown clearly in these photographs whereas in driver's license photographs they are not nearly as well depicted. Those are not--the booking photo is a professional shot.
THE COURT: My recollection of Mr. Goldman's driver's license is he is wearing some kind of bandanna.
MS. CLARK: Correct, which obscures his hair. Let me also indicate that with respect to the photographs on the fiber board, the boxes for Ron's shirt, pants and the knit hat and glove show those items in the crime scene photographs in context, and the reason that they are shown in that manner, the victims are not shown. I mean, the faces are not shown, but their bodies are shown. Let me show the Court what I'm talking about so that it will be a little easier. I will show Mr. Blasier.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: With respect to the jeans, with respect to the glove, we have these items depicted in the crime scene because the context in which these items exist are very important to explain the transfer of hair and fiber. What we are showing by these boards is that they receive the hairs and fibers that they did as a result of contact between the Defendant and both victims and items of fiber that he transferred to them and that was transferred between them, and so the context in which the bodies are found, their location vis-à-vis each other and the items of evidence that was found--were found near them is very important to explain the evidence and why we find it where we do. So that is why we use those photographs for the boards, the fiber board, as opposed to separate photographs taken in the lab.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, we will provide a picture of Mr. Simpson if the Court feels that pictures are necessary to any of this. We don't think they are, but we should be provided the opportunity to provide a photograph rather than a mugshot.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have a photograph that is contemporaneous to the time?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, since when does the Defense get to construct the People's exhibits?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, if I can have a moment, I'm sure we can.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Our position is these are all argumentative. We don't think there should be any pictures at all. If there are to be pictures, they should be of equal quality.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: Another matter, your Honor.
THE COURT: With regards to this?
MR. COCHRAN: No.
THE COURT: Well, let me--
MR. COCHRAN: Sure, sorry.
THE COURT: While I have the train of thought going here.
MR. COCHRAN: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. As to the use of photographs of Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman, I agree that the photograph does depict their facial characteristics and their hair, which is the whole issue here, and the objection will be overruled as to the use of the photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. As to the use of the photograph of Mr. Simpson, this is a professionally taken photograph. I mean, this is a photographer employed by the Los Angeles Police Department who took this photograph. The relevance is its proximity in time to the events of June the 12th and it depicts Mr.--the condition of Mr. Simpson's hair at a time contemporaneous or almost contemporaneous to the time in question and it appears to be dated June the 13th. So I find the objection, which I take to be a 352 objection, I find that the probative value here clearly outweighs any prejudicial impact. It appears to be a normal photograph. I will direct the Prosecution, however, to delete the name tag at the bottom. As to the photographs of the shirt of Ronald Goldman, the shirt itself appears to be one of the lab demonstration photographs that the jury has already seen. I will overrule the objection to that. The pants does depict Mr. Goldman in the planter area, it does depict a--the presence of the ferns and the other--the agapantha plants and other material and accurately depicts the state in which Mr. Goldman was found vis-à-vis hair, fiber and other debris that is found, so I will overrule the objection to that. However, as to the nomenclature on the board, I think we need to be consistent on that and I think that the dignity of the victims indicates that they should be referred to by their formal names.
MS. CLARK: All right.
THE COURT: All right. And that the Defendant should also be referred to by his formal name. All right. That is the Court's order. Are we clear? Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I'm writing it down right now.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Robertson.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, you had one other matter.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: The Court will recall yesterday that the Court had instructed the People to give us the list of their remaining witnesses at nine o'clock today.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And we are 9:18 now.
THE COURT: We are curious?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. We want to know so I'm just calling to inquire on that.
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, Mr. Hodgman will be down a little later in the morning with that information at about 10:30, if that is okay.
THE COURT: That's fine. 10:30 is fine.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, one other item, if I may.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, it came to our attention yesterday that Mr. Rockne Harmon sent another letter to Dr. Kary Mullis. You may recall two things about this, your Honor: One is that you were concerned--
THE COURT: All right. This is not a matter we need to take up right now. I want to use the time in front of the jury with the jury.
MR. NEUFELD: May I talk with you right after the lunch break then, your Honor?
THE COURT: Let's take it up at the lunch break.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy of the letter available?
MR. NEUFELD: I do.
THE COURT: Why don't you give that to Mrs. Robertson so I can peruse it.
MR. NEUFELD: Great.
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, before the jury comes out, may I present another photograph and would you consider that?
THE COURT: If you have it, I will look at it.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
(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. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Brockbank, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Susan A. Brockbank, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Miss Brockbank?
MS. BROCKBANK: Good morning.
THE COURT: You are reminded, ma'am, that you are still under oath. And Miss Clark, you may conclude your direct examination.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Miss Brockbank, there was one last item that I think we did not cover, item 285. On the date of August the 23rd, 1994, were you visited at the SID lab at LAPD by Mr. Deedrick?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I was.
MS. CLARK: And when you were paid that visit did you recover a piece of--item of evidence and examine it with him?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And what was that item?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that was the shirt of Ronald Goldman, item no. 81.
MS. CLARK: And where did you recover it from?
MS. BROCKBANK: From the serology freezer from the box that it was packaged in.
MS. CLARK: And in what manner was it packaged when you recovered it from the serology freezer?
MS. BROCKBANK: It was still in its paper bag.
MS. CLARK: And was it taped shut?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so, yes.
MS. CLARK: Was there some kind of a seal across it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, tape.
MS. CLARK: And the tape was undisturbed?
MS. BROCKBANK: As I recall, yes.
MS. CLARK: Where is it that you took the shirt to?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, we examined on it a laboratory bench in the serology unit following my normal procedures.
MS. CLARK: Clean paper, gloves, lab coat?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And was Mr. Deedrick also--I don't know, how was he dressed?
MS. BROCKBANK: He had on gloves. I don't believe he had on a lab coat.
MS. CLARK: What exactly did you do with the--with Ron Goldman's shirt?
MS. BROCKBANK: We basically processed it a second time, scraping it down using the large spatula, like I described before, over the white paper to see if we could collect additional trace evidence, hairs and fibers, that sort of thing, from the shirt.
MS. CLARK: Did you examine the spatula first or cleanse it in any way to make sure that it was clean?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what is it you did with the spatula?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, rinsed it, you know, with ethanol and wiped it down, made sure there were no hairs or fibers on it.
MS. CLARK: Then you collected the debris that you scraped off of the shirt on August 23rd into a bindle?
MS. BROCKBANK: Actually this time we placed the debris in a petrie dish which is basically like the pill boxes I was describing yesterday, only it is what we have in our lab is a square rather than a circular dish and it is plastic. That is a photo of it right there, (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: We are showing right now on the screen a photograph that is taken from the board that is People's 436 for the record, item 285.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: And you gathered the debris into that plastic container?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Do you see anything in it now?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm--
MS. CLARK: In the photograph?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: What was done with the debris collected in that petrie dish?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe Mr. Deedrick transferred it to one of his little pillboxes when he return to the FBI lab.
MS. CLARK: And you see a little pillbox--actually you can look down at your monitor if it is more helpful. Do you see a pillbox with debris in it to the right of that in the photograph?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And is that the pillbox you were referring to that Mr. Deedrick uses?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, after you collected the debris into that petrie dish, what did you do with it on August 23rd?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, well, we repackaged the shirt and returned it to the serology freezer first off and then we took the petrie dish with its contents over to the trace analysis lab and Mr. Deedrick did some examinations of the contents of that petrie dish while I basically stood by.
MS. CLARK: So you actually observed him making the examination at LAPD on that date?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did he do any mounting at that time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, he did.
MS. CLARK: Was that done in permount?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: Do you see slide mailers in this photograph?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Did he use slide mailers like those?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes. The--the blue one there is one that he used and the others may have been mounted later. I believe he only mounted one slide on that day.
MS. CLARK: Did you do any mounting?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MS. CLARK: He did it all?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And after he completed his examination of the slide and the debris that was collected on August 23rd, what was done with the slide that he created and whatever remained in the petrie dish?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, those items were--the--the petrie dish itself was sealed up with a piece of tape by me and the petrie dish and the slide were placed in my evidence locker. And then I began--well, Mr. Deedrick left. He had other business in town that week. And two days later, on the 25th, he returned and I gave him those items after booking them. I wrote out a property report, booked them into our property unit and then released them to him.
MS. CLARK: So they were in your possession from the time of collection virtually until you gave them to Mr. Deedrick to take back to the FBI?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And when you say you booked them, you just got the bar code on them like before and took them right back?
MS. BROCKBANK: I got the bar code on them and--let me see. I believe we actually had them sign them out or sign them out in some way to release them to him.
MS. CLARK: Okay. But you did not leave them in property?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: Okay. The white envelope that is to the left of the petrie dish and the slide mailers, what is that?
MS. BROCKBANK: That is an analyzed evidence envelope. That is what I placed the petrie dish and the slide mailer containing the slide into when I booked them into property.
MS. CLARK: When you released them to Mr. Deedrick were they packaged into that envelope?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were, and the envelope was in a sealed condition. I had placed evidence seals on it, the red and white seals you see running the length of the package and across the top and the bottom.
MS. CLARK: Now, you examined for us--for me last night the hair and trace chain of custody board that has been marked People's 436?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: You testified yesterday to the dates of collection of all of the items, did you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you make any mistakes in your testimony?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: However, were there some mistakes in the dates that were written on the board?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, there were.
MS. CLARK: You brought those to our attention?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: So with respect to item no. 110, you testified that you collected debris from the glove at Rockingham on both June 21st and June 23rd, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And that date has not been added to the board?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And we will do so, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: And with respect to 163 to 165, the date of 7/20 is incorrect, and as you testified yesterday, it was July 27th?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And with respect to 166 to 167, the date of July 20th should be July 28th, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And for 169 you only collected that evidence on August 2nd, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Okay. The board will reflect the accurate testimony that you gave.
MS. BROCKBANK: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: Did you also then examine the elimination board that has been marked as People's 451 at my request?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And for the record, your Honor, that is the--
THE COURT: Mr. Escobar, do you want to give us a hand here.
MS. CLARK: That is the eliminated hair samples board.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: If we can just hold it for a minute.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, counsel, Mr. Escobar is standing right in front of juror no. 7 so why don't we put it up.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: Did you examine all the information on that board, Miss Brockbank?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And is it correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it is.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, folks.
THE JURY: Good morning
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, Miss Brockbank.
MS. BROCKBANK: Good morning.
MR. BLASIER: I take it from your direct testimony that you worked pretty closely with Mr. Deedrick from the FBI?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, for some of my examinations, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You spent how much time in Washington? Was it two weeks?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: And during that time did you spend most of your time with him while he is conducting his comparisons and analysis?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: You worked alongside of him?
MS. BROCKBANK: Basically, yes.
MR. BLASIER: When he would look at something in the microscope, he would show you and you would look at it, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And I think you indicated to Miss Clark that you agreed with his comparisons and conclusions?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did, those that he showed me.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of general questions about hair and fiber in general. Are there any professional societies that are devoted solely to the examination of fiber and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, societies I'm not sure. There are several groups and I just don't know all of them right offhand or any of them I could really name for you and be accurate.
MR. BLASIER: Are you members of any groups?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I'm not.
MR. BLASIER: When you say "Groups," what kind of groups are there?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have heard a group for DNA called Twgdam. I think it is called Twghair or something along the same lines as Twgdam, only for hairs and fibers.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any standards that they have established for hair and fiber analysis?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, not specifically, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, are there any professional magazines that are devoted to hair and fiber analysis?
MS. BROCKBANK: There are many professional magazines devoted specifically just to hair and fiber. I'm not really sure.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that in the last fifty years there has been very little change in the technology with respect to hair and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: I've only been involved for the last five years, but umm, there has been very little change over the last five years, I can say that much.
MR. BLASIER: And have there been some attempts to improve the ability to discriminate with hairs and fibers that really have not been very successful?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: It is not--certainly the amount of resources that have been devoted to hair and fiber are far less than such things as DNA, for instance, would you agree with that?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would agree, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Same thing with other forensic areas like serology, there has been a lot more in the way of technology development in those fields than there has been in hair and trace?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Are there ever any seminars that are devoted specifically to hair and trace on a regular basis that you know of?
MS. BROCKBANK: There are some. I know Mr. Deedrick mentioned to me that he was going to one a few weeks ago, but I didn't go myself.
MR. BLASIER: And do you--so that is one seminar that you heard about from him?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Have you heard of very many others that are devoted just to that topic?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that the reason for that--for the somewhat lack of resources that are devoted to this particular area is because of the inability to really establish any kind of unique identifications with hair and fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Could you repeat that? I'm sorry.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the reason why there has not been a whole lot of technological resources put into that area and there has not been a whole lot of development is because of inability to really establish any kind of unique identifications with hair and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: That may be the reason, yeah.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you are looking at fibers you are really only looking for a couple of characteristics of a fiber, correct, usually?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, you are--
MS. CLARK: Objection. This is beyond the scope and it is also overbroad and vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: With most fiber exams you are looking at the fiber to try and identify the type of fiber and usually doing a comparison between a known fiber and a questioned fiber.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. You are looking at is it nylon, is it cotton, is it wool?
MS. BROCKBANK: Right.
MR. BLASIER: And with synthetics you may be able to look at other things like the cross-sectional shape and the diameter of the surface area, delusterant type of things?
MS. CLARK: This is beyond the scope. Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: There are many characteristics, yes, you can look at.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with things like cotton and wool you look basically at the type of--type of material it is and the color, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes, those will be two things.
MR. BLASIER: And you can also, if you have enough of a fiber, you can do certain kind of analysis on the dyes in the fiber to try and determine what is the chemical composition of the dyes in a fiber, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: None of that was done in this case, was it?
MS. BROCKBANK: None of that was done by me. I'm not sure what Mr. Deedrick did or didn't do.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, when you take a look at one fiber--a known fiber against an evidence fiber, if those appear to be similar, you can't from that conclude that they came from the same place, can you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not to my knowledge, short of a physical match where if you have like a patch of cloth that is torn out of a piece of clothing where you can physically piece it back in, you would be able to say that that came from that garment, but short of that I am not aware of anything where you can definitely say it came from one item.
MR. BLASIER: And we don't have any patches of clothing in this case that you are aware of, do we?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: We are basically talking about very small pieces of a thread or a piece of cotton or whatever?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yeah.
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope, calls for speculation. She didn't examine these things.
THE COURT: Overruled. That wasn't the testimony. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that when manufacturers produce fibers they generally produce them in fairly substantial quantities?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I would think so, but I don't have any particular knowledge in that area.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. There are no data banks of fibers that you can go to and see how common or rare a particular fiber is, are there?
MS. BROCKBANK: That I don't know. There may be. I am not aware of it.
MR. BLASIER: Well, you do this kind of analysis all the time, don't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, as far as fiber analysis goes, my analysis has really been limited to just comparing known to questioned fibers and I haven't really done any research beyond that point as far as frequencies or how often fibers are made or anything of that nature.
MR. BLASIER: If there were some data bank available where you could get that information, I'm sure you would have access to it, wouldn't you?
MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You are not aware of any such databases that exist with respect to fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: I am not aware of one.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any methods available to narrow down the source of a particular fiber if the information you have is what kind of fiber it is, nylon, cotton, whatever, and the color, with those two pieces of information to be able to tell who manufactured it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, again that is not something I have ever done so I am not really sure.
MR. BLASIER: So you are not aware that there is any way to do that, are you?
MS. BROCKBANK: I am not aware, no.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any kind of databases that tell you what percentage of the fibers out there in the world fall into a particular category, such as blue black cotton, ten percent of all fibers or going to be blue black cotton? There is nothing like that, is there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: You are not aware, are you, of any technique that allows you, once you know that two fibers are both, let's say, cotton and both of blue black, to assess some kind of a numerical description to that to explain what the significance of that is?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, could you repeat that one more time, I'm sorry.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any technique at all that is used in your expertise, your specialty, that allows you, once you say, okay, we have an evidence fiber that is cotton, blue black, and we have another fiber that is cotton blue black, to tell you what the significance of the fact is that they look alike?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, with hair, when you are looking at hair, collecting hair and looking at it, you use various general categories to describe what you are seeing, do you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you have--there is a form that you use when you do--when you look at a hair and write down things that you observe about it that is kind of like a chart that is broken down into categories, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have one of those with you, a blank one?
MS. BROCKBANK: Probably not a blank one.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I have a document that I will have marked, please.
THE COURT: 1217.
(Deft's 1217 for id = document)
MR. BLASIER: 1217.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, let me show you Defense exhibit 1217. Is this the work sheet that you use when you are looking at hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And that one, that one is the work sheet that you used for item no. 58, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you didn't observe any human hairs in 58 so it is blank, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: But that shows the categories that you use?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we put this on the elmo, please?
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Could we zoom in the on the column on the left categories a little bit.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, could we move it up so that the curl--you can see "Curl" a little better.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: This is an example of some of the characteristics that you use to describe what you see when you look at a hair, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And taking, for example, the curl category, it is only broken down into three different subgroups, right?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, as far as this form goes, the things that are listed in that area, using curl, you see tight, loose or none. They are general descriptions that you can use, but it is not limited just to that.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So you have three categories on your form, but there could be others that you might use?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that true with the other categories on there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that these categories are very subjective in a sense that it is what you see, and you use a word to describe what you see that you feel comfortable with, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: This particular form is not some sort of an industry standard form, is it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not at all.
MR. BLASIER: There is no standardization at all, is there, in the area of hair analysis in terms of specific descriptions that you give to specific characteristics?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I have seen guidelines for, you know, terminology to be used, but there is no hard and fast rule that you must use a certain terminology.
MR. BLASIER: So each examiner can choose pretty much what they feel comfortable with in terms of describing characteristics?
MS. BROCKBANK: Pretty much.
MR. BLASIER: And a lot of these characteristics are somewhat general in nature, are they not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes, some of them are general.
MR. BLASIER: In other words, something that you might describe as heavy curl, someone else might say, ah, that is just a medium curl or a light curl?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So with this kind of analysis, with hair analysis, there is--you don't have the ability to--well, let me rephrase that. Different examiners use different terminology and different characteristics, don't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: So if you describe, if you list eight or ten that you have observed on a particular hair and that hair is given to somebody else, they might have different descriptions for the same hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they might.
MR. BLASIER: So there is no way for you to just provide a description to some other examiner someplace and have them have the ability to compare using just your description, that description with some other hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: That would not be a real good idea, no.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, with hair analysis and fiber analysis, do you undergo any kind of blind external proficiency testing?
MS. BROCKBANK: We don't undergo any blind testing. We do have proficiency tests but they are not blind. We know that we are being tested.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you do those proficiency tests is it the same kind of comparison that you do in case work; namely, that there are only two things, a known sample with an evidence sample?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, not really.
MR. BLASIER: What does it usually entail?
MS. BROCKBANK: For our fiber proficiency tests that we get, sometimes you are comparing, you know, two or three different items to each other, so you may not just have one, this one.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: As far as our hair proficiency tests, we usually have like ten known hairs that we are comparing to a questioned hair, so there are several comparisons that you actually do; not just a one-on-one.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Is ten pretty much the limit in terms of the number of questioned hairs that you ever might examine at one time to compare with a known hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: There is no limit. As far as case work goes, it is a case by case basis. You can examine many, many questioned hairs compared to a known or vice versa. You can have one questioned hair compared to many known standards, but there is no limit on the number.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you keep any kind of record that allows you to compare a hair that you are looking at in one case with something that you might have looked at a year ago?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, other than these hair work sheets that I fill out, that is my written record, but again, you don't perform a hair comparison on paper. You need to do a visual comparison.
MR. BLASIER: So you really don't, just because of the nature of this kind of analysis, you don't have the ability to say, gee, I saw a hair like that two years ago in a case and then go get that case?
MS. BROCKBANK: If you had a memory that good, you could go get that case and examine the hair side-by-side.
MR. BLASIER: You don't, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not generally, no.
MR. BLASIER: I mean, it is not like fingerprints, for instance, where you--there is a uniform way to characterize fingerprints and there is computers that have everybody's fingerprints in them that have been fingerprinted and you can go off and say have you ever seen this print before?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, it is not like that.
MR. BLASIER: No such system like that?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Are there any databases at all that allow you to look at a particular characteristic in a hair and tell you how common or rare it is?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with hairs you indicated that when you collect an exemplar you collect a representative sample from all over the head?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that is because in one head you are going to have different kind of hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: There is no uniformity, no uniqueness one hair to the other in a single person?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, you generally do see a lot of similarities.
MR. BLASIER: But there may be a lot of differences, too?
MS. BROCKBANK: But there is usually a range of all of those characteristics that you observe. You will usually see a range. I don't just see one, you know, carbon copy on every hair. That is just not how it is.
MR. BLASIER: It is not like DNA where every cell in the body has the same DNA?
MS. BROCKBANK: Correct, it is not like that.
MR. BLASIER: This technology we are not counting molecules here; we are looking at very general things?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: We are not doing any kind of molecular analysis with hair and fibers; we are looking at very general categories, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Objection, that is vague, too.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Would a good analogy for hair analysis be that it is like looking at a leaf and trying to match it up to a specific tree in the sense that a particular tree might have different kind of leaves that look a little different?
MS. CLARK: Objection, compound, vague, unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Do you understand the analogy of picking up a leaf from the ground and trying to match it to a tree?
MS. CLARK: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence she ever has.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes, I understand that.
MR. BLASIER: And like a leaf, you could look at one leaf on a tree and it may not look the same, but it still might come from the same tree?
MS. BROCKBANK: If you picked up a leaf and it didn't look like the leaves on a tree I wouldn't think--
MR. BLASIER: Let's say an oak leaf, but it doesn't look exactly like the one that came from that tree. It still could have come from that tree and still have a different look?
MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you about exclusions with hair analysis. You are familiar with--you have done some conventional serology work in your past, have you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. You are generally familiar with some of the things that are done in conventional serology?
MS. BROCKBANK: Generally familiar, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And if you have--if you are doing genetic marker testing and you find a genetic marker in your evidence that is different from your known, you know you've got an exclusion?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with hair analysis, you can't necessarily, if you see one hair that looks--has some different characteristics from another hair, that doesn't necessarily mean they are excluded, does it?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: You have an evidence hair and it doesn't look exactly like a suspect hair or a known hair, that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't come from the same source, does it?
MS. CLARK: Same objection, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, the point of doing a hair comparison is looking at a known sample, getting an idea of the range of characteristics in that known sample and then comparing that questioned hair to it. If--if the questioned hair is different, then you can exclude it from coming from that source.
MR. BLASIER: Well, let me ask it a different way. If you take an exemplar from somebody and you only take a couple of hairs from one part of the head and you have an evidence hair and it doesn't look identical, that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't come from that person, just from a different part of the head.
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant, improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Also assumes fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Am I accurate?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, if you your exemplar that you are dealing with is not an adequate exemplar, then I would agree, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So if you don't have enough exemplar to make up your known sample, even--even what might be an exclusion or might appear to be an exclusion can be somewhat equivocal as well, if you don't have enough known sample to compare it to?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant, calls for speculation.
MS. BROCKBANK: That will be correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, with respect to the exemplar that you took from Mr. Simpson, you counted and you had taken 93 hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Have you taken exemplars from suspects in other cases?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: Do you always take in the area of ninety to a hundred hairs when you take an exemplar from somebody?
MS. BROCKBANK: I usually try to get a minimum of thirty and I generally don't count them, because under this--in this case the reason I counted them was because I was working under a court order where I was given a ceiling, a number of a hundred hairs but generally I don't count, but I usually attempt to get at least thirty.
MR. BLASIER: So the number that you got here was three times more than what you normally attempt to get?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: You normally try to get thirty hairs, at least thirty?
MS. BROCKBANK: A minimum, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You got ninety hairs, so you got three times your minimum?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you collect exemplar hairs, you convert those into slides so that you can do comparisons, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And did you do that with Mr. Simpson's hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I did mount some of his hairs when I was back at the FBI lab.
MR. BLASIER: And did Mr. Deedrick mount some also to your knowledge?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do think he mounted some additional slides.
MR. BLASIER: How many slides were made, exemplar slides for Mr. Simpson?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have that information in your record?
MS. BROCKBANK: I may have some. Let me just check.
(Brief pause.)
MS. BROCKBANK: I mounted five slides, each with five hairs on them, and then I believe Mr. Deedrick mounted additional hairs.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know how many slides he mounted?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the exemplars that you took from the various police officers, approximately how many hairs did you take from them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again I was attempting to get a minimum of thirty.
MR. BLASIER: So you did not take as many hairs--or did you take as many hairs from the police officers as you took from Mr. Simpson?
MS. BROCKBANK: I didn't count them.
MR. BLASIER: How many slides did you make of the exemplars of the police officers for comparison purposes?
MS. BROCKBANK: I made none.
MR. BLASIER: How many did Mr. Deedrick make?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Is--do you generally put the same number of hairs on a slide as Mr. Deedrick does?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: I think you indicated yesterday that you do one to five and he does several?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure what the difference is.
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, umm, I--I do generally put one to five hairs on a slide, and when I mount that slide. I actually use a system to where I can identify each single hair on that slide based on a numbering system. The slide I give a number. For instance, the first slide I mount would be no. 1 and then I would have a lettering system a through E, if I have five--five hairs on that slide. Starting from the end of the slide you have A, B, C, D, E, so I space them out on the slide. Mr. Deedrick I believe mounts hairs, many, several, many, I don't know the right terminology, but on a slide and some of those hairs may be overlapping and such on the slide. He doesn't specifically number every hair that is on that slide like I do.
MR. BLASIER: So the slides that you make, you have the ability, once you have done the work, to actually look at an individual hair by itself, not obscured or covered over or overlapped by another hair, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: There may be a little overlap, but you can tell which hair you are talking about.
MR. BLASIER: And you provide some sort of letter identification so that if you look at hair C from that slide today and make some sort of comparison or observations, you can come back six months from now or a year from now and pick out the specific hair you were thinking of and you were looking at when you made those notes, can't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You can't do that with Mr. Deedrick's slides, can you?
MS. BROCKBANK: I probably couldn't.
MS. CLARK: Objection--
MS. BROCKBANK: I'm sorry.
MR. BLASIER: Is it a lot more time consuming to make slides that way?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is the proper way to do it, isn't it?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That is argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know if there is a proper and improper way of mounting slides. That is the way that I was taught to mount slides at LAPD.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, you prepared five slides, exemplar slides of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Deedrick prepared some additional slides, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you feel it was necessary to have five slides to give you a representative sampling of Mr. Simpson's hair for a comparison purposes?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, actually Mr. Deedrick asked me to mount 25 hairs, which is what I did.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And you felt it was necessary to have that many slides or that many hairs for a proper comparison?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not necessarily. In the past I have mounted as few as eight to ten hairs for a comparison, so 25 is a reasonable number to mount. Depending on the variation you see in a person's hair, you may want to mount, you know, up to a hundred hairs. If there is not a lot of variation, you can mount as few as eight.
MR. BLASIER: And the more that you use for exemplar purposes, the better your ability to make an unequivocal statement that we have an exclusion or we have a similarity?
MS. BROCKBANK: I--
MR. BLASIER: Because you've got a good representative of a person's head hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: Right. I would agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that the fewer number of hairs that you have on a slide, the less your ability to make an unequivocal statement about exclusion or inclusion?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That is overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Calls for speculation.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, the fewer hairs you have in an exemplar?
MR. BLASIER: Yeah.
MS. BROCKBANK: I would agree, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you ever use, using the procedures that you have been trained to use, only two slides for an exemplar for comparison purposes from a single individual?
THE COURT: Counsel, that question is vague, because we don't know how many hairs are on each slide.
MR. BLASIER: Well, let me ask you about then the number of hairs in a slide. Obviously--let me ask you, if you have a lot of hairs on one slide, that hampers your ability to really make an individual analysis of each individual hair, doesn't it?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague. Hampers her or someone else?
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: For you if you are looking at a slide that has a whole bunch of hairs in one slide that may be overlapped and not marked, that hampers your ability to do a very specific comparison or analysis of each individual hair, doesn't it?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: "A whole bunch" doesn't help us a lot. Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Miss Clark, you made the mistake of asking this witness the question did you look over the shoulder of Mr. Deedrick? Did you see the comparisons he made? Did you agree with those comparisons? That is why I'm giving Mr. Blasier room to cross-examine her about how she does the comparisons because you asked the same question, did you have the same opinion Mr. Deedrick had. But we are getting way overboard in the amount of time that we are spending on this because she didn't actually testify to any comparisons and I think I have given you enough leeway to talk about technique and all of this. And I think we have about hit the end of the line. Also, objections are made while standing; not while seated.
MR. BLASIER: And not speaking.
MS. CLARK: They haven't been speaking.
THE COURT: No. Close. So let's wind up this end and move on.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, I note from your CV that you also have provided training in field investigations for hair and trace analysis or collection of hair and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, for other criminalists?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that at LAPD?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, your primary training in learning the techniques that you have described how do you this kind of analysis, did you obtain that--get that at LAPD or someplace else?
MS. BROCKBANK: At LAPD.
MR. BLASIER: Did you receive any training at the Orange County crime lab?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, I think you described that the trace unit at LAPD is in its own little separate room; is that right?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And how big is that room?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, maybe about a quarter of the size of this courtroom.
MR. BLASIER: And is that your--is that room used by you just for hair and trace analysis or are there other kinds of different analyses going on in that room at the same time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, as far as our trace unit, umm, as I mentioned earlier, we perform several types of analysis; hair and fibers, shoeprints, tire tracks, tool marks, paint, glass, so quite a variety that--of different types of analysis do go on there, not just hair and fiber.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, is that room--is there a fan in that room?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not a fan. We do have an air conditioning system.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is one of the things that you are trying to be careful of when you are doing collections of hairs and fibers is not to have a lot of air current going on in the room, right?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Because this stuff is very volatile and can get blown from one place to another if you are not careful, can't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, if you are not careful, yes, it could.
MR. BLASIER: And do you try to take precautions to make sure that there aren't a lot of people walking around in the room with maybe lab coats that are flapping on and off or whatever to limit the amount of air current that might be in the room?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, there generally aren't a lot of people walking around. I don't know that walking around creates tremendous air current, though.
MR. BLASIER: You wouldn't recommend, though, as a procedure, that you conduct this kind of analysis and collection in a room with a lot of people in it doing other things, would you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, if they are doing things where they are just sitting in one place, I don't think that would really matter. If they are walking by briskly, and up know, you are working in a crowded situation, I would say no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, hair and trace evidence is many times difficult to see just with the naked eye looking at a distance, is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, looking at a distance, yes.
MR. BLASIER: If you were looking at a hat or a glove on the ground, for instance, and you were standing up, it would be very difficult for you to identify any hair and fiber evidence on that article, wouldn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: You may be able to see it, but you may not.
MR. BLASIER: I mean, the--when you remove hairs, for instance, from the cap, you do a very careful analysis and you roll it very carefully and you look at it very closely in order to see these things, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you see things when you do that that you can't see with the naked eye unless you are specifically looking for them?
MS. BROCKBANK: That could be correct, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you have to be very careful because items such as this can get dislodged fairly easily and just fall off, can't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it probably has a lot to do with whatever it is on. You know, if you are talking about layers and fibers on some smooth surface, it would be very easy I think for those to get dislodged if that moved around. Clothing items, depending on the weave of the clothing, may hold those fibers a little more strenuously so moving it around a little they may not fall off. It just really depends.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And there is no real data that tells you with a particular fabric how well that holds a foreign fiber or not, is there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: And you can, if you brush--if you brushed my coat on something that had some hair on it, that hair could get transferred to my coat pretty easily, couldn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: That would be possible, yes.
MR. BLASIER: If I touch somebody else it could go to somebody else or some other place and get transferred over and over and over again, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: That could be possible, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And one of the limitations in this kind of analysis is that you have no way of telling when you say something, a hair or a fiber on an object, how many different levels of transfer it has gone through from its original source?
MS. BROCKBANK: You would have no way of knowing that just by looking at a fiber on a surface, no.
MR. BLASIER: And hair and fiber is--they are both very stable in the sense that they don't break down real quickly, correct?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So if your hair--if you have a hair that falls on the ground it is going to stay a hair for a long time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it will.
MR. BLASIER: So we have no way of looking at a hair or a fiber and telling from the appearance how long it has been since that was on its original source?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, sometimes when you are looking at a hair or a fiber you do see things that might indicate it has been there awhile, like dirt accumulated on the fiber itself, or in the case of a hair that has been there for awhile, it might actually have like bite marks on it where some insect activity has occurred, and that is something that I have seen from time to time in evidence from crime scenes.
MR. BLASIER: So that might be one indication that if you see a hair with bite marks on it, that that is an indication it has probably been there for awhile, maybe?
MS. BROCKBANK: Most people don't walk around with hair on their head that insects are chewing on, so--
MR. BLASIER: Now, in your lab you are very careful not to have two items of evidence out at the same time unless it is absolutely necessary, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that would be correct, unless you are performing a comparison between those two items and you need to see them at the same time.
MR. BLASIER: And the reason for not having them out together is because of the volatility of this kind of evidence? You want to make sure that you don't have something moved from one object to the other?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when evidence is at a crime scene lying on the ground, for instance, for a long period of time, there is no way to protect those individual pieces of evidence to prevent transfers of hair and fiber evidence from one to the other, is there?
MS. BROCKBANK: There is no way to protect those items, no. I mean, anything you did to protect those would probably create more of a problem.
MR. BLASIER: And there is no way to prevent--let's say, hypothetically, that you have some detectives at a crime scene and they are walking around and they are looking at things, if they have hairs and fibers that have transferred to their clothing, there is no way to protect the evidence from those things falling off clothing and landing on the ground or on an evidence object, is there?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague, unintelligible, overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't think there is a way to prevent that, but then again, I don't know how often, you know, people are just dropping hairs and fibers, or if, you know, it takes some sort of actual contact to transfer fibers.
MR. BLASIER: So there is no data that you are aware of or studies that you are aware of that measure that in terms of how easily hair and fiber can be transferred from one person to another, one object to another?
MS. BROCKBANK: There may be some studies, but I am not specifically aware of any.
MR. BLASIER: Now, people lose generally a hundred hairs a day, don't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have read that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So over a thirty day period each person loses maybe 3000 hairs, roughly?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is a lot of hairs, isn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that a person's natural environment where they spend time, is likely to have hairs that have fallen out of their heads?
MS. BROCKBANK: I know mine does, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you, hypothetically, if several police officers, several detectives spent some time at Mr. Simpson's home in an area where he spends a lot of time, perhaps sitting on furniture or whatever, moving around, it is possible that they could pick up trace evidence that might be at that location on their clothing, without knowing it?
MS. BROCKBANK: That would be a possibility.
MR. BLASIER: And that if they then go back to Bundy to the crime scene before anything has been collected, there is a possibility that things that they might have picked up at Rockingham could be transferred to Bundy?
MS. BROCKBANK: That could be possible.
MR. BLASIER: Is one of the reasons why you try to protect a crime scene quickly, to get the evidence preserved as quickly as possible, is to prevent those kind of cross-transfers and compromise of the evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is one of the reasons why you might want to wear protective footwear at a crime scene is to prevent your transferring or your depositing fiber evidence or hair evidence that might be on your shoes or on your--in the cuffs of your pants?
MS. CLARK: Objection, this is beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that may be one reason to wear protective footwear. Usually when we wear that it is to prevent transfer of blood, if there is a particularly bloody crime scene, to us. A lot of the protective wear that what he use, gloves, lab coats, protective footwear, disposable jumpsuits, are more of a protection for us as far as dealing with, you know, blood contaminated evidence, but it also works the opposite way, to protect the evidence from us contaminating it.
MR. BLASIER: For instance, if you had been in your car and picked up some carpet fibers in your shoes, putting on protective footwear would prevent those fibers from getting deposited to where you walk, wouldn't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that it would be improper procedure at a crime scene to bring something into the crime scene, such as a blanket, which might have trace evidence already on it, and hence expose the evidence to whatever might have been on a blanket, umm, that is not something that--
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor, beyond the scope, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: That is not something I would recommend doing.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, would you agree that you also would not recommend taking something like a blanket or a large object and splaying it out or putting it down in a way that causes air current that might move other things around in a crime scene.
MS. CLARK: Objection. This calls for speculation and assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that in order to preserve a crime scene, at least as to trace and fiber evidence, you want to be careful not to do anything--anything that creates air current that might move the evidence around?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I would try to do that.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
MS. BROCKBANK: I wouldn't want to do anything that promoted that.
MR. BLASIER: And would you also, in order to preserve the integrity of any hair and trace evidence that might be at a crime scene, avoid moving one object across another object--well, let me be more specific. Dragging a body across pieces of evidence? You wouldn't want to do that, would you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I would not.
MR. BLASIER: You would not want to move pieces of physical evidence from one place to another before they are collected, would you?
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, when I'm collecting evidence at crime scenes, I do not move evidence until I collect it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. If you pick something up, did something with it, just held it or whatever and then put it down at a different place, that might compromise the integrity of any trace evidence on that item, wouldn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: It might, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Moving things across dirt, for instance, that alone might cause the object to pick up hair or fiber that is in the dirt?
MS. BROCKBANK: That could be a possibility.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if there are two different environments, two different locations where a person spends time, that it is likely that you might find trace evidence of that person at both of those locations?
MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation. Assumes fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: If you have--let's--hypothetically, if you have a person who--
THE COURT: This exceeds the scope of the direct examination, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether there are any studies that look into whether dogs and their fur can transfer trace evidence from one place to another?
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: There may be studies but I am not aware personally of them.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether or not dogs or animals lose hairs faster than people do?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, I don't know the rate animals lose hairs.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that you would not--would it not be unusual to find an abundance of dog hairs consistent with a dog that frequents a particular area?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would not find that unusual.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: The notes that you would prepare, you do that when you do your work, you do that contemporaneous when you prepare the work?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: They are all done in chronological sequence and describe in great detail what do you from one step to the next?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MS. BROCKBANK: Usually.
MR. BLASIER: That is the procedure that you have been taught is the proper procedure?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you ever--if do you something on an item of evidence that you have already done something on before, do you ever just go back to your old notes and just kind of make a notation that you have done something else to it or do you create a whole new note in sequence so that you can reconstruct exactly what you have done from start to finish?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I usually make new notes just continuing on where I left off. Umm, in this case on I believe the little glove diagrams that I made, I did add some additional notes to them and I made a note of that in sequence that I did add additional notes to it.
MR. BLASIER: So even when you do that, you can tell what you did?
MS. BROCKBANK: Right.
MR. BLASIER: And you don't have to rely on your memory to remember what you did, you can look at your own paperwork a year, two years from now and this is what I did?
MS. BROCKBANK: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you told us in a lot of detail about how you change your gloves between every single item that you look at?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And that is the proper procedure that you have been taught, is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you change paper between every single item that you look at, don't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And that is good procedure, isn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so.
MR. BLASIER: And that is because even though you look at the paper, you may miss something? Let me be more detailed. After you are done looking at an item, you examine the paper to see if there is any trace evidence there and if you see trace evidence you try to put it back in the container?
MS. BROCKBANK: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: If you don't see trace evidence, you get rid of the paper, don't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that is because some of this you may just miss?
MS. BROCKBANK: There may be something there very tiny that you might miss. There also may be biological contamination, you know as far as--because a lot of the evidence we deal with is bloody evidence and so you don't want that around for the next item, so you just want to make sure you've got a clean working surface.
MR. BLASIER: And you are careful to have a lab coat on at all times?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that is to prevent things from your clothing getting into the evidence, isn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: That and also to prevent things that I'm working with to get on me.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you use a new lab coat each day?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, no.
MR. BLASIER: How frequently do you change?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I wear the same lab coat most of the time. It is laundered weekly, and you know, if I was to get something on it, then I would launder it, you know, immediately. I do have two lab coats that I can--
MR. BLASIER: Alternate?
MS. BROCKBANK: --alternate on, if I need to.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Deedrick didn't wear a lab coat?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Did he change gloves between every single item?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm--
MS. CLARK: Objection, that is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Between every single evidence item that he examined in your presence, did he change gloves?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, he did.
MR. BLASIER: Did he change paper on the table between every evidence item that he examined in your presence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, we were doing this together, so I don't know if he changed paper or I changed paper, but paper would have been changed, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, you testified on direct that you saw--there was--some of the hairs that you examined had what appeared to be blood on them. Do you remember that testimony?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of telling, from looking at a hair that appears to have blood on it, when the blood got on the hair, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of telling whether the blood was on an object and then the hair got on it or the hair was on the object and then the blood got on it, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: And you have who way of telling whether the hair and the blood got together before they got on the object either, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you talked about the difference between water mounts and permounts yesterday. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, water mounts I think you said was not the desirable procedure?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. What did you say about that?
MS. BROCKBANK: That may have been what I said.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: It is not the desirable procedure.
MR. BLASIER: And the reason for that is because it affects your ability to look at colors, doesn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: To look at most characteristics of the hair; color being one of them.
MR. BLASIER: It doesn't prevent you from counting hairs, does it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, it could if two hairs happened to be, you know, crossing over very close to each other. Because of that, you know, difference, the dark black line I told you about, you may actually obscure a couple hairs.
MR. BLASIER: When you counted the hairs in this case on the wet mounts, were you pretty careful about--were you very careful about counting the number of hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: I try to be careful.
MR. BLASIER: And you take your time and you count everything that is there that you see?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you indicated that some of the slides that you mounted and counted and recorded the number of hairs, when they got to Washington more hairs were found on those slides, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, they were just water mounted by me, so no hairs were found on the slides, but in the bindles.
MR. BLASIER: So after you--after you look at it on the water mount, you take it off that and put it in the bindle?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you are careful to make sure that you don't add anything to the bindle when you do that?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And when those bindles got to Washington some of them had more hairs in them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Than I had counted, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have--you were asked to look at the property reports yesterday to tell us what the description was for the blood-stained items that you also looked at in either box no. 1 or box no. 2. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have those property reports with you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: You were asked to tell us what the description was and you said that the descriptions were swatch or swatches. Do you remember saying that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Almost every one of those descriptions in the property report was singular, "Swatch," wasn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Swatch.
MS. CLARK: Objection, this is irrelevant.
THE COURT: It is vague.
MR. BLASIER: How many of the items that Miss Clark read to you, while we were standing up there, referred to anything other than swatch singular?
MS. CLARK: Objection, this is irrelevant.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, what time are we going to break?
THE COURT: About four or five minutes; 10:30.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: You indicated yesterday that you put--at one point you put both gloves on the floor to do a comparison photograph?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And they were on separate pieces of paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were.
MR. BLASIER: Are you positive about that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have exhibit 444, please. (Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: May we put People's 444 on the elmo?
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Is that a picture of the comparison that you did on the floor?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you see any seam showing individual pieces of paper between the gloves?
MS. BROCKBANK: I do not see a seam.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any other picture that shows that, that shows a seam?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: Let me go back for a minute to your hair description chart. Back out of that a little bit.
THE COURT: And this is 12--
MR. BLASIER: 1217.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you just one more question about hair analysis. Is there any standard in the field of hair analysis for what characteristics have to be present to say that two things are consistent?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: So one examiner may have different criteria in terms of what specific characteristics or the number of characteristics that they require before they say something is consistent than another examiner?
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: That may be correct.
MR. BLASIER: You referred to at one point that people or somebody was sent back to Mr. Goldman's apartment to get an exemplar from a hairbrush. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is a fairly common procedure if you need extra hairs from--extra exemplars, to get them from a person's hairbrush, isn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: It is something I personally had never done before. I understand that it is done.
MR. BLASIER: And you would expect to find a person's hair in their hairbrush?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would.
MR. BLASIER: If someone had access to, for instance, the Defendant's hairbrush, they could get exemplars, probably a substantial number, from his hairbrush, couldn't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would imagine so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, perhaps this might be a good time.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. We will see you back here in fifteen minutes. Miss Brockbank, come back in fifteen minutes. All right. Thank you.
(Recess.)
(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. All parties are again present. We also have present with us Deputy District Attorney William Hodgman. Good morning, Mr. Hodgman.
MR. HODGMAN: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have some word for us?
MR. HODGMAN: Well, I have some words in the sense that I have a request. There are certain things going on, your Honor, that I am supervising and coordinating at the moment. I was going to ask the Court for tomorrow morning because we should have these things resolved by tomorrow morning. They are very late breaking and the investigative efforts will be determinative.
THE COURT: Come on up here. Madam reporter.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
(Pages 34423 through 34429, volume 177A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: May we have just a second, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)
(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. Miss Brockbank, would you resume the witness stand, please. And the record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Miss Brockbank, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, I would like to ask you some questions about the carpet sample. That is item no. 33, is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, how large a sample was that or is it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I didn't measure it, but it is probably two to three feet long and a foot and a half to two feet across.
MR. BLASIER: It is a somewhat large and bulky item, is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You can't put it in an envelope?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Would it be fair to say that it probably has thousands and thousands of fibers in it from the Bronco?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would imagine so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you take note--when you ultimately examined it did you take note of the edges of where it was cut in terms of how much of the circumference around it was carpet as opposed to rubber matting? You know what I'm asking?
MS. BROCKBANK: I know what you are asking and I believe all of it was.
MR. BLASIER: Was carpet?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so.
MR. BLASIER: And did you make any note of what cutting device was used on the carpeting to see how rough or smooth the edge was?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your experience, in working with fiber evidence, that fibers from a carpet like that come off?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And particularly if you cut along an edge of a carpet like that, it tends to cause things along the edges to fall off, too, doesn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that item was too big to be stored in a bag, wasn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: So it was stored, the first time you saw it, it was wrapped up in a piece of paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And it was in box no. 2, right?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Do you want to double-check that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, if I could.
(Brief pause.)
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was in what I designated box no. 2.
MR. BLASIER: When you first saw that it was June 21st, was it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you get box no. 2 from the evidence control unit?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And you took it in--where did you take it first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Into the trace unit.
MR. BLASIER: And you opened the box and this large thing in paper was there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And it was there in the same box as several other evidence items, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Was it your intent at that time to examine the carpet?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, not at that time, no.
MR. BLASIER: What was your purpose in opening box no. 2 at that time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, to examine the two gloves and the two hats that were also in that box.
MR. BLASIER: Had you been given some instructions to examine just those items and no other items?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So you did not conduct a close inspection of the carpet or the container that it was wrapped in, did you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, other than to note it was paper wrapped and sealed, no.
MR. BLASIER: When you say "Sealed," did you examine it carefully to determine that every seam in the paper that might lead to the inside was covered with tape?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not every seam. I mean, it was closed with tape. Umm, there were no, you know, large gaps. I couldn't see any carpet sticking out of any orifices.
MR. BLASIER: But you didn't carefully check each possible opening in the seam, did you, for tape?
MS. BROCKBANK: Inch by inch, no.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Did you even know it was a carpet in there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, at that time, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you had no knowledge at that time that you might be comparing fibers from that object with evidence items that were contained in the same box, did you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that carpet fiber, you have seen individual fibers from the Bronco carpet, haven't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Since that time, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And the ones you have seen are tan, nylon fibers, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: The color also described is rose beige as well, same color?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that box that contained the carpet wrapped up in paper was the same box that contained the Rockingham glove in a paper bag, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: The same bag--the same box, excuse me, that contained the knit cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: The same bag that contained the Bundy glove?
MS. CLARK: Objection, misstates the testimony, same bag.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, same box that contained the Bundy glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How was the paper folded that contained the carpet or did you even notice that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, at that time, no, not really.
MR. BLASIER: Did you actually take the packet of carpet outside of the box on that--that time?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I didn't.
MR. BLASIER: So it was left inside the box?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever take it out during that particular examination on the 21st?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that you did not conduct a careful examination of the inside of the box to see whether there might be any carpet fibers that have gotten out of the package or under the package in the corners of the box?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: What is the first thing did you after you opened that box was to look at the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: The first thing I did after opening the box? I believe I examined the hats first and then the gloves.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you examine the Rockingham glove first or the Bundy glove first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Item no. 9, I believe.
MR. BLASIER: Yeah.
MS. BROCKBANK: I examined first, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you looked at the Rockingham glove, it was in a bag, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You opened the bag. Did you take out the glove before you looked in the bag?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes. Well, I mean no, I opened the bag, I looked in the bag, I see the glove, so I took the glove out.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So you take the glove out and did you examine the glove or did you examine the bag or do you remember?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, I took the glove out, laid it on my piece of paper and then I looked in the bag again.
MR. BLASIER: And when you looked in the bag you saw some debris?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Could you tell when you looked in the bag, before you emptied it, whether there was a tan carpet fiber in the debris in the bag?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: When you emptied out the bag, can I assume that you held it with one hand and had the other hand out like I'm doing and dumped the bag out into your hand?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: How did you do it?
MS. BROCKBANK: I held the bag with one hand and I--reached in with the other and got what I could see and kind of tapped the bag over a piece--a piece of paper.
MR. BLASIER: So in addition to reaching in and removing something, you tapped the bag so that anything that might be on the bag would go on the paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you note whether--once everything was on the paper, did you see a tan carpet fiber or tan fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of knowing if there was a tan fiber in there, whether it came from the inside or the outside of the glove bag, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: You wouldn't--would you agree that it is not an appropriate procedure, had you known, to store that large piece of carpet in the same box with evidence items from which you are going to ultimately do some comparison?
MS. BROCKBANK: As far as that fiber evidence?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, if--it probably would not be my first choice.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Would you want to keep those separate before you do any kind of comparison to prevent the possibility that they got cross-contaminated without you knowing about it?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, paper bags a lot of time with this kind of evidence are used because they are porous and they allow air to go through to dry things? Is that why paper bags are used?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: But paper bags have a lot of seams and creases in them on the inside and outside that can catch things, don't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Where the bottom is kind of glued shut, I guess there are some creases there, yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is one of the reasons why rather than just reaching in and looking in and getting debris, you tap it to make sure that things that might have adhered to the inside or outside fall out?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, I'm trying to get things from the inside, but there may inadvertently be something on the outside.
MR. BLASIER: The sample--the debris that was on the paper after you turned the bag over from the Rockingham glove, did you assign that a number?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that was all part of item no. 110.
MR. BLASIER: And item no. 110 was all of the things that you had removed, all the debris that you had removed from that particular glove over the various times that you hooked at it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That particular bindle, when you went to Washington, that was one of the ones that you took with you, was it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: And was that opened by Mr. Deedrick in your presence or opened by you in his presence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes. Opened by him in my presence.
MR. BLASIER: And he marked each of the bindles that you had prepared from not only that item but other items were marked right at that time when they were opened?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were.
MR. BLASIER: What was the marking given? What was the number given to that particular bindle, that is, the one--the debris from the Rockingham glove bag that you turned over and tapped?
MS. BROCKBANK: It was given a Q number and I don't know it off the top of my head and I didn't record it in my notes.
MR. BLASIER: Would it be on the picture there? Would you be able to see it from the picture?
MS. BROCKBANK: Probably.
MR. BLASIER: Maybe we can put this down so that she can look at it closely.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Do you see item 110 over on People's no. 443--
MS. CLARK: 436.
MR. BLASIER: 436?
MS. BROCKBANK: May I get up?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: Second one down from the right, on the right from the top?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, FBI number is indicated as Q3A, B and C. Is that consistent with your recollection?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, I didn't make any note of it. According to the chart, that is the number he assigned.
MR. BLASIER: Can you look at the picture--each bindle was marked Q3A, B or C, was it not, in your presence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Can you see that picture closely enough to tell what the marking was on the debris from the bag on the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, the descriptions of the bindles are actually on the other side of the bindles.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: So I can't really tell you. They are marked Q3A, B and C, but I don't know which one is A, which one is B and which one is C.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Clark will check and we can stipulate to that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you on, was it, two other occasions that you examined that particular glove and removed debris from the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: On one other occasion.
MR. BLASIER: One other occasion and that was what date?
MS. BROCKBANK: On June 23rd.
MR. BLASIER: Let me--I have a picture of what is on the board. Can we put that on the elmo so we can get that kind of straight?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Has this photograph been marked, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: No. It is a photograph from the board.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: It is the second--
THE COURT: As to item which?
MR. BLASIER: As to item no. 110.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. That will identify the photograph.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, Miss Clark is prepared to stipulate that that debris item is Q3C, and we will double-check just to make sure.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: I'm wrong, we'll change it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the debris that was in that bag or that wound up on the paper on the table, you have no way of knowing when that or if it even came off of the glove, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, the glove is the only item that was in that bag so I would feel fairly certain that it did come off that glove, yes.
MR. BLASIER: But you have no idea when, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: When it came off the glove? Sometime after or during the process of putting it in the bag, I would guess.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. But you--the procedure that is used at SID--well, let me withdraw that. Your procedure is that when you remove debris from an evidence item you put it in a separate bindle rather than just putting it back in the bag with the original item, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you also do that if you are examining an item like you did with the Rockingham glove and find debris in the bag, you preserve that in a separate bindle marked, dated, initialed, so that you can go back and reconstruct when that debris got there, don't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you are examining an item and debris winds up on your paper, sometimes you just pour it back in the bag rather than putting it in a separate bindle, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't follow you. Could you--
MR. BLASIER: I think you described sometimes. For instance, I think when you were examining the shirt or maybe some of the other clothing items where you put them on the paper to examine them, put them back in their bag, and if you see any debris on the paper you fold a crease in the bottom of it and pour it back in the bag?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I don't believe I testified to that.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. When that happens, what do you do with what you find on the paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would place it in a bindle and so mark it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. That is the proper procedure anytime something falls off of an item?
MS. BROCKBANK: That is what I would do, yes.
MR. BLASIER: When you examined the Rockingham glove after preserving the debris in the bag, did you ever see a tan carpet fiber from the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: I may have seen a tan carpet fiber, but not recognized it as such. When I was examining, you know, the item and picking off hairs and fibers, as I'm picking them up I'm seeing them, but I may not know them for what they are as far as a tan carpet fiber, so it may have been there, but I didn't know until later that there was a tan carpet fiber there.
MR. BLASIER: You are not aware of anything that you picked off the glove that was a tan carpet fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm--
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you looked at the Rockingham glove, one of the things that you told us you did is that you removed some debris from the wrist area?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And describe that debris to me again.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe it was hairs and fibers, and as I recall, it was kind of stuck to the glove.
MR. BLASIER: On the inside or the outside, do you know?
MS. BROCKBANK: On the outside.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that the wrist was folded up and disturbed in some fashion I think is what you said. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And when you say "Folded up," do you mean that it looked like it had been maybe turned over as if someone were looking at the edging or the seam or the inside part around the wrist?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: How do you mean folded up?
MS. BROCKBANK: I mean the--like the hem was kind of pulled out--out of shape, it was distorted.
MR. BLASIER: And then you did examine the hem itself and saw that some of the thread from the hem had been taken out?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know who did that?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: So you don't know whether that was done by Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola or Collin Yamauchi before you got the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know if it was done by anyone or whether that was just damage to the glove that existed when it was collected.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever seen a picture of the Rockingham glove after it was collected from Rockingham and after it got to the lab but before it got to you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And where have you seen that picture?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I probably looked at it when I was in the lab. I think Dennis Fung had some photographs of the gloves taken after collecting it, but before I got it.
MR. BLASIER: After collecting it at the lab?
MS. BROCKBANK: The pictures were taken at the lab.
MR. BLASIER: And these were pictures that--when were you shown those pictures?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know. It was sometime actually after I had examined the gloves.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether those pictures were taken before or after he examined the Rockingham glove at the lab?
MS. BROCKBANK: That I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Now, in the bag with the Rockingham glove, was there a hair bindle that had been removed by Dennis Fung?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember the pictures that you saw of the glove at the lab before you got it? Did it have Collin Yamauchi's initials around the wrist area?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't recall.
MR. BLASIER: Did it have any cuttings taken out of it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, not that I recall.
MR. BLASIER: When is the last time you saw those pictures?
MS. BROCKBANK: Months.
MR. BLASIER: When you examined the Rockingham glove for debris did you just do a visual exam or did you use any kind of magnifying device?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I just performed a visual exam.
MR. BLASIER: Did you do a close visual exam like you have described for the knit cap where you hold it up to your eyes and roll every part of it so that you can see everything that is on it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Is that generally in your experience satisfactory for seeing hairs and fibers that you need to collect?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it has been.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember seeing anything on the Rockingham glove, at the time that you did that close examination, that looked like tissue?
MS. BROCKBANK: Body tissue?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I remember seeing what appeared to be blood, but tissue specifically, not that I recall.
MR. BLASIER: And would it be part of your procedure that had you seen something like that you would have preserved it or called it to somebody's attention or made some record of it?
MS. BROCKBANK: I may have. I don't know. I don't know that I would have.
MR. BLASIER: But you don't recall seeing anything like that, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I don't recall.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you about the knit cap, that is item no. 38, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You described in some detail how you examined the hat, both inside and out, and I was a little confused by some of the steps. Did you look at the outside of the cap first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And did you do that close examination that you described to us on the outside of the cap first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And while you were doing that were you--the hat was over the piece of paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And presumably the inside of the hat was exposed to the paper while you are looking at the outside or did you make some effort to keep the inside of the hat from being exposed to the paper? Do you understand what I'm asking?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I think I do. Umm--
MR. BLASIER: Did you hold it right side up or--
MS. BROCKBANK: Right. And I don't know the--I don't remember how I held the hat.
MR. BLASIER: So is it possible that you held it in a way that debris from the inside might fall down on the paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Possibly. I don't remember observing anything falling, just only what I was picking off.
MR. BLASIER: And the things that you picked off, what did do you with them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Placed them into a bindle.
MR. BLASIER: Where did you have that bindle?
MS. BROCKBANK: Just to the side, so I was holding the hat here, there was a large piece of paper here, and the bindle was right to the side here, (Indicating).
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you did the inside of the hat, you used the same procedure?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you turned the hat inside out?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you change paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes--or no. I'm sorry, no, I didn't.
MR. BLASIER: You left the same paper there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the hairs and fibers that you picked off the inside of the hat, what did you do with those?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I put them in a separate paper bindle.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that separate paper bindle, was that sitting on the table right next to the hat?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, similar to what I just described.
MR. BLASIER: Opened?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it would be opened when I placed something it in and then I close it.
MR. BLASIER: So each time you place a new hair or fiber in there, you close it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yeah, I fold it over.
MR. BLASIER: Fold it over completely like you do when you store it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, like I--well, not completely. It is a tri-fold, three--you know, both ways and I would fold it over one way, not the complete folding.
MR. BLASIER: And was the bindle from the outside hairs that you had collected and fibers also sitting there at the same time?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I think you described that after you went through that process, you then scraped the outside or shook it gently?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, just--just gently kind of scraped with my hands to see. Well, I did the inside first as far as the scraping goes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Then you turned it back outside and did the outside?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What was the color of that knit cap? What was the color of the fibers in it?
MS. BROCKBANK: It was dark blue.
MR. BLASIER: Umm, did you see any tan nylon fibers in that cap at any time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, again, I may have seen them and not recognized them for what they were. Umm--
MR. BLASIER: Do you recall--
MS. BROCKBANK: But I don't recall specifically seeing a nylon carpet fiber.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And the tan--the color tan is substantially different than the color of the cap; is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would that make it easier to see a tan fiber, that color hat, than if it were a closer color to the hat?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it would make it easier to see, I would think, but when I am removing trace evidence I'm not making a note of every little thing that I'm seeing.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: If you told me--
MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.
MS. BROCKBANK: --so, I may have seen it, it may have been there. I may have removed it and just not made that cognitive note of it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. May I have a minute, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between Mr. Blasier and Mr. Morton.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, we are still talking about June 21st for the cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How many bindles did you make from your examination of the cap that day?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe I made three; one of the hairs and fibers removed from the inside, one from hairs and fibers removed from the outside and I believe there was one with debris, plant material.
MR. BLASIER: Was that debris that had been in the bag or debris that had fallen off while you were doing your examination or debris that you had separated from hair and fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't really recall. I think it could have been a combination of all of those.
MR. BLASIER: And do you feel fairly confident that from your careful examination of the cap that you noticed and removed all of the hairs and fibers of interest from that cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: All of them that I could see, yes, I did remove.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know what numbers your bindles were assigned at the FBI?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, no.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Umm, that item of evidence was taken to the FBI by you in August to be examined by you and Mr. Deedrick, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, were you present when he physically examined the knit cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you see him conduct his examination?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How did he examine the hat? Just briefly describe what technique he used to examine the hat.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, he had it on a lab bench which he had covered with paper and I believe he used a magnifying device to observe the hat and he was rolling it between his fingers looking and picking things out. I don't remember if he scraped it or not. I don't really recall that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, he prepared a bindle of additional things that he found on the hat that you hadn't, did he not?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe he did.
MR. BLASIER: And were you present at the lab when he was examining items of evidence that had come from the Bronco; namely, the shovel, the plastic bag and the towel?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I was present there while he examined quite a lot of evidence, and--but I wasn't, you know, standing over his shoulder every minute. I was in other--in another part of the lab and he kind of called me over when he found something interesting he wanted me to look at, basically.
MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that he examined many things from the Bronco just prior to the time that he examined the knit cap or do you know?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have no idea.
MR. BLASIER: You indicated that you found some animal hairs inside the Bundy glove. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe I did.
MR. BLASIER: Now, animal hairs are fairly easy to distinguish from human hairs, are they not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Usually.
MR. BLASIER: And with animal hairs again you are looking at some characteristics to the hair; color as well, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Dogs are a little more difficult to do comparisons with because they may have several different colors in their coats, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have never performed any comparisons with animal hairs.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. When you found the animal hair inside the Bundy glove, do you remember how far inside the glove it was?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that misstates the testimony, "Inside."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: But it was inside the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is that assuming, assuming the dog wasn't wearing a glove, of how hair and fiber from one source through several transfers can wind up in another place such as inside a glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: I think that would be a good example.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't think many dogs wear gloves.
MR. BLASIER: So would you agree that the fact that you might find a hair inside of something like a glove doesn't necessarily mean it came from a hand inside the glove?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You described, when you examined Mr. Goldman's jeans, that they were heavily soiled. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And by that do you mean that they had a lot of dirt on them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: In all different locations on the jeans?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't remember specifically what locations, but I do remember there was a heavily soiled area.
MR. BLASIER: Consistent with someone moving around in the dirt a lot?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know. Someone laying in the dirt perhaps.
MR. BLASIER: Well, did you notice whether it was limited to one side, the same side of the jeans that the body was found on? Did you make any note of that?
MS. BROCKBANK: I didn't make any note of that. I don't--at that point in time I don't know that I had ever seen the photographs. I don't really know how the body was laying, but I do vaguely remember that there was like a concentration in one general area. I don't remember what area.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. When you examined Mr. Goldman's shirt, were there any buttons missing?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever conduct an examination to determine whether any buttons had been ripped off of his shirt?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: You can tell by looking at thread from where a button come off whether it has been ripped off a shirt or cut off, can't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I would think you might be able to. That is something I have never done.
MR. BLASIER: Did anyone, to your knowledge, examine the shirt to determine whether any buttons were missing?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, no one did that, to my knowledge.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the bags that came from the Coroner's office with the clothing.
MS. BROCKBANK: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Do you recall testifying about that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you conducted an examination of those bags on what date?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that would be the same date that I examined the clothing, which would have been July 27th.
MR. BLASIER: July 27th?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Umm, and those were bags that were--did not have the clothing in them, but had been stored in the same--was it in a box? Was all the clothing in one box?
MS. BROCKBANK: All the victim's clothing was in one box. Each item was in its own individual bag and then there was this bundle of bags from the Coroner's office.
MR. BLASIER: And it was your understanding that the bags that the clothing were in had been supplied by Denise Lewis or she had put the clothing from the Coroner's bags into new bags?
MS. BROCKBANK: That was my understanding.
MR. BLASIER: As far as you know, was your examination of the old bags the first one that--the first examination that was done at LAPD to see whether there was any debris in the bags?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with items of clothing especially, let's say, a pair of pants that is heavily soiled, has a lot of blood on it, those are the kind of items that can very easily shed things when they are put in bags, taken out of bags, put back in bags, can't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, the--I would think the soil would tend to fall off.
MR. BLASIER: Would you expect to find debris in a bag, if it contained an article like that, for any significant period of time?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would expect that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the clothing had been at the Coroner's office from June 14th until the lab received it on the 27th? Is that your understanding?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know when the lab received it.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you looked at the bags, you looked at the shirt bag first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Could I refer to my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.) Umm, no, I examined the jeans first, then the socks, then the shirt.
MR. BLASIER: The jeans, then the socks, then the shirt? Is that what you said?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that the socks were in a different bag at the Coroner's office from the jeans?
MS. BROCKBANK: Oh, I think maybe I'm thinking of something different. Umm, did you say when I examined the clothing or the original bags of clothing were in?
MR. BLASIER: Original bag from the Coroner's office that the clothing had been while it was at the Coroner's office?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, those bags I don't know what order I examined them in.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, when you examined, however, the bag that had contained the shirt, there was debris in it, as you might expect, was there not?
MS. BROCKBANK: There was some debris in it.
MR. BLASIER: And did you preserve that in the way that you have described?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: When you examined the bag that had supposedly contained the pants and the socks of Ronald Goldman, there was no debris in it, was there?
MS. BROCKBANK: None that I observed.
MR. BLASIER: Is it fair to say that it was consistent--the appearance of that bag was consistent with nothing like the pant and the sock having been in it and shed any debris?
MS. BROCKBANK: There was no debris likes hairs and fibers that I observed.
MR. BLASIER: And when you examined the bag from the Coroner's office that had supposedly contained Nicole Brown Simpson's dress and panties, there was nothing in it, was there?
MS. BROCKBANK: I did not observe anything, no.
MR. BLASIER: There was no debris, was there?
MS. BROCKBANK: I did not observe any, no.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of knowing--you have no personal knowledge, no way of knowing whether or not the victim's clothing at some point was all stored in the same bag, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have no personal knowledge of that at all, no.
MR. BLASIER: When you were back in Washington you testified that a number of things had--a number of exemplar samples were sent back from here while you were there, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And they included exemplars, fibers taken from various places in the Bronco, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And were you present when Mr. Deedrick examined those different exemplars?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I may have been in the lab. Again, I wasn't standing over his shoulder watching him work.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether or not those exemplars contained many different kind of fibers from the Bronco, in addition to just the tan nylon fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: You told us about how a very, very small fiber had been removed from a piece of tissue at the Coroner's office. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Was there a black and white videotape made of that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, there was a videotape. I don't recall really whether it was black and white or not. It may have been black and white. It was made by Steve Dowell.
MR. BLASIER: How long was this videotape?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: And the videotape was to preserve him or you removing this fiber from this piece of tissue?
MS. BROCKBANK: He removed it; I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you see what he did with this videotape?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: May I have a minute, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we approach?
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: There is obviously a discovery problem here. We now know that there is a videotape that the Coroner's office took that we have not been provided in discovery. I don't know what other videotapes he might have taken, but it is my recollection that the Court requested that the Prosecution make an effort to find all the videos that were taken and to make them available, and this one obviously has not been made available, to my knowledge.
MS. CLARK: I didn't know it existed. This is the first time I've heard about it.
MR. BLASIER: It is in her notes.
MS. CLARK: In my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Right.
MS. CLARK: I never saw it.
MR. BLASIER: It is right in there.
MS. CLARK: Well, I mean, counsel obviously read her notes a long time before he came into court, and if he saw that mentioned--
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Steve Dowell is the one who took it; is that correct?
MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: He's the Coroner's person.
MS. CLARK: Right.
THE COURT: Then we will call the Coroner's office? Right, right, right, and--
MR. COCHRAN: Lunch hour?
THE COURT: Hopefully.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you want Carl to do it now?
MS. CLARK: We can both ask for it.
MR. COCHRAN: Can their side do it because it may save some time in getting it over during the lunch hour and I just want to save time.
MS. CLARK: I will do it. Not personally; I will get somebody on it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Can I ask one thing? I forgot that these side bar transcripts are released and I made a reference to--
THE COURT: I sealed that one from the last one because we talked about personal things.
MS. CLARK: Right, and can I just ask that whatever comment I made at this last side bar today about my son be also--
THE COURT: That was--that is why I sealed it.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Because I did it again.
THE COURT: Yes. I sealed it.
MS. CLARK: I will remember. Thank you, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, you indicated in your notes when you did that, that a video was taken, did you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, can I look at my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.) Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Now, at some point you described, and we mentioned this briefly before, the police officers were sent back to Mr. Goldman's apartment to look for hair exemplars from a hairbrush, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, actually it wasn't Mr. Goldman's apartment; it was to his parent's home.
MR. BLASIER: His family. And the purpose of doing that was just to find an exemplar, additional exemplars, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, ma'am.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the March 4th visit to the lab where I was present and other people were present who you described yesterday. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Was it your understanding that the purpose of that visit was for members of the Defense to examine articles that were there at the lab made available to us?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Were you present when the boxes were opened that had come back from Alb