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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present with counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Bailey, People represented by Mr. Darden, Miss Clark and Mr. Escobar. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Good morning. I'm asking leave of the Court to be heard concerning the terminology of, use of the word "Match" by our expert, Mr. Deedrick. And the reason I'm asking leave of the Court to be heard on this is that we have citations for the Court in which such language was used by the expert testifying, and we also have reference to the very guide Mr. Bailey was referring to yesterday, which indicates that the use of the term "Match" is appropriate under these circumstances. We also have--

MR. BAILEY: What page?

MS. CLARK: Page 7. We also have citations coming in by fax from around the country in which other experts have used the terminology "Match" in the arena.

THE COURT: Isn't this a little late?

MS. CLARK: Well, I never anticipated the Court would preclude the use of the word until the ruling yesterday. And I did not have--obviously during the time I was presenting testimony, I didn't have time to do the research I did last night. But it had been my anticipation that the Court was going to rule in favor of the Defense motion in that regard. I would have done the research in advance, but I did not have any advanced warning of that.

THE COURT: So what would you like me to do?

MS. CLARK: I'm going to cite to the Court the cases, and I would like the Court to permit the expert to use the terminology because it is very cumbersome for him to continually be thinking up terms that he would not use in place of a term he is accustomed to using and has been approved in all the courts he's testified to thus 400 times prior to this. The hicks guide, microscopy of hair, which was brought out by Mr. Bailey at sidebar yesterday states the following: "Hairs found on the rape victim's clothing which match the suspect's hair serve to corroborate her statements when the suspect denies any contact," indicating obviously the approval of the use of the terminology "Match." In People versus Bonnan, 47 Cal. 3D. 808 at page 823, it indicates that: "The Prosecution presented expert testimony to the following effect: Among other things, the bodies of Gatlin, Grabs and McCaby each reveal the presence of foreign hair that matched Defendant's." People versus Thomas, 180 Cal. App. 3D. Page 47 at page 51, that expert testimony is being--was proffered, and it indicates: "Pubic hair identical to Defendant's was found in Priscilla's bed. Similarly, pubic hair matching that of Priscilla's was found in a combing of Defendant's pubic hair at the time of his arrest."

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any cases specifically on point, counsel, regarding terminology?

MS. CLARK: We have cases coming in by fax as we speak, your Honor. But the use of the summary of the terminology given in the factual synopses of these cases, in the course of the Court's own language, which is the Court's synopsis of the expert testimony, indicates that that terminology was used appropriately.

THE COURT: No. Do you have any cases specifically on the point of the terminology?

MS. CLARK: I'm going--I'm going to find out now because the faxes are coming in. We had--we asked for them last night and they're coming in this morning. There was a time delay, three-hour time delay. But I think that the mere fact that we had it used in the guide that Mr. Bailey himself proffered to the Court as the bible on this subject should lay to rest any issues we have with respect to the propriety of that terminology. And I apologize to the Court for not having brought it to the Court's attention sooner, but there was no way that I could know that this issue was going to be raised by Mr. Bailey or that there was going to be a ruling that there was. It was raised just yesterday.

THE COURT: No. Counsel, this is an issue that we discussed informally over the last month, and it's been raised several times.

MS. CLARK: The issue of the word "Match" and hair and fiber?

THE COURT: Absolutely. Absolutely. This is not a new issue. You go back and find it in the record. I'm certain it's there in the sidebar conversations at least a dozen times.

MS. CLARK: Then I apologize to the Court.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any other comment?

MS. CLARK: Yes. I would like the opportunity to present the Court with the additional cases that are coming in through fax right now. I apologize to the Court then if I was remiss in not having brought it to--brought these cases to the Court sooner. I don't recall having had the issue raised and I defer to the Court's recollection of that and I would ask that the expert be allowed to use the term.

THE COURT: All right. Specifically, what terminology are you citing to the Court on page 823?

MS. CLARK: Of--

THE COURT: Bonnan.

MS. CLARK: --Bonnan? At the bottom of the page, your Honor, the last paragraph, where it says: "The Prosecution presented expert testimony to the following effect."

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

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

THE COURT: All right. Any other comment?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I have a case in front of me now. I would further cite to the Court from the FBI forensic science research and training center a report prepared in 1982. The relevant language is on the last line. It says: "However, the `duplicate' hair criterium for a match should be the ultimate goal." I'll submit this to Deirdre so the Court can see it. Another highlighted passage of this symposium--let me quote. "The most important decision made by the hair examiner is deciding when a hair can be said to match or be consistent with originating from a particular individual."

THE COURT: Deputy Magnera, would you collect Detective Lange's pager for me, please.

MS. CLARK: The following cases are being sent to us right now. They are out-of-state cases, but they deal with an issue of the terminology.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark, let's cut to the chase here. Are you asking for a 402 on the terminology "Match"?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I have more here as well. From forensic sciences international: "In essence, an investigator attempts to assess the likelihood of matching fibers." Again: "Matching fibers were found on only 10 garments searched. "Results of a study to determine the probability of chance match occurrence as between fibers known to be from different sources," a paper written by Wilk and Fong and S. Henry Enami in which the abstract begins with the following: "The results of a study to determine the frequency of chance match occurrences among fibers."

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And again, then in another paper published by Richard Bisbing and Michael Wollner: "Natural variation does not preclude the association of hair because sometimes variation serves to personalize the hair specimen. When comparing several hairs from one source, it can sometimes be demonstrated that the questioned hair not only has the traits of the known hair, but that the variation in the questioned specimens matches the variation occurring in the exemplar."

THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from the Defense.

MS. CLARK: Shall I--

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: On the page 7 from which Miss Clark read: "It is concluded that based on this comparison, the examiner may conclude, no. 1, that the hairs are consistent or similar and could have come from the same source; no. 2, that the hairs are dissimilar and did not come from the same source or; 3, that the hairs possess characteristics which are not sufficiently defined to arrive at a meaningful conclusion." Only those three conclusions are permitted according to this manual, which, although published in 1977, Mr. Deedrick himself told me on Wednesday, has never been republished, updated or changed or modified. Every book that deals with hair and fiber comparison states it in the same terms. Now, the word "Match" as used in appellate decisions and used once on this page is a dangerous word because of the connotations to a layman. When you say "A perfect match," you may be talking about a male and a female who are not identical, but who fit together well. The word "Match" normally is interpreted to mean identity. That is the same in every respect. If this jury is given the idea by these niceties of language which have been deliberately injected despite your order to the contrary throughout his testimony and used by Miss Clark with some frequency and the jury gets the impression that this witness is saying this is O.J. Simpson's hair--

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: --even though he has testified under oath that he can never claim that he has identified a hair as belonging to any one individual, but has subscribed to the limitations in this FBI manual, which I presume he himself as section chief would have amended, updated or rewritten if the rules had somehow changed or the technology advanced to the point where single source identification was possible, I don't believe it's fair to have him on the one hand tell the jury, "I can't say that it came from this source," and on the other hand, "That's a match." It's confusing and it runs the risk that one or more jurors will interpret that as a positive identification when it is no such thing and never can be in hair and fiber technology. That's our position on it. We ask that you continue to prohibit the use of the word "Match" simply because the dictionary definition brings it perilously close in the minds of many and in common usage to identity, and that is wrong, unfair, improper and I believe would be error despite the language in appellate decisions which describe microscopic consistency as a match. That is not to say that the examiner who testified in those cases was allowed to use that word in his testimony. And if he was, I suggest that that was improper. The second matter, your Honor, that I would like to raise before we bring the jury in, we have some concern based on a theory spun out by Miss Clark as to how the wrapped-around hair that you pointed out when we were reviewing the boards a couple days ago on Nicole Brown's--the wrapped-around fiber on Nicole Brown's hair that was found on Goldman's shirt got that way. She speculated that there may have been something Mr. Simpson was doing as the alleged murderer had caused that to wrap around. I was concerned--I spoke to Mr. Deedrick. He speculates that something was rolling, and that's how it happened, and I would like some kind of voir dire on that, your Honor, because if he has no real idea and is simply speculating, I don't think the question should be put to him. We do know that when Miss Clark assured you he would explain how that occurred, he leaned over to Mr. Vannatter and said, "I hope." I got the impression from talking with him yesterday that he has no clear idea how it happened and is simply speculating, and I would like to preclude any such speculation if it doesn't have sufficient foundation before the answer is given and I would like your Honor to make some inquiry into that aspect of it if you will.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, you want to address that last issue, the wrapped hair?

MR. SHAPIRO: One second, your Honor, before she--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: This just came in, your Honor. I'm sure Mr. Deedrick can authenticate it, but--from some lawyers in Anchorage, Alaska. They sent us a quote from a transcript in an Anthony case. "The strongest statement we make is the hair could have originated from that person." Now, that's the same witness. He said that before you, your Honor, a couple of times yesterday. And I don't like to see it embellished any further than it already has been and I would like to see the limitation of the word "Match" that you imposed yesterday enforced with some regularity. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Let me assist the Court. What we have here is a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the Defense as to apples and oranges here. The finding of a match is what permits the expert to draw the conclusion that the hair could have originated from this person's head. The two are distinct issues. The finding of a match does not mean that they are, therefore, saying it came from only this individual. And every time this expert, Mr. Deedrick, testifies to the fact that he found a match, it will then be concluded by him that the hair could have originated from Mr. Simpson. He'll never say that the match indicates identity. But unless he finds a match, he cannot even say it could have come from the head of Mr. Simpson or the head of Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman. That's the issue. And counsel is confused between the terminology that permits the conclusion ultimately to be reached that he just read to you and the finding--and the observations that are made that lead to that conclusion. There are three possible conclusions a hair examiner can reach, and Mr. Deedrick is in complete conformity with the hicks guide that says of the three, one is that it could have come from the head of a given person. But you can not reach that conclusion until you have first found a match. And that's why we're talking apples and oranges here. And every time the word "Match" is used by Mr. Deedrick, it will be accompanied by what that means, which is, it could have come from the head of whoever. So Mr. Bailey is confused. Those terms do not--it's two separate proceedings and two separate procedures we're talking about. First you find the match, then you draw the conclusion. They are not inconsistent, they do not conflict and they do not mislead, and that's why in previous decisions in previous cases, experts have so testified. With respect to how the fiber came to be wrapped around the hair, just as Dr. Lakshmanan gave an educated hypothetical as to how things could have happened based on his--on reasonable medical certainty and his expertise, Mr. Deedrick is also an expert of nearly 20 years' experience who may hypothesize based on his expertise and experience and judgment that the fiber could have become wrapped around the hair in a couple of possible ways, one of which is the rolling effect when you brush against--when a fiber--when someone's sleeve brushes against a hair and then the fiber wraps around the hair. Another possibility--well, I don't have to get into that. But the bottom line is that within his experience and judgment, he can hypothesize giving the educated, reasonable scientific certainty as to how this could have occurred in his experience. That's his job. He's an expert. That's why we asked him to testify. If he didn't have that experience and didn't know anymore than you or I, then why call him? Again, and I do not see any possibility of misleading this jury with the use of the word "Match." The problem we've having with this expert, he's being continually having to say words that are--he's unaccustomed to saying and phrase his findings in ways that are not the norm for him, and so yes, he slips. He's not used to doing that. For 18 years, he has done something different. He comes to this court, and now all of a sudden, he can't use the term he's been using for 18 years, and that's what's causing the problem. He means no disrespect to the court. And I've been attempting to address the issue with other phraseology, but I find, having researched the literature, that it is found to be acceptable not only in the scientific community, but in the courts as well.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. Counsel, the problem we have here is, we have a wide range of scientific evidence that has been presented here. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the definition of the word "Match" is as follows: "One that is as exactly as another, one that forms an exact pair with another, an exact counterpart." So that terminology is too close to--excuse me. That terminology overstates the power of this evidence, and the Court's previous ruling will stand. All right. Let's have the jurors.

(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. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please.

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

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

MR. DEEDRICK: Good morning.

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

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

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, I was asking you about the significance of finding two fibers that--a questioned fiber and a known fiber that exhibited the exact same microscopic characteristics. And what is the significance of that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a fiber association is significant because of the variation that exists in the environment. That is, there are many different types of fabrics, there's many different types of fibers, both naturally occurring and man-made. Because of this wide diversity, it makes a particular fiber association significant.

MS. CLARK: Let me ask you this. If we saw--if I saw two black cotton shirts on a rack, they looked the same on the rack, if you were to examine the fibers from the two of them microscopically, has it ever occurred that you've seen two garments that appear the same to the naked eye, when you take fibers from them, you see differences?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, many--many things appear similar, but very few things are the same in all respects. I've done studies in the past to support that.

MS. CLARK: Did you examine fibers from the evidence in the clothing of the victims in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Now, in your experience, sir, what is the mobility, what is the transience of fibers in the manner in which they transfer between objects? Is it more or less than hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, fibers tend to transfer--

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Fibers will tend to transfer at a greater rate because of their size. Being much smaller and lighter, they will transfer more easily than hairs.

MS. CLARK: And what if any significance does that mobility have to you in determining when a fiber--whether a fiber can be associated with a crime or with a suspect?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, when two people come into physical contact, there's a possibility that fibers from the clothing of those individuals may be transferred. It's called a primary--primary transfer. Fibers that are loose on the surface that actually did not come from that garment may be transferred as well. It's called a secondary transfer. Primary from the fabric and indirect transfer would be secondary, and they occur all the time.

MS. CLARK: Well, what's an example of a secondary transfer?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a secondary transfer would be one where, for instance, I sat down in this chair and there were fibers from the suit I wore yesterday, I would--I possibly could pick up the fibers from that suit, and it would be a secondary. It didn't come directly from the fabric, but indirectly through an intermediate--intermediary or another surface, fabric surface. So primary transfers or direct contact transfers occur all the time as well as secondary transfers. And in the laboratory, we look for both types of events.

MS. CLARK: Can that also happen in case of hairs, primary and secondary transfer?

MR. DEEDRICK: The same thing can happen. Hairs can be transferred directly from a body area such as a head or pubic region. They can also transfer indirectly. That is hairs that are found on the clothing of a suspect in a case, which may be--may belong or may have originated from that individual may be transferred during the contact as well, and that's essentially a secondary transfer.

MS. CLARK: Is it a common occurrence for us to shed hairs onto our clothing on a daily basis?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's very common to find one's own hairs on one's own clothes.

MS. CLARK: And then if, for example, a suspect were to shed hairs on his clothing and then have contact with the victim in the course of a violent struggle, might you find hairs from the suspect's clothing, his own hairs, transferred onto the clothing of the victim?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's very likely to occur, yes.

MS. CLARK: Have you heard of something called the locard exchange principal?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've heard of it, yes.

MS. CLARK: Can you explain to us what that is?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the locardic change principal states that when two objects come into contact, physical contact, there's--there's going to be an exchange of materials. It was originally stated--actually derived from what Mr. Locard had worked on as a French scientist; that when people work in certain environments, they come in contact with certain types of materials, they often will pick up this material on their clothing, thus indicating perhaps the type of job that they have or what type of vehicle that they may be riding in or what type of clothing that they're used to wearing or whether they smoke tobacco or tobacco products. So it was derived from his--his work that he did in France that dealt with transfer.

MS. CLARK: And does that principal also go to fibers as well?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, same thing. Any type of material, foreign material or material from a fabric could transfer just as easily during the same thing. A person may have a particular type of car. Evidence of this might be found on his clothing. A person may have a particular type of clothing attire, certain types of fabrics that he wears frequently. These fibers may be found on his clothing. So these transfers occur all the time.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Let's move on to this case, Mr. Deedrick. When were you assigned to this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the evidence first came in on August 8th, 1994.

MS. CLARK: And who brought it in?

MR. DEEDRICK: Susan Brockbank from the Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory.

MS. CLARK: And was the evidence brought straight to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was, yes.

MS. CLARK: What exactly is your procedure when you receive evidence from a local agency for analysis?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the evidence is taking--actually, the evidence is taken to what's called the evidence control center; and at this location, a laboratory number is assigned to the case. They indicate in their documentation that is going to be assigned to the hairs and fibers unit that I'm going to be what's called the principal examiner in the case. At that point, the evidence was taken to the unit where it was inventoried or checked in.

MS. CLARK: And when the property is inventoried or checked in, is there some form that's filled out?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a work sheet is prepared in all cases. In this case, it was as well. The items--the questioned items of evidence are listed numerically, Q item, Q1, Q2, Q3 and so forth. And besides each of these Q numbers, an indication of what it is. Q1, hair from a particular item. And besides that, the number generally that identifies it from the police department or Los Angeles Police Department identification number. All of the items are checked in and listed on a work sheet, and from this work sheet, the initial work on the case starts.

MS. CLARK: So you renumber the items submitted with your own numbering?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: Q for questioned? That means recovered from the crime scene and unknown origin?

MR. DEEDRICK: These items may contain questioned items that may be suitable for comparison with known samples or k's.

MS. CLARK: And all the known samples have a k something, K number?

MR. DEEDRICK: Starts with K1, K2, K3 and--in the initial case as it comes in. As subsequent submissions come into the laboratory, they're run consecutively starting with where we left off.

MS. CLARK: So is the work sheet listing out all of your numbering done first before you begin the actual examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. That's correct. You can work--actually you can work off of a notebook paper too. You don't need a work sheet to start the work. But it's just a formality. It's part of the documentation.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, before you begin the work of analysis, an examination, is there some precaution that is taken in terms of the work space, the work area?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, before you actually start on an individual item to look at it for material, whether it's hair evidence or fiber evidence, those areas are cleaned.

MS. CLARK: I mean, with respect to--in this case, the hair and fiber had already been collected from the evidence items such as clothing and hat and et cetera.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: So you were submitted paper folds, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. All of the initial items that came in were in sealed either coin envelopes or manila envelopes and they were inventoried from that. Some of them had to be open just so that they could be numbered, but the actual coin envelope was not opened at that time.

MS. CLARK: And was there one item of actual evidence that you did receive with Susan Brockbank on August the 8th?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I consider them all items of evidence, but in actual fabric, I received the hat, the knit hat that was recovered from the scene.

MS. CLARK: The blue knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Before you opened the packages that you received, did you make any effort to clean surfaces or take precautions to make sure the work space was clean?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't--I'm not sure exactly what you're--what stage you're referring to. When the initial check-in, there's paper spread out on the table and the items are inventoried, but they're all in sealed--a sealed condition at that time. As each individual item is ready for examination, the surface is prepared and clean, clean paper is put down, forceps or tweezers are cleaned, lab coats are worn, all precautions that we feel necessary to preclude the possibility of contamination.

MS. CLARK: And is the paper changed and forceps examined for cleanliness between the examination of each item?

MR. DEEDRICK: Each item. The forceps are examined under the stereomicroscope just to be sure that there's nothing on them, hands are clean, new paper.

MS. CLARK: And did both you and Susan Brockbank wear white lab coats during the examinations of all items?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, you're right. We did supply her with a lab coat.

MS. CLARK: All right. Earlier, did I ask you to examine a board that we have marked as People's 436 entitled "The chain of custody board"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. I remember looking at it.

MS. CLARK: And did you examine all of the items contained on that board to determine whether they accurately reflected the appearance of the items you received for the examination in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. If I could just take one last look.

MS. CLARK: Please.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Escobar, you're going to have to move that back because it's blocking out juror no. 7.

MR. ESCOBAR: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Miss Clark. You want to have Mr. Deedrick step down and look at this?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: The only--the only difference that--that I see here on this particular board is item no. 113, and it indicates that the FBI numbers Q8A, B1, B2, B3, C, they're not actually in the photographs, but they came in that envelope.

MS. CLARK: And so those are the--those Q8 Q8A, B1, B2, B3, C and Q9 through 19--I'll give it to the Court reporter later--were all--and Q47 were all the numbers that you assigned to what was removed from the package depicted on this chain board for item no. 113?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And Q9 through 19, were those slides that were already prepared when they arrived at the FBI on August 8th?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were. And I believe this one, this one blue mailer here (Indicating), plastic mailer is Q9, but there were glass microscope slides prepared and delivered for examination.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So that's an example of what you got?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's an example, yes.

MS. CLARK: Then is everything on that board accurate with respect to the packages that you received from LAPD?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was accurate, yes.

MS. CLARK: And does it accurately reflect the dates on which you received these items?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: Not all items were received on August 8th, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Some were received later?

MR. DEEDRICK: Later.

MS. CLARK: All right. Oh, there is one more board actually.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'll hang around.

MS. CLARK: 451.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. This is People's 451, sir. I also asked I think that you look at this earlier to determine whether the information reflected on it concerning what was received by you at the FBI and when is correct.

MR. DEEDRICK: This board is correct.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Sir, with respect to the results of your examinations in this case--before we step into that, I just wanted to ask you in general with regard to hair comparisons. What conclusions can you draw from the comparison of hairs and what in your opinion is the significance of hairs that exhibit the same exact microscopic characteristics?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if hairs exhibit the same microscopic characteristics, it indicates that these hairs could have originated from that individual. If hairs are different and they're different--significantly different, it's possible to say that this hair or hairs could not have originated from a given individual. On some occasions, similarities and characteristics and differences both exist and no conclusion may be reached regarding that type of comparison. So essentially there are three comparison--three conclusions that are reached.

MS. CLARK: In your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence in this case, sir, did you find any hairs that matched those of Nicole Brown?

MR. BAILEY: Object. Move to strike.

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

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MS. CLARK: I didn't mean to say it. I just realized when I looked at the screen.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, you're flirting with contempt.

MS. CLARK: Not intentionally, your Honor. I did not mean to say it.

THE COURT: You're warned. Consider yourself warned. If I hear that word again, it's going to be--somebody is going to be in jail over the weekend.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: In your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence items in this case, sir, did you find any hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And were these head hairs, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were.

MS. CLARK: Where did you find those hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: These hairs were found on the glove identified as originating from the Rockingham location, a glove found at the Bundy location as well as from the knit hat that was recovered at the Bundy location. Hairs that exhibited the same characteristics as those of Nicole Brown Simpson were also found on the pants and shirt of Ronald Goldman.

MS. CLARK: Now, have you seen each of those items that you've just described, the glove recovered at Rockingham, the glove recovered at Bundy, the blue knit cap recovered at Bundy and the pants and shirt of Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have, yes.

MS. CLARK: And I'm going to direct your attention to the monitor.

MS. CLARK: These are items previously marked in evidence, your Honor. Okay. This is People's 55-G.

THE COURT: All right. 55-G appears to be a photo of the Rockingham glove.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: And this is People's--

MS. CLARK: Do you recognize this item as well, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that looks like a glove at a crime scene.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Does it look like one of the two gloves that you saw in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, one of the gloves I did look at came from the Bundy crime scene. I believe this is that glove.

MS. CLARK: This is People's 45-A.

THE COURT: All right. Appears to be the Bundy glove.

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

MS. CLARK: This is kind of hard to see. The photographs on the screen now is People's 56. It's a laser and a little difficult to see, your Honor. I'm going to ask to zoom it in on the elmo if I can.

MS. CLARK: People's 56-I, do you recall you indicated earlier that on August 8th, one item of the actual fabric itself was transported to you, you remarked the blue knit cap. Does this appear to be that cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: It does, yes.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor may need to cut the feed for this photo.

MS. CLARK: People's 43-F.

MS. CLARK: And the pants and shirt belonging to Ronald Goldman, do you recall having seen those items, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: And do those appear to be them?

MR. DEEDRICK: They do.

MS. CLARK: And those are the items on which you found the head hairs of Nicole Brown that appear to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown?

MR. BAILEY: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. There were hairs that were found on these items that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the known hairs submitted to me from Nicole Brown Simpson.

MS. CLARK: And I have a board here, your Honor, I ask be marked next in order, People's 4--

THE COURT: 475.

MS. CLARK: 475?

(Peo's 475 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: I'm going to remove the strip concerning Nicole Brown revealing the results testified to by Mr. Deedrick.

MS. CLARK: Did any of the hairs that you found on either of the gloves or the clothing of Mr. Goldman appear to be forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one hair on the Rockingham glove did appear to be forcibly removed. It's approximately 12 inches long and was broken at the proximal end or at the end nearest the point of attachment near the skin. The hairs from Ronald Goldman's shirt, which was my Q23, there were about 35 forcibly removed hairs exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown Simpson.

MS. CLARK: And what about the hairs that were on the Bundy glove? What did those hairs look like?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were--they were fragments. They were--actually it was a treated head hair fragment.

MS. CLARK: And when you say fragments, what does that mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's a portion of a hair. There was no root present on the hair.

MS. CLARK: What about the hairs that could have come from Nicole Brown that you found on Ronald Goldman's pants and knit hat? What did those hairs look like?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were fragmentary as well, under--under three and a half inches. No roots were present on any of these.

MS. CLARK: Were they naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Naturally shed hair will have a root that has a club shape like I previously testified to, and none of these had roots of that condition.

MS. CLARK: None of these--in other words, none of the hairs that could have come from Nicole Brown had the appearance--roots the appearance of which would show that they were naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: They did not.

MS. CLARK: Did you prepare a chart depicting the microscopic appearance of the hairs, the known head hairs of Nicole Brown and the hairs that you determined could have come from her from the evidence items?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, we may need to raise that up.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: This is as high as this particular easel goes unless I swap easels.

THE COURT: Let's swap easels because the bottom is obstructed by the projector here.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Escobar, you need to move that back as far as you can so you don't block the witness. All right. 2:30. Can you see that? 165, can you see that?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, does this depict all of the hairs Nicole Brown--Nicole Brown's known exemplar that you determined to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as the hair recovered from the evidence in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe all of the hairs. The questioned hairs were photographed that are represented on that board.

MS. CLARK: Is this a representative sample of what you saw under the microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is, yes.

MS. CLARK: If you would, sir, could you please step down and explain to the jury what it is that you saw that was significant to you to cause you to come to the conclusion you did with respect to the hairs that are depicted on this board that I'd ask be marked People's 476.

THE COURT: 476.

(Peo's 476 for id = board)

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: With respect to questioned hair no. 1, it was a 12-inch long hair that was recovered from the--identified as recovered from the Rockingham glove. I photographed an area of the known, which was K4, known sample no. 4 from Nicole Brown Simpson, an area from the Rockingham glove again, that being Q1. Always keep in mind that these photographs are about 250 magnification, and I'm just representing an area that appeared to me to be similar microscopically. I'm not trying to do an entire hair examination for you. I'm just trying to represent what the area that I saw that exhibited the same characteristics. The hair also appeared to be lighter in certain areas. The hair from--another hair from the Rockingham glove had some coloration to it or bleaching or something that altered the color and made it lighter. So that's another hair that was recovered from the Rockingham glove. 7B was recovered from the Bundy glove. Again, that was I believe about six inches long or so and it did not have a root. As you can see, there's a range of color as people have depending on the hairs that you're attempting to compare. K4 is an area that has been very light--lightened, again artificially lightened hair that was recovered. This is the same hair, an area of one portion of the hair and the area of the hair which is further out nearest to the tip. This known sample was compared with Q23. And again, I mentioned that there were about 35 hairs to compare it to, but this is just one of the hairs. The last photograph depicts the condition of the roots that were present in both the known sample and the questioned sample. Again, this just indicating how a hair would look if it's been forcibly removed. The reddish substance that you see appears to be blood.

MS. CLARK: Now, you earlier spoke to us about the range of characteristics that you'll find on the head of any individual. Do these hairs that you photographed here from the known sample of Miss Brown exhibit that range of characteristics you spoke of?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. You can see that there's a range, that not all hairs are all--are duplicates of each other, that some hairs are lighter, some hairs are darker, some hairs have medullation, some hairs don't. It just depends upon the range of characteristics of that individual. And here you see that an area of the hair that probably was down a little bit further near the base was a little bit darker whereas some hairs were lighter in certain portions of the hair. This particular--this piece of hair that was recovered from--identified as coming from the Rockingham glove would have been probably a more distal portion out towards the tip as opposed to a full-length hair which would indicate a darker portion of the hair, the same thing with the hair fragment that came from the Bundy glove (Indicating). It's probably a distal portion as opposed to something that's nearer to the base of the hair.

MS. CLARK: When you say "The base of the hair," what end is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's proximal, nearest to the skin.

MS. CLARK: To the scalp?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right, where it's attached.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated earlier in your testimony that when you do a hair examination, you look through the whole length of the hair, the entire hair, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. You look through the--everything you have to compare. Some hairs may be three and a half or less. Some hairs may be 12 inches like in this particular case. So that when a comparison--the comparison process involves looking for hairs in the known sample that compare both by the length and how the characteristics change along the length and also doing regional type comparisons if you have portions of hair, that is if the hair portion--if the question is, could this portion of hair come from that individual, the comparison would be with areas of the hair that have the same microscopic characteristics, which might be out at the end of the hair. So the comparison is based on what you have.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that this was like 250 times magnification?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's approximately 250 times, yes.

MS. CLARK: So do these photographs depict the entire length of the hair that you saw when you performed your examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. If I did--for instance, if I--if I'd wanted a photograph--serial photographs of each section of that hair, it would be about 25 feet long. So we don't do that. We just try to take an area that--that appears to represent the conclusion that--that's being drawn from that comparison.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You only photographed I think on this board two of the hairs you determined to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as Nicole Brown on the Rockingham glove. In this board, they're both labeled Q1 on the far left as I face it?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: How many hairs did you actually find on the Rockingham glove that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the hairs of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe there were four were recovered from that item.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe what those hairs on the Rockingham glove looked like?

MR. DEEDRICK: As I said, the one was approximately 12 inches long and it was broken at the proximal end or nearest to where the hair attaches itself to the scalp. The others were fragments. Again, I don't recall the exact length, but they were shorter fragments.

MS. CLARK: Is there any significance to the fact, sir, that you found the same microscopic characteristics in several questioned hairs, that is hairs collected from the evidence in this case as the known standard for Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the more associations that are made between hairs that vary a little bit in characteristics, the more significant that association is because you're associating different hairs that also appear in the known sample.

MS. CLARK: How many hairs did you find that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was one.

MS. CLARK: And how many hairs did you find on Mr. Goldman's shirt that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were approximately 35 on the shirt.

MS. CLARK: Were they forcibly removed or naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: As I said, they were forcibly removed.

MS. CLARK: What in your experience, sir, could account for the hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Either a primary or a secondary transfer. Either came there directly from the head of Nicole Brown Simpson or they were transported there as a secondary transfer.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: You may resume your seat.

(The witness complies.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Sir, I would like to pose for you a hypothetical if I may. You indicated that the finding of hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown on Ron Goldman's shirt could be there by primary or secondary transfer. If you were to assume the following events, sir. That the killer pulled back Nicole's head with his hand, with his left hand in order to slit her throat with his right hand and then went over to Ron Goldman for final attack, touching him in the process with the hand that held Nicole's hair by the head, could that account for the hairs that you found on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Object. He hasn't qualified in this area.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. That could account for the presence of those hairs.

MS. CLARK: You also indicated that you found more hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown on the Rockingham glove than on the Bundy glove, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, are you aware that the Bundy glove was found at the scene of the crime of the murder?

MR. DEEDRICK: I am, yes.

MS. CLARK: And that the Rockingham glove was found at the Defendant's residence?

MR. DEEDRICK: I am, yes.

MS. CLARK: What does that finding indicate to you based on your experience with respect to how long each of those gloves remained on the hands of the killer during the murders?

MR. BAILEY: Well, I object. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: You indicated earlier, sir, that with respect to fibers, they have--they move freely, more freely than hairs, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. They do transfer more easily.

MS. CLARK: Let me pose this to you in the form of a hypothetical. If the killer, while wearing both gloves, launched an initial attack on Nicole by knocking her unconscious, having very limited contact with her in that initial contact and the subsequently lost the Bundy glove early in the struggle with Ron Goldman, could that account for the fact that you found more of the hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as Nicole Brown's hair on the Rockingham glove than on the Bundy glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's not an appropriate hypothetical. Let me see counsel at sidebar without the reporter.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MS. CLARK: I'm trying to remember how many you said. You indicated to us, sir, that you've worked on how many hair and fiber cases?

MR. DEEDRICK: 4,000 or so.

MS. CLARK: And what percentage of those 4,000 involved stabbings?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, many. A lot of stabbing cases.

MS. CLARK: And have you made certain observations in the course of the work you've done on those stabbing cases concerning what kind of hair transfers and fiber transfers you're likely to find?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, surprisingly with stabbing cases, hair transfers between the assailant and the victim are not commonly found.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: It may be the fact that it's at arm's length as opposed to a lot of direct physical contact between the bodies.

MR. BAILEY: Well, I move to strike. That's speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And you base that on?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just based on what I've seen over the years looking at the clothing worn by an individual suspected of being involved in stabbings and also from the victims. The best evidence that is seen many times in stabbing cases are the fiber transfers that are present on the knife or the weapon that is recovered from a suspect in the case, and that generally is the best evidence and most commonly seen, more so than hair transfers.

MS. CLARK: And in those cases, have you had occasion to examine items of evidence that bore the hairs that were--that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the hairs of the victims?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know if I quite understand that question.

MS. CLARK: Okay. In this particular case, you examined the Rockingham and the Bundy gloves, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And you examined also the hair and fiber collected from those gloves, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And you found hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics on both gloves as those seen by--in the hairs of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you found more of such hairs on the Rockingham glove than the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: In your past experience in other stabbing cases, have you found hairs consistent with those of the victims on various items of evidence at the crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't think I can answer this question that you're posing based on past experience. I've seen a lot of different things. I can't be specific in this instance.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Have you ever had cases where you've found more hair on one item than on another that is consistent with that of a victim?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. And it just depends on the nature of the contact. One can derive certain conclusions from the presence of hair evidence on certain items indicating that perhaps more contact may have occurred with that particular item as to where the source of the material came from.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And as a matter of your expertise and simple reason and logic, would it be fair to state that an item of clothing worn for a very short period of time during an attack will be likely to have less hair and fiber than an item worn for a longer period of time during the attack?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Argumentative, speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the shorter the duration of the contact, many times the less amount of material that may be picked up or transferred to another item.

MS. CLARK: All right. In your examination of the hairs and fibers collected from the evidence in this case, did you find any hairs that you found to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And again, were those head hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were.

MS. CLARK: And where did you find those head hairs, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were hairs that were recovered from Mr. Goldman's shirt, which was my Q23, and there were also hairs recovered from the Rockingham glove.

MS. CLARK: You indicated you found those hairs on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: That exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Ron Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And did those hairs appear to be naturally shed or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were cut and torn.

MS. CLARK: Then the hairs that you found on Ron Goldman's shirt that you determined to have--to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as his known hair, what appearance did they have?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were both cut, torn and forcibly removed. They're all forcibly removed, but in the sense that some had roots, some didn't.

MS. CLARK: And how many of the hairs consistent with those of Ron Goldman did you find on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were three.

MS. CLARK: Three?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct. Wait. Excuse me. Well, I had several, several in my notes.

MS. CLARK: What does that mean, "Several"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it could be three or four.

MS. CLARK: Did you prepare a chart to demonstrate what you saw through the microscope and what you based your conclusion on?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Now, again, does this depict all of the questioned hairs that you determined were consistent with a known sample of Ron Goldman or only a representative sample?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's a--it's a representation.

THE COURT: All right. This will be marked 477?

MS. CLARK: 477.

(Peo's 477 for id = board)

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Over at the sidebar, please, with the court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. What was going on between you and the jurors?

MR. BAILEY: Nothing. I said to Mr. Morton, "Please be careful not to block this gentleman." I never spoke to the juror.

THE COURT: All right. I saw the juror react to something. I'm going to caution all counsel to make certain there are no comments going on in the proximity of the jury box. Be careful with that, Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Very well.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: And this is People's 477. If you would step down, Mr. Deedrick, and explain to the jury what it is you're trying to show with these photographs.

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, these are photographs at about 250 magnification. The known sample, these two photographs were taken from the actual hairs that were submitted from Ronald Goldman. This portion of hair here that you see came from--identifies from the Rockingham glove. This particular portion of the hair came from Mr. Goldman's shirt (Indicating). Comparison over on the far right represents a hair--it's one of the hairs that actually came off of his shirt, and there were a lot of hairs that were on his shirt. The other hair from--identified from the Rockingham glove is represented by the bottom photograph. They certainly indicate a pretty good range of characteristics from medullated hairs, which have a dark medulla, to trace or discontinuous, and also the same present on the other hairs.

MS. CLARK: May the record reflect that when the witness referred to "Medullated hairs," those that have a dark medulla, he was referring to the photographs to the very far left, which is labeled as K1, and the photograph under that labeled Q3C, hair from Rockingham glove?

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Deedrick, did you find any human hairs in the paper fold marked Q3A, which was hair removed from the Rockingham glove, that did not exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as either Ron Goldman or Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could I refresh my memory, please?

MS. CLARK: Certainly.

MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you. Yes. There was one short Caucasian head hair about one-inch long, light brown, that was dissimilar to the known hair standards that I received.

MS. CLARK: Was that hair naturally shed or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was a naturally shed hair.

MS. CLARK: Now, were the hair standards that you received that were taken by the Coroner from Ron Goldman, were those naturally shed hairs or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were all forcibly removed.

MS. CLARK: Does that have any impact on your ability to make an effective comparison between questioned hair and known hair standard?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's much easier to compare, again, apples with apples, oranges with oranges. The hairs that are forcibly removed will compare better with hairs that are forcibly removed. The same thing as with naturally shed hairs. As the hair reaches the stage when it's ready to come out, it tends to look a little different. It often gets lighter. It loses a lot of the medullation or the canal that's found in the center of the hair and will look different. That's why I request combings as well as pullings when known samples are collected.

MS. CLARK: And did you have any such combings in the standard submitted to you from the Coroner's office?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: For Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. Did you receive and examine hair samples from police and crime personnel and laboratory personnel that were involved in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And did those samples include Detectives Phillips, Fuhrman, Vannatter and Lange?

MR. DEEDRICK: It did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you compare their known hair standards of those detectives to this one-inch light brown hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what was the result?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one questioned hair from the Rockingham glove could not have originated from these individuals.

MS. CLARK: Any of them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not from the individuals you just mentioned. None of the elimination standards exhibited the same characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have another board that I would like to be marked People's 478.

THE COURT: 478.

(Peo's 478 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: And for the record, the title of the board that we've just asked to be marked 478 is "Elimination head hair samples."

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: If you would step down, sir, and take a look at this board.

(The witness complies.)

MS. CLARK: There are names underneath each of the photographs. There's one photograph for each name, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And did you cause those photographs to be taken, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: I took the photographs, yes.

MS. CLARK: And do those represent all of the people's who--all of the lab and crime scene, police personnel whose head hair standards were sent to you for comparison purposes?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It's my understanding that these people were either at the crime scene or associated with the evidence in some way.

MS. CLARK: And did you--are these the representative hair of each of them? What is this?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's just a representation of hairs that were found in the known samples from each individual. The comparison process that I talked about previously with the hair from the Rockingham glove was not compared with the photographs. The hair was compared with the actual samples. This is just a representation of the hairs of each individual.

MS. CLARK: So when you made your comparison, sir, you didn't compare photographs, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I never compare photographs, no.

MS. CLARK: The photographs are just done as a demonstration to the jury?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just as illustration for the jury to be able to see what I'm seeing under the microscope.

MS. CLARK: With respect to all of these hair samples, did any of them even come close to having the same microscopic characteristics as the hair that you've described from the Rockingham glove, that light brown Caucasian hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, we're playing with words again. I mean, light brown is light brown, but microscopically, these hairs do not exhibit the same microscopic characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Sir, of all the known hair samples you received in this case from the police, the lab personnel, the crime scene personnel and the two victims, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown--and did you do your own as well?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did my own just to make sure it wasn't one of mine.

MS. CLARK: So you even compared your own hair to that one light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including those of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: The only sample that had an area of the hair that was close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Do people shed their hairs--I think you indicated earlier--naturally every day on their clothing, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've read a hundred hairs a day may be shed during the day.

MS. CLARK: Let me pose to you a hypothetical, sir. If Ronald Goldman at the time that he was attacked had naturally shed hairs already on his shirt and then was attacked by the killer wearing the glove found at Rockingham, could that account for the naturally shed hair found on the Rockingham glove that did not exactly exhibit the same characteristics microscopically as those of Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Object, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I've stated previously that hairs can be transferred either directly from the head, which would be a primary type transfer, or secondarily. Hairs that are found on the clothing of an individual may be transferred during that contact just as well, and it happens frequently. So the possibility does exist that that hair may have been on the clothing of Ron Goldman during the contact and been exchanged.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you find any of the hairs that are consistent with those of Ron Goldman on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: And could the Bundy glove coming off early in the struggle with Ron Goldman account for that lack of hair found on that glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Well, what in your experience, sir, would account for the failure to find any of--hairs consistent with Ron Goldman on the Bundy glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right. You did find cut, torn and forcibly removed hairs on the Rockingham glove consistent with those of Ron Goldman, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were cut and torn, and again, that's forcible removal. Those were found on the Rockingham glove.

MS. CLARK: Let me give you the following hypothetical with respect to the findings on that glove, sir. If the attacker is wearing that Rockingham glove and holding the knife in his right hand, which is the Rockingham glove hand, and stabs Ron Goldman in the head and neck area, are those circumstances consistent with the cut and damaged hairs that you found that were collected from the Rockingham glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Foundation, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they would be consistent with that.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you find any hairs consistent with those of Ron Goldman in the hair and fiber evidence recovered from Nicole's dress?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Sir, in your experience, what is more conducive to the transfer of hair and fiber during an attack? One in which there is extensive conduct--contact with the victim--between the victim and killer or one in which there is very limited contact?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, from my experience and also from studies that have been done regarding transfer and persistence of materials, the longer the duration, the more involved the contact up to a certain point, the greater the amount of material that's going to be transferred back and forth.

MS. CLARK: So let me ask you this hypothetical, sir. If the killer, after having stabbed an incapacitated Ron Goldman, went over to Nicole and limited the contact with her to merely pulling back her head with his left hand in order to slash her throat without having any further contact with her body, are those events consistent with the fact that you found none of the hairs consistent with Ron Goldman on her clothing?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well the more limited the contact, as I said, the less likely that hair and fiber evidence might be found. So again, not knowing all the circumstances, I can only go by experience, and you're talking about a time factor and a contact factor. The more limited the time, the more limited the contact, the less likely you're going to find evidence of a transfer.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you're not saying, sir, that the events had to happen just the way I've described; only that it is a reasonable and logical conclusion in your experience and judgment?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Are you saying that the events had to happen exactly as I've described in my hypothetical, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no. No. I can only go by what I see. There's some indications of directionality, but there's no way to know with absolute certainty the events.

MS. CLARK: Then on what do you base your opinion that the events I described are a reasonable--a reasonable conclusion based on what you found in the evidence?

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the amount of evidence and the location of the evidence indicates to me that the directionality went from Nicole Brown Simpson to Ronald Goldman, in that direction, as opposed to coming back in as much as there's nothing on her items from Ronald Goldman.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, five minutes.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. Then as a very basic and simple conclusion, can you draw the conclusion based on your findings that the killer wore the Rockingham glove during the attack on both Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: What conclusion can you draw, sir, from the fact that you found hairs consistent with both Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on the Rockingham glove concerning whether or not it was worn during their attack?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's clear to me based on what I see and what I know about the significance of hair examinations that that glove was there at the crime scene.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you also indicated that you received--well, I don't know if you did or not, yet. Did you receive hairs--excuse me.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may I peel off the results concerning Ronald Goldman?

THE COURT: Yes. And you're referring to exhibit?

MS. CLARK: 475?

THE COURT: 475.

MS. CLARK: 475. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. When you first received the hair and fiber evidence collected in this case, sir, on August 8th, did you find any animal hairs in your examination of the evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And did you determine what kind of animal hairs those were?

MR. DEEDRICK: Most of the animal hairs were dog hairs.

MS. CLARK: Now, I think you indicated earlier in your testimony yesterday, sir, that you can determine the difference between animal hairs and human hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I can.

MS. CLARK: And how do you do that?

MR. DEEDRICK: By microscopic structure of the hair. The root is different, it has a different shape. The medulla looks different. The scale patterns look different. There are other--a lot of characteristics. Pretty easy to distinguish animal hairs from human hairs.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell the difference between dog hairs and cat hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: I can, yes.

MS. CLARK: How do you do that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Same thing. Just a lot of it is just experience and looking at the microscopic characteristics and looking at animal hairs for a lot of years.

MS. CLARK: Can you--can you identify different breeds of dogs through your microscopic comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is possible to do, yes.

MS. CLARK: When you conducted the examination of the dog hair samples in this case, did you make any determinations concerning the breed?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not attempt to do that initially.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I had no particular reason to do it at the time. I was focusing most of my attention on the human hairs as opposed to the animal hairs.

MS. CLARK: At some point, did you attempt to make that determination in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I did receive animal hairs, dog hair standards at a later date, and using those hair standards, I conducted my comparisons.

MS. CLARK: But as of August 8th, you only had questioned hairs, that is hairs recovered from the evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's all I had, yes.

MS. CLARK: No known standards taken from particular dogs?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Can you say that a particular dog hair came from any one particular dog?

MR. DEEDRICK: Unless I pull it myself, I can't.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because animal hairs such as dog hairs do not possess enough individuality in their microscopic characteristics to say with certainty that it originated from that dog let's say to the exclusion of other similar dogs. For instance, if there's a white Akita--two or three white Akitas that have the same markings and have the same apparent hair color, their hairs may look very similar. So it would be difficult to say it came from one dog and not another.

MS. CLARK: So what does it mean when you say that this questioned dog hair has the same microscopic characteristics as the known sample collected from this particular dog?

MR. DEEDRICK: Essentially it means that that questioned hair or hairs could have originated from that dog. It's just another piece in the puzzle.

MS. CLARK: And you indicated known dog hair samples were submitted to you from Kato the dog and from Chachi?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were, yes.

MS. CLARK: Want to take a break now?

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid morning break at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. And we'll see you back here in about 15 minutes. Mr. Deedrick, you can step down.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Counsel, before we conclude with Mr. Deedrick, any comment regarding a proposal to view the crime scene one additional time? I anticipated a response by yesterday, did not receive a response from either side. So I anticipate both sides are withdrawing their request?

MS. CLARK: Actually, your Honor, I believe that we expected--the People understood that everyone agreed to it and so felt there was no response necessary other than to pick the appropriate date. That I thought was the only open question. And perhaps I'm wrong. But the People would think that--would urge the Court to do so. I think it would be very helpful for the jury to get a sense of the conditions that actually prevailed as close as they can to the night in question. The only thing that we would ask is that we do so at the appropriate phase of the moon, which I think the Court has already determined.

THE COURT: Well, if you saw the memo that was prepared by Mr. Byrne. But I have the feeling that there's so much unnatural ambient lighting that any phase of the moon at that particular location is probably irrelevant.

MS. CLARK: That may be true.

THE COURT: All right. What's the Defense position?

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, after having gone back to the scene and reviewing it, the conditions have changed dramatically in terms of foliage, growth, patterns and lighting; and, therefore, it does not properly in our opinion replicate the situation on the night of the murders. Since the jury has already been out once and since it is a very costly and time-consuming endeavor and it is our desire to present our case as quickly and as expeditiously as possible and to get this case to the jury as quickly as possible, it is our position that an additional view is unwarranted and unnecessary, and we object.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any photographic comparisons of the location to depict the change in shrubbery?

MR. SHAPIRO: No, we do not, your Honor. That was just done visually by myself and other lawyers and investigators.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Well, had I known that the Defense was going to oppose this, which is something they initially were in favor of, I think that we would have presented points and authorities to the Court. We think it is the appropriate thing to do. The Court can make the determination as to the change in conditions, but according to those who have been recently to the scene, as recently as this morning, it's my understanding that not only has the scene not dramatically changed, but it has changed indeed very little in terms of the foliage and the conditions in which the bodies--of the scene in which the bodies were found. So I would urge the Court to--what we can do is have photographs taken for the Court's benefit to review to determine in its judgment whether you feel that the conditions have changed or perhaps the Court would like to take a visit to the scene. I know. And you'll have a motorcade. So perhaps it would be best if we submitted photographs to the Court. But I think it is important for the jurors to see the condition of that scene at nighttime, which is really the representative condition of the scene.

THE COURT: All right. Is that the only scene that you wish to have a viewing of?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, it is.

THE COURT: All right. So you would forego anything at Rockingham?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, we would. Would the Court--would the Court like us to have photographs taken?

THE COURT: Well, it's either that or I have to go out there myself and look. I would prefer that you have photographic comparisons of the two before and after.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Okay. Fine. We will do that. I'm sure if the Court went out there, it would be a parade.

THE COURT: I think I could manage it. But I would prefer since my schedule is rather tight between now and Wednesday, but I do need to make a decision this week and notify both the sheriff's department and the police department because of their logistics and staffing requirements.

MS. CLARK: Okay. We'll have daytime photographs taken because that would make it easiest I suppose for the Court to--

THE COURT: Well, the foliage is what I need to know--

MS. CLARK: Exactly.

THE COURT: --since that's the representation.

MS. CLARK: We'll do that. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, might I just be heard briefly?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, one of our concerns is the overlying tree foliage and the growth patterns of the trees as compared to--

THE COURT: I understand. I understand.

MR. SHAPIRO: --the incident. Also, even though we do object to any view, if the Court decides to have a view, we would respectfully suggest that both areas be viewed, Rockingham and Bundy. However, our position is that neither should be viewed. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

MS. CLARK: May I indicate one thing, your Honor? It will just take a second. That if there is--if the Court determines a Rockingham view is appropriate given the issues involved, there is no interior issue with respect to Rockingham at night. And if the Court determines it to be appropriate, it would be solely exterior through the gates if anything, which we submit--

THE COURT: It's relevant to what Mr. Park said he could see and what Mr. Kaelin said he could see.

MS. CLARK: Although they'd have to take the tarp down that's presently over the gate because that is a substantial change in circumstance. And I don't know if that foliage is the same either. So we'd have the same issue.

THE COURT: That issue is nighttime lighting.

MS. CLARK: Correct. Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I informed the Defense that I'm going to be using the board concerning the dog hair comparisons, but we're not going to go into the Chachi hairs. So I would ask that those photographs be blocked out at a later time. I'm going to ask permission of the Court to crop--either crop the board or remount on a different board the photographs that we're talking about.

THE COURT: All right.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Miss Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, we were talking about dog hairs. Did you compare the dog hairs that you found from the crime scene, the victims' clothing and the glove at Rockingham to the known samples collected from Nicole's dog Kato?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Did any of those dog hairs removed from the evidence in this case exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the dog Kato?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they did.

MS. CLARK: Which ones?

MR. DEEDRICK: With reference to the Rockingham glove, there were a number of fur hairs that were found, and I believe I need to go into some distinction here as to what fur hairs means. Fur hairs are the underlying soft hairs that form the underbelly or undercoat of animals. Guard hairs are the coarser hairs, the larger hairs that make up the outer coat, for instance, of a dog. So they're called guard hairs and fur hairs. The finer hairs, the softer hairs would be fur hairs. And on the Rockingham glove, there were fur hairs. On the Bundy glove, on the outside of the Bundy glove, there was a guard hair. On the knit hat, on the outside, tan and black hairs because the Akita also had black hairs and the standard. There were a number of hairs recovered from Goldman's shoes, pants and shirt, all of these being white in color. All of these compared with the Akita known standard.

MS. CLARK: What is the distinction if any, sir, between your ability to compare microscopically fur hairs and guard hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the best hairs to compare are guard hairs because they often give more color variation. They're also larger hairs to work with. The fur hairs have a little less value. However, when used together, they increase the significance of the identification.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, the finding of those hairs consistent with those of Kato the dog around the--in the area of the items found at the crime scene at Bundy, what if anything does that indicate to you with respect to the access of that dog to that location?

MR. DEEDRICK: It wouldn't surprise me to find dog hairs on the items from the crime scene area if that's where the dog spends a lot of time, because the dog is going to shed hairs as well.

MS. CLARK: Now, you also found dog hair consistent with that of Kato the dog on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: How many?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'd have to check on that, if I could, please.

MS. CLARK: Please. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: I have no specific counts. There were several hairs that were recovered from the Rockingham glove.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And in your experience, when you say several, what do you mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Three or four hairs.

MS. CLARK: Now, those were fur hairs, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: So what is the--what is the strength of your conclusion concerning the fact that the hairs you found on the Rockingham glove were consistent with those of Kato the dog?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well--

MR. BAILEY: Objection, your Honor. That's for the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: The conclusion is that the hairs could have originated from the dog. They exhibited the same microscopic characteristics.

MS. CLARK: And did you cause a--did you create a board to depict some of the comparisons that you made between the known exemplars from Nicole's dog Kato and the hairs recovered from the evidence that would be the Rockingham and Bundy gloves?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: These were not the only areas where you found those hairs, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were a number of other hairs that I didn't photograph.

MS. CLARK: And you've already indicated to us where those were found. Those would be items found at the Bundy crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Most of the hairs were from items from the crime scene. That's correct.

MS. CLARK: I have a board here, your Honor, entitled dog hair comparisons, ask that it be marked 47--

THE COURT: 8.

MS. CLARK: --8. Thank you.

THE COURT: Excuse me. 479.

MS. CLARK: 479.

(Peo's 479 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: Would you step down, sir, please, and describe for the jury what you have attempted to depict in these photographs?

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: All right. The known hair sample from Kato the Akita is up on the top. You can see differences right off in diameter of the hair and also some of the microscopic characteristics (Indicating). Hairs that are found on dog I mentioned could be fur hairs. It could also be the larger guard hairs. Dogs also have hairs that are intermediate. They go somewhere in-between in size and microscopic characteristics and they're termed intermediate hairs. This one may be leaning towards intermediate because it's a little bit larger. All same magnification, about 250 times. The medulla on fur hairs often may take on this characteristic, just broken up a little bit, as opposed to larger hairs which may have a continuous medulla. Quite a bit difference here in the diameter of it.

MS. CLARK: For the record, when the witness said the broken-up medulla, he was referring to the photograph in the upper left labeled K54, and then as opposed to this or this, and he gestured to the two photographs to the right of that also labeled K54 on this diagram.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DEEDRICK: The bottom photographs, the three photographs represent the glove recovered at Rockingham, both the finer fur hair as well as a hair that is a little bit larger in diameter and still probably a fur hair. These would be represented by photographs labeled Q1 and Q3C. The other photograph, Q7B is a guard hair that was recovered from the Bundy glove. And it was compared you see here with the photograph above it, which is K54.

MS. CLARK: Sir, with respect to the hairs you found on the Rockingham glove consistent with Kato the dog, you indicated that you found three or four? You wrote several in your report, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Is the finding of such hairs on the Rockingham glove accounted for by possible contact between the wearer of that glove, the murderer, and Kato the dog either during or immediately after the murders?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could have. It could have been a direct transfer from the dog, or as I stated before, an indirect transfer from hairs at the crime scene.

MS. CLARK: That were say where?

MR. DEEDRICK: On the ground maybe. Would have to have been on the ground.

MS. CLARK: Have to have been on the ground?

MR. DEEDRICK: Or perhaps from one of the victims who had been on the ground and collected the hairs.

MS. CLARK: All right. May I reveal the results on the hair and trace summary board, People's 475, for Kato the dog, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Could you examine that result board thus far, Mr. Deedrick, and tell us whether or not they accurately reflect your conclusions in this case.

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct. It's fine.

MS. CLARK: And for the record, your Honor, we are now showing the photograph of Nicole's dog Kato, People's--

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, we object to the term--

MS. CLARK: --48.

MR. BAILEY: --"Nicole's dog." It's not Nicole's dog.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Sir, did you examine--in your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence in this case, did you find any hairs that were not of Caucasian origin?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And of what origin were they?

MR. DEEDRICK: From a black individual.

MS. CLARK: Were they head hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. And limb hairs.

MS. CLARK: And by limb hairs, you mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Arm or leg.

MS. CLARK: And where did you find those head and limb hairs? From which items of evidence were they collected?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the head hairs were identified as coming from a cap, from a Bronco, a knit hat that was recovered from the crime scene, Ronald Goldman's shirt, and those were the items.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And where was it that you found limb hairs, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been the Rockingham glove and Ronald Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: And these limb hairs were also the origin of a black person?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you examine hairs collected from a cap found in the Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: People's 439, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Now, what kind of hairs did you find collected from this cap, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were two head hairs that appeared to be naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: And what condition were they in?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they appeared--some of them had chew marks present on them. They look like normal head hairs, naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: And what does that mean, "Chew marks"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, hairs that may lay around for a while. In vehicles, it's not uncommon to see hairs that have been chewed on by either a beetle or some other insect. They take awhile to chew through them. So when we got to them, it just looks like a bite mark's been taken out of them.

MS. CLARK: And that's not uncommon to find?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it just--it indicates that the hair may have been laying around for a period of time as opposed to recently shed.

MS. CLARK: And did you compare the hairs recovered from this Bronco cap to the known exemplars taken from the head of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what results did you obtain?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics, and accordingly could have originated from the Defendant.

MS. CLARK: So you found hairs consistent with those of the Defendant in a cap found in his car. Was that a big surprise?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that's his hat, it's not a surprise to me.

MR. BAILEY: Object to what--

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right. You also indicated that you found hairs on the blue knit cap found at the crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did. Yes.

MS. CLARK: People's 56-I, your Honor, previously marked.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Tell us what you found on the--in the evidence collected from the blue knit cap that's shown on the screen right now, People's 56-I?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, from the knit hat, there were a number of hairs that were removed either by Susan Brockbank, who was the original examiner on the case, or by me.

MS. CLARK: You personally removed some collected evidence from this cap yourself?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes. The hairs were removed from the inside and from the outside. Shall I specify or do you want just a total number or how would you like it?

MS. CLARK: Let's start with the total number and then we'll break it down. First of all, did you compare the hairs recovered from that cap to those of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: These particular hairs you're referring to, yes. I compared all of the hairs that were suitable for comparison from the hat with a known sample that was submitted from the Defendant, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And of the hairs recovered from the cap, you indicated already that you found hairs of the Defendant that had the same microscopic characteristics. Can you tell us first of all how many overall head hairs did you find that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics in that cap as the Defendant's hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were 12, 12 hairs.

MS. CLARK: All right. Can you describe for us some of the microscopic characteristics that you compared between the questioned hairs recovered from that blue knit cap to the Defendant's hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: I could read you some of my notes if that would make any sense. Okay. Thanks.

MS. CLARK: I hope it will.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. The known sample from the Defendant consisted of numerous dark brown head hairs with roots. Most of the hairs were under one inch in length. The cuticle on the hair was medium thick. And again, some of these distinctions of medium, thin and thick are just arbitrary based on how I saw them and how I perceived them. The inner definition of the cuticle was fair to poor. So sometimes you could see the definition, sometimes you couldn't. It was clear there's no apparent color. The scale protrusion was slight. They exhibited blunt tips, an elongate pigment. The pigment granules were somewhat elongate. The clumping was not present in a lot of the hairs, and that's a characteristic, as I mentioned before, of black individuals.

MS. CLARK: You said "Clumping"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Clumping of the pigment, yes. Some black individuals have heavy clumping. There's don't. And in some hairs within a sample, some may be more clumpier than others. So--the pigment granules were a medium size. The streaking was a very com--prominent characteristic, streak in the sense that the pigment granules line themselves up in rows and it appears that you have streaks within the cortex. Some of the hairs indicated a coarseness of the cellular material in the middle of the hair. Some of the hairs were patchy, probably the most prominent characteristic of the hair sample 2, 2 being the color, being the lighter brown coloration and one-sided pigmentation, which was a very prominent characteristic.

MS. CLARK: What do you mean by that, a very prominent characteristic?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, some hairs come distinctive as to how the pigment granules arrange themselves in the hair. In some individuals--and again, it may not depend necessarily on race--that the pigment granules will find themselves more to one side of the hair than the other. So that when you look at them microscopically, it just looks darker on one side of the hair. The ovoid bodies that were present were small and not very many. Cortical fusi were sparse and most of them were located down near the proximal end or nearest to where the root is, and that in itself is not necessarily significant. The medulla was absent to trace, and I mentioned before, the brownish--reddish brown coloration in the known sample. And that's how I described them.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now those characteristics that you've just listed off to us, those were notes that you took as to the known standard recovered from the Defendant's head by Susan Brockbank, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was my observations as I examined the known standard of hairs of the Defendant under the microscope.

MS. CLARK: Did you see those same characteristics in the hairs that were recovered from the blue knit ski cap which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant?

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

MS. CLARK: Now, those hairs that you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant, were they naturally shed or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were either naturally shed or they didn't have a root.

MS. CLARK: Okay. What does that mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it just means that they--as I mentioned before, that black hairs often will break. They tend to be a little more brittle and the cross-sectional shape is somewhat more flattened. It's not uncommon to see hair fragments in that racial group.

MS. CLARK: And when you said hair fragments, well, you also found hair fragments of Ron Goldman in the evidence, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And were all of the hairs that were consistent with those of the Defendant fragments or were any full length?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. There were a number of hairs that were full length; that is, they had a root as if they were naturally shed hairs.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you also find hairs of black origin that did not match those, that were not consistent with those of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And where were they found?

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, I'd have to refer to my notes to be specific on that.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: And again, they would have been on the knit hat either from the interior--and again, from the interior I believe most of those were. My--the slides that were prepared by Susan Brockbank included our Q9 through Q19. Q9 through Q14 were from the interior of the hat and there were apparently treated black head hairs found on several of the items as well as other head hairs, other black head hairs that did not exhibit the same characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, the hairs that were found inside the cap that were not consistent with those of the Defendant, were they full length or were they fragments?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. They were fragments.

MS. CLARK: And how many of those fragments were there?

MR. DEEDRICK: Can I refer to another set of notes?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: There were six.

MS. CLARK: Six? Maybe I'm wrong, sir. I took notes from your notes, and I counted--based on your notes, I counted seven. Can you tell--

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Excuse me, guys. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Did you just count them, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: You could be right. I mean, I counted six in the first batch. I can recheck if you want, if it makes a difference if there's six or seven.

MS. CLARK: All right. Let's assume--let's assume for now--well, maybe I can't do that. Go ahead and look. I was going to say assume there's seven. But go ahead and look, sir.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'm still coming up with six.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Six it is. In any case, six fragments inside the cap. And you indicated some were treated?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Some were treated.

MS. CLARK: Now, the conclusions that you drew concerning those six fragments inside the cap, were those based on your comparison of them with the known hair standard given you from the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Do you know how long those six fragments could have been on that ski cap?

MR. BAILEY: Well, I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I have no idea.

MS. CLARK: Do a person's hair characteristics change over time?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they do.

MS. CLARK: In what way?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, many ways, depending on what they do to their hair, what type of environment they're exposed to, how much sunlight they get, if they treat their hair. There's just a lot of different things that could happen to hair besides the natural effects of age also.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So you don't--you can not tell us at this time whether those six fragments found inside the cap could have been hairs deposited by the Defendant five, six, seven years ago?

MR. BAILEY: Object. It's speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: No. As I said, there's no way to say how long those hairs have been in that location on that item.

MS. CLARK: Is it uncommon in your experience--is it uncommon in your experience, sir, in examining clothing to find hairs that are not consistent with the hairs of the owner or wearer of that clothing?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: It's not uncommon. I mean, it's not uncommon to find hairs on one's clothing that's submitted for examination that do not exhibit the same characteristics as that person's hairs.

MS. CLARK: And that's because?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that's why I look at the stuff in the first place. If two people had physical contact, I look at the clothing to see if there's anything on the clothing of one individual, say, the victim that doesn't look like the victim's hairs. If it doesn't look like the victim's hairs, then who could it be from? Possibly a suspect? Possibly. And that's why I do it.

MS. CLARK: Now, the only hairs on that cap that did not match the known sample of the Defendant is the fragments that--the six fragments that you described?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And all the naturally shed hairs with roots from that cap were consistent with those hairs from the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were.

MS. CLARK: Did you also ask for known hair samples from African American police and lab personnel in order to compare their hairs to those fragments that you found of black origin inside the ski cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And that was--were those hairs depicted on the elimination standards board we saw earlier?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they were.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: People's 478.

MS. CLARK: Can you please point out to us, sir, on this board which of the photographs depict hairs of the African American lab and crime scene personnel?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sandra Claiborne, Gene Braggs, Claudine Ratcliffe, Don Thompson. I believe those were the individuals (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir.

MS. CLARK: And for the record, he was gesturing to the photographs that bear those names on People's 478, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And none of the individuals that you've described whose samples are depicted by a photograph on this board had hair that was consistent with the six fragments you found inside the ski cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. The hairs that were recovered from the knit cat could not have originated from these individuals.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, did you find--sir, did you find any Caucasian head hairs collected from that blue knit ski cap that were inconsistent with the known hair standards of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were two hairs that were recovered from my Q15 which was from the outside of the hat which was a died head hair fragment exhibiting Caucasian characteristics and from Q19, which again from the outside of the cap, there was a light brown Caucasian head hair which was broken at the proximal end, it had treatment on the hair at the distal end, is about three inches long and it was not like--not like the victims.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to all of the hair evidence that we are discussing today, sir, that was recovered from the evidence in this case, can you tell us when the hairs were--that you compared were deposited on those items of evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: You're asking about all the hairs?

MS. CLARK: In general. In general. For example, let me ask you this to make it a little easier. The hairs recovered from the blue knit ski cap, can you tell us when any of those hairs were deposited on that item?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I can not.

MS. CLARK: And with respect to the hairs found on the Rockingham and Bundy gloves, can you tell us when those hairs that you compared to the known hair standards in this case were deposited on those items of evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: There's no way to look at the hairs and make that determination. However, from a persistent standpoint, it would indicate that they had not been there long.

MS. CLARK: And what do you mean by a persistent standpoint, sir, and why do you draw a distinction between those gloves and the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, with regards to a knit cap, it's something that may accumulate hairs over time, and a pair of gloves, the surface of the gloves is not conducive to retaining hairs for any length of time so that--so that they would tend to lose hairs very easily unless there might be some blood or some other material that's present on the surface of the gloves to cause the hairs to stick or to adhere. So some items would more likely lose hairs, they wouldn't keep them very long. Some items tend to hold on to hairs a little bit longer such as a knit hat would tend to hold on to things longer.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to the hairs that you looked at on the Rockingham and Bundy gloves, did any of them have a bloody appearance to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: I'd have to check on that to be sure.

MS. CLARK: Well, why don't we come back to that.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Or would you rather check now?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if you can wait, I'll check.

MS. CLARK: I'll wait.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: On--

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DEEDRICK: Shall I speak when I find the hairs?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you. All right. On Q1, which was the Rockingham glove, there was blood on the surface of the--apparent blood present on the surface of the hair that were consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: That was the only thing reflected in the notes.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. All right. Now, getting back to those 12 hairs on the blue knit cap that you indicated exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant, did you have photographs taken of some of the hairs--a representative sampling of the hairs from that ski cap that you determined were consistent with those of the known standard of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: Most of the individual hairs were photographed I believe except for one of the hairs that I removed from the knit hat myself. So there should be--should be about 12 pictures.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Is that People's 480?

MS. CLARK: 480, your Honor.

THE COURT: 480.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

(Peo's 480 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. You indicated earlier that some of the hairs that you found to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant came from inside the hat and some came from outside the hat?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: If you would, sir, please indicate on each of the photos now in 480 being shown to the jury which of those hairs was found inside and which was found outside.

MR. DEEDRICK: Q8A, which is on the lower left-hand portion of the chart, was from the inside, all of these first four pictures on the bottom (Indicating). On 8C, I'm not sure where 8C came from, inside or outside. It was unclear.

MS. CLARK: Because?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was no indication to me. It may have been from the bag. So there's no way to know. And that's the photograph on the lower right-hand portion of the exhibit.

MS. CLARK: So Q8A--

MS. CLARK: And for the record, your Honor, we're referring to the bottom row of photographs so labeled.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So for Q8A, those were all inside?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There were four head hairs and two of these were naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: What can you tell us about the appearance of those four hairs, sir, Q8A found inside the knit ski cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there was some range, as you can plainly see, from much coarser hair, again pointing out that one-sided pigmentation that I mentioned previously (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: And with respect to the--let me describe the position on the photograph, on the diagram.

MS. CLARK: The photograph pointed to by Mr. Deedrick at this point was the fourth photograph from the left, bottom row.

MR. DEEDRICK: And also, we had some of the finer hairs. The finer hairs that were represented in the known standard of the Defendant were found in this particular item, Q8A, which would be the first--first three photographs on the lower portion of the chart.

MS. CLARK: And could you tell us, sir, did any of those hairs, of those four hairs in Q8A have roots?

MR. DEEDRICK: Two of them did. There were two naturally shed hairs off of Q8A.

MS. CLARK: Did any of those hairs have a bloody appearance?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could I refer to my notes?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. There was indication of possible blood on the surface of the two hairs that indicated that they had fallen out naturally, Q8A.

MS. CLARK: And when you say indicated they had fallen out naturally, were those the ones that had roots?

MR. DEEDRICK: They're the ones that had roots, right.

MS. CLARK: Now, Q8C, which is also depicted at the last photograph as you face from left to right, was that hair recovered from the bag containing the hat?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was--yes, from the bag.

MS. CLARK: And was that a hair with a root or a hair fragment?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was a fragment.

MS. CLARK: Now, if you could, sir, please explain, describe--are there any other characteristics that you have not pointed out that you would like to point out to the jury that cause you to come to the conclusion that they exhibited--the Defendant's hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those recovered from the blue knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I've gone over a little bit of the process involved in trying to determine if a questioned hair originated from an individual. And one of the ways to do that when you have multiple hairs is to look at the range of the questioned hairs and see if the same range is exhibited by the known hairs. And if you can look at the known hair samples that were photographed on the upper portion of the chart, I chose hairs that exhibited a similar appearance as to the characteristics that that hair exhibited, whether it was coarse and dark with one-sided pigmentation, whether it was lighter with one-sided pigmentation or if it was fine and exhibited the same coloration and diameter and internal characteristics. And again, we're looking at just a very small portion of both questioned hair and known hair.

MS. CLARK: When you say, "We're looking at just a small portion," you mean that's what the jury is seeing right now. You saw more?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the comparison that I do involves the entire hair, and I chose a portion of the hair to demonstrate the association.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, sir.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Would it be all right, your Honor, if we showed the board to the corners of the jury, because I don't think they're getting as good a view. Thank you.

(The exhibit board was viewed by the jury.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, gentlemen.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: People's 481, your Honor?

THE COURT: People's 481.

(Peo's 481 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: All right. Mr. Deedrick, if you wouldn't mind stepping down to explain to the jury what's depicted in these photographs. You indicated I think we've seen some of the hairs recovered from the inside of the cap which you determined to be consistent with those of the Defendant. And do these--what do these photographs depict?

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these are additional hairs taken from Q10 on the lower left, Q13, which is the second photograph on the bottom, Q14, third photograph, Q18 and 47.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, which of these photographs depict hairs recovered from the inside of the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, Q47 came from the inside, which was one of the hairs that I removed. I'm sorry. What was the first number down there?

MS. CLARK: Q10?

MR. DEEDRICK: Q10 was from the interior. Q13 was from the interior. Q14 was from the interior. Q18 was from the exterior.

MS. CLARK: All right. Q23?

MR. DEEDRICK: Q23 came from Ronald Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: All right. So of the hairs from the blue knit cap, Q10, 13 and 14 were--and Q47 were all hairs recovered from the inside of the knit cap that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And Q18 was from the exterior of the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe for us, sir--you said you recovered Q47 yourself?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were two hairs from Q47, and I removed--I photographed one of the hairs.

MS. CLARK: We see that one that you photographed here on the board?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Those two hairs that you found that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant that you labeled Q47, can you describe where they were in the hat when you found them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were actually part of the fabric. After turning the hat inside out looking at the hat very closely under magnification, had to actually pull the hairs out from the arms. It happens sometimes if the hairs have been in there for a period of time, that they tend to become actually part of the fabric. It's very difficult to see because the hat was dark.

MS. CLARK: And what--what kind of hairs were they? Were they fragment hairs, forcibly removed? Describe--

MR. DEEDRICK: They were naturally shed hairs.

MS. CLARK: Which means that--

MR. DEEDRICK: They had a root.

MS. CLARK: Both of them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Both of them.

MS. CLARK: So how many hairs total that you found to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant were found inside the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. From the inside of the knit cap, there were four hairs off of Q8A, one from Q10, that's five, Q13 makes six, Q14 makes seven. There were seven.

MS. CLARK: What about Q47?

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry. Made nine. You're right. Apologize.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Q8C that we indicated came from the bag containing the cap, could that have come from the inside?

MR. DEEDRICK: It could have. I he don't know where it came from.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So nine, possibly 10 hairs found inside the knit cap exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those hairs of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: What about on the outside of the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, on the outside, there was a full-length hair with a root, which was Q8B1 and also Q18.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe for us, sir, the condition of those two hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant that you found on the outside of the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the one on Q18 was just a fragment. It was a portion of a hair, head hair, and on Q8B1, it had--it had a root and also had what appeared to be a little tag on it.

MS. CLARK: What's a tag?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a tag is a little extension of the root that is sometimes confused with follicular tissue. Follicular tissue is part of the skin where the hair is actually attached. It's more--it's a harder substance. Just forms a little extension and we call it tags.

MS. CLARK: Well, wouldn't the existence of that tag indicate that the hair had been pulled out?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: With respect to whether or not the hair was forcibly removed or naturally shed, does the existence of that tag from the hair follicle have any significance in that determination?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: So the existence of that tag does not indicate necessarily that hair was forcibly removed or not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Does not indicate that, no.

MS. CLARK: What does it indicate?

MR. DEEDRICK: Indicates it has a tag.

MS. CLARK: All right. We talked before about the--why don't you take a seat for a minute, sir, and I'll put this down.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: We were talking earlier I believe about primary and secondary transfer. Do you recall that, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you have an opinion, sir, concerning whether or not the hairs inside the blue knit cap that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant were deposited there by means of primary transfer, that is wearing the cap, or secondary transfer, picking it up from somewhere else?

MR. BAILEY: Object. Speculate.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Sir, does the existence of--in a general sense, do the--does the presence of a number of hairs in a certain position on an item of clothing have significance to you with respect to whether or not it is--the hairs got there by primary or secondary transfer?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, on the--on the inside of undershorts, I might think that that's probably a primary transfer.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: On the inside of a hat, I would also expect to see logically a primary transfer.

MS. CLARK: Then in that regard, sir, with respect to the nine or 10 hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant inside the knit cap, do you have an opinion as to whether--how those hairs got there, by primary or secondary transfer?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Because hats are worn on the head, as we all know, and in combining that with the transfer or loss of hair, it's certainly consistent and reasonable to believe that their presence indicates that they came from a wearer of the hat, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that you also found a hair on the shirt of Ron Goldman.

MS. CLARK: Could we cut the feed, please, your Honor? People's 43F.

MS. CLARK: Do you know where on the shirt that that hair was recovered?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do not.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe the hair that you found that was recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was a very short head hair fragment.

MS. CLARK: Was it suitable for comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: I thought so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you cause a photograph to be taken of that hair that was recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did and was part of the last exhibit.

MS. CLARK: I think you indicated before and is so labeled, Q23?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Can you please point that out, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Be glad to. The photograph on the lower right-hand portion of the chart second from the right labeled as Q23 (Indicating), hair from Goldman's shirt, and that's a photograph, again, about 250 times magnification of that hair.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated earlier there was an elimination standard board in which you indicated there was hair of African American lab and crime scene police personnel whose hair was taken for purposes of comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: Did you compare their hairs to this--to this Q23 hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: I compared all of the questioned hairs with all of the elimination hairs. It included Q23.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: That elimination head hair samples board was previously marked as People's--

THE COURT: 478.

MS. CLARK: 478. Thank you. Your Honor.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you compared then the hairs of Sandra Claiborne, Gene Braggs and Claudine Ratcliffe and Don Thompson as shown on that board to the hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt which you labeled on People's 481 Q23?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And what was your opinion concerning whether or not any of their hairs were consistent with the Q23 hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: The questioned hair recovered from Ronald Goldman's shirt, Q23, could not have originated from these individuals.

MS. CLARK: And on what do you base that opinion, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Based upon a comparison of the microscopic characteristics that were exhibited by the known standards and the questioned hair.

MS. CLARK: Well, can you explain, sir, why you concluded that Sandra Claiborne's hair as depicted on People's 478 could not have been the source of the Q23 hair on People's 481?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, besides the fact that the photographs look different, I--again, I didn't base it solely on this. I looked at the entire hair and the characteristics of the entire sample.

MS. CLARK: Are there some--

MR. DEEDRICK: It's much darker--it's much darker in pigmentation and it's quite a bit larger.

MS. CLARK: Larger?

MR. DEEDRICK: In diameter.

MS. CLARK: Thicker?

MR. DEEDRICK: Thicker than most of the hairs that I was seeing.

MS. CLARK: Is that a characteristics that you also compare, sir, thickness?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: What about the hair of Gene Braggs? Does that look--can you explain to us why you ruled out Gene Braggs as a possible source of the hair found that you labeled Q23?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could I step down?

MS. CLARK: Please. I'm sorry.

MR. DEEDRICK: Thanks. Okay. With Gene Braggs, one of the characteristics I mentioned before was pigment clumping. You see prominent pigment clumping or patching a couple different areas, also some streakiness of the tissue that's found in the very center of the hair. So just an area that represented some of the characteristics that were present in Gene Braggs' head hair standard. Again, the comparison is not by photograph. It's an overall process, the curl of the hair, the buckling that appears in the hair shaft, the diameter, thickness of the hair, the appearance of the tip, the appearance of the root, all of these things are thrown into this comparison process besides this--this 250 magnification piece of a hair, which is quite small.

MS. CLARK: Did you have any further remarks to make about the distinctions you drew between Sandra Claiborne's hair and the Q23 hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there is a little buckle here--I don't know if you saw that--this little indentation. With black individuals, the hair shaft may tend to twist on itself a little bit and it's called buckling. Just a characteristic that is found within that group of individuals. The one-sided pigmentation you don't quite see. It wasn't present on all of the Defendant's hairs, but it was a prominent characteristic. But again, it did not exhibit the same characteristics as the Defendant's hairs.

MS. CLARK: Or the Q23 hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Or Q23.

MS. CLARK: Now--you can have a seat for a moment, sir.

(The witness complies.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Referring you back, sir, to People's exhibit 475--it's an atlas of the photograph that you brought from the FBI depicting 16 different individuals of black origin--you indicated, sir, that you prepared this in order to show us, demonstrate for us the variation that you can find.

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Well, it would appear that the lower--let me see if I can count it down. At the bottom row as I face it from left to right, it would appear that the third one to the right looks just like the photographs that you prepared of the known samples of the Defendant and the photographs of the evidence--some of the evidence hairs that were recovered from the blue knit cap.

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is hair from the Defendant. I included that in the exhibit.

MS. CLARK: Can you please point out to the jury the hair exactly that you're referring to and that I've referred to?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. The hair on the lower right-hand portion, third hair photograph from the left-hand side. That was a known sample of hair from the Defendant's hair sampling (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: What was our exhibit number on that, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: 475, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, your Honor. The 16 individuals board was 464.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Can we now show this board, your Honor?

(The exhibit board was shown to the jury.)

THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen.

MS. CLARK: May I?

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, is your finding--

MS. CLARK: Oh, if I may reveal the results on the results board pertaining to Defendant.

MS. CLARK: Is your finding, sir, of a head hair that exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as those found in the Defendant's hair, would you say that that was consistent with the Defendant having had some physical contact with Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: I object. That's speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's a vague question.

MS. CLARK: You earlier spoke to us about primary, secondary transfer of hairs. When individuals have contact through a violent struggle, have you in your past experience found the hairs of the attacker on the clothing of the victim?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Irrelevant, past experience speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I have. That's why--that's why I look at clothing from victims of crime.

MS. CLARK: And is your finding of a head hair consistent with the hairs of those of the Defendant on Ronald Goldman's shirt consistent with the Defendant having attacked Ronald Goldman on the night of June the 12th?

MR. BAILEY: Object. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Is it consistent with the Defendant having had contact with Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Is the finding of a head hair on the shirt of Ronald Goldman consistent with those hairs of the Defendant consistent with a primary transfer from the head--

MR. BAILEY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --of the Defendant to the shirt of Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: Probably more so towards secondary type transfer as opposed to primary.

MS. CLARK: Please explain.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a primary transfer would best be demonstrated by hair that's been forcibly removed that has a root that indicates it may have come out during a struggle. That's probably the best way to do that, to make that determination. A hair fragment on the other hand would more likely be found on the exterior clothing of an individual and to have been transferred in that way. That would be more--what I would think would be more likely explanation as a secondary transfer as opposed to primary.

MS. CLARK: And you indicated to us earlier, sir, that it's very common to find the hairs of a person on his own clothing.

MR. DEEDRICK: It's very common, yes.

MS. CLARK: Then would the finding of the hair fragment that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant on Ron Goldman's shirt be consistent with the Defendant having grabbed Ron Goldman from behind, wrapping his left arm around him in an effort to stab him with the right hand in which his clothing would come into contact with the shirt of Ron Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right. Could--would you expect to find hairs from an attacker on clothing of the victim if there was no bodily physical contact between them?

MR. BAILEY: Object and ask for a sidebar.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I wouldn't expect to find anything if there was no physical contact. It's possible that hairs may be blown off of clothing, but that would more likely--it's more reasonable to believe that the actual physical contact results in the transfer, especially of hairs.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, before we take our recess for the day, I just wanted to take this opportunity to call to your attention Miss Jennifer Fitzpatrick who is back in the back there. She's been the operator of our whizbang--what we call the whizbang system. This is our fancy media system. And as you know, so far this trial in over five months or six months, we've only had one foul-up, and that was when the power died, and that wasn't her fault. And she is going to be returning to her law firm of Doiche, Kerrigan and Stiles in the Big Easy. She's from New Orleans, and she will be returning there. And Miss Fitzpatrick, I want to on behalf of the parties in the Court thank you for your service.

(Applause.)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen--Mr. Deedrick, you can step down. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't get burned by any fireworks, don't let anybody communicate with you. Have a nice holiday weekend. All right. We'll stand in recess--counsel, we have some other--I have some other matters to attend to Monday morning. We'll stand in recess until--excuse me--Wednesday morning 10:30. All right. Thank you, counsel.

(At 12:05 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, July 5, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) no. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Friday, June 30, 1995

Volume 179 pages 34866 through 34990, inclusive

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

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

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

I N D E X

Index for volume 179 pages 34866 - 34990

Day date session page vol.

Friday June 30, 1995 A.M. 34866 179

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

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

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

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Deedrick, 179 Douglas W. (Resumed) 34884C

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Deedrick, 179 Douglas W. (Resumed) 34884C

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

EXHIBITS

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

475 - Posterboard 34901 178 entitled "Hair and trace summary"

476 - Posterboard 34904 178 entitled "Known head hairs from Nicole Brown Simpson"

477 - Posterboard 34918 178 entitled "Known head hairs from Ronald Goldman"

478 - Posterboard 34923 178 entitled "Elimination head hair samples"

479 - Posterboard 34947 178 entitled "Dog hair comparison"

480 - Posterboard 34967 178 entitled "Known head hairs from O.J. Simpson"

481 - Posterboard 34972 178 entitled "Known head hairs from O.J. Simpson"