PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 13, 1996 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Morning. JUROR: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. You may resume. MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor. THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you please state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Douglas W. Deedrick. DOUGLAS W. DEEDRICK, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on Tuesday, November 12, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Agent Deedrick, yesterday we were speaking about hairs, in particular Mr. Simpson's hairs, that you said you matched between the known sample and hairs found on Mr. Goldman's shirt and on the Bundy hat. Did you have occasion to examine any head hairs found on a head band and two caps found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom at 360 North Rockingham? A. I did, yes. Q. And what was the nature of your examination? A. To examine for the presence of hairs, and also for fibers. Q. And did you examine -- did you find any hairs on the head band? A. Yes, I did. Q. Any hairs on each cap? A. Right; there were head hairs on each cap. Q. And did you make a determination whether those head hairs matched the known sample of Mr. Simpson's and the head hairs you identified as matching Mr. Simpson's head hairs found on Mr. Goldman's shirt and on the Bundy hat? A. Yes. I did a comparison and I compared all of them. Q. What did you find? A. All the hairs from known standards, the question hairs, from the caps, from the bedroom, was also a cap from the Bronco, and the hairs from the crime-scene items, all exhibited the same characteristics. Q. Now, yesterday we spoke about hairs. And basically today I want to move to fibers, if we can. Can you tell us generally what a fiber is? A. Well, in general, the simplest definition is the smallest portion of a fabric. It's the smallest piece, smallest element that makes up a fabric. Q. And did you examine certain fiber evidence in connection with this matter? A. I did, yes. Q. And do you examine fibers in the same way you examine hair? A. Well, pretty much so. It's a microscopic examination, first to identify a comparison microscope to compare question fibers and known fibers, but there are additional tests that are used with textile fibers to confirm identifications. I mentioned them yesterday. I believe we use polarized light, microscopic -- little bit different, because we don't use them with hairs; we use FTIR, which is infrared spectroscopy techniques, micro spectrometry. To detect color, we use fluorescents, another microscope that allows you to look at fibers under fluorescents. There are additional techniques or additional tools that are used with fiber identifications and comparisons that are not used with hair examinations. Q. Now, yesterday, we were discussing Mr. Goldman's shirt and certain hairs you found on that shirt that matched the known samples of certain individuals. Did you find any fibers on Mr. Goldman's shirt that you analyzed to see if they matched fibers found on any of the items of the chart 2169 that you started for us yesterday? A. I did, yes. Q. And what did you find in that regard? A. Well, the shirt was made of cotton, couple different colors. The pants were blue cotton; they were blue jeans. These known samples from his question -- his question items, his clothing were compared with items that were recovered from items that are on the board. And I reached the conclusion regarding those, and that included the Bundy glove, the Bundy hat and the Rockingham glove. All had fibers on them that matched up with the fibers from Ron Goldman's clothing. Q. Would you be good enough to put that on the chart, (Witness marks on Exhibit 2169.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you have occasion to prepare a chart depicting the microscopic characteristics of the fibers that you found on the items of evidence that you say matched those on Ron Goldman's clothing? A. I did, yes. (Counsel displays item marked Known Cotton Fibers From Ron Goldman's shirt, Number 527.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I've put on the easel what's been marked as 527. (The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Known Cotton Fibers From Ron Goldman's Shirt was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 527.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And I ask you if you prepared that chart? A. I did. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, may I? THE COURT: (Nods affirmatively.) (Mr. Leonard relocates his position in the courtroom.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you take the photographs on the chart? A. I did. Q. Could you explain to the jury what the chart depicts? A. Well, the photographs at the top are the known cotton fibers from his shirt. I mentioned they were brown, as well as a white. The bottom six photographs represent fibers that were recovered from the items, as indicated on the board: Right glove, left glove -- the left glove was the Bundy glove -- and the knit hat. Q. Are off-white cotton fibers fairly common? A. Very common. Q. If they're common, could you tell us, as a hair examiner, what significance, if any, is your finding that Mr. Goldman's shirt fibers were found on the three items that you indicated, the Bundy glove the Bundy hat and the Rockingham glove? A. Well, it shows a link. It shows an association between these items and the victim by clothing. The presence of the reddish substance or blood, also, I believe is a helpful indicator. You have to constantly remember that white cotton fibers are common. And I can really say no more than the fact that they do link those items. Q. Did you find what appeared to be any substance on any of the fibers? A. Right. It appears to be blood. Q. And on which -- which particular pictures? A. Well, all of the question fibers, all of the question photographs at the bottom, all six. Q. Did you find any other fibers on Mr. Goldman's shirt? A. Well, there are blue-jean fibers -- I didn't photograph them -- here that were also found on some of the questioned items, as well. I believe all three of the question items that the white cotton fibers were found -- and blue-jean cotton fibers are also common fibers. (Counsel displays Exhibit 2169.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you find any other fibers on Mr. Goldman's shirt that you found matched any of the other items on the board, 2169? MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm just going to object because I think that misstates his testimony. I don't believe he found -- personally found any fibers on Mr. Goldman. THE COURT: Restate it. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you examine any other fibers that you understood came from Mr. Goldman's shirt that matched any of the other items identified on Exhibit 2169? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for hearsay and/or speculation; lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. Previous foundation having been laid by previous witness Brockbank, I believe. MR. MEDVENE: You may answer. THE WITNESS: Yeah. There were a couple other fiber types that were found on the shirt that you're -- that would be represented on the board. A cashmere fiber, as well as some blue-black cotton fibers. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Let's talk first about the cashmere fiber. Did you compare the cashmere fiber on Mr. Goldman's shirt with any of the other fibers that you found on items on the chart 2169? A. There was another cashmere fiber found on the -- on the Bundy hat. Q. And did you compare those fibers with each other? A. I did. Q. And what was the nature of the comparison? How did you go about doing it? A. Well, the comparison is microscopic. They were natural cashmere fibers of brownish coloration to it because of the pigmentation. And they were alike microscopically, and they -- I compared those with the known standard, essentially. Q. Can you put on the board, then, for us the cashmere fiber from Mr. Goldman's shirt and the fiber you found that matched on the Bundy hat. (The witness complies.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, the cashmere fiber you found, did you examine any fibers from any items on 2169 to see whether or not the cashmere fiber you identified as being on Ronald Goldman's shirt and the Bundy hat was also on any other item at the crime scene? A. Well, they were the linings from the gloves. The linings from both the Rockingham glove and the Bundy glove had cashmere fibers inside. And these question fibers matched up with the linings of the gloves. Q. Now, you mentioned that also on Mr. Goldman's shirt, you found certain blue-black fibers; is that correct? A. That's right. Q. And did you find any blue-black fibers on any other items on the 2169 chart? MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object again. It -- just so it's clear -- MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. I don't think we should have speaking objections. MR. LEONARD: Object to lack of foundation as far as "found." I think that misstates his testimony; same basis as before. I think it should be clear to the jury who found what. THE COURT: Sustained. Lay some foundation as to whether or not this was the one submitted by LAPD. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell us where the blue-black -- where you received the blue-black cotton fibers from? A. Well, all the fibers he's referring to were received in debris packets. They had been processed and supplied to me by the LAPD crime lab, so they came in actual debris packets. Q. Did you, yourself, do some of the scraping on Mr. Goldman's shirt while you were at the LAPD? A. I did, yes. Q. And did you also tell us yesterday that you personally found, at the FBI laboratory in Washington, certain hairs that were on the Bundy hat of Mr. Simpson? A. That's right; I did. Q. Now, let's go back to the blue-black cotton fiber. Did you find blue-black cotton fibers that, in your opinion, matched the blue-black cotton fibers found on Mr. Goldman's shirt? MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object again. I assume that he did find them in the debris packet. I object. THE COURT: I'm tempted to overrule it because we're just going to make that question longer. But to satisfy you this one instance, make the question longer and lay a groundwork question to ascertain whether or not the comparisons were made from fibers that were removed from whatever source they were removed from, and in whatever form, whether it was this the debris packet or what. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you describe for us the blue-black cotton fibers that you examined and where you received them from. A. The blue-black cotton fibers were, again, as I said, taken from the debris packets from specific items: One, Ron Goldman's shirt; there was a debris packet. The Rockingham glove, there was a debris packet and also socks from Rockingham. Those are, again, all debris packets that I received. From those packets, I removed blue-black cotton fibers and I did a comparison. Q. And did you find a blue-black cotton fiber in the debris packet of material from Ronald Goldman's shirt? A. Yes. Q. Did you -- A. I found a number of those. Q. Did you find blue-black cotton fiber or fibers from the debris packet you examined containing material from the Rockingham glove? A. I did. Q. Did you find blue-black cotton fibers from the debris packet you examined containing material from the Rockingham socks? A. I did, yes. Q. Now, did you then perform an examination to determine whether or not there was a match between the blue-black cotton fibers you found on Mr. Goldman's shirt, the Bundy hat -- excuse me -- blue-black cotton fibers you found on Mr. Goldman's shirt, the Rockingham glove, and the Rockingham socks? A. Right. I did compare the fibers, as I said, that were taken from debris packets from the Rockingham glove, the Rockingham socks and Ronald Goldman's shirt. And I saw no differences between them. They could have originated from the same source. Q. And what method -- what method of examination did you use? A. Well, they were compared visually with comparison microscopes, just like -- similar to what I had told you before about comparing hairs, observing the visible microscopic characteristics as to color, shape and so forth. They were then compared using fluorescents, as well as the color was compared instrumentally. Q. Would you put on the board, please, where you found blue-black cotton fibers with the same microscopic characteristics as those found on Mr. Goldman's shirt. (Witness marks Exhibit 2169.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Incidentally, did you find anything unusual about the blue-black cotton fibers that you've told us about when you examined them? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Just where the bluish coloration was found; it was only found in a band! On the fiber itself. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And was that found on the band of the particular fibers that you examined that, in your opinion, had the same microscopic characteristics? A. All the fibers that I'm telling you here had that same bluish -- it's a royal bluish coloration that made me believe they looked the same microscopically. Q. You find such a band on all blue-black cotton fibers you examine? A. No. Fibers are pretty different, one to the next, depending on the source. Q. When you say "a band," what do you mean, a band? How do you see it and what's it look like? A. Well, it's just change in color along the length. You're following it microscopically, looking at -- actually's see that it goes from black to a royal-bluish coloration, then it goes back to black. Q. Did you prepare a chart depicting the microscopic characteristics of the blue-black cotton fibers that you found on Mr. Goldman's shirt, Mr. Simpson's socks, and the Rockingham glove? A. I did. Q. How many charts did you prepare? A. Well, there would have been two. Q. I'd ask you if you mind coming over to the board and telling us if 531 is one of the charts that you prepared? A. Well, I can see from here that's one of them, yes. Q. Who took the pictures? A. I did. Q. And could you step down and describe for the jury the significance of the pictures and what the pictures show. A. Well, all of these pictures relate this bluish-black cotton fiber that -- or fibers that were recovered from the items as they're listed on the chart. The Rockingham glove, and Goldman shirt, and from the socks over on the right. I believe it's the same in both the first two rows of photographs. The bottom one here, that's just another fiber from the Rockingham glove, 323, that was taken from Goldman, Q23, was taken from Goldman's shirt, as well. There's other debris. When you take a photograph from a slide, you'll pick up background fibers and hairs; and you'll see those on the photographs, as well. Q. Did you find on Q23 at the bottom, anything else belonging to any of the victims in this case? A. Well, it's hairs. (The instrument herein referred to as bluish black cotton fiber association was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 531.) A. (Continuing) This hair -- this would have been one of the hairs that matched up with Nicole Brown. The fibers in the top photographs here -- can't see it too well here -- these are the cashmere fibers. Again the Rockingham glove and the Bundy glove both had cashmere lining; that's what they looked like. Q. You said you prepared an additional chart? A. Right. I did add one other chart that had two photographs of the blue-black cotton fibers. Q. Why did you prepare an additional chart? A. I was running out of room, for one thing, on the board. Q. We've placed on the easel a board that's been marked 532. (The instrument herein referred to as Known cotton fibers form Goldman Jeans; questioned cotton fiber from Goldman shirt was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 532.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell us what that is? A. Well, 532 is a chart that gives you an idea of the differences here in cotton fibers. The blue cotton fibers on the left, they're actually the known fibers from his jeans. Blue jeans are made up of a bluish coloration cotton and a whitish coloration, depending on where you're looking at fibers. Most of them are combination. This one was around the hair that was from Goldman's shirt. That was another one of the fibers that matched up with Nicole Brown Simpson. This is another fiber that was found. I think you can see this bluish coloration in areas. There was blue that showed through. Q. Did you compare the blue-black cotton fibers that you found on Mr. Goldman's shirt, the Rockingham glove, and the Rockingham socks, with any known sample of blue-black clothing? A. No, I did not. I didn't have -- I wasn't supplied any -- either actual items or cuttings. Q. If you don't have a known sample to compare the question sample to, as an experienced hair examiner and fiber examiner, what's the significance of the finding that, in your opinion, that the question fiber on the three different items of evidence match or are similar microscopically? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation; vague; calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, it's significant. It's just another aspect of the work that I do in the laboratory. The basic comparison would be one where you're comparing a known source of fabric with a questioned source. That's pretty straight forward. The other type of work that I would do would be to attempt to link individual objects, individual areas, individual items of clothing found at different areas. I do this all the time by just the material that's on the surface, as that may have gotten there as a result of transfer. And this is something that I do routinely, especially in cases involving serial crime. Where we're looking at debris from different items, from different victims, trying to determine whether or not there's a commonality to them: Were all these victims in the same vehicle? Were all these victims in contact with the same suspect? Did they come in contact with the same types of fibers? So we do that all the time. So this is no different; it's just that we didn't have a known source, and they're found in different locations. And the question is, can they be linked? Is it possible to link those items by some form of evidence? In this particular case, I felt that I did with these cotton fibers. Q. You felt that you did? Why? A. Well, because of the -- matching characteristics of the blue-black cotton fibers. Q. And in your experience, could you tell -- can you tell whether, in your judgment, there had been some recent contact with the same item of clothing that had these blue-black cotton fibers on it that you just described? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague; calls for speculation; lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled, subject to motion to strike. THE WITNESS: The presence of fibers on evidence like this is, it falls in line with what I routinely find in a forensic laboratory; that is, they represent recent physical contact. The fact that you find something on an item of clothing such as trace evidence, hair evidence, or fiber evidence, it's highly suggestive of more recent contact than something that had occurred at some time in the distant past. The reason for this is that fibers have been shown not to persist very long, persist or last; they just don't hang around. The fibers that might be transferred onto a glove or to a shirt are then easily lost within a reasonable time, you know, short time span. They don't stay very long; otherwise, we'd be walking around with a lot of lint from a lot of different contacts that we have. In fact, the washing machine is a good example. Routinely, you're picking up fibers, you're losing fibers as you go through life. And if you stop time at one particular point, the material that's found on that item -- and it's excellent from -- clothing that's from dead people because they don't move, they stop. That relates their most recent contacts; that's why you look at it. MR. LEONARD: Move to strike. THE COURT: Motion denied. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) If a person was wearing two different articles of clothing, would you expect, in your experience, to find, in your experience, from one article of clothing deposited on the other article of clothing? MR. LEONARD: Same objection. THE COURT: You want to try that one again? MR. MEDVENE: Yes. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) In your experience -- you told us yesterday about primary and secondary transfers. If a person is wearing two different articles of clothing, for example pants, socks, is it in your experience it's common for fiber to be transferred from one article of clothing pants, to the socks? MR. LEONARD: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: That would be common; it wouldn't surprise me at all. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is the finding of a blue-black cotton fiber on the socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom consistent with him having worn an item of clothing made of such blue-black cotton fiber at the time he wore the socks? MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation; lack of foundation; vague. THE COURT: Hypothetically. Overruled. THE WITNESS: As a hypothetical, if those were his socks, it would be consistent with that, yes. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Incidentally, could the blue-black cotton fiber found on Mr. Simpson's socks have originated in the socks themselves? In other words, would the socks contain, themselves, a blue-black cotton fiber? A. No, they didn't come from the socks. I analyzed the socks; they're different fibers altogether. Q. Let me move, if I might, to get back to some other fibers that we're talking about. Focusing now on the fibers again, did you find any other fibers than you have described on the Bundy knit hat? A. I did. There were other fibers, yes. Q. Did you find any fibers that appear to be carpet fiber? A. I did, yes. Q. And what color would that be? A. Initially, I called them a rose-beige, appeared to have sort of a pinkish cast to them; they're Trilobal nylon, T-R-I-L-O-B-A-L carpet fibers. And it was found on the -- on the Bundy hat in my processing of the hat. Q. You used the word Trilobal nylon. What is -- what does that mean? A. Carpet fibers are three-dimensional structures. They come in different shapes. This particular fiber has three lobes. And these three lobes may -- again, they may come in different shapes and different forms, depending on who made the fiber, what company made the fiber. I think I had a picture of it, I believe. MR. MEDVENE: Can you put up 530 (sic), please. (The instrument herein referred to as Photo of 92-94 Bronco - 1405 Nylon fiber was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 516.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Does that help better describe it? A. Yes. Q. We put on the TV monitor, 530. I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. Yeah, that's the shape of it. That's the scanning electronic micrograph of the fiber -- of a fiber of that type, shows you the three-dimensional orientation of it. And it has three lobes, and they extend around from a central core. And the particular lobe, as you can see, they expand out. I called it the jack cross-section, initially looked like -- thinking back, when you're playing with jacks. I didn't play with jacks; the girls played with jacks. That's why I called it a jack cross-section. I remember seeing them. Q. That's Exhibit 516. Incidentally, it's on the -- that's on the board. And what is that picture of? What does it say on the board? A. Can I get up and read it? Do you want specifically what it is? Q. Yes. A. I can't read it. Q. Okay. Now, you said that you found certain -- (Exhibit is zoomed in on the TV screen.) MR. LEONARD: Can you read it now? THE WITNESS: It's much clearer now. Excellent. MR. MEDVENE: It is for me, too? THE WITNESS: '92 through '94 Bronco, 1405 nylon. 1405 is just the type of nylon that was produced. It's a DuPont fiber, made by DuPont Company. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, going back to where we were before we started describing what the trilobal was on your early examination. Where did you find this kind of beige carpet fiber? On what items that are on the chart? A. That would have been on the Bundy hat and the Rockingham glove. I removed the fiber from the Bundy hat, from the Rockingham glove. It came in one of the debris packets. From the glove. Q. You actually removed it yourself from the Bundy hat? A. I did. Q. And did you do an examination to determine whether or not the fiber -- the carpet fiber that you removed from the Bundy knit hat and the carpet fiber that you removed from the Rockingham glove, matched or had the same microscopic characteristics? A. The fiber from the Bundy hat and the fiber from the debris packets from the Rockingham glove matched each other. Initially, I didn't have a source. Q. And tell us what kind of examination you did to determine whether or not they matched each other. A. Well, these are compared again, visually, microscopically. I compared them using scanning electron microscopy, but the basic analysis would be comparison microscope, fluorescents, color comparison, infrared spectroscopy. Those are the main comparison techniques that were used for the fibers in question. Q. Can you just go through a little bit, because I don't think we picked it up yesterday, what each of those examinations when you're examining the carpet permits you to do. A. Well -- Q. Or permits you to see? A. Each -- each stage is just one point in the analysis. You're trying to determine who -- whether the fibers looked the same or looked different. You kind of have checkpoints that you use. One is comparison visually, using white light, transmitted light. If they look the same as to shape, as to color, as -- as to size, as to internal microscopic characteristics, if there are no differences between them, then you go on to the next stage. And then it might be fluorescents. You may use fluorescents; you may use polarized light, microscopy. Just -- you're examining the fiber under all polarized light. Q. What does that mean? A. A polarizing microscope allows you to look at fibers in a different environment, by passing polarized light through the fiber and blocking out extraneous light, you can see what are called interference colors; and these interference colors then will allow you to compare -- compare question and known fiber by interference colors. But you can also identify the fiber using the colors. That's the nylon or polyester or acrylic or rayon or acetates. There's many different types. So the polarized light allows you to come up with some information to identify the type of fiber as a group, as a class of fiber. The infrared spectrometer will allow a further analysis as to the specific type of nylon or type of polyester or type of acrylic. And that's another stage. If you reached the polarized light, I say they appear to be nylon microscopically, the infrared spectrometer will then determine the type of nylon, and if results are the same as to the results of the instrumentation. Microscopic spectrometry is another microscope, and the microscope is connected to some optical equipment that measures the light as it passes through the fiber, and we measure the physical light spectrum. What I see and what we all see is a reflection of light off an object. The color -- for instance, the suit, some may see it as black, some may see it as blue. It's what we perceive it to be. But the color of what you see is not necessarily -- and is often not just one color that went into making it, just like when you go buy paint, the paint on your wall is blue, but when they make it, they start with white and they squirt in a bunch of different things into it, and they make it blue the way you like it. The same thing goes with fibers. They add a lot of different things. What the micro spectrometer does, it breaks it down through the microspec. It gives you peaks with the color absorbing light as it passes through it. So it's another point of comparison. So each point along the path are confirmations of the initial microscopic observations under white light. Q. Now, you said you looked at the fibers on the hat and glove and described that analysis for us. Did you find any other fibers on any other items of evidence that you examined in this case? A. I did, yes. Q. And were those -- were those other carpet fibers? A. Well, yes, there were other carpet fibers taken from debris packets, from three other items that were submitted to me, that had been removed from the cargo area of Mr. Simpson's Bronco. Q. And what were those three other items? A. There would have been a shovel; there was one fiber on a shovel debris; there was one fiber off a piece of plastic debris; and there was one fiber off a towel debris. And these were identified to me as coming from the cargo area of the Bronco. Q. Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. That's right. Q. Now, did you compare the carpet fibers that you told us about found on the Bundy knit hat and the Rockingham glove to the fibers you found on the towels, shovel, and plastic were indicated to you came from the cargo area of Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. I did, yes. Q. And what kind of analysis or examination, comparison, did you do between those items? A. The same. Same analysis each time. Q. And what conclusion did you reach? A. Well, in -- all of the fibers could have originated from the same source; they all matched each other; they could have originated from the same source of fabric, same carpet. Q. Now, at the time you compared carpet fibers, what you thought were carpet fibers found on the Bundy knit hat, the Rockingham glove, and the three items you described in the back of Mr. Simpson's Bronco -- did you yet have a fiber sample from Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. No; I had no carpet samples from any place at that time. Q. Did you subsequently acquire one? A. I did. Q. Why? Why did you want one? A. Well, because I found it, first of all, and I wanted to determine a possible source. I had not seen the fiber before. I felt that fiber was rather unusual, from my experience. I then asked for a carpet sample to be obtained from the Bronco, just to verify whether or not it was or could have been the source of those fibers. Q. You have five fibers that match and you want to find out now where they came from? A. That's the question. Q. Now, you said in looking at the fibers -- I think you said a moment ago, something -- it appeared they -- appeared to be unusual. Why -- what was it? A. Well, the cross-section -- the color, I mean, there's a lot of colors. But the main thing to me, that struck me, was the cross-sectional shape, I had not seen that little jack cross-section. Q. And did there come a time when you received a carpet sample or samples from Mr. Simpson's Bronco delivered to you by the representatives of the LAPD? A. Yes. Q. And you received that in Washington? A. That's right. Q. And when you received it, what did you do with it? That is, the carpet sample or samples from Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. Well, the fibers were mounted to -- on glass microscope slides, and the comparison process was the same. That I used for the questioned fibers to determine whether or not these question fibers matched up with the known source of fibers. Q. And what examination did you perform and how did you do it? A. I mean, again, I started with comparison microscope, polarized light, fluorescents, micro spectrometry, infrared spectroscopy. Q. And did you reach a conclusion whether the carpet fiber you found on the Bundy hat, the carpet fiber you found on the Rockingham glove, the carpet fiber you found on the three items that were found and sent to you in the cargo area of Mr. Simpson's Bronco, had any relationship to the carpet fiber from Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. Well, they all matched. They all matched the known sample of carpet from Mr. Simpson's Bronco. Q. Could you put on the board for us, then -- we don't have the items for Mr. Simpson's car, but could you put one -- 2169 where you found the carpet that you believe was carpet from Mr. Simpson's Bronco. (Witness marks Exhibit 2169.) Q. Did you prepare a chart depicting the microscopic characteristics of the fiber that you found on the Rockingham glove and knit hat, as well as the three items from Mr. Simpson Bronco? A. I did. (Witness displays Exhibit 530.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I direct your attention to Exhibit 530, that has been placed on the easel. (The instrument herein referred to as Series of photos on board entitled known carpet fibers from O.J.'s Bronco was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 530.) Q. I ask you if you're familiar with that chart. A. I am. Q. How so? A. I had it made; I took the photographs. Q. Could you, if you wouldn't mind, go over to the chart and describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the Court what the chart depicts. A. This chart represents photographs of the fibers under white light, by the four corner photographs, through the microscope. And the center one here, center two photographs, both the K9, which would be known sample number 9 that came from the Bronco carpet, and this is a SEM or scanning electronic micrographic magnification is here, is about 480, as you can see. These other ones are about 250. This would be from the Rockingham glove debris packet. K14 that I just -- another one of the carpet samples that we got -- we had several carpet samples from the vehicle from different locations. Q47 is the fiber from the knit cap debris, that's from what I removed. Q3c is from the debris. If you look close, you can see a lot in the microscope. You train yourself to see a lot of things without having this particular help. The first thing that I saw was this little shadowy area right on the end. You can see it goes right along here, see it down here, as well. See a little bit up here. As you follow the fiber microscopically, you move and you follow it along. You trail it on the microscope. You can actually see how this fiber is training orientations and you can get an idea as to what this fiber's cross-section is. So I had an idea that it had little lobed ends on each one of these trilobal peaks, but I was able to verify that using scanning electron microscopy, which is a little different microscopic technique. Q. Can you point out if it shows on any of those what we're talking about when they we say "trilobal," what we're talking about when we say jack cross-section? A. Okay. Trilobal, again, the configuration -- there's three lobes coming off a central core, and there's a lot of different shapes and fibers, man-made fibers. They do a lot of neat things to them; there are a lot of reasons. Carpet fibers, they make a lot of them trilobal because they hide dirt very well. You can see particles down into that in here, which I think is from the floor area of the vehicle. But this trilobal shape matched up with this trilobal shape as to configuration here. You can see these lobes are squeezed together a little bit, but you're kind of catching it as it is on the slide and actually how it came out. And I didn't really go into the production and all and how unique it may be, but this particular shape I hadn't seen in my experience. I felt it was unique. Q. And the jack cross-section, is that on any -- A. That's it. I mean, that's why you have to use your imagination a little bit, but jacks have more than three lobes. Here, we have this little knobby end. I thought that was unusual because I hadn't seen it before; that's a unique fiber as the shape. Q. The carpet fibers from the Bronco found on the Bundy hat and Rockingham glove, again, yesterday and today, we've talked some about primary transfer and secondary transfer. In your opinion, as an expert doing this work for some 19 years, do you have an opinion as to the -- in what manner the carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco could have been transferred to the Bundy knit hat and the Rockingham glove? MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation; lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, it could have been -- again, it could have been either, could have been a primary transfer that these items actually were in contact with the carpeted surface at one point. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) In other words, the glove and the hat, one point, were sitting on the carpet in Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. Right. Just like on the shovel and the towel and the plastic, same principle. MR. LEONARD: Did you finish your answer? THE WITNESS: I thought I did. (Counsel displays 2169) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you indicate now on the board, because previously we had carpet fiber up before you identified it -- could you indicate the Bronco carpet fiber and the items where it was found? A. (The witness complies.) Q. Is it reasonable to conclude, as a fiber expert with your years of experience, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the Bronco carpet fiber found on the three items in the cargo area of Mr. Simpson's Bronco, on the Bundy hat, and the Rockingham glove, all originated from a Bronco with carpet identical to the one driven by Mr. Simpson? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, it's reasonable. It could have originated from a Bronco like his, yes. MR. MEDVENE: I want to move to a slightly different area. THE COURT: Let's take a ten-minute recess. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinion. (Recess.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: The clerk told me Mr. Blasier had something he wanted to bring up outside the presence of the jury; that's why we didn't have the jury. MR. BLASIER: That was before the next witness, Your Honor. THE CLERK: I'm sorry. THE COURT: Okay. Bring the jury in. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: You may resume. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Agent Deedrick, with respect to the Bronco carpet fiber we were talking about -- well, let me step back. When you find a carpet fiber, for example, that you determine matches certain evidence found at a crime scene, do you make an attempt to ascertain its uniqueness or rarity? A. Sometimes I do, yes. Q. And how do you go about doing that? A. Well, depends upon the type of fiber that I find, as to its cross-sectional shape, and again, based on my experience. There are different carpet providers, carpet companies that make automobile carpet. And most of my contacts over the years have been with the automotive carpet producers within the United States, so I have contacts with a number of different people. I also have contacts with fiber producers. So it's a matter of contacting them. I do have some familiarity with who produces carpet for certain types of vehicles, and there are contacts that I can reach out to for information. Q. To save time, cutting through everything you did, did you make a determination of what carpet company produced the carpet for Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. That would have been Masland, M-A-S-L-A-N-D Industries in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Q. And under what arrangement did they do it, and for what vehicle? A. Well, they have an exclusive contract with Ford and they produce that particular carpet for three types of vehicles. That would include the Bronco, full-size Bronco, the F series trucks, and the Econoline vans between 1992 and 1994. Q. And an exclusive contract means what? A. Well, they're the only providers. The carpet would be unique as to dye formulation, and as to the type of carpet, and as to that they produce only for Ford. Q. And the only producer to Ford of that carpet? A. For these vehicles, yes. Q. And you mentioned the dye formulation. The actual fibers are produced in great numbers by what company? A. Well, the fibers were produced by DuPont. And DuPont sells the yarn to Masland in undyed form; and they, in turn, will then make the carpet and then color the carpet to the specifications set out through the contract with Ford Industries. Q. And between -- strike that. And did Ford, on the vehicles you described, have carpet in its vehicles in a number of different colors? A. There were four different colors, initially. They did change some of the colors during that same time frame between, '92 and '94. MR. MEDVENE: Now, could you put on the TV monitor, please, 516. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Mr. Simpson's Bronco was what year, by the way? A. That was a '94. Q. And we put on 516. That I believe was up there before, but could you tell us during what years Masland utilized this carpet as exclusive to Ford, on the Bronco, F series trucks, and Econoline vans. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I think that misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Want to correct that? MR. LEONARD: Then was there was an additional vehicle that the carpet was in? Q. Can you -- could you tell us the three -- can you tell us the vehicles during 1992 and 1994, including the period Mr. Simpson's Bronco was made? A. Between -- between April -- I started in April of '92, this particular carpet with that fiber format was introduced. Between April of '92 -- and I ended in June of '94 because that's the date of the homicide -- they produced this particular carpet, as I said for the Bronco, the F series trucks. I think there were three different -- 150, 250, and 350 and -- well, not Econoline vans, so -- and the color was called medium mocha. It's a rose beige, but it's actually medium mocha. They used that particular color and carpet, the name medium mocha, between those time frames. They didn't change the name medium mocha at all. Q. During the particular time period 1992 to 1994, while they didn't change the name, was there any change that affected the coloring of the mocha carpet that was in Mr. Simpson's vehicle? A. They changed the dye formulation in May of '93, still called medium mocha, but they altered the chemicals that went into the dye, the color that they ended up with. Q. And did you examine carpet samples before and after the dye change? A. Yes, I did. Q. And were you able to tell the difference? A. Yes, I was. Q. Now, you've told us, in referring to the 516, something about the carpet that Masland produced for the three Ford vehicles between '92 and '94. Did they produce a different kind of carpet or a different design or color or carpet in 1991? A. Well, in '91, they had -- I think they may have called it medium mocha; I'm not sure. They had a different fiber shape; it was a DuPont fiber, but the cross-sectional shape was different, easily distinguishable. I have a photograph of that. Q. Would you put on the board, please, 517. (The instrument herein referred to as Dupont Fiber No. 1850 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 517.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you describe for us what 517 is? A. Well, 517 is the '91 Bronco fiber. And it was, again, a DuPont fiber. It's 1850 nylon; I knew that. Thanks for the help (indicating to screen.) That's DuPont 1850. They switched to 1405 for the -- '92 through '94. It's a different shape. If you remember, that knobby end on the 1405 DuPont, 1850 is irregular and they used this a lot. This is high production-type fiber, and you find it in floor mats and you also find it in carpeting in a lot of different vehicles. I believe they sell it in residential, this particular shape. Q. Now, starting in '95, certainly sometime after June of '94, did Masland produce a different configuration carpet than produced and utilized in Mr. Simpson's vehicle? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you know the type of fiber -- Strike that. Do you know the type of carpet utilized by Ford in 1995? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Going back, then to the April 1, '92, to July of '94 period, based on your investigation, did you make a determination on your examination of the carpet fibers -- did you make a determination whether the carpet in Mr. Simpson's Bronco was produced by Masland for Ford before or after the dye change? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Lay a foundation. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you examine the Bronco carpet fiber produced by Masland between 1992 through June of 1994 -- Excuse me -- between April of 1992 to the dye change in May of 1993? A. I don't know if I understand the question at all. Can you repeat it? Q. Sure. Did you examine the carpet, that carpet that Masland produced not Ford vehicles, prior to and after the dye change? A. I did, yes. Q. And did you conduct an examination to determine whether the carpet in Mr. Simpson's Bronco was produced by Masland prior to the May '93 dye change or after? MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: The fibers from O.J. Simpson's Bronco corresponded with the post-dye change, so it would have been after May of '93. His vehicle was produced in October of '93. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And how did you make a determination that the carpet in Mr. Simpson's Bronco was produced after May of '93? A. Well, it was from a microscopic comparison and also color comparisons, dye formulation. Q. Now, I want to now deal with the period from April of '92 to June of '94 that you talked about. Based on your communications with Masland, did you determine the total number of Ford vehicles -- and might I ask you to -- let's set up the board and maybe we can write a few numbers down on the board. (Counsel displays writing paper.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Based on your communications with Masland, were you able to determine the total number of Ford vehicles -- that is, all Ford vehicles -- with medium mocha carpet between April of '92 and June of 1994? A. Yes. Q. And what was that number? A. 136,000 vehicles. Q. Could you put that up on the board, please. A. Just write the number 136, or how would you want me to do it? Q. Well, why don't we put, just so it will be meaningful, because we'll be dealing with a few numbers -- why don't we just put "Ford medium mocha April 92, June 99, (sic) 136. MR. GELBLUM: June '94. MR. MEDVENE: June '94. We ask that that be marked as next in order, Your Honor, which is, I believe, 2170. (The instrument herein referred to as Handwritten chart by Mr. Deedrick was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2170.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, of this total number -- if you wouldn't mind standing close to the board -- of this total number, how many of these were Broncos? A. 26,000. Q. All right. And the remainder were what kind of car? A. Well, it would have been F series trucks and Econoline vans. Q. Those were the only ones that had this kind of carpet, right? A. That's right. Q. Now, you've alluded to it, but during the -- the '92 to '94 period and the -- and the production of the medium mocha carpet by Masland, was there a dye formulation change? A. Right. In May of '93. Q. And what do we mean by a dye formulation change? Was the carpet still referred to as medium mocha? A. It was. Q. And what do we mean, "dye formulation?" A. Well, they just changed the chemicals that went into the vat when they dyed the carpet. Q. Would a number of chemicals go into the batch that affect what the color is? A. Right. They had, I believe, four or five dyes that were used. And they weigh a certain amount of each and they put it into this big tub of water, and it dissolves. And they then take undyed carpet and roll it around in it for a period of time until it absorbs the color, and then that's the color they end up with. Q. That's unique to Masland 440 (sic)? A. Right. That's one dye batch. That's correct. Q. Now, given the fact that -- strike that. Let me step back. So 136,000 is the amount of vehicles with the medium mocha carpet between April of '92 and June of '94? Did you make a determination of that 136,000, how many were made after the dye batch changed? A. I did. Q. And what was that determination? A. About 72,000 vehicles would have had the same type medium mocha, same dye formulation. Q. Can you put that up on the board. Now, would with that 72,000 number include Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. His vehicle would have been included in that 72,000. Q. Now, how many Broncos of the type that Mr. Simpson had were produced between the time of the dye change, May of '93 and June of 94? A. Well, about 14,000. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. Relevance. Move to strike. THE COURT: What is the relevance of all of this? MR. MEDVENE: The relevance is to show -- MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to any speaking explanation in front of the jury. If he wants to approach side bar -- THE COURT: I'll sustain it. I don't see any relevance. MR. MEDVENE: May we approach the bench? THE COURT: Okay. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) MR. MEDVENE: This is, incidentally, our last area, Your Honor; be about five more minutes. The relevance is that we would be able to show through this witness -- and depositions have been taken of all the underlying people defense wanted to take depositions of to support these calculations and numbers. That of the total number of Ford vehicles made during that period, we're able to show that there were only 375 of the Broncos of the type that Mr. Simpson drove registered in LA County on the day of the murders; that's step one. Step two is that the likelihood of encountering a Ford with the same kind of carpet as Mr. Simpson's had on the day of the murders was three in 10,000. And the likelihood of encountering a Bronco with the same carpet at the time of the murders was six in 100,000. So that's where the testimony's going. But the first step is, in terms of likelihood that if you, alone in LA County on the date of the murders, there were only 375 Broncos that had the kind of carpet fiber that was found on critical items of evidence at the crime scene, as I say, there were depositions taken of all the underlying witnesses going to these numbers and statistics. And we feel that while the defense can certainly argue it could be one of those other 375, we think we have a right to argue, as we do with the hair and fiber and other evidence, that it's one more factor that points to Mr. Simpson. And the defense can certainly argue well, it could have been 374 other people; somebody could have driven in from out of state, or whatever. But we believe we can show the uniqueness of this carpet fiber, and this is a way of showing it. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, this is raising what turns out to be an art form, and you'll learn that to a level, that absolutely is misleading. THE COURT: When am I going to learn? MR. LEONARD: You'll see when you finish with this witness. Raising to a level of scientific certainty with this fancy probability of calculation, I mean, what difference does it make if there's 375 Broncos. We know there are at least 72,000 vehicles out there with the same type of carpet. MR. BAKER: What he has done -- he hasn't said where the carpet -- THE COURT: You're submitting the first -- MR. BAKER: No, we don't need that for this. They've never excluded the fact that Masland makes this. THE COURT: I call to your attention a case called People versus One Gold Cadillac or One Pink Cadillac, a deputy district attorney, Ray Sinetar from L.A. County who got a conviction based on exactly the kind of evidence you offer, and they overturned it. MR. PETROCELLI: On what ground? THE COURT: On the ground that you can't prove these things by running numbers. MR. MEDVENE: I don't know that. THE COURT: You cannot. You know, that was a criminal case; they said you can't. MR. PETROCELLI: Doesn't it go to weight, Your Honor. THE COURT: The facts of the case were, is that a black guy with a white prostitute driving a certain color Cadillac automobile, and at a certain location. So Ray Sinetar, who was a classmate of mine in law school, and he was Order of the Coif one of the bright guys who became district attorney of Ventura County. He had this theory, just like yours, of proving that statistically there was nobody else -- statistically, there would be only an astronomical combination of those factors in this particular location, indicating that this guy was the guy. MR. MEDVENE: But wasn't that case -- I don't remember clearly, but I think I read it -- but doesn't the case deal with probability woman and a man with somebody of the opposite race at a particular place at a particular time at a particular location. THE COURT: Just like yours. MR. MEDVENE: No, no it's different, if Your Honor please, because here we have -- we know you had a Bronco here. We have a witness, Mr. Heidstra, I believe, that testified that the car he saw leaving was consistent with being a Bronco. And we know -- Wait. I'm sorry. But we know we have carpet fiber found on items that Mr. Simpson had. There was carpet fibers in his Bronco. THE COURT: Fine. So what do you need all this mumbo jumbo statistics for? MR. MEDVENE: Well, minimally, I assume I can get down to the rarity, that there's only 375 registered, if I can't get the probability. THE COURT: How many are registered to O.J. Simpson? MR. MEDVENE: One. THE COURT: How many of those -- MR. MEDVENE: It's registered to Hertz. THE COURT: Okay. And how many of those have his hair type, fibers, and how many of those are found on his property? You know, your statistical analysis is meaningless when compared with the real import of the evidence that you are adducing through commonality of factors that point to the defendant. These numbers mean nothing. MR. MEDVENE: Well, if I can't get in the probability -- THE COURT: These numbers give us -- these numbers give a plethora or a prelature of numbers to a conclusion that is just statistically meaningless in terms of evidentiary value. Under 352 of the Evidence Code, I'm going to find it means nothing; that the aspect of it is so insignificant, that under 352. I think the prejudicial aspect of throwing numbers you have up on a board to a jury, giving it the respectability of numbers, has a far prejudicial value compared to the probative value. I think your probative value of the evidence is the essence of the evidence itself, not the numbers. MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, was the -- when you say putting evidence on the board, I mean, was that -- would there be a difference if we elicited the evidence from the witness. I don't -- THE COURT: Means absolutely nothing. MR. MEDVENE: Are you saying the fact that there are only 375 Bronco vehicles registered in LA County at the time of the murders isn't a factor that we can argue. THE COURT: Mr. Medvene what significance does that have in connection, when contrasted with the evidence of commonality that it's evidence thus far. MR. MEDVENE: I understand that. I didn't want to leave anything off of the table -- THE COURT: Well, this one -- MR. MEDVENE: -- unless you tell me I have to. THE COURT: Defense objects to it. And I see a more reasonable ground for exclusion. MR. PETROCELLI: We are going to get into frequencies in the blood on DNA tests. THE COURT: That has a different scientific relevance. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. MR. MEDVENE: But -- THE COURT: Those are scientifically, statistically accepted in the community. I presume you're going to have testimony that goes to that. MR. PETROCELLI: Absolutely. THE COURT: All right. This means nothing. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. MR. MEDVENE: But -- THE COURT: This is a big waste of time. MR. MEDVENE: Well, isn't a statistical getting it to 375, Your Honor? In other words, if the probability is one thing, but the fact that only that many Broncos -- that's a fact. I mean, that's something that they've examined the people on. Those are the number of vehicles registered. THE COURT: What. MR. MEDVENE: Well, MR. LEONARD: Judge, they're triple-teaming me here. MR. KELLY: You're not even supposed to be here. Judge, if we elicited the testimony of the 375 and don't try to put it in context of all the big numbers, can we just leave it at that? MR. LEONARD: Oh yeah, that would be great. MR. KELLY: No, you're avoiding it. THE COURT: What's the relevance of 375? MR. KELLY: The same with the number of gloves ordered or anything else. It's the relative improbabilities, in a general sense. You have a sexual evidence case, you've got to put all these different pieces of evidence together. It's just one link in the chain. If we use that and avoid all the different large numbers, I think it makes -- THE COURT: That's a pretty weak link. MR. KELLY: It's a link, nonetheless. THE COURT: The reason I'm going to sustain the objection is because the -- because the patina of throwing numbers up there is grossly prejudicial to the probative value. And under 352, I'm going to sustain the objection. Take it up on appeal. MR. KELLY: Understand that, Judge. MR. MEDVENE: May I ask -- I don't want to do it in front of the jury if I can't ask it, because this is my last area; it will be my last question. And I don't want to ask it if I can't -- THE COURT: I made my ruling. MR. MEDVENE: I understand; I'm not challenging you. THE COURT: Would you like to be part of this, Mr. Leonard, or you don't care? MR. LEONARD: No, I care. THE COURT: If you don't care, then I'll make a ruling without you. MR. LEONARD: I thought you made your ruling. THE COURT: I did. I'm trying to make a ruling. MR. MEDVENE: I'm just asking if I may ask this question. I don't want to ask it if you think it's improper, because of your ruling. May I ask as the last question, based on your investigation, were the number of vehicles with the same kind of carpet as Mr. Simpson's registered in LA County in June of 1994, was that a small number. If they don't want to get into the number, have just that one question. MR. LEONARD: That leaves me at a disadvantage because then I have to reconstruct all this. That leaves it hanging out there. MR. PETROCELLI: We don't want to leave it hanging. MR. MEDVENE: I don't want to leave it. They've left this area open. THE COURT: Those numbers are meaningless. MR. MEDVENE: Okay. I just want to get a question, because I've been kind of set up here in a sense, that they knew this testimony was coming; they waited. There was no motion. We started the testimony. And I just want something that I can finish up with. I mean, it's not like any of these things were a secret, Dan, so ... no indication. We could have argued this out before the Judge before the questioning started. So I would just like to establish that there are relatively few Bronco vehicles with this kind of carpet in LA County. It's up to you if you want to open it. MR. LEONARD: All right. Leave it on my plate. We've already got 72,000 vehicles up there, and that there's -- MR. MEDVENE: It's unfair -- MR. LEONARD: No, it's not a setup. MR. MEDVENE: It's mis -- I didn't mean to use that, but to have up there, if there's 7,000 vehicles, puts me at a disadvantage because the real number is 375. If there's going to be this objection it could have been made before we started. We didn't try springing this on anybody; we've been over this before. I've discussed it with Mr. Leonard. MR. LEONARD: What do you mean "real number" `375. It has no significance to the case whatsoever. MR. MEDVENE: That's another argument. The real number in the sense that's the number of Broncos that was registered on the night of the murder with the same kind of carpet. MR. LEONARD: So what? THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Let me ask one more question, Agent Deedrick. Is it correct that, in your judgment, that the Bronco carpet found in Mr. Simpson's Bronco and that you've matched to the various items you've matched it to, is a very rare dye formulation? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: That's a different question to answer. I can only go by the carpet itself. As far as whether or not they used that particular dye formulation before, I don't know. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) But, in terms of automotive vehicles that used, or had the right to put this kind of carpet in a vehicle, in a Ford vehicle, in a Bronco, was the medium mocha carpet made between May of '93 and June of '94 used in a limited number of vehicles? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. It would have been limited to only those vehicles produced by Ford of those three, as I mentioned before. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much, Agent Deedrick. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. Good morning. A. Good morning. Let me set my stuff up so it doesn't fall down like it usually does. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we withdraw 2170. THE CLERK: It's withdrawn? MR. PETROCELLI: Withdraw it, yes. (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2170 for identification was withdrawn by plaintiffs as an exhibit to this proceeding.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Mr. Deedrick, how much time have you spent preparing to render the opinions that you gave in this case in this courtroom? A. Perhaps about two days' preparation for this trial. Q. Okay. And how much time have you -- so how many hours, approximately? Let me get some hours. A. Seems like 48, but probably not that many. Q. Okay. And prior to the criminal trial, how much time did you put in, altogether? A. Well, I would have spent a lot of time from the day it came in, in August of '94, up through the testimony. I can't really tell you how many hours. Q. Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial that you had put in 100 to 200 hours prior to your testimony? A. I don't remember, but that's a fair estimate, I would think. Q. This was an important case to you, wasn't it, sir? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague; ambiguous; calls for conclusion. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: It's an important case, sure. Every case have you to testify on is important, every case you work. Q. Is it fair to say that you've spent more time on this case than on any other case you ever testified in? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Does he mean civil or criminal? MR. LEONARD: Either. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. They're different cases. Compound. THE COURT: Overruled. Let's get on with the preliminaries. A. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I've worked some big cases. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You have given some opinions here. And would you agree with me that it's important when you sit up on that stand and give opinions, such as you have in this case, that you be objective and fair and accurate? Would you agree with that? A. As best I can, yes; I would agree. Q. Would you agree that it's important that you don't get emotionally involved in the case? A. I don't believe you should; I should try to maintain a detached impartiality. Q. Well, it's important to be objective, correct? A. During your analysis, during your interpretation, yes. Q. And during your testimony, as well, correct? A. Well, testimony should follow the interpretation of the results. Q. And it's important to be impartial, correct? A. Yes. Q. And would you agree with the following proposition; that if there is any question about your interpretations or the basis for your interpretations that you throw out the conclusions? Do you agree with that? A. Any question about the results? It all depends on what those results are. I don't know. It's not clear. Q. Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial that -- and saying that if there is any question, you throw out the conclusion? Do you remember that, sir? A. I don't recall what reference you're referring to. There's a lot of situations that question could arise. Q. As you sat on the stand today, did you feel like you explained fully, accurately, fairly, and objectively, all of your findings in the case, sir? A. It's not all the findings. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That's vague and ambiguous, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, there are a lot of findings in this case. What I testified to today and yesterday is based on questions directed at me, but with specific reference to items found at the crime scene and at Rockingham. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you feel that you gave this jury an accurate representation of the basis for your technique? Do you feel you gave them an accurate representation of what you do when you do your analysis? A. I don't know if we got into all of that. Q. Do you feel that you gave the jury an accurate and fair description of conclusions that you reached? In other words, that you gave them all of the conclusions or all of the inferences that can be drawn from the analysis you did? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Conclusion; speculation; vague. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Why is it important to you to be objective? A. Why? Q. Yeah. A. Well, to give an accurate representation of your findings, based on your education, experience, and training. Q. It's also important, isn't it, because what you do here is basically interpretation, correct? A. Well, it's mainly identification, and there is some interpretation also associated with it. Q. Well it's -- it's very subjective, what you do, correct? A. It is subjective, yes. Q. And because basically what you do is, you look at various items microscopically, and without any checklist or any standard references, you decide in your head whether or not various items, quote, unquote, "match;" is that correct? A. Well, that's one of the stages. The first stage is the microscopic comparison. And it's a determination by me, as an individual, as to whether or not the questioned hair or questioned fibers exhibit the same characteristics from that information, reach a conclusion. Q. And unlike fingerprint analysis, which is more of an absolute science -- you would agree, right? A. Its been recognized by the Court as a positive form of identification, yes. Q. Unlike fingerprint analysis, you do not have a set number -- THE COURT: You know, Mr. Leonard -- MR. LEONARD: Yes, Your Honor? THE COURT: It's really annoying to have somebody stand behind you and talk over your head. And that's why I asked Mr. Kelly to stay away from the jurors. When you conduct your inquiry, I would ask you to do the same. MR. LEONARD: I will remain stationary. THE COURT: You don't have to remain stationary; just don't get behind the jurors. MR. LEONARD: There's not much room back here, but... Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you remember my last question? Because I don't. A. No; you were talking about subjectivity. Q. Yeah, I was comparing fingerprint analysis with what you do. And in fingerprint analysis, there is a standard number of -- what do you call it, standard number of -- A. Well, they're reference points that they use. Also, they have a pattern. There are a number of different patterns of fingerprints. There's also characteristics on each pattern that can individualize that pattern to the person as the ending point of ridges and so forth. A lot of my field; I have some training in that. Q. Based on that training, you know there have to be a certain number of characteristics that are not the same in the question fingerprints and the known fingerprints, correct? Certain minimum number? A. I don't know about that certain number. I think that depends on what organization you work for, as to who is doing the fingerprints. So some agencies may require 12 points or 15 points, and other more experienced examiners may go with six or five. It just depends on the characteristics of that print and the group you're working with. Q. But would you agree in the technique that you use, there is no minimum number of characteristics that are required, no minimum number of matching or like characteristics, right? A. Right; there is no set number. Q. Although in the field, that has been suggested as something that should be required; isn't that true? A. I don't believe by hair examiners. Q. Are you familiar with publications in your field that talk about checklists and numbers of comparisons that are required to make a quote, unquote, "match?" A. Well, I'm familiar with checklists and different attempts to establish a checklist, check-off list of characteristics, but that's not something that we've ever done. And I know there's a lot of crime labs that don't have check-off lists; it's more of a training aid than it is an identification aid. Q. You used the checklist when you started out, correct. A. When I started out. I think everybody likes to start out with checklists. Q. And there are still examiners in your office that continue to use the checklists, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm going have to use a rope. (Indicating to Mr. Leonard.) (Laughter.) MR. LEONARD: It's a bad habit. THE COURT: Well, just do the best you can. MR. LEONARD: I'll try. THE COURT: Consider the person you're standing behind. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: I don't know if anybody else uses it. There may be one or two that use it periodically. I don't recall seeing them. I review all their work, and I don't think anybody uses it now. Q. How much time did you spend with Mr. Medvene or the other lawyers before testifying? You mentioned that you had prepared for two days. How much time did you actually spend with Mr. Medvene or one of the other lawyers? A. Probably 15 -- 15 hours, maybe. Q. Okay. And Mr. Medvene had a typed list of questions and answers. Did you go through that with Mr. Medvene at any point? A. At times, yes; I reviewed some of it. Q. Okay. So you sort of rehearsed your testimony; is that fair to say? A. Well, he had questions that he was asking me, and I was answering those questions. And he was -- eventually had them typed up, I believe. Q. Questions and answers, correct? A. If he typed up the answers. He may have. Q. Did you spend any time with Mr. Goldman yesterday? A. I spoke with him briefly, yes. Q. Did you develop any kind of a personal relationship with Mr. Goldman during the criminal trial? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, speculative, Your Honor; not relevant. MR. LEONARD: Goes to bias, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No, I wouldn't say it was a special relationship. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I didn't say special; I said personal. A. Personal, special. No; just seems like a nice man. Q. Do you -- is your room at headquarters -- you have room 3931; is that your -- A. 3931. Q. Okay. Do you have a framed photograph of yourself with Fred Goldman and Kim Goldman in your office? A. I do. I don't remember you ever being in the office, but I do. Q. How many other victims of crimes or family members of victims of crimes do you have framed pictures of in your office? A. I don't believe I have any. Q. Now, when you were testifying on direct examination for several hours, is there anything you can think of that you left out that you should have told the jury? And let me be a little more specific about that. For instance, you were asked about primary transfers and secondary transfers with reference to some of these items. Do you remember that? A. I do, yes. Q. Okay. And my memory is that with regard to one of the Negroid-type head hairs on the shirt of Ron Goldman, that you indicated to the jury that it was your opinion that that was from a primary transfer; is that correct, sir? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you say that, sir? A. I think I said it could have been both, if I remember correctly. Q. And when you said both, what did you mean by that, in real terms? In other words, a primary contact, contact would be somehow with the head of an African American coming in contact with the shirt, correct? A. Right; that would be a primary transfer. Q. And a secondary transfer would be what, because I don't remember you explaining that to the jury. A. Well, secondary could be -- and I believe I did, a hair found on the clothing of an individual, and contact may occur. And that hair is then transferred. So in that regard, it could be a secondary transfer, although it's direct contact with the same person. Q. Oh, you did say that; now I remember. Is there -- isn't there another way that a secondary transfer could occur? A. Oh, well, secondary transfers can occur a lot of ways. It could come from any other source where that hair or fiber might be. Q. For instance, that hair could have been on the ground, right? A. That's a source; that's right. Q. And it could have come into contact with Mr. Goldman's shirt when he fell to the ground or when he was moved, correct? A. It's possible. Q. Just -- it's just as likely as any kind of primary; wouldn't you agree with that? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Foundation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I'm not really sure. I assume it is possible, maybe equally as likely, depending on the situation and the conditions. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Well, you're at a little disadvantage with regard to the conditions and circumstances, aren't you. Sir? A. I wasn't there, and I don't know a lot of the circumstances. Q. You don't even know where the hair was found on the shirt, do you? A. Well, no, I don't. Q. Is there any reason that you didn't tell the jury about that form of secondary transfer when you were sitting on the stand in direct? MR. MEDVENE: He's arguing, Your Honor, and he can only answer the questions we asked. We asked for some examples; he gave some examples. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: There was no reason. I was trying to be responsive to the question. There's a lot of opportunities, situation that could result in trace-evidence transfer. Q. Well, you say there was no reason. When you were sitting on the stand on direct examination and you were asked an open question by Mr. Medvene, how could this transfer have occurred, didn't you think it was important to be objective and to be fair and to tell this jury every way that could happen? Didn't you think that was important? A. I think sometimes, many kinds -- like fiber transfers and hair transfers are kind of common sense, so I perhaps overlook things that you think might be important. But hair can be transferred through contact, as I mentioned, between a person and an object, "object" being the ground or a tree or a club or ... Q. You just forgot about that? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. He said that -- he said that in his answer at the beginning of his testimony. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) By the way, with regard to that, what you called a Negroid hair on the shirt of Ron Goldman, that was a hair fragment, wasn't it? A. It was a hair fragment, yes. Q. Isn't that much more difficult to try to compare than a full head -- a full hair, from root -- from root to tip? Wouldn't you agree with that? A. Well, it's less to compare; it's not more difficult to compare. But there's less of the material to work with. Q. And your conclusion is much less reliable; isn't that true, sir? A. No, I don't believe so. Q. Do you remember testifying in a case in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania some years ago involving a murder, a doctor was accused of murdering his wife? A. I do remember the Wilkes-Barre case. Q. Do you remember my associate, Anthony Cardinali, asking you some questions about this very issue, hair fragments and the efficacy of examination of hair fragments? Do you remember that? A. I don't. Q. Would it surprise you to learn that in that trial -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. It's about to be a speech. Before the speech, we'd like to see the basis for what he's going to say. If he has a transcript, he shouldn't make a speech, so the jury -- we don't know what he's going to rely on. MR. LEONARD: I'm probing his memory. MR. MEDVENE: He won't know if what you're saying is accurate. Let's see the basis. MR. LEONARD: I'm gauging this witness's memory. I have every right to do that. THE COURT: Not on something that's collaborative. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Would you agree with me, sir, that the ideal is to have a full questioned hair and not a small fragment? Would you agree with me about that? A. Right. The more hair you have, obviously, the -- it affects your conclusions. Depends on the hair and characteristics. Q. By the way, what you do in interpreting what you see and in trying to opine as to how fibers could get from here to there, or hairs could get from here to there, that's really not scientific; that's more of a form of art. Would you agree to that -- with that? A. No, I wouldn't agree with that. Q. You are -- have you ever testified under oath, sir, that it was a form of art? A. I probably have used that terminology, it is a form of art. Q. Okay. So when you just said a minute ago, I don't agree with that, that it's not a form of art, were you trying to fool this jury, sir? A. No. I think that was I was trying to answer your question as accurately as possible, as it was phrased. And it is both objective -- it is both scientific and it is an -- it's a trained ability to look at and interpret this type of material. Q. It's a form of -- THE COURT: Just a minute. Jurors, ten minutes. Bring the jury back in ten minutes. (Recess taken at 11:02 A.M.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. LEONARD: May I approach? THE COURT: You may. Do you have -- you have one. (Indicating to pen.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Before we get to the subjective versus objective issue, I want to ask you a couple of other background questions. Who's paying you for giving your testimony today? A. You are; I am. Q. The jury is? A. Everybody is. Q. Judge Fujisaki? A. Taxpayers. Q. And that's another reason why you want to be as objective and fair and accurate as possible, right? A. I guess that's down there somewhere, yes. Q. Because we are all paying you? A. That's all part of it, sure. Q. Now, it's relatively unusual for you to become involved in a civil trial, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. You had to get special permission to do that, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Now, we were talking about the fact that, as you've acknowledged, that your interpretation is of, more or less, a form of art, right? Would you agree with that? A. Experience and art is involved, yes. Q. Okay. And it involves subjective analysis by you, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let's -- MR. LEONARD: Foundational. THE COURT: We spent ten minutes on it before the break. MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And the reason it's subjective is -- well, among the reasons it's subjective is because what you're doing is, you're looking at under 250 degree -- 250 magnification length of hairs, right? A. Right. Q. And you're comparing them with other hairs or other fibers, for that matter, right? A. Right. Q. And you know that even on an individual's head, many of the hairs can be different, correct? A. That's right. Q. They have different characteristics? A. That's right. Q. And then, even along a single hair, the characteristics can change, correct? A. That's correct. Q. So that, for instance, there is no catalogs of hairs that you know of, correct? There's no place that you can go that gives you standard -- standards for hairs of any type, correct? A. Not that I know of. Q. And there's no data that tells you how many other people in the world have the same exact hair; isn't that right, sir? A. There is none, no. Q. So you don't know whether a million people in the world have the same hair, or just one other person, or no other person, as you sit and do your analysis; is that right, sir? A. Right. I couldn't give you a number. Q. And the most you can say with regard to hair and fiber -- and you've testified to this many times before -- is that the hair or fiber could have -- could have come from a certain source; is that right. Sir? A. That's right. Q. It's not a positive meaning of identification by any stretch, is it? A. It's not positive. We say that in every report. Q. Okay. So that when you put your conclusions up here on this board, it would be fair to say that, for each and every one of them, you're saying this could have been a source, correct? A. Right. Each of those is a "could have," yes. Q. Please go over to there, to the board, and on the acetate overlay, would you write the words "could have" with a question mark, please. A. Well -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. It's an argumentative thing to ask him to do. Mr. Leonard can write "could have" with a question mark, if that's what he wants to do. MR. LEONARD: They've had the opportunity to have this board in front of the jury. I think I should have the opportunity to create my own exhibit. THE COURT: You may. MR. LEONARD: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Which? Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Just -- there's an acetate overlay, just somewhere where it's not interfering with any of the actual letters, so maybe on the right-hand side. A. You want the words "could have?" Q. "Could have," with a question mark. A. Question mark. Q. A little larger, please. THE COURT: You said you didn't want it to interfere with what's on there. MR. PETROCELLI: He can do it himself. THE COURT: Why don't you go over there and show him exactly where you want it. THE WITNESS: I want you to be happy. MR. LEONARD: Yeah, I know; you're here for me. Right here, in filling those two squares, "could have." THE WITNESS: You want it in the square? MR. LEONARD: Yeah, filling the two squares. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please -- THE COURT: I don't know what you're doing. MR. MEDVENE: It a show by Mr. Leonard. I can write whatever he wants on the board. THE COURT: You want it in every square? MR. LEONARD: That's good enough. That's fine. Can we mark that next -- whatever the next exhibit number is. THE COURT: Mark what? MR. LEONARD: The overlay. THE CLERK: 2171. (The Chart created by Mr. Deedrick, formerly marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2169, now with markings placed by Mr. Deedrick on acetate covering the same chart was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2171.) MR. LEONARD: You can resume the stand. (Witness complies.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) How many hairs on an individual's head, sir? A. Depends on the person, but I've heard 100,000. Q. How many people on the earth? MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please ... THE COURT: Sustain my own objection to it. This is getting a little ridiculous. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) A lot of hairs out there; would you agree? A. There's a lot of hairs. Q. Lot of fibers? A. There are. Q. We're virtually swimming in hairs and fibers as we walk through our daily lives, sir? A. Well, we are in a way, yes. Q. And as we swim through these hairs and fibers, we pick some up along here, along there, drop some, pick some more up, drop some, right? A. That's right. Q. Like little garbage collectors? A. Yeah, little pig pens, I think. Q. Okay. So if a person frequents a particular location -- Okay, you follow me so far? A. I follow you. Q. Isn't it likely that that person is going to drop fibers occasionally, and hairs -- A. Yes. Q. -- from other places? A. Right, could. Q. From a car, right? From his or her own head? A. Correct. Q. Right? A. That's right. Q. Okay. And, of course, you had -- you had all that in mind when you were giving your opinions earlier in your direct examination, correct? A. Sure. Q. Okay. And you would agree that virtually all of the items and all of the fibers and hairs that you've talked about could have been located in the environment at Bundy, don't you? You agree with that; it could have been there before this crime ever occurred? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That calls for speculation; foundation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No, I couldn't agree with that. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you have any information about how often Mr. Simpson was over at the Bundy location? A. No, I don't. Q. Why not? THE COURT: I'll sustain my own objection to that. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Was that important to you, sir, in rendering your opinions in this case, to know that? A. It has a bearing on the weight of the findings. Q. Explain that. How does it have a bearing on the weight of your findings? A. Well, in some situations, especially when you have family members, close associates, significance of certain hairs and fibers may have diminished value, simply because of acknowledged contact, acknowledged living arrangements. Q. But you, as you sit here today, you have no idea how many times Mr. Simpson, prior to June 12, 1994, was at the Bundy location, right? No idea? MR. MEDVENE: Asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You have no idea how many times the Bronco was used to transport children and dogs and material from Rockingham to Bundy; you have no idea, correct? A. I don't. Q. Did you ever ask anyone about that? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Does that have any bearing on your opinions in this case? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance. Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand the question. What findings? Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You talk about crime area transfers and secondary transfers. Does that have any bearing at all, in your opinion, the number of times that the Bronco was used to transport items, the number of times that people used the Bronco, the number of times that dogs were in the Bronco and ended up on the property at Bundy? Does that have any bearing at all? A. Well, it might in some ways, yes. Just depends how far you want to stretch your imagination as to movement of hair and fibers. Q. Well, did you ask anyone about that information, if it might have some bearing on your opinions, sir? Did you ever ask anyone? A. Well, I accepted the fact that there was a possibility of transfer that the victim -- one of the victims could have been in the Bronco, without that -- without knowing that, simply because of the relationship between the suspect in the case and the victim. But I didn't. I didn't know that. I mean, I expected to find her hair in the Bronco. Q. Did you consider the possibility that the fiber from the Bronco that you say was found on the knit cap, or the fiber from the Bronco that you say was found on the Rockingham glove, did you consider at all the possibility that those fibers could have been already at the Bundy location, somewhere in the soil, prior to this crime? Did you think about that at all, sir? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Speculative and use of the word "possibility." MR. LEONARD: He used it in every answer. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. MEDVENE: I don't believe so. THE COURT: I think I overruled the objection. MR. LEONARD: Thank you. THE COURT: So let's stop the speeches and get on with the case. MR. LEONARD: Can you answer the question? THE WITNESS: I can. I -- Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Yes or no? A. Well, let's go over that question again. Q. Did you consider the possibility that the Bronco, the fiber that you've identified as coming from the Bronco -- did you consider the possibility before you came into this courtroom, sir, that that fiber could have been on the ground, having been transferred, as you put it, prior to June 12, 1994? Did you consider that at all? Yes or no? A. Yes, that's a possibility. Q. It's an equal possibility with the others that you've spun out for the jury; isn't that fair to say? MR. MEDVENE: Argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. LEONARD: You can answer the question. THE WITNESS: With what other evidence? Just, I mean, you're throwing everything into the same ball and I'm not sure that's possible to do that, especially with hairs that are found inside a hat, woven into the fabric of the hat. I don't suspect that would be as logical if it was just laying on the surface of the soil, if you're assuming they're all over the ground. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you pick up your notes, please. Do you have your notes with you? A. I do. Q. Show me in your notes, sir, anywhere where you've indicated that you found hairs that were interwoven in the knit cap. Show me. MR. LEONARD: We'll mark these next. THE CLERK: Are they already marked? MR. P. BAKER: No. THE WITNESS: No. THE CLERK: 2172. (The instrument herein referred to as Mr. Deedrick's Notes was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2172.) THE WITNESS: I didn't indicate that from the notes. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Thank you. Now, you did consider -- so we get back on track, you did consider the possibility of secondary transfers for all these items in the ambient background, if you will, at Bundy, didn't you? That is the existing background of debris, hairs and fibers, you considered that, right? A. That was a consideration, sure. Q. And it was -- it's equally as likely that that's how the hairs and fibers ended up on all of these items, as it is that they ended up on there through primary contact between an assailant and any victim; isn't that true, sir? A. No, I can't agree with that. Q. Don't agree with that? A. Doesn't -- it is not logical to me. Q. Okay. And you don't -- and in coming to that conclusion, you don't even know where the hair was found, that the Negroid hair was found on Goldman's shirt, do you? A. No. That was from a debris scraping, if I remember correctly. Q. You don't know where it was on the shirt, do you, sir? A. No. Inside or outside, I don't know. Q. Okay. And you don't know where the Bronco fiber was on the Rockingham glove, do you? A. No, I don't. Q. In fact, the Rockingham glove was in a bag, correct? A. I got a debris pack, I believe. Q. And on the debris pack, did it not indicate that the Bronco fiber from the Rockingham glove was actually found in the bag and not on the glove? Didn't it say that, sir? You can check your notes if you need to. A. That's right; it was. Q. So you have no idea where that was on the glove, do you? A. No. Q. And there's no indication of -- by the way, of any blood on that fiber, is there, sir? A. I don't recall. No, I don't recall any blood. Q. You would have written it down if there was, wouldn't you? A. Well, there was an awful lot of blood. I may have; I may not have. But I didn't write it down. I don't recall any blood on that fiber. Q. Your best memory is there wasn't any? A. I think I said that, yes. Q. Now, your analysis, in general, is so subjective that you don't even bother to keep notes of precisely what you see in the microscope with regard to your comparison; is that correct? A. I don't write everything down, no. Q. Well, you didn't write anything down here about what you actually observed when you compared fibers and hairs in this case, did you? A. No. That's not what I routinely do. I don't routinely do that, nor does anybody else in the unit. Q. Okay. And you also know that hair and fiber experts often differ about their conclusions about whether or not particular items match, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. He's not talking about this case. It's vague and speculative. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I don't know if I understand what you mean by "often." I just don't know. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) It happens, doesn't it? A. Oh, it happens, sure. Q. It happens a lot, doesn't it? A. I can't answer that. I don't know what "a lot" is. Q. You can't answer that? A. Doesn't happen a lot in our laboratory. But I mean, I can't account for everybody's laboratory. Q. Well, your laboratory has got quite a record with regard to proficiency testing, right? A. I don't know what that means exactly. Q. Well, since 1986, every single examiner who has been tested has gotten 100 percent, right? A. All on the fiber and hair proficiency. Q. Got 100 percent? A. Right, got the right answer. Q. And those are -- strike that. There was something else that was found in the knit cap, the Bundy knit hat, wasn't there? A. There was other material found, yes. Q. There was a lot of material found? A. There were other fibers, yes. Q. There were a number -- and by the way, there are a number of fibers and hairs of all kinds that you haven't talked about here that were found on all these items, right? A. That's right. Q. That's normal, right? A. It's not unusual to find a lot of debris on a lot of items. Q. Sure. Because everywhere we walk, everywhere we go, everywhere we happen to lay our clothes down or our bags or anything, we pick up all types of hairs and fibers, correct? A. Well, depends on the surface, depends on the contact. We go through life picking up things and losing things. Q. And for instance, there were various kinds of dog and cat hairs that were found on some of these items, correct? A. That's right. Q. And did you conclude that those found their way onto these items by way of primary transfer or secondary transfer, or did you make any conclusion? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Compound number of items he's going to; and it's not relevant, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll overrule it. It is rather compound. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You understand it? A. Yes. Well, we didn't talk. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. The nature of the objection is compound. You sustained the objection. You should ask a new question. THE COURT: I guess he just wants to make you ask that question again. MR. LEONARD: He's trying to cramp my style, I think. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) On many of these items -- you understand that part? A. Right; I understand that. Q. Okay. There were cat hairs, right? A. Right. Q. Some of the items had dog hairs on them? A. Right. Mostly dog hairs. Mostly dog hairs. Q. And some cat hairs? A. If I remember right, yes. Q. Did you know, by the way, that there hadn't been a cat at that apartment -- at least, the people who lived in the Bundy location hadn't owned a cat for six months prior to this; did you know that, sir? A. No. Q. That doesn't surprise you, though, that there still would be cat hairs there? A. Well, I don't know if you can say that they're from that cat, necessarily. I mean, I'm sure cats jump over fences. There's probably a lot of cats in the neighborhood. Assuming it came from that cat -- Q. Now, inside -- according to the LAPD, anyway -- inside the knit cap, there were Negroid head hairs that were dissimilar to Mr. Simpson's correct? A. There were, yes. Q. And they were dissimilar to everyone that was involved in the case, at least the examples that you got? A. Right. That's right. Q. And is there any particular reason you didn't put that up on the board in direct? MR. MEDVENE: Argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. It wasn't asked. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you discuss that with Mr. Medvene prior to your testimony? Did you tell him that there were Negroid head hairs in the knit cap that were inconsistent with Mr. Simpson? A. Yes, he was aware of that. Q. Okay. He didn't ask you that question? MR. MEDVENE: It's argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. LEONARD: I'll withdraw it. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And those, according to the record, were found inside the knit cap; is that right? You can check your record. A. Yeah, I believe that's correct. Let me check. That's right. There were some. Q. Now, as far as the Bronco fiber goes, there was a single fiber that was found, you don't know where, but apparently found in -- somehow adjacent to or associated with the Rockingham glove, right, a single fiber? A. Right. I think it's from the bag, if I remember. Q. Right. Now -- and there was also a single fiber which you say came from the Bronco, found somewhere in relation to the Bundy hat, correct? A. Right. Q. You don't know whether that was on the Bundy hat, do you? A. No. Q. In fact, it was only discovered by you after the Bundy hat had been examined two times before; is that right? A. I'm not sure what you mean. How many times it may have been examined prior to my getting it? Q. Didn't you get -- before you ever examined the knit cap, didn't you get a debris pack? A. Right. It was examined. I don't know how many times it may have been examined. Q. Okay. And the way you found that -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you took the knit cap, right -- And by the way, that was the only actual piece of evidence, as opposed to debris packets, actually clothing or physical evidence that you got, right? A. That's right. Q. At least at that time? A. Right. Q. You took the knit cap and you took it into what, a separate room from the examination room? A. Right. Q. And you -- what, do you spread some kind of paper on the floor? A. On a table. Q. On a table. And you used some kind of device to scrape the knit cap? A. Spatula, large spatula. Q. And then you examined the debris that resulted or what came down from the knit cap? A. Right. Q. And you found a single Bronco fiber, correct? A. Well, I don't -- I found a single fiber that could have originated from a Bronco. Q. Right? A. Right. Q. And you could barely see that; is that fair to say? You could barely see that with the naked eye? A. Right. Right. It's a small piece. You can hardly see those fibers because of their likeness. Q. Right. And by the way, when you say "likeness," you're talking about color, right? A. Color. Q. They're also light; in the physical sense, they can literally float around, isn't that true? A. Well, they're probably one of the heavier fibers. If you're assuming that all fibers are floating around, they do. They're bigger; they're heavier. Q. They move very easily from place to place; they get on people and people can move them, correct? A. Well, that's why we look at clothing items as evidence, because of that. Q. Prior to -- and this was the last thing, according to your notes, that you did, the scraping of the knit cap, correct? A. Right. Q. And if you would turn to the last page of your notes, please. Actually, it's not; it's the second-to-last page. (Witness complies.) A. Oh, this thing here. Q. Yeah, the typewritten notes. What exhibit number are the typewritten notes, please? THE CLERK: The notes of Mr. Deedrick? MR. BAKER: 2172? THE CLERK: Correct. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Got that? A. I do. (Witness reviews notes.) Q. You have Q47? Is that the knit cap? A. That's right. Q. It says general scraping, right? A. That's right. Q. Now, prior to this, there had been an examination of what you -- what you characterize as a shovel, shovel and plastic sheeting, and a towel, which you knew had come from the Bronco, correct? A. That's right; that's where they told me it came from. Q. Okay. And on those particular items, there was also a single Bronco fiber found, correct? A. That's right. Q. Now, by the way, there was never any blood found on any of those items, correct, that you know of? A. I don't know. Q. And the shovel, that was kind of a mucking shovel; it had a square nose to it. Do you remember that? Did you ever see the shovel? A. I saw a picture? I think it did have a square end to it. Q. Okay. And you know that the plastic was something that actually came with the Bronco, right? Remember hearing that? A. I remember hearing that. Q. In any event, that was the sequence, correct? A. Right. Q. Now, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that hairs and fibers can be inadvertently transferred, even in an environment like your laboratory? That's something that can happen; do you agree with that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And, in fact. You try to take the precautions to avoid that, don't you? A. We do. Q. In fact, don't you sometimes pluck your own hair out and make sure your hair hasn't gotten into exemplars that you're looking at? A. We've done that, yes. Q. It's something you do, right? A. Yes. Q. So you would agree with me that it is certainly possible that hairs and fibers can be transferred from items that you're actually examining, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor? Anything is possible. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I would -- again, I don't -- maybe -- let's go over that question again so I'm clear; can we? MR. LEONARD: Yeah. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You told me that you take precautions, if you can, to avoid inadvertent transfer, secondary transfers or primary transfers, for that matter, between items that you're examining in your lab? A. Right. Q. And you do that because you know it's possible that that can occur, correct? A. Right. Q. Otherwise, you wouldn't take the precautions? A. We don't want to contaminate; that's correct. Q. But it's possible for that to happen? A. It's possible. Anything is not possible, but that's possible. Q. Now, you have attempted to be, again, as fair and objective and up front, straight on with this jury as you possibly can, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Asked and answered, Your Honor, several times. MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You mentioned early on in your direct examination that you had testified in hundreds of cases. Remember that? A. I do. Q. And you said that. And when you said that, you intended to convey to this jury that your testimony and your scientific technique had been accepted in all the courts that you had testified in; is that fair to say, sir? That's what you wanted to tell this jury? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustain the objection as to the form of the question. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you intend, when you said that you had testified in hundreds of cases, to impart to this jury that your testimony had been permitted, that it was accepted scientifically in all the courts that you have testified in? Is that what you intended by saying that to this jury? A. No, it wasn't my intention. Q. And you didn't because you know that your testimony has been excluded, and it happened in 1993 in a case in Oklahoma. Do you remember that, sir? A. In Oklahoma, right. That's the only time. Q. And that was the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court there, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Collateral. THE COURT: Sustained. This is this court, and this court is admitting it. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you would agree with me, sir, would you not, that for each and every one of the associations that you've made in the case -- okay -- every one of those primary transfers, that there's an equally plausible secondary transfer that could have occurred. Would you agree with that? A. I don't know if I would agree with equally plausible, but secondary transfers could account for some of this evidence that I talked about, yes. MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. You said that the -- that one of Mr. Simpson's head hairs, I believe, that you examined, was a fragment? A. That's right. There were several, I guess, if you look at all the evidence. Q. And was one that was a fragment found on Mr. Goldman's shirt? A. Right. That's right. Q. And did you feel you had an adequate sample to examine against Mr. Simpson's known hair sample? A. I did. Q. I'd ask that you put on the board what you have as No. 38, K7, Mr. Simpson's known hair sample. I believe it is on the board that we've previously looked at. MR. GELBLUM: On the screen or... MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry, on the TV monitor. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And would you put the fragment, which is Q23, the hair found on Mr. Goldman's shirt that Mr. Leonard asked you about that you identified as matching or the same microscopic characteristics as Mr. Simpson. MR. LEONARD: Asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. All right. Now, let's do it again so we can all see it. Mr. Leonard asked you if there was enough to analyze, to say it matched or had the same microscopic characteristics. Let's first put up the known Hair of Mr. Simpson, the hair we knew came from his head. That's K7. And let's run over it, Q23, which is the fragment. (Mr. Foster complies.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury why you said they had the same microscopic characteristics, or did it matter? A. Well, you've already gone through that. I think it was pretty visible on one of the video things. MR. LEONARD: I object. This is asked and answered. THE COURT: You raised a fragment issue. I'm going to allow examination. What exhibits are we looking at? We've got two numbers. Are these exhibits court exhibit numbers? MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor. They're on the board. THE COURT: Well, they're not on the board. You're showing them on the screen and you're overlaying something on top of each. What are you doing? MR. PETROCELLI: We'll need new numbers for those on the television, Your Honor. THE CLERK: 2173 is next in order. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: There are two exhibits. MR. PETROCELLI: 2173 and 2174. 2173 will be K7, the known head hair from Mr. Simpson, and 2174 would be the hair found on Mr. Goldman's shirt. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of known head hair from Mr. Simpson (K7) was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2173.) (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt (Q23) was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2174.) THE COURT: Which is? MR. MEDVENE: 2174. THE COURT: You had a Q number. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. Q23. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) There was -- I'm sorry; I probably interrupted you on your answer. You were going to tell the jury -- we just run the pictures, actually, by them. Would you just briefly describe the microscopic characteristics that caused you to say microscopic characteristics were the same and/or there -- that there was a match? A. When I do a comparison, that is, compare question hair with the known hair, you line up particular points along the hair with a shorter fragment, we're talking about here, that was taken off of Mr. Goldman's shirt. You'd have to make a determination of where it might fit into that known hair sample. It's not uncommon to find fragments in cases. In this particular one, I saw the color of the hair, the one side pigmentation, the thickness of the cuticle, the size of the pigment granules, distribution of the pigment, presence or absence of certain characteristics such as particle fusi or -- ovoid bodies, the general shape and size of the hair. Those are things basically that I use for comparison. Q. Now, Mr. Leonard also asked you certain of the hair that you analyzed inside the knit cap. I'll put on the board K7 again. It's known head hair from Mr. Simpson. That's number 26. And that will be 2175, Your Honor. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of K7, Known Head Hair from Mr. Simpson, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2175.) MR. MEDVENE: And 2176 will be Q10, a hair found inside the knit hat at Bundy. (The instrument herein referred to as a Hair found inside the knit hat at Bundy, (Q10), was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2176.) MR. MEDVENE: Again, let's put them on the board. First, 2175, which is K7, the known head hair of Mr. Simpson. (Exhibit 2175 displayed.) MR. MEDVENE: And Q10. (Q10 displayed.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Why did you say the hairs that it's just -- again, had the same microscopic characteristics or matched? A. For the same reasons. It's pigmentation, thickness of the cuticle, size of the hair, distribution of the pigment, presence and absence -- and in this case, there's an absence of ovoid bodies and cortical fusi, the look of the hair, and the size -- I mentioned the size. All of them are very similar. All the questioned hairs that were matched and the known hairs were very similar to each other. It didn't matter which hair. Q. I'm just going to show you one more with reference to the knit hat, so it will be 2177. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of known head hair of Mr. Simpson, No. 34, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2177.) MR. MEDVENE: Again, the known head hair of Mr. Simpson, which is No. 34. And 2178, which is Q14, a hair found inside the knit cap at Bundy, which you identified as microscopically identical to Mr. Simpson's--or the same microscopic characteristics to Mr. Simpson. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of Head Hair found in cap at Bundy, (Q14), was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2178.) MR. MEDVENE: Can you run that on the board once more? First the known hair of Mr. Simpson. Now, over that, the questioned hair. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury why you gave the opinion that those two hairs had the same microscopic characteristics? A. Yeah. Not same reasons; that is, the color, size, shape, pigmentation, distribution of pigment, streakiness of pigment, thickness of the cuticle is very thin. Size of the pigment granules, ovoid bodies, cortical fusi those are the reasons mainly. Q. In the 10,000 or so occasions when you've been asked to differentiate between a victim's hair and a suspect's hair, have you ever been unable to make that identification? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect to the questions we've asked you about hairs or fibers flying around, in connection with your testimony that you felt it logical that the carpet fiber from Mr. Simpson's Bronco that was on the Bundy hat got there from -- probably sitting on the Bronco, is it possible that that carpet fiber from the Bronco somehow, when the window was open, flew out of the Bronco, maybe one gray day, when Mr. Simpson was driving that Bronco, flew out on its own from the Bronco, and landed on the Bundy hat sometime around the night of June 12, because the Bundy hat was just lying there at the murder scene? Is that possible? MR. LEONARD: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Well, when you say that -- when you gave your explanation of what you felt was a most reasonable explanation of how carpet fiber from -- identical to that in Mr. Simpson's Bronco found its way to the Bundy hat, the hat found at the murder scene, having the same carpet fiber as Mr. Simpson's Bronco, why did you say that was the logical -- or why did you believe that what was found at Bundy had had some contact with Mr. Simpson's Bronco? MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, that misstates his evidence. He said several times -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection to speaking objection. MR. LEONARD: It misstates what he testified to. I will approach the side bar if I need to. Absolutely misstates what he said. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Mr. Deedrick, do you have any reason to believe that the carpet fiber from Mr. Simpson's Bronco somehow flew out the window and landed on a hat that was found at Bundy, that we referred to as the Bundy hat? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: I think I'll allow it. I don't know what kind of a probative question that is; it has no probative value at all. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you answer the question, please. The Court permitted you to answer. THE WITNESS: Oh, I. THE COURT: It's like asking, is anything possible. MR. MEDVENE: That's what Mr. Leonard asked, is anything possible. MR. LEONARD: Oh, Your Honor, I -- THE COURT: Excuse me. The question is, is anything possible in terms of how the fiber got on the hat. THE WITNESS: Should I answer that question, Your Honor? THE COURT: I guess so. That's what the question is. MR. MEDVENE: Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) All right. Let me ask you, Mr. Deedrick, could you tell us, in your experience of 18 years or so doing this work, what do you -- what is your opinion as to how the transfer was made of the carpet fiber identical to that in Mr. Simpson's Bronco to the Bundy hat and the Rockingham glove? MR. LEONARD: Misstates his testimony and it's been asked and answered. THE COURT: Well, we will take a noon recess. 1:30. And, Mr. Medvene, why don't you work on that question. (At 12:00 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1996 1:38 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were resumed in open court in the presence of the jury:) Douglas Deedrick, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: THE CLERK: You're still under oath. Would you please state your name again for the record? THE WITNESS: Douglas W. Deedrick. THE CLERK: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Agent Deedrick, you referred to your work and examination this morning as a combination, and part of our -- the combination, the part of science. Could you tell us what you meant by that? A. Well, hair analysis, especially with hair analysis, it's a subjective interpretation of objective criteria. What that -- what that means is you make a determination as to the value or the identity of a particular structure based upon the way they look, based upon their scientific biological appearance, through a microscope. So it's a combination of both. A lot of the subjectivity or art, as some people refer to it, comes into determining the value of something, what it's worth. And that has a basis. In experience, you have to take that into consideration with all the hairs that you've seen, all the case work that you've seen. So it is a combination of both. Q. Now, Mr. Leonard, in questioning, talked about the possibility of human hairs or fibers, or Bronco fibers, floating around in the air and I just want to pick up, 'cause of time, just a couple items. With respect -- MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to the preamble. It misstates my questions to this witness. THE COURT: I think you talked about floating hairs. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect -- with respect to Mr. Goldman's shirt, did you find any human hairs, other than those that you testified to, in your opinion, matched the known samples of Nicole Brown, Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson? MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. It's beyond the scope and also, once again, there's a lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I did not. I found no other hairs. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect to Mr. Goldman's pants, did you find any hairs from anyone other than Nicole Brown and possibly Ronald Goldman? A. Again, what was the item? Q. When on -- on Ronald Goldman pants? A. On his pants, no. And again, we're referring to hairs, comparable type hairs? Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. Did you find any Bronco fibers that floated down on Mr. Goldman's shirt that you were able to identify? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: On his shirt? Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes. MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation as well. THE COURT: Overruled. Floated down, yes. Sustained on that. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Were there any Bronco fibers identified on Mr. Goldman's shirt? A. No. Q. Any on his pants? A. No. Q. With respect, there's questions about the Bundy glove. Did you find any other human hairs on the Bundy glove other than those that matched Nicole Brown Simpson? A. I did not. Q. Did you share the hair and fiber evidence that you testified about, underlying slides, all the evidence regarding matches, did you share that with Mr. Simpson's defense expert? MR. LEONARD: Objection, Your Honor. Outside the scope and irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you -- did you make available and give to Mr. Simpson's defense expert all the underlying material from which you testified to today? MR. LEONARD: Same objections, Your Honor. I move to strike the question at this point. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. All that material was made available and it was examined. I understand he agreed with me. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I move to strike the last response. THE COURT: Everything stricken except "yes." Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did any expert, to your knowledge, ever disagree with any of the findings that you testified to. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I move to strike. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. LEONARD: I ask the jury be admonished at this point. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court -- THE COURT: Disregard the question. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, Mr. Leonard talked about -- MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, please. I don't want speaking objections in front of the jury. If Your Honor -- MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, may we approach the bench, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. The objection is sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Mr. Leonard asked you a general question, not about this case, but about, do experts ever disagree, and I'm asking you, did the defense expert who had your material or any other expert ever disagree with you on any of the results you testified to today about matches? MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I move to strike once again. Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: I think -- MR. LEONARD: Calls for hearsay. THE COURT: You opened the door on that one, overruled. THE WITNESS: No, no one disagreed with the results that I came up to. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you report out -- is the policy of the FBI to ever report out on batch, as you reported in this case, if that match is not confirmed, within your unit by at least one other hair and fiber examiner? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Beyond the scope, asked and answered. THE COURT: Asked on direct. Overruled -- Sustained. MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further. Thank you very much, Agent Deedrick. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. Agent Deedrick, you were asked on redirect examination about hairs and fibers floating through the air. Let's me ask you this: If a blanket was brought out of the residence at Bundy, introduced into the crime scene and spread out, in the environment of the crime scene, before all these articles were collected, could that very possibly account for some of the hairs and fibers that I've identified that have been spread around the crime scene? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Outside the scope and assuming facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. MEDVENE: And no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: It could -- it depends what's on the surface of the blanket. MR. LEONARD: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, I want to make sure it's perfectly clear to the jury what you were showing them when you showed them on redirect examination, some 250 times blown up, photographs. I want to make sure they understand what you were doing. MR. MEDVENE: The Court, please -- THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Those photographs that you showed, they represent a very small minute portion of the hair that -- hairs that you examined, correct? A. That's right, it does. Q. In fact, the hair that -- the hairs that you examined, were how long -- I'm talking about on the redirect. THE COURT: Sustained my objection. You've been through this on your cross already. MR. LEONARD: But Your Honor, he went into it on detail in redirect. THE COURT: Just sustained on redirect. MR. LEONARD: Excuse me? THE COURT: I'll sustain my objection. MR. LEONARD: Can you put the chart up? Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) On redirect, you were asked about items that weren't found, correct? You were asked about items of hair and fibers that weren't found on various items in the crime scene. Do you remember that? A. I do. Q. Now, you've seen this chart before, haven't you? A. I have, yes. Q. And that chart, at least this portion of it, accurately represents some of the things that were found and weren't found; is that correct? A. It does represent some of the things, yes. Q. Okay. So you would agree that there was no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson found on the Bundy glove, correct? (Exhibit 1159 is displayed on TV screen.) MR. MEDVENE: This is outside the scope of the redirect. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, he went -- THE COURT: Sustained. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, he went into detail. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. This is argument. THE COURT: Sustained. THE COURT: This wasn't covered on redirect. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach? THE COURT: No. MR. LEONARD: May we approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. MR. LEONARD: Don't have any further questions of this witness. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. You're excused. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. (The instrument herein referred to as Chart listing items of evidence that were not found was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1159.) THE CLERK: Was there an exhibit referred to? I'd like to get for the record, what 1159 is. MR. LEONARD: It is a chart indicating items of evidence that were not found on various evidentiary items, item hairs and fibers that were not found. THE CLERK: Thank you. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we would move in 2169. THE CLERK: One moment, please. Thank you. MR. MEDVENE: 2169, 520, 521, 503, 524, 525, 527, 530, 531, 532, 516, 517, 2173, 2174, 2175, 2176, 2177, and 2178. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2169, was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 520 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 521 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 503 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 524 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 525 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 527 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 530 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 531 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 532 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 516 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 517 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2173 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2174 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2175 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2176 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2177 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2178 was received in evidence.) MR. BAKER: Object to 2169. That's cumulative and -- MR. MEDVENE: We didn't move in 2169. THE CLERK: Yes you did. MR. BAKER: Yes you did. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, the first one. MR. PETROCELLI: That's our chart. MR. BAKER: The chart, I object to it. MR. MEDVENE: That's the chart. THE COURT: Which chart? MR. MEDVENE: That was the chart that Mr. Deedrick prepared. THE COURT: Okay. Overruled. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we ask that 2171, 2172 and 1159 be moved in. THE COURT: Okay. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2171.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2172.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1159.) ROBIN COTTON, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: And if you please, state and spell your name for the record? THE WITNESS: My name is Robin Cotton, R-O-B-I-N, C-O-T-T-O-N. MR. MEDVENE: Oh, excuse me, your honor, can we reserve on 1159? There was no testimony about it. Mr. Baker just raised that. I think that's what was put on the board. There weren't any questions, as I remember, asked about it. Can we reserve on that and address it later? We object to -- THE COURT: Okay. Objection is noted and you may raise that objection at a later time. THE CLERK: Received? THE COURT: Received. You may move to strike it. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. May I proceed, Your Honor? A. You may. Q. Dr. Cotton, what is your occupation? A. I'm the Laboratory Director at Cellmark Diagnostics in German Town, Maryland. Q. What is Cellmark Diagnostics? A. We are --we are a private laboratory and we do paternity testing and testing on biological evidence. Q. And could you tell us what your formal educational background is? A. I have a Bachelors Degree of Science with a major in Biology. I have a Master's Degree of Science which major in biology and both of those are from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology and biochemistry from the University of California at Irvine. Q. And when did you receive your Ph.D. degree? A. In 1980. Q. Can you describe briefly for us what molecular biology is? A. It's basically a set of techniques that allow you to study the molecular interactions that occur in cells that allow cells to function. Q. And what is biochemistry? A. It's sort of the same thing. Q. Okay. And in your studies to obtain your Ph.D. in these fields, did you deal at all with DNA? A. Yes, I did. Q. Can you tell us what aspects of your studies involve DNA? A. DNA is packaged into chromosomes and my work at Irvine was involved in looking at the proteins that helped to package the DNA up to form the chromosomes. Q. Now, after obtaining your Ph.D. degree, did you -- what did you do next? A. I went to the University of Iowa and did a post -- Post Doctoral Fellow which is going to someone who has an established laboratory and working in their laboratory and I worked there in the Department of Biochemistry for three years. Q. Did you work there, also involve any aspects of DNA? A. Yes, it did. Q. After your postdoctoral studies, what did you do next? A. I went to the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland and I worked there for about four and a half years. Q. And what did you do while you were -- Well, first maybe you could tell us what the National Institute of Health does? A. It is a government funded research institute which is really composed of many smaller institutes. There's probably, I don't really remember, but maybe 3 to 5,000 scientists. It sort of looks like a good size college campus. And it's -- all the people there are involved in government funded research which is mostly health related. Q. And what specific research were you involved with? A. I was involved with a unit that was looking at the genetics of alcoholism and we were mapping some of the genes that are not necessarily involved in alcoholism, but involved in how alcohol is metabolized when it's -- when you've had some. Q. And that also was a DNA related research; was it? A. It was. Q. Let me show you what I'd like to mark as next exhibit in order which I believe is -- THE CLERK: 2179. MR. LAMBERT: 1179. THE CLERK: 21. MR. LAMBERT: Excuse me, 2179. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Is that a copy of your current curriculum vitae, Doctor? A. Yes, it is. Q. Does that list the various articles that you have authored since you obtained your Ph.D.? (The instrument herein referred to as the curriculum vitae of Dr. Robin Cotton was received in evidence Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2179) A. Yes, it does. Q. Are any of those articles peer review articles?