Direct examination of Susan Brockbank (part 1)

📄 Direct examination of Susan Brockbank (part 1) — Wednesday, December 11, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\11\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-SUSAN-BR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 30 of 57

◀ Recess Direct examination of Susan Brockbank (part 2) ▶

Witness: Susan Brockbank
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 • Utterances: 128

Defense attorney Robert Blasier conducted direct examination of LAPD criminalist Susan Brockbank, focused almost entirely on establishing the limitations of hair and fiber evidence. Blasier methodically extracted admissions that hair analysis cannot make positive identifications, produces no statistical frequency data, and cannot determine when or how a hair arrived at a location. The examination concluded by pivoting to attack FBI examiner Douglas Deedrick's note-taking practices by contrast with Brockbank's more detailed documentation.

# 1 THE CLERK:

Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

# 2 Q:

Good afternoon, Ms. Brockbank.

# 3 A:

Good afternoon.

# 4 Q:

You are a criminalist with the Police Department, SID division, correct?

# 5 A:

Yes.

# 6 Q:

And at the time that you worked on the Simpson case, you were assigned to the hair and trace unit, correct?

# 7 A:

Yes.

# 8 Q:

Now, previously, you testified -- and let me put on the Elmo 464, the first page of 464.

# 9 (Defendant's Exhibit No. 464, first page, displayed on the Elmo screen.)

# 10 Q:

You recall being asked questions by the plaintiffs and testifying about the dates that you collected -- or that various items were collected and the dates that they were sent to the FBI and what the FBI numbers were, correct?

# 11 A:

Yes.

# 12 Q:

And then 464 is just a different part, basically saying the name again, when items were collected and when they were sent to the FBI?

# 13 A:

Yes.

# 14 Q:

It's accurate you did far more work in this case than just that in terms of analyzing evidence?

# 15 A:

Than just what?

# 16 Q:

Than just collecting them on one date and sending them to the FBI on another date?

# 17 A:

Yes, I did more than that.

# 18 Q:

You are an expert trained in the analysis of hair and fiber, are you not?

# 19 A:

Yes, I am.

# 20 Q:

Okay.

Now, would you agree with me that comparing hair evidence with such things as fingerprints, DNA conventional serology, that hair evidence is the least discriminating of all of those types of evidence?

# 21 A:

I don't know that it's the least discriminating. We don't generate numbers like those other things do.

I mean, with a fingerprint, you can make a positive identification.

KEY QUOTE

# 22 Q:

Right.

# 23 A:

With a hair exam, you can't.

# 24 Q:

I'm sorry?

# 25 A:

And with -- with your example of blood analysis, they give you frequency numbers in the population, and with hair, we don't do that, either.

# 26 Q:

All you can say with hair is, it could have come from that person; then again, it might not have?

# 27 A:

Well, either it could have come from them, or it did not come from them, yes.

# 28 Q:

But when you say it could have come from them, you can't say that conclusively, that it did come from a particular person, can you?

# 29 A:

No.

# 30 Q:

And you can't -- there are no -- no tables of data anywhere that helps you narrow down how many other people it could possibly have come from, either; isn't that correct?

# 31 A:

No -- I mean, that's correct.

# 32 Q:

And the same is true of fiber evidence, is it not?

It's not terribly discriminating, in that about the only thing you can say is that two fibers could have had a common source, for the most part?

# 33 A:

Unless you have like a patch of fabric that you're piecing back together, where you have a physical match, in that case, you could say, you know, you have a positive identification.

But if you don't have a patch of fabric, if you're dealing with single fibers, then yes, um-hum.

# 34 Q:

And none of the fiber evidence in this case is like a patch of cloth that you can exactly match up to a source, correct?

# 35 A:

None that I'm aware of.

# 36 Q:

Okay.

Now, would you agree that, with respect to hair and fiber evidence at a crime scene, that one of the things that you would like to know, as a criminalist or investigator, is whether or not the suspect was a frequent visitor to the area where hair and fiber evidence might have been found?

# 37 A:

That would be an additional piece of information, sure.

# 38 Q:

Okay.

The evidence would be of more value if you found someone's hair or fiber when they'd never been to that location, supposedly, correct?

# 39 (No verbal response.)

# 40 Q:

I didn't ask that very well.

# 41 A:

You mean -- more significant, you mean?

# 42 Q:

Yes.

# 43 A:

I think so, yes.

# 44 Q:

And one of the reasons for that is that hair and fiber pretty much stay around for a long time, don't they?

# 45 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Vague.

# 46 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 47 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) They don't break down like blood tests?

# 48 A:

Well, with time, they will break down, yes.

# 49 Q:

A lot of time, right?

# 50 A:

Well, it takes -- it takes a bit of time for them, yeah, to totally disintegrate. But --

# 51 Q:

I mean, you can have a fiber that you find in one location. That it may have been there for months, and you have no way of knowing whether it was put there this morning or was there five months ago, do you?

# 52 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.

# 53 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 54 A:

No.

# 55 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) And you have no way of knowing how many intermediate places it might have been between where it originally came from and where you found it, correct?

# 56 A:

Not really, no.

# 57 Q:

Okay.

And you never did an analysis of the soil area around 875 South Bundy to determine how common hairs consistent with Mr. Simpson might be in that area, did you?

# 58 A:

No, I did not.

# 59 Q:

And you didn't do any analysis like that to determine how common carpet fibers, that might be consistent with his Bronco, were in that area, did you?

# 60 A:

No, I did not.

# 61 Q:

Now, hair and trace evidence, oftentimes, is very difficult to see with the naked eye, is it not?

# 62 A:

I guess it depends on what -- on what the surface is that the hair is on, or what the circumstances are surrounding, you know, each individual case.

# 63 Q:

Okay.

Would you agree that you don't -- that's not the kind of assessment that you made in the field; that is, when there's hair or fiber evidence on a piece of evidence, it's something you determine in the lab?

# 64 A:

Not always, no.

# 65 Q:

Primarily?

# 66 A:

I don't know even primarily. It's, you know, really a case-by-case basis. If you have, you know, you're out in the field and you have an object like this (indicating to witness stand), where you see hairs over to the side of it, you may collect it right then at the time.

# 67 Q:

Okay.

Would you agree with this, as a general rule, that kind of analysis is done in the laboratory under controlled conditions?

# 68 A:

The analysis is performed in a -- in the lab, yes. But removal isn't always, no.

# 69 Q:

Okay.

In this, case are you aware of any single hair or fiber sample that was picked up at the scene, as opposed to taken off of a piece of evidence back at the lab?

# 70 A:

I believe there might have been some hairs and fibers collected by either Mr. Fung or Ms. Mazzola, like from a blood stain or something.

I'm just going on memory here.

# 71 Q:

You --

# 72 A:

So --

# 73 Q:

-- you have a specific recollection of any such example like that which was found at the scene as opposed to taken off a piece of evidence later?

# 74 A:

That's what I'm describing for you now.

# 75 Q:

You think of one?

# 76 A:

I think so. Yes.

# 77 Q:

Any others?

# 78 A:

Again, just going on my memory, none that I can think of.

# 79 Q:

When you examine items of evidence in the lab, you do so under very controlled conditions, do you not?

# 80 A:

Yes, I do.

# 81 Q:

And you have a closed-in room that has no air currents in it?

There's minimal air current as possible, correct?

# 82 A:

Yes.

# 83 Q:

And that's because hairs and fibers -- fibers in particular -- can get moved from one thing to another just by waving at them in some cases, correct?

# 84 A:

Not -- not so much. I mean, it may be possible for something to move from one place to another, but I don't know that it happens with any frequency.

# 85 Q:

Why do you avoid air currents in the room that you use to examine items?

# 86 A:

So that you don't lose evidence.

KEY QUOTE

# 87 Q:

Because the air current could cause you to lose it, huh?

# 88 A:

Well, they could cause it to drop off of your working surface and onto the floor, and then it's pretty much lost.

# 89 Q:

You're very careful that you don't have other people walking around in the same room that you're doing these kinds of analysis in; is that fair to say?

# 90 A:

Well, in our lab, we have one -- one room, mainly, in the trace unit that is used for that type of analysis.

And there are generally other people working in the same room. They may be walking around; they may not be.

# 91 Q:

Now, with respect to hair analysis, we heard testimony from Agent Deedrick about certain characteristics that you look at when you examine a hair to see if it could have come from a particular person, correct?

# 92 A:

Yes.

# 93 Q:

Now, it's accurate, is it not, that there is no uniform list of characteristics that everybody uses; is that correct?

# 94 A:

That everybody -- you mean -- what do you mean by "everybody," everybody?

# 95 Q:

All examiners that --

# 96 A:

Hair examiners?

# 97 Q:

-- As you are?

# 98 A:

From agency to agency, I think that will differ within a given agency. There's usually some sort of -- of a form, or release of form at describing hairs.

# 99 Q:

In your work, you do have a form that you fill out in detail as to what characteristics you think you've observed for a particular hair, don't you?

# 100 A:

We use a form, along with just written, verbal notes.

# 101 Q:

And you're careful to write down all the things that you observe, so if you have to reconstruct it later, you can do so from your paperwork, correct?

# 102 A:

Just to, you know, refresh your memory and what not, but an actual comparison isn't done on paper.

# 103 Q:

You write down -- I'm sorry.

You write down the findings, the characteristics of what you saw and what you think is similar, correct?

# 104 A:

Yeah, we see a particular hair, we write down the characteristics; we write notes whether we believe it's similar to a known sample or not.

# 105 Q:

Special Agent Deedrick doesn't do any of that?

# 106 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Calls for speculation.

# 107 MR. BLASIER:

I'll try to lay the foundation

# 108 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You took a lot of this evidence back, and worked with Doug Deedrick in the FBI lab; watched him work?

# 109 A:

I watched him some of the time.

I was there not every minute.

# 110 Q:

You had a chance to evaluate his paperwork compared to yourself, haven't you?

# 111 A:

Not all of it.

I did see some of his notes, but I don't know that I've seen everything that he did.

# 112 Q:

You know that he does not keep detailed notes about what he looks at like you do?

# 113 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. No foundation --

# 114 THE COURT:

She watched him do his work.

# 115 MR. GELBLUM:

-- in this case.

# 116 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 117 MR. GELBLUM:

The question is overbroad.

# 118 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 119 Q:

MR. BLASIER: In this case, your notes are much better than his, aren't they?

# 120 A:

I don't know that you'd say better. They're just different. He uses --

# 121 Q:

Yours has something in them; his doesn't, correct?

KEY QUOTE

# 122 A:

His --

# 123 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 124 THE COURT:

Try another question.

# 125 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, on August 4 of 1994, you examined the socks found at Rockingham for the first time; is that accurate?

# 126 A:

Can I refer to my notes --

# 127 Q:

Sure.

# 128 A:

-- for that.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Susan Brockbank

I don't know that it's the least discriminating. We don't generate numbers like those other things do. I mean, with a fingerprint, you can make a positive identification. With a hair exam, you can't.

Core concession establishing hair evidence as inherently less reliable than fingerprints or DNA — a foundational point for the defense's effort to minimize the hair evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene.

Robert Blasier

You have no way of knowing whether it was put there this morning or was there five months ago, do you?

Establishes that hair and fiber evidence cannot be temporally anchored — critical for undermining hair found at 875 South Bundy given Simpson's prior presence there.

Susan Brockbank

So that you don't lose evidence.

Her explanation of why air currents are controlled in the lab inadvertently underscores how easily trace evidence can be transferred or contaminated — a point Blasier was building toward.

Robert Blasier

Yours has something in them; his doesn't, correct?

Aggressive characterization of Deedrick's notes as inadequate compared to Brockbank's, laying groundwork to impeach the FBI hair examiner's methodology.

Evidence (4)

Defendant's Exhibit 464

Document listing item collection dates, FBI submission dates, and FBI numbers for hair and trace evidence

displayed on Elmo screen, discussed

Informal

Socks found at Rockingham, examined by Brockbank on August 4, 1994

referenced at close of examination; Brockbank asked to consult her notes

Informal

Hair evidence consistent with Simpson collected at 875 South Bundy

discussed in context of limitations — no area survey done to establish baseline frequency

Informal

Carpet fibers consistent with Simpson's Bronco found at crime scene

discussed — Brockbank confirmed no comparative area survey was conducted

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Blasier•Susan Brockbank

Blasier extracted a series of stepped concessions about hair evidence limitations: no positive ID possible, no population frequency tables, no way to date when hair was deposited, no way to trace intermediate locations. Brockbank conceded each point methodically.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Susan Brockbank•Peter Gelblum•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Blasier attempted to get Brockbank to characterize Deedrick's notes as inferior. Gelblum objected on foundation and overbreadth grounds; Fujisaki overruled most objections but redirected on the final 'his doesn't' question with 'Try another question.'

heated

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Douglas Deedrick

comparison to a more rigorous examiner

Blasier used Brockbank's detailed note-taking practices as a baseline to imply Deedrick's FBI hair analysis lacked adequate documentation, with the pointed question: 'Yours has something in them; his doesn't, correct?' The judge cut off the answer.

Objections

6 objections (1 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 8603 • 128 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103