Direct examination of Susan Brockbank (part 2)

📄 Direct examination of Susan Brockbank (part 2) — Wednesday, December 11, 1996

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 30 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Susan Brockbank (part 1) Sidebar: chain of custody ▶

Witness: Susan Brockbank
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 • Utterances: 117

Defense attorneys Baker and Blasier conduct direct examination of Ms. Brockbank, an LAPD crime lab analyst, focusing on glove measurements and evidence storage practices. The examination establishes that both the Rockingham and Bundy gloves measured substantially smaller than new extra-large Aris leather lights, and that the Rockingham glove actually grew slightly larger by the time of the criminal trial. The examination then pivots to a significant evidence-handling issue: the Bronco carpet, both gloves, and the knit cap — items from three different crime scenes — were all stored together in the same box.

# 1 (Pause for witness to review notes in blue notebook, taken from her briefcase.)

# 2 SUSAN BROCKBANK:

What was the date, again?

# 3 Q:

August 4, 1994.

# 4 A:

Take me just a minute to find it in my notes.

Yes, it was August 4.

# 5 (Witness reviews notes.)

# 6 Q:

That was the first time, to your knowledge, that the socks were examined for any fiber evidence; is that correct?

# 7 A:

That was the only time I examined them for fiber evidence.

# 8 Q:

And when they were given to you, both socks were contained in one single bag, were they not?

# 9 A:

Actually, I was called over to the serology unit, and the socks were already out on the lab bench.

# 10 Q:

So you don't know how they'd been preserved prior to that time, whether they had been in separate bags or not?

# 11 A:

No, I don't actually recall the packaging on them.

# 12 Q:

Now, you also, as part of your work in the case, had measured various gloves at various times, have you not?

# 13 A:

Yes, I did.

# 14 Q:

And you measured the Rockingham and the Bundy gloves shortly after they were seized, correct?

# 15 (No verbal response.)

# 16 Q:

In June of '94?

# 17 A:

Well, let's see.

The first time I examined them was on June 19.

# 18 Q:

Of '94?

# 19 A:

Oh, wait a minute. Hold on just one second.

# 20 Q:

Sure.

# 21 A:

I'm sorry.

It was June 21 of 1994.

# 22 Q:

Okay.

You measured both gloves, correct?

# 23 A:

Yes.

# 24 Q:

And you measured them a second time, I think, almost a year later, in the middle of criminal trial?

# 25 A:

Yes. That was June 19, '95.

# 26 Q:

Isn't it accurate that -- well, withdrawn.

You also measured a pair of new Aris leather lights, extra large, produced by the prosecution in the criminal case, correct?

# 27 A:

Yes, I did.

# 28 Q:

And it's accurate, is it not, that the size of the Rockingham and Bundy gloves that you measured, both times you measured them, in 1994 and 1995, were much smaller than the extra large Aris, the new ones that were provided by the prosecution, correct?

# 29 A:

Yes. The measurements actually were up to about an inch, I think, and an eighth smaller.

KEY QUOTE

# 30 Q:

Substantially smaller?

# 31 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Asked and answered.

# 32 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 33 A:

They were definitely smaller.

# 34 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) And the Rockingham glove, between June of '94 and June of '95, at the time they were tried on by Mr. Simpson, actually had gotten a little bigger, hadn't they?

# 35 A:

The right glove, which was item number 9?

KEY QUOTE

# 36 Q:

Correct.

# 37 A:

Measured slightly larger, my notes say, up to a quarter inch on length of three of the five fingers.

So it was slightly larger than my original measurement.

# 38 Q:

Larger in the criminal trial than when you measured them back in June of '94, correct?

# 39 A:

Correct.

# 40 Q:

Now, one of the items that you examined was a -- a sample of carpet from the Bronco, correct?

# 41 A:

Yes.

# 42 (Defendant's Exhibit No. 419 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

# 43 Q:

And looking at 419, do you recognize the pictures in Exhibit 419 as being the piece of carpet that you examined on various occasions?

# 44 A:

That does appear to be it, yes.

# 45 Q:

I'm sorry?

# 46 A:

That does appear to be it.

# 47 Q:

Okay.

And can you tell us -- these certainly aren't life-size pictures -- can you tell us the dimensions -- actually, we have a ruler here. The piece of carpeting was -- appears to be almost three feet long, I don't know, maybe two feet wide.

Does that sound about right?

# 48 A:

That sounds about right.

# 49 Q:

And this carpeting was actually cut out of the Bronco, the front driver's side of the Bronco, correct?

# 50 A:

Yes.

# 51 Q:

To your knowledge?

# 52 A:

Yes.

# 53 Q:

Now, when you cut a piece of carpet, isn't it true that the carpet fibers get very fragile along the edges, in the sense that you're likely to get stuff falling off of that if you're not careful?

# 54 A:

Yes. You usually get some yarns falling off.

# 55 Q:

Okay.

And the carpet fibers that you had examined, or found, on other pieces of evidence in this case, were all extremely small, weren't they?

# 56 A:

Can you repeat that?

# 57 Q:

Yeah.

The carpet fibers that you found on some pieces of evidence in this case, were fairly small, weren't they?

# 58 A:

I never measured any of the fibers that I removed on anything.

# 59 Q:

Do you recall whether they were small?

# 60 A:

No, I don't.

# 61 Q:

When did you first examine that carpet?

# 62 A:

Let me check again, my notes.

# 63 (Witness reviews notes from blue notebook binder.)

# 64 SUSAN BROCKBANK:

Sorry, my notebook isn't as organized as I thought it was.

Okay.

Yeah, I examined the carpet on July 22 of 1994, along with Collin Yamauchi and John Taggart (phonetic).

# 65 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) And did you examine it at other times, as well?

# 66 A:

That was really the only time I examined it. I did -- I think -- well, I don't even know if I was the one that did it, or I just accompanied Bill Bodziak in looking at that one other time.

# 67 Q:

Okay.

When you looked at it in -- what you said, July?

# 68 A:

July 22.

# 69 Q:

Now, it was contained in a box, was it not?

# 70 A:

Yes, it was.

# 71 Q:

And that came to be known in the criminal trial as box number 2, didn't it?

# 72 A:

Yes, it did.

# 73 MR. BLASIER:

And can we have the next in order.

# 74 THE CLERK:

Going to be 2260, marked by reference to DR number 94-0-17431.

# 75 (The instrument herein referred to as A cardboard box with tape on it, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2260 by reference to DR number 94-0-17431.)

# 76 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you 2260.

Can you -- can you tell me if this is box number 2?

# 77 (Witness examines Defendants' Exhibit 2260.)

# 78 A:

Yes, it appears to be.

# 79 Q:

Okay.

And there's a label on the side, is there not, that describes the contents of that box, correct?

# 80 A:

Yes.

# 81 Q:

And let me put a copy of that on the Elmo.

# 82 MR. BLASIER:

Maybe we can make this the next one 22 --

# 83 THE CLERK:

61.

# 84 MR. BLASIER:

61.

# 85 (The instrument herein referred to as A copy of a label describing the contents of Defendants' Exhibit 2260 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2261.)

# 86 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Would you agree that appears to be a copy of the label that is on box number 2?

# 87 A:

Yes, it appears to be.

# 88 Q:

Now, that piece of carpet, when you examined it for the first time in July, was too big to fit into a paper bag, was it not?

# 89 A:

Yes.

# 90 Q:

And it had -- had been rolled up into butcher paper, correct?

# 91 A:

The carpet itself was kind of folded up.

# 92 Q:

Um-hum?

# 93 A:

That was wrapped in butcher paper.

# 94 Q:

Okay.

And it was scotch-taped?

# 95 A:

No. The brown tape that you see on the box --

# 96 Q:

Um-hum?

# 97 A:

-- it was taped with that.

# 98 Q:

So it was taped up?

# 99 A:

Yes.

# 100 Q:

And isn't it accurate that, in that same box, in July, when you examined the carpet, both Rockingham and Bundy gloves were in the same box?

# 101 A:

Yes, they were.

# 102 Q:

Is it also true that the knit cap that you examined was kept in that very same box?

# 103 A:

Yes, it was.

# 104 Q:

Now, is there -- you would agree that there was evidence from three different scenes kept in that same box together, correct?

# 105 A:

Yes, I guess there was.

KEY QUOTE

# 106 Q:

And each time you take something out, they were in bags of course, in the box, correct except for the carpet?

# 107 A:

Yeah. Each of the items were individually wrapped inside the box.

# 108 Q:

Each time you open a bag that has an item like a glove, a cap, you check the bag, because oftentimes, stuff falls off of it into the bag, correct?

# 109 A:

When I'm examining the item, I check inside the bag?

# 110 Q:

Yeah.

# 111 A:

Yes.

# 112 Q:

So -- because that's a frequent occurrence, stuff falling off?

# 113 A:

Sure.

# 114 Q:

And, in fact, if you would look closely in this box, you'll see -- why don't you take a look.

There's scotch tape in here. There appears to be some residual of something stuck to the scotch-tape inside.

# 115 MR. GELBLUM:

I object. There's been no chain of custody preserved on this box.

KEY QUOTE

# 116 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 117 MR. GELBLUM:

There's been no chain of custody preserved on this box. I don't know where it's been since last year.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Ms. Brockbank

The measurements actually were up to about an inch, I think, and an eighth smaller.

Directly supports the defense argument that the gloves were too small to fit OJ Simpson — the physical evidence gloves were nearly an inch and a half smaller than a new XL Aris pair.

Ms. Brockbank

The right glove, which was item number 9? Measured slightly larger, my notes say, up to a quarter inch on length of three of the five fingers. So it was slightly larger than my original measurement.

The Rockingham glove expanded between June 1994 and June 1995 — suggesting it had been wetted or otherwise altered, which complicates the glove-fit narrative.

Ms. Brockbank

Yes, I guess there was.

Conceding that evidence from three separate crime scenes (Rockingham, Bundy, Bronco) was stored together in one box — a textbook evidence contamination concern.

Peter Gelblum

There's been no chain of custody preserved on this box. I don't know where it's been since last year.

Plaintiff objects to the defense's use of 'box number 2' (Defendants' Exhibit 2260), raising chain of custody concerns about the box itself.

Evidence (6)

Defendants' 419

Photographs of the Bronco carpet piece cut from the front driver's side

Displayed on Elmo for identification

Defendants' 2260

Cardboard box ('box number 2') that stored the Bronco carpet, both gloves, and the knit cap

Introduced and examined; chain of custody objection raised

Defendants' 2261

Copy of the label on box 2260 describing its contents

Introduced via Elmo

Informal

New extra-large Aris leather lights gloves provided by prosecution in criminal trial

Referenced as comparison baseline for glove size measurements

Informal

Rockingham glove (item 9) and Bundy glove, measured June 21, 1994 and June 19, 1995

Measurements discussed; size discrepancy established

Informal

Socks examined for fiber evidence on August 4, 1994

Discussed; packaging prior to examination unknown to witness

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Blasier•Ms. Brockbank

Blasier walks Brockbank through the contents of box number 2, eliciting that the Bronco carpet, both gloves (from two different scenes), and the knit cap were all stored together in one box.

strategic

Mr. Baker•Ms. Brockbank

Baker establishes that both times the evidence gloves were measured — 1994 and 1995 — they were up to an inch and an eighth smaller than the new XL Aris pair, and that the Rockingham glove actually grew slightly larger between measurements.

revealing

Robert Blasier•Peter Gelblum•Judge Fujisaki

Blasier attempts to draw attention to scotch tape and residue inside box 2260; Gelblum objects on chain of custody grounds, noting the box's whereabouts since the previous year are unknown.

heated

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ LAPD crime lab

Evidence handling practices

Defense establishes that items from three separate crime scenes (Rockingham glove, Bundy glove, Bronco carpet, knit cap) were stored together in a single box, raising cross-contamination concerns for fiber evidence.

Witness Demeanor

(Pause for witness to review notes in blue notebook, taken from her briefcase.)

(Witness reviews notes.)

(Witness reviews notes from blue notebook binder.)

Witness: Sorry, my notebook isn't as organized as I thought it was.

(Witness examines Defendants' Exhibit 2260.)

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8613 • 117 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103