Douglas Deedrick.
DOUGLAS DEEDRICK was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn, and testified as follows:
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?
My name is Douglas W. Deedrick. Deedrick is spelled D-E-E-D-R-I-C-K.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:
As Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I'm currently assigned at the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C.
I've been with the FBI for over 24 years. I've been an agent since February of 1986 (sic); a little over 20 years as an agent.
I'm the chief of the Hairs and Fibers Unit in the Scientific Analysis Section of the FBI Laboratory.
I've been the unit chief now for about three years.
Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what kind of work the Hair and Fiber Unit does?
Well, our unit receives evidence from all around the country; and also, we receive some items sometimes from foreign countries.
Most of the evidence that we look at comes from state, local police investigating crimes of violence: Homicides, aggravated assaults, sexual assaults, cases that may involve physical contact between individuals, between a suspect and a victim, between a victim and an object, or between two objects.
Well, evidence mainly comes in the form of clothing that may have been worn by individuals suspected of crime to have been worn: Items recovered and submitted from a crime scene, where a crime may have been committed, where a crime they think may have been committed, items from vehicles. It may come in clothing; it may -- could come in debris packets, a lot of times.
From around the country, evidence is submitted in small packets. They actually do the processing and we receive just the debris for analysis.
Well, we try to determine whether or not contact may have occurred between two individuals, most of the time; as whether or not we can link an object to an individual or two individuals to each other by the evidence of hair evidence, fiber evidence, feathers, wood particles and other -- other materials.
How do you determine if contact between individuals or an individual and an object has occurred?
Well, contact occurs all the time. We all know it; we may not realize it. In fact, it can occur from a direct physical contact -- it's called the primary transfer -- or it can occur as a secondary transfer.
A secondary transfer would be one where I might be sitting in a chair somewhere; I deposit fibers as a primary transfer. The next person coming in the chair sits in it, picks up the fibers or hairs, and it becomes a secondary-type transfer.
So by looking at this hair and fiber evidence, it's possible to determine whether or not, for instance, two people may have had contact at one point.
Well, for instance, when clothing might be submitted from an individual, say a victim in a case, it's processed for trace material, such as hair and fiber.
These are then prepared on slides and examined with microscopes. These questioned pieces of material, these question hairs, question fibers are compared to known hair standards or known fiber standards from another individual, or from -- from a particular location.
And once the comparison is made, then a determination as to whether or not they match or they exhibit the same characteristics or if they're different.
In your opinion, what determines if there is an exchange or transfer of hair and fibers from an object to an individual or an individual to an individual?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) What's the nature, in your experience, of the contact that must occur before there's a transfer of hair and fiber?
I mentioned that this type of evidence can be exchanged through physical contact; that is, the hairs could come out of, off of a hair-bearing surface, from the hair in the pubic region, from some other surface, and what actually comes in direct contact with an object, these hairs could be transferred.
Many times hairs would be deposited on the clothing routinely, as we go through our normal day. And these hairs then may be deposited onto an individual many times.
That's what happens in crimes. For instance, we find a sexual assault; the hairs and fibers that transfer often come right off the clothing of the individual, but they're from that individual, and you can show that through a microscopic comparison.
Why do you care?
Why do you spend the time determining whether hairs and fibers have been transferred or exchanged?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) What's the significance of determining whether and what types of hairs and fibers have been transferred?
I'm going to sustain the objection.
I don't want to suggest how you should put on your case, but if this witness is being offered for a specific purpose, it might be more helpful to establish what this witness did, and then ask the significance of that examined material with it's relationship to the case.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) If you're given an adequate hair sample of several individuals, are you able to differentiate between them?
And could we step back for a minute.
And could you tell me, what can you tell from a hair analysis?
No. My suggestion is, let's put this witness on and hear what he has to say about what he did 'then you can ask him what the significance of his findings were.
We don't need a course on -- on hair and fibers at this point. It's not particularly relevant until we get to some issue.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell me, Agent Deedrick -- then we'll move to the items in this case -- where does the FBI Hair and Fiber Unity receive trace evidence to analyze?
Who sends it to you?
Well, local police, state police, FBI field offices, for the most part; and as I said, we may get evidence from foreign countries, as well.
Have you -- about how much of your work is -- does the material come from FBI-related matters and how much from state-related matters?
What's the nature of your training, education, and background that led up to your becoming chief of the Hair and Fiber Unit for the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Well, I came into the FBI in 1972, with a bachelor's degree in biology from the Indiana University.
When I came on board in 1977 as a trainee, an agent trainee/examiner in the Hairs and Fibers Unit, there's a year of training under the supervision of the unit chief and other more experienced examiners.
And then you go through a year of reviewing material, becoming familiar with the cases that are received, learning how to do -- and examine hair evidence and fiber evidence, attending schools, both at the FBI Academy and outside the FBI. And at the end of that year, a determination is made as to whether you're qualified. That's based on recommendations of the people in the unit and the unit chief.
Once you start working cases, you gain a lot of experience just by seeing a pretty broad cross-section of what types of crimes, what types of evidence come into the laboratory from all around the country.
And I've worked thousands of cases, testified hundreds of times. I've just about been in every state, I believe, as far as testimonies go.
I speak at different groups, both at museums, Smithsonian, foreign -- I've spoken at a number of different foreign societies regarding hair and fiber evidence. So all of that is part of the learning process, keeping up the literature 2:53PM 11/12/96
Yeah. For a long time, now, I've been the training coordinator in the unit, so I'm responsible for designing the training program, seeing that all the new people that we hire get through the program, or make a determination about their expertise, kind of do the same thing that my unit chief did for me when I was going through.
Well, there's internal open testing, and there's external testing.
We get external tests, some corroborative testing services. We also get external tests from other groups outside. Most of the tests we've had external have come from foreign countries, working in collaboration with us.
Well, whether or not you can identify something properly and compare it properly. Could be a hair, could be a fiber.
In testimony of the way you work the Bureau, before testimony is presented such as you're going to present today, is it just your opinion, or is there any second check?
No. All hair matches, hair associations are confirmed by another examiner independently before they go out.
All fiber associations are confirmed, most of the time with instrumental techniques. With fibers, you're able to use an infrared spectroscopy, a microspectrophotometry. You can use a number of techniques to confirm an identification and a comparison. So those are the tests that are used for that purpose.
Now, in the case involving Mr. Simpson, did there come a time that you became involved in doing any work in connection with the People of the State of California versus Mr. Simpson?
Well, I guess when the evidence first came in? Some evidence was first submitted to our laboratory in August of 1994.
It was delivered by Susan Brockbank, from the LAPD crime lab.
Could you summarize for me the material you received, the hair and fiber evidence that you received relative to what you're going to testify about today.
Well, the first evidence submission consisted primarily of debris packets; that is, debris that had been collected by the police department crime laboratory from different items of clothing and from different items.
This would have been from the crime scene, 875 Bundy and 360 Rockingham, as well as there was some other items that were submitted.
And we also received some hair samples, head-hair samples from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman, and also from O.J. Simpson.
The second batch of evidence that came in consisted of carpet samples from the Bronco. There were a number of other submissions, including some clothing items, as well
Well, it's a paper, full, that contains hairs, fibers, and other material that's been processed off of an item of evidence; could be a shirt or pair of pants. And it's folded up and put into a small envelope for preservation, and it could be examined -- a lot of times it's examined by a crime lab, after they collect all of the evidence.
In this case, they brought it to me and I opened it there in the FBI lab.
Now, when you first receive the debris packets, do you inventory them or account for them in some particular way?
Right. Each of the items -- each questioned item and the known items are given a Q number, and just start numerically, start with Q-1. That's the first item you look at with the corresponding identifier that's provided by the police department. And all known items are just given Ks; we know where they came from. Head hair samples would be Ks; carpet samples would be Ks. All question items would be given Qs.
Well, initially they were the head-hair samples from Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown Simpson, O.J. Simpson, and also the carpet samples. Those are the first few that we got.
I also received some fabric samples from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress and from the clothing of Ron Goldman.
Well, debris packets are opened individually, and hair evidence, fiber evidence is monitored on a glass microscope slide. All the known samples, kind of same thing: You open them up, you mount up a representative sample, or you mount -- name out all of the hairs that are found on the sample on separate glass slides.
Each slide is given the corresponding K or Q designations, so you don't mix them up.
When I say "mounts on a slide," a slide is a glass microscope slide is one by three inches, and you put the hair or fiber on the surface of the slide and you add a material to it. It's like a glue; it's called Permounts. It's a permanent fixture.
From that slide, then you conduct your microscopic analysis.
Now, what specific items that you're going to testify about today, or today and tomorrow, did you receive for analysis?
Well, I received debris packets from a knit hat at Bundy, a glove found at Bundy, some debris packets from the clothing submitted from the victims at Bundy.
There were some items that were recovered. There was an item recovered at O.J. Simpson's residence, I believe a pair of socks; and also, there was a glove that was recovered. Those items came in as debris packets.
And I've already mentioned the known hairs. There was some dog hair samples, as well, and a few other things.
Well, the clothing -- the only clothing that I received, the first time was the knit hat that was found at Bundy.
Later on, I received some other items, and I also looked at some of the items at the Los Angeles Police Department crime lab.
Okay.
Can you tell us, related to this case, not generally, but what did you do with regard to those three known hair samples you received?
Can you go through the procedure and why you did it?
Each of the known hair samples is characterized. That is, the description of the characteristics is written down. And I do that to determine the range of characteristics of that known sample. I do that with each of the samples, take some notes, and using that as a basis of record, then conduct my analysis.
And then the analysis conducted through the microscope notes are there just for me to identify some of these characteristics, just -- and also to note the range, because not all the hairs are identical to each other. There's a range of characteristics that we have and these hairs had, as well.
And with respect to the known hairs you received, how did you examine the microscopic characteristics?
It's examined with a research microscope.
And again, the hairs are mounted on the slides, and you look at them under the microscope at magnifications anywhere from 400X -- we go up to about 450X on our microscopes.
40 (sic) times the actual items, or 450 times the actual size, by focusing up and down through the hair. It's called an optical cross-section. You can actually look through the hair because of the light transmitted through the base of the microscope.
And then the hairs are characterized. You just describe them.
In the hairs you looked at, the known sample of Ms. Brown, the known sample of Mr. Simpson, the known sample of Mr. Goldman, what are the things you're looking for in terms of differentiating those hairs?
Well, it's possible to determine, first of all racial origin, such as there are three main racial groups that we work with: Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, Mongoloid being Asians; Negroid, African persons, would be an example. Caucasians, there's a lot of varieties of Caucasian people.
Each racial group exhibits characteristics. It's possible to determine the part of the body the hair came from. I would look at that. I know they were head hairs, so that wasn't a question. If there's damage, if there's disease, if there's treatment, if the hairs fill out naturally, if hairs are forcibly removed. All of these things can be determined from each of the samples.
There are a number of microscopic characterizations that I used. They're internal in the hair and they're found throughout the length.
There's an outer layer called the cuticle. It's made up of scales; they overlap like the shingles on a roof towards the end, and they may protrude a little bit; they may lay very close; they may be very thick, sometimes very thin.
Asians have very thick cuticles, but Caucasians sometimes have very thin.
The cortex is just underneath. It's like the wood of a pencil, if you think of the paint being the cuticle and the wood being the cortex. Most of the hair is the cortex. Hair is a long cylinder of different lengths; so it's three-dimensional.
This cortex has pigment in it, pigment granules to give it color. They can be distributed different ways. I look at how the pigment is distributed in each of the known samples. Some of the hair has air spaces; they're air spaces. They're called cortical fusi F-U-S-I.
And you also may have ovoid bodies, which are big, brown footballs -- if you think of footballs; it's what they look like inside the hair -- of different sizes and shapes.
And the distribution of all these characteristics, whether or not they're present, how much they're present, how dense they are, all of these things were compared in all three of these samples.
First of all, we had one individual of Negroid origin, and we had two Caucasian individuals.
So it was easy to distinguish those hair samples. The colors were completely different, lengths were different, characteristics were different. No question about being able to distinguish these -- these samples, which is routine for any two samples that I get in.
Have you encountered a situation where you haven't been able to distinguish between two samples you received?
In this case, it was -- it was not difficult to distinguish samples. And that's been the case ever since I've been there.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, when you examined the known hair samples of Mr. Goldman, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Mr. Simpson, were you able to tell the differences between those samples?
Now, you told us you received -- I want to just talk about -- we'll continue talking just about hair, and then we'll go to fiber later.
You told us you received certain hair and fiber that was removed from items of evidence at the crime scene at Bundy and at Rockingham. And I want to start now talking about the hair, fiber, and other debris removed from Ron Goldman's shirt.
And did you examine that debris?
Well, I collected that at the crime lab.
I happened to be in Los Angeles -- and again, I may have been at pretrial -- pretrial or some other trip that I was on -- happened to stop in and I asked to take a look at the evidence, if that was possible.
In looking at the shirt, which was Ron Goldman's shirt, I determined that, you know, it might be a good idea, if possible, to reprocess it, because it appears to me there were some hairs and fibers on it that hadn't been removed.
And they agreed and I went ahead and processed it.
When you examined the debris from Mr. Goldman's shirt, did you find any hairs on that shirt?
I don't know if I quite understand the question. You're referring to all the items from the shirt that I received, including the debris packets?
I just wanted to focus, if I could, on whether or not you were able to identify at least three different kinds of hair.
Your Honor, I have an objection as vague, as to on what occasion, whether it was from the debris packet or from the occasion on which Agent Deedrick personally did some reprocessing. And I think he has a problem with it, too.
Okay. Most of the hairs that I examined from the shirt were from the debris packet. That was the material that was examined by the police department originally and then packaged in the paper fold and then submitted to me for analysis.
In the debris packet there were three different types of hairs found; couple different types of Caucasian hairs and one hair of Negroid origin. There was also some Negroid limb hairs found on that shirt.
Well, the chart listed some items across the top which included items taken from the Bundy crime scene which would have been Ron Goldman's shirt, a hat and a glove and from Rockingham location would have been a glove and a pair of socks.
Would you mind approaching the chart if you would and removing the paper and tell us what's that represent. Are these the items that you're going to testify about?
Again at the top of this chart, are those the items over the next several hours you're going to discuss?
Okay. Now, you said you found certain hairs, three different types, two Caucasian, one Negroid and one Negroid limb hair, could you put that on the chart.
Now, by putting what you put under the heading Ron Goldman's shirt, what were you meaning to convey, what information?
Well, that these are the types of hairs that were found on that -- on the shirt from processing the shirt.
Can you generally describe the two types of Caucasian head hair that you found on Mr. Goldman's shirt?
Most of the hairs were long perhaps up to a foot in length. There was about 35 of them all forcibly removed. There were a number of short cut hairs that were darker Caucasian those were the two Caucasian types of hair that were found.
Okay. I compared all the head hairs Caucasian hairs with the two white individuals Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman a Negroid head hair was compared that with O.J. Simpson initially.
And what kind of examination -- strike that.
Did you perform the same or different examinations in terms of your comparison of all the hairs you've told us about?
Well, the comparison process is the same. I mean, you take it and you compare it under a comparison microscope.
And did you reach any conclusions when you compared the known hairs with the question hairs?
This is the Caucasian hairs.
Most of the hairs that came off the shirt matched with Nicole Brown Simpson's head hair. That would have been all the forcibly removed hairs, the lighter blond, treated-type hairs.
Do you recall the proximate number of hairs that you found of Nicole Brown Simpson's, related to Mr. Goldman's shirt?
And could you tell from looking at the hairs, how they had been -- how they the been removed?
Well, some were cut, some were broken, and some actually had the root present, and it had been pulled out of the scalp.
Well, there were a number. I don't recall the exact number, I mean, in terms of the question hairs. I compared the other questioned hairs with Mr. Goldman's known hairs, and they matched up with Mr. Goldman. They were found on his own shirt.
You want me to write Ron Goldman?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell how Mr. Goldman's hairs came out, naturally or some other way?
A pretty sharp cut. It would have been consistent with an item like a knife, as opposed to scissors, because they were both cut and torn.
Does it affect your conclusion at all -- strike that.
Does it affect your conclusion at all, certain of the hairs found were microscopically similar to Nicole Brown and certain microscopically similar to Ron Goldman's?
In Nicole Brown's case, you had 35 hairs?
Objection. Vague as to conclusion. I'm not sure which conclusion he's talking about.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) When you compared Nicole Brown's hairs with the known sample, what is the significance, if any, you had 35 of her hairs found on the shirt?
With regards to the number of hairs, each hair has certain characteristics. I mentioned a range of characteristics.
You have 35 independent comparisons that you make. The fact that you have 35, you've got two people laying next to each other, dead. In all likelihood, they're her hairs. You don't have to be a microscopist to make that determination. You could, if you want to make a scientific, valid analysis.
In this case, they looked the same. They should have been there in that location. And that would have been my opinion: They're probably hers.
In your opinion -- you were discussing primary and secondary transfer before.
What is your opinion of how Ms. Brown's head hair gets on Mr. Goldman's shirt?
Sustained.
You may inquire of this witness what those terms are and what possible application they might have to this case.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you tell us what primary transfer is and secondary transfer.
And tell us, if you would, what application those principles have to this situation of Ms. Brown's hair being found on Mr. Goldman's shirt.
Okay. We have about 100 hairs, they say, shed every day, each of us do. And we grow new ones, most of us, and some don't grow back. But about 100 a day. So you're going to have primary transfers onto your own clothes; you have primary transfers if you rub your head against somebody, and hairs could get transferred that way.
Many times, hairs will move as a result -- as I mentioned before, secondary transfer.
In this particular case, you have 35 hairs. If the hairs were clenched in the hand of Ron Goldman, for instance, I might think that that is a primary transfer.
The fact that we have a movement in -- and these people are separated -- either they came out just forcibly onto his clothes during a struggle between these two people, or some intermediary came in between and transferred it as a result of secondary transfer. So I would suspect secondary.
As when I mentioned secondary transfer, they had to have come off her head through some other intermediary, some other object. In this case, the person that may have been involved in killing the two individuals.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you've told us about matching the Caucasian hairs of Ms. Brown, Mr. Goldman, as being on his shirt. You also mentioned that you found certain Negroid hairs.
Well, let me -- let me do it this way. And I'm sorry.
We were talking about Nicole Brown's hairs.
Did you find head hairs matching hers on any of the other items that you have on your chart?
Well, they would have been all the way across, except for the Rockingham socks, on the Bundy glove, Bundy hat, the Rockingham glove. All of those had hairs like hers.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, can you tell us again, in talking about primary and secondary transfer, your opinion of whether there was a primary other or secondary transfer which caused Ms. Brown's hair to be on the Bundy glove and the Bundy hat the and the Rockingham glove.
Well, there's no way to know precisely here, except that we're talking about gloves which are worn on hands. Those could have been the result of primary transfer.
The Bundy glove, for instance, was found on the ground in an area where she was. So if her hairs had been deposited onto the ground and the glove landed on these hairs, it would -- it could have been a secondary transfer.
On the Bundy hat, again, it could have been either: Could have been a primary transfer or a secondary transfer. Again, the hat on the ground, as well.
The Rockingham glove, that could have -- could be either, to tell you the truth.
Did you prepare a board depicting the microscopic characteristics of the head hairs that you found on items of evidence and that you matched to Nicole Brown's known hairs?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) I put on the board what's marked as 520, and ask you if you prepared or caused that exhibit to be prepared?
Well, these are photographs, each one taken about 250 times magnification, of known head hairs, which are across the top. These would have been the known head hairs of Nicole Brown Simpson.
The question hairs were also photographed, same magnification, same microscope camera, setup of hairs from different items.
Q-1, the first item I looked at in this case, was from debris from the Rockingham glove.
Q-7b, just one of the debris packets, which was a hair in the glove from Bundy.
Same from the one next to it on the right on Q-23, that's one of the hairs that came from Ron Goldman's shirt.
Ron Goldman's shirt debris packet was number Q-23.
And over on the far right, both top and bottom just represent what a hair looks like forcibly removed. The bottom, one being one of the hairs that came off of Ron Goldman's shirt, the top one being one of the known hairs that were pulled out of the head of Nicole Brown Simpson.
And the photographs that I displayed here kind of correspond top to bottom, if you go across the board.
The Q-1 hair, which is found at -- on the Rockingham glove, was about 12 inches, 10, 12 inches, something like that, had been forcibly removed. That was on the Rockingham glove.
This Q hair, again, a little bit lighter because she had her hair treated; it was like treated or frosted. There was some change in the color along the length, so as you went out near the end, it seemed to get lighter.
This is another hair, a lighter hair that matched up with one of her hairs.
And then this is probably a distal fragment, distal being the furthest out, away from the head, and it's by far the most bleached out.
Q-23 had a lot of hairs that work with Q-23 -- I mentioned I had about 35 hairs all together. And this -- I think this represents -- gives you an idea of the range. You see a range of characteristics of an individual.
Well, you put the hair under -- on the slide underneath the microscope, just like you're looking at it, and you have a camera that's sitting up on the top. You can actually look at the hair and photograph at the same time, if you want to. And the camera, as the focal point, it's set focus on the same material that you're looking at through the eyepieces, and you push a button and there's an automatic camera system that does the work for you.
Do the six photographs across the top depict all of the known hairs that you determined match the head hair recovered from Mr. Goldman's shirt, the Bundy glove, the Bundy hat, and the Rockingham glove?
How did you select the six photos of Nicole Brown's known head hairs to place on the chart of all the ones you have?
Well, it's just a portion, and it's two-dimensional.
Keep that in mind, I mentioned before, the hairs are cylindrical. They're actually three-dimensional. We're capturing just a two-dimensional, very short segment of her hair.
Now, if you look at the chart comparing the hairs found on the Bundy glove that's depicted, I think, on the fourth photograph from the left on the bottom row, that appears to be lighter than the other hairs in that row, does it not?
Okay.
Can you tell, Agent Deedrick, in looking at any of the photos of the hair, whether it appears any have been forcibly removed?
Well, yes. I mentioned that the one on the far right, which is just one of them, an example of one of the roots that came off of the debris packet from Ron Goldman's shirt.
Well, the known sample -- she -- I understand she was bleeding, so that would be a good source of the hair -- the question hair on Q-23. That blood was not tested, but it could be from either bleeding individual.
Now, you told us, I believe, earlier, that you had found two types of Caucasian hair on Mr. Goldman's shirt, and you've told us that one matched Nicole Brown Simpson.
Did you attempt to make a determination whether you could find a match or nonmatch for the other hair?
Well, on Ron Goldman, the hair -- the question hair, on Ron Goldman's hair, I compared that with Ron Goldman's known hairs. I mentioned that they exhibited the same characteristics as his.
I found -- I found some hairs on the Rockingham glove, head hairs, both cut and torn at the proximal end, and that would be the end nearest the root. They were found on the Rockingham glove debris.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) And could you tell us again, utilizing the definition you previously gave us of primary and secondary transfer, how, in your opinion, you would account for Mr. Goldman's hair being on the Rockingham glove.
Well, there's no way to know precisely how that happened. Again, as the glove on the hand possible primary. You can't rule out secondary.
It could have been directly from contact, from contact with the glove with the head, or it could have been contact the glove with the shirt. That had cut hairs on it, as well. That would be a secondary transfer, a close secondary.
Can you, if you wouldn't mind, on Nicole Brown to maybe under the Bundy glove, Bundy hat, and Rockingham glove. Instead of an arrow, put NBS, just so it will be a little clearer.
Did you prepare a chart depicting the microscopic characteristic of the hair you found on Mr. Goldman's shirt and the Rockingham glove showing why, in your opinion, it matched the known hair of Mr. Goldman?
I'm going to place before you what's been marked 521, chart entitled known head hairs from Ronald Goldman, head hair from Goldman's shirt.
When you say you prepared a chart, can you tell us in summary fashion, did you go through the same steps you previously described in analyzing hair before you got to the stage of taking the pictures?
The whole process from start to finish is the same. Any time you do a hair comparison, you follow the same procedures.
You put on a slide. You examine it, identify the type of hair, the race, the body area, whether it's suitable for comparison or not and then compare it with a known standard.
Now the comparison, I didn't really go into this. With a comparison microscope, there are two microscopes connected by an optical bridge. It allows you to look into the eye pieces and see both hairs at the same time. So the determination as to whether or not they look the same or they look different, is based on an actual view of both hairs at the same time.
You can compare them all the way up and down the length of the hair at the same time. They're all mechanical stages.
And once that's done, then the determination of taking a photograph, the way the photographs are done, again, to clarify that is the camera is set up. There are little knobs at the top of this bridge and you can kind of change which side you want to take the picture of, left or right.
So when I put the known hairs on the right side, the question hairs on the left side, and then when I get it to where I want to demonstrate how these hairs look best, then I would shut off one side and photograph the question; shut that side off, open the other and photograph the knowns. So you get an idea of what I'm saying. What I say, I'm making a comparison while I'm looking at, are these two things in the same field of view.
It's kind of the same idea in graphic form where you have the circle representing your field of view. It goes off the field just a little bit. It's not really exact because it would actually be shown inside this circle there.
This lines represents a split screen, question hair on one side, known hair on the other side. What you try to do when you're doing the hair comparison, the best comparison you can come up with, like a mirror.
And -- but actually it looks like one hair down the whole length, from question side to known side to compare all the characteristics; the cuticle, the cortex the gray area cuticle, not brown. It's for illustrative purposes.
Most of the time it's clear. If it has dye, it could be colored. These little footballs I mentioned before ovoid bodies. You may have air spaces, which are -- this is -- it's hard to see, but these other things might be pigment granules, those small dots.
Now, could you go through what's marked 521 for us and tell the jury why you found that there was a match between the hairs of Mr. Goldman that you found on the Rockingham glove and his known hairs?
Okay. With regard to the Rockingham glove, the hairs that you see, there's a little bit of a range characteristic. I mentioned before about primary transfers and secondary transfers. An example might be the Rockingham glove hair here. This is one of the hairs taken from his shirt, very similar.
It might have been a secondary transfer.
The more amber-colored hair, a little bit different -- difference in diameter, very similar characteristics.
Again, hairs may vary a little bit as to their thickness. Some are a little thicker than others and also might be the orientation. Cause, you know, you're looking at hair laying on the slide. It's moving around. It may turn a little bit on side. This hair lined up pretty well.
As you can see, there is -- there is medullation, which is dark. It has air surrounding, when you're looking at it through the microscope, it looks opaque or dark here. The medullation is clear or broken up a little bit.
Medullation or the medulla in the center -- in the center canal, like the lead of a pencil, is in different forms, cuticle difference. I think you can see the cuticle a little bit. You may have a better look later. It says, "clear layer, outside cortex" here. Pigmentation a little bit to one side, sort of patchy; a little bit patchy. It looks like little cloudy areas. You may see some of the air spaces, air bubbles that are found in a hair shaft. It's just a comparison of all the characteristics. We're just picking out one area here to photograph.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Again, as on the chart with Ms. Brown's hair, did you look at the entire length of the hair in doing your examination.
They were shorter, they're shorter hairs. Especially the hairs, the question hairs. They were taken from the shirt and from the -- from the Rockingham glove. They were cut and torn shorter fragments of hair.
You're just shooting in the dark at this point, Mr. Medvene.
In this case, the person that may have been involved in killing the two individuals.
You have 35 independent comparisons that you make. The fact that you have 35, you've got two people laying next to each other, dead. In all likelihood, they're her hairs. You don't have to be a microscopist to make that determination.
Well, looks like blood.