(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?
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.
Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial that you had put in 100 to 200 hours prior to your testimony?
It's an important case, sure.
Every case have you to testify on is important, every case you work.
Is it fair to say that you've spent more time on this case than on any other case you ever testified in?
(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?
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?
Any question about the results? It all depends on what those results are. I don't know. It's not clear.
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?
I don't recall what reference you're referring to. There's a lot of situations that question could arise.
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?
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.
(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?
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?
Well, to give an accurate representation of your findings, based on your education, experience, and training.
It's also important, isn't it, because what you do here is basically interpretation, correct?
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?
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.
And unlike fingerprint analysis, which is more of an absolute science -- you would agree, right?
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.
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 --
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.
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?
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.
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?
Although in the field, that has been suggested as something that should be required; isn't that true?
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?"
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.
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.
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?
Okay. And Mr. Medvene had a typed list of questions and answers. Did you go through that with Mr. Medvene at any point?
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.
Did you develop any kind of a personal relationship with Mr. Goldman during the criminal trial?
Okay. Do you have a framed photograph of yourself with Fred Goldman and Kim Goldman in your office?
KEY QUOTEHow many other victims of crimes or family members of victims of crimes do you have framed pictures of in your office?
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?
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?
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?
And a secondary transfer would be what, because I don't remember you explaining that to the jury.
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.
Oh, you did say that; now I remember.
Is there -- isn't there another way that a secondary transfer could occur?
Oh, well, secondary transfers can occur a lot of ways. It could come from any other source where that hair or fiber might be.
And it could have come into contact with Mr. Goldman's shirt when he fell to the ground or when he was moved, correct?
I'm not really sure. I assume it is possible, maybe equally as likely, depending on the situation and the conditions.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Well, you're at a little disadvantage with regard to the conditions and circumstances, aren't you. Sir?
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?
He's arguing, Your Honor, and he can only answer the questions we asked. We asked for some examples; he gave some examples.
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.
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?
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 ...
Objection, Your Honor. He said that -- he said that in his answer at the beginning of his testimony.
(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?
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?
Well, it's less to compare; it's not more difficult to compare. But there's less of the material to work with.
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?
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?
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.
(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?
Right. The more hair you have, obviously, the -- it affects your conclusions. Depends on the hair and characteristics.
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?
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?
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.
(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?
And that's another reason why you want to be as objective and fair and accurate as possible, right?
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?
(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?
And you know that even on an individual's head, many of the hairs can be different, correct?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
(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.
Yeah, I know; you're here for me.
Right here, in filling those two squares, "could have."
That's good enough. That's fine.
Can we mark that next -- whatever the next exhibit number is.
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?
Okay.
And, of course, you had -- you had all that in mind when you were giving your opinions earlier in your direct examination, correct?
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?
(BY MR. LEONARD) Do you have any information about how often Mr. Simpson was over at the Bundy location?
(BY MR. LEONARD) Was that important to you, sir, in rendering your opinions in this case, to know that?
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.
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?
(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?
(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?
Well, it might in some ways, yes. Just depends how far you want to stretch your imagination as to movement of hair and fibers.
Well, did you ask anyone about that information, if it might have some bearing on your opinions, sir?
Did you ever ask anyone?
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.
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?
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?
It's an equal possibility with the others that you've spun out for the jury; isn't that fair to say?
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.
Show me in your notes, sir, anywhere where you've indicated that you found hairs that were interwoven in the knit cap. Show me.
(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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Well, you didn't write anything down here about what you actually observed when you compared fibers and hairs in this case, did you?
No. That's not what I routinely do. I don't routinely do that, nor does anybody else in the unit.
Okay.
And you also know that hair and fiber experts often differ about their conclusions about whether or not particular items match, right?
Objection, Your Honor. He's not talking about this case. It's vague and speculative.
Doesn't happen a lot in our laboratory. But I mean, I can't account for everybody's laboratory.
And those are -- strike that.
There was something else that was found in the knit cap, the Bundy knit hat, wasn't there?
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?
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?
Well, depends on the surface, depends on the contact. We go through life picking up things and losing things.
And for instance, there were various kinds of dog and cat hairs that were found on some of these items, correct?
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?
Objection. Compound number of items he's going to; and it's not relevant, Your Honor.
Excuse me. The nature of the objection is compound. You sustained the objection.
You should ask a new question.
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?
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 --
Now, inside -- according to the LAPD, anyway -- inside the knit cap, there were Negroid head hairs that were dissimilar to Mr. Simpson's correct?
And they were dissimilar to everyone that was involved in the case, at least the examples that you got?
(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?
(BY MR. LEONARD) And those, according to the record, were found inside the knit cap; is that right?
You can check your record.
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?
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?
In fact, it was only discovered by you after the Bundy hat had been examined two times before; is that right?
I'm not sure what you mean. How many times it may have been examined prior to my getting it?
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?
You took the knit cap and you took it into what, a separate room from the examination room?
And you could barely see that; is that fair to say?
You could barely see that with the naked eye?
Right. Right. It's a small piece. You can hardly see those fibers because of their likeness.
They're also light; in the physical sense, they can literally float around, isn't that true?
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.
They move very easily from place to place; they get on people and people can move them, correct?
Prior to -- and this was the last thing, according to your notes, that you did, the scraping of the knit cap, correct?
And if you would turn to the last page of your notes, please.
Actually, it's not; it's the second-to-last page.
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?
Now, by the way, there was never any blood found on any of those items, correct, that you know of?
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?
Okay.
And you know that the plastic was something that actually came with the Bronco, right?
Remember hearing that?
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?
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?
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?
I would -- again, I don't -- maybe -- let's go over that question again so I'm clear; can we?
(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?
Now, you have attempted to be, again, as fair and objective and up front, straight on with this jury as you possibly can, correct?
(BY MR. LEONARD) You mentioned early on in your direct examination that you had testified in hundreds of cases. Remember that?
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?
(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?
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?
(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?
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.
KEY QUOTEDo you have a framed photograph of yourself with Fred Goldman and Kim Goldman in your office?
I don't believe I have any.
Right. Each of those is a 'could have,' yes.
I want you to be happy.
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.