All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
The Defense will next call Mr. Gilbert Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar.
Gilbert Aguilar, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:
Raise your right hand, please. 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?
Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
Yes. I'm a forensic print specialist employed by the Los Angeles Police Department assigned to the Scientific Investigations Division with the latent print section.
All right. And how long have you been employed in the latent print section of the LAPD SID lab?
And during that period of time, can you tell the jury or give the jury an idea of how many latent print crime scenes that you've--investigations that you've been involved in?
And have you had occasion to conduct a number of latent print comparisons during that time frame?
Sure. A latent print is the reproduction of the friction skin left on an object when you touch it. It's usually invisible and must be made visible or developed using fingerprint powders, chemicals or use the laser. I'm talking about--the friction skin, I'm talking about skin that's found on the fingers, on the palms of your hands. It's also found on your toes and your soles of your feet. It's different than the other skin on your body where it has these ridges or these lines that flow across. Well, the unique thing about these ridges is that they don't just flow from one end to the other. They will flow and they will stop. At the point where they stop, we call those ridge endings. Another thing these ridges will do is, they will flow and they will divide into two ridges. At the point where they divide, we call those bifurcations. Because everybody has these ridge endings and bifurcations throughout their entire friction skin, but it's where they are in relationship to each other that would make a fingerprint unique.
All right. And while we're about it then, tell us the difference between a known and a latent print.
Well, a known print would also be considered an ink print where you actually have the individual there, you apply ink to the fingertips or to the palms of their hands and you roll their fingerprints on a fingerprint card. You actually have the person there and you're the one who took their fingerprints. A latent print is a print that's found at a crime scene. You don't know whose it is. You develop it, you bring it back and it's unknown until you actually do a comparison to the inked fingerprint.
And have you had occasion to testify within the courts of this county and the federal courts as an expert in this field?
Now, would you tell the jury, sir, something about how prints are lifted generally?
Yes. Usually when you go out to a crime scene, you're usually taking fingerprint powders. You have a silver and a black powder depending on what type of surface you're going to use the powders on to look for the print. Usually what you'll do is, you'll apply the powder to the surface using a brush that's similar to an artist paper brush, just brush on the powder. The powder adheres to any moisture that's left behind when you touch an object. The powder forms the print or it develops the print so that you're able to see it. Once you develop this print, the next step would be to lift it off the item. And the way that's done is, you apply a--a tape that is similar to scotch tape, which is a special type of tape for latent prints, you lift the print off the object, you put it on the fingerprint lift card for permanent record.
All right. Now, in connection with this case, the Simpson case, would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what role you played in that regard, sir?
Yes. In this case, I did all of the comparison work. I compared all of the fingerprints that were found at the crime scene to known fingerprints or to inked fingerprint impressions.
And as I understand it, in order for you to do the comparisons, somebody before you had to lift the prints; is that correct?
The latent prints. And who in this case--can you give us the names of the individuals who lifted the prints in this case?
Sure. Please do. If you need those to refresh your recollection, that would be fine.
Yes. The prints were developed and recovered from the Bundy location by a Miss Claiborne, C-L-A-I-B-O-R-N-E, and also a Miss Braggs, B-R-A-G-G-S, and also a Miss Udeshi, U-D-E-S-H-I, and a Miss Duke, D-U-K-E.
Very well. Your Honor, I think we have a stipulation regarding this for its foundation.
Your Honor, we have a couple stipulations which I believe will save a little time, if the Court pleases.
The first stipulation is, it is hereby stipulated that on June 13th of 1994, technicians from the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, namely, Braggs, Duke, Udeshi, u-d-e-s-h-I, and Claiborne obtained 17 identifiable lifts from the Bundy crime scene, and those latent prints are accurately reflected on Defense exhibit 1322.
All right. Let me change one word, your Honor. Let me go back and restate that briefly. It is hereby stipulated that on June 13th, 1994, technicians from the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, namely, Braggs, Duke, Udeshi and Claiborne obtained 17 latent lifts, latent print lifts from the Bundy crime scene. Those latent prints are accurately reflected in Defense exhibit number 1322. In addition, it's further stipulated that on or about 1:30 P.M. on June 14th, 1994, latent print investigator by the name of finch dusted the Ford Bronco for fingerprints and obtained three identifiable fingerprints from the driver side outside door and that those prints were identified as Mr. Simpson's left index and right middle fingers.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, if you recollect, a stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to the facts of the case. You are to assume the facts in the stipulation are true for the purposes of this trial. Mr. Cochran.
Thank you, your Honor. I'd like to approach the witness with 1322 and place it before him. I'm sure he has a copy.
And I want you to--I'm going to place 1322 before you. It's a document entitled "Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division latent print section." Have you ever seen this form before, sir?
Yes. This is a homicide investigation report. When somebody goes out to a scene of a homicide and latent prints are recovered, each latent print is listed where the latent print was recovered from in--for each number. For instance, this one had 17. So the first would be 1 of 17, 2 of 17 and so on. And this form that we use just to document where each of the prints, where it came from so we could hand that evidence or hand this form over to the investigating officers.
All right. And so with connection with these 17 prints that were lifted on or about--is that June 13th, 1994?
Was there an elimination attempted regarding the Defendant in this case, Mr. O.J. Simpson?
"Elimination" means that we compared all of the latent prints to that individual and eliminated that person, means that person did not leave those fingerprints at that--none of the latent prints were recovered were that individual's.
All right. So that I'm clear--I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying--that with regard to any of the prints lifted at the Bundy crime scene, those prints were compared with Mr. Simpson's prints, and he did not make any of those prints. Is that what you're saying?
And once you got involved in the case as a latent print comparison expert, did you have occasion to review the work of those who had been involved in eliminating Mr. Simpson's prints back on June 13th?
And for the record, if you look at 1322, can you tell us the names of the individuals who eliminated Mr. Simpson's prints on June 13th, 1994?
Yes. One of the individuals was a Mr. Albardo, A-L-B-A-R-D-O, and the other individual was Mr. Captia, C-A-P-T-I-A, I believe.
And now, when you got involved in the case in July of 1994, did you have occasion to look at the 17 prints lifted from Bundy and compare those prints yourself with those of Mr. O.J. Simpson?
That none of the latent prints are recovered from the crime scene were identified to Mr. Simpson.
KEY QUOTEAll right. Now, in connection--you have described for this jury and the Court what a latent print is versus a known print, and with regard to the 17 prints that were lifted at Bundy, I would like for you now to take us through and let's talk about where those 17 prints were found in order of the report. Can you do that for us?
And with regard to prints that are found, you'll then tell us whether they were able to be identified or nonidentifiable or whatever; is that correct?
All right. Let's start. And do you have them in some kind of number or some kind of order?
Yes. I have the original latent prints, all 17 of them that were recovered from the crime scene.
Yes. The first print, no. 1 of 17, the latent print was recovered from the inside of the front door frame at Bundy location.
Your Honor, what I would like to do is mark this as--if I might interrupt the witness. I'm sorry--as no. 1323. And while he's doing that, if the Court pleases, show it to Mr. Darden, I'd like to put it on the elmo if at all possible.
Your Honor, I have now no. 1323, which is a document entitled, "Eliminated latent package A." I would like to approach the witness, lay a foundation if I may.
I place this before you again, Mr. Aguilar, and ask you to take a look at this document, now Defendant's 1323 for identification. Do you recognize that document?
Yes. This was a document that was written to indicate another--just as the same--as the 187 investigation report or the homicide investigation report was to indicate where the lifts were taken from and also to indicate whether the print was identifiable, whether it was identified to an individual or whether the print was nonidentifiable, which means that it didn't have sufficient characteristics to positively identify it to anybody.
All right. So this is kind of a summary of the 17 prints we've been talking about?
And this may help make it clear for our jury as to where these prints were recovered and that sort of thing; is that correct?
To save some time, while we're putting this up, why don't you tell us, sir, where these lifts were found. You may proceed.
Okay. Lift no. 1 of 17 was found on the inside front door, the door frame, and that print--sorry. You just want me to indicate where they were found?
Can you tell us where they were found and whether or not it was an identifiable print and whether it was identified to any particular individual?
2, 3 and 4 were also located on the inside of the front door. 2 and 3 were actually on the door next to the doorknob and no. 4 was also on the door frame, and neither one of those prints was--print no. 2, 3 and 4 were not identified to anybody as of yet.
In other words, you got enough to determine these were latent prints; is that correct?
But you have not been able to, as they say in the parlance, make those prints to any particular person; is that correct?
Now, with regard to the prints, if you have a fingerprint, there's certain systems within the state of California and perhaps nationally that you can run a fingerprint through to try to determine whether or not it matches up with certain individuals; is that correct?
All right. With regard to palm prints, in this case, did you compare these palm prints, no. 2, 3 and 4 with Mr. Simpson first of all?
And did you have occasion to compare those prints with any other individuals in this case?
All right. And first of all, did you have any known--other known prints that you compared these three latent prints we're talking about now, your Honor--
All right. Did you compare those 2, 3 and 4 with any other known prints in this particular case?
And did you go out and try to take and get the prints of everybody who you knew had been at the scene on or about the early morning hours of June 13th of 1994?
Okay. And I presume you at some point got the palm prints of each of these individuals; is that correct?
And you were able to compare the palm prints of these 58 individuals with items 2, 3 and 4; is that correct?
Now, in addition to that, you've already told us that you compared these three, 2, 3 and 4 with Mr. Simpson. Did you compare them with any other known prints of any of the victims in this case?
Yes. I compared them to the fingers or I compared 2's, 3 and 4 to the palm prints of the victims that we had.
So if I'm counting correctly, you compared the 2, 3 and 4, the identifiable palm prints from the interior door of the residence at Bundy, with some 61 individuals; is that correct?
And were you able to identify any of those 61 individuals as having made the palm prints, 2, 3 and 4, on 1323?
All right. So what we've done, you compared it with each of--with Mr. Simpson and Miss Brown Simpson and with Mr. Goldman, right?
And then the 58 people who were in and about that scene and/or were friends, is that correct, of Miss Brown Simpson?
All right. Your Honor, I would like to mark as next 1324, which is a five-page document of--these are individuals.
Yes, it is, the list. The total--I think it totals 58 plus the three, Mr. Simpson, Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
I have no problem. And so that you know, the yellow copies, these are the--people from the--from SID. May I approach, your Honor?
Okay. 1324, I want to place this before you, and I'll put it on the elmo afterwards. What is this document, no. 1324, that I've placed before you?
Yes. This is a homicide work sheet. We fill out this form whenever we do a comparison to a homicide case. If we're comparing an individual's fingerprints and palm prints to the lifts, we will indicate the individual's name and any information that we have on that individual so that we know how many people and who we checked against those prints.
All right. And in this connection, you've already told us that you used the crime scene log, you took names off there; is that correct?
Now so that we get a flavor for the--some of the individuals who were checked, I notice there's a Phil Vannatter. So you checked his palm prints against 2, 3 and 4?
You went down this list. These are--this first list here, 1324, are these individuals that you received from the crime scene log?
You checked--you tried to check the LAPD officers who had logged in on that particular date; is that correct?
Okay. As to the second sheet, did you check Coroner's representatives and photographers who were also there that day?
And so--and by the way, this form where it says "Package," what does "Package a" mean?
Yes. Package a means that that's the first package that we got at the crime scene. Sometimes you may have more than one investigation to it. So you might have a scene. Then you have to go print a vehicle or you might have evidence to process in the lab. So every time we do an investigation at different locations or different scenes, then we would give it a different package, A, B, C and so on.
All right. And with regard to this second page of 1324, there's some highlighting of--if we can push it all the way up--of four individuals. And are those the people we talked about, your colleagues at latent print, Udeshi, Duke, Braggs and Claiborne?
All right. And you--they have been highlighted as individuals who work within the lab. So you checked them against the prints also; is that correct?
All right. Third part of 1324, again, you used the log and checked police officers and anyone else at the scene; is that correct?
Fourth page finally, fourth page, you had occasion to check family members like Denise Brown; is that correct?
All right. And lastly, the fifth page, apparently, again, are other individuals from the crime scene log; is that correct?
Okay. Now, so that we're clear, with regard to then items 2, 3 and 4 of items 1323, you then checked all of the 58 individuals we've just seen cursorily and plus the other three we're added, 61 individuals, right?
And those prints then are still outstanding. You don't know who those prints belong to; is that right?
All right. Now, let's continue on with what you found regarding the latent prints.
All right. I think we're down to print no. 5. And where was that recovered from, sir?
Yes. Print no. 5 was recovered from the handrail next to the front door. That print is indicated it's nonidentifiable. It lacks sufficient characteristics in that print to ever identify it to who left it. Even if you had their fingerprints and their palm prints, there's not enough there to identify that print.
All right. So we'll--based upon it being nonidentifiable, we'll never know whose print that is; is that correct?
Yes. That--no. 6 was recovered from the handrail to the front entrance in the stairwell.
All right. The handrail from the front entrance of the stairwell at the Bundy location?
Now, at some point, you had occasion to go out to the Bundy location; is that correct?
And did you at that point try to look and see these various locations where these prints were taken?
All right. But this one, so we're clear about, this is a left thumb print; is that correct?
And it was collected from the handrail middle attached to the front entrance stairwell; is that correct?
Yes. I'm checking the original latent prints that were recovered from the crime scene that would indicate a photograph--or not a photograph, but a drawing of where it was. It might help me refresh my memory of where it came from.
Yes. It's the left thumbprint of a photographer named Goodwin, a Mr. Goodwin, G-O-O-D-W-I-N.
So that's one of the photographers who was at the scene. Did you see that photographer's name on the crime log?
All right. And I notice you mentioned "By left thumb" on this part where it says "6, left thumb, afis." What is AFIS?
Yes. AFIS is--what it means is the automated fingerprint identification system. It's the fingerprint computer that we use to try to search fingerprints, try to search them through our database.
All right. So you didn't need--have to use AFIS in this I presume because you knew it was a--one of the people you checked, one of the 58 was a good one; is that correct?
Right. It was indicated that the print was good enough for AFIS, but once it was identified, there was no need to process it further.
All right. I understand. Let's move on to no. 7. Now, these are all outside the house as I understand, is that correct, these prints we're talking about?
Yes. No. 7 would be--not all of the rest of them are outside the house. Some are inside.
Well, let's see. What I had reference to--I'm sorry. As I understand it, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are outside the house?
Yes. No. 7 was recovered from the top of the gatepost, the small gate outside the front door leading to the rear of the location.
All right. So you had a latent print, but you can not--you can not with specificity make that to any individual; is that correct?
All right. All right. Let's move on to no. 8, another palm print. Where was that recovered?
Yes. No. 8 was recovered from the outside of the stairwell, the handrail, north side of the location.
So that's a print that is outstanding if I can use that word at this point. It's--you've not been able to make that to any individual although it had enough characteristics for you to call it an identifiable print; is that correct?
And of course, that print was compared to Mr. Simpson and was not Mr. Simpson, right?
All right. And at this point, this print, this palm print is still outstanding; is that correct?
Okay. And because it's a palm print, you are not able to use the AFIS system or the other system we talked about, right?
Yes. Print no. 9 was located from the outside stairwell handrail the north side of the house, pretty close to where no. 8 was.
Yes. No. 10 was recovered from the outside gated entrance, the door bar, the gate in front of the location.
All right. The gate at the front part of this location, of this residence, we've all seen that. It's outside that?
And in that connection then, this print was lifted, and what was this print? What was lifted, if anything?
All right. By the way, you were referring to a latent print card. Can you hold one of those up?
And perhaps we can show the jury what that looks like, what those latent prints look like. May I approach, your Honor, pass it around?
Yes. This is the latent print card or the lift card that was recovered from the Bundy location. This one here would be--indicated 10 of 17. This is the one that was recovered from the front gate entrance.
Excuse me, Mr. Cochran. When we pass something to the jury, it's my preference we not take any further testimony so that they have their undivided attention looking at the item.
Yes, your Honor. There's a 352 objection to lifts 13 through 17. These are lifts from the white Ferrari which was located in Nicole Brown's garage. The garage door was closed when the police arrived. There's no indication that the murderer actually entered the garage area or was anywhere near the Ferrari. Of course, these prints can't be dated nor can they be identified as I understand it. So there's a 352 objection.
This is part of the 17 prints taken from the Jeep and Ferrari. We don't have just the Prosecution's theory. This was inside the location where the Jeep was, part of the 17. This is of no particular moment, but I think it's certainly relevant and not going to consume a great amount of time. I intend to go right through them.
As I said, the garage is closed. That's a different situation from the Cherokee which is outside, the door ajar and bloodstain next to it.
But, Judge, there's no showing--none of us were there--as to what happened, whether the garage is closed or not. It could have been let up or let down.
Objection is overruled. I don't think it would be overly time-consuming. But also, did they ever compare any of these prints to the children?
I don't think the children were compared. I don't think the children were compared.
All right. The record should reflect the print card regarding this particular two fingers lift has been returned. And if you could, Mr. Cochran, would you give it to Mrs. Robertson, and we'll have one of the law clerks make a photocopy, back and front, and we'll substitute that as 1325.
And this was the one out by the outside gated entrance door bar. And with regard to this latent print, did you have to run that print through the AFIS system or any other system at all?
All right. Let's then shift our attention to item no. 11. Can you tell the jury where that item was recovered?
Yes. Item 11 was inside the Bundy location. It was recovered from the outside bathroom door that's between the kitchen area and the living room. It was--that print was identified. It was identifiable and it was identified.
Okay. It was identified--identifiable and identified. And what was that print of? Was it a finger or palm or what?
Now, are you able to date prints as to when somebody made a particular print of a location?
All right. All right. Now, let's shift our attention to item no. 12 that was collected.
Yes. No. 12 was recovered from a pack of Marlboro Lights cigarette that was in the master bedroom or bathroom, the back of the toilet.
Tell us about prints 13, 14 and 15. I believe they're all collected at the same location.
Yes. Prints 13, 14 and 15, all three of them came from a white Ferrari vehicle that was in the back of the location.
All right. Now, let's then lastly go to items 16 and 17. By the way--strike that. Let me back up a moment. With regard to items 13 and 14, I see an AFIS, a-f-I-s, after that. Were those prints that were found on the Ferrari that are identifiable run through any systems?
Yes. Those prints, no. 13 and 14, are both fingers. So we were able to put those two prints into the AFIS system or the automated fingerprint identification system of the Los Angeles Police Department to see that--if it would give us a possible match. That was unsuccessful. We did not get a match. So once that happened, we ran it through the Department of Justice fingerprint computer. And even with doing that, we still did not get a match. And we also went as far as running it through the win or the western identification network, which is part of the western states that are hooked up to each other that we're able to access some of these computer systems. And we ran it through those systems and they're still--the prints are still--have not been identified.
And these systems, these computer systems that you're talking about, do you have any idea of how many prints or the latent print is compared so when they run through the win system or the AFIS system?
Well, the AFIS system, the prints would be run through our entire database, and we have over two million fingerprint cards at the Los Angeles Police Department. When--run it through the Department of Justice or through Sacramento, their computer system, it also has--it runs their entire database, which is I believe over 5---over 10 million fingerprint cards for there. Then the win program, I'm not too sure how many actual fingerprint cards are in the database for each individual location.
Okay. But at any rate, it was run through the AFIS system and the win system, and you're not able to make these two fingerprints found on the Ferrari to any individual known at this point; is that correct?
All right. Now, we've already covered that with regard to a palm print, you're more limited; is that correct?
But with regard to the palm print that was found on the Ferrari, would I be correct in assuming that you compared that palm print to the 58 individuals who were on the log and/or family friends plus Mr. Simpson, Miss Simpson and Mr. Goldman? Is that correct?
All right. And shifting our attention lastly to items--prints 16 and 17, where were they lifted from, sir?
Yes. Both of those prints were lifted from a black Cherokee Jeep that was--both of them came from the outside passenger side rear fender.
All right. And were there identifiable prints lifted from this black Cherokee Jeep?
And were you able to identify any individual with regard to these two identifiable prints?
And again, they were palm prints. So you couldn't run them through the system, but you ran them through all the individuals you mentioned before?
All right. And they did not match up with anyone connected with this case at least at this point; is that right?
17 prints were lifted. And of those 17, as I understand it, keeping track, 14 of those were identifiable; is that correct?
And of the 14 that were identifiable, five were actually identified; isn't that correct?
Okay. So that leaves nine that were identifiable but have not been identified, but are still out there. We don't know who made those prints, right?
Now, you last worked on this case when, sir, with regard to any comparisons or identifications?
Okay. So to summarize if we could--and you can check your records if you need to--the prints that were identifiable, but not identified to any individual are numbers 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17; is that correct?
Now, with regard to your testimony here, you--when's the first time you ever met me?
All right. And I want to ask you a couple other questions. With regard to this concept of fingerprints, are you able to get fingerprints from inside of a glove, depending upon the glove?
All right. Some gloves you can get fingerprints from and some others you can't depending upon the type. Is that what you're saying?
Right. If it's a latex or a vinyl glove, then we'll attempt to get a latent print off of it if it's possible to get a print.
Did you attempt to get any prints off any gloves in connection with this case?
KEY QUOTEWith regard--do you know whether or not--and looking--and I can put the chart back up--of the 58 plus family members, do you know whether or not the children's prints--you obtained the known prints of the Simpson minor children, Justin and Sidney Simpson?
Could you rule out any of the prints remaining by virtue of the size of the prints, that is adult prints or whatever?
All right. Now, with regard to your work and your examination here, did--you told us that at some point, you had a reference or a known print from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman and from O.J. Simpson; is that correct?
And Mr. Simpson, Mr. O.J. Simpson's prints were obtained on June 13th; isn't that correct?
And that was--that enabled them to eliminate him that same day, isn't that correct, because they had his prints as of the 13th?
And in that connection, what were you working with? What did you receive from either the Coroner's office or their representative with regard to the reference prints of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?
Yes. We retrieved--received the impressions or the fingerprints of all 10 fingers and the impressions or the palm prints of the right palm twice.
KEY QUOTEIn other words, they took all 10 fingers, they took the palm, the right palm twice and you never had the left palm; is that right?
Did you--in the course of the investigation in this case, did you have occasion to talk with any of the investigating officers in this case at all?
And from them, I presume you were able to obtain the logs of people who had been at the crime scene and that sort of thing?
And through them, I presume you were able to get the prints and palm prints of friends of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson; is that correct?
At any point, when you knew that we--that you had some nine prints that you couldn't match up, identifiable prints we couldn't match up, did anyone ever either take the fingerprints of palm prints of the minor children at all?
I requested to the parents of Nicole Brown when I fingerprinted them, when they came to the location to get fingerprinted, I indicated to them that we would like to have the fingerprints of the children and--
All right. I want you to assume hypothetically the children were five and eight years of age. Do you have that in mind?
And would you--if you knew the children were of that age and normal healthy children, would you have an idea of the size of those children's hands, a boy five and a girl eight?
Right. Assume they're normal healthy five years old and eight years old. Do you know what that means?
All right. Let me see. At no point did you ever get the children's fingerprints, did you?
And with regard to these prints that are identifiable, but not identified or made to any particular individual, do you know whether any of those prints were small enough to be children's prints?
By looking at it and determining the size of the ridges and how far they are apart from each other, there is at least one print in there that could belong to a child as young as three years old to--to maybe even a young adult.
All right. So of the other eight--I presume from my question then, the other eight would not be, in your opinion, made by a child?
Well, perhaps we ought to take our break now and let Mr. Aguilar look at it over the lunch hour.
So now--you've now looked through all of the nine prints that have not been identified to any individuals; is that correct?
And this one card is the one that you're referring to that could have been made by a youngster or child; is that correct?
All right. The other eight then I presume could have been made by adults; is that correct?
The ones that are identifiable. The other ones that are nonidentifiable, I couldn't tell.
Right. No. I'm talking about the identifiable ones. I'm talking about the nine identifiable ones, right?
And your testimony is, of those eight, eight of those would be from adults, right?
Mr. Cochran, I don't think we've identified for the record purposes which one of those is--that Mr. Aguilar has indicated is possibly a young child.
Why don't I do that now, your Honor? Of the nine, this is one, your Honor, and it's number--DR number? It's no. 4 of 17. It's item no. 4 of 17, your Honor, and it was recovered from inside the front door door frame.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the noon hour. Please remember all my admonitions; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 1 o'clock. Mr. Aguilar, 1 o'clock.
All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Aguilar, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Gilbert Aguilar, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
All right. The record should reflect Mr. Gilbert Aguilar is on the witness stand currently under direct examination by Mr. Cochran. Good afternoon, Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Cochran, do you have some additional questions?
None of the latent prints are recovered from the crime scene were identified to Mr. Simpson.
They haven't been identified. That's correct.
Did you attempt to get any prints off any gloves in connection with this case? No.
We retrieved--received the impressions or the fingerprints of all 10 fingers and the impressions or the palm prints of the right palm twice.