All right. Mr. Deedrick, if you would, just take a moment and review the categories that are listed on table 14 there. And let us know after you've reviewed it and if those terminologies or characteristics are familiar to you.
Well, before you start, may we put it up so people can see what you're talking about?
Okay. You have the book in front of you. You can also see on your screen that we have faithfully reproduced it. Do you agree with that?
Okay. Now, there are some words on there that are just plain English words and some which may be peculiar to what you do. Would you, for instance, explain to the jury what the word "Imbricate" means?
Well, "Imbricate" is the common scale pattern that's found in human hairs. It's very irregular. It--it doesn't have any particular regular shape to it whereas coronal, coronal scales, they're really only found in infants, very young infants, just newborns; and as to adults, you don't see coronal scales hardly at all except in very fine hairs, and those aren't even considered for comparison. Spinous scales, spinous scales are not commonly associated to human hairs.
Well, there seems to be a terminology difference between what you have there and what we have as table 14.
No. Spinous scales are normally found in mink hairs, they're found in dog hairs and some other animal hairs, but they're not common for humans.
Definition of the word "Imbricate," Mr. Deedrick, means laying one over the other like the leaves of an artichoke, right?
Right. That's right. Or they lay like the shingles on a roof, but they're very irregular. Instead of smooth, they're choppy looking and they're not--they're not very uniform.
Now, within the category of "Imbricate," which applies to all human hairs, adult human hairs, do you find differences that help you in your comparison studies?
Generally, "Imbricate" is terminology--a term that's used just in general for human hair scale characteristics.
The point is, within that term, which encompasses a description of all adult human hairs, there are no further divisions recognized in your profession, are there, any other terms--
I wouldn't recognize necessarily--although there probably have been some people over the years that have tried to break that down too, but I think imbricate is just one large group.
Well, again, Houseman did it and a few others did it as well trying to break down scale patterns to I don't know how many different groups, but with humans, we generally refer to the scale pattern on humans as "Imbricate."
Right. Okay. So that is not basically--except as between humans and animals or humans and infants, it is not a basis of differentiation?
One of the first things you look for when you get to your microscopic, the existence or absence and type and nature of the medulla?
And that is the dark line in the center of the cortex that you pointed out to us in a number of the exploded views that you showed on your cards, true?
And do you, when you examine hairs, look to categorize the medulla as is done on line 2 or do you have other and further things that you look for to differentiate?
Well, the tissue that's found in the center, it's a little bit different than the rest of the hair. It's made up of a little different type of carotin, which is the protein that makes up hair, may be--may be in just small dots or just real short links, and it could be black, which has air surrounding it, or it might be clear. So you could have a trace clear, trace dark or you could call it fragmented. Just depends on what you like.
Okay. But it's indicated there that in some hairs, there is no medulla, it's absent.
Well, some people say it's there, but you just don't see it. Well, if I don't see it, then it's not there.
All right. Now, the medulla pattern as distinguished from the medulla itself, could you look at those terms and tell me whether or not you recognize those as valid bases of definition?
Well, I don't--again, I don't--let me check to see if the two lists are the same. Okay. I don't. These--some of these terms are not used for human hairs. Uniserial, multiserial, vacuolated and lattice, they are not common terms used for human hairs. Those are common terms used for animal hairs. Uniserial and multiserial are common in the rabbit group. Vacuolated hairs may be found in the rodents as well as other animals. Lattice medullas are found in the deer family. Amorphous, that's common for humans. Most of human hairs are amorphous, either amorphous dark, amorphous clear or they may be cellular, and apparently it doesn't have cellular there, and I even found one that I saw a wafer, which is unusual.
Okay. So these would be divisions if they appeared on this list within amorphous, the only category applied to human hairs that you see?
Well, amorphous and cellular bulbous, those are--those are the two--two major categories.
Well, "Vacuolated" again is just a--amorphous is no form. It has no particular form. Vacuolated just looks like large vacuoles or large chambers that you see in the center of the hair.
They could be, yes. Air pockets is a good example of that. With uniserial and multiserial, uniserial means just like a bead, a long string of clear or dark medullary material. And in rabbits, rabbits have very fine hairs which have uniserial medulla. And in the larger hairs, they're called multiserial, and looks like corn, like a piece of corn cob or something. All the medulla looks like that, looks like kernels of corn.
Mr. Deedrick, in your direct testimony, you made reference to diameter as having some importance in several respects.
All right. Well, first of all, the amount of diameter may be helpful in determining race, correct?
Okay. The constancy of the diameter from the proximal end or root to the distal end or tip can be significant in making comparisons; is that true?
And is that something that you would note when you were examining hairs under the comparison microscope?
Well, the length of the hair plays a role in the comparison. You don't always have the same length in the questioned hair as the known hairs, but it's something you must consider.
Is there a minimum length with which you need to work before you can call a comparison as similar?
I don't believe there's a set length. It depends on the characteristics of the hair.
Uh-huh. What's the smallest fragment that you've worked with in obtaining what you viewed as a positive result?
Incidentally, on Friday, you did a calculation for us and said that if you magnified a 12-inch hair from Nicole Brown Simpson 250 times, you would have a picture 25 feet long. Do you remember saying that?
Well, 10 times 250 would be 250 feet long, wouldn't it, if you start with a 12-inch piece?
KEY QUOTEOkay. In any event, the color of the hair you always take into account I take it, and you've talked about that on your direct examination?
And do you always as well take into account what is called the reflectivity? First of all, do you use that term "Reflectivity" for that category?
No. If it's opaque it's one thing, but the other qualities are not commonly referred to in descriptive notes.
All right. So apparently some examiners feel there is a distinction between the latter three and you do not. Is that a fair statement?
Well, I talked to a lot of hair examiners around the country, but I've never seen those.
Okay. Well, you said you knew who Henry Lee was. You do know he heads the laboratory?
Okay. As to the tip, do you agree with those categories published there as differentiated?
Okay. What about the root? Are those different categories that you inspect in trying to identify or distinguish unlike hairs?
I don't know what a normal root is, the word "Normal." Stretched, I might refer to hair that's been forcibly removed and I may indicate that it either has tissue or no tissue. If it's absent, I'll make a note of that. Follicular, that may be referring to there's tissue present. Bulbous and germ, I have an idea where he's going with that, but I may make a special note of it if there's some characteristics that in my experience are unique as to the root.
Okay. As to the cross-section, I believe you told us that race can be indicated by a cross-section of hair?
Right. It's a--it's one of the characteristics that can be applied to racial determination.
Okay. And the pigment, I think you talked about a number of things referencing pigment. First of all, if the pigment is absent, what color is the hair?
Yeah, I have. Yeah, I have a few pigment granules left in there, believe it or not, but yeah, most of them are turning that way.
What is granule pigment? Have you ever noticed pigment which you would call granule?
I have, yes. Sometimes in hairs, when you're looking at them microscopically, it looks like there's sand grains in it. They're just--it's just very present, very obvious. They're not grouped in any particular clump or chain or patch, but it just looks sandy. That's what I would call granular.
Okay. And "Chain," "Clump," "Dense" and "Opaque" are also terms that you would use in describing different kinds of hair?
I have--I do comment on pigment density, yes, whether it's clumping or streaking. Chaining, I generally refer to as streaking in that category as opposed to chaining although--
Right. Okay. "Cortical fusi" is something that you mentioned that you look for. My question is, do you agree with the differentiation as set forth there, six categories, as being distinct from one another?
I'm sorry. I'm one line above you, both beginning with absent. The four categories.
Four categories; absent, few, bunched. Yes. Generally I refer to the size, shape and distribution of them.
So these are things that you would note at the comparison microscope both as to the K and the Q hair that you're looking at?
Okay. Now, distinguish, if you will, the cortical pigment from the pigment no. 12.
15 as opposed to 12. What are the differences in the two kinds of pigment? The cortex is, of course, the center body of the hair, is it not, the main body?
Okay. Well, all the--pretty much all the pigments located in the cortex. I think they're referring to here on pigment distribution, which is centrally located, which you find in red-haired individuals. Peripherally located, which is located out more towards the cuticle to one side, which we've already discussed, and the pigment is found more down towards the root of the hair. I don't know if I see that so much. Most of the time, what you see is the pigment might be out toward the tip because the hair is starting to gray a little bit and it starts graying from the bottom up. So I don't know about that.
No, not really. We see it because we see a lot of hairs, but that's--that's significant, when you see cosmetic treatment.
Were those questioned hairs the hairs in the cap that you deemed to be not similar to those of Mr. Simpson?
Right. And also, there was one that on Q15, which was from the cap, that was--appeared to be dissimilar to any of the knowns.
Can you tell the jury what you noted about those six hairs dissimilar to Mr. Simpson's hair that caused you to use the word "Treated" in describing?
Well, not all of the six were treated. There were at least three, maybe four hair fragments that appeared reddish brown and they appeared to be treated. Really not the greatest hairs to compare. The fact that they were treated led me to believe that they couldn't have originated from that individual.
All right. Now, you examined quite a number of K hairs that were known to be pulled from Mr. Simpson, right?
Did most of them have some part of the follicle or tissue with them, the ones that were forcibly removed rather than being combed?
No. All right. Did you find any evidence of treatment on any of the K7 hairs that came from Mr. Simpson's head?
Okay. Did you make any inquiry directly or through the investigators here in Los Angeles as to the history of Mr. Simpson's care of his hair through his barber or whomever to see if any treatment had ever been applied?
Okay. Now, damaged hair, cut, crunched, broken and burned. I think three of those terms are pretty obvious. Tell us what is meant in your specialty by "Crunched."
Well, that would be an indication of where the hair may have had--made impact with a solid object. Could be a hammer, could be a mallet, it could be an ax, it could be a window, like a windshield. But that may indicate that the hair has been crushed in some form. It's difficult--actually, it's pretty difficult to crush a hair. So when you see a crushed hair, there's been some pretty heavy hitting on it.
Well, you testified in the past that you've seen hairs that were crushed by a blunt instrument--
And do you not suspect that if I were mean enough to take a hammer and hit Miss Clark in the head hard enough to knock her out, that you'd find a number of crushed hairs?
Did anybody ever submit to you any hairs from Nicole Brown Simpson for your examination as to whether or not they had been crushed?
Were any submitted to you that were associated in their submission with some kind of alleged blow to the head?
I don't believe any of the hairs that I found, either questioned or known, exhibited that crushed characteristic.
Has there been explained to you in the preparation for your testimony the theory advanced in this court as to how Miss Simpson was felled and then slain?
It may have been during the testimony during the case. Someone may have mentioned it or I'd overheard it.
Well, Miss Brockbank came out to see you with you a bunch of exhibits in August. Did she tell you anything about the victim having been hit on the head?
I don't believe so, no. I don't recall anybody saying that to me. But it really didn't matter to me. I mean, I didn't see any evidence of that. I couldn't support it one way or the other.
Well, no hairs were submitted allegedly from a specific spot on the top of her head accompanying an injury, were they?
Okay. We can skip I think race since you covered that, except I would like to ask you about a mixed hair. What do you mean by "Mixed"? A mixture of one of the two or more of the first three?
Okay. Yes. Right. You may find that hairs exhibit characteristics that are shared by the models. If the person exhibits a very large diameter hair, it has a reddish coloration, yet it has a lot of buckling and perhaps clumping of the pigment, that might tend to indicate it might be an Asian black mix. Sometimes you find that the hairs will exhibit microscopic characteristics, that they share a couple racial groups, and that--you might say that those are mixed exhibit, mixed racial characteristics.
Okay. Now, I believe you have said that this is still the current booklet I assume passed out to students of hair and fiber when you teach.
Not really. Not really. It's mainly an introductory type manual for beginners and it's very--they find it useful because it has some pictures in it. But we just try to use it as a supplement to our normal teaching course.
All right. Well, we'll get to the pictures in a little while. But is it not a fact that when young examiners come out of the academy and are assigned to your section for the year of training that you've described in your direct examination, that they are generally encouraged to use a checklist in examining hairs such as is contained in the teachings of this book?
I--I normally recommend for all new people when they're just starting to learn it--and I start this day one, not after the year--that it might be helpful if they get a checklist so that they can make sure that they're touching base with the characteristics that--that are important and that you're going to evaluate when you're comparing hairs. After the year, I don't care if they use the checklist. If they want to, fine. If they don't, that's their business.
All right. Would you just take a quick look at the list that is derived from this booklet over several pages and see whether or not it's something that you teach.
Do these appear to be a number of the same terms that we looked at on the list published in the manual by the Connecticut state police?
May I see a copy of it, please? Your Honor, this is not--may I have a moment to review? This is not taken from the book exactly.
Perhaps, Miss Clark, you could give that to Mrs. Robertson and we could make a copy so the witness wouldn't have to try to read it off the screen.
If you could examine, Mr. Deedrick, only sections 1 and 2. I don't propose to get into animal hairs at the moment.
May I ask that the witness be shown the book--that this is an edited version. May I ask the witness be shown the book so he can--
My understanding is that you agree that an examination should consider each of these aspects of a human hair when seeking comparisons, true?
All right. And one teaches neophytes in the business to refer to this sort of list, perhaps the manual itself for the first year or so you say of doing examinations?
Right. All of these points and characteristics are discussed and shown, shown to the new people.
Okay. Now, at the end of a year, the students, now examiners encouraged to abandon considerations of these criteria and just go off on their own?
Oh, no. No. All of the--the characteristics are always there, I mean whether you decide to use a checklist or whether you decide to just make some rough notes which might include some of these characteristics.
Okay. Well, you're certainly not suggesting that examiners ought to be in the position of a famous Judge who once said, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"? You don't do that, do you?
Well, no. We try to deal with objective criteria to make subjective determinations.
And you should be prepared if asked to explicate the reasons that you believe two hairs could be similar or dissimilar?
And should you have made some observations in each of the categories set forth in the FBI handbook?
Well, I mean, you need to look at--you need to consider all of the characteristics that are present in the questioned hairs and the known hairs as to what you see. The questioned hair may exhibit certain characteristics that may not be present in some of the known hairs, but are present in some of the others. So that's something that you would make a note of, but you may not write it down in a checklist.
Do you have an independent memory of the hair comparisons that you make with your comparison microscope from case to case?
Not possible for you to sit here today and visualize the images that appeared in the comparison microscope when you were working on the Simpson case, is it?
Some are very vivid, yes. It's not--you're talking about past cases. It tends to drift away, but this case is still pretty fresh. I have some recollection. I can't tell you exactly how the hairs were laying on the slide, but I have a pretty good idea.
Okay. Would you describe for us the length and shape of the Q23 hair which you believe could have originated from Mr. Simpson that was found on Ron Goldman's shirt? What does it look like on the slide?
Well, it was on the right side of the slide about half an inch off the right side of the cover slip, art shaped, eighth of an inch perhaps, maybe 3/16, one-sided pigmentation evident on the lower side of the hair, thin cuticle. I can picture it. It's there. I don't know if I could tell you all the characteristics off my mind, but I know what that hair looks like.
And at some point, did you slide it next to a known hair on the comparison microscope?
Yes. That's what you do. You line it up end to end and see if you can make that mirror match we call it.
Just to assure that we're all on the same wave length, Mr. Deedrick, there are some words that have been used in your testimony, and I would like you to explain what you mean when you use those words perhaps as against what Noah Webster had in mind. What does the word "Different" mean to you?
Well, if the--if the--the differences that may exist in hairs if it reaches a certain point where they're sufficiently different, exclusion would be a result. That is the hair would be excluded from possibly coming from a source. Some differences may not be significant, and that is somewhat subjective because it's based on the experience of the examiner. You might find that similarities and differences might be a no conclusion. Different, when you say two things are different, that means that would in a broad sense might be exclusion. And this is not the same as this.
Excuse me. When you use the word "Different" in your testimony, you are generally talking exclusion; is that correct?
All right. What is your definition of the word "Like" when you use it in connection with describing what you see in the microscope?
Well, if two hairs are alike, exhibit the same microscopic characteristics, that indicates to me that there are no significant differences when I compare them side by side. That means the hair could have come from that individual.
Well, I tend to define "Like" more definitively. "Similar," I think "Similar" sometimes may be leaning away from "Like," but--because many things are similar, yet not the same. But they may be in some terms interchangeable.
Well, I know he uses it, and I think people have their own impression about what "Like" and "Similar" are and--
Well, I mean, in terms of spacially, random spacing of material--of characteristics perhaps.
Now, when you exhibited a board of hairs, sample hairs of an African American origin, I believe you said that they were randomly selected.
Okay. In that--in that vein, "Random" would mean that they were selected without any preconceived notion or plan. They were selected as a representative of the hair that I had to photograph. I selected a random area. "Random" could also refer to collection of hair samples. You select them randomly so you get a good range of characteristics.
Well, "Same," meaning that there are no distinctive differences, no significant differences between two compared pieces whether they're hairs or fibers.
All right. You have used the word "Same" in describing what you saw when you looked in the comparison microscope; have you not?
I have used the word "Same." I know in my notes--I think I have even used--probably used several of those words.
All right. And I take it once again, you disagree with Mr. Webster, whose first definition of "Same" is identical, alike in every respect?
Well, I don't--I don't consult with a dictionary when I draw conclusions from hair examinations. I draw from my own experience and my training, and those terms are standard.
KEY QUOTEAll right. So what you're saying is that in your profession, the word "Same" is used even though there may be differences between the samples?
Oh, you may. There may be some differences. The differences would have to be weighed in relationship to the other characteristics that you find to be the same.
"Similar" may be used in a general sense, that two things are similar, yet perhaps don't have exactly the same microscopic characteristics. It may group a hair or fibers into a particular category. The size of hairs in some instances in relationship to the known standards may--may force a "Similar" word into characterizing it as opposed to the "Same." When you're comparing a hair that is 10 inches long to a hair fragment that's three inches long, the word "Similar" may be employed, for instance, in the descriptive notes. It still would not eliminate that hair or hair fragment as originating from the individual.
Okay. All right. Thank you for that assistance. Now, let's talk about the exhibits. When did you decide that you would make up these exhibits of hair sections such as are shown on the boards of various kinds that have been presented to the jury during your direct examination?
Well, we have the atlas hairs, the random selection of African American, we have Caucasian hairs, not apropos of anyone in particular, then we have Goldman hairs, Mrs. Simpson's hairs, Mr. Simpson's hairs--
After the--after the associations were made and the reports were written, these were--when I had time, when I had an opportunity to sit down and start taking photographs. Some of the photographs were taken right away because I presented those to Longetti, special master for disposition. Some of the other photographs were taken later. The preparation of the charts and boards were at a later date.
Well, I wonder if you could give me a month. I mean you've said earlier and later and it doesn't really help.
Well, we started in August. By the end of the year, I had done a number of photographs. I don't believe any of the charts were prepared at that time. Up through--early--actually we may have started making some of the charts by the first of the year, but there were also--there was material that was coming in after the first of the year and the elimination standards and the--and the atlas hairs, as we've called them here, some of those were prepared much later in probably closer to summer.
Well, some of those I did for the purposes of this case, but also to use at a later date for teaching other people.
Would you agree that as magnified, the segments of hair that you have shown in the photographs which are mostly eight by 10 I think--
Would you agree that each hair exhibited is much shorter than an eighth of an inch?
Would you agree that no examiner would use those photographs as a basis for giving testimony on comparisons of differentiations?
Well, I don't--I don't see any problem with giving testimony as long as it's couched with the understanding that it's not a photograph of the entire hair, nor is it a way to associate hairs.
Have you ever in a case made a judgment based on photographs of this type rather than using your comparison microscope?
You have never testified in a court of law based on anything less than a view through the comparison microscope of a known with a questioned item, hair or fiber, correct?
And you could not, if you walked into this case cold, draw reliable conclusions from a mere examination of your exhibits, could you, conclusions to which you would be willing to testify under oath in an important litigation?
Uh, I would have no problem coming into court and looking at photographs like these and saying they look pretty good to me. But the whole--the conclusion for the overall association would have to be based on my independent comparison with the microscope.
Well, I think two people that have some experience or anybody--any number of people that have some experience looking at hairs can look at those photographs and say those characteristics are good because the resolution is very good. The characteristics that you see, if you lined up those two areas within the comparison microscope, that's the way they'll look under the microscope.
This is an example of what you might see looking through your comparison microscope; is it not?
This is an exhibit, Prosecution's 463, that we looked at during your direct testimony, correct?
This is a drawing that you made showing two hairs butted one against each other in the picture being compared?
In size, thickness of the cuticle, constancy of the medulla, placement of ovoid bodies, pigment and the shape and color of the cortex, true?
Those are the kinds of things that you look for in comparison when you peer into that very special microscope?
Well, Mr. Deedrick, if an examiner requires this kind of image to call the questioned and the known similar or dissimilar, how could lay people do any better without the image you say is essential to your craft?
I--I don't see--I don't see that to be an issue because you actually get more of the photograph--more of the hair in the photograph the way it's done in this case than you would if you did a side by side.
But you don't have any opportunity to match them end to end as the comparison microscope does and you have done in this drawing, correct?
You could take those photographs off and turn them however you want, on top of the other photograph, and you could do the same thing.
Could you have, had you chosen to do so, have taken photographs through the comparison microscope and produced examples such as the one that is up on the screen in reality?
Would it have then been possible for you to show to this court the basis for which you found one hair to be similar with another category by category?
No, I don't believe so. I believe the way I did it pretty much represents the associations that were made.
Well, the way that you did it, you have agreed would not be sufficient for any reputable examiner to base his testimony on unless he had also had the benefit of this, true?
Right. The--the determination or conclusions that you reach regarding hair comparisons are made examining the hair along the length, all of the characteristics side by side; and what you try to do as an examiner is find areas that line up like this photograph here (Indicating). That's--that's the best--best scenario, the best situation.
Are you telling us that as to each of the hairs where you have testified that you find similarity and cannot exclude consistent with or could have come from, you made this kind of inspection?
Go ahead and finish your question. It's an important area, if you want to finish that.
So those that have to make the final judgment in this case could have the benefit of this kind of technology rather than the display that you have chosen to bring, correct?
KEY QUOTEIt's a decision that I made. Sure. I actually attempted to use that technique over the years. I found this particular methodology much more informative.
KEY QUOTEWell, 10 times 250 would be 250 feet long, wouldn't it, if you start with a 12-inch piece?
A product no doubt of cross-examination.
I don't--I don't consult with a dictionary when I draw conclusions from hair examinations. I draw from my own experience and my training, and those terms are standard.
So those that have to make the final judgment in this case could have the benefit of this kind of technology rather than the display that you have chosen to bring, correct?
It's a decision that I made. Sure. I actually attempted to use that technique over the years. I found this particular methodology much more informative.