Mr. Deedrick, turning to the photographs that you did bring with you, these were taken through the lens of a very powerful microscope from 250 to 400 times magnification; is that correct?
Okay. When we use depth in field in photography, we mean, for instance, a lens that could be focused on the gentleman seated to my right and on you and the court reporter all at the same time, correct?
Right. Depth of field means that you could see more in foc--it would be more in focus, right, depending on how far away it is from you.
But the microscope that was hooked to a camera to produce these pictures almost slices through the various parts of the hair as you rack it up and down, correct?
--in the lens, you can look at the very bottom of the hair, the midsection or the very top?
Not only that, but along the length of the hair, you may see some differences, true?
As a matter of fact, people who let their hair grow long tend to have different characteristics towards the distal end or tip than at the proximal end or root because the hair is aging as it grows, correct?
All right. And I believe that you testified on direct examination that the average hair grows about--on an adult grows about a half an inch a month?
All right. So that if you were dealing with hair samples no longer than an inch, in other words, that are trimmed periodically so that they don't grow beyond an inch, you're dealing with hair which is probably no more than two months old, correct?
Did you find many that were more than an inch? These are known hairs from Mr. Simpson.
1-5/8 probably was closer to the longest hair. And--right. There were other hairs shorter than an inch.
Now, when you made these photographs, you selected the place on the hair where you would take a half a millimeter and photograph it, correct?
And you would select the depth of the hair from top to bottom where the camera was focused or where the lens was focused when you snapped the shutter, right?
Right. I think most of the photographs though, what I try to do is get the cuticle sharp on both sides. In order to do that, it's somewhere in the middle.
Well, you try. And by getting in the middle, it depends on how the hair is laying. You try to get the cuticle sharp on both sides. And if it's an evenly round hair, that's pretty easy to do. If it's a more flattened hair, you may have one side in focus and the other one out of focus.
Okay. But ideally on a symmetrical hair, if you get at the midsection, you should get a sharp cuticle and it would be fuzzy if you were not at the midsection; is that correct?
Okay. And you made each selection that appears on the relevant hairs as opposed to the atlas hairs in this case, correct?
How many hairs do you normally need to pull from a human head for comparison purposes in order to account for variances within the range of that individual?
That--that may vary a little bit, not knowing what the range of characteristics might be within a person's head. I've--I've heard of upwards of a hundred hairs from an individual taken at random from different parts. From that 125 or 30 hairs may be selected as a range of characteristics. We recommend to police officers and to crime labs that at least 25 full-length randomly selected hairs and including combings be selected. That may not be enough or it may be more than enough.
Okay. But with respect to the different parts of the head, what different places at a minimum do you like to see hairs drawn from to cover the range?
Again, that may vary a little bit too. If the color of the hair is pretty uniform, then hair should be selected from the back and from the sides, from the top and from the front. You'll get differences in length and perhaps texture and so forth. And the way the hairs are cut is a good example. If the person has patches of color, then one might be sure to get samples from that area of the hair. I used to have a black spot. So you would take hairs from that as representative of possibly hairs that may come from that. It may not be within your four areas that you normally pick from, but you try to take them from four or five different areas.
All right. Well, if you were dealing with an example like yourself where there was quite a range in color, you would want to get from separate areas of the head and also a sample of each kind of color; would you not?
Can you place a hair in the comparison microscope for study purposes without mounting it?
Excuse me. None of the hairs that you have talked about in this case for comparison purposes were viewed prior to your mounting them or having Miss Brockbank do it, right?
To eliminate an individual from questioned hair samples, do you need to look at hairs from the various parts of the head in order to make a reliable judgment?
Okay. Is it not a fact that with respect to the police officers and other law enforcement personnel that appear on the elimination board, only two hairs were mounted in each case?
Do you remember how many you did mount of each example? Except for Miss Brockbank, I believe there were three.
Right. I felt--and again, my recollection is that each sample was a suitable sample in number, right.
Some were two slides. Some were three. Brockbank's were longer, so there were three slides.
Well, most importantly, I take it you are confident that the unidentified Caucasian hair found on the Rockingham glove didn't come from any of the people whose samples you looked at?
Now, Mr. Deedrick, can you give us a little information about the manner in which you work with agencies other than your own? I know in the FBI pretty much what your routine is. But you work with many, many other law enforcement agencies as you've told us, correct?
Uh-huh. And you work with different levels of expertise and sophistication as to their facilities, equipment and personnel?
Right? And is it fair to assume that those facilities that have their own laboratories, reasonably elaborate laboratories, consult the FBI generally in the more difficult cases rather than the ones that are pretty obvious?
Well, there's a lot of reasons why some crime labs may request our assistance. It may be political reasons. It may be that they're overburdened and they can't handle a case of that type. They may feel it's a little more complex than what they're used to doing. So there could be a number of reasons why they select us or ask us to help them.
Okay. Do you think that the Los Angeles Police Department was a little weary of this case and decided to put it in your lap?
In any event, when you are called in on a case, to what degree do you exercise some influence over the investigation so that you can make sure that you get the information you need and don't get surprised by information you didn't get?
Well, from the analysis of evidence in a case--and you're referring to this particular case or any case?
Well, I'm interested in your practices and then if they were conformed in this case, fine, and if you took extraordinary steps, I would like to know that too.
Okay. In a case where evidence is being examined, I may decide that I would like to get additional known standards. I may call out to the contributor. They may--they may have to go collect additional samples from the suspects or from the victims, if they're still available, or perhaps elimination standards from police officers or the crime scene personnel. I may request carpet standards, fiber standards to resolve certain information that I'm getting from looking at slides. I may find something that I feel might be useful in trying to link unusual fibers or unusual structures that I'm seeing. I like to get involved in the case at least from my standpoint with a local investigator to see if I can help out in any way.
Do you require that they at least offer you samples of everything that they have collected that might relate to your studies?
Well, some of the decisions they make--they make. Sometimes they decide not to send some samples for some reason and sometimes they send it all. It really depends on the case and who they are.
Do you ever direct or request that they go obtain additional information so that you can complete your responsibility?
Can you tell the jury what it was that you asked for that was not initially submitted to you apart from the Bronco carpet I think you've testified to?
Did you ask whether or not you could see any samples of clothing belonging to Mr. Simpson that might relate to some of the fibers that you were looking at?
Now, did you similarly request samples of fabric from others who were present in the vicinity of the places where these fibers, for instance, the blue black fibers were found?
Okay. Can you give us an example of the kinds of requests you made for sources of fibers from people other than Mr. Simpson?
Well, I had a number of fibers that were recovered on--in specific items, the gloves, the hat had a lot--a lot of fibers off the knit hat and those were the main items. The fibers off of the victims, I--I had--well, I had a few, but the key items I believe were the two gloves as well as the knit hat. And I made several requests regarding possible clothing. I gave a list of fibers and by color and by type and to see if these would be of value from an investigative standpoint.
Do you know how many uniformed officers were in and about the scene prior to the time that the victims were removed?
Okay. Are you concerned when you were attempting to make comparisons with possible sources of the fibers you're looking at?
Yeah. It's a concern, sure, as you're trying to determine the origin of a particular fiber as to where it may have come from.
If you thought a fiber looked significant and found that a day earlier, someone had thrown a hundred of them in the area, that would have a bearing on any inferences you might draw, correct?
Okay. Now, are you aware of the circumstances that existed as between the two locations involved here, that is Rockingham and Bundy and the people who were common to both?
I have some general understanding of that. I know there's some detectives that were at both locations.
Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence. Motion to strike. Ask the jury to be admonish.
Okay. And in matters of primary, secondary, tertiary and whatever transfer, the movement of people back and forth between relevant locations is always a possible source for hairs, fibers and other things, correct?
Exactly. Now, do you know the condition of the soil in the vicinity of the place where Ronald Goldman's body was discovered prior to its being placed there by someone in the course of the killing?
Okay. Would it be important for you to know in what parts of a property or a home people spent time or animals spent time in trying to assess the significance of hairs and fibers?
That--that may be--again, it's a point that the listeners to the results would have--it would have more meaning to them. It would have less significance if you found something that you'd expected to find a lot of stuff there.
What I'm trying to learn is whether or not in this case you made all of those inquiries.
I don't know if I made all of the inquiries, but these are obvious questions that came to mind at some point.
All right. Now, you know that a number of police officers were at both locations sometime after midnight on the 13th of June, 1994?
And that some went back and forth like the detective, Bundy, Rockingham, back to Bundy and so forth?
Okay. Did you collect any samples of any of the fabrics as to what they were wearing that day while they were performing their duties?
How about the medical personnel who were on the scene, Mr. Fung, Miss Ratcliffe and others from the Coroner's office?
All right. Well, did you ask, as you did with hairs--I assume that was your request that brought forth the elimination hairs; was it not?
Did you ask that the people who were wearing clothes that day, as we assumed all of them were, identify at least the color and fabric that they were wearing?
--that it would be--it would be good to get elimination standards of clothing of personnel if there was a question about that.
All right. And how many people was it reported to you were wearing a blue black fiber constructed garment that day?
Well, what did you do with the information you received? You say you asked to know what everybody was wearing that day who was on the scene, and I assume you got a response?
I don't believe I asked them what everybody was wearing. I indicated that it might be useful information to know if we have certain fiber types if there's a question about their possibly originating from a police officer or detective or whoever else might have been there, and that request went out.
I understand that. And you've talked about that. I'm asking you, what response did you receive to the question who was wearing what who was at the crime scene?
You haven't the vaguest idea to this day whether 1, 10 or 30 people were wearing dark cotton clothing around that crime scene, correct?
KEY QUOTEAll right. Did you inquire as to whether or not samples had been taken from either of the homes inside the homes?
No. Well, I don't believe I recall ever asking for samples except for perhaps from carpet samples.
How about the clothing inside Mrs. Simpson's home? Did you ask to examine any of that, particularly any that might be dark blue or blue black?
No. I did not receive any fabrics from anybody or anyplace to try to account for the blue black fibers you're referring to.
Okay. Let's talk for a minute about the knit cap. Have you been made privy to the fact that a second knit cap was discovered?
Were you informed that a Defense investigator in the company of a lead detective in this case discovered in a closet on the second floor of the Bundy residence a knit cap similar in appearance to the one found near the body of Ronald Goldman?
Yeah. I don't know if I received that particular cap or not. I did receive some additional caps at a later date. But if that's one of them, I wouldn't know.
Well, if I tell you that the detective refused to book it, would you assume that you never received it?
If you had examined that cap and found the hair compatible with or could have come from Mr. Simpson in the hat, would that have been of any significance?
I'm not sure how other than maybe left his hat in the house at one point in time.
Would you have reported the fact that you found a similar cap with hairs similar to Mr. Simpson or could have come from located in the house of his ex-wife and children?
Okay. Now, I think you said on Thursday, if I recollect correctly, in the first part of your testimony, that you had examined some 500,000 hairs over the course of your career.
I do recall the words "Half a million." I don't recall if it was hairs or hairs and fibers or examinations or--but I think I've at least seen that many hairs.
And you meant for that to include the total 17 years that you've been devoting to this specialty. Does that include the year that you were sort of an intern?
Okay. Now, I take it with this many examinations or views of substances in your background, that it is not feasible to individually recall each experience to the point of being able to differentiate.
For instance, if I were to ask you about evidence in one of the cases in which you've testified, you might or might not be able to remember what the objects look like, correct?
And because of that, when you examine something through the comparison microscope, the only basis upon which you have formed opinions in the past, you make notes of what you see; do you not?
And that is because if someone should later challenge the correctness of your comparison, you will be able to give detail somewhat like the lists that we viewed earlier to back up the opinion that you have reached, whether it be exclusion or inclusion?
You don't? Well, if you don't make notes as to what characteristics there are in a questioned and known sample, how are you able to tell later on which characteristics seem sufficiently similar or dissimilar to you to reach a conclusion?
When you do your comparisons, right. The conclusions that I draw regarding whether or not a hair looks like another hair in a known standard, there are visual observations and some brief notes will be made regarding the hair, a brown Caucasian head hair. I may describe the roots. I may describe the length. I may describe the color or other characteristics, and I'll just put "Like K1," and that means to me that I compared all the characteristics that I felt were important and reached that conclusion.
Is it the case then, Mr. Deedrick, that as to any of the individual comparisons about which you've testified in this case, you are unable to reconstruct what individual similarities led you to your opinion?
But isn't that, sir, very much like, "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it"?
Well, again, I don't--I don't know if it's quite the same, but the characteristics are compared visually. The conclusions are reached based on that observation. The notes are there just as reminders, that is all, and the notes are not intended to be the basis for a conclusion.
Well, they're not--I mean in terms of--I mean obviously I put a draw a conclusion, I put in it my notes like K1. That's the conclusion I reached. But the notes themselves are not the basis. I couldn't have somebody look at the notes and say, oh, yeah, that hair looks like that hair. They couldn't do that.
Well, now, Mr. Deedrick, examiners occasionally disagree on similarities and differences; do they not?
And whether or not they are sufficiently significant to warrant reaching conclusion a versus b?
And when two examiners come to different conclusions in a lawsuit of this sort, somebody has to decide which one has used the better procedure. The more reliable procedure is the more credible, correct?
Yes. And not having any individual notes as to what you were seeing in the microscope, but taking the position, "I made a judgment then even though I can't reconstruct it," is a wonderful Defense for cross-examination; is it not?
Okay. If you had a listed criteria for each comparison you made, that is to say, you found a trace medulla in both samples, you found similarly shaped and placed ovoid bodies, you found similar clumping of the pigment all located on one side of the hair as opposed to around the inner diameter of the cuticle and you found that certain twists or bends or buckles were in the hair, that would give another expert an opportunity to decide whether your application of those criteria of similarity or distinction were done correctly and professionally; would it not?
No. I don't think so. Again, that's just a matter of procedure and how one goes about this process of comparing hairs. If another examiner is going to look at the same hairs and reach a conclusion, they can write down whatever they want. If they want to use a chart, if they want to use a graph, if they want to draw a picture of it or take a million photographs, it really doesn't matter. They have to decide for themselves if it could have come from the source or is it different. That's their opinion and they have to base it on what they know and from their experience. The conclusions I reached are based on my experience, my observations at the time I conducted the examination. I think it's improper to go about trying to compare notes.
Well, Mr. Deedrick, you are unable, I take it, except as these notes may disclose in an individual comparison to reconstruct what it is you were looking at that persuaded you to arrive at a judgment, correct?
I can refer to the known standards, describe those from the notes. The questioned hairs that I found correspond in many respects, if not all, to the known--the notes prepared from the known standard. So I find it duplicity in going through--I could write them down. I could write all the characteristics and I could make sure that all the notes corresponded perfectly just so I could avoid this bantering on whether or not they exhibit the same characteristics. But that's not what I do. I reach conclusions based on my observations. The notes are just to help me along as I go through my exam.
Tell me about your habits in making notes. Do you date them, put them in any particular order?
Can we tell from your notes when you claim you made certain observations through the microscope?
Can we tell from your notes how long you spent looking at a particular comparison?
Can we tell from your notes what it was you thought you saw that entitled you to make a comparison or the lack thereof or a distinction?
Just to refresh my memory if I have to go testify or at least comment on the case at a later date for some reason.
Mr. Deedrick, was there ever the slightest doubt in your mind that you would wind up on the witness stand in this case?
Yes. And did you not note the fact that this is probably the most widely publicized case that you've ever been involved in.
All right. And did you not realize as you made your notes that the world might one day look at what you had done and how you had done it?
Okay. In any event, preparatory to turning to those notes, Mr. Deedrick, you turned handwritten notes to the Defense through the discovery process; did you not?
The Defense had those typed up and submitted to you for any corrections or omissions or little hand scratches that couldn't be deciphered?
And this morning, you have given them back to me with just a few corrections, right?
All right. Tonight, would you be kind enough to go over those notes so that we don't get bogged down. There are a few questions I have about the manner in which they were made and to be disclosed.
Right. I couldn't do that from the notes.
But isn't that, sir, very much like, 'I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it'?
You haven't the vaguest idea to this day whether 1, 10 or 30 people were wearing dark cotton clothing around that crime scene, correct?
Not after the first couple slides. I realized I'd be here.
Well, that's a good assumption.