All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
I trust we all survived the 4th of July. Good. All right. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume your place on the witness stand, please.
Douglas W. Deedrick, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Mr. Deedrick, sir, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Miss Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK
Now, Mr. Deedrick, when we left off we were talking about a hair consistent with those of the Defendant found on Ronald Goldman's shirt. Do you recall that?
Now, I would like for you to assume the following facts for the purpose of a hypothetical: If you would, sir, please assume that at some time in the morning hours of June the 13th, after 10:00 A.M., a detective placed a white blanket over the body of Nicole Brown and that that blanket was never placed over the body of Ronald Goldman. Okay?
Now, if that blanket contained the head hairs of the Defendant, where would you be most likely to find those hairs if they were to transfer from the blanket to any other place? I'm talking about the blanket that was on the body of Nicole?
The most likely individual that may have a hair or hairs from an individual--another individual, that is from that blanket, would have been Nicole Brown, since she had direct contact with the blanket, based on your information.
KEY QUOTEOkay. And if that blanket was never placed on the body of Ron Goldman, what is the likelihood that any hairs that may have been present on that blanket would transfer from the blanket onto his body?
In your experience, sir, when an article of clothing or a blanket is responsible for a hair or fiber transfer, in your experience have you commonly found that the hair or fiber flies onto some other object or body with which it has no direct contact?
Okay. From my experience of examining evidence that is submitted from crime scenes, the individuals most likely to have evidence of hair or fiber transfer would be those individuals that had some contact with an item, such as body bags we often get in, blankets and transport sheets that are often submitted along with other items from the victims. That is where you generally see the contact and generally see the fiber or hairs transferred. It is just common sense.
Now, did you examine the hair and fiber removed from the body and clothing of Nicole Brown?
And did you find any hairs consistent with those of the Defendant on her body or clothing?
And if the blanket had been the source of the head hair you found on Ronald Goldman's shirt that was consistent with the Defendant's, where would the likely place to find it--where would the most likely place you would expect to find it be?
In your experience where would you expect to find that hair if the blanket was the source of it?
Well, if the blanket is covered with hairs from an individual or from any other source, and that blanket comes in contact with a person or the clothing of that person, because of the primary transfer and secondary transfers that are going on, that person would be the most likely candidate to have a hair on the clothing of that individual.
Okay. By the way, did you find any head hairs on Nicole's body or clothing that were consistent with the head hairs of Ronald Goldman?
Sir, if a stabbing occurs in which the victim offers little or no resistance and there is primarily arm's length contact, what impact does that have on whether or not there will be hair or fiber transferred to the body or clothing of that victim?
All right, sir. Is the lack of any hairs consistent with those of Ronald Goldman or those of the Defendant consistent with her having been rapidly incapacitated and murdered while unconscious?
How would you explain the lack of any hairs consistent with those of Ronald Goldman or any other foreign hairs consistent with those of her attacker perhaps on the body of Nicole Brown?
My problem with that one is foundational regarding his expertise to tell those things.
Sir, you processed, I think you told us before, 4000 hair and fiber cases in your time?
Well, within--within the area of crime scene investigation I have attended a course at the FBI academy on how to examine crime scenes and collect evidence from crime scenes. I also lecture national academy individuals, in-service agents taking training at the academy, people that come through, through the hair and fiber school down at the FBI academy, and other people, on how to collect evidence at a crime scene, so I am familiar with the collection and preservation of physical evidence. And I'm also familiar with what one--an individual might expect to find on clothing items or blanket items or other items that are recovered at a crime scene and knowing what one might expect to find helps in the actual examination of a crime scene so that the evidence can be collected properly.
In light of that and your expertise, sir, in hair and fiber examinations, on how many occasions have you examined the clothing, hair and trace recovered from the clothing and bodies of stabbing victims?
And on any of those occasions were you aware of the--the facts of the case in terms of how the stabbing occurred?
In those--based on that experience, sir, and the knowledge you acquired from those cases, can you tell us whether the lack of any foreign hairs on the body and clothing of Nicole Brown is consistent with her having been rapidly incapacitated and murdered while unconscious?
Overruled on the request to approach. The objection to the question, though, is sustained.
How do you explain or how can you account for the lack of foreign hairs or fibers on the body of Nicole Brown?
Well, the lack of hair and fiber evidence would indicate to me that there was limited contact with a surface that contained either hair or textile fibers. The lack--the less--the less the amount of contact, the less the force of the contact would result in less evidence being found.
Now, I think you said earlier that you found some limb hairs of black origin collected from the evidence in this case?
And by "Limb hairs" I think you defined it before as from the hand or the arm or the leg?
That would have been Ron Goldman's shirt as well as the glove recovered at Rockingham.
Well, they are not routinely compared in a forensic laboratory because of their limited nature.
Well, limb hairs do not have enough individual microscopic characteristics, like head hairs and pubic hairs, for me to say or for forensic examiners to say that this person is a likely candidate of this particular hair as being the source. There is too much overlap that we find. There is some broad conclusions that can be reached. That is, a person with blond limb hair is going to look different than an individual that has black-colored limb hair. It is possible to distinguish race in some instances, but they are not as good as head and pubic hairs for comparison purposes.
What kind of reliability is there then in the conclusion that you reached concerning the race of the limb hair you found on Ronald Goldman's shirt and the Rockingham glove?
These are all just pieces of information that--that are collected from the analysis of trace evidence. That is, the little bits and pieces that may have been exchanged during some contact between the assailant and the victims and from the clothing that they may have worn. It is just another piece of evidence, piece of information.
Okay. And is--is the conclusion you reached, the result you reached, concerning the racial origin of that limb hair on Ron Goldman's shirt and the Rockingham glove, is that reliable?
Were there any--were there any head hairs of black origin found inside the Rockingham glove?
There was a head hair fragment, yes. It was not suitable for meaningful comparison purposes.
Well, it was a fragment that was called opaque, that is, it is black and you cannot actually pass light through it enough so that you can look at the internal microscopic characteristics.
Sir, if an African American individual would wear those gloves, the Rockingham glove in specific, would that be consistent with the limb hair that you found inside the Rockingham glove?
And again, if the attacker, if the murderer of Ron Goldman were an African American individual, would that be consistent with the limb hair you found on his shirt?
Now, we've talked a little bit about your experience in previous stabbing cases, sir, and I wanted to ask you is it common in your experience to find head hair transfers in stabbing cases?
Well, certain types of cases don't lend themselves well for a transfer of hair evidence. Cases like sexual assault case where you have bed sheets and clothing and worn by the individuals are often probably the better items of evidence to collect--to collect hair and fiber material from. They are large items, they tend to hold hair and fiber for a longer period of time. But in stabbing cases I just haven't seen it. And I would have expected in stabbing cases, being violent as they are, that--that I would find a lot of hair transfers, such as head hair transfers, but I just don't see it. Once in awhile you do, but it is uncommon.
And under what circumstances and in what cases did you have head hairs and fibers for comparison in a stabbing case?
I'm not real clear, but any stabbing case that is submitted to the laboratory for analysis to determine if there are hair or fibers that may have been exchanged, they come in from all around the country from mostly local and state police agencies, but we also investigate crimes on government reservations and Indian reservations that come under our jurisdiction that involve often very violent crimes.
In stabbing cases what--let me ask you this: In prior stabbing cases have you had a situation where clothing of the perpetrator--items of clothing of the perpetrator were left behind?
Yes, that has happened. Probably the best example of where you would might--might find hair evidence or fiber evidence, rather than on the clothing itself of the victims.
And an example of that in this case, like the knit cap that was found at Ron Goldman's feet?
Well, this is an example of an item that would be of extreme value, from my standpoint, to--for the presence of hair and fiber evidence, because it may be something left behind by the assailant. Not knowing information about a case, the laboratory examiner, like myself, would identify the materials not knowing if the hat or glove or any other item belonged to anybody. There is no information that is given to me, it was just submitted to me for analysis, but in a struggle, this may occur. And that gives us the best information and often that is what I end up testifying about. After bank robberies, they drop clothing. After violent crime, they drop clothing. Or they may try to discard and get rid of clothing and they discover the clothing. Those are good examples.
With regard to those fiber examinations you conducted in this case did you examine Ron Goldman's shirt?
482. That is next in order? The photograph being shown on the screen, your Honor, is from this board.
Can you tell us, first of all, sir, what kind of fibers the shirt of Ronald Goldman is made of?
They are made of cotton fibers; primarily two colors, an off-white and a sort of a brownish color, light brown.
When you examined the fibers collected from the glove at Rockingham, did you find any fibers that matched the fibers on Ron Goldman's shirt?
When you examined the Rockingham glove, did you find any fibers that were consistent with the fibers of Ron Goldman's shirt?
When you examined the fibers collected from the glove at Bundy, did you find any fibers that were consistent with the fibers on Ron Goldman's shirt?
Were there any other items at the crime scene that you found that were found to contain fibers consistent with those of Ronald Goldman's shirt?
Was there something about the appearance of these particular fibers that you found on the Rockingham and Bundy gloves and on the knit cap that strengthened your opinion that those fibers were consistent with those of Ronald Goldman's shirt?
Well, there did appear to be blood on these fibers which tended to place to me a little bit more significance. The fact that they are off-white cotton does not have significance, but the fact that they appeared to have blood and may be in some way linked to the event, I felt they were important.
Did you cause photographs to be taken of the fibers that were collected from the Rockingham and Bundy gloves and the knit hat that you determined to be consistent with the fibers of Ronald Goldman's shirt?
Your Honor, the neck board we would ask that it be marked People's 483 entitled, "Known cotton fibers from Ronald Goldman's shirt."
All right. Mr. Deedrick, if you wouldn't mind stepping down with the pointer, can you tell us, first of all, the photos at the top that are labeled K18, can you tell us what that is?
K18, these--this is the specimen number for the--for the shirt. That was the number that we gave it in the FBI laboratory. The off-white cotton fibers are represented in the upper left-hand portion of the chart again marked K18. On the right-hand portion of the chart they are the brownish-colored fibers that make up the shirt that Ronald Goldman wore that evening, and again that is also marked K18. The bottom photographs I have six photographs in all and they are so labeled as to where the fibers originated. The first photograph I took from Goldman's shirt, Q23, to give you an idea of what the fibers looked like from actually debris that came off this shirt. K3B is the center photograph. It is from the right glove. That is the glove from Rockingham. K1 from again the glove from Rockingham, which is to the right of that photograph. Q8B2 is from the knit hat and that is the outside of the hat. Q76 from the left glove, that is the glove from Bundy. And K47 from the knit hat as well and I believe that is the from the outside of the hat.
And the Q47 fiber, was this part of the Q47, that is part of the debris that you yourself collected from the hat?
Right. That would have been the debris that I--that I processed from the hat in the laboratory.
All right. Mr. Deedrick, if the murderer of Ron Goldman wearing the gloves found at Bundy and Rockingham and the knit hat found at Bundy attacked and stabbed Ronald Goldman through his shirt, would those--would those set of events be consistent with the fibers of Ronald Goldman's shirt that you found on the Bundy and Rockingham gloves and on the knit cap?
It could be consistent, especially since there would be damage to the fabric, damage to the shirt that would cause a greater loss of fibers.
And if the murderer, wearing those gloves and knit cap, were to have held Ronald Goldman from behind with his left arm and his left hand in contact with Ronald Goldman's shirt, might that account also for the fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's shirt that were found on the Bundy glove?
Can you tell us, sir--well, in terms of--I will frame my hypothetical. Assume the following: That the murderer attacked Ronald Goldman from holding him from behind with his left arm wearing the Bundy glove and that the Bundy glove was in contact with Ronald Goldman's shirt. Can you tell us whether that set of events, hypothetical, would be consistent with your findings of the fibers on--of Ronald Goldman's shirt, the fibers consistent with those of Ronald Goldman's shirt on the Bundy glove?
If--if the glove, for instance, came in actual contact with the shirt and the glove had any type of fluid on it, possibly blood, that would be an excellent source of the fiber being present because of the actual contact. The glove, a dry glove is not going to hold onto fibers like a damp glove would and the fiber, I believe, did appear to have blood on it.
Assume again, for the purpose of a hypothetical, sir, that if in the struggle Ron Goldman reached behind him to grab his attacker and grabbed the knit cap off of his head, would that account for the fibers from his shirt, the fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's shirt being found on the knit cap?
Again, if the fabric from the victim's shirt came in physical contact with the hat, certainly that would be a logical explanation for the fibers being present on the hat.
Okay. Now, are you saying that is the only logical explanation that there could be for that finding?
And is it also based, sir, on your judgment and your experience and expertise over these last 17 years?
Well, again, that is why I look at clothing items that are submitted from victims and suspects in cases, because of transfer that can occur between them during physical contact. It can be easily explained by identifying these materials and then doing comparisons, and seeing that over the years supports the contention that you are bringing here, that when two objects do come in contact there is a good chance that material can be exchanged.
Now, assume further, hypothetically, sir, that the murderer, while wearing the Rockingham glove, stabbed Ronald Goldman in which--in a manner that brought his glove into contact with Ronald Goldman's shirt, say, stabbed him in the left abdomen, in the left side. Would that--would those set of events be a reasonable explanation for your finding of fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's shirt on the Rockingham glove?
There are two events that are happening here. One, you have contact between the surface of the glove and the surface of the fabric. The second thing that is happening is that the fabric is being damaged so that a number of loose fibers are now being released. The two events would--again, I would expect a transfer in this instance, especially on a damp bloody glove.
And in that regard, sir, do you have any similar observations to those that you made concerning the adherence of the fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's shirt to the Bundy glove as you do with respect to the Rockingham glove?
Well, both gloves had bodily fluids on them. They were damp possibly from blood. Both gloves would be likely candidates for fiber transfers, especially from the shirt, because of it being damaged.
Did you, in your experience of hair and fiber, find any fiber that was consistent with the fibers of Ronald Goldman's jeans?
And what method did you use to examine and compare those fibers that you found to be consistent with the jeans of Ronald Goldman?
Can you tell us, sir, from which items of evidence the fibers consistent with Ronald Goldman's jeans were collected?
Well, these fibers were found on both gloves, the Rockingham glove and the Bundy glove, and also on items of clothing submitted from Ronald Goldman.
And when you say "Items submitted from Ronald Goldman," what did his shirt--did you find any fibers consistent with his jeans on his shirt?
Now, is that, in your experience, sir, common, to find transfer of fibers from one item of clothing onto another item of clothing that someone has worn?
So, for example, if you are wearing two or more items of clothing, say, a shirt and pants or pants and socks, is it common in your experience to find fibers from your shirt on your pants?
All right, sir. Did you, in your examination of fibers collected from the evidence in this case, find any that were consistent with the dress of Nicole Brown?
And again, what method of comparison did you use to arrive at that conclusion, sir?
That would have been almost the entire battery of tests that we routinely conduct, microscopic comparison, an instrumental comparison, visual comparison, polarized light comparison, all of the normal tests that we run.
Okay. And when you say "All of the normal tests that you run," earlier you indicated to us there were certain tests that could be performed on manmade fibers that you could not perform on the natural occurring fibers like cotton?
Were all of those additional steps and tests used in the case of the dress Nicole Brown was found in?
THE COURT: Yes. (Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
Thank you, your Honor. I would like to mark as People's next in order a photograph of a dress as People's 484.
Now, where--on what item of evidence were fibers consistent with the dress of Nicole Brown found, sir?
Well, it appears to be a knitted fabric, and when knitted fabrics are damaged they often will break, and depending on the fabric and depending on the fibers, they will actually break off in yarns. And the dress is made--it is a very tight knit and the yarns are very small.
Was there any damage that you observed on Nicole Brown Simpson's dress that could account for the yarns you found on Ron Goldman's shirt?
Well, no. It would have to be enlarged quite a bit. Just a small area near where the zipper is attached to the fabric. It appeared to be pulled apart in one location.
Can you see it there, sir? For the record, we have enlarged and zoomed into the zipper area described by the witness.
Well, it would have been at the base, the base portion of the zipper at the bottom portion where it--at its full open point.
At the bottom? You mean where--in a position where the zipper would have been opened at the bottom?
Well, no, the zipper may have--again, I have to think about this a little bit now. The zipper itself was right near--again it was a low-cut back. It would have been at the top, I'm sorry, right at the top portion of the zipper where it closed.
Well, it is difficult to see. There wasn't a great deal of damage. Just at the point where the zipper made contact with the fabric it was pulled apart. Not a great deal of damage.
All right, sir. Can you--is there a logical explanation for how yarns from the dress of Nicole Brown came to be transferred to the shirt of Ronald Goldman?
Assume the following facts for a hypothetical, sir: That the murderer attacked Nicole grabbing her on the back of the dress, throwing her down, at which point the dress was ripped, yarns came--from the dress came into his hand that he used to throw her down, then grabbed her dress with, and that he then went over to Ronald Goldman using that same hand to touch Ronald Goldman on his shirt. Would those events be consistent with the finding of yarns from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress on the shirt of Ronald Goldman?
Well, sir, in your experience is this--would it be reasonable to infer from the finding of the yarns on Ronald Goldman's dress that are consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's dress--did I just say "Dress" twice? In your experience and your judgment, sir, would it be reasonable and logical to infer that the damage to Nicole Brown Simpson's dress caused yarns to come off in the hand of the killer and get transferred to the shirt of Ronald Goldman?
Okay. You have described to us the damage you saw on Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, correct?
Yes, there was damage. Difficult to say a lot of damage because of the knitted fabric.
Would a bloody glove be a good medium for the transfer of those fibers from her dress to Ronald Goldman's shirt?
All right. In your experience, sir, of the fibers selected from the evidence in this case, did you find any that could have come from the blue knit ski cap?
We are going to show you a photograph on the monitor that is already contained on the board marked as People's 483.
All right. From what items of evidence were fibers consistent with those of the blue knit ski cap collected in this case?
Well, it could have been all of the tests that we normally do with manmade fibers.
The blue knit ski cap, what were the fibers that you found on Ronald Goldman's shirt consistent with those, what kind of fibers were they?
So did you perform all of the methods of comparison that you earlier described to us that could be done on manmade fibers?
Yes. The first test would be a simple microscopic comparison, that is, taking a look at them visually to see if they look the same, and then if they do, the follow-up tests to confirm that.
No, no. The examinations are done visually in a field of view of the microscope. Photographs are just aids to allow jurors to see what I was seeing.
How many fibers consistent with those of the blue knit cap were found on Ronald Goldman's shirt?
If you wouldn't mind, sir, could you step down and show to the jury what is shown on these photographs on the chart marked as People's 485?
(Witness complies.) All right. This particular chart has photographs of the known fabric from the--from the knit hat that was submitted. It is marked here as K47. It is actually Q47 known sample. Okay. So it is actual fibers from the knit hat and that would be the top two photographs on the upper left-hand side. The photographs at the bottom would be photographs of fibers recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt. In the known sample of fabric from the hat there were larger diameter fibers, as well as finer diameter fibers, and they were both present in the questioned and the known materials. The photograph on the far right, listed as K17, is just the fibers that make up the dress of Nicole Brown. The fiber on the lower right is from the--is one fiber taken from the yarn, one of the yarns from Q23, which would be Ron Goldman's shirt, and this does appear to have some blood on the surface of the fiber.
All right. Then is the--is Q23 a fiber that you found to be consistent with the fibers of Nicole's dress?
Right. I testified about this previously. This is just one of the fibers taken off Ron Goldman's shirt and it exhibited the same characteristics as the dress fibers Nicole Brown.
And then in the other four photographs, the upper two are the exemplars, the sample actually from the knit cap?
Right. Those are fibers taken actually from a cutting from the knit hat, so those are fibers that make up the hat. The questioned fibers on the bottom would be just loose individual fibers that were recovered from the debris in the victim's clothes.
Now, your finding of fibers consistent with those of the knit hat on Ron Goldman's shirt, does that indicate to you, in your experience and judgment, that there was contact between the wearer of that hat and Ronald Goldman?
How could that--in your experience and judgment, sir, the finding of fibers consistent with those from the knit cap on Ronald Goldman's shirt, what kind of transfer mechanism or what kind of transfer would that be, would have caused that finding?
Fibers, and I have said this a number of times already, that I find on an item of clothing are the result of either a direct physical contact with the fabric or indirect. There could be events that are taking place at some point in between that one might say could have happened. It is difficult to know. Either they got there directly from actual contact between the hat and the shirt, or they got there because some--something else came in between. Something maybe removed the hat, maybe there was contact with the victim and the hat, maybe there was contact with the assailant and the hat and then the victim. There could be a number of events that are taking place which could result in the presence of those fibers.
Hypothetically speaking, sir, would it be reasonable then, given your findings, are your findings consistent with Ronald Goldman having been attacked by the person wearing that cap, in the course of the struggle Ronald Goldman reaches behind him to pull the cap off? Would that set of events be consistent with the finding of the knit cap fibers which were consistent with those from the knit cap being found on Ronald Goldman's shirt?
I think we are assuming facts that aren't in evidence for the purpose of that hypothetical.
All right. Hypothetically speaking, sir, if Ronald Goldman were attacked by the wearer of the knit cap, in the course of their struggle the knit cap came off, off the murderer, would that event be consistent with your findings of the fibers consistent with those of the knit cap found on Ronald Goldman's shirt?
Well, we know one thing, that the fibers on the shirt look like the fibers from the hat. It could have been a direct contact while the person was wearing the hat or during the process of removing the hat could have resulted in the transfer. There is really no way to know that for sure. All I do know is that there were fibers on the shirt that looked like the hat fibers.
Well, let me ask you this, sir: You told us, I believe, that you found fibers consistent with those of Ronald Goldman's shirt on the knit cap, did you not?
Would that finding also be consistent with the hypothetical I just gave you of the--of Ronald Goldman being attacked by the wearer of the knit cap, the knit cap coming off in the struggle?
A two-way transfer is--it increases the likelihood that there was actual contact directly or indirectly, but it shows a close relationship between those items and each other.
KEY QUOTENow, you--you recall testifying concerning your findings of the--concerning the examination of hair and fiber taken from the dress and body of Nicole Brown, correct?
And you indicate that you found--did you find any fibers consistent with those of the blue knit hat on Miss Brown's clothing?
And what, if anything, does that indicate to you with respect to the amount of contact she had with her attacker while he was wearing that knit hat?
Well, there may not have been any contact then between the individual wearing the hat or with the person that had fibers on their hands or arms when that contact took place. Sometimes--sometimes you see fibers; sometimes you don't, and it is difficult to know exactly how they got there. One can assume certain things, but the fact is, I did not find any fibers like the hat on Nicole Brown's dress.
Would that finding be consistent with having had the murderer having had limited contact--limited physical contact with Nicole Brown and her being rapidly incapacitated offering little resistance?
If the knit cap, hypothetically speaking, came off early in the struggle with Ronald Goldman and prior to the major wounds inflicted on Nicole Brown, would that be consistent with your failure to find any fibers consistent with the blue knit cap on the dress of Nicole Brown?
Yeah. The--it is--this is persistence that is taking place. This persistence of fibers. How long the fibers are going to remain is coming into play here, besides actual transfer, so that if an individual comes in contact initially with an item and fibers are transferred onto that person, and in this particular case if the hat is removed early on, but there was a transfer of fibers from the hat onto the assailant and then onto a victim, these fibers will dissipate in number and in fact they won't persist on the--on the subject or the assailant. So that if there is subsequent contact, it is reasonable to believe that less fibers, if any, might transfer onto the next person because of a loss of these fibers. You only transfer so many. You are not walking around with large fuzz balls all over you. You transfer a few things and then you move on to the next item and you may not even transfer to the second item. But sometimes persistence of fibers and the number of fibers that one finds may indicate order, that is, order to an event, and I have seen it before in case work where you can determine possibly that one victim may have been killed first and then a second victim and then a third victim and a fourth victim, and you can see that actually on--from the fibers that one finds, that the fiber numbers drop off. And the last victim may not have anything, whereas the first victim may have a lot of fiber evidence.
And what do you attribute the rapid loss of fiber--that dwindling amount of fibers that you find on the bodies of successive victims to?
Well, there is only a certain amount of material that is ready to go, ready to transfer, either on the surface of the fabric or from the actual fabric, and a lot of the fibers are the loose fibers that are laying on the surface of the fabric. They are not really bound into the fabric unless there is some damage to it, and then the fibers will become free, up those loose fibers are--there is maybe a set number, depending on the fabric. The transfer occurs, contact occurs and then a transfer takes place. A certain number of fibers then will be removed from the surface of that fabric onto that victim. A second victim may come into play and there may not be as many. The third victim, the fourth victim, you will see an ever decreasing number until you might not find anything.
And I think you indicated earlier as well, sir, that fibers are not as persistent in terms of whether they stay on an object as hairs are?
That is true. The fiber evidence is extremely useful in cases where you have dead bodies because they are not moving and the fibers that one finds on these dead bodies often indicates last contact, because that is the last bit of fiber transfers that are taking place, whereas an assailant who leaves the scene within hours, the fibers will be lost, and if you don't get the item from the assailant within short order, the evidence of a fiber transfer may not be seen because they are lost. We just--because we brush things off, we get off the ground, we brush ourselves, we wash our clothes, we do a number of things, like we normally we sit in a car, we lose fibers on the seat. So many things happen that can cause the loss of fibers, but with dead bodies they are not moving and they are often a very good source of fibers of the last contact they may have had.
KEY QUOTESo the finding of fibers, does this assist you in determining whether there has been recent contact or the recent deposit of evidence?
It is possible to draw some conclusions from that. There are always going to be fibers that one cannot account for, but certain populations of fibers on certain items may take on increased significance, yes.
In your experience of fibers collected from the evidence in this case, sir, did you find any that could have originated from the lining of either the Bundy or the Rockingham gloves?
One fiber was found on Ronald Goldman's shirt, another fiber was found on the knit hat left at Bundy.
And what--after you made the comparison of the fibers from the knit hat and Ronald Goldman's shirt, when you compared those to the lining fibers of both gloves, Bundy and Rockingham, what conclusion did you reach?
Excuse me, counsel. Why don't you rephrase your question. You are referring to it as fiber.
When you compared those hairs from Ronald Goldman's shirt and the knit cap, the blue knit cap, to the hairs recovered from the interior of the lining of the gloves at Bundy and Rockingham, what conclusion did you reach?
I may be a little confused here. Talking about hairs and fibers. We are mixing the two. Hairs become fibers when they end up on fabric, so essentially they are animal fibers. And when I compared those fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt and on the knit hat, they could have come from either glove, because both gloves had the same types of fibers or hairs.
Now, can you tell us, sir, that those fibers could have only come from the Bundy and Rockingham gloves?
That they could have come from those gloves or another glove or another fabric that had exactly the same animal hairs or animal fibers present.
All right. Now, if the attacker wore these gloves during the murders and during the struggle with Ronald Goldman one of those gloves was pulled off, would there be fibers from the lining of that left glove on his bare hand?
They would--there would be probably a number of fibers from the inside of that glove on the hands of the individual.
And if the murderer continued to pursue attack on Ronald Goldman after that glove came off his left hand, would those fibers on his hand be transferred to the body of Ronald Goldman, if there was contact?
It could have, but just again, this transfer that is taking place here, it would have been a secondary transfer in this instance because the primary transfer takes place between the glove and the hand. Secondary transfer then from the hand to the victim, yes.
Okay. Well then, can you, sir, tell us, if that is the case, I think you indicated to us that numerous hair fibers from the lining of that glove would have come--on have been on the bare hand of the attacker when the glove came off?
It could have been any number. I don't really know for certain. Likely more than one.
And you indicated--how many of the fibers on Ronald Goldman's shirt did you find that were consistent with the lining of the gloves?
Okay. Is there any explanation, based on your experience and judgment, that could account for the fact that only one such fiber was found on the shirt of Ronald Goldman?
Well, the action of the contact here may have resulted in the loss of fibers, again, that there may have been a larger population initially deposited. The contact caused the loss of the fibers and they could be on the ground. I mean, there is no way to know where they were or if more fibers were even transferred. Maybe only one fiber was transferred. Maybe in the processing technique we just didn't find it. Maybe they are still there. I only looked at what was recovered and submitted to me and in that debris there was only one fiber.
Okay. Now, did you receive a fiber mounted on a slide that had been found in the Coroner's jar containing the neck tissue of Nicole Brown?
And were you able to associate that fiber with any of the known clothing standards submitted to you in this case?
Can you describe for us the appearance of that hair that you--was submitted to you mounted on a slide?
I think you earlier indicated to us, sir, that the off-white cotton fiber of Ronald Goldman's shirt was a very common one. What, if any, observation would you make in that regard with respect to the blue cotton fiber that was on the slide that you saw?
I wouldn't say necessarily it was common. Cotton fibers are relatively common. The color blue is a common color, but there are many, many shades of blue. Blue jean fibers, that is too common. We don't even consider blue jean cotton. This didn't appear to be a new jean type fiber. This appeared to have come from some type of processed fabric with a reasonable dye absorption and the color was sort of a purplish blue almost, so it would have been significant to compare if I had a fabric that looked like it.
Now, with respect to this fiber that was found in the neck tissue excised from Nicole Brown Simpson's body, can you tell us, sir, whether you know what the Coroner's employee who put that tissue into the jar was wearing at the time that they put the tissue into the jar?
Do you know what the Coroner who actually excised that neck tissue was wearing at the time that he did so?
Do you know whether that fiber may have already been in the jar her neck tissue was placed into?
Do you know what the Coroner investigators who first handled her body at the scene were wearing?
And if Nicole's body had been covered with a blanket which contained blue cotton fiber like that you saw on the slide that was prepared from her neck tissue, could that fiber have been transferred by the placement of the blanket on her body to the neck wound?
Well, you have to look at what you have and sometimes you can speculate, but you have to basically fall back on what you have.
All right, sir. Did you examine fibers collected from the evidence in this case that consisted of carpet sample from the Bronco owned by the Defendant?
And were the known carpet samples collected from the Bronco and submitted to you at your request, sir?
And why did you make the request for carpet samples from the Bronco to be sent to you?
Well, found on the Rockingham glove, as well as on the knit hat, were two rose beige carpet fibers. Fibers like these were also found on the towel, the shovel and the plastic that were recovered from the Bronco. I saw no differences between them. For this reason I requested samples from the Bronco to see if they may have originated from that source.
So before you requested the carpet sample from the Defendant's Bronco, you saw fibers recovered from the towel, plastic and shovel which you knew to have been found in that Bronco?
Right. There was one fiber on each of these items that--that exhibited the same characteristics as the single fiber found on the Rockingham glove, as well as a single fiber recovered from the knit hat at Bundy.
So the items that you knew to come from the Bronco, those fibers exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the fibers that were found on the knit cap, the glove--
They looked the same to me. They had an unusual cross-section. I had not seen it before, so I wanted to get a sample from the Bronco to see if it could have come from that source.
And what is it that you found to be unusual about those carpet fibers, in your experience, sir?
Well, I had not seen this particular cross-section before. I called it earlier the jack cross-section with the knobs on the end.
A two-way transfer is--it increases the likelihood that there was actual contact directly or indirectly, but it shows a close relationship between those items and each other.
the fiber evidence is extremely useful in cases where you have dead bodies because they are not moving and the fibers that one finds on these dead bodies often indicates last contact
The fact that they are off-white cotton does not have significance, but the fact that they appeared to have blood and may be in some way linked to the event, I felt they were important.
I have seen it before in case work where you can determine possibly that one victim may have been killed first and then a second victim...and you can see that actually on--from the fibers that one finds, that the fiber numbers drop off.
The most likely individual that may have a hair or hairs from an individual...would have been Nicole Brown, since she had direct contact with the blanket, based on your information.