Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Douglas W. Deedrick, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Good afternoon again, Mr. Deedrick. Miss Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.
All right. Mr. Deedrick, when we left off we were talking about the carpet fibers that you found on the knit cap, the Rockingham glove, that exhibited the same characteristics as the fibers in the sample taken from the carpet of the Defendant's Bronco. Now, can you tell us, sir, in what manner carpet fibers from the Defendant's Bronco could have been transferred to the knit hat found at the crime scene at Bundy and the Rockingham glove?
Well, if the fibers originated from the Bronco, they could have gotten on these items either through direct physical contact with the carpet or indirect or secondary transfer from an occupant or from laying on a surface of a--such as a seat that may not have carpeting.
By indirect or secondary transfer, would an example of that be, for example, if the Defendant touched the carpet and then touched the cap, the blue knit cap?
Would a primary transfer example be that the knit cap was laying on the carpeted floor of the Defendant's Bronco?
Or that the Rockingham glove at some point was in contact with the carpet in the Defendant's Bronco?
Now, how many carpet fibers that exhibited the same characteristics as those of the Defendant's Bronco, how many of those did you find on the knit cap?
And how many carpet fibers that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant's Bronco did you find on the towel, the plastic and the shovel that were actually recovered from the Defendant's Bronco?
Why would there be so few carpet fibers found on those particular items, the towel, the shovel and the plastic?
Why would you--you said there was only one fiber found on the towel that was recovered from the Defendant's Bronco?
In your experience and judgment, sir, can you explain to us as an expert, based on your expertise, how you can account for only one fiber being on that towel?
Well, one fiber could be there because of--that is all that was left on the surface of the fabric on the carpet when the towel made contact with it. When the towel was collected, if there were more present, maybe a couple fell off. Maybe there were more to begin with, but all I ended up with was just one. I don't even know when it got there.
Is there something--there is anything unusual about that, sir, about having found only one carpet fiber on the towel?
Well, it is just a fact that fibers can be transferred either directly through a primary contact or secondarily from indirect contact. If the towel were laying on the surface of the carpet, one might expect that a fiber or two may have transferred and they may not have also. It is possible to collect an item from a carpet surface and not actually find a fiber on it. It just depends on what you find, what transfers.
And again the plastic that was also recovered from the Defendant's Bronco, you only found one fiber--one carpet fiber that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant's carpet--Bronco carpet fiber on that item as well?
Can you explain or do you have any different explanation for why there is only one fiber on that particular item, given your experience--
This is not a big deal. I mean, as far as numbers and fibers, items that are taken out of the inside of the Bronco, you find carpet fibers like the Bronco, it doesn't really matter that much to people, I don't think. One fiber, more fibers may be transferred. You just get what you get.
KEY QUOTESo is there anything unusual in the fact that you found only one such fiber on the towel, one on the plastic, one on the shovel?
Even in light of the fact that they were items actually found in the Defendant's Bronco?
Sir, there was some testimony earlier concerning the brown--there is a plaid cap found inside the Defendant's Bronco. Do you recall testifying to the examination of hair and fiber collected from that item?
Did you find--on that plaid cap that was found in the Defendant's Bronco, did you find, in the analysis of hair and fiber evidence recovered from that cap, any carpet fibers like those from the Defendant's Bronco?
Well, it is a fabric item. The item was from the flooring, actually laying on the carpet. It was collected and processed by the crime lab in Los Angeles and no fibers like the carpet were found.
All right. I'm showing you the photograph that has been previously marked as People's 439. If the cap was found in that position in the Defendant's Bronco. As shown in this photograph, is there anything unusual in the fact that no fibers collected from that cap proved to be carpet fiber of the type that could have come from the Defendant's Bronco?
Yeah, that is not--it is not a significant thing to me. The fact is there were none found. I mean, we have a picture of it. It shows it laying in there. The purpose of my work is to--is an attempt to link objects into physical contact. If you have an actual photograph of something laying on an item, well, you don't need me, but if there is question about where that item was, and there might be a fiber on that item that links it to a source, like a carpet, that is--you might ask me to talk about that, but if there is a photograph of it laying on the carpet, it serves no purpose for me to be up here talking about it.
Okay. And did you answer, is there anything unusual in the failure to find Bronco carpet fiber--fibers consistent with those from the Defendant's Bronco on that cap?
Now, given the fact that items may or may not pick up fibers as they travel through the world, in your experience, sir, has it ever happened that you have found fibers on pieces of evidence at a crime scene that were not, you could not associate with any of the known clothing standards or cloth from other aspects of the case?
I would be surprised not to find it, just to find only things that associate to an item submitted, because as we go through life, the clothing that we wear at any given time comes into contact with the people we meet, with the chairs we sit on, with the loose fibers that are in our environment, but most of the material would likely somehow associate us with where we live, our family, the kind of vehicles we might drive. It is just part of our identity. Each person has his little cluster of debris we walk around with everyday. We drop a little bit off as we go and we pick a little bit more up, and depending on where you stop that event, if a person dies, it stops, but if you can stop a person, a living person at a given time, you can get some idea as to where they've been or who they have been with or what kind of vehicle they may drive or what kind of sofa they have in their living room. Because you tend to collect some of that material and carry it with you, but only for a short while, and then you start to drop it off. Then you collect up new stuff. We kind of walk around as little garbage collectors. We pick things up as we go and then we drop off some. That is where I come in, when that time period is stop, whether it is a dead person or a suspect who has been arrested, and at that time I get the clothes and I try to report on what I find at that particular time.
Then why in your experience, in cases that you have seen, has there ever been a case where you did not have fibers that--let me see if I can frame that in the positive. Has it been--in all of the cases you have done, sir, has every case presented you with some fibers or some hairs that could not be associated with any of the known individuals or other items of evidence in the case?
Almost--I would say every case where there is fabric involved, and most of them have fabric, there is going to be fibers that cannot be accounted for. Their relevance to a particular case may never be known and you just--you just use what you have, what is submitted, what you are asked to compare, and you try to derive conclusions from that. To identify the source of every little fiber that is found on a fabric is--takes a little bit too much time and you may not be able to do that, because fabrics themselves don't last forever. We give them to the salvation army or we donate them or we destroy them. We get a rip in them, we just throw them in the garbage. Fabrics themselves don't last a long time. They are transient. They stay for a while and then we get rid of them.
Is this case any different in that respect? Were there fibers found on the various pieces of evidence submitted to you that could not be associated with any known standard?
Now, you indicated I think with respect to the blue knit cap, sir, there was a carpet fiber consistent with those of the Defendant's Bronco on that item and you indicated I think to us earlier that you picked off--some items off that blue knit cap yourself?
Was this carpet fiber that you picked off the hat one of those items that you picked off yourself?
Well, the hat is taken into a room where there is some paper spread out on a table and the item is just scraped. It is like a large cake decorator, a spatula, and scraping the item will remove any loosely adhering material. This fiber you couldn't see. This particular piece of fiber was very small.
Oh, you can't see most of the little fibers in a case. Some larger fibers you can, but if you just pick, you are not going to get very much.
Well, I thought you said earlier that the fibers from the exemplar from the Defendant's Bronco were large, that all these carpet fibers in fact were large?
They are large in terms of their diameter, they are very fat fibers, but some of the lengths can be very short lengths, just depends on what you get, but carpet fibers are the easiest to see in terms of fiber evidence.
Was the--the fiber--you also indicated that you saw--that there was fiber removed from the Rockingham glove that was consistent with the carpet fiber of the Defendant's Bronco. Do you recall that?
Now, in your experience, sir, in all of the cases that you have had, has it ever occurred before that items of hair or fiber are found in a bag in which evidence is contained?
It is not unusual. That is why we always examine the interior of the bag or the container that had an item, because just as hairs and fibers can cling to an item from contact, they also fall off, so they could--easily and they often do fall off inside the container, inside the bag.
And that is a routine thing that is done, at least at the FBI, to examine containers in which evidence is held for hair or trace that might have come off?
Now, are you aware, sir, that there was a piece of carpet marked as item no. 33 that was wrapped up in paper and taped up and placed into a box which also contained bags containing the items of the blue knit cap the Rockingham glove?
I don't know if I know all of those facts, no, as to how they were originally contained.
Then let me pose a hypothetical to you. Assume the following facts: That a piece of carpeting marked as item no. 33 removed from the Defendant's Bronco was folded inward with a fiber inward, that it was then wrapped up in paper and completely taped closed so that no carpet was showing. That item was placed in a box along with bags containing the following items of evidence and each of these bags is sealed shut with tape, folded over and taped shut: The knit cap, that is, the blue knit cap, the Rockingham glove, Bundy glove, and the plaid cap that was recovered from the Defendant's Bronco and the Defendant's--the socks found in the Defendant's bedroom. Each of those items separately packaged in their own paper bags and taped shut. They are all in the box along with the carpet from the Defendant's Bronco, that it is wrapped in paper and completely taped shut. Assume those facts, sir. Did you find any Bronco carpet--any carpet fibers that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those from the Defendant's Bronco on the Defendant's socks?
And I believe you earlier indicated that you also did not find it on the plaid cap that was taken from his car?
Now, what, if anything, does the lack, the failure to find any carpet fibers consistent with those from the Defendant's Bronco on other items contained in that same box with the carpet sample as the items that you found to contain carpet fibers consistent with those of the Defendant's Bronco?
What does that mean to you in terms of whether or not the carpet fibers found on the Rockingham glove and the knit cap were found as a result of cross-transfer from being stored in the same box as the carpet sample, item 33?
Well, we--we have fibers on some items; we don't have fibers on other items. If care and attention were taken when the item--the carpeting was sealed, and there was an attempt made, an effort made not to allow loose fibers to be inside that box, I might not expect to see trace fibers on other items. Even if there were a lot of loose fibers, because of sloppy handling perhaps, then I might expect to see fibers on all of the items, simply because they were all in the same box. But again, you find what you find and it is difficult to know precisely. I would say if they are all sealed and there is an effort made to seal the items carefully, then it would minimize the risk of contaminating evidence.
And the fact that no carpet fibers consistent with those of the Defendant's Bronco were found on other items in the same box, does that contribute in any to your--let me rephrase that. The fact that you did not find carpet fibers consistent with those of the Defendant's Bronco on other items kept in the same box, does that support your conclusion that the carpet fibers found on the knit cap at Rockingham were not the result of transfer from being stored with the carpet sample item 33.
Well, that would be consistent with that, that the fact is if it appears that the carpeting was sealed up adequately, and if it weren't I might expect to see the fibers on all the items. It just depends on how loose it is and how many loose fibers are floating around in there. It is a real hit or miss thing. But if you only find it on a couple items and you don't find it on others, one might be led to believe that the fiber was actually originally on this item and not a contaminant.
Now, what does the--the finding of the carpet fiber on the Rockingham glove, what does that indicate to you with respect to the manner in which it could have been transferred--that carpet fiber could have been transferred to the Rockingham glove from the Defendant's Bronco?
Well, either--as I said before, either a direct or indirect contact could result in that fiber being present.
Would the Defendant necessarily have had to be wearing the Rockingham glove at the time he was in the Bronco for it to pick up the carpet fibers?
So if, for example, all he did was get into the car, the Bronco, carrying--and take off the Rockingham glove and throw it on the seat or on the console next to him, could the glove pick up carpet fibers just by that mere presence on the console inside the car?
All right, sir. Testimony was presented in this case that as of 9:45 on the night of June the 12th the Defendant was wearing a dark blue or black cotton type sweatsuit. Did you find any fibers like that in any of the fibers collected from the evidence that you examined in this case?
Well, there were blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the socks from the Defendant's bedroom.
KEY QUOTENow, did you actually examine the Rockingham glove, the shirt of Ronald Goldman and the Defendant's socks?
Each person has his little cluster of debris we walk around with everyday. We drop a little bit off as we go and we pick a little bit more up... We kind of walk around as little garbage collectors.
If you only find it on a couple items and you don't find it on others, one might be led to believe that the fiber was actually originally on this item and not a contaminant.
There were blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the socks from the Defendant's bedroom.
This is not a big deal. I mean, as far as numbers and fibers, items that are taken out of the inside of the Bronco, you find carpet fibers like the Bronco, it doesn't really matter that much to people, I don't think. One fiber, more fibers may be transferred. You just get what you get.