All right. 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 morning again, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume 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:
You are reminded that you are still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record.
Sir, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Mr. Bailey, you may continue with your cross-examination.
Thank you, your Honor. I have a learned treatise here which I'm handing to Miss Clark. May I hand the witness a copy, your Honor?
It is an article from the Journal of Forensic Science, if it please the Court. May it be marked Defense next in order? Published in `89 by certain people dealing with a topic raised by the witness, I believe in his direct, called thin layer chromatography.
I intended to let them have that. I am not going into it right now. That is why I gave it to them now.
Mr. Deedrick, since we parted company yesterday, has a revised typed edition of the notes that we've been working with, your notes, been returned to you with some corrections made?
Well, I haven't had a chance to look through it thoroughly, but it looks pretty much in order.
Okay. In any event, can you tell us a little bit about the methodology that you use in keeping notes in your cases? Do you have any set procedure, things that you regularly do when it comes to creating these notes?
Well, the first set of notes generally refers to the examination of the original item, how it was received, the condition of the item, perhaps any markings that may be on the container, if it was sealed, if it was opened or damaged. From this the item is then opened and notes are taken of the condition of the inside contents again, any markings, the container, the type of container and so forth. Once the material has been removed from an item, in this particular case most of the material was debris packets, so once that material has been mounted on a glass microscope slide, the analysis and the notes essentially are describing the questioned material first and then taking a look at the known characteristics, the known hair samples or the known fiber samples and then doing a comparison. The notes regarding hairs would generally be short notes as to type, race, body area, whether they are suitable for a comparison, maybe the approximate length and color. With fibers, first off, with most fiber examinations, the fibers are not explained routinely, simply because there is no way to know what significance a number of fibers may have that is found on a particular item. You look at the fibers and form some mental notes and then later compare those with the actual fabrics in question, maybe that are worn by the suspect in a case or by the victim. And the comparisons are then made and the tests are conducted and the notes are taken based on the tests.
Okay. Are there any dates on any of the notes that you produced in this case indicating when you performed certain tasks or made certain observations?
Uh-huh. You know, by the way, most lawyers are premed students that couldn't pass chemistry, don't you?
KEY QUOTEIs it your practice to keep a sequence within the notes that accurately reflect the sequence in which you performed your duties?
Generally that the note taking, as far as the number of the item, they generally follow a sequence, although there may be items that are placed in a different locations, depending on when the exams may have been conducted.
Well, all examiners have symbols, lab symbols instead of initials. Mine are UJ. It is just kind of an alphabetical sequencing that we have, just so we don't confuse initials.
And the number that appears at the top of the note, that is a case number, discrete case number?
Right. That would refer to the--the year, month, day and the case number that was sequenced in the evidence control center.
Do you remember, Mr. Deedrick, on June 25th and 27th of 1985 at the FBI at its Quantico facility hosted an international symposium in hair and fiber specialists?
Do you remember that a committee was appointed in order to attempt to define some standards that would attempt to be recognized within the profession?
No. I was just was on one of the panels that was discussing atlas of hair characteristics.
Okay. Do you recall that the standards committee recommended using a checklist such as the one that we reviewed yesterday?
I take it that is something with which you had disagreed sometime before that symposium was ever held?
No. I don't necessarily disagree with the use of a checklist. I don't--I don't use it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with a checklist if it helps you conduct your examinations better.
Okay. Yesterday, by the way, you indicated no great degree of familiarity with the laboratory, the RCMP which yielded this proposed two-part checklist that we looked at. Is that an accurate reflection of your testimony?
Well, I have never been there. I have only spoken to Mr. Gaudette, and if they use a checklist, I guess you furnished that to me.
Isn't it true that in the past you have expressed some admiration for the operations for the RCMP in hair and fibers, under oath?
Well, yes. I--in the papers that I have read, the one by Barry Gaudette, I don't agree with everything in the paper, but the idea that he is saying is that hair examinations are significant and hair associations are significant. I agree with that. I think that that is the right idea.
Okay. Okay. Now, the first part of your notes merely reflects the receipt of certain materials and the assignment to these materials of Q numbers?
Right. And do you use the word "Question" or "Questioned," just out of curiosity? We see it both ways in transcripts.
All right. Fine. But known always means that you have some positive way of identifying the source of anything marked with a "K," right?
After you have inventoried the things that have been sent in to you by whatever agency you are helping, you then go to examinations of questioned items, correct?
All right. I don't believe in your direct examination you mentioned that you examined a number of items that were retrieved from Chicago.
Would you look at page 5 of your notes and tell the jury just a little bit about what it was that was submitted to you and what you found with respect to the materials from Chicago.
In any event, Mr. Deedrick, would you point to the first area in your notes where you begin to examine things, rather than just to describe and label them.
Okay. All right. Is this typical of the manner in which you go about examining questioned items?
Do you always examine the questioned items before exposing yourself to the characteristics of the known items that you seek to compare later on?
Well, the one reason is not to open up the known in the same area and at least have them exposed on the surface of the counter where you are going to be looking at the questioned material. Sometimes it is useful, though, to look at the known just to get an idea of the color, the length, the curl, to get an idea what you might be looking for in questioned items of evidence if you have a large amount of quantity of evidence to look through. I do it just to familiarize myself with what type of person or surface this fabric may have had contact with, just to study it.
If you were to look at the known in a given case and find that all three relevant people were blondes, it would save you a lot of time looking at brunette and Asian and other hairs, correct?
Right. And again you may have racial differences between a suspect and a victim and you may be looking at first for a particular racial group.
All right. Now, there are a great number of fibers and other miscellaneous materials described in your notes from your inspection in the microscope which have not been talked about in your testimony. Is that a fair statement?
Okay. When you examine hair characteristics, do you note those aspects of the hair you are looking at that seem significant?
I'm talking about questioned now. When you are looking at a questioned hair through the microscope, before you get to the comparison microscope--this is a two-stage process, is it not?
You first identify what it is that the naked eye might not be able to tell with one microscope and then when you get to the known you put them together, as we saw yesterday in your sketch, correct?
So on page 8, for instance, where we are looking at you examining hairs, at the top, for instance, dark brown, two dark brown Caucasian origin head hair fragments. Is that what "COHH" means?
Okay. Do you normally, as you make this observation, this threshold observation, see any of the characteristics which will become important in testing similarity later on? Is this microscope powerful enough for you to see the medulla, cortex?
Yeah, sure. You may use a range of magnifications, from low magnification up through 250 magnification or maybe higher, but at this point it is mainly just to scan and taking a look at what you have and not necessarily pinpointing specific microscopic characteristics.
Pinpointing would be done in a comparison stage later on, if you get to that, as to a particular hair, right?
Right. If the hair is suitable for comparison, and once the comparison process starts, you take a real close look at the microscopic characteristics at that point.
KEY QUOTEAll right. And you repeatedly use in your observations an acronym NSFSCP, which means not suitable for significant comparison purposes, correct?
And that simply means you have to disregard that item when it comes to future procedures?
Okay. Is it fair to say, as you look over your notes on hair comparisons on pages 8 and 9, that there are very few characteristics described individually?
You may say that a hair is club and Negroid, but you don't make a practice of noting the medulla, the ovoid bodies, the pigments, the cuticle, the length, et cetera?
Okay. And that is because you retain in your memory what it is that you are seeing even though you don't write it down?
Well, you do retain a little bit, but you don't always retain all the characteristics. That is why you need to look at the hairs with a comparison microscope.
But if I were to ask you, as to any of these individual hairs, the appearance of the ovoid bodies and the pigment and the cortex and so forth, I take it you might have some difficulty calling those to mind?
Umm, well, yes, I wouldn't--I wouldn't recall specifically which hairs, although I have--on some of the hairs I have a pretty vivid memory, but others I don't.
Do I take it from the fact that this is the last page of your notes that this is the last operation you performed in working up this case?
Well, it would have been--right. It would have been at a stage before the comparison process took place.
You do not at any time in your notes use the word "Same," do you, Mr. Deedrick?
KEY QUOTENo. Now, as to the known case, first of all, K7 is a whole series of hairs that were submitted as coming from the head of Mr. Simpson, correct?
You have three types of hair from Mr. Goldman, three for Mrs. Simpson and just the head hair for Mr. Simpson; is that correct?
Okay. I received a head hair sample from each person. I also received eye hairs from--and limb hairs from both victims, but I only received a head hair sample from the Defendant.
Okay. Now, without going through all of the notes, is it fair to say that your description, as you examine the known hairs, starting with K7, Mr. Simpson, is rather detailed?
Well, you cover quite a few of the characteristics that were showing up on our various lists yesterday, do you not?
Okay. And as to K4, Nicole Simpson, you, in similar fashion, are rather detailed in describing the various characteristics that you seem to find significant as you examine these hairs under the microscope?
This is not a comparison microscope at this stage; it is still the 50 to a hundred power, is it?
Oh, no, no. The comparison microscope is two microscopes that are connected optically and you can shut off one microscope, so essentially the examinations are being conducted up to 400 magnification. It is a regular research microscope. When you do the comparisons you essentially turn on the other one so you can see both microscopes so it is a regular research compound microscope.
With a combination of mirrors, I suppose, you appear to fit the images together even though they don't actually join physically in that fashion?
If you go to the comparison phase, you would just essentially redirect the light through prisms for both microscopes.
Okay. And as to Mr. Goldman, the K1 series of hairs that were taken from his head, you in like fashion have quite a bit of detail describing what that hair looks like, do you not?
But when we go back through your notes and find that you are noting something is like or similar to one of the K hairs, none of that kind of detail is generally present? Is that a fair statement?
Okay. Now, Mr. Deedrick, is it not fair to say that the integrity of the work that you do in cases of this sort is in many ways limited by the integrity of what has been done prior to the time you received the samples?
For instance, if someone were to mix up different kind of hairs so that you were informed that a hair came from one place when in fact it came from another, that would interfere substantially with the conclusions that you are able to draw as to probable source, would it not?
Well, I think the comparison would still be valid and the associations or exclusions would be valid, but the significance of the finding would be questionable.
--you have to know whether or not a fiber or hair that you find to be significant actually came from where it says in the papers that it came from?
Right. We are at the mercy of those that check and send the evidence to us.
KEY QUOTEDo you ever give instruction to local police agencies that seek your services as to what they should do at the crime scene or how they should handle the evidence?
I have through either lecture or conversation given advice on how crime scenes should be conducted.
Okay. When was the first time that you came to Los Angeles in connection with the Simpson matter?
Well, I had a trial--a trial in federal court and I stopped over at the crime lab and also with the D.A.'s office.
Okay. And did you at that time attempt to interview any of the people who were involved in the collection process?
I did speak with Detective Vannatter. I'm not--I did speak with Susan Brockbank. I spoke with Collin Yamauchi and that--that is about all the individuals I spoke with, I believe.
Without going into what was said, did you quiz them about what they had done individually at the crime scene that might have some significance to the work you were expected to do?
No, not so much at the crime scene. I was interested to know something about packaging, processing techniques, how they do processing in the crime lab. I was interested to know about cut marks that I saw on the gloves. I did take a look at the glove at that point. I saw some cut marks and I asked some questions about that.
Did you ever observe that one of the gloves appeared to be worn, the leather being worn? Did you notice that at any time?
Worn? Both--well, both gloves appeared to have--to have been worn and also affected by body fluids, stained and misshaped.
Did you ever ask to see any of the photographs depicting--or videotapes depicting the handling and removal the body?
Well, no. No, I--I may have seen something like that on television, but I have never seen any actual footage as a viewing.
Well, even if it was on television, do you recall seeing Mr. Goldman's body removed from the scene and placed on a gurney?
I do recall that, but not specifically as to what he may have had contact with or--but I do recall the body being removed.
All right. And did you see that it was actually sort of dragged across the ground for a little ways as it was coming out of the dirt area?
You haven't been to the crime scene, Mr. Deedrick, but you were able to recognize earlier the hat and gloves, for the benefit of the Court and jury. Was that done because you had seen photos even though you hadn't seen the actual items?
Is this a photo that you have seen before with the number "100" in the background?
Okay. If the body of Mr. Goldman were dragged over the soil and there were hairs in the soil, similar to that of Mr. Simpson, might there not have been a transference there of the one hair that you found?
You have no way of knowing from what part of the shirt that hair came; is that correct?
Okay. Next question. You were asked on direct examination about the two gloves. You testified that the Bundy glove had a coarse hair compatible with the Akita, Kato, on the surface of the glove, correct?
You testified that the Rockingham glove had fur hairs consistent with the belly of that animal on it when you examined it, correct?
Well, it could have been from the belly or from the under fur off the back. There is--I don't even know if I would know where the known samples came from, but it could have been from either source.
And that you have previously described those as being common to the under part of a dog, as opposed to the tuft or coat?
Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say under part, under fur, under the outer coat which could be on the belly, and it could be on the back, but it is just the soft fine hairs that are closer to the body.
If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was at the Bundy residence, might you expect some fur hairs to be left behind in the soil?
And if the Rockingham glove were deposited at any time on that soil, might that not explain the presence of those hairs?
Okay. Thank you. You showed us, I believe, at the outset of your testimony when you were educating the jury as to the science of hair and fibers, the analogy to a pencil. Is that an analogy that you used when you were a young examiner?
That is right. That is in the formative years of hair testimony the pencil is often used.
But by the sixth or seventh year of your career had you not discarded it as not very useful?
Well, it is always useful. Some people maybe picture a hair structure a little better by a pencil than maybe a drawing because it is three-dimensional. Some examiners still use it and I think I did here.
Overruled. It is foundational at this point. I don't know that we are going to use anything.
We are at the mercy of those that check and send the evidence to us.
You do not at any time in your notes use the word 'Same,' do you, Mr. Deedrick?
You know, by the way, most lawyers are premed students that couldn't pass chemistry, don't you?
Right. If the hair is suitable for comparison, and once the comparison process starts, you take a real close look at the microscopic characteristics at that point.