Miss Clark.

Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

Sir, have you ever examined the hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more?

I have.

And in examining those hair samples of inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more have you noticed anything about their hair condition as a result of the incarceration?

Well, it may change and dandruff is one good example that have.

Could you explain, please.

Well, the hairs--hair characteristics, hairstyles, hair hygiene, a lot of things change, I would assume. I have never been in jail, but I would assume that conditions change to what you are normally accustomed to, and that being that might be one, that your shampoo changes, how you take care of yourself may change.

And so dandruff on the hair samples taken from inmates that have been incarcerated for a month or more, that is a common or uncommon thing for you to find?

That is not uncommon to see that.

And the fact that the hairs inside the knit cap found at Bundy, which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant, the fact that they did not have dandruff, did that cause you to rule the Defendant out as the possible source for those hairs?

No, it is not one of the characteristics that is used for exclusion.

Why not?

Well, because it most often may be a temporary condition and also it may not be present on the surface of the hair for very long. If the hair is deposited on a clothing item, contacts or whatever may dislodge it. It is not something that is attached; it just happens to be there.

Now, you spoke of cat hairs. You said you saw some cat hairs on the items recovered from the Bundy scene?

Right. There was one cat hair that was recovered from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress.

Okay. And you said you saw also cat hairs in the shovel and on the floorboard from the Defendant's Bronco?

Right. There were a couple hairs, that's correct, from inside the Bronco.

Did the cat hairs from inside the Defendant's Bronco appear to originate from the same kind of cat that deposited the hair on Nicole Brown?

I didn't even attempt to make that comparison. I just made the identification.

That they were cat hair?

They were cat hairs.

So you can't even tell us if they looked like they came from the same cat?

Yes. And did you make any determination in that regard with respect to the cat hairs in the Bronco owned by A.C. Cowling?

I didn't attempt to make a comparison. I had no actual known standards. There were more cat hairs from the tapings from A.C. Cowling's Bronco which suggests to me that perhaps he had a cat or more likely to have a cat.

Okay. And if a cat happened to walk through the Bundy crime scene after--shortly after the murders, might that cause hair from that cat to be deposited on either Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman or anywhere at the scene?

Well, yeah, that is possible. I mean, we can stretch this, I guess.

Okay. Let's. For example, if there was a cat that used to walk through the Bundy crime scene before it became a crime scene on previous occasions, might that cause its hair to be deposited on the walkway?

Yes, it might.

And then in falling on the walkway might Nicole Brown Simpson's body or dress pick up that hair?

That is possible.

No way to tell?

There is no way to know. I only see the end result.

You spoke, sir, of--yesterday on cross-examination concerning the appearance of crushed hairs when someone has suffered an injury to the head. Do you recall that?

I do.

In this particular case, sir, do you know whether the Coroner submitted to you hair samples taken from the area of Nicole Brown Simpson's head that received injury in this case?

I do not--did not appear to be a random sampling.

And when you say did not appear to be a random sampling, what do you mean by that?

Well, it appeared from the hairs that it was more like a clump of hairs and they were all pulled.

From one location on the head?

Just appeared that way. It I had a pretty narrow range of characteristics.

And is that the preferred method for taking a standard--a hair standard from someone?

No. The preferred method is a random sampling from different areas as well as combings.

And when you get--let me ask you about Ronald Goldman's sample then, sir. Did that have an appearance like that of Nicole Brown Simpson's, that is, a clump?

Well, it appeared to be a rather uniform sample, which suggests a clump as opposed to random sampling.

A clump taken from one area of the head instead of the preferred method of all areas of the head?

It appeared that way. It is not uncommon, from my experience, to get those types of samples in. It is not the preferred way.

And when you get that kind of a sample in, does that inhibit your ability to make the associations that you should be able to make, if you had a good standard, to questioned items?

All right. It may limit--it may limit the comparison possess. That is some hairs which may have originated from the person may be thrown out. They may not be included as a possible source of that hair because they are a little bit outside the range of characteristics.

Because the range you got in your standard was too limited?

Did you see any naturally shed hairs on Ronald Goldman's body?

Well--

His shirt?

Not on the shirt, no. On the pants there was.

On his jeans?

Right. There was one hair on the pants.

And how did that hair look in comparison to the hairs that you saw that had been collected by the Coroner, the hair standard?

Well, it was again very short, naturally shed, approximately one inch in length, and it was similar to the proximal portion of the known standard in a limited sense.

Was it similar to any other hairs that you examined in this case?

Well, it was similar to the hair that was found on the Rockingham glove.

That brown Caucasian hair you talked about earlier?

Right, that's correct.

Which was also naturally shed, correct?

Right, same length, naturally shed.

Now, you spoke a little--I think you mentioned on cross-examination that it was rare to see hairs on the head of a person, a homicide victim, that had a crushed appearance. Do you recall that?

I recall saying something like that, yes.

First of all, let me ask you this: If Nicole Brown had been struck on the head by the fist of her assailant, would that cause the appearance of her hairs, if hairs were taken from that area and submitted to you, would it cause their appearance to be crushed when you examined them under the microscope?

No, that wouldn't.

Why not?

Well, hairs are very resilient and they are also very small. The injuries that one would sustain would be more to the underlying tissues, like the scalp, as opposed to the hair. The hair would just bounce back. You couldn't see that microscopically. You can actually hammer a hair sometimes, depending on the surface, and the hardness of the surface and not even see any evidence of that.

Well, what about if the murderer took Nicole Brown and shoved her against the wall causing her head to be hit--to hit against the wall to the extent that she had a brain contusion? Let me ask you this--or concussion. If the hair from that area of her head that hit the wall were submitted to you, would you expect to see those hairs appear crushed under the microscope?

Objection, your Honor. Assuming facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

May we be heard, your Honor?

Sustained.

What kind of force would you expect--let me ask you in a general sense. If someone hit their head against the wall and was knocked unconscious, would you expect the hair in the area where the head hit the wall to appear crushed in your examination under the microscope?

Same objection.

Overruled.

Again, with a clarification, are you asking about the hairs that are still on the head? Those hairs or the hairs that are stuck on the wall?

The hairs that are still on the head.

All right. Probably wouldn't see any damage to them. Crushed areas on hairs are more commonly found when they are extracted and there is damage to that area. That is, the crushing causes the breakage. Windshield impacts on hit and run cases are good examples of that and also massive head injuries that may be accompanying actually a sharp instrument, you may see also some crushing as well.

All right, sir. You talked a little bit yesterday also about the terminology "Same" versus "Different." If you were to take two head hairs from your head and examine them microscopically would they match in each and every way?

I object and ask to approach.

Sustained. With the court reporter, please.

Miss Clark, we are at the side bar. You asked whether or not it would match in every way and we were clear on the terminology. At this point I think it is no harm, no foul, because you asked on the same individual, if hairs came from the same individual that they matched. So I don't find it an egregious violation, but I find it to be a violation, Miss Clark. We will take it up later, but you are cautioned and warned again.

I apologize.

But in the context of the same individual I find it to be no harm, no foul.

Right.

But be careful.

Right.

Miss Clark.

Yes.

Rephrase the question.

Thank you, your Honor.

If you were to take two hairs from your own head and examine them under the microscope, would you expect them--all of the characteristics to appear the same to you?

No, I wouldn't, not necessarily.

And why is that?

Well, because the hairs differ a little bit on your own head and they are not mirror images of each other. There is some variation because they are biological structures. Some may have a medulla, some may not on your same head. Some may be lighter in color, some may be darker in color. So it is important that you get a random sampling to get a good idea about the kind of hairs that that person has on his head.

Okay. And the sampling that you received for the exemplar taken from Mr. Simpson, was that a good random sampling in your opinion?

Right. It was taken pretty much at my direction or at least discussions with Susan Brockbank, that pulls as well as combings be taken, yes, and that was what the sample included.

And when you examined the known hairs taken from Mr. Simpson and compared them to the questioned hairs, for example, in the blue knit cap, were you able to see the same microscopic characteristics throughout the range of the kind of hairs Mr. Simpson has?

Objection, leading and asked and answered.

Overruled.

Right. The range of characteristics that was exhibited by the known standard was also reflected in the range of characteristics exhibited by the questioned hairs. That is in the photographs that were displayed. Some were relatively fine hairs, not heavily pigmented, not evidence of one-sided pigmentation, whereas other hairs were coarser hairs, fatter hairs, and they had definite ones that had pigmentation and so that is a consideration, an important consideration as a hair examiner when conclusions have to be drawn as to how the range corresponds.

And you found that in this case with respect to the Defendant's hair?

I did. I found a good range.

You also discussed a little bit the photographs that you could have taken showing the field of view as you saw it through the microscope on the comparison microscope in which there was what we demonstrated for the jury in that chart, the circle with the line through it showing half and half which was actually two hairs?

Right.

You did not take the photographs in that manner for this case, did you?

I did not. I don't recommend doing it either.

And why is that?

Well, there is problems inherent with the system. That is, when you are using two light sources, two microscopes, two sets of prisms and you are looking at--and using film that is extremely sensitive, color film that is extremely sensitive to color variation, color temperature variation--when I say "Color temperature," there is a temperature that the lightbulb has, the light source, and it is incorporated into the developing possess of your color film. And if there is just the slightest variation in the intensity of the light, that the eye might not even see, that would show up as a difference on one side of your negative and one side of your photographic print, so you might have a little difference in background illumination. It is much easier and it is better, because you show more of the hair, you get the whole field of view, as opposed to just half a field and allows you to see more of the hair, so I think there is more benefit as a lay person to see the characteristics better.

So in the other cases where you have prepared photographs to demonstrate what you have seen through the microscope, in terms of your comparison of known to questioned hairs, have you always done it in this manner?

I have always done it this way. It is just too difficult, cumbersome and not as informative using the other method.

Concerning also the police officer elimination standard, you testified earlier to the fact that you received samples or standards taken from each of the police and lab personnel involved in the case?

Right.

And then I think you indicated on cross-examination that there were two, sometimes three slides for each of them, correct?

That's right. A representative sample of hairs was prepared and mounted on slides.

Okay. Now, two slides, does that mean two hairs?

Oh, no. That representative sampling would mean an adequate number of hairs to compare, which could be twenty to thirty hairs perhaps.

Now, you also discussed the blue black cotton fibers at some length on cross-examination. With respect to whether or not they could have come from the uniform of a Los Angeles police officer, are the LAPD uniforms made of cotton?

Well, the ones that I--that I have seen are wool.

And what does that mean to you in terms of whether or not you can exclude a uniform of an LAPD officer as being a possible source of the blue black cotton fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt, the Rockingham glove and the Defendant's socks?

Well, they are different fibers. I mean, there is no way that they would compare, plus the uniforms are blue and the fabric that I'm referring to would look black to the naked eye.

What was it that was so unusual about this blue black cotton fiber?

Well it was unusual from the standpoint of the blue areas, the areas that were not died, at least didn't pick up the dye like the rest of the fiber. I thought that was significant as to the randomness and appearance of that lighter blue area and it probably was a fabric cause--causation caused by the dyeing of the fabric.

Let me ask you something else: You said that there was like--correct me--did you say there was like a clump or bunch of those fibers on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

Right. There was a small clump, that's correct.

And I think you also testified earlier that it is common to--in the handling of bodies and the handling of evidence for fibers to be lost?

Right. You will lose fibers during the handling process.

So that the number of fibers that were actually found on Ronald Goldman's shirt may represent fewer than were originally there before his body was handled?

That's a very reasonable statement, yes.

Given the number, or based on your examination of those fibers, the number, the appearance, et cetera, can you tell us what your opinion is in terms of how they came to be transferred to Ronald Goldman's shirt?

I object, speculation.

Sustained.

Can you tell us whether you think that is the result of primary or secondary transfer?

Object, speculation.

Overruled.

Well, it is difficult to know precisely what caused fibers to transfer just by looking at them on a microscope slide. They could be transferred primarily through--as I said before, through direct contact or indirectly. Secondary transfer, in my opinion, probably would be less likely in this instance because of the numbers that we have. Direct transfer is more likely, although I can't exclude the other.

Now, sir, these blue black cotton fibers that you examined, are they mounted on slides?

They are.

And when you completed the examinations that you conducted in this case, was there--and the slides were prepared, the remaining hairs or fibers were replaced in their original bindles?

Right. There weren't very much left over.

And then what did do you with the items after you completed your examination of them?

Well, they bounced around a little bit at different stages.

Where was the first place they went after you completed your examination?

Well, they first went to a Defense expert for analysis and then they came back to me.

And then where did they go?

Well, then they were picked up by a representative from the District Attorney's office.

Okay. And those hairs and fibers that are mounted on slides, can they be examined again if anyone desires to do so to compare to anything?

Sure. They are there to look at.

You spoke a little bit also about the hair that you found to be consistent with those of the Defendant on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

The one hair fragment, yes.

First of all, sir, can you tell us, when you examine hair under a microscope, can you determine, based on that examination, whether or not there is dirt on that hair?

Sure.

Is that a difficult or an easy task?

Just a simple observation of the--of what appears to the surface of the hair and the scales.

And with respect to the hair that you determined to be consistent with the Defendant that was found on Ronald Goldman's shirt, did you detect any dirt?

There was nothing to indicate to me that it had been laying in the dirt or out in the weather.

And you made the observation that fibers would be lost in the handling of bodies in the natural course of things. Would that same observation apply to hairs?

Sure. There is kind of a natural loss. The more handling that takes place, the greater the loss.

And with respect to the fact that there was one hair you determined to be consistent with that of the Defendant on Ronald Goldman's shirt, is it possible also that there were more hairs that were lost in the course of processing the body?

Object, speculation.

Sustained.

With respect to the length of time hairs are--have been in a particular location at the point they are collected, you indicated, I think earlier, that there were hairs consistent with those of the Defendant that you examined that were collected from the plaid cap in the Bronco?

That's right.

Do you recall testifying to finding chew marks on some of those hairs?

I do, yes.

What is the significance of that finding?

Indicative of a hair that has been laying around in that environment for sometime, long enough for bugs to get at it.

Did you find anything like that on the hairs you found to be consistent with those of the Defendant in the blue knit cap?

No.

Let me ask you this, sir: The opinions that you have rendered today, are they confined to hair and fiber examinations that you conducted?

Pretty much so, yes.

Do any of those conclusions take in together that blood drops to the left of bloody size 12 shoeprints at Bundy match the DNA profile of the Defendant?

I object.

Sustained.

Do your hair and fiber conclusions that you have told us about in your testimony take into account any of the DNA evidence that has been adduced into evidence?

Objection.

Overruled.

Okay. Now, you indicated in your--in your testimony thus far that the Defendant's hairs exhibited certain distinguishing characteristics?

And did you find those characteristics, those distinguishing characteristics in the hairs you determined to be consistent with his in the blue knit cap?

Objection, asked and answered.

Overruled.

I did, yes.

And those distinguishing characteristics, did you also find them in the hair on Ronald Goldman's shirt?

Objection, leading.

Overruled.

I did.

You also testified--this is foundational, your Honor. You also testified that you found fibers that displayed certain distinguishing characteristics that you I think testified looked very unusual to you, such as the blue black cotton fibers on Ronald Goldman's shirt, the Rockingham glove and the Defendant's socks, correct?

That's right.

And such as the carpet fibers that you determined to be consistent with those fibers from the Defendant's carpet in his Bronco which were found on the knit cap the Rockingham glove?

That was significant as well.

Based on all of the hair and fiber comparisons and examinations that you did in this case, sir, what is your opinion as to whether the hairs in the blue knit ski cap in fact originated from the Defendant?

Well--

Object.

Sustained.

Do the fiber associations that you've testified to in this case, sir, have any impact on the significance of your--of the associations concerning the hair examinations you've made on this case?

Objection. That is for the jury.

Sustained.

Concerning the transfer that you talked about from Nicole to Ronald Goldman, the hair and fiber moving in that direction, can you tell us whether the murderer went back and forth between the two of them more than once based on your hair and fiber examination?

Objection, speculation.

Sustained.

May we approach, your Honor?

No.

I have nothing further.