Okay. All right. Let's zoom in on the bindles. Tell us if you recognize any of those bindles, please. First one up on top there?
Yes, I recognize it. It's--got notations on it, "Removed from inside bag which contains item no. 37 by S.A.B., 6-23-94."
Okay. And so you removed that--the debris from the bag for this item on the 23rd, not on the 21st?
I thought I did it on the 21st, but according to my bindle, I did it on the 23rd.
KEY QUOTEOkay. We'll get back to that. You revisited this--the gloves again then after the 21st, correct?
Yes. That says "Outer surfaces of glove, item no. 37 removed by S.A.B., 6-21-94."
So that bindle contains all of the hair and fiber and trace that you recovered from the exterior of the Bundy glove?
All right. Now, moving over to the coin envelope--well, before we do that, there's a bindle below that, also appears to be your handwriting dated June 23rd, 1994.
Yes. And it says "Removed from inside of glove, item no. 37, by S.A.B., 6-23-94."
Yes. That was the observation you made with your examination of the hair and fiber contained in that bindle, correct?
And that bindle, the contents of it, were later examined by Mr. Deedrick of the FBI?
And there was some discrepancy in your findings with respect to what was contained in that bindle?
And so that's the--that's the third bindle of hair, trace or fiber that you collected from the glove?
And is that the coin envelope you created on the 21st to contain the bindles of hair and trace recovered from the Bundy glove?
After you put the two bindles you created on the 21st into that coin envelope, you indicate you closed the coin envelope?
Now, again, as you did before, in between the examination of each item, did you look at the butcher paper on which you examined the item for any hair or trace that may have come off?
Did you examine your gloves for any hair and trace that might have come off during your examination?
Other than picking the hair and trace off the exterior of the glove, did you brush it as you did the other items you've described or shake it in any manner?
And after you created the bindles and put them in the coin envelope, did you put the coin envelope into the analyzed evidence envelope?
After you put the bindles, the two bindles you created that day into the coin envelope, did you put the coin envelope into the analyzed evidence envelope?
Umm, oh, I--I was asked to compare the two gloves themselves, and so I began making some measurements on the gloves.
The gloves were each laid on individual pieces of paper, the examination paper, and I had them photographed actually laying on a floor. So I put down a piece of white paper covering a large area of the floor and then I took the smaller white papers with the glove actually on them, laid those on that white piece of paper that was on the floor. And I had a photographer with me. He inserted a scale I believe between the two items. So they were still on separate pieces of paper. And he photographed them together and then we photographed them up close, a little closer up individually.
While the photographing process was going on, if I needed to turn a glove over, I turned the right glove with my right hand and the left glove with my left hand, so I never touched both gloves with the same hands.
Your Honor, the--we have a photograph of both gloves together. I ask that it be marked People's 444.
Those are the two gloves, side by side, photograph as I described with a scale in between them.
After the photographing was done, I made some measurements of them individually. And those pages of my notes are missing. I left them I think in your office when we had a pretrial meeting.
That's why I have them. Okay. Let me show you these. Defense has a copy. I have two pages. Each one of them contains a diagram of a hand.
Right. Right. I examined the left glove first. And basically for--for my measurements and for the purpose of just making an illustration of how I made those measurements, I traced around my own hand. This is a tracing of my hand, not a tracing of the gloves.
Your Honor, since we're referring to that document, can we have that marked, please?
I thought we had marked these last week with another witness as well; had we not?
Thank you. Why don't I just use these while--so I don't have to bother Mrs. Robertson.
Let me show you 402-B. All right. Is that a diagram that you made, a tracing around your hand on June 21st?
How is it--first of all, let me ask you this. You finished the photography. The--first of all, you had the items on the floor, on paper on the floor?
Weren't you concerned that they were going to get dust or some kind of--get dirty, get stuff on them that didn't belong on them when putting them on the floor?
Not really, no. I--as I said, I laid out a large piece of white paper and then, you know, watched--watched as the photographs were being taken. We don't have strong wind currents gusting through our lab as far as kicking dust around and things. So I really wasn't worried about that.
When you picked the gloves up off the floor, did you pick them up individually on their paper?
And then when you went about the measurement process, can you tell us how you did that, which glove you started with?
And I measured from the tips of the fingers of the glove to the glove opening just on the backs of the gloves, and I made five measurements, one for the thumb and one for each of the different fingers, and I made notations, basically drew a line from the end of the finger to the opening of the glove and then made a notation as to the length in inches as measured on a ruler. I just had a ruler out on my lab bench. Measured, read the measurement, wrote it down for each of those fingers, and then I went on to the--the other glove, item 9, the right glove, and I made similar measurements on it.
When you went from--when you finished the measurements on the left glove--why don't we indicate for the record what they are. Can you read them?
I can read them off my notes if that's all right. For the--starting on the left-hand side, which would be like the pinky finger, it was eight inches. The next finger in was nine and a quarter inches. The next finger in towards the right is nine and 5/8 inches. The next finger in is nine inches and the thumb measured six and a half inches.
When I was first examining them, yes, they were. They take a little time to warm up.
And did you check your gloves for any hair or trace that may have come off during the measurement process of the left glove?
Yes, I did, but this was all done after I had removed fibers and hairs from the gloves. So there shouldn't have been anyway but I did.
You made certain observations of the condition of this glove I notice on this diagram, correct?
On the thumb measurement, I have two measurements that I listed, six inches and six and a half inches. That's the measurement on the far left of the screen. And I made a notation that says "When edge of glove is folded back to where it would be in original condition," and then there's an arrow kind of connecting that to some other notations I made near the base of the glove. Oh, didn't realize what you'd done there. In the--if you could get back a ways a little bit for a minute. In the lower left-hand portion of the screen there, kind of pointing towards that--that area of the glove down--down near the base of the thumb where the opening is, there are--the--I made notations that say "The edge of the glove opening is unfolded here. There's distortion in the shape of the glove." Basically, the leather on the glove comes down from the fingers and then folds over about half--about half of an inch, and then the interior lining is sewn into the inside, but in this particular area, that was unfolded. There was a little distortion. So I made those two measurements, one with the edge folded in and one with the edge folded out, which is how the glove wanted to be basically. It just wanted to lay that way opened up. And so those are your two measurements, six and six and a half.
Yes. And then there are some other notations on the right side of the glove, and those kind of help explain this. It say--what I wrote is "Some stitching along this opening is pulled/missing. I took my exemplar of thread," which means I cut a small piece of a thread to look at under the microscope, "From the end of a pulled strand of thread in this previously damaged area." So there was some thread missing in that area, and that I think helped account for the distortion and the overall look of the glove.
Again, starting with the thumb on the--on the far left of the screen, those two measurements, six, six and a half, depending on whether you fold that flap in, then the index finger was eight and a half inches. The next finger over towards the right of the screen, nine and a quarter inches. The next finger is eight and three-quarter inches and the last finger was seven and three-quarter inches.
And did they appear similar to the gloves that you've just described, 9--nos. 9 and 37?
All right. Then if you could tell us, did you measure those new gloves in the same manner you described measuring these other ones?
Yes, I did. Measurements for the right glove, the thumb measurement was seven and one-quarter inches, the index finger, nine and three-quarter inches, middle finger, 10 and 1/8 inches, the ring finger, 10 inches, the pinky finger, eight and three-quarter inches. For the left glove, the thumb measurement was seven inches, index finger was nine and three-quarter inches, middle finger, 10 and one-quarter inches, ring finger was 10 and 1/8 inch and pinky finger was eight and 7/8 inches.
Okay. Now, these newer gloves that you measured on June 20th of this year, did they have a size indicated on the label?
And the gloves, nos. 9 and 37, did one of those have a tag that indicated what size it was?
So what was the difference in the sizes of the--in the sizes of the new gloves that you measured on June 20th of this year and the size of the glove nos. 9 and 37 that you retrieved from the freezer on June the 21st?
Umm, they varied from finger to finger. I believe the greatest difference was about an inch and a quarter.
Actually, on a couple of the fingers on the right glove, there was an inch and a quarter difference in length.
Okay. Now, after you got done measuring the Bundy and Rockingham gloves, 9 and 37--37 and 9 respectively, what did you do?
I returned them to their respective paper bags, folded them over, taped them closed, returned them to the box that they came from.
It contained the original items of evidence that were collected from the crime scene.
I wasn't quite done examining the evidence in that box yet. So I kept it in my lab.
Yes. I have an evidence locker which is under the counter of that large examination table that I described earlier, and it's a locker which has a key to lock it. I placed that box--all of the evidence that I placed in that locker was then locked in with a key, and I retained the key.
Okay. Now, at this point, were all of the bindles of hair and trace that you collected from the evidence items on June 21st in coin envelopes that were then placed into analyzed evidence envelopes?
And where did you keep the analyzed--where did you keep all that, all those envelopes?
All those envelopes that were in that one analyzed evidence envelope was in my evidence locker.
--did you again examine item no. 19 that you've identified on the board marked People's 436, the hair and trace recovered from the Rockingham glove by Dennis Fung?
Umm, I--basically, you know, the same kind of thing I've been doing all around. Laid down clean white paper. I opened the envelope. And I had examined item 9 the previous day, so I knew what I was expecting to find. I opened up the coin envelope, removed the paper bindle, and inside the paper bindle were those hairs and fibers, placed those on a microscope slide and mounted them with water, examined them on the microscope and made some notations as to what I observed.
Why were you mounting--you indicated earlier to us the problem with mounting in water. So why did you do it?
Umm, I was asked to mount the hairs in water by my supervisor at the time, Greg Matheson, who wanted me basically to look at these hairs to see if they had roots on them or not. The hairs with roots could potentially be tested for DNA and those without roots could not using the PCR method. So they--the serology unit, the DNA unit was not really sure how our mounting media, our other mounting media that's more appropriate for hair would affect that DNA. So they requested that I mount them in water and kind of sacrifice a little bit of my visibility in looking at the hairs in order to preserve that possible DNA evidence.
KEY QUOTEOkay. When you mounted the hairs from no. 19 in water on this particular date, you used the same process you described to us before?
During this process, did anything happen to one of the hairs that you were examining?
Well, when I was mounting it on the slide, placing the hair actually on the slide, it broke, broke in two. So now instead of having--I believe there were three hairs total. Instead of having three hairs, now I had four hairs or four pieces of hair.
And after you--after you completed your examination of the hairs on the water mount on that slide, what did you do?
I unmounted those hairs again, basically the reverse of mounting, removed them from the slide, placed them back into the paper bindle, put that paper bindle back in the coin envelope. This time I sealed the coin envelope with a piece of tape, initialed that and dated it. And then I examined item no. 58 in the same manner.
Okay. Well, did you put it in an analyzed evidence envelope or just put the sealed coin envelope into the box?
Item no. 58 was a coin envelope which contained two plastic bags, and each of those plastic bags had some hairs and/or fibers in them.
Did you do that with a water mount on a slide or did you just look at it inside the paper bindle?
Now, this item--I forgot to ask you about this item--was it packaged in some kind of paper bindle?
I again unmounted the slide, placed those hairs back into their respective plastic bags and then replaced those bags into the coin envelope that they came from and then sealed the coin envelope with a taped seal, initialed it and dated it, placed that back into the box that it had originally come from--
Taped around--like I had described earlier, taped around with the black tape around the circumference of the box in two directions, then placed an evidence seal across that closure.
Okay. Moving towards June 23rd, can you tell us what, if anything, you did with box no. 1?
Yes. I returned box no. 1 to our evidence control unit because I was done analyzing what I was requested to do from that box.
Umm, let me see. Then I went to the serology unit--after returning box 1 to the evidence control unit, I went to serology and removed the gloves and the two hats from box no. 2, which were in the freezer, and took just those items in the bags to the trace analysis unit to examine them further.
Yes. I--I--same process as before. I removed the hat from the paper bag onto a clean piece of paper wearing clean gloves, ran my tests and then I replaced the cap back into the bag, folded the bag over, sealed it with a piece of tape.
Yes. Before I examined the second hat, I changed paper, changed gloves. Same routine.
And after you completed the--some kind of blood testing on the cap from the Bronco, what did you do with the cap?
Replaced it into the bag, folded the bag over, sealed it with tape and then I returned both of those hats to the serology freezer into box no. 2 where I had taken them from.
Umm, I--I don't really recall. I listed them as 9 and 37. So it might have been 9. I like to go numerically a lot of times, so it was probably 9.
I--I turned the gloves--well, item 9, you know, individually. I was working on item 9, turned it inside out, and this time I removed any hairs and fibers from the interior surface of that glove, placed those into a paper bindle and marked it accordingly.
And what procedure did you use to remove hair and fiber from the interior of the glove?
The same procedure that I used before. You know, basically picking, rolling the fabric of the glove between my fingers, picking off those stray hairs or fibers that basically protruded and placed those in a paper bindle.
And then what did you do with the trace and the hair that came off as a result of the picking and the scraping?
Umm, all of that was placed into a paper bindle and marked--marked the bindle, "Removed from interior surface of glove, item no. 9," and then that was placed into coin envelope.
Okay. Before you did that, before you folded up and closed the bindle, did you examine the paper, the bindle--the item the glove was lying on and you were working over for any stray pieces of trace or fiber that may have come off?
You indicated earlier that you always crease the paper to create a funnel and gather it?
Did you examine the paper again to make sure all the hair and trace was taken into the bindle?
When you closed up the bindle, I think you indicated you put it into a coin envelope?
I did as far as the date goes. This is a--I used the same coin envelope that I had started for that glove the day before. And you'll notice on the coin envelope that there are two dates. Says "Hairs and fibers removed from glove no. 9 by S.A.B. on" and then there's two dates, 6-21 and 6-23.
I have on the monitor, your Honor, the photograph from the board marked People's 436 for item no. 110.
If we could zoom in on the bindle on the right-hand side. Thank you. I think we need the back of it where it's--all the writing is.
That's a photograph that--I'm sorry, your Honor--photograph we've marked previously as People's 44O? 443. 442, your Honor. Sorry about that.
The bindle on the lower right which says "Removed from surfaces"--oh, I'm sorry--"Removed from inside surfaces of glove, item no. 9, by S.A.B., 6-23-94."
And after you--and after you made the notations, you put it into that coin envelope shown in this photograph as well?
And again, this photograph that's been marked as 442, that's the back side of the photograph that's shown on the chain board for item no. 110?
And what did you do with the coin envelope when you were done packaging the bindle into it?
I folded over the top of the coin envelope and placed it back into that analyzed evidence envelope.
Okay. Now, you described this--the hairs and fibers in this bindle from the interior of the glove as containing seven hairs total?
Do you have the other photograph with the back of the bindles? No. It may be in my notes.
Umm, I have seven hairs total for all of those hairs removed from the glove. That would be inside the glove.
Uh-huh. Okay. All right. And you also indicated--let me ask you this. In August, you wound up transporting all of these items to the FBI; is that correct?
Umm, I helped prepare some of the items for examination. He performed all the examinations.
Okay. Did he point out some discrepancy between your observations of the hairs collected from the glove at Rockingham and his?
Did your observations--did he point out something to you with respect to what he observed in the hairs collected from that glove?
Okay. Did you notice on this second observation in the company of Mr. Deedrick that there were actually eight hairs and not seven in this package?
Did you notice a difference in the number of hairs from what you had earlier noted when you examined the contents of the bindles at the FBI in August?
Okay. And when you--did you make any effort to verify or to determine who was right; you or Mr. Deedrick?
Let me ask you this, Miss Brockbank. Did you add any hairs to the bindle--to the bindles after you finished collecting on the 23rd?
Did you add any fibers to the bindles after you finished collecting on June the 23rd?
Again, when you made your examination and you noted seven hairs, how did you make that observation?
Okay. And you indicated earlier to us the problem with the water mount. Could that also have any impact on your ability to discern how many hairs or fibers are present?
You also indicated earlier that it could have an impact on your ability to accurately determine the color of items that you're looking at?
Did you discover any discrepancy in your description as to the color of the hairs that you were looking at contained in these bindles?
Well, did you--did you detect any black limb hair in the debris and hair that you recovered from the Rockingham glove?
It means a hair from a limb like an arm or a leg as opposed to a head hair or a pubic hair or other body hair.
Okay. When you examined the hairs recovered from the interior of the Rockingham glove in the company of Mr. Deedrick, did he point out anything with respect to the--did he point out any limb hair to you recovered from the interior of the Rockingham glove?
Umm, I had not reported it. So I would have to say no, I didn't notice it before.
Okay. When you looked at it in the company of Mr. Deedrick, were you looking at it in water mount?
I was looking at it properly mounted in a medium called permount, which is what we typically use to perform hair examinations. We mount it in this media, and you don't have the problem with the refractive index and the glare and those thick black lines surrounding your hairs. You can see the internal features much easier and clearly.
After you completed your packaging of the hair and fiber and trace from the interior of the Rockingham glove, what did you do next?
Sure. After you completed the packaging of the hair and fiber and trace from the interior of the Rockingham glove, item no. 9, what did you do next?
All right. And before you began to examine the other glove, did you prepare in some manner?
Yes. I again laid down a new clean piece of white paper, I had new gloves on, and then I removed the glove from the packaging.
When you recovered the Bundy glove from the bag, what procedure did you follow for the examination of--for hair and trace and fiber?
Okay. And did you assign an item number--again, an item number was assigned to the hair and trace recovered from the Bundy glove?
I'm going to show you a photograph that is from the board 436 from item no. 112, and we showed that to you already I guess.
The photograph that's now on the elmo, your Honor, has not yet been marked, and that depicts the back of the coin--this photograph now up here depicts the back of the coin envelope and the back of the bindles. We should mark it as People's 445?
Showing you now the photograph that really is from the chain board for item no. 112. If we could zoom in on the bindles. Okay. Do you see the bindle that you created on June the 23rd for the removal of the interior trace and hair from glove no. 37?
And it says "Removed from inside of glove, item no. 37 from S.A.B., 6-23-94" and then a note, "Animal hairs, no human hair observed 6-30-94."
Could we move up to the top bindle? Let me see. With respect to the hair and trace recovered from this Bundy glove, I'm going to show you again photograph no. 445, the bindle at the top.
Okay. And that is the bindle that came from--that--that contained hair or fiber coming from where?
And my notation on this side of the bindle says "Mostly animal hairs, the animals covered up by some seals at the top/fibers and debris, one questionable human hair."
Now, with respect to that, did you examine the contents of this bindle again in the company of Mr. Deedrick at the FBI in August?
All right. Between the time that you did the packaging and collecting of hair and fiber from this glove and sealed up the bindle and going to the FBI, did you add any hair or fiber to the bindle?
And did you--did you see that there were any more or fewer hairs on the slide when you examined it in permount, as it should be mounted, with Mr. Deedrick at the FBI in August?
I don't recall specifically what our findings were when I examined it with him.
All right. You indicate on the bindle that there was one questionable head hair in the debris?
Okay. And do you recall seeing with Mr. Deedrick two white hair fragments and a short human hair?
And do you recall seeing more hairs when you looked at it in permount than you had originally looking at it in water mount?
Umm, I didn't take any notes when I was at the FBI lab. I'm not sure if there are any notes here. If I can take a minute.
Let me ask you one question, Miss Brockbank. When Mr. Deedrick did his examination, did he allow you to examine what he had mounted in permount as well?
He called my attention to certain items. I didn't examine every item that he examined.
And, you know, pointed certain things out to me, and I observed them and I just don't recall exactly which items I was looking at at any specific time.
Okay. When he pointed things out to you, did you disagree with any of his observations?
Okay. All right. Now, when you get done collecting--handle it that way, yeah. When you get done collecting hair and fiber into a bindle, do you close it immediately?
When you were finished collecting the hair and trace from the interior of the Bundy glove, you created the bindle that you've already identified for us, where did you put that bindle?
And then I folded over the top flap of that coin envelope, replaced it into the analyzed evidence envelope.
Now, was this the last contact you had with those gloves before you took them to the FBI?
Because after you get done--after you get done collecting hair and trace from items, you make the bindles, the coin envelopes, do you ever put the coin envelopes and bindles back in contact with the item you've removed them from?
During all of these procedures, did you ever touch the piece of carpet marked as item no. 33 that was wrapped up in paper and taped in the box?
I took both of the gloves back to the serology lab and placed them into box no. 2, which was in the serology freezer.
Well--just a second. Umm, I began examining evidence I had removed from item no. 38 previously, evidence that was now given--you know, going to be booked as item no. 113 eventually.
Now, before you began this examination, did you again put down clean paper and change into clean gloves?
The item--the coin envelopes that contained the--coin envelopes that contained the bindles for the blue knit ski cap, were those in your locker still?
All right. What did you do with the--at this point, you still had the two bindles; is that correct?
Okay. What, if anything, did you do with the contents of those two separate bindles on June 23rd?
Again, I began examining the evidence, the hairs and fibers that had been removed from the outside surface of the hat, and I was asked on that day by my supervisor, Greg Matheson or Michelle Kestler, one of those two, to separate those darker colored hairs from the lighter colored hairs from the animal hairs. So that's the day I created more bindles and separated those hairs into three different categories.
Now, how did you do that to avoid everything getting mixed up and flying around? What precautions did you take?
The hairs themselves were, you know, placed on a microscope slide, mounted in water, and I would move the slide and, you know, put like a little dot with black ink on the cover slip, kind of marking the hairs I wanted to remove and, you know, this is a hair versus a fiber or an animal hair, and--
Right. Just kind of a little dot so I knew which hairs it was that I wanted to remove. And then over at the work station, I removed the hairs that were by those dots, put them in the separate coin or the separate paper bindles and then the remaining animal hairs and fibers were left in the original bindle.
Okay. And you did that for each of the bindles, each--the exterior bindle and the interior bindle?
I did it for the exterior bindle. I don't believe I did it for the interior bindle. I believe those all stayed in one--let me just check. Yeah, I believe they all stayed in one bindle. They were all darker hairs. There were no lighter ones there.
So did you even open it up to examine it on the scope--I mean, under the microscope that day or did you just leave that bindle intact?
Actually on the 20--which day are we on? On the 23rd, no, I didn't look at the--at those hairs at all. Didn't open the bindle at all.
Okay. All right. Now, again, with respect to this particular item, do you recall counting up the number of hairs that you found for--that you recovered from item no. 38, the cap?
And when you got to the FBI, did Mr. Deedrick again examine the contents of the bindles you created removing hair and trace from the blue knit ski cap?
And did you observe more hairs during that process when he examined them under permount instead of water mount?
You examined the hairs and counted them when you examined them under--with water mount?
And when you examined them in the company of Mr. Deedrick at the FBI, how were they mounted on the slide?
Did you make any observation concerning the number of hairs removed from item no. 38, the ski cap, when you examined them mounted in permount at the FBI?
I'm sorry. Did Mr. Deedrick point out--direct your attention to the hairs that were mounted from the ski cap when you were at the FBI?
Did you add anything to the bindles created for the items--the hair and trace items from the ski cap after you finished collecting them from the ski cap?
And were they closed immediately after putting hair and trace into them that was collected directly from the ski cap?
All right. After you completed your examination of the bindles of hair and fiber from the ski cap, what did you do with those bindles?
I replaced them back into the coin envelope marked "From the exterior of the ski cap" and returned that coin envelope into the analyzed evidence envelope, placed that into my locker. It remain in my locked evidence locker whenever I was not performing some sort of examination on those items.
And as of this point--now, you were the one who collected the exemplar from the Defendant, is that correct, you took his hair samples?
Now, on June 24th, as of that date, you had removed hair and trace from what items?
Umm, as of that date, I had removed hair and trace from the two gloves, items 9 and 37, and the two hats, items 37 and--I mean 27 and 38.
And did you release the bindles of hair and fiber that you recovered from those items contained in their coin envelopes and in the analyzed evidence envelopes to someone?
I released the evidence to her at around 10:30 in the morning, and she returned them to me at about 1:15.
All right. On June 27th, did you do some further examination of the hair and trace removed from the blue knit ski cap, item no. 38?
The same procedure all along. You know, I cover my bench with white paper, put on clean gloves, and then I mounted some of these hairs in permount. And--actually, the hairs I mounted were the hairs that did not have roots on them. I mounted those in permount and I did not mount any hairs that had roots. They were left in the bindles.
Okay. And again, that was for the purpose of any possible DNA testing that might be conducted?
That's correct. And additionally, I made notations on the bindles themselves as to how many hairs I mounted or removed from that bindle, and those notations are--were made directly on the bindles.
All right. Can you explain the mounting process that you followed with respect to the use of permount instead of water? What is permount anyway?
No. It enables someone to look at a hair under the microscope and actually view the internal structures and characteristics of that hair. It's a semi-permanent mounting media unlike water. Water will eventually evaporate and, you know, all you're left with is a cover slip and your hairs. Permount will dry and harden and basically fix those hairs between the cover slip and the slide. If you touch the cover slip, it's not going to go sliding off as if you had it in water. You know, you can just slide the cover slip right off.
Okay. And so when you mount a hair in permount on a slide, you cover it with the cover slip. Can the hair get out from under by itself?
Umm, during the mounting process, you know, you--the media is wet. So you're dealing with a wet media, and you place the hair on the slide, cover it with a cover slip. From that point on, nothing else is going to crawl underneath it that I am aware of.
And so you mounted the hairs--the hairs that you've earlier recovered--well, I shouldn't just say hairs--maybe hairs and fibers that you earlier discovered from the ski cap on the date of June 27th?
I believe I mounted 31, and one of those hairs, as it turns out, was an animal hair, not a human hair. So 30 human hairs.
Slides. I created 11 slides for all of the hairs I mounted from the exterior and interior surfaces of item 38, and there were obviously more than one hair on each slide to account for those 31 hairs.
I'd like to show you these photographs and have you tell me if these are photographs of the slide mailers and slides that you created from the hair and fiber taken from the blue knit ski cap.
Okay. I'm going to ask--are there more there than actually just from the blue knit ski cap?
Your Honor, I have here a photograph of six slide mailers, ask that it be marked People's--
Those are the cardboard slide mailers. I think I briefly described earlier that we place those glass slides with hairs mounted on them into to protect the slides.
All right. Are those the slides that you created for the hair and fiber that you recovered that you've just described from the blue knit cap?
And also, do we see something, another slide in there that was created for hair and fiber recovered from the cap found in the Bronco?
Yes. The monitor is a little blurry or I could point out which slide exactly. They're all marked with item numbers on them, which would identify which item they came from.
Do you want to take a break, your Honor? Okay. I'm going to let you look at it at the break, and tell us when you come back.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our first afternoon recess. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll be in recess for 15 minutes. Let me see counsel at the sidebar with the court reporter, please.
I thought I did it on the 21st, but according to my bindle, I did it on the 23rd.
I saw a limb hair... A darkly pigmented limb hair.
The newer gloves were larger all the way across the board... Actually, on a couple of the fingers on the right glove, there was an inch and a quarter difference in length.
I was asked to mount the hairs in water by my supervisor at the time, Greg Matheson, who wanted me basically to look at these hairs to see if they had roots on them or not... So they requested that I mount them in water and kind of sacrifice a little bit of my visibility in looking at the hairs.
It's her job. It's not a bother.