All right. Mr. Blasier.

Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, folks.

THE JURY: Good morning

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

Good morning, Miss Brockbank.

Good morning.

I take it from your direct testimony that you worked pretty closely with Mr. Deedrick from the FBI?

Umm, for some of my examinations, yes.

You spent how much time in Washington? Was it two weeks?

Yes, it was.

And during that time did you spend most of your time with him while he is conducting his comparisons and analysis?

Yes, I did.

You worked alongside of him?

Basically, yes.

When he would look at something in the microscope, he would show you and you would look at it, correct?

Yes.

And I think you indicated to Miss Clark that you agreed with his comparisons and conclusions?

Yes, I did, those that he showed me.

Now, I want to ask you a couple of general questions about hair and fiber in general. Are there any professional societies that are devoted solely to the examination of fiber and trace evidence?

Umm, societies I'm not sure. There are several groups and I just don't know all of them right offhand or any of them I could really name for you and be accurate.

Are you members of any groups?

No, I'm not.

When you say "Groups," what kind of groups are there?

I have heard a group for DNA called Twgdam. I think it is called Twghair or something along the same lines as Twgdam, only for hairs and fibers.

Are you aware of any standards that they have established for hair and fiber analysis?

Umm, not specifically, no.

Now, are there any professional magazines that are devoted to hair and fiber analysis?

There are many professional magazines devoted specifically just to hair and fiber. I'm not really sure.

Would you agree that in the last fifty years there has been very little change in the technology with respect to hair and trace evidence?

I've only been involved for the last five years, but umm, there has been very little change over the last five years, I can say that much.

And have there been some attempts to improve the ability to discriminate with hairs and fibers that really have not been very successful?

Yes.

It is not--certainly the amount of resources that have been devoted to hair and fiber are far less than such things as DNA, for instance, would you agree with that?

I would agree, yes.

Same thing with other forensic areas like serology, there has been a lot more in the way of technology development in those fields than there has been in hair and trace?

Yes.

Are there ever any seminars that are devoted specifically to hair and trace on a regular basis that you know of?

There are some. I know Mr. Deedrick mentioned to me that he was going to one a few weeks ago, but I didn't go myself.

And do you--so that is one seminar that you heard about from him?

Yes.

Have you heard of very many others that are devoted just to that topic?

No.

Now, would you agree that the reason for that--for the somewhat lack of resources that are devoted to this particular area is because of the inability to really establish any kind of unique identifications with hair and fiber?

Could you repeat that? I'm sorry.

Would you agree that the reason why there has not been a whole lot of technological resources put into that area and there has not been a whole lot of development is because of inability to really establish any kind of unique identifications with hair and trace evidence?

That may be the reason, yeah.

Now, when you are looking at fibers you are really only looking for a couple of characteristics of a fiber, correct, usually?

Umm, you are--

Objection. This is beyond the scope and it is also overbroad and vague.

Overruled.

With most fiber exams you are looking at the fiber to try and identify the type of fiber and usually doing a comparison between a known fiber and a questioned fiber.

Okay. You are looking at is it nylon, is it cotton, is it wool?

Right.

And with synthetics you may be able to look at other things like the cross-sectional shape and the diameter of the surface area, delusterant type of things?

This is beyond the scope. Objection.

Overruled.

There are many characteristics, yes, you can look at.

Now, with things like cotton and wool you look basically at the type of--type of material it is and the color, correct?

Umm, yes, those will be two things.

And you can also, if you have enough of a fiber, you can do certain kind of analysis on the dyes in the fiber to try and determine what is the chemical composition of the dyes in a fiber, correct?

Yes.

None of that was done in this case, was it?

None of that was done by me. I'm not sure what Mr. Deedrick did or didn't do.

Okay. Now, when you take a look at one fiber--a known fiber against an evidence fiber, if those appear to be similar, you can't from that conclude that they came from the same place, can you?

And we don't have any patches of clothing in this case that you are aware of, do we?

Not that I am aware of.

We are basically talking about very small pieces of a thread or a piece of cotton or whatever?

Yeah.

Objection, beyond the scope, calls for speculation. She didn't examine these things.

Overruled. That wasn't the testimony. Proceed.

Now, would you agree that when manufacturers produce fibers they generally produce them in fairly substantial quantities?

Umm, I would think so, but I don't have any particular knowledge in that area.

Okay. There are no data banks of fibers that you can go to and see how common or rare a particular fiber is, are there?

That I don't know. There may be. I am not aware of it.

Well, you do this kind of analysis all the time, don't you?

Umm, as far as fiber analysis goes, my analysis has really been limited to just comparing known to questioned fibers and I haven't really done any research beyond that point as far as frequencies or how often fibers are made or anything of that nature.

If there were some data bank available where you could get that information, I'm sure you would have access to it, wouldn't you?

Objection, calls for speculation.

Sustained.

You are not aware of any such databases that exist with respect to fiber?

I am not aware of one.

Are you aware of any methods available to narrow down the source of a particular fiber if the information you have is what kind of fiber it is, nylon, cotton, whatever, and the color, with those two pieces of information to be able to tell who manufactured it?

Umm, again that is not something I have ever done so I am not really sure.

So you are not aware that there is any way to do that, are you?

I am not aware, no.

Are you aware of any kind of databases that tell you what percentage of the fibers out there in the world fall into a particular category, such as blue black cotton, ten percent of all fibers or going to be blue black cotton? There is nothing like that, is there?

Again, not that I am aware of.

You are not aware, are you, of any technique that allows you, once you know that two fibers are both, let's say, cotton and both of blue black, to assess some kind of a numerical description to that to explain what the significance of that is?

Umm, could you repeat that one more time, I'm sorry.

Do you know of any technique at all that is used in your expertise, your specialty, that allows you, once you say, okay, we have an evidence fiber that is cotton, blue black, and we have another fiber that is cotton blue black, to tell you what the significance of the fact is that they look alike?

Again, not that I am aware of.

Okay. Now, with hair, when you are looking at hair, collecting hair and looking at it, you use various general categories to describe what you are seeing, do you not?

Yes.

And do you have--there is a form that you use when you do--when you look at a hair and write down things that you observe about it that is kind of like a chart that is broken down into categories, correct?

Yes.

Do you have one of those with you, a blank one?

Probably not a blank one.

I have a document that I will have marked, please.

1217.

1217.

Miss Brockbank, let me show you Defense exhibit 1217. Is this the work sheet that you use when you are looking at hairs?

Yes, it is.

And that one, that one is the work sheet that you used for item no. 58, correct?

Yes.

Now, you didn't observe any human hairs in 58 so it is blank, correct?

Yes.

But that shows the categories that you use?

Yes, it does.

Your Honor, could we put this on the elmo, please?

Could we zoom in the on the column on the left categories a little bit.

Now, could we move it up so that the curl--you can see "Curl" a little better.

This is an example of some of the characteristics that you use to describe what you see when you look at a hair, correct?

Yes.

And taking, for example, the curl category, it is only broken down into three different subgroups, right?

Umm, as far as this form goes, the things that are listed in that area, using curl, you see tight, loose or none. They are general descriptions that you can use, but it is not limited just to that.

Okay. So you have three categories on your form, but there could be others that you might use?

Yes.

Is that true with the other categories on there?

Yes.

Would you agree that these categories are very subjective in a sense that it is what you see, and you use a word to describe what you see that you feel comfortable with, correct?

Yes.

This particular form is not some sort of an industry standard form, is it?

Not at all.

There is no standardization at all, is there, in the area of hair analysis in terms of specific descriptions that you give to specific characteristics?

Objection, that calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Umm, I have seen guidelines for, you know, terminology to be used, but there is no hard and fast rule that you must use a certain terminology.

So each examiner can choose pretty much what they feel comfortable with in terms of describing characteristics?

Pretty much.

And a lot of these characteristics are somewhat general in nature, are they not?

Umm, yes, some of them are general.

In other words, something that you might describe as heavy curl, someone else might say, ah, that is just a medium curl or a light curl?

Yes.

So with this kind of analysis, with hair analysis, there is--you don't have the ability to--well, let me rephrase that. Different examiners use different terminology and different characteristics, don't they?

Yes.

Objection, that calls for speculation.

Overruled.

So if you describe, if you list eight or ten that you have observed on a particular hair and that hair is given to somebody else, they might have different descriptions for the same hair?

Yes, they might.

So there is no way for you to just provide a description to some other examiner someplace and have them have the ability to compare using just your description, that description with some other hair?

That would not be a real good idea, no.

Okay. Now, with hair analysis and fiber analysis, do you undergo any kind of blind external proficiency testing?

We don't undergo any blind testing. We do have proficiency tests but they are not blind. We know that we are being tested.

Now, when you do those proficiency tests is it the same kind of comparison that you do in case work; namely, that there are only two things, a known sample with an evidence sample?

No, not really.

What does it usually entail?

For our fiber proficiency tests that we get, sometimes you are comparing, you know, two or three different items to each other, so you may not just have one, this one.

Okay.

As far as our hair proficiency tests, we usually have like ten known hairs that we are comparing to a questioned hair, so there are several comparisons that you actually do; not just a one-on-one.

Okay. Is ten pretty much the limit in terms of the number of questioned hairs that you ever might examine at one time to compare with a known hair?

There is no limit. As far as case work goes, it is a case by case basis. You can examine many, many questioned hairs compared to a known or vice versa. You can have one questioned hair compared to many known standards, but there is no limit on the number.

Okay. Do you keep any kind of record that allows you to compare a hair that you are looking at in one case with something that you might have looked at a year ago?

Umm, other than these hair work sheets that I fill out, that is my written record, but again, you don't perform a hair comparison on paper. You need to do a visual comparison.

So you really don't, just because of the nature of this kind of analysis, you don't have the ability to say, gee, I saw a hair like that two years ago in a case and then go get that case?

If you had a memory that good, you could go get that case and examine the hair side-by-side.

You don't, do you?

Not generally, no.

I mean, it is not like fingerprints, for instance, where you--there is a uniform way to characterize fingerprints and there is computers that have everybody's fingerprints in them that have been fingerprinted and you can go off and say have you ever seen this print before?

No such system like that?

No.

Are there any databases at all that allow you to look at a particular characteristic in a hair and tell you how common or rare it is?

I don't believe so.

Now, with hairs you indicated that when you collect an exemplar you collect a representative sample from all over the head?

That's correct.

And that is because in one head you are going to have different kind of hairs?

Correct.

There is no uniformity, no uniqueness one hair to the other in a single person?

Well, you generally do see a lot of similarities.

But there may be a lot of differences, too?

But there is usually a range of all of those characteristics that you observe. You will usually see a range. I don't just see one, you know, carbon copy on every hair. That is just not how it is.

It is not like DNA where every cell in the body has the same DNA?

Correct, it is not like that.

This technology we are not counting molecules here; we are looking at very general things?

Objection, vague.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

We are not doing any kind of molecular analysis with hair and fibers; we are looking at very general categories, correct?

Yes.

Objection, that is vague, too.

Overruled.

Would a good analogy for hair analysis be that it is like looking at a leaf and trying to match it up to a specific tree in the sense that a particular tree might have different kind of leaves that look a little different?

Objection, compound, vague, unintelligible.

Sustained.

Do you understand the analogy of picking up a leaf from the ground and trying to match it to a tree?

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence she ever has.

Overruled.

Umm, yes, I understand that.

And like a leaf, you could look at one leaf on a tree and it may not look the same, but it still might come from the same tree?

If you picked up a leaf and it didn't look like the leaves on a tree I wouldn't think--

Let's say an oak leaf, but it doesn't look exactly like the one that came from that tree. It still could have come from that tree and still have a different look?

Objection, calls for speculation, irrelevant.

Sustained.

Now, I want to ask you about exclusions with hair analysis. You are familiar with--you have done some conventional serology work in your past, have you not?

No, I have not.

Okay. You are generally familiar with some of the things that are done in conventional serology?

Generally familiar, yes.

And if you have--if you are doing genetic marker testing and you find a genetic marker in your evidence that is different from your known, you know you've got an exclusion?

Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Now, with hair analysis, you can't necessarily, if you see one hair that looks--has some different characteristics from another hair, that doesn't necessarily mean they are excluded, does it?

Objection, vague.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

You have an evidence hair and it doesn't look exactly like a suspect hair or a known hair, that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't come from the same source, does it?

Same objection, vague.

Overruled.

Well, the point of doing a hair comparison is looking at a known sample, getting an idea of the range of characteristics in that known sample and then comparing that questioned hair to it. If--if the questioned hair is different, then you can exclude it from coming from that source.

Well, let me ask it a different way. If you take an exemplar from somebody and you only take a couple of hairs from one part of the head and you have an evidence hair and it doesn't look identical, that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't come from that person, just from a different part of the head.

Objection, irrelevant, improper hypothetical.

Overruled.

Also assumes fact not in evidence.

Proceed.

Am I accurate?

Umm, if you your exemplar that you are dealing with is not an adequate exemplar, then I would agree, yes.

Okay. So if you don't have enough exemplar to make up your known sample, even--even what might be an exclusion or might appear to be an exclusion can be somewhat equivocal as well, if you don't have enough known sample to compare it to?

Objection, irrelevant, calls for speculation.

That will be correct.

Okay. Now, with respect to the exemplar that you took from Mr. Simpson, you counted and you had taken 93 hairs?

Yes.

Have you taken exemplars from suspects in other cases?

Yes, I have.

Do you always take in the area of ninety to a hundred hairs when you take an exemplar from somebody?

I usually try to get a minimum of thirty and I generally don't count them, because under this--in this case the reason I counted them was because I was working under a court order where I was given a ceiling, a number of a hundred hairs but generally I don't count, but I usually attempt to get at least thirty.

So the number that you got here was three times more than what you normally attempt to get?

Objection, that misstates the testimony.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

You normally try to get thirty hairs, at least thirty?

A minimum, yes.

You got ninety hairs, so you got three times your minimum?

Yes.

Now, when you collect exemplar hairs, you convert those into slides so that you can do comparisons, correct?

Yes.

And did you do that with Mr. Simpson's hair?

Umm, I did mount some of his hairs when I was back at the FBI lab.

And did Mr. Deedrick mount some also to your knowledge?

Yes, I do think he mounted some additional slides.

How many slides were made, exemplar slides for Mr. Simpson?

I don't know.

Do you have that information in your record?

I may have some. Let me just check.

I mounted five slides, each with five hairs on them, and then I believe Mr. Deedrick mounted additional hairs.

Do you know how many slides he mounted?

No, I don't.

Now, the exemplars that you took from the various police officers, approximately how many hairs did you take from them?

Again I was attempting to get a minimum of thirty.

So you did not take as many hairs--or did you take as many hairs from the police officers as you took from Mr. Simpson?

I didn't count them.

How many slides did you make of the exemplars of the police officers for comparison purposes?

I made none.

How many did Mr. Deedrick make?

I don't know.

Is--do you generally put the same number of hairs on a slide as Mr. Deedrick does?

No.

I think you indicated yesterday that you do one to five and he does several?

Yes.

I'm not sure what the difference is.

Well, umm, I--I do generally put one to five hairs on a slide, and when I mount that slide. I actually use a system to where I can identify each single hair on that slide based on a numbering system. The slide I give a number. For instance, the first slide I mount would be no. 1 and then I would have a lettering system a through E, if I have five--five hairs on that slide. Starting from the end of the slide you have A, B, C, D, E, so I space them out on the slide. Mr. Deedrick I believe mounts hairs, many, several, many, I don't know the right terminology, but on a slide and some of those hairs may be overlapping and such on the slide. He doesn't specifically number every hair that is on that slide like I do.

So the slides that you make, you have the ability, once you have done the work, to actually look at an individual hair by itself, not obscured or covered over or overlapped by another hair, correct?

There may be a little overlap, but you can tell which hair you are talking about.

And you provide some sort of letter identification so that if you look at hair C from that slide today and make some sort of comparison or observations, you can come back six months from now or a year from now and pick out the specific hair you were thinking of and you were looking at when you made those notes, can't you?

Yes.

You can't do that with Mr. Deedrick's slides, can you?

Objection--

I'm sorry.

Is it a lot more time consuming to make slides that way?

Yes.

That is the proper way to do it, isn't it?

Objection. That is argumentative.

Overruled.

Umm, I don't know if there is a proper and improper way of mounting slides. That is the way that I was taught to mount slides at LAPD.

Okay. Now, you prepared five slides, exemplar slides of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Deedrick prepared some additional slides, correct?

Yes.

Did you feel it was necessary to have five slides to give you a representative sampling of Mr. Simpson's hair for a comparison purposes?

Umm, actually Mr. Deedrick asked me to mount 25 hairs, which is what I did.

Okay. And you felt it was necessary to have that many slides or that many hairs for a proper comparison?

Not necessarily. In the past I have mounted as few as eight to ten hairs for a comparison, so 25 is a reasonable number to mount. Depending on the variation you see in a person's hair, you may want to mount, you know, up to a hundred hairs. If there is not a lot of variation, you can mount as few as eight.

And the more that you use for exemplar purposes, the better your ability to make an unequivocal statement that we have an exclusion or we have a similarity?

I--

Because you've got a good representative of a person's head hair?

Right. I would agree with that.

And would you agree that the fewer number of hairs that you have on a slide, the less your ability to make an unequivocal statement about exclusion or inclusion?

Objection. That is overbroad.

Overruled.

Calls for speculation.

Umm, the fewer hairs you have in an exemplar?

Yeah.

I would agree, yes.

Would you ever use, using the procedures that you have been trained to use, only two slides for an exemplar for comparison purposes from a single individual?

Counsel, that question is vague, because we don't know how many hairs are on each slide.

Well, let me ask you about then the number of hairs in a slide. Obviously--let me ask you, if you have a lot of hairs on one slide, that hampers your ability to really make an individual analysis of each individual hair, doesn't it?

Objection, vague. Hampers her or someone else?

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

For you if you are looking at a slide that has a whole bunch of hairs in one slide that may be overlapped and not marked, that hampers your ability to do a very specific comparison or analysis of each individual hair, doesn't it?

Objection, irrelevant.

"A whole bunch" doesn't help us a lot. Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please.