All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Miss Brockbank, would you resume the witness stand, please. And the record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. All right. Mr. Blasier.
Miss Brockbank, I would like to ask you some questions about the carpet sample. That is item no. 33, is it not?
Umm, I didn't measure it, but it is probably two to three feet long and a foot and a half to two feet across.
Would it be fair to say that it probably has thousands and thousands of fibers in it from the Bronco?
Now, did you take note--when you ultimately examined it did you take note of the edges of where it was cut in terms of how much of the circumference around it was carpet as opposed to rubber matting? You know what I'm asking?
And did you make any note of what cutting device was used on the carpeting to see how rough or smooth the edge was?
Is it your experience, in working with fiber evidence, that fibers from a carpet like that come off?
And particularly if you cut along an edge of a carpet like that, it tends to cause things along the edges to fall off, too, doesn't it?
So it was stored, the first time you saw it, it was wrapped up in a piece of paper?
Had you been given some instructions to examine just those items and no other items?
So you did not conduct a close inspection of the carpet or the container that it was wrapped in, did you?
When you say "Sealed," did you examine it carefully to determine that every seam in the paper that might lead to the inside was covered with tape?
Not every seam. I mean, it was closed with tape. Umm, there were no, you know, large gaps. I couldn't see any carpet sticking out of any orifices.
But you didn't carefully check each possible opening in the seam, did you, for tape?
Now, you had no knowledge at that time that you might be comparing fibers from that object with evidence items that were contained in the same box, did you?
Now, that carpet fiber, you have seen individual fibers from the Bronco carpet, haven't you?
Now, that box that contained the carpet wrapped up in paper was the same box that contained the Rockingham glove in a paper bag, correct?
So is it fair to say that you did not conduct a careful examination of the inside of the box to see whether there might be any carpet fibers that have gotten out of the package or under the package in the corners of the box?
What is the first thing did you after you opened that box was to look at the Rockingham glove?
The first thing I did after opening the box? I believe I examined the hats first and then the gloves.
Yes. Well, I mean no, I opened the bag, I looked in the bag, I see the glove, so I took the glove out.
Okay. So you take the glove out and did you examine the glove or did you examine the bag or do you remember?
Well, I took the glove out, laid it on my piece of paper and then I looked in the bag again.
Could you tell when you looked in the bag, before you emptied it, whether there was a tan carpet fiber in the debris in the bag?
When you emptied out the bag, can I assume that you held it with one hand and had the other hand out like I'm doing and dumped the bag out into your hand?
I held the bag with one hand and I--reached in with the other and got what I could see and kind of tapped the bag over a piece--a piece of paper.
So in addition to reaching in and removing something, you tapped the bag so that anything that might be on the bag would go on the paper?
Did you note whether--once everything was on the paper, did you see a tan carpet fiber or tan fiber?
You have no way of knowing if there was a tan fiber in there, whether it came from the inside or the outside of the glove bag, do you?
You wouldn't--would you agree that it is not an appropriate procedure, had you known, to store that large piece of carpet in the same box with evidence items from which you are going to ultimately do some comparison?
Okay. Would you want to keep those separate before you do any kind of comparison to prevent the possibility that they got cross-contaminated without you knowing about it?
Now, paper bags a lot of time with this kind of evidence are used because they are porous and they allow air to go through to dry things? Is that why paper bags are used?
But paper bags have a lot of seams and creases in them on the inside and outside that can catch things, don't they?
Where the bottom is kind of glued shut, I guess there are some creases there, yes.
That is one of the reasons why rather than just reaching in and looking in and getting debris, you tap it to make sure that things that might have adhered to the inside or outside fall out?
Well, I'm trying to get things from the inside, but there may inadvertently be something on the outside.
The sample--the debris that was on the paper after you turned the bag over from the Rockingham glove, did you assign that a number?
And item no. 110 was all of the things that you had removed, all the debris that you had removed from that particular glove over the various times that you hooked at it?
That particular bindle, when you went to Washington, that was one of the ones that you took with you, was it not?
And was that opened by Mr. Deedrick in your presence or opened by you in his presence?
And he marked each of the bindles that you had prepared from not only that item but other items were marked right at that time when they were opened?
What was the marking given? What was the number given to that particular bindle, that is, the one--the debris from the Rockingham glove bag that you turned over and tapped?
It was given a Q number and I don't know it off the top of my head and I didn't record it in my notes.
Now, FBI number is indicated as Q3A, B and C. Is that consistent with your recollection?
Again, I didn't make any note of it. According to the chart, that is the number he assigned.
Can you look at the picture--each bindle was marked Q3A, B or C, was it not, in your presence?
Can you see that picture closely enough to tell what the marking was on the debris from the bag on the Rockingham glove?
Umm, the descriptions of the bindles are actually on the other side of the bindles.
So I can't really tell you. They are marked Q3A, B and C, but I don't know which one is A, which one is B and which one is C.
Now, you on, was it, two other occasions that you examined that particular glove and removed debris from the glove?
Let me--I have a picture of what is on the board. Can we put that on the elmo so we can get that kind of straight?
Your Honor, Miss Clark is prepared to stipulate that that debris item is Q3C, and we will double-check just to make sure.
Now, the debris that was in that bag or that wound up on the paper on the table, you have no way of knowing when that or if it even came off of the glove, do you?
Umm, the glove is the only item that was in that bag so I would feel fairly certain that it did come off that glove, yes.
When it came off the glove? Sometime after or during the process of putting it in the bag, I would guess.
Okay. But you--the procedure that is used at SID--well, let me withdraw that. Your procedure is that when you remove debris from an evidence item you put it in a separate bindle rather than just putting it back in the bag with the original item, correct?
And do you also do that if you are examining an item like you did with the Rockingham glove and find debris in the bag, you preserve that in a separate bindle marked, dated, initialed, so that you can go back and reconstruct when that debris got there, don't you?
Now, when you are examining an item and debris winds up on your paper, sometimes you just pour it back in the bag rather than putting it in a separate bindle, correct?
I think you described sometimes. For instance, I think when you were examining the shirt or maybe some of the other clothing items where you put them on the paper to examine them, put them back in their bag, and if you see any debris on the paper you fold a crease in the bottom of it and pour it back in the bag?
When you examined the Rockingham glove after preserving the debris in the bag, did you ever see a tan carpet fiber from the glove?
I may have seen a tan carpet fiber, but not recognized it as such. When I was examining, you know, the item and picking off hairs and fibers, as I'm picking them up I'm seeing them, but I may not know them for what they are as far as a tan carpet fiber, so it may have been there, but I didn't know until later that there was a tan carpet fiber there.
You are not aware of anything that you picked off the glove that was a tan carpet fiber?
Now, when you looked at the Rockingham glove, one of the things that you told us you did is that you removed some debris from the wrist area?
Umm, I believe it was hairs and fibers, and as I recall, it was kind of stuck to the glove.
Now, you indicated that the wrist was folded up and disturbed in some fashion I think is what you said. Do you remember that?
And when you say "Folded up," do you mean that it looked like it had been maybe turned over as if someone were looking at the edging or the seam or the inside part around the wrist?
I mean the--like the hem was kind of pulled out--out of shape, it was distorted.
And then you did examine the hem itself and saw that some of the thread from the hem had been taken out?
So you don't know whether that was done by Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola or Collin Yamauchi before you got the glove?
Umm, I don't know if it was done by anyone or whether that was just damage to the glove that existed when it was collected.
Have you ever seen a picture of the Rockingham glove after it was collected from Rockingham and after it got to the lab but before it got to you?
Umm, I probably looked at it when I was in the lab. I think Dennis Fung had some photographs of the gloves taken after collecting it, but before I got it.
Do you know whether those pictures were taken before or after he examined the Rockingham glove at the lab?
Now, in the bag with the Rockingham glove, was there a hair bindle that had been removed by Dennis Fung?
Do you remember the pictures that you saw of the glove at the lab before you got it? Did it have Collin Yamauchi's initials around the wrist area?
When you examined the Rockingham glove for debris did you just do a visual exam or did you use any kind of magnifying device?
Did you do a close visual exam like you have described for the knit cap where you hold it up to your eyes and roll every part of it so that you can see everything that is on it?
Is that generally in your experience satisfactory for seeing hairs and fibers that you need to collect?
Do you remember seeing anything on the Rockingham glove, at the time that you did that close examination, that looked like tissue?
Umm, I remember seeing what appeared to be blood, but tissue specifically, not that I recall.
And would it be part of your procedure that had you seen something like that you would have preserved it or called it to somebody's attention or made some record of it?
You described in some detail how you examined the hat, both inside and out, and I was a little confused by some of the steps. Did you look at the outside of the cap first?
And did you do that close examination that you described to us on the outside of the cap first?
And presumably the inside of the hat was exposed to the paper while you are looking at the outside or did you make some effort to keep the inside of the hat from being exposed to the paper? Do you understand what I'm asking?
So is it possible that you held it in a way that debris from the inside might fall down on the paper?
Possibly. I don't remember observing anything falling, just only what I was picking off.
Just to the side, so I was holding the hat here, there was a large piece of paper here, and the bindle was right to the side here, (Indicating).
Now, the hairs and fibers that you picked off the inside of the hat, what did you do with those?
Now, that separate paper bindle, was that sitting on the table right next to the hat?
Umm, like I--well, not completely. It is a tri-fold, three--you know, both ways and I would fold it over one way, not the complete folding.
And was the bindle from the outside hairs that you had collected and fibers also sitting there at the same time?
Now, I think you described that after you went through that process, you then scraped the outside or shook it gently?
Yes, just--just gently kind of scraped with my hands to see. Well, I did the inside first as far as the scraping goes.
Umm, again, I may have seen them and not recognized them for what they were. Umm--
KEY QUOTEOkay. And the tan--the color tan is substantially different than the color of the cap; is it not?
Would that make it easier to see a tan fiber, that color hat, than if it were a closer color to the hat?
Umm, it would make it easier to see, I would think, but when I am removing trace evidence I'm not making a note of every little thing that I'm seeing.
--so, I may have seen it, it may have been there. I may have removed it and just not made that cognitive note of it.
Umm, I believe I made three; one of the hairs and fibers removed from the inside, one from hairs and fibers removed from the outside and I believe there was one with debris, plant material.
Was that debris that had been in the bag or debris that had fallen off while you were doing your examination or debris that you had separated from hair and fiber?
Umm, I don't really recall. I think it could have been a combination of all of those.
And do you feel fairly confident that from your careful examination of the cap that you noticed and removed all of the hairs and fibers of interest from that cap?
Okay. Umm, that item of evidence was taken to the FBI by you in August to be examined by you and Mr. Deedrick, correct?
How did he examine the hat? Just briefly describe what technique he used to examine the hat.
Umm, he had it on a lab bench which he had covered with paper and I believe he used a magnifying device to observe the hat and he was rolling it between his fingers looking and picking things out. I don't remember if he scraped it or not. I don't really recall that.
Now, he prepared a bindle of additional things that he found on the hat that you hadn't, did he not?
And were you present at the lab when he was examining items of evidence that had come from the Bronco; namely, the shovel, the plastic bag and the towel?
Umm, I was present there while he examined quite a lot of evidence, and--but I wasn't, you know, standing over his shoulder every minute. I was in other--in another part of the lab and he kind of called me over when he found something interesting he wanted me to look at, basically.
Is it accurate that he examined many things from the Bronco just prior to the time that he examined the knit cap or do you know?
You indicated that you found some animal hairs inside the Bundy glove. Do you remember that?
And with animal hairs again you are looking at some characteristics to the hair; color as well, correct?
Dogs are a little more difficult to do comparisons with because they may have several different colors in their coats, correct?
Okay. When you found the animal hair inside the Bundy glove, do you remember how far inside the glove it was?
Now, is that assuming, assuming the dog wasn't wearing a glove, of how hair and fiber from one source through several transfers can wind up in another place such as inside a glove?
So would you agree that the fact that you might find a hair inside of something like a glove doesn't necessarily mean it came from a hand inside the glove?
You described, when you examined Mr. Goldman's jeans, that they were heavily soiled. Do you remember that?
Umm, I don't remember specifically what locations, but I do remember there was a heavily soiled area.
Well, did you notice whether it was limited to one side, the same side of the jeans that the body was found on? Did you make any note of that?
I didn't make any note of that. I don't--at that point in time I don't know that I had ever seen the photographs. I don't really know how the body was laying, but I do vaguely remember that there was like a concentration in one general area. I don't remember what area.
Did you ever conduct an examination to determine whether any buttons had been ripped off of his shirt?
You can tell by looking at thread from where a button come off whether it has been ripped off a shirt or cut off, can't you?
Did anyone, to your knowledge, examine the shirt to determine whether any buttons were missing?
Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the bags that came from the Coroner's office with the clothing.
Umm, that would be the same date that I examined the clothing, which would have been July 27th.
Umm, and those were bags that were--did not have the clothing in them, but had been stored in the same--was it in a box? Was all the clothing in one box?
All the victim's clothing was in one box. Each item was in its own individual bag and then there was this bundle of bags from the Coroner's office.
And it was your understanding that the bags that the clothing were in had been supplied by Denise Lewis or she had put the clothing from the Coroner's bags into new bags?
As far as you know, was your examination of the old bags the first one that--the first examination that was done at LAPD to see whether there was any debris in the bags?
Now, with items of clothing especially, let's say, a pair of pants that is heavily soiled, has a lot of blood on it, those are the kind of items that can very easily shed things when they are put in bags, taken out of bags, put back in bags, can't they?
Would you expect to find debris in a bag, if it contained an article like that, for any significant period of time?
Now, the clothing had been at the Coroner's office from June 14th until the lab received it on the 27th? Is that your understanding?
(Witness complies.) Umm, no, I examined the jeans first, then the socks, then the shirt.
Is it your understanding that the socks were in a different bag at the Coroner's office from the jeans?
Oh, I think maybe I'm thinking of something different. Umm, did you say when I examined the clothing or the original bags of clothing were in?
Original bag from the Coroner's office that the clothing had been while it was at the Coroner's office?
Okay. Now, when you examined, however, the bag that had contained the shirt, there was debris in it, as you might expect, was there not?
When you examined the bag that had supposedly contained the pants and the socks of Ronald Goldman, there was no debris in it, was there?
KEY QUOTEIs it fair to say that it was consistent--the appearance of that bag was consistent with nothing like the pant and the sock having been in it and shed any debris?
And when you examined the bag from the Coroner's office that had supposedly contained Nicole Brown Simpson's dress and panties, there was nothing in it, was there?
You have no way of knowing--you have no personal knowledge, no way of knowing whether or not the victim's clothing at some point was all stored in the same bag, do you?
When you were back in Washington you testified that a number of things had--a number of exemplar samples were sent back from here while you were there, correct?
And they included exemplars, fibers taken from various places in the Bronco, correct?
Umm, I may have been in the lab. Again, I wasn't standing over his shoulder watching him work.
Do you know whether or not those exemplars contained many different kind of fibers from the Bronco, in addition to just the tan nylon fiber?
You told us about how a very, very small fiber had been removed from a piece of tissue at the Coroner's office. Do you remember that?
Umm, there was a videotape. I don't recall really whether it was black and white or not. It may have been black and white. It was made by Steve Dowell.
And the videotape was to preserve him or you removing this fiber from this piece of tissue?
it probably would not be my first choice
I don't think many dogs wear gloves.
I may have seen them and not recognized them for what they were... I may have removed it and just not made that cognitive note of it.
When you examined the bag that had supposedly contained the pants and the socks of Ronald Goldman, there was no debris in it, was there?