All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

Thank you, your Honor.

Miss Brockbank, you indicated in your notes when you did that, that a video was taken, did you not?

Umm, can I look at my notes?

Sure.

(Witness complies.) Yes, I did.

Now, at some point you described, and we mentioned this briefly before, the police officers were sent back to Mr. Goldman's apartment to look for hair exemplars from a hairbrush, correct?

Umm, actually it wasn't Mr. Goldman's apartment; it was to his parent's home.

His family. And the purpose of doing that was just to find an exemplar, additional exemplars, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the March 4th visit to the lab where I was present and other people were present who you described yesterday. Do you remember that?

Yes.

Was it your understanding that the purpose of that visit was for members of the Defense to examine articles that were there at the lab made available to us?

Yes.

Were you present when the boxes were opened that had come back from Albany?

Umm, I don't know if I was there when the boxes were opened or not. I was in the room where you were looking at paper bags, which was separate from the room where they were looking at evidence.

Was one of your responsibilities that day to make sure that all of the bindles containing possible hair and trace evidence that were supposed to be in those boxes were actually there?

Umm, no. I was just asked to observe and take notes of what was being examined.

Who had that responsibility?

Objection, calls for speculation.

Also assumes facts not in evidence. Rephrase the question.

Do you know if anyone had that responsibility?

I don't know.

Did you at some time during that day become aware that a bindle was missing from the box?

I believe someone mentioned that, yes.

Objection.

Okay. Do you recall that--

Objection, hearsay, motion to strike.

Overruled.

--a bindle that Dr. Lee had put in the box of debris from the hat, the knit cap?

I remember--

Same objection. Same objection. Hearsay, calls for speculation.

Overruled.

All right. That will be stricken then as hearsay. The jury is to disregard.

Have you ever made any effort to locate any bindles that are unaccounted for from that evidence?

No, I have not.

Are you aware of your own personal knowledge of anyone conducting any kind of an inquiry at LAPD or the D.A.'s office to try and find any missing bindles?

Objection. This calls for speculation, hearsay, no foundation, assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled.

Umm, I am not aware of that.

Miss Brockbank, I want to ask you some questions about the socks, item no. 13. You indicated that at some point, I believe it was on August 4th, that Collin Yamauchi directed your attention to some fibrous material on the socks?

Yes.

Now, you had examined some evidence for hair and trace evidence from this case on June 21st, correct?

Yes.

June 23rd?

Yes.

July 27th?

Umm, yes.

Any other dates before August 4th that you had specifically been assigned the duty to examine evidence for hair and trace evidence?

Umm, I could go through my book and read you all the dates.

Okay. There are other dates, aren't there?

Probably, yes.

How many times between when you started working on the case on the 21st and August 4th did you conduct examinations of the physical evidence in this case for hair and trace evidence?

Just give me an approximate number of times.

Umm, maybe twenty. I don't know if that--if even that many. I would really have to count through my notes to give you an exact number.

Is that probably close, twenty times?

I think that would be close.

And these socks, item 13, were contained in what box?

Umm, box no. 2.

And after June 21st, when you got box no. 2, until August 4th, where did that box--where was that box kept?

In the serology freezer.

So it was never sent back to the evidence processing--evidence control unit to be re-bar coded into their security system, was it?

Not to my knowledge.

Between June 21st and August 4th you never looked at the socks, did you?

No.

Did anyone direct you to look at the socks between June 21st and August 4th?

No.

Now, on August 4th I take it you were examining items at--in the trace unit?

Yes.

What items were you examining?

Can I refer to my notes?

Sure.

(Witness complies.) Actually the only notes I have for August 4th is just the removal of evidence from those socks, so I must have been working on other cases that day.

So you weren't even in the process of looking for evidence in this case for hair and trace evidence, were you?

No.

Now, do you know how Mr. Yamauchi or at what point he went and got the socks from box no. 2?

No.

When he summoned you to the serology unit, he already had the socks in front of him out of the bag?

Yes.

Both socks together?

Yes.

On the same piece of paper?

Yes.

Being examined at the same time?

Yes.

And he came to ask you to look at something on the socks, correct?

Yes.

And you looked and you saw--

Some fibrous material.

What was that material?

Something that could be a fiber or a hair, I'm not really sure just by looking at it, so I call it fibrous.

Okay. It is not like a clump of anything, is it?

It could be. It could be a clump.

It is very small, wasn't it?

I don't recall it being very large.

Now, do you know whether or not Mr. Yamauchi--let me rephrase this. Did you see the bag in which or the envelope in which the socks had been stored?

Umm, I believe there was a bag, umm, off to the side on--you know, off to the side of that piece of paper, on the piece of paper.

He was taking no precautions whatsoever to protect one sock from cross-contaminating the other, was he?

And that is because they had already been cross-contaminated by being stored together, right?

Objection, that assumes--

Sustained.

They had been stored together, hadn't they? Isn't that your understanding?

Yes.

Now, I think you testified yesterday that after you took that fibrous material off of the sock you changed your glove, your gloves and the paper? Did you say that?

Umm, I don't know that I said that after the socks.

I mean, you left the socks there with Collin Yamauchi, didn't you?

Yes, I did.

Did you see whether or not he changed his gloves before he went on to another item or changed paper?

Umm, since I had left the room, no, I don't know what he did after I left.

Did you notice whether or not the sock, once Collin Yamauchi had taken them out of the bag and put them down on the paper together, whether they were turned inside out or inside in?

Do you know whether or not the fibrous material that you took was on the inside or the outside?

Umm, no.

And I take it you don't whether it was the right sock or the left sock?

Or the left sock, that would be correct also.

Now, I want to ask you some questions about the gloves. You measured the evidence gloves, I'm talking about the Rockingham and Bundy glove, for the first time on June 21st, correct?

Yes.

And they were dry at the time you measured them, correct?

Yes.

Now, would you agree that there was a difference between the Bundy glove and the Rockingham glove in terms of the apparent bloodstains on them?

Yes.

There was less apparent bloodstains on the Bundy glove than on the Rockingham glove?

Umm, it--as I recall, the--the Bundy glove, which was 37--

Uh-huh.

--had kind of a heavy stain near the wrist area, and the other glove, the Rockingham glove, just seemed kind of not as--not a real heavy stain in any one location that I recall, but just kind of an all-over stain look to it.

There were unequal amounts of apparent blood between the two gloves?

That's how it appeared to me, yes.

When you measured those two gloves on the 21st, the two evidence gloves, they were the same size, weren't they?

On the 21st they--

Approximately?

They were within a half an inch. All the measurements were within a half an inch.

Well, they were closer than that, weren't they?

I think it was a half an inch.

Okay.

Yes. There were some fingers that were as far off as a half an inch in measurement.

Which is bigger?

Item no. 37, which was the Bundy glove, was bigger than the other one.

In how many fingers?

In every finger except the thumb. The thumb the measurement was--well, no. Actually it was bigger in the thumb. Umm, on the--on item no. 9 I had described how the thumb measurement I took two measurements. If the edge was actually folded under, it was six inches. If the edge was laid out in the distorted fashion that it wanted to lay, it was six and a half inches, whereas the item no. 37 in its normal state folded under was six and a half inches, so--

Okay. Now, you measured those gloves again, the evidence gloves, just a couple days ago, didn't you?

Yes, I did.

And that was right here back in the jury room, wasn't it?

Yes.

The evidence gloves just a couple days ago were the same size approximately as they were a year ago, correct?

Umm, there was a little bit of variation. Right glove was actually a little bit bigger--the Rockingham glove was a little bit bigger than it was a year ago, correct?

Yes.

And those gloves that you had had been frozen quite a number of times between when you measured them last year and you measured them a couple of days ago, correct?

I would imagine so.

There was no indication that freezing and thawing had caused those gloves to change size in any respect, correct?

Objection, that calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Was there anything done to those gloves other than freezing and thawing--well, let me withdraw that. And you have no way, no personal knowledge that the gloves, the evidence gloves, were any different in size on June the 12th than they were on June the 21st, 1994, when they were measured for the first time, do you?

Objection again, calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Could you repeat that question.

You have no knowledge, no personal knowledge indicating that those gloves, the evidence gloves, were any different size on June the 12th, the night of the murders, than they were on just the 21st when they were first measured by your agency?

Umm, since I did not measure them on the 12th, I have no idea what size they were on that night.

Now, you were asked to measure some extra large gloves that Miss Clark had upstairs a couple days ago, were you not?

Say that again.

Down here you were asked to measure some extra large gloves, Aris Isotoner gloves, that Miss Clark gave you a couple of days ago in the courtroom, correct?

I believe it was in her office.

And would you agree that the measurements you took of each of those two gloves, the new gloves, they were both considerably larger than the evidence gloves?

Yes, they were.

And in fact those two gloves differed from left hand to right hand? They weren't a uniform size, were they?

Which two gloves are we talking about?

The new extra largest that you looked at that Miss Clark--

Could I refer to my notes?

Sure.

Those two gloves did show a little variation from one to the other to within a quarter of an inch.

They were both substantially larger than the evidence gloves?

Yes, they were.

And you have no objection?

Objection, "Substantially larger.". The measurements speak for themselves.

Overruled.

And you have no information indicating that the evidence gloves shrank or shrunk between just the 21st of 1994 and when you measured them one year later, do you?

Objection, speculation.

Sustained.

Now, you are aware of the efforts made in this case to try and identify shoeprints left at the crime scene, are you not?

Umm, somewhat.

And the extensive efforts to try and find any record indicating that Mr. Simpson ever owned a particular pair of shoes?

Objection, your Honor. This is beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Did you or anyone with the Los Angeles Police Department, to your knowledge, attempt to determine whether hairs consistent with Mr. Simpson were present on any blankets in the condo?

I was not asked to do that.

Any bedding in the condo?

I was not asked to look at any bedding.

I'm talking about the Bundy condo.

Yeah. I was not asked to look at any bedding.

Any clothing in the Bundy condo?

I was not asked to look at any.

Any old hats or head gear belonging to Mr. Simpson that might have been at the Bundy condo?

Could you repeat that?

Were you ever asked or anybody at Los Angeles Police Department ever asked, to your knowledge, to examine any hats that might have belonged to Mr. Simpson that might be present at Bundy?

Objection, that calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, "That might be."

Sustained.

Were you or anyone at LAPD ever asked to check on whether Mr. Simpson's children had any of his clothing at Nicole's condo?

I was not asked to do that.

Were you or anyone at LAPD ever asked to check the carpeting in Nicole Brown Simpson's condo to see what kind it was?

Again, I was not asked to do that.

Were you or anyone ever asked to check the carpeting in the cars she owned to see if they had tan carpeting?

Again, no, I was not asked to do that.

Were you or anyone at LAPD, to your knowledge, ever asked to check the outside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condo in the soil areas to determine what kind of hairs and fibers might be there through normal traffic in that area?

Again, I was not asked to do that.

Did you or anyone at LAPD, to your knowledge, ever try to find out the type or color of carpeting in the car that Mr. Goldman rode to Nicole Brown Simpson's condo that night?

I was not asked to do that.

Did you or anyone else ever check, to your knowledge, to see what kind carpeting are in cars possessed or owned by the brown family who might have been frequent visitors at Nicole's condo?

I was not asked to do that.

Any cars belonging to any people that might have been frequent visitors to Nicole's condo?

I was not asked to look at any of that.

Were you ever asked to look at the carpeting in Ronald Goldman's apartment?

No.

Were you ever asked to look at any carpeting of service vehicles that might have been at Nicole's condo before the murders?

No.

Were you or anyone at LAPD, to your knowledge, asked to look at carpeting in police vehicles that might have been at the Bundy scene to determine whether they had tan carpets?

I was not asked to do that.

Was anyone, to your knowledge, asked to look, to check at the homes of the police officers that were at the crime scene to see whether they had tan carpeting there?

I don't know if anyone was. I was not.

Did you or anyone at LAPD make any effort at all to try and find out who manufactured the carpet in Mr. Simpson's Bronco?

Umm, no one at LAPD, to my knowledge, did, as far as the crime lab goes.

How about any attempt to locate other manufacturers that produced the same kind of tan carpet?

Objection. This is all beyond the scope of her testimony.

Overruled.

I did not and no one in LAPD did, to my knowledge.

I'm sorry?

To my knowledge.

Any effort that you are aware of to try and find out how much of that carpeting exists?

Umm, again, I did not do that and no one at LAPD did, to my knowledge.

Is it accurate to say that the reason none of that was done is because the fiber in the carpeting is extremely common and it would be very difficult to establish where it might be found and where it might not be found?

Objection. That calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Was any effort made, to your knowledge, by either yourself or LAPD, to try and find the availability or commonness of any fiber found in this case?

Objection. LAPD didn't do the comparisons.

Sustained. Speaking objection.

I'm sorry.

The ground is relevance, scope.

Yes.

Did you do any such research?

No, I did not.

Same objection.

Too late.

Would this be a good spot, Mr. Blasier?

Yes. And then may we approach after?

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. all right. And Miss Brockbank, 1:00 P.M., please.