You described earlier, Miss Brockbank, some damage that you saw to the hem of the glove, item no. 9, the glove from Rockingham?
Showing you the item that's been marked People's 454. Awfully dark. Do you see the hem of that glove depicted in 454?
Umm, yes. That--this photograph, just below the corner where the two rulers meet, you can see an area where the hemline is disturbed and you can even see a loose thread there, though you can't see it very well.
Yes. You can see that loose thread going right across the top, and still your overhead is not that clear, but the hem is--
Well, I mean for the jury, it's not that clear. I can see it on my monitor. But you can't really see it very well here. The hem is actually loose in that area and that thread that you see on this monitor is from that hem being loose.
Now, you described earlier, you kept saying that the hem would--the way it would lie by itself, the way it wanted to lie?
That it basically folded up flat so that the actual edge of the leather was now at the rim of that opening rather than the fold that would be there if the hem was in place.
And it seemed to--when you just let it lie down by itself, it would lie with the hem hanging down?
You described also item no. 19 as the hair that was contained in the coin envelope which was placed in there by Dennis Fung.
KEY QUOTEShowing you People's 455, do you recognize what's shown to you in this photograph bearing the item--the name--the words, "Item 19"?
It appears to be the hairs and fibers, item 19, that had been removed by Dennis Fung.
And is that the way they appeared when you examined them on June the 14th--excuse me--June the 21st?
All right. Now, before you actually saw the gloves on June the 21st, had Collin Yamauchi already examined at least one of those gloves?
Now, you indicated that as far as the bloodstain appearance goes, item no. 9, the Rockingham glove looked different to you.
With respect to item no. 9, the Rockingham glove, did you observe blood there--there to be blood on the fingers of that glove?
KEY QUOTEOkay. Now, being shown on the elmo and on your monitor right now is photograph 452. Can you see any evidence of the discoloration you're speaking of on the finger of the glove?
With respect to item no. 37, the Bundy glove, did you observe in my office over the noon hour a tag dated June the 14th, 1994, with the initials, "Mw," underneath which there were photographs of the Bundy glove?
KEY QUOTEIt's a part of--part of a form filled out by our photo lab. It's dated 6-14-94 with the initials, "Mw," and then "Sid crime lab" as the location.
And showing you 457, are you familiar with the system of photo id numbers and item numbers?
And is photo id no. 102 the photo identification number given to the Bundy glove?
KEY QUOTEAnd showing you--and when you look at this glove, does this appear to be the Bundy glove?
Now, you described the condition of that glove as different in terms of being bloody than the Rockingham glove in your observations of June the 21st.
Can you indicate to us on this photograph what area it was where you saw the blood primarily?
Umm, it's a little difficult to see on this photograph, but it was towards that--that--that notch area there. It was in--I'm not sure if it was even on that side. It might have been on the opposite side of the glove.
Can you see an area in this photograph that appears to match your recollection of the area that you described as being mostly bloody area in this glove?
Yes. On the end towards the right-hand side of the screen--and you're looking at a left glove here, the thumb is to the top of the screen--near the opening on what would be the back of the hand area is a crusty stain. You can see there part of it is actually chipped away, and that's the heavily blood-stained area that I mentioned before.
Towards the--it's on the back of the hand toward the wrist area of the glove. And I'm going to ask Mr. Fairtlough to circle it. That's good.
Umm, okay. If you start there, go over to the left, now down, now back across towards the right. Okay. And then back up. That's better.
Since you measured the gloves on June the 21st, have they been subjected to manipulation by various people in the course of testing?
In the course--and in the course of testing and in fact, if people had tried the gloves on, might that cause them to stretch?
Well, you indicated on cross-examination that other--different examiners might use different words to describe the hairs that they see under the microscope?
When you mount hairs on a slide in permount, is that slide and that hair then available for other examiners to look at?
And regardless of what words any examiner might use, can they all look at the same hair?
All right. In this case, you took an exemplar from Mr. Simpson of--you counted 93 hairs?
Have you ever--and you recall what that looked like in terms of the amount that it looked to you before you actually counted them and determined them to be 93?
Now, with respect to taking exemplars, Miss Brockbank, you were asked in this case to go and see if the Goldman family had a hairbrush that belonged to Ron Goldman?
If you have an opportunity to take hair from a person's head, whether they are alive or not, would you prefer to do that or get the hair from a hairbrush?
I would prefer to get the hair from the actual head of the person whom that hair belongs to.
When you took notes of the hairs that you're looking at in order to characterize what you see, whether it's questioned or known hairs, you fill out that work sheet that counsel showed you on the elmo?
Once you fill out that sheet, writing in notes about what you see, if you go back to look at those same hairs again on a different day, do you fill out a new work sheet?
Do you add whatever you see on the second time you look at it on that old work sheet?
If I see something additional to what I saw on the first day, I might add it on there, yes.
All right. Now, with respect to the collection of the interior and exterior hairs and fibers on the knit cap, item no. 38, did you take some precaution to prevent the mixing of the interior hair and fiber from the exterior hair and fiber?
Yes. As--as they were taken off the hat, they were placed in separate bindles. I--as I said earlier, I examined the exterior of the hat first to remove those hairs, placed them in a bindle. That bindle was placed in a coin envelope and set aside before I examined the interior of the hat. I changed or--no. I think I said I did not change my gloves. But I turned the hat inside out. I made sure there was nothing on my gloves before I turned the hat inside out, removed the hats or hairs from the inside of the hat, placed those in a separate bindle. And so that's how they were kept separate.
Okay. So are you satisfied, Miss Brockbank, that you did not cross-transfer the hairs between the inside and the outside of the cap?
When you removed the shirt belonging to Ron Goldman from the bag into which it was placed by Denise Lewis, can you describe for us how you removed it from the bag?
The shirt was rather large and, you know, was inside the bag, kind of tightly packed in there. So I reached inside and pulled the shirt out with the bag basically inverted and the shirt and any contents of the bag I think came out along with it, because when I looked in the bag, there was nothing remaining in that bag.
So if debris had been tapped in from the butcher paper on which the shirt had been examined, was tapped into the bag by Denise after she packaged the shirt in there, then that debris would have come out as you removed the shirt?
You indicated on cross-examination that you did not know whether item 33 was a piece of carpet at the time that you were doing inventory, correct?
Is that because you could not see any portion of carpet protruding from the packaging?
And why is it that you did not know it was a piece of carpet contained in that packaging for item 33?
Was there any tear or any opening in that package that would have permitted the fibers to escape into the box in which it was contained for item 33?
So if you had seen a rip or a tear in that piece--in the packaging for item no. 33, is that something that would have attracted your attention?
Have you ever seen packaging--items that were packaged--items of evidence that were packaged in which the packaging was torn in any other case? Has that ever happened to you?
Nevertheless, the packaging of items is important to you as a hair and trace analyst, correct?
And you did notice specifically the appearance of item no. 33 and the manner in which it was packaged?
KEY QUOTEAnd you have no recollection of seeing any kind of rips or tears in that packaging, correct?
Did you see any rips or tears in any of the individual bags containing the items like the gloves, the knit cap or the Bronco cap?
So did you see any tear or opening in any of the bags that I just mentioned for those items that would have permitted carpet fibers from item 33 to get out of the packing for item 33 and into the bags of those items, the caps and the glove?
I think you indicated that when you collect hair and fiber from items of evidence, as you're collecting, you keep the bindle folded?
Can you describe or show us with a piece of paper how you do that? Want a piece of paper?
Basically this is how I would fold a bindle. Fold the paper in thirds, as I described earlier, and then in thirds in the opposite direction; then in a closed condition, I would tuck one side into the other side of the bindle. So that would be completely closed. While I'm working on something, I would have had it folded in this manner (Indicating).
For the record, when she says "In this manner," it is folded in thirds and the edge of the paper that is the end of the paper is lying folded over, but not completely closed down.
I would remove the evidence if I use the hat as an example, remove the evidence with my hands, open the bindle, place what I removed in the bindle and then reclose it, continue on my work.
All right. Now, you counted fewer hairs than Mr. Deedrick for a couple of items of evidence that we discussed previously.
Now, was there any opportunity for hairs to fall into the closed bindles that were inside the closed coin envelopes that were kept inside the closed analyzed evidence envelopes?
Okay. The bindles that you--that contained the hair and trace that you put into it from each of the items of evidence, when you completed your collection, did you immediately close them?
And by that, I mean, not just folded over the way you've demonstrated that you do during collection, but the way you indicated before with it completely folded up and tucked in.
And so did you close them up in that manner in each instance after you collected all of the hair and trace from any particular item?
And then you indicated earlier you placed that into a coin envelope that you--in which you tucked the flap in?
So was there any opportunity for hair or fiber to fall into any of the bindles that you kept stored in that manner?
You indicated you collected hairs from Nicole's dog Kato and the Defendant's dog Chachi?
How did Nicole's dog Kato behave when she--when you collected the exemplars from him?
I believe I collected the dog hairs on--was it November 30th? I could check my notes to verify that.
Basically petting him and grabbing hairs as I went. Not really forcibly pulling, but gently kind of pulling and petting at the same time.
That's how I was basically instructed to do it. This was the first time I have collected hairs from dogs.
I did bring a comb and a brush and Kato didn't like that very much. So I decided to use my hands instead.
KEY QUOTEIt appeared to be discolored basically just all over. Fingers, palm, everywhere.
Near the opening on what would be the back of the hand area is a crusty stain. You can see there part of it is actually chipped away, and that's the heavily blood-stained area that I mentioned before.
No.
I did bring a comb and a brush and Kato didn't like that very much. So I decided to use my hands instead.