All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, let me just get rid of a few easy issues first. With regards to the use of the two photographs, there is apparently a first booking photograph of Mr. Simpson which does show him in a more benign attitude than the--what appears to be the--for lack of a better word--more sinister visage than the one they've chosen to use, which they're entitled to use. I mean, it's their exhibit board. They're entitled to make it the way they want to, but they do so at their peril since I'm sure that will be part of the argument.
Yes, you may. Mrs. Robertson? All right. I was a little concerned--the reason we stopped two or three minutes early is, I was a little concerned where we were going with those electronmicroscope photographs in light of the Court's ruling with regards to the report. Miss Clark, do you want to let me know where we were going with that?
We had just about--that was about it. I think I had one last question. I was not going to elicit the fact that this was a Bronco carpet or the manufacturer or manufacturer's Bronco carpets because I think I'm pretty clear on that. I was simply going to ask if that was representative of different years. The manufacturer changed the carpet type in different years. That's it as far as that was going. Then I believe the last objection--I didn't think that that would be objectionable. That's why the Court probably saw me give a quizzical look. I didn't intend to go any farther than to indicate that the manufacturer did change over a period of years and it's illustrative in nature, nothing more, and I thought that would be acceptable and within the perimeters of the Court's ruling.
Well, I thought it was illustrative of different types of fibers as they appear in electronmicroscope photography and I thought that was about the extent of it. So I think you've covered it at this point.
The question I think that elicited or the answer that elicited the last objection, I don't understand counsel's objection. This is an expert. Perhaps I should lay some further foundation with respect to the number of fiber comparisons he has done, but I think I already have elicited the fact that he's done half a million comparisons in his 17 years and some--roughly half or some of those were--
I asked, after an objection by counsel: "What is the significance of a conclusion that a questioned fiber could have come from a given known sample of cloth or item of clothing? "Objection overruled." And then this is what the objection was focused on and the following answer: "There's a great deal of significance to certain fibers association. Some are more common than others. Then when you take, for instance, a man-made fiber of a particular type and you color it, add color to it, it takes on sort of a uniqueness. Now, it is a fact that the manufacturer is going to make--" and then there was an objection to the use of the term "Uniqueness."
Just fibers. We're not talking about Bronco fibers. We're talking about in general the fact that, you know, that all red fibers are not created equal, all black fibers not created equal, and this witness has seen enough of those fibers to know. But we're not--we're just talking about fiber comparisons, your Honor.
If it please the Court, I think this witness is obviously much too intelligent to misuse the word "Unique" accidentally. There is no such thing as sort of unique, pretty unique or more unique. You're either unique or you're not. And if you're unique, you're in the match category, and I think that we ought to have some pretty firm rules about that. And I see everybody walking right up to the line, automotive carpet fibers, years they were made. I thought these were the things that were not going to be mentioned. There were mere examples.
Yes. Mere examples. All right. Miss Clark, as to the--you know, he can testify to how differentiation is made between fibers which includes colors, dies, other examples of how one goes about talking to manufacturers and finding out from databases, that sort of thing. That goes to the technique. I don't know if you really want to do that since you're not going to be able to offer that.
Oh, I understand. But see, you fall into that. There are others that appear to be similar.
Okay. The other question I have is this. I understand the Court's ruling with respect to not using any of the information in his testimony concerning the report from Masland, but the witness is permitted to testify to his conclusion that it was turned over to counsel, that he found--that he identified--he found the same microscopic characteristics in the Bronco fiber from the Defendant's car as he did from the carpet fibers found on the Rockingham glove and knit cap.
Okay. And if the Defense then opens up this area and says, "Well, there were tons of carpet made," then he should be permitted to answer that question rather than lie to the jury.
Well, if they're so fool hearty as to do that, but I suspect the cross-examination will be, "All you can really say is, it looks similar, correct, but you can't absolutely say it came from this source, can you?" "No, I can't." "Thank you very much. Goodbye."
Because the shorter the cross-examination is, that gives a message to the trier of fact who cares.
I wonder if that message was received. But let me ask you this, your Honor. With respect to this expert's opinion--
But what I'm doing by saying that though is, I agree with you there's a possibility that if we get into commonalty and that sort of thing, if they get into that area, that's a different story.
Okay. Okay. Further, this witness, the reason he undertook the further inquiry to Masland is that he found something unusual about those carpet fibers, and then based on the--what he saw in them in his experience--has nothing to do with Masland. This is before that ever happened. In his experience, he looked at them and said, "This is unusual." He then looked for other item--he looked through other items and found the match to other items in this case, and based on that, went to Masland. Everything up to the point of going to Masland, as I understand it, is within the range of his admissible testimony.
First of all, your Honor, the reports that I read prior to yesterday's revelation had nothing to do with randomness, rareness or anything else. They simply said it was similar as you have correctly figured out. Second, we have a real problem here. Mr. Deedrick has a virus called "Match" and he's infected Miss Clark and that word keeps cropping up, and I don't know how you're going to enforce it unless you get a little bit tough. I ask that you do that.
Let me respond to that though, your Honor. I have spoken with the witness about the word "Match" and we're not going to do that anymore. We're just not. And I apologize to the Court. We'll have a longer discussion about it. What we will do is, I'm going--I propose to ask the witness a series of questions so we can both practice using the word saying "Microscopic characteristics" and other terminology that the Court will find acceptable. With respect to the unusual features of the carpet fiber, this is no different than the hair comparison. This all goes to the same general body of information that all hair and fiber examiners have, which is, in order to compare hairs, they have to have unusual or distinctive characteristics or else you can't compare them.
But to say I compared the questioned fibers amongst themselves with the known fiber from the Bronco that we have, that's one comparison.
But then comparing it to other things, that's something different, which we don't have involved here.
You mean other years of broncos? Is that what you're talking about? No, we won't do that. All right. I understand. Thank you.
I'm extremely concerned about where this is all going. When I had my conversation with Mr. Deedrick yesterday about the carpet fiber and he didn't show me his report, it wasn't provided until you ordered it, I asked him whether he had done any similar research about blue black cotton fibers, and he said, well he just does that kind of as a general--for all of his cases in a general way. And so I asked him if he could give me copies of what he had or what he accumulated. He said, "It will cost you $85." I said, "I've got $85." I want that material because I think he's done other research. I think there's a large amount of other material that we have not gotten that they intend to try to get into.
My recollection of that conversation, as if you recollect, you all were using my photocopy machine to make copies of this stuff, I took that as a jocular comment by Mr. Deedrick that he ought to charge 85 bucks for the services of photocopying. That's the way I understood it.
This happened before you came out and ordered the material. This had nothing to do with that.
Mr. Deedrick has a virus called 'Match' and he's infected Miss Clark and that word keeps cropping up, and I don't know how you're going to enforce it unless you get a little bit tough.
There is no such thing as sort of unique, pretty unique or more unique. You're either unique or you're not. And if you're unique, you're in the match category.
I suspect the cross-examination will be, 'All you can really say is, it looks similar, correct, but you can't absolutely say it came from this source, can you?' 'No, I can't.' 'Thank you very much. Goodbye.'
I have spoken with the witness about the word 'Match' and we're not going to do that anymore. We're just not. And I apologize to the Court.
I asked him whether he had done any similar research about blue black cotton fibers... He said, 'It will cost you $85.' I said, 'I've got $85.'