All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please.

Douglas Deedrick, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

All right. Good morning again, Mr. Deedrick.

Good morning.

Sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And, Miss Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.

Thank you, your Honor. Good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK

Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, I was asking you about the significance of finding two fibers that--a questioned fiber and a known fiber that exhibited the exact same microscopic characteristics. And what is the significance of that?

Well, a fiber association is significant because of the variation that exists in the environment. That is, there are many different types of fabrics, there's many different types of fibers, both naturally occurring and man-made. Because of this wide diversity, it makes a particular fiber association significant.

Let me ask you this. If we saw--if I saw two black cotton shirts on a rack, they looked the same on the rack, if you were to examine the fibers from the two of them microscopically, has it ever occurred that you've seen two garments that appear the same to the naked eye, when you take fibers from them, you see differences?

Well, many--many things appear similar, but very few things are the same in all respects. I've done studies in the past to support that.

Did you examine fibers from the evidence in the clothing of the victims in this case?

I did.

Now, in your experience, sir, what is the mobility, what is the transience of fibers in the manner in which they transfer between objects? Is it more or less than hairs?

Well, fibers tend to transfer--

Objection. Lack of foundation.

Overruled.

Fibers will tend to transfer at a greater rate because of their size. Being much smaller and lighter, they will transfer more easily than hairs.

And what if any significance does that mobility have to you in determining when a fiber--whether a fiber can be associated with a crime or with a suspect?

Well, when two people come into physical contact, there's a possibility that fibers from the clothing of those individuals may be transferred. It's called a primary--primary transfer. Fibers that are loose on the surface that actually did not come from that garment may be transferred as well. It's called a secondary transfer. Primary from the fabric and indirect transfer would be secondary, and they occur all the time.

Well, what's an example of a secondary transfer?

Well, a secondary transfer would be one where, for instance, I sat down in this chair and there were fibers from the suit I wore yesterday, I would--I possibly could pick up the fibers from that suit, and it would be a secondary. It didn't come directly from the fabric, but indirectly through an intermediate--intermediary or another surface, fabric surface. So primary transfers or direct contact transfers occur all the time as well as secondary transfers. And in the laboratory, we look for both types of events.

Can that also happen in case of hairs, primary and secondary transfer?

The same thing can happen. Hairs can be transferred directly from a body area such as a head or pubic region. They can also transfer indirectly. That is hairs that are found on the clothing of a suspect in a case, which may be--may belong or may have originated from that individual may be transferred during the contact as well, and that's essentially a secondary transfer.

Is it a common occurrence for us to shed hairs onto our clothing on a daily basis?

It's very common to find one's own hairs on one's own clothes.

And then if, for example, a suspect were to shed hairs on his clothing and then have contact with the victim in the course of a violent struggle, might you find hairs from the suspect's clothing, his own hairs, transferred onto the clothing of the victim?

Have you heard of something called the locard exchange principal?

I've heard of it, yes.

Can you explain to us what that is?

Well, the locardic change principal states that when two objects come into contact, physical contact, there's--there's going to be an exchange of materials. It was originally stated--actually derived from what Mr. Locard had worked on as a French scientist; that when people work in certain environments, they come in contact with certain types of materials, they often will pick up this material on their clothing, thus indicating perhaps the type of job that they have or what type of vehicle that they may be riding in or what type of clothing that they're used to wearing or whether they smoke tobacco or tobacco products. So it was derived from his--his work that he did in France that dealt with transfer.

And does that principal also go to fibers as well?

Well, same thing. Any type of material, foreign material or material from a fabric could transfer just as easily during the same thing. A person may have a particular type of car. Evidence of this might be found on his clothing. A person may have a particular type of clothing attire, certain types of fabrics that he wears frequently. These fibers may be found on his clothing. So these transfers occur all the time.

Okay. Let's move on to this case, Mr. Deedrick. When were you assigned to this case?

Well, the evidence first came in on August 8th, 1994.

And who brought it in?

Susan Brockbank from the Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory.

And was the evidence brought straight to you?

It was, yes.

What exactly is your procedure when you receive evidence from a local agency for analysis?

Well, the evidence is taking--actually, the evidence is taken to what's called the evidence control center; and at this location, a laboratory number is assigned to the case. They indicate in their documentation that is going to be assigned to the hairs and fibers unit that I'm going to be what's called the principal examiner in the case. At that point, the evidence was taken to the unit where it was inventoried or checked in.

And when the property is inventoried or checked in, is there some form that's filled out?

Well, a work sheet is prepared in all cases. In this case, it was as well. The items--the questioned items of evidence are listed numerically, Q item, Q1, Q2, Q3 and so forth. And besides each of these Q numbers, an indication of what it is. Q1, hair from a particular item. And besides that, the number generally that identifies it from the police department or Los Angeles Police Department identification number. All of the items are checked in and listed on a work sheet, and from this work sheet, the initial work on the case starts.

So you renumber the items submitted with your own numbering?

Right.

Q for questioned? That means recovered from the crime scene and unknown origin?

These items may contain questioned items that may be suitable for comparison with known samples or k's.

And all the known samples have a k something, K number?

Starts with K1, K2, K3 and--in the initial case as it comes in. As subsequent submissions come into the laboratory, they're run consecutively starting with where we left off.

So is the work sheet listing out all of your numbering done first before you begin the actual examination?

Yes. That's correct. You can work--actually you can work off of a notebook paper too. You don't need a work sheet to start the work. But it's just a formality. It's part of the documentation.

Okay. Now, before you begin the work of analysis, an examination, is there some precaution that is taken in terms of the work space, the work area?

Well, before you actually start on an individual item to look at it for material, whether it's hair evidence or fiber evidence, those areas are cleaned.

I mean, with respect to--in this case, the hair and fiber had already been collected from the evidence items such as clothing and hat and et cetera.

Right.

So you were submitted paper folds, correct?

Right. All of the initial items that came in were in sealed either coin envelopes or manila envelopes and they were inventoried from that. Some of them had to be open just so that they could be numbered, but the actual coin envelope was not opened at that time.

And was there one item of actual evidence that you did receive with Susan Brockbank on August the 8th?

Well, I consider them all items of evidence, but in actual fabric, I received the hat, the knit hat that was recovered from the scene.

The blue knit cap?

That's correct.

Before you opened the packages that you received, did you make any effort to clean surfaces or take precautions to make sure the work space was clean?

I don't--I'm not sure exactly what you're--what stage you're referring to. When the initial check-in, there's paper spread out on the table and the items are inventoried, but they're all in sealed--a sealed condition at that time. As each individual item is ready for examination, the surface is prepared and clean, clean paper is put down, forceps or tweezers are cleaned, lab coats are worn, all precautions that we feel necessary to preclude the possibility of contamination.

And is the paper changed and forceps examined for cleanliness between the examination of each item?

Each item. The forceps are examined under the stereomicroscope just to be sure that there's nothing on them, hands are clean, new paper.

And did both you and Susan Brockbank wear white lab coats during the examinations of all items?

Yes, you're right. We did supply her with a lab coat.

All right. Earlier, did I ask you to examine a board that we have marked as People's 436 entitled "The chain of custody board"?

Yes. I remember looking at it.

And did you examine all of the items contained on that board to determine whether they accurately reflected the appearance of the items you received for the examination in this case?

Yes. If I could just take one last look.

Please.

All right. Mr. Escobar, you're going to have to move that back because it's blocking out juror no. 7.

Okay.

All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Miss Clark. You want to have Mr. Deedrick step down and look at this?

Yes.

The only--the only difference that--that I see here on this particular board is item no. 113, and it indicates that the FBI numbers Q8A, B1, B2, B3, C, they're not actually in the photographs, but they came in that envelope.

And so those are the--those Q8 Q8A, B1, B2, B3, C and Q9 through 19--I'll give it to the Court reporter later--were all--and Q47 were all the numbers that you assigned to what was removed from the package depicted on this chain board for item no. 113?

That's correct.

And Q9 through 19, were those slides that were already prepared when they arrived at the FBI on August 8th?

They were. And I believe this one, this one blue mailer here (Indicating), plastic mailer is Q9, but there were glass microscope slides prepared and delivered for examination.

Okay. So that's an example of what you got?

That's an example, yes.

Then is everything on that board accurate with respect to the packages that you received from LAPD?

It was accurate, yes.

And does it accurately reflect the dates on which you received these items?

Yes, it does.

Not all items were received on August 8th, correct?

That's correct.

Some were received later?

Later.

All right. Oh, there is one more board actually.

I'll hang around.

451.

All right. This is People's 451, sir. I also asked I think that you look at this earlier to determine whether the information reflected on it concerning what was received by you at the FBI and when is correct.

This board is correct.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, with respect to the results of your examinations in this case--before we step into that, I just wanted to ask you in general with regard to hair comparisons. What conclusions can you draw from the comparison of hairs and what in your opinion is the significance of hairs that exhibit the same exact microscopic characteristics?

In your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence in this case, sir, did you find any hairs that matched those of Nicole Brown?

Object. Move to strike.

Sustained. Sustained. With the court reporter, please.