I'm trying to remember how many you said. You indicated to us, sir, that you've worked on how many hair and fiber cases?

4,000 or so.

And what percentage of those 4,000 involved stabbings?

Well, many. A lot of stabbing cases.

And have you made certain observations in the course of the work you've done on those stabbing cases concerning what kind of hair transfers and fiber transfers you're likely to find?

And why is that?

It may be the fact that it's at arm's length as opposed to a lot of direct physical contact between the bodies.

Well, I move to strike. That's speculation.

Overruled.

And you base that on?

Just based on what I've seen over the years looking at the clothing worn by an individual suspected of being involved in stabbings and also from the victims. The best evidence that is seen many times in stabbing cases are the fiber transfers that are present on the knife or the weapon that is recovered from a suspect in the case, and that generally is the best evidence and most commonly seen, more so than hair transfers.

And in those cases, have you had occasion to examine items of evidence that bore the hairs that were--that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the hairs of the victims?

I don't know if I quite understand that question.

Okay. In this particular case, you examined the Rockingham and the Bundy gloves, correct?

That's right.

And you examined also the hair and fiber collected from those gloves, correct?

I did.

And you found hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics on both gloves as those seen by--in the hairs of Nicole Brown?

That's correct.

And you found more of such hairs on the Rockingham glove than the Bundy glove?

That's right.

In your past experience in other stabbing cases, have you found hairs consistent with those of the victims on various items of evidence at the crime scene?

I don't think I can answer this question that you're posing based on past experience. I've seen a lot of different things. I can't be specific in this instance.

Okay. Have you ever had cases where you've found more hair on one item than on another that is consistent with that of a victim?

Sure. And it just depends on the nature of the contact. One can derive certain conclusions from the presence of hair evidence on certain items indicating that perhaps more contact may have occurred with that particular item as to where the source of the material came from.

Okay. And as a matter of your expertise and simple reason and logic, would it be fair to state that an item of clothing worn for a very short period of time during an attack will be likely to have less hair and fiber than an item worn for a longer period of time during the attack?

Objection. Argumentative, speculative.

Overruled.

Well, the shorter the duration of the contact, many times the less amount of material that may be picked up or transferred to another item.

All right. In your examination of the hairs and fibers collected from the evidence in this case, did you find any hairs that you found to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of Ronald Goldman?

I did.

And again, were those head hairs?

They were.

And where did you find those head hairs, sir?

Well, there were hairs that were recovered from Mr. Goldman's shirt, which was my Q23, and there were also hairs recovered from the Rockingham glove.

You indicated you found those hairs on the Rockingham glove?

I did.

That exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Ron Goldman?

That's right.

And did those hairs appear to be naturally shed or forcibly removed?

Then the hairs that you found on Ron Goldman's shirt that you determined to have--to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as his known hair, what appearance did they have?

They were both cut, torn and forcibly removed. They're all forcibly removed, but in the sense that some had roots, some didn't.

And how many of the hairs consistent with those of Ron Goldman did you find on the Rockingham glove?

There were three.

Three?

What does that mean, "Several"?

Well, it could be three or four.

Did you prepare a chart to demonstrate what you saw through the microscope and what you based your conclusion on?

I did.

Now, again, does this depict all of the questioned hairs that you determined were consistent with a known sample of Ron Goldman or only a representative sample?

It's a--it's a representation.

All right. This will be marked 477?

477.