Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

And this is People's 477. If you would step down, Mr. Deedrick, and explain to the jury what it is you're trying to show with these photographs.

Again, these are photographs at about 250 magnification. The known sample, these two photographs were taken from the actual hairs that were submitted from Ronald Goldman. This portion of hair here that you see came from--identifies from the Rockingham glove. This particular portion of the hair came from Mr. Goldman's shirt (Indicating). Comparison over on the far right represents a hair--it's one of the hairs that actually came off of his shirt, and there were a lot of hairs that were on his shirt. The other hair from--identified from the Rockingham glove is represented by the bottom photograph. They certainly indicate a pretty good range of characteristics from medullated hairs, which have a dark medulla, to trace or discontinuous, and also the same present on the other hairs.

May the record reflect that when the witness referred to "Medullated hairs," those that have a dark medulla, he was referring to the photographs to the very far left, which is labeled as K1, and the photograph under that labeled Q3C, hair from Rockingham glove?

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Deedrick, did you find any human hairs in the paper fold marked Q3A, which was hair removed from the Rockingham glove, that did not exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as either Ron Goldman or Nicole Brown?

Could I refresh my memory, please?

Certainly.

Thank you. Yes. There was one short Caucasian head hair about one-inch long, light brown, that was dissimilar to the known hair standards that I received.

Was that hair naturally shed or forcibly removed?

It was a naturally shed hair.

Now, were the hair standards that you received that were taken by the Coroner from Ron Goldman, were those naturally shed hairs or forcibly removed?

They were all forcibly removed.

Does that have any impact on your ability to make an effective comparison between questioned hair and known hair standard?

Well, it's much easier to compare, again, apples with apples, oranges with oranges. The hairs that are forcibly removed will compare better with hairs that are forcibly removed. The same thing as with naturally shed hairs. As the hair reaches the stage when it's ready to come out, it tends to look a little different. It often gets lighter. It loses a lot of the medullation or the canal that's found in the center of the hair and will look different. That's why I request combings as well as pullings when known samples are collected.

And did you have any such combings in the standard submitted to you from the Coroner's office?

I did not.

For Ronald Goldman?

That's correct.

All right. Did you receive and examine hair samples from police and crime personnel and laboratory personnel that were involved in this case?

I did.

And did those samples include Detectives Phillips, Fuhrman, Vannatter and Lange?

It did, yes.

Did you compare their known hair standards of those detectives to this one-inch light brown hair on the Rockingham glove?

I did.

And what was the result?

Any of them?

Not from the individuals you just mentioned. None of the elimination standards exhibited the same characteristics.

Your Honor, I have another board that I would like to be marked People's 478.

478.

And for the record, the title of the board that we've just asked to be marked 478 is "Elimination head hair samples."

Yes.

If you would step down, sir, and take a look at this board.

There are names underneath each of the photographs. There's one photograph for each name, correct?

That's correct.

And did you cause those photographs to be taken, sir?

I took the photographs, yes.

And do those represent all of the people's who--all of the lab and crime scene, police personnel whose head hair standards were sent to you for comparison purposes?

Right. It's my understanding that these people were either at the crime scene or associated with the evidence in some way.

And did you--are these the representative hair of each of them? What is this?

It's just a representation of hairs that were found in the known samples from each individual. The comparison process that I talked about previously with the hair from the Rockingham glove was not compared with the photographs. The hair was compared with the actual samples. This is just a representation of the hairs of each individual.

So when you made your comparison, sir, you didn't compare photographs, correct?

I never compare photographs, no.

The photographs are just done as a demonstration to the jury?

Just as illustration for the jury to be able to see what I'm seeing under the microscope.

With respect to all of these hair samples, did any of them even come close to having the same microscopic characteristics as the hair that you've described from the Rockingham glove, that light brown Caucasian hair?

Well, we're playing with words again. I mean, light brown is light brown, but microscopically, these hairs do not exhibit the same microscopic characteristics.

Sir, of all the known hair samples you received in this case from the police, the lab personnel, the crime scene personnel and the two victims, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown--and did you do your own as well?

So you even compared your own hair to that one light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

I did.

Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including those of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

The only sample that had an area of the hair that was close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.

And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

I did not.

Do people shed their hairs--I think you indicated earlier--naturally every day on their clothing, correct?

I've read a hundred hairs a day may be shed during the day.

Let me pose to you a hypothetical, sir. If Ronald Goldman at the time that he was attacked had naturally shed hairs already on his shirt and then was attacked by the killer wearing the glove found at Rockingham, could that account for the naturally shed hair found on the Rockingham glove that did not exactly exhibit the same characteristics microscopically as those of Ronald Goldman?

Object, your Honor.

Overruled.

I've stated previously that hairs can be transferred either directly from the head, which would be a primary type transfer, or secondarily. Hairs that are found on the clothing of an individual may be transferred during that contact just as well, and it happens frequently. So the possibility does exist that that hair may have been on the clothing of Ron Goldman during the contact and been exchanged.

Now, did you find any of the hairs that are consistent with those of Ron Goldman on the Bundy glove?

I did not.

And could the Bundy glove coming off early in the struggle with Ron Goldman account for that lack of hair found on that glove?

Objection.

Sustained.

Well, what in your experience, sir, would account for the failure to find any of--hairs consistent with Ron Goldman on the Bundy glove?

Objection. Lack of foundation.

Sustained.

All right. You did find cut, torn and forcibly removed hairs on the Rockingham glove consistent with those of Ron Goldman, correct?

Well, they were cut and torn, and again, that's forcible removal. Those were found on the Rockingham glove.

Let me give you the following hypothetical with respect to the findings on that glove, sir. If the attacker is wearing that Rockingham glove and holding the knife in his right hand, which is the Rockingham glove hand, and stabs Ron Goldman in the head and neck area, are those circumstances consistent with the cut and damaged hairs that you found that were collected from the Rockingham glove?

Objection. Foundation, speculation.

Overruled.

Yes, they would be consistent with that.

Now, did you find any hairs consistent with those of Ron Goldman in the hair and fiber evidence recovered from Nicole's dress?

I did not.

Sir, in your experience, what is more conducive to the transfer of hair and fiber during an attack? One in which there is extensive conduct--contact with the victim--between the victim and killer or one in which there is very limited contact?

Objection. Speculation.

Overruled.

Well, from my experience and also from studies that have been done regarding transfer and persistence of materials, the longer the duration, the more involved the contact up to a certain point, the greater the amount of material that's going to be transferred back and forth.

So let me ask you this hypothetical, sir. If the killer, after having stabbed an incapacitated Ron Goldman, went over to Nicole and limited the contact with her to merely pulling back her head with his left hand in order to slash her throat without having any further contact with her body, are those events consistent with the fact that you found none of the hairs consistent with Ron Goldman on her clothing?

Objection. Speculation.

Overruled.

Well the more limited the contact, as I said, the less likely that hair and fiber evidence might be found. So again, not knowing all the circumstances, I can only go by experience, and you're talking about a time factor and a contact factor. The more limited the time, the more limited the contact, the less likely you're going to find evidence of a transfer.

Okay. And you're not saying, sir, that the events had to happen just the way I've described; only that it is a reasonable and logical conclusion in your experience and judgment?

Objection. Leading.

Sustained.

Are you saying that the events had to happen exactly as I've described in my hypothetical, sir?

Oh, no. No. I can only go by what I see. There's some indications of directionality, but there's no way to know with absolute certainty the events.

Then on what do you base your opinion that the events I described are a reasonable--a reasonable conclusion based on what you found in the evidence?

Objection.

Overruled.

Well, the amount of evidence and the location of the evidence indicates to me that the directionality went from Nicole Brown Simpson to Ronald Goldman, in that direction, as opposed to coming back in as much as there's nothing on her items from Ronald Goldman.

Okay.

Miss Clark, five minutes.

Thank you.

All right. Then as a very basic and simple conclusion, can you draw the conclusion based on your findings that the killer wore the Rockingham glove during the attack on both Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

Objection. Leading.

Sustained.

What conclusion can you draw, sir, from the fact that you found hairs consistent with both Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on the Rockingham glove concerning whether or not it was worn during their attack?

All right. Now, you also indicated that you received--well, I don't know if you did or not, yet. Did you receive hairs--excuse me.

Your Honor, may I peel off the results concerning Ronald Goldman?

Yes. And you're referring to exhibit?

475?

475.

475. Thank you.

All right. When you first received the hair and fiber evidence collected in this case, sir, on August 8th, did you find any animal hairs in your examination of the evidence?

I did.

And did you determine what kind of animal hairs those were?

Most of the animal hairs were dog hairs.

Now, I think you indicated earlier in your testimony yesterday, sir, that you can determine the difference between animal hairs and human hairs?

Yes, I can.

And how do you do that?

By microscopic structure of the hair. The root is different, it has a different shape. The medulla looks different. The scale patterns look different. There are other--a lot of characteristics. Pretty easy to distinguish animal hairs from human hairs.

Can you tell the difference between dog hairs and cat hairs?

I can, yes.

How do you do that?

Same thing. Just a lot of it is just experience and looking at the microscopic characteristics and looking at animal hairs for a lot of years.

Can you--can you identify different breeds of dogs through your microscopic comparison?

That is possible to do, yes.

When you conducted the examination of the dog hair samples in this case, did you make any determinations concerning the breed?

I did not attempt to do that initially.

And why is that?

Well, I had no particular reason to do it at the time. I was focusing most of my attention on the human hairs as opposed to the animal hairs.

At some point, did you attempt to make that determination in this case?

Well, I did receive animal hairs, dog hair standards at a later date, and using those hair standards, I conducted my comparisons.

But as of August 8th, you only had questioned hairs, that is hairs recovered from the evidence?

That's all I had, yes.

No known standards taken from particular dogs?

I did not.

Can you say that a particular dog hair came from any one particular dog?

And why is that?

Well, because animal hairs such as dog hairs do not possess enough individuality in their microscopic characteristics to say with certainty that it originated from that dog let's say to the exclusion of other similar dogs. For instance, if there's a white Akita--two or three white Akitas that have the same markings and have the same apparent hair color, their hairs may look very similar. So it would be difficult to say it came from one dog and not another.

So what does it mean when you say that this questioned dog hair has the same microscopic characteristics as the known sample collected from this particular dog?

Essentially it means that that questioned hair or hairs could have originated from that dog. It's just another piece in the puzzle.

And you indicated known dog hair samples were submitted to you from Kato the dog and from Chachi?

They were, yes.

Want to take a break now?

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid morning break at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. And we'll see you back here in about 15 minutes. Mr. Deedrick, you can step down.