All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Miss Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.
Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, we were talking about dog hairs. Did you compare the dog hairs that you found from the crime scene, the victims' clothing and the glove at Rockingham to the known samples collected from Nicole's dog Kato?
Did any of those dog hairs removed from the evidence in this case exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the dog Kato?
With reference to the Rockingham glove, there were a number of fur hairs that were found, and I believe I need to go into some distinction here as to what fur hairs means. Fur hairs are the underlying soft hairs that form the underbelly or undercoat of animals. Guard hairs are the coarser hairs, the larger hairs that make up the outer coat, for instance, of a dog. So they're called guard hairs and fur hairs. The finer hairs, the softer hairs would be fur hairs. And on the Rockingham glove, there were fur hairs. On the Bundy glove, on the outside of the Bundy glove, there was a guard hair. On the knit hat, on the outside, tan and black hairs because the Akita also had black hairs and the standard. There were a number of hairs recovered from Goldman's shoes, pants and shirt, all of these being white in color. All of these compared with the Akita known standard.
What is the distinction if any, sir, between your ability to compare microscopically fur hairs and guard hairs?
Well, the best hairs to compare are guard hairs because they often give more color variation. They're also larger hairs to work with. The fur hairs have a little less value. However, when used together, they increase the significance of the identification.
All right. Now, the finding of those hairs consistent with those of Kato the dog around the--in the area of the items found at the crime scene at Bundy, what if anything does that indicate to you with respect to the access of that dog to that location?
It wouldn't surprise me to find dog hairs on the items from the crime scene area if that's where the dog spends a lot of time, because the dog is going to shed hairs as well.
Now, you also found dog hair consistent with that of Kato the dog on the Rockingham glove?
I have no specific counts. There were several hairs that were recovered from the Rockingham glove.
So what is the--what is the strength of your conclusion concerning the fact that the hairs you found on the Rockingham glove were consistent with those of Kato the dog?
The conclusion is that the hairs could have originated from the dog. They exhibited the same microscopic characteristics.
And did you cause a--did you create a board to depict some of the comparisons that you made between the known exemplars from Nicole's dog Kato and the hairs recovered from the evidence that would be the Rockingham and Bundy gloves?
And you've already indicated to us where those were found. Those would be items found at the Bundy crime scene?
I have a board here, your Honor, entitled dog hair comparisons, ask that it be marked 47--
Would you step down, sir, please, and describe for the jury what you have attempted to depict in these photographs?
All right. The known hair sample from Kato the Akita is up on the top. You can see differences right off in diameter of the hair and also some of the microscopic characteristics (Indicating). Hairs that are found on dog I mentioned could be fur hairs. It could also be the larger guard hairs. Dogs also have hairs that are intermediate. They go somewhere in-between in size and microscopic characteristics and they're termed intermediate hairs. This one may be leaning towards intermediate because it's a little bit larger. All same magnification, about 250 times. The medulla on fur hairs often may take on this characteristic, just broken up a little bit, as opposed to larger hairs which may have a continuous medulla. Quite a bit difference here in the diameter of it.
For the record, when the witness said the broken-up medulla, he was referring to the photograph in the upper left labeled K54, and then as opposed to this or this, and he gestured to the two photographs to the right of that also labeled K54 on this diagram.
The bottom photographs, the three photographs represent the glove recovered at Rockingham, both the finer fur hair as well as a hair that is a little bit larger in diameter and still probably a fur hair. These would be represented by photographs labeled Q1 and Q3C. The other photograph, Q7B is a guard hair that was recovered from the Bundy glove. And it was compared you see here with the photograph above it, which is K54.
Sir, with respect to the hairs you found on the Rockingham glove consistent with Kato the dog, you indicated that you found three or four? You wrote several in your report, correct?
Is the finding of such hairs on the Rockingham glove accounted for by possible contact between the wearer of that glove, the murderer, and Kato the dog either during or immediately after the murders?
Could have. It could have been a direct transfer from the dog, or as I stated before, an indirect transfer from hairs at the crime scene.
Or perhaps from one of the victims who had been on the ground and collected the hairs.
All right. May I reveal the results on the hair and trace summary board, People's 475, for Kato the dog, your Honor?
Could you examine that result board thus far, Mr. Deedrick, and tell us whether or not they accurately reflect your conclusions in this case.
And for the record, your Honor, we are now showing the photograph of Nicole's dog Kato, People's--
Sir, did you examine--in your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence in this case, did you find any hairs that were not of Caucasian origin?
And where did you find those head and limb hairs? From which items of evidence were they collected?
Well, the head hairs were identified as coming from a cap, from a Bronco, a knit hat that was recovered from the crime scene, Ronald Goldman's shirt, and those were the items.
Well, they appeared--some of them had chew marks present on them. They look like normal head hairs, naturally shed.
Well, hairs that may lay around for a while. In vehicles, it's not uncommon to see hairs that have been chewed on by either a beetle or some other insect. They take awhile to chew through them. So when we got to them, it just looks like a bite mark's been taken out of them.
Well, it just--it indicates that the hair may have been laying around for a period of time as opposed to recently shed.
And did you compare the hairs recovered from this Bronco cap to the known exemplars taken from the head of the Defendant?
Well, these hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics, and accordingly could have originated from the Defendant.
So you found hairs consistent with those of the Defendant in a cap found in his car. Was that a big surprise?
All right. You also indicated that you found hairs on the blue knit cap found at the crime scene?
Tell us what you found on the--in the evidence collected from the blue knit cap that's shown on the screen right now, People's 56-I?
Well, from the knit hat, there were a number of hairs that were removed either by Susan Brockbank, who was the original examiner on the case, or by me.
I did, yes. The hairs were removed from the inside and from the outside. Shall I specify or do you want just a total number or how would you like it?
Let's start with the total number and then we'll break it down. First of all, did you compare the hairs recovered from that cap to those of the Defendant?
These particular hairs you're referring to, yes. I compared all of the hairs that were suitable for comparison from the hat with a known sample that was submitted from the Defendant, yes.
Okay. And of the hairs recovered from the cap, you indicated already that you found hairs of the Defendant that had the same microscopic characteristics. Can you tell us first of all how many overall head hairs did you find that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics in that cap as the Defendant's hair?
All right. Can you describe for us some of the microscopic characteristics that you compared between the questioned hairs recovered from that blue knit cap to the Defendant's hair?
Okay. The known sample from the Defendant consisted of numerous dark brown head hairs with roots. Most of the hairs were under one inch in length. The cuticle on the hair was medium thick. And again, some of these distinctions of medium, thin and thick are just arbitrary based on how I saw them and how I perceived them. The inner definition of the cuticle was fair to poor. So sometimes you could see the definition, sometimes you couldn't. It was clear there's no apparent color. The scale protrusion was slight. They exhibited blunt tips, an elongate pigment. The pigment granules were somewhat elongate. The clumping was not present in a lot of the hairs, and that's a characteristic, as I mentioned before, of black individuals.
Clumping of the pigment, yes. Some black individuals have heavy clumping. There's don't. And in some hairs within a sample, some may be more clumpier than others. So--the pigment granules were a medium size. The streaking was a very com--prominent characteristic, streak in the sense that the pigment granules line themselves up in rows and it appears that you have streaks within the cortex. Some of the hairs indicated a coarseness of the cellular material in the middle of the hair. Some of the hairs were patchy, probably the most prominent characteristic of the hair sample 2, 2 being the color, being the lighter brown coloration and one-sided pigmentation, which was a very prominent characteristic.
Well, some hairs come distinctive as to how the pigment granules arrange themselves in the hair. In some individuals--and again, it may not depend necessarily on race--that the pigment granules will find themselves more to one side of the hair than the other. So that when you look at them microscopically, it just looks darker on one side of the hair. The ovoid bodies that were present were small and not very many. Cortical fusi were sparse and most of them were located down near the proximal end or nearest to where the root is, and that in itself is not necessarily significant. The medulla was absent to trace, and I mentioned before, the brownish--reddish brown coloration in the known sample. And that's how I described them.
Okay. Now those characteristics that you've just listed off to us, those were notes that you took as to the known standard recovered from the Defendant's head by Susan Brockbank, correct?
That was my observations as I examined the known standard of hairs of the Defendant under the microscope.
Did you see those same characteristics in the hairs that were recovered from the blue knit ski cap which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant?
Now, those hairs that you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant, were they naturally shed or forcibly removed?
Well, it just means that they--as I mentioned before, that black hairs often will break. They tend to be a little more brittle and the cross-sectional shape is somewhat more flattened. It's not uncommon to see hair fragments in that racial group.
And when you said hair fragments, well, you also found hair fragments of Ron Goldman in the evidence, correct?
Okay. And were all of the hairs that were consistent with those of the Defendant fragments or were any full length?
No. There were a number of hairs that were full length; that is, they had a root as if they were naturally shed hairs.
Now, did you also find hairs of black origin that did not match those, that were not consistent with those of the Defendant?
And again, they would have been on the knit hat either from the interior--and again, from the interior I believe most of those were. My--the slides that were prepared by Susan Brockbank included our Q9 through Q19. Q9 through Q14 were from the interior of the hat and there were apparently treated black head hairs found on several of the items as well as other head hairs, other black head hairs that did not exhibit the same characteristics.
Okay. Now, the hairs that were found inside the cap that were not consistent with those of the Defendant, were they full length or were they fragments?
Six? Maybe I'm wrong, sir. I took notes from your notes, and I counted--based on your notes, I counted seven. Can you tell--
You could be right. I mean, I counted six in the first batch. I can recheck if you want, if it makes a difference if there's six or seven.
All right. Let's assume--let's assume for now--well, maybe I can't do that. Go ahead and look. I was going to say assume there's seven. But go ahead and look, sir.
Okay. Six it is. In any case, six fragments inside the cap. And you indicated some were treated?
Now, the conclusions that you drew concerning those six fragments inside the cap, were those based on your comparison of them with the known hair standard given you from the Defendant?
Well, many ways, depending on what they do to their hair, what type of environment they're exposed to, how much sunlight they get, if they treat their hair. There's just a lot of different things that could happen to hair besides the natural effects of age also.
Okay. So you don't--you can not tell us at this time whether those six fragments found inside the cap could have been hairs deposited by the Defendant five, six, seven years ago?
No. As I said, there's no way to say how long those hairs have been in that location on that item.
Is it uncommon in your experience--is it uncommon in your experience, sir, in examining clothing to find hairs that are not consistent with the hairs of the owner or wearer of that clothing?
It's not uncommon. I mean, it's not uncommon to find hairs on one's clothing that's submitted for examination that do not exhibit the same characteristics as that person's hairs.
Well, that's why I look at the stuff in the first place. If two people had physical contact, I look at the clothing to see if there's anything on the clothing of one individual, say, the victim that doesn't look like the victim's hairs. If it doesn't look like the victim's hairs, then who could it be from? Possibly a suspect? Possibly. And that's why I do it.
Now, the only hairs on that cap that did not match the known sample of the Defendant is the fragments that--the six fragments that you described?
And all the naturally shed hairs with roots from that cap were consistent with those hairs from the Defendant?
Did you also ask for known hair samples from African American police and lab personnel in order to compare their hairs to those fragments that you found of black origin inside the ski cap?
And that was--were those hairs depicted on the elimination standards board we saw earlier?
Can you please point out to us, sir, on this board which of the photographs depict hairs of the African American lab and crime scene personnel?
Sandra Claiborne, Gene Braggs, Claudine Ratcliffe, Don Thompson. I believe those were the individuals (Indicating).
And for the record, he was gesturing to the photographs that bear those names on People's 478, your Honor.
And none of the individuals that you've described whose samples are depicted by a photograph on this board had hair that was consistent with the six fragments you found inside the ski cap?
No. The hairs that were recovered from the knit cat could not have originated from these individuals.
Now, sir, did you find--sir, did you find any Caucasian head hairs collected from that blue knit ski cap that were inconsistent with the known hair standards of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown?
There were two hairs that were recovered from my Q15 which was from the outside of the hat which was a died head hair fragment exhibiting Caucasian characteristics and from Q19, which again from the outside of the cap, there was a light brown Caucasian head hair which was broken at the proximal end, it had treatment on the hair at the distal end, is about three inches long and it was not like--not like the victims.
Now, with respect to all of the hair evidence that we are discussing today, sir, that was recovered from the evidence in this case, can you tell us when the hairs were--that you compared were deposited on those items of evidence?
In general. In general. For example, let me ask you this to make it a little easier. The hairs recovered from the blue knit ski cap, can you tell us when any of those hairs were deposited on that item?
And with respect to the hairs found on the Rockingham and Bundy gloves, can you tell us when those hairs that you compared to the known hair standards in this case were deposited on those items of evidence?
There's no way to look at the hairs and make that determination. However, from a persistent standpoint, it would indicate that they had not been there long.
And what do you mean by a persistent standpoint, sir, and why do you draw a distinction between those gloves and the knit cap?
Well, with regards to a knit cap, it's something that may accumulate hairs over time, and a pair of gloves, the surface of the gloves is not conducive to retaining hairs for any length of time so that--so that they would tend to lose hairs very easily unless there might be some blood or some other material that's present on the surface of the gloves to cause the hairs to stick or to adhere. So some items would more likely lose hairs, they wouldn't keep them very long. Some items tend to hold on to hairs a little bit longer such as a knit hat would tend to hold on to things longer.
Now, with respect to the hairs that you looked at on the Rockingham and Bundy gloves, did any of them have a bloody appearance to you?
Thank you. All right. On Q1, which was the Rockingham glove, there was blood on the surface of the--apparent blood present on the surface of the hair that were consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson.
Thank you, sir. All right. Now, getting back to those 12 hairs on the blue knit cap that you indicated exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant, did you have photographs taken of some of the hairs--a representative sampling of the hairs from that ski cap that you determined were consistent with those of the known standard of the Defendant?
Most of the individual hairs were photographed I believe except for one of the hairs that I removed from the knit hat myself. So there should be--should be about 12 pictures.
All right, sir. You indicated earlier that some of the hairs that you found to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant came from inside the hat and some came from outside the hat?
If you would, sir, please indicate on each of the photos now in 480 being shown to the jury which of those hairs was found inside and which was found outside.
Q8A, which is on the lower left-hand portion of the chart, was from the inside, all of these first four pictures on the bottom (Indicating). On 8C, I'm not sure where 8C came from, inside or outside. It was unclear.
There was no indication to me. It may have been from the bag. So there's no way to know. And that's the photograph on the lower right-hand portion of the exhibit.
And for the record, your Honor, we're referring to the bottom row of photographs so labeled.
What can you tell us about the appearance of those four hairs, sir, Q8A found inside the knit ski cap?
Well, there was some range, as you can plainly see, from much coarser hair, again pointing out that one-sided pigmentation that I mentioned previously (Indicating).
And with respect to the--let me describe the position on the photograph, on the diagram.
The photograph pointed to by Mr. Deedrick at this point was the fourth photograph from the left, bottom row.
And also, we had some of the finer hairs. The finer hairs that were represented in the known standard of the Defendant were found in this particular item, Q8A, which would be the first--first three photographs on the lower portion of the chart.
And could you tell us, sir, did any of those hairs, of those four hairs in Q8A have roots?
Yes. There was indication of possible blood on the surface of the two hairs that indicated that they had fallen out naturally, Q8A.
And when you say indicated they had fallen out naturally, were those the ones that had roots?
Now, Q8C, which is also depicted at the last photograph as you face from left to right, was that hair recovered from the bag containing the hat?
Now, if you could, sir, please explain, describe--are there any other characteristics that you have not pointed out that you would like to point out to the jury that cause you to come to the conclusion that they exhibited--the Defendant's hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those recovered from the blue knit cap?
Well, I've gone over a little bit of the process involved in trying to determine if a questioned hair originated from an individual. And one of the ways to do that when you have multiple hairs is to look at the range of the questioned hairs and see if the same range is exhibited by the known hairs. And if you can look at the known hair samples that were photographed on the upper portion of the chart, I chose hairs that exhibited a similar appearance as to the characteristics that that hair exhibited, whether it was coarse and dark with one-sided pigmentation, whether it was lighter with one-sided pigmentation or if it was fine and exhibited the same coloration and diameter and internal characteristics. And again, we're looking at just a very small portion of both questioned hair and known hair.
When you say, "We're looking at just a small portion," you mean that's what the jury is seeing right now. You saw more?
Well, the comparison that I do involves the entire hair, and I chose a portion of the hair to demonstrate the association.
Would it be all right, your Honor, if we showed the board to the corners of the jury, because I don't think they're getting as good a view. Thank you.
All right. Mr. Deedrick, if you wouldn't mind stepping down to explain to the jury what's depicted in these photographs. You indicated I think we've seen some of the hairs recovered from the inside of the cap which you determined to be consistent with those of the Defendant. And do these--what do these photographs depict?
Well, these are additional hairs taken from Q10 on the lower left, Q13, which is the second photograph on the bottom, Q14, third photograph, Q18 and 47.
Can you tell us, sir, which of these photographs depict hairs recovered from the inside of the knit cap?
Well, Q47 came from the inside, which was one of the hairs that I removed. I'm sorry. What was the first number down there?
Q10 was from the interior. Q13 was from the interior. Q14 was from the interior. Q18 was from the exterior.
All right. So of the hairs from the blue knit cap, Q10, 13 and 14 were--and Q47 were all hairs recovered from the inside of the knit cap that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant?
Those two hairs that you found that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant that you labeled Q47, can you describe where they were in the hat when you found them?
Well, they were actually part of the fabric. After turning the hat inside out looking at the hat very closely under magnification, had to actually pull the hairs out from the arms. It happens sometimes if the hairs have been in there for a period of time, that they tend to become actually part of the fabric. It's very difficult to see because the hat was dark.
KEY QUOTEAnd what--what kind of hairs were they? Were they fragment hairs, forcibly removed? Describe--
So how many hairs total that you found to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant were found inside the knit cap?
Okay. From the inside of the knit cap, there were four hairs off of Q8A, one from Q10, that's five, Q13 makes six, Q14 makes seven. There were seven.
Okay. Q8C that we indicated came from the bag containing the cap, could that have come from the inside?
Okay. So nine, possibly 10 hairs found inside the knit cap exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those hairs of the Defendant?
Well, on the outside, there was a full-length hair with a root, which was Q8B1 and also Q18.
Can you describe for us, sir, the condition of those two hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant that you found on the outside of the knit cap?
Well, the one on Q18 was just a fragment. It was a portion of a hair, head hair, and on Q8B1, it had--it had a root and also had what appeared to be a little tag on it.
Well, a tag is a little extension of the root that is sometimes confused with follicular tissue. Follicular tissue is part of the skin where the hair is actually attached. It's more--it's a harder substance. Just forms a little extension and we call it tags.
Well, wouldn't the existence of that tag indicate that the hair had been pulled out?
With respect to whether or not the hair was forcibly removed or naturally shed, does the existence of that tag from the hair follicle have any significance in that determination?
So the existence of that tag does not indicate necessarily that hair was forcibly removed or not?
All right. We talked before about the--why don't you take a seat for a minute, sir, and I'll put this down.
We were talking earlier I believe about primary and secondary transfer. Do you recall that, sir?
Now, do you have an opinion, sir, concerning whether or not the hairs inside the blue knit cap that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant were deposited there by means of primary transfer, that is wearing the cap, or secondary transfer, picking it up from somewhere else?
Sir, does the existence of--in a general sense, do the--does the presence of a number of hairs in a certain position on an item of clothing have significance to you with respect to whether or not it is--the hairs got there by primary or secondary transfer?
Well, on the--on the inside of undershorts, I might think that that's probably a primary transfer.
On the inside of a hat, I would also expect to see logically a primary transfer.
Then in that regard, sir, with respect to the nine or 10 hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant inside the knit cap, do you have an opinion as to whether--how those hairs got there, by primary or secondary transfer?
Because hats are worn on the head, as we all know, and in combining that with the transfer or loss of hair, it's certainly consistent and reasonable to believe that their presence indicates that they came from a wearer of the hat, yes.
KEY QUOTECan you describe the hair that you found that was recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt?
And did you cause a photograph to be taken of that hair that was recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt?
Be glad to. The photograph on the lower right-hand portion of the chart second from the right labeled as Q23 (Indicating), hair from Goldman's shirt, and that's a photograph, again, about 250 times magnification of that hair.
Now, you indicated earlier there was an elimination standard board in which you indicated there was hair of African American lab and crime scene police personnel whose hair was taken for purposes of comparison?
Did you compare their hairs to this--to this Q23 hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt?
I compared all of the questioned hairs with all of the elimination hairs. It included Q23.
All right. Now, you compared then the hairs of Sandra Claiborne, Gene Braggs and Claudine Ratcliffe and Don Thompson as shown on that board to the hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt which you labeled on People's 481 Q23?
And what was your opinion concerning whether or not any of their hairs were consistent with the Q23 hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt?
The questioned hair recovered from Ronald Goldman's shirt, Q23, could not have originated from these individuals.
Based upon a comparison of the microscopic characteristics that were exhibited by the known standards and the questioned hair.
Well, can you explain, sir, why you concluded that Sandra Claiborne's hair as depicted on People's 478 could not have been the source of the Q23 hair on People's 481?
Well, besides the fact that the photographs look different, I--again, I didn't base it solely on this. I looked at the entire hair and the characteristics of the entire sample.
What about the hair of Gene Braggs? Does that look--can you explain to us why you ruled out Gene Braggs as a possible source of the hair found that you labeled Q23?
Thanks. Okay. With Gene Braggs, one of the characteristics I mentioned before was pigment clumping. You see prominent pigment clumping or patching a couple different areas, also some streakiness of the tissue that's found in the very center of the hair. So just an area that represented some of the characteristics that were present in Gene Braggs' head hair standard. Again, the comparison is not by photograph. It's an overall process, the curl of the hair, the buckling that appears in the hair shaft, the diameter, thickness of the hair, the appearance of the tip, the appearance of the root, all of these things are thrown into this comparison process besides this--this 250 magnification piece of a hair, which is quite small.
Did you have any further remarks to make about the distinctions you drew between Sandra Claiborne's hair and the Q23 hair?
Well, there is a little buckle here--I don't know if you saw that--this little indentation. With black individuals, the hair shaft may tend to twist on itself a little bit and it's called buckling. Just a characteristic that is found within that group of individuals. The one-sided pigmentation you don't quite see. It wasn't present on all of the Defendant's hairs, but it was a prominent characteristic. But again, it did not exhibit the same characteristics as the Defendant's hairs.
All right. Referring you back, sir, to People's exhibit 475--it's an atlas of the photograph that you brought from the FBI depicting 16 different individuals of black origin--you indicated, sir, that you prepared this in order to show us, demonstrate for us the variation that you can find.
Well, it would appear that the lower--let me see if I can count it down. At the bottom row as I face it from left to right, it would appear that the third one to the right looks just like the photographs that you prepared of the known samples of the Defendant and the photographs of the evidence--some of the evidence hairs that were recovered from the blue knit cap.
Can you please point out to the jury the hair exactly that you're referring to and that I've referred to?
Yeah. The hair on the lower right-hand portion, third hair photograph from the left-hand side. That was a known sample of hair from the Defendant's hair sampling (Indicating).
Is your finding, sir, of a head hair that exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as those found in the Defendant's hair, would you say that that was consistent with the Defendant having had some physical contact with Ronald Goldman?
You earlier spoke to us about primary, secondary transfer of hairs. When individuals have contact through a violent struggle, have you in your past experience found the hairs of the attacker on the clothing of the victim?
And is your finding of a head hair consistent with the hairs of those of the Defendant on Ronald Goldman's shirt consistent with the Defendant having attacked Ronald Goldman on the night of June the 12th?
Is the finding of a head hair on the shirt of Ronald Goldman consistent with those hairs of the Defendant consistent with a primary transfer from the head--
Probably more so towards secondary type transfer as opposed to primary.
KEY QUOTEWell, a primary transfer would best be demonstrated by hair that's been forcibly removed that has a root that indicates it may have come out during a struggle. That's probably the best way to do that, to make that determination. A hair fragment on the other hand would more likely be found on the exterior clothing of an individual and to have been transferred in that way. That would be more--what I would think would be more likely explanation as a secondary transfer as opposed to primary.
And you indicated to us earlier, sir, that it's very common to find the hairs of a person on his own clothing.
Then would the finding of the hair fragment that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant on Ron Goldman's shirt be consistent with the Defendant having grabbed Ron Goldman from behind, wrapping his left arm around him in an effort to stab him with the right hand in which his clothing would come into contact with the shirt of Ron Goldman?
All right. Could--would you expect to find hairs from an attacker on clothing of the victim if there was no bodily physical contact between them?
I wouldn't expect to find anything if there was no physical contact. It's possible that hairs may be blown off of clothing, but that would more likely--it's more reasonable to believe that the actual physical contact results in the transfer, especially of hairs.
KEY QUOTEBecause hats are worn on the head, as we all know, and in combining that with the transfer or loss of hair, it's certainly consistent and reasonable to believe that their presence indicates that they came from a wearer of the hat, yes.
I wouldn't expect to find anything if there was no physical contact. It's possible that hairs may be blown off of clothing, but that would more likely--it's more reasonable to believe that the actual physical contact results in the transfer, especially of hairs.
Well, if that's his hat, it's not a surprise to me.
They were actually part of the fabric. After turning the hat inside out looking at the hat very closely under magnification, had to actually pull the hairs out from the arms.
Probably more so towards secondary type transfer as opposed to primary.