Agent Deedrick, I think I didn't have the pleasure of being in the courtroom the last time you testified, but I did watch it on television. You testified about hair and fiber?
And I recall you telling the jury that you had done 500,000 or about a half million comparisons under a microscope of hairs and fiber?
300 cases per year. Well, you--you have been with the bureau from, what, 1977, `78 was your initial training period?
And would it be fair to say that most of the time that you've been working at the bureau you've been at that microscope doing those half million comparisons of hairs and fibers?
Right. Most of the work probably has been surrounding the microscope. That's correct.
Do you know if that has any particular significance in the discipline of blood spatter interpretation?
That is the term that came to mind. It has nothing to do with a blood analysis, because I'm not expert in that.
Okay. We will get back to that. So you are not--you don't hold yourself out as an expert in blood pattern interpretation? Fair enough?
Okay. Now, you rarely go to crime scenes in your--was it--how many years have you been with the bureau? 28 years?
And you just told me before that to the best of your recollection you can recall being at between 20 to 25 crime scenes?
And to your recollection you had never been at a crime scene at the point where a body was still there? Most of these were homicides, right?
Most of them have been homicides and I come in generally--in fact, in almost all of those cases the body has been removed.
Uh-huh. Now, you would agree that the analysis of items at a crime scene is a much more dynamic and fluid situation than an analysis conducted in the laboratory?
Well, there is many considerations at a crime scene that you also may think about as a laboratory examiner because you may need to request additional materials or request a certain other collections be made. But the crime itself is a dynamic event, there is many things that are going on, and you might be able to reconstruct some of that through the lab. You may need also to be at the crime scene to help.
All right. But we've discussed blood spatter interpretation, serology, and now what I'm getting to, as we discussed before, is the discipline of crime scene reconstruction. You are familiar with that?
All right. And you would not hold yourself out as an expert in crime scene reconstruction, that is a person that goes to the crime scene, and taking account of all the different disciplines, tries to do a reconstruction?
Okay. Now, have you ever--you were asked to--you examined the jeans and the shirt at some point much earlier in the investigation of this case, did you not?
Came to the Los Angeles Police Department with Susan Brockbank from the LAPD, you looked at the jeans and the shirt?
And at that time you did not take note of any imprint patterns on the jeans that you thought had any forensic significance?
And the first time you began to look at photographs of the jeans and of the shirt was when you were in your office at the FBI sometime prior to Dr. Lee's testimony when you and Agent Bodziak got a telephone call?
Well, I believe he may have been on the phone at the time and he also had a report that I saw.
So you and Agent Bodziak began a reconsideration of imprints patterns after seeing Dr. Lee's report before he testified?
Well, a lot of my work initiated with that day as to consideration of fabric imprints or--it started on that day. I don't recall how it--negotiations went on or what discussions were held.
And these test impressions were conducted at the Los Angeles Police Department starting on August 21st?
Yeah. And did you even direct anybody on beginning those test impressions and how they should be done for purposes after fabric comparison?
No, I didn't have any direct communication with anybody from the police department on that.
Okay. Now, Miss Clark asked you a number of questions about your experience and qualifications to give a jury an opinion about imprints on fabrics. You recall those?
And you and I had had a discussion just a few minutes ago, before you got on the witness stand, about your qualifications in this area?
And after you and I discussed that matter, you went and had some further conversations with Miss Clark?
Umm, I don't believe so. I think I went upstairs and then came back down and ate some lasagna and came right back in.
Didn't speak to anybody in the District Attorney's office about anything that you and I had discussed?
Good. Now, in terms of the fabric impression work that you do, you have indicated that about a hundred cases you've been involved in your 23 years as an agent where you did anything with fabric imprints?
Now, in reviewing Dr. Lee's testimony do you recall he made a distinction between scientific fact and interpretation?
Okay. Now, would you accept the distinction between scientific fact and interpretation?
And would you agree that it is important to have adequate qualifications to get up on the witness stand and testify about something as an expert?
Okay. Would you agree it is a scientific fact that the imprints that you just testified about are bloody imprints?
Well, I'm not certain of that, but I mean I assume that is blood. It looks red and it is a bloody crime scene, so I suspect that is blood. That is a fact.
Well, do you in any way dispute that the imprint on the envelope is an imprint made in blood?
The imprints--parallel line imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans are imprints made in blood?
They are pretty dark. I couldn't tell. Black and white almost--most of my photographs that I looked at.
Yeah, but that was--the color photograph was less than one-to-one. I looked at the jeans last night. It could be dried blood.
Well, you don't feel qualified to render an opinion as to whether or not what you were examining here was--in terms of those parallel line imprints were blood?
Okay. And when--you just indicated the first time that you looked at the jeans with the purpose of examining the imprints was last night?
And basically what you were doing was a comparison of these test impressions and photographs, correct?
And you had already written a report stating your conclusions before you ever went to the laboratory and looked at the jeans?
Now, isn't it a fact, agent Deedrick, that in these fabric analysis cases that you've done before you cannot recall even one time before this case that you did an analysis of bloody imprints on fabric that were left by other fabric?
Well, as I stated to you, that I cannot recall a specific case where that situation existed.
So--and you were--didn't you tell me before, if I understood you correctly, that in the 100 fabric impression cases that you had done before that most of them were dust prints?
Told me that--and I think you repeated it on direct examination, that there were some instances where when you were investigating a burglary you would take putty imprints of some kind to relate it to fabric?
And you cannot tell this jury that you have ever done such an imprint comparison before?
Now, basically would this be a fair statement? That when the call came in to you and Agent Bodziak to examine Dr. Lee's report and the imprint evidence, that Agent Bodziak said that he told you that he did not feel qualified to examine the imprints on the jeans?
Well, was there discussion between you and Agent Bodziak as to qualifications--respective qualifications to evaluate the imprint evidence?
Was any decision made with respect to your qualifications and agent Deedrick--Agent Bodziak's qualifications to evaluate the imprint evidence?
And there is a document section, but Agent Bodziak is within the document section?
So there are various different areas and different people have different expertise?
And you are saying that out of everybody at the FBI you were the individual that has the most experience in evaluating bloody imprint evidence on fabric?
Did you tell us on direct examination that you were the person people went to because you had the most experience in interpreting bloody imprint evidence on fabric?
All right. You did offer some testimony--is there anybody else that has more qualifications than you at the FBI in this area?
So you are the most qualified and nobody--and you have not, to your recollection, ever done a bloody fabric imprint before?
Now, a decision had been made to do the comparisons by making this test impression before you were even called into this?
I thought before you received--did you have any involvement in the decision to have somebody from the Los Angeles Police Department on August 25th do this test impression?
I wasn't consulted about that by them or--nor did I have any conversations with them about that.
But the purpose of the test impression was to make the comparison of the imprint evidence on the--on the jeans, on the envelope and the piece of paper?
Was the purpose of the test impression to make comparisons of the imprint evidence on the envelope, the piece of paper and the jeans?
Sustained. He is not the person who made the decision to do that; he wasn't there. That is what he has testified to.
Well, when you were asked to do an analysis of the imprint--bloody imprint evidence, had the decision already been made, as far as you knew, as to what the motive comparison should be?
I'm kind of missing something here on this question. Maybe if you could repeat it for me.
Before you undertook to do the imprint--bloody imprint analysis in this case on the fabric, piece of paper and the envelope, had the decision already been made that the way to go about doing this was to use this Identicator kit to do a test impression?
Okay. Now, would you not agree that the Identicator kit is what is sometimes known as inkless fingerprint?
This is sort of a yellow--long yellow pad that is pressed onto the jeans in this case that were lying flat on a table?
Right. I generally do it the other way, I press the fabric into the pad, but you could do it either way.
Now, would you not agree that the media involved in taking impressions is important in terms of imprints?
All right. And as we were discussing this before, you told me that when you were first approached to do this analysis of the bloody imprints, the thought crossed your mind that the most appropriate test and experiment to perform was to take blood and use that as the media to create imprints?
No, you misstate. That is not what I said. I didn't use the term "Most appropriate media."
Fair enough. It crossed your mind that doing this imprint impression for which you were making comparisons, that it would be maybe a good idea to use blood?
Well, I--I thought of using blood, but that is not the protocol that we have in the unit. I don't believe necessarily if it would make a better representation or not.
Okay. And blood is thicker or more viscous I think the term is than the inkless chemicals that you are using to make your test impressions here?
But in terms of designing a scientific experiment to do comparisons, isn't it desirable to be using like media to make comparisons when dealing with imprints?
Yeah. I mean if you want to nitpick this down to this level, if the results that you get are so definitive, then maybe you want to do that, but you we are not talking about something that is that definitive. We are only talking about a little line that doesn't have a lot of characteristics.
Well, is your answer then you don't think it would have been desirable to create an experiment where the imprints were done with blood?
Well, basically I think by your answer you said the reason that you decided not to do the imprints in blood or perform experiments along those lines is that it wasn't part of your standard protocol in the laboratory?
Yeah. That is not the standard protocol that we have to take whole blood and do things like that.
Well, is there anyplace in your protocol where it says the standard procedure for doing a comparison of bloody imprints, particularly fabric on fabric, is to use this Identicator kit?
No. I think the use of different materials like Identicator or ink or whatever, that kind of flexes a little bit.
Now, you said that to the best of your recollection you've never done a bloody imprint comparison before, I think you told us that?
I don't recall a specific case where I have done that type of comparison, bloody imprint on fabric.
KEY QUOTEAnd yet you say that you decided not to create imprints for purposes of comparison with blood because there was some kind of standard procedure as to how to do this?
No, I mean it is just not--no, there is no--in the protocol I don't believe it indicates what kind of medium to use. We have been using Identicator and we have been using ink pads over the years, but to take whole blood is not something that--that we routinely do.
And that often when fabric is saturated and you make an imprint that that can, for lack of a better word, smush the ridges so you can't see the imprint?
Now, another scientific fact--well, would you agree that another scientific fact about these imprints is that they are in blood, but also that the imprint on the envelope, the piece of paper and the jeans, actually, are static, that is, they show evidence of little movement?
Well, it is difficult to say with the jeans, but I think I've already testified it might be a swiping type or a moving type motion that may have caused that, but the paper is probably static. I think the papers were sitting and something landed on it.
So you would agree that in terms of the observations that it would--we could agree it is scientific fact that the bloody imprints were made and impressed with relatively little movement?
Yeah, I--that is reasonable. I don't really know the dynamics, nor could I say with hundred percent certainty what the dynamics were of this, but it probably was laying down and something landed on that one area.
And you would think that would be the most reasonable interpretation of how the imprint got on the paper and how it got on the envelope?
Yeah. That is more logical than having the paper float down and land on something. You know, I think it is more reasonable.
And would you--is your reluctance to opine on this a little bit because you feel a bit insecure about making comments in the area of bloodstain interpretation?
I'm not reluctant to answer the question. I don't feel I'm necessarily lacking abilities in doing this type of comparison. I think blood comparisons on fabric, as far as imprint, can be done in a similar way to other types of materials.
But I guess what I was really asking you, you don't feel in any way uneasy about offering opinions about these bloody imprints, because as I think you've told us, you don't regard yourself as having expertise in the area of bloodstain or blood pattern interpretation?
No. It is just a different transfer media. That is all. It is a different one than what we use.
Now--but if I understand your opinion correctly, you are indicating that there was a bloody imprint made on the envelope and a bloody imprint made on the paper, correct?
So based on that interpretation that some person wearing blue jeans would have to have come into direct contact with that paper and with that envelope on separate occasions?
May have been the same--same contact. Maybe it was just a different portion of the same bloody surface, whatever it may be. I mean, if you are talking about a leg, it could be that long, and I don't know the relationship of the paper with the envelope, so if they are in the same general area, a piece of the--the bottom portion of the jeans may hit, if that is jeans, and a portion of the knee may hit, for instance. I don't know. It could be two separate incidents or one.
Well, you said you don't know the relationship between where the envelope was and where the paper was?
You haven't seen a photograph of Detective Fuhrman pointing to the Rockingham glove with the envelope near his foot and the piece of paper out on the walkway?
Well, have you seen a photograph of Detective Fuhrman pointing--oh, I said Rockingham glove. I'm so tired. I'm sorry. Pointing at the Bundy glove, all right. Have you seen that picture?
All right. And that--does that picture orient you as to where the envelope and the piece of paper were in relation to each other?
I just don't recall. I mean, I would have to really see the pictures. Obviously it is a pretty small area, so it had to be pretty close.
So when you said it is possible that the imprints that you are asserting came--could have come from a pair of blue jeans, if it were Mr. Goldman's blue jeans and it were one contact, then that would have meant that Mr. Goldman's body was configured in such a way that his jeans were hitting the envelope and hitting that piece of paper at the walkway at about the same time?
Well, if that is a single event, that is what we are saying, or it may have been two events.
All right. So in terms of your reconstruction that could have been one event that he--wouldn't you expect that that would have meant that he had fallen in the walkway?
If that is where the imprint was applied, if it was on the soil or somewhere else, I don't know where in relationship to the body that imprint pattern was deposited.
But it would be fair to rule out, in terms of your interpretation, that the imprint, for example, on the envelope or the piece of paper, could have come about with the envelope or the piece of paper hitting jeans and then falling to the ground?
I don't know. I think--I think I have said that it seems reasonable that the paper--papers were laying flat and then contact occurred causing the imprint pattern. That seems to me logical. But there has to be some force, some resistance to that contact, so the paper, if it were not on the ground, would have had to have been against something, so that that imprint occurred. It wouldn't be floating; it would have to be either held or on something else.
When you and I were talking before and we were operating on your premise that this could have come from Mr. Goldman's jeans, these two imprints, that didn't you indicate or aren't you saying that you felt it unlikely that either the piece of paper or the envelope could have gotten these imprints if they had just touched the jeans and fallen to the ground?
Okay. Just wanted to be clear. And you are indicating and assuming--just going along with a presumption that you've made that could it have been imprints caused by Mr. Goldman's jeans and there were two contacts, then that would have to be two separate contacts of Mr. Goldman's jeans, one on the envelope, and one on the piece of paper?
Now, do you have any idea whose blood or any genetic typings are on the blood on the envelope?
My understanding, and I don't have the greatest understanding of all the events of this case, they don't have that piece of paper.
All right. I mean certainly if that piece of paper were available, at some point you would want to look at it for purposes of coming in and testifying about comparisons.
Although you rendered your opinion with respect to the imprints on the blue jeans just from photos?
Now, you indicated that you thought that Dr. Lee's board with the jeans was misleading; is that right?
Well, I said that--two things I said. I said that the direction of the arrows as to where these photographs were taken were not--were not correct. I don't think that necessarily represents misleading anybody, but the magnifications do appear to be a little bit different.
Yes, and my apologies to the jurors in the back, but I'm just going to do a quick general one.
Now, just if I understand your testimony correctly, would you agree that imprint 1 and imprint 2 are, when you examined them, about the same magnification, right?
Well, I wouldn't call it a criticism. It is just an observation that it appears to be a little less magnified.
Well, are you trying to convey the impression to the jury that somehow by breaking out these larger magnifications of the jeans that Dr. Lee, in creating this board, was in some fashion trying to mislead?
No. What I was saying here was that these photographs do not appear to be the same magnification, so if you are going to do a comparison between the two, it wouldn't be as accurate as if they were the same magnification.
Incidentally, just on this issue, I think you were saying that the way one magnifies lines of these impressions can affect the way that one views the comparisons?
And with respect to Dr. Lee's testimony, do you know if Dr. Lee ever told this jury that all three of these pictures were exactly the same magnification?
Now, ordinarily when magnifications are done, isn't it the standard forensic practice, if one is trying to do precise enlargements to scale, is to put a ruler in the picture?
And the reason that one puts a ruler in the picture is then if somebody actually wants to go and do a precise comparison, you can take a look at the ruler, make a measurement, take a look at the lines, make a measurement and do precise comparisons?
Right. Well, I had rulers in these, but the pictures were pretty big, so in order to cut them down for the chart so I could ship them, I cut the rulers off. So there might be some portions of the rulers underneath the border, okay?
Basically I think you have indicated to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that you just basically had these taken and then you sent them to the lab and you said make them 8-by-10's?
I took them at about four times magnification. I asked that they be enlarged 8-by-10 so could you see them better and it comes out to be about eight times or so.
Okay. Now, I believe in--would you agree that with respect to an imprint made in blood, that if a shoe had a certain portion of the sole blood on it, and--but not the entire sole, and a portion of it hit the side of an envelope, it could make an imprint such as is depicted on the envelope here.
Well, it could if the pattern on the base of that shoe exhibited or left a pattern just like Levi jeans and it would look like that.
Well, you say a pattern like Levi jeans. If the pattern on the sole of the shoe had parallel line imprints that were consistent with what you see on the envelope, then in terms of the imprint you see, this would be consistent with a portion of the shoe touching an envelope?
Right. I mean, I couldn't tell the difference, if all the other things were the same.
Mr. Scheck, would you step around to the other side of the exhibit, please. I'm sorry.
Now, this is the chart you created with respect to the imprints on the jeans; is that correct?
Now, you said that you created photographs on the right side of this exhibit that were about one-to-one?
Uh-huh. And you and I discussed earlier this morning the--if you could get down for just one second, please.
The--on the top--the photograph on the upper right-hand corner of this chart, the second photograph down, (Indicating), there is a circle; is that correct?
All right. And that is a pattern that has a contour of about what would you say, three inches?
And the best you could do in assuming that these parallel line imprints came from Mr. Goldman's shirt was raise the possibility that that represented his elbow?
You know what, your Honor, I have a feeling that isn't going to be the best media. Oh, there it is. Okay.
All right. Now, was part of the testimony of Dr. Lee that you watched the demonstration that he performed with respect to blood patterns?
Okay. Now, in terms of--you said you had some training or familiarity with blood pattern analysis?
No, I said I have some experience with serology and serology testing procedures, but blood pattern analysis has been--was left up to one other examiner primarily in the laboratory. I didn't do much of that.
Okay. Well, to your knowledge does the--do you know that in terms of blood pattern analysis, when experts in that field refer to swipes, they are referring to something on the order of that pattern?
Well, when you used the word "Swipe" in your direct examination, you were indicating that it caused a--Mr. Goldman's shirt could have swiped the jeans in a certain area and caused an imprint? Didn't you say that?
Could you show the jury where on this diagram you are referring to, the place where the imprints that were a swipe?
He is not a blood pattern person, but you can ask him describe the portion on this exhibit.
I indicated it may be some type of swiping motion in the direction of the ribs. There is one direction going this way, (Indicating), one going this way, (Indicating) another down here in this area, (Indicating), so essentially it looks to be slightly maybe three different motions. And if you are assuming here that this is the shirt, the shirt could have brushed back and forth in perhaps a couple different directions.
Yes. It starts essentially near where this blob is, (Indicating), down--starts--
I'm sorry. It starts, this blob area here, (Indicating), which is this area here, (Indicating).
Now, agent Deedrick, looking at the--you are referring to the circle now--let's be straight for the record. On the picture of the blue jeans on this diagram, the upper circle is the area that you've blown up on the upper right-hand photograph?
Right. It would have been--I think it is generally both--it may incorporate--I guess it is, right, it is the top circle primarily.
And the section that you've drawn the second circle around in the upper right-hand photograph, right, that is just below the circle?
Right. It is just below this top circle, (Indicating), that's right on the jeans.
As you said before, I don't mean to be nitpicky, but maybe is this a small error in terms of breaking out?
No big deal. I agree. Let's talk about the upper right-hand photograph in the top circle. I think you have indicated that you see a different set of imprints going in different directions against the grain?
Now, I realize that you were using the term "Swipe" without any particular reference to an expertise in blood pattern analysis, right?
But the substance of what you were saying is that you were suggesting that those imprint patterns could have been made, and I think your motion was, by a movement of the arm or the sleeve against the side of the jeans?
Now, do you have any scientific basis, as a blood pattern analyst, to tell us what kind of imprint would be left by the shirt coming into contact with the jeans with movement?
Are you familiar with Dr. Lee's testimony that the imprints in this area of the jean represented multiple imprints on top of each other, that that was his interpretation?
And do you recall his testimony that the reason he reached that conclusion is he had those distinct imprint lines that were consistent with a flat surface covered by blood hitting the side of the jeans?
That is just a suggestion, an idea that I came up with here that it could have been a brushing type movement.
Would it be fair to say, agent Deedrick, from what you know of Dr. Lee, that his experience and expertise in the area of bloodstain interpretation and the interpretation of bloody imprints is vastly superior to yours?
KEY QUOTEYou can't--well, let's establish that you have conceded that you have next to no expertise in this area.
The area of bloodstain interpretation. You don't hold yourself out as an expert in that, do you?
I understand. Now, by reputation are you aware of what is Dr. Lee's reputation in this area, if you know.
You don't have any knowledge of him having written any texts or given any lectures even at the FBI on bloodstain pattern interpretation?
Does it bother you a little bit, agent Deedrick, that you have been brought in here to this courtroom at the end of the trial to render an opinion about--
Well, you are testifying here about a bloody imprint and you readily concede that you have no expertise or training in bloodstain pattern interpretation?
Now, you are saying that you believe that the imprints on the jeans could have been caused by the impact of Mr. Goldman's sleeve against the jeans?
Actually I should say--I misstated that. Or the swiping against the side of the jacket?
Now, did you see any two-way transfer here? That is, an imprint on Mr. Goldman's shirt that reflected the pattern of the jeans?
Now, one point I forgot. Agent Deedrick, when you were suggesting before that you thought it might be possible that there was--oh, withdrawn. If I could summarize then what you've said in your report and your opinion, you say that the imprint on the envelope and the imprint on the piece of paper are, quote-unquote, like the test impressions done in inkless fingerprint chemicals, for lack of a better term, that you made?
Right. But when you are referring to it, you are referring to these test impressions that you made, right?
And just to be clear, there were, for example, from the jean, seven test impressions made?
And you looked at the jeans for the first time for purposes of imprint examination?
And did you see any purpose in doing that, other than being able to come in here and tell the jury that you had actually done it yourself?
I wanted to see just--just to take a look at them to see that in fact there were yellow markings on the legs. I wanted to see the imprint patterns personally that I had indicated were like the shirt. Other than just to show that the imprint patterns that I made are just like the imprint patterns that they made, that is basically it.
Uh-huh. Now, you are not saying that you can positively identify those patterns as being from Ronald Goldman's jeans?
And you are not even saying that it couldn't have come from jeans worn by another person?
You are not even saying that it could be jeans or that it--it could have--it is necessarily an imprint made from jeans?
Now, at the end of your testimony from Miss Clark you said that the bottom line or the conclusion you drew from your analysis of all these imprints is that all you could say is that Ron Goldman was at the crime scene?
Well, based on the could have associations, that is one interpretation, yes.
KEY QUOTEWell, didn't you say at the end of your testimony that the bottom line is that you can tell us your conclusion is Ron Goldman was at the crime scene?
That is what you said. But when you say at the end with that conclusion that you've now reached the judgment that it was Ron Goldman at the crime scene, aren't you indicating by that answer that you have conclusively demonstrated that those imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper came from Ron Goldman's jeans and no other jeans?
I don't recall a specific case where I have done that type of comparison, bloody imprint on fabric.
That's right. It was based on photographic comparisons... And you had already written a report stating your conclusions before you ever went to the laboratory and looked at the jeans? That's right.
No. I just had a seat... I just had a seat. I think I went upstairs and then came back down and ate some lasagna and came right back in.
Well, based on the could have associations, that is one interpretation, yes.
Would it be fair to say, agent Deedrick, from what you know of Dr. Lee, that his experience and expertise in the area of bloodstain interpretation and the interpretation of bloody imprints is vastly superior to yours?