All right, sir. Have you ever done any work in cases involving fabric pattern in comparisons?
Well, fabric imprint comparisons are where an incident may occur or contact may occur between a fabric and another surface, and this contact may result in leaving an indication that the contact occurred such as an imprint pattern. There might be some material that's on the surface of the fabric like blood or some other--grease, and then when the fabric comes in contact with a surface, it may leave an indication of how that surface of the fabric looks. Another type of imprint transfer may be where an individual leans up against a surface like siding on a house and may pick up some of the dust from the surface and an impression may be left as well in the dust. Most of the cases that I've looked at over the years have been relating to hit and run cases where victims have been struck with vehicles and the clothing has actually made an impression of some type in the vehicle, whether it's on the bumper, on the fender, on the windshield. But there are many different types of cases that could involve imprint examination, burglaries, someone crawling through a window leaving an imprint pattern from the clothing of the pants or the shirt in the putty around the window or on the window sill. Bullets as they pass through fabric may actually pick up the fabric imprint pattern on the nose of the bullet in the lead. Tape that's often used to bind victims or for disguises may have an imprint pattern, not just fingerprints. They may use gloves, but they may also leave imprint patterns on the tape or on the adhesive surface. So this is just another piece of this puzzle that we work with in a forensic laboratory to try to get the information for a case.
Now, have you ever examined fabric imprints where blood was the mechanism--was the liquid that was imprinted?
I can't recall specifically if I worked a case where blood was imprinted. It's hard to believe I haven't. Most of the imprint patterns that I've looked at have been involved with transfers like on vehicles. And in those instances, they often bleed quite a bit and they may even bleed on impact. So it's possible that I have, yes.
On a hit and run case, yes. I've--I've looked at situations where weapons may have been concealed in fabric items like a bag or a pillowcase or wrapped up in clothing. And so there you have an imprint of the weapon on that clothing, but there also may be an imprint back on to that particular weapon from the blood, from--originally came from the knife or some weapon.
Okay. Now, have you ever examined clothing or fabric items where imprint patterns have been formed from other clothing items; in other words, an imprint made on a shirt from a pair of pants being impressed on them or an imprint from a pair of pants on to a shirt?
I've seen it on sheets. Not so much on clothing. That's--it's not common for me to look at casework and even concern myself with that because that is generally not an issue. Most of the--the concerns of this type of examination involve like breaking and entering, hit and run. You may have some tape exams. But I have seen fabric impressions on sheets in murder cases I believe and also on rape cases.
Uh-huh. Can you explain to us why you usually don't see or get involved in analyses that have to do with one piece of clothing impressed on another piece of clothing?
Okay. You indicated that usually it's when you have fabric on fabric impressions that you're looking to identify, it's because you have a fabric impression on a sheet or maybe it involves fabric tape that's used to bind a victim or something like that if not usually an article of clothing on another article of clothing.
No. Usually it's not--we're not concerned so much with whether or not the fabrics made contact by looking for fabric type imprints or impressions. If they're going to make contact, we're either going to be looking for the hair or the fiber evidence and maybe some blood evidence, and that's going to be the main focus of the laboratory, not so much looking to see if a piece of fabric may have scraped across it because many of these are not as definitive because fabric on fabric often leaves a very limiting type indication or limiting marks.
In other words, if--even if you had a suspect's clothing worn at the time of the crime, if you found an imprint that may be consistent, you still couldn't identify--
I'm sorry. Even if you found a suspect's clothing at the time of the crime, would you be able to say in most cases whether it came from that clothing to the exclusion of all others?
No. It's not possible to take most fabric cases, fabric type examinations and say absolutely this fabric made this imprint on a sheet or on another--even on a bumper of a car. It's not possible to say absolutely. Where you may be able to come up with more definitive conclusions would be where there's been some defect in the fabric or there's some unusual characteristic, some design, some unusual design or perhaps an emblem or an embossed label or something that is very unusual and this made an imprint on a surface, then it comes a little more unique. But most fabrics don't leave imprints that are that significant. Where fabrics may be--may have some value is where you have some raised surface, something that may--may give you an imprint pattern.
Would you say, sir, that the fabric imprint examinations in a forensic laboratory are relatively common?
In that respect, sir, are imprint--are fabric impression comparisons part of the larger family of imprint examinations?
Well, imprint examinations, as I said, are very common in a laboratory. In our laboratory, we have different units that do different things. Tool marks at a point of entry, they may leave an imprint or an impression of that tool in a window or on a lock. In shooting cases, you may have the impressions, lands and grooves that are impressed on the surface of the bullet as it passes out the barrel. You may have fingerprints obviously. That's one. Shoeprints, tire treads, something that may have been left behind that you're trying to link back up to that particular crime. Fabric is just another one. If the surface of the fabric comes in contact with another surface and it is in a condition that it can leave something behind, then we compare it. And since we do hair and fiber fabric examinations in our unit, we're the ones responsible for most of those types of exams.
Well, he's a supervisory special agent. He's responsible for looking at shoeprints of different types, and I think he's done some tires and some other miscellaneous document work over the years.
Yes. And we have cases that come into our unit where no request is made, that a shoeprint is visible, and I take it right to him.
And, sir, conversely, if something--if there's an imprint that appears to be a fabric impression, who does it go to for examination and analysis?
Probably a hundred or more cases. Either working by me directly or as a consulting with other examiners. Every time an examiner has a case like this, they consult me on it.
In your experience, sir, have you found that different kinds of fabric have different distinctive features to them?
Can you describe some of the features that you look for in determining whether or not an impression is left by a particular type of fabric?
Well, different types of fabrics, whether they're woven or knitted, may leave a pattern, depending on the surface characteristics. That is the design of the fabric may be such that there may be raised areas that may absorb a certain material and may leave that upon contact with another surface. Twill slacks, for example, like blue jeans, they're pretty--that's not uncommon to see blue-jean type impressions or imprint patterns on a lot of different items because it's a raised ribbed fabric and it's a common fabric. And in hit-and-run cases that I've worked, a lot of blue jeans have struck bumpers.
Did you prepare a board to allow the jury to see some examples of different kinds of fabric impressions?
I have a board here, your Honor, that has been shown to everyone, ask to be marked People's next in order.
Thank you, your Honor. For the record, on this board are six photographs. Each of them is labeled with the kind of fabric that it is so we will not have to use A, B, C, D.
If you would, sir, please point to whichever photograph you choose to begin with to explain to the jury what you are attempting to depict with these photographs. When you do that, would you please identify the photograph by the name of the fabric that you put on there.
All right. The first thing right off you see is this front porch down here, and that's not a fabric. I have brushed surface area on the front porch, and I wanted to see what kind of imprint pattern that might leave. So I just put a little food coloring down and wiped it across with some tacking paper just to give you an idea of how this might look if it left an imprint pattern, something came upon it. The other fabrics include a gabardine up in the upper left. The pattern it leaves, it looks like a bunch of dots. But if you look closely, it almost has a diagonal type of rope pattern to it. The corduroy is again a raised type fabric with ribs. It will leave this particular pattern. Twill pants just beneath it here, Dockers are good examples. There's many different types of manufacturer labels that use twill pants. This differs from blue jeans on the left simply by the fineness of the rows. That is, these ribs are closer together. And you see that on blue jeans. They're a little bit coarser and they tend to have these ribs a little further apart. I took one of the lab towels that we have in the unit and did an imprint pattern of it, and you can see a kind of unique, a different appearance (Indicating). And that's just the design of the surface of the towel. And all this was--I did this for was just to give you an idea of the varying type of patterns that you may have between five fabrics and a front porch.
Now, I forgot to ask you one critical thing here, sir. Were there some items of evidence that you examined in this case that are--to which your examinations are relevant with respect to your knowledge of fabric impression?
And what was it you examined from the evidence in this case concerning fabric impressions?
Well, I examined Ron Goldman's jeans, shirt. There was an envelope that originally contained some glasses, was found at the crime scene, and a photograph of a piece of paper that was from the crime scene.
All right. Now, you indicated that you looked at Ron Goldman's jeans and his shirt in this case, correct?
When you looked at those photographs, were there photographs of different magnifications made of the jeans and the shirt?
Let's focus on the jeans for a moment. Did you prepare a chart showing the photographs of Ron Goldman's jeans at different magnification levels?
Right. The chart has a complete image of the jeans and it's actually less than one to one. It was reduced just to fit onto the developing paper, and then there are two other photographs that are one to one from about the pocket area down to the bottom.
All right, sir. Because I think a picture is going to make it easier, if you wouldn't mind stepping down to explain to the jury what you're showing in these photographs.
Okay. As I said, this one on the left, this photograph shows you the blue jeans here identified as coming from the victim Ron Goldman. What I did was, I circled--and it might be difficult to see here (Indicating). There's two photographs--two circles that I made on the right side of the right leg that I was interested in because there appeared to be some type of pattern imprint. These were--these photographs on the right, it's about one to one. It's about the actual size of the right leg. And these circled areas--this one circle on the top is broken down into two areas and the circle at the bottom is depicted on the bottom photograph.
Right. Because there does appear to be some type of pattern imprint present on the leg.
Yes. He's the one that initiated the photographs. I didn't--I had not seen the blue jeans except for very early on in this particular case and I had not seen them since. So he showed me these photographs.
Now, when he passed them on to you, did you, after examining them, make some preliminary observations concerning what you thought they depicted?
Well, I wasn't--I wasn't quite sure what they depicted initially. It did appear to be some--some parallel type lines going in different directions in the top circle, in the middle circle and going down from right to left and also down--vertical type lines that were present down just below the knee area. Wasn't quite sure what they were.
Okay. Did you have some test impressions submitted to you for comparison to these impressions that you see on these jeans?
Yes. I had test imprint patterns submitted from the blue jeans as well as from Ron Goldman's shoe and Ron Goldman's shirt.
And when we say "Test impressions," could you explain to the jury what that is and how it's done?
Well, a test pattern can be prepared a number of different ways. Years ago, ink, ink pads were very common, commonly used and they still are. I mean, ink pads do work pretty well. So that many of the original imprint tests that were prepared from fabric were done with ink. And, again, as I say, you can still use that. There's another system that's been developed in the market. It's called the Identicator, and it's a chemical that has a pad and the fabric is blotted into it and then it's pressed onto some treated paper, and the treated paper reacts with the chemical real quick and it will leave the imprint pattern of that fabric. This particular system can be used for shoes, it can be used for a lot of different things. It's the chemical that reacts with the paper based upon the pressure.
Okay. So when you make that impression of a piece of fabric, do you wind up with kind of like what looks like a fingerprint of the fabric?
Right. You'll get an exact kind of a mirror image of it or negative of the surface of that material that you're looking at. For instance, the ribbed blue jeans, the ribs that set out a little bit further from the fabric, they will appear to be dark on the Identicator.
Now, once you've performed that, once you have a test impression, what do you do with the area that--the imprint that is questioned that you're trying to determine the source of?
What do you do? Didn't I say that? I didn't say that? Okay. What do you do after you have the test impression created in order to compare it to the questioned imprint on the evidence?
Well, these are compared visually side by side, again, making sure that you start with 1X, that is one to one, and you can do a visual comparison. Sometimes it's not possible to see as much one to one, so you may have to photograph it, enlarge it to where it's clear and then do a comparison that way. You may need to make overlays if you think it's necessary. But most of these are just visual comparisons and also making some measurements.
Before I get to that, sir, if I may ask you, after you did the test--you compared the test impressions of Ron Goldman's jeans to the questioned imprint areas on his jeans, did you form some opinion concerning the possible source of that imprint?
I'm sorry. Let me back up. In this case, you compared--did you also prepare test impressions of Ron Goldman's shirt?
Before you prepared your own test impressions of his shirt, did you have in your possession test impressions of the shirt prepared by someone else?
And did you compare those test impressions to the questioned area of imprint on the jeans?
And did you form some opinion at that time concerning the possible source of the imprint you saw on the jeans which you've circled on People's 618?
Later at some point after that, did you also make your own test impressions using the Identicator of Ron Goldman's shirt?
And did you then compare those test impressions also to the questioned imprint areas on Ron Goldman's jeans circled on People's 618?
I did. I compared both--the test that I made, I compared with the original test plus I compared them with the imprint patterns that were present on the jeans.
Counsel, I think you may have misspoken yourself. I think this is 619, is the jean exhibit.
Thank you, your Honor. 619. May I ask that that--when I said 618 these last two questions, I meant 619.
All right. Now, after those comparisons were done--and were these one on one comparisons by the way?
Well, that the pattern that was prepared from the test imprint of the shirt could have produced the imprint patterns or the parallel lines that are present on the jeans located mainly in this top circle. Down in the middle circle here on the right-hand side of the photograph, lines that are also very similar and down here at the knee area. But by far, the best ones were right above the knee area on the right side of the pants (Indicating).
Can you--do you have an opinion, sir, as to the type of movement that would have caused the imprint that you've circled on People's 619 on Ron Goldman's jeans?
Well, it could be a swiping type movement, very easily could have been that, or a flat imprint. But I believe more likely, it probably was a swiping type in the direction of the rib on the shirt.
Now, I want to ask you another question, sir, and for that, you can retake the witness stand.
Do you see commonly variations between the test impression taken from an article of fabric and the questioned imprint to which you may find to be consistent with that fabric?
Well, because the active transferring and imprint onto a surface during an actual living event is affected by the amount of force, the movement of the individuals, the duration of the contact, the force of the contact, directionality of it, if it's twisted or slid. and when you make a test imprint, it's--you're trying to recreate it as best you can, but there's no way to know exactly what happened during the initial event or when a crime has been committed. It's--without having a videotape and actually seeing it occur, you don't know. So you try to do your best to recreate various movements or pressures that you put onto that treated paper.
Okay. Let me ask you a question, sir. Fabric typically is stretchy. It bends, correct?
When fabric is worn on a person's body, a person's body is generally not flat like a board or table or piece of paper?
Right. When you make a test impression with fabric, what do you--do you impress it on a rounded surface?
And the surface that you make the impression on, is that another fabric, piece of fabric?
Okay. So it's--so using the piece of paper that's flat on a paper, can you say, first of all, whether or not the paper has the same kind of absorbancy as fabric?
And so it's flat and it's a different absorbancy. Also, is there any way that you can make--that you try to stretch the fabric or pull it to show how it's going to look different if bent or stretched in any particular manner when you make the impression?
Well, sometimes you can place a finger in one area and stretch the fabric and make an imprint pattern that way. That may be more characteristic of fabric that's at the elbow or if it's on gloves at the knuckles or if it's on pants at the knee area because these are the areas that often get worn and they also often are flexed a little bit more. So an imprint that's taken in a situation like that on a twill fabric or blue-jean type fabric, often you'll see that the ribs are a little bit further apart whereas if you press it flat, turn the fabric in a little bit, it can make these ribs a little bit closer together. So it's kind of--it's a test that you're conducting and you do your best to try to recreate an actual event, but you never really can.
Do you know necessarily how much force was applied during the commission of a crime to cause a fabric imprint to be made?
In some instance, if you know how fast a car is going, I mean, you could know then.
Well, you probably have to find some dummy wearing some clothes standing out there waiting to be hit. Maybe that would be one way to do it, because you have to have some resistance and the resistance to that impact would have to be some mannequin or dummy that--and I don't think you could even do it then because obviously the victim of a hit and run case may be aware, may not be aware, may be running, may be ducking, may be jumping. So I don't know if you could even recreate it then.
KEY QUOTEBut the bottom line is, sir, that, are there a number of variables that occur when an actual imprint is made on fabric during the commission of a crime that cannot be completely duplicated in making your test impression?
Nevertheless, would you ever render an opinion as to whether or not a specific kind of article of clothing made a questioned imprint on a piece of evidence without having a test impression?
No. I would never attempt to do that. I would try my best to recreate what type of pattern a fabric may have or an object may have before I conducted an comparison.
Would you be willing to dismiss the possibility that any particular item of clothing may have made an imprint on a piece of evidence at a crime scene without having seen a test impression of that item to compare it to the questioned imprint?
I think in some instances, if you have an unusual enough pattern, I think you might be able to do that. I'd really want to do it. Just to be scientifically accurate as much as possible, you'd want to show people that in fact these do make different test patterns. But with blue jeans and some other fabrics, I would want to do that because--like twill pants, blue-jean pants, you may want to make sure that the ribs and so forth are similar. So I would want to make sure I did a test pattern.
Now, are you aware, sir, that Dr. Lee testified during the Defense case to certain imprints on Ron Goldman's blue jeans?
Are you aware, sir, that he in his testimony excluded the possibility that Ron Goldman's shirt could have made any of those imprints?
Are you also aware, sir, that he made no test impressions prior to--and made no comparisons between test impressions and the questioned imprint prior to arriving at his conclusions?
Hypothetically speaking, sir, if under those facts, that is, a questioned imprint on a pair of jeans and a victim's shirt of the type that Ron Goldman wore, if that shirt were to be excluded by an expert as having made the imprint on the jeans, without having any test impressions to compare to the questioned imprint from Ron Goldman's shirt, what would your opinion be of that scientific procedure?
Well, I think it's inadequate. I think you really need to do as much as you can as far as trying to recreate a pattern to compare it to. I don't know how you can make a statement like that without knowing what kind of pattern the shirt actually makes. I think you need to do it.
KEY QUOTEMrs. Robertson, I think they may need an exhibit. All right. Mr. Fairtlough, this is Defense 1339?
All right. Mrs. Robertson, is there anything that is not--I'm sorry. Miss Clark, is there anything that's not appropriate on this exhibit?
No. It's fine. You don't have to cut the feed on this one I don't think. Black and white photographs with the jeans without any--
All right. Now, the area that is designated with the red numbers 1, 2 and 3, the areas that are designated, have you examined those areas on this photograph on Defense 1339?
Have you also then examined the pullouts 1, 2 and 3 in the blow-up photographs on this board that purport to be the locations designated by the red arrows and numbers on this overall shot of the jeans?
Now, with respect to imprint no. 1, do you have any observations regarding that designated area?
No. It seems to be accurate. I mean, you'd have to turn this photograph on its side because this area here at the bottom, this dark area represents the dark area on the right side of the jeans (Indicating). But it represents the area that's depicted.
With respect to imprint no. 2, the pullout over here, it's represented to be the upper right knee area on the overall picture of the jeans, do you have an observation with respect to that imprint?
Well, it's not quite positioned by the arrow. It's in the general area, but this particular pattern here is actually located right in this area (Indicating).
KEY QUOTEAnd for the record, the witness is pointing to a location that is approximately one inch down and maybe quarter-inch in that is towards the right-hand side as you face it more towards the center of the knee.
It's pointing towards it, but the arrow doesn't land on it. I mean, it's--it's in the general area.
And with respect to no. 3, imprint no. 3, do you have any observations with respect to that imprint, sir?
Well, no. 3 is just not right at all. 3 is located right up in this area (Indicating).
KEY QUOTEAnd for the record, the witness has pointed to what would--what is actually on the same side as the number--red no. 2 and up about two inches where there seems to be a blotch of dark substance on what would--
Then based on your examination, sir, imprint no. 3 as designated on the inside of the jean was not there at all?
No. This particular pattern, if you superimposed it, you would see that this is the area of interest (Indicating). And that's the area that I was focusing on, so I recognized it right off.
And when the witness said, "This is the area of interest," for the record, your Honor, he pointed again to the area adjacent to the label on the ruler that's on the left-hand side of the jeans as you face them.
Now, with respect to imprint no. 2 and imprint no. 3, sir, are they the same level of magnification?
They don't appear to be. No. Imprint no. 2 appears to be a higher magnification, and this is just based upon the size of the ribs. the ribs on imprint no. 3 are smaller and imprint no. 2, they're much larger. Of course, the exposure, as you can see, they're a little more washed out on imprint no. 2.
Well, if you're trying to compare patterns or compare two things, you'd want to have them magnified about the same. It's like a pair of hairs, fibers or anything. If you're comparing them, you should be comparing them using the same perimeters. And imprint patterns would be one way to do that.
Why should you use--why should you be comparing them at the same level of magnification?
Well, just so you're correct. I mean, you wouldn't want to give someone the idea that it's something when it actually isn't. You want to represent the evidence as accurately as possible.
When you magni--the more you magnify, does it make the--what impact does that have on how much space there appears to be between the ribbing?
Well, if you magnify--as you magnify an image, you're going to increase the distance between--between objects obviously. The object will get larger, the space between objects will get larger. the ribbed pattern, the lines that are present on imprint no. 2 on the lower left-hand corner will increase in size between them. That is, if you're comparing it to something that perhaps--like imprint no. 3, these lines appear closer together. Yet, it's not unreasonable that both of them were produced perhaps by a similar type material.
So by putting in different--photographs of different areas at different levels of magnification, might it occur that an imprint, a questioned imprint might appear to look similar--two questioned imprints might appear to look similar when they really aren't because the spacing is misrepresented by the magnification?
Can the use of different levels of magnification on two different imprints have some impact on--strike that. Let me try it again. Can the use of two different levels of magnification on two different imprints create a misimpression with respect to whether or not they were made by the same source or same item?
I think it goes to what message or what you're trying to say, what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to show two things are from the same source, then you would want to represent it under the same conditions, the same magnification. It's misleading to take something that's very small and magnify it up to something that's very big if that's what you're interested in comparing it to. Because you really don't know anything about it, you might think that the small thing looks like the big thing, and in reality, they could never be the same.
Now, with respect to the imprint that you identified on the jeans as being consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt, can you show us where on the overall photograph that imprint was?
The imprint pattern on the full photograph on the left of the blue jeans that I thought was by far the best--and there were several in several different directions--were located on the--just above the knee on the right-hand side on the outside of the jeans.
Right. You would take imprint 3, turn it up and move it right over here, and that would be the area, which is just above the knee right above on the right-hand side of the pants (Indicating).
And that was the area that you found to be consistent with the shirt of Ron Goldman?
Would that--would the appearance of that imprint be consistent with his brushing his sleeve over that area of the jeans?
All right, sir. Did Mr. Bodziak also give to you photographs of an envelope found at the crime scene and a piece of paper that was found at the crime scene?
Having already examined them, he asked you a question? He asked you to perform some work?
When he gave you those photographs, what did you understand you were supposed to do?
Well, I was to look at the pattern on those photographs to determine if fabric may have been the source of the imprint pattern.
All right. Is this the board you prepared to depict the envelope, the paper and test impressions?
Did you identify any patterns on either the paper, which you have labeled on this board as "Paper," or the envelope found at the crime scene, which is labeled on this board as "Envelope"?
Yes. There were very fine parallel lines on the piece of paper at the bottom photograph and also on the upper right-hand corner of the backside of that envelope that was recovered from the crime scene.
All right. Would you like to step down, sir, so you could show the members of the jury?
I'd be glad to. (The witness complies.) Okay. The top photograph is the envelope, the area is upper right-hand corner on the backside, just real small area, small parallel lines going from left to right. The bottom photograph is of the paper. These lines are much fainter, but they're located in this general area going from left to right again. They're in this area in the center of the photograph as well as it appears that there's some a little bit further into that more stained area (Indicating).
All right. For the record, with respect to the envelope, the witness pointed to the upper right-hand corner as you face it of the envelope, and with respect to the paper, the witness pointed to the area that is along the lower edge and approximately one inch up in the approximate middle of the paper.
Now, if those lines on the paper, sir, are so faint, why didn't you just simply magnify the photograph to be very big so that you could more easily visualize it?
Well, you can do that. Often when you magnify something this faint, you're going to start losing definition to it. And often, many imprint patterns are more easily seen at the lower--a real low magnification, not higher magnification. You can alter the contrast by photographic techniques. You may add chemicals to different things that could also darken it. But to leave it in its existing condition, I did not enlarge this. I felt you would lose definition.
Well, then why not add chemicals to the development process of the photograph so that you could easily--more easily see the lines?
I think you--again, in maybe a technique where--again, I'm not a photographer, but you may--you may also increase the contrast by washing out some of the other areas and maybe focusing in on the--on just the fine lines. But I think you'd better speak to a photographer on that.
All right. But if you did that for the purpose of your scientific comparison, would there be a problem with the validity of making a comparison with a photograph in which the contrast and the lines have been altered in color to your test impression?
Well, obviously it changes the appearance of it. If you're interested in just the image of the imprint pattern, it may not be that big of an issue. But trying to keep it in line with what you actually see in its real state, probably you may want to do that. Just depends on what angle you want to approach it from.
Now, when you examined the envelope and the paper, did you have any test impression to compare those patterns to on those two items?
Well, there was a test pattern that was prepared and submitted taken of the jeans and I also had one that I prepared myself.
So you compared the impressions you found on the envelope and the paper to test impressions taken of Ron Goldman's jeans?
Well, my opinion is that the imprint pattern on the back of the envelope and also on the piece of paper could have been caused by the jeans, which is represented by the imprint patterns in the center photograph. All of these photographs are one to one.
Now, is that an important thing to know and to tell the jury, that the photographs are all one to one?
Sure. I mean, that's truth. I mean, that's what I'm here to tell you, that this is what you're actually seeing. It's a very fine pattern that's exhibited, and you see the same fine type patterns that are found on the envelope. You want to represent the evidence--represent the identification as it is.
And in having a test impression that is not magnified compared to an unmagnified impression shown on the envelope and the paper, does that give you any greater degree of scientific certainty as to the consistency of those patterns with Ron Goldman's jeans than if you had a magnified test impression or magnified impression of the envelope or paper to compare?
Again--and we've gone over this--that whenever you're comparing two things, whether it's one to one, two to one, three to one, four to one or a hundred to one, you're going to be comparing them, you compare them at the same magnification, or you can compare them one on one, and you may use a hand magnifier with low magnification to do that comparison.
Okay. Now, did the impression on the envelope and the paper appear to you to have come from the same source?
Okay. And the impressions on the envelope and the paper, did they look similar to the impression you saw and identified on Ron Goldman's jeans?
Oh, no. It's different. No. The shirt makes a completely different pattern than the jeans.
Okay. And regardless of whether it was Ron Goldman's shirt or not, the imprint that you identified on Ron Goldman's jeans, did it appear similar to you to the imprint patterns you found on the envelope and the paper?
Then in your opinion, sir, the imprints on the envelope and paper, were they made by a different object than the imprint on Ron Goldman's jeans that you identified?
They're made by different sources. The envelope and the paper appeared to have come from a single source or a couple sources that may have same pattern, and the one fabric imprint that was found on his hands while could not have been caused by the jeans, it could have been caused by the shirt or another fabric that has the same pattern.
Okay. So between the envelope, paper and the jeans, you have at least two possible sources for the imprints, maybe three?
Well, at least two, yeah, at least for these and one or more for the imprint pattern on the right side of the pants.
Now, did you also prepare a chart, sir, showing the jeans, the shirt and the envelope?
Your Honor, you know, the previous chart was so small, Mr. Goldberg pointed out that perhaps it would be better to pass it around to the jurors or at least have somebody hold it up and show it to them.
All right. Now, on this board, I see that you have a picture of the blue jeans and a test imprint of the shirt, an imprint of the envelope and a test imprint of the blue jeans. I don't see the piece of--
I don't see a picture of the little paper that was photographed at the crime scene that was shown on the previous exhibit. Is there a reason for that, sir?
These were all magnified. And, again, I stated I didn't increase the magnification on the paper.
The imprint--test imprint patterns on this particular chart are on the right-hand side, imprint of the shirt, of the blue jeans and here's another faint or lighter test imprint taken under a little different photography situation. The photographs on the left were either color or black and white at about 4X for the top four photographs here, both test imprints and imprints on the blue jeans and envelope. The photographs on the bottom are a little bit larger. They're closer to 8 magnification, and I'll explain why that is. Upper left-hand corner, the imprint patterns that I pointed out before on the right side on the blue jeans on the right leg, there's that blob again. That's kind of like the marker that I went by.
The patterns appear going across the twill. They're going across the ribs, which is significant because you wouldn't expect to see lines going in that direction unless there was something actually cutting across it (Indicating). The pattern that the shirt leaves is on the right and it's magnified about the same. So the spacing and the appearance of these was compared with the spacing and appearance of those patterns found on the blue jeans. The imprint on the envelope, upper right-hand side, it's about 4X again. This was a little bit darker. This is a heavy imprint. It's a lot of Identicator or solution pressed in. The better--I often find that the better imprints are represented by the ones that you see on the lower right-hand side, and that's a Polaroid photograph of an imprint pattern. This was taken from the same sheet that this one came from, but it was from a little bit--a little different area.
For the record, when the witness said, "This was taken from this," the witness was pointing to the lower right-hand photograph as being "This" and then "Was taken from this," he pointed to the middle right side photograph.
And the reason I say this is because many of the imprint patterns that are left are not real dark. They're often very light, especially dust imprints that are almost--they're very difficult to see. But this spacing here was compared with the spacing and so forth in appearance of the imprint that was on the envelope. And these are magnified again about the same, about eight times or so.
So on these two lower--lowest photographs, sir, they're both eight times magnification?
On the right--on the right side, these are all test imprints from the shirt on the upper right, test imprint from the blue jeans, they're the second and the third on the right-hand side.
But in each case, when you compare a test impression to the questioned imprint on this board, each pair is of the same magnification; is that right?
Same--same conditions straight across, and it's similar to when I did hairs or fibers. Same thing.
Now, did you notice on Dr. Lee's boards whether there was any indication as to what the magnification was that was used for any particular photograph?
Well, some of the ones that I saw, I didn't see any indication of magnification.
And was there any indication that you could see on those boards as to whether or not the items compared were of the same magnification or not?
If you had two items and you know they were the same, you could do a comparison that way and see if they're proportioned--proportionately the same. Otherwise, you may have some difficulty. You have to have a reference point to work from to determine whether or not they're the same or they aren't the same.
Was there any indication on the boards that you could read to see whether the magnification was the same? Were they labeled as such?
No. No. But I didn't label these bottom photographs either. I'm just telling you because that's what I remember them to be. But I didn't see anything on his boards there to indicate that.
They're the same, same photographic settings on the microscope that I used and same size frame, same size picture in each case.
So, Mr. Deedrick, based on all of the examinations that you conducted on the--with respect to the questioned imprint on the jeans of Ron Goldman and the imprint patterns that were questioned on the envelope and piece of paper at the crime scene, what conclusion did you come to?
Well, I think it's inadequate. I think you really need to do as much as you can as far as trying to recreate a pattern to compare it to. I don't know how you can make a statement like that without knowing what kind of pattern the shirt actually makes.
Well, it's not quite positioned by the arrow. It's in the general area, but this particular pattern here is actually located right in this area.
No. 3 is just not right at all.
Well, you probably have to find some dummy wearing some clothes standing out there waiting to be hit. Maybe that would be one way to do it.
He gave you those photographs everyday as a gift, sir? I have enough work, but no, he doesn't.