Miss Clark.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

Mr. Deedrick, you formed your opinions concerning the source of the impressions on the envelope and the paper initially based on the test impressions done at LAPD, correct?

That's right.

You then did your own test impressions more recently on the jeans, correct?

Right.

Did you then compare the test impressions you made off the jeans to the imprints on the envelope and the paper?

No, I don't believe I had those--I didn't have those photographs for that. Basically I was comparing the imprint patterns to see if the design was the same, to see if the spacing was the same, and I didn't have any reason to doubt that it would be.

And why is that?

Well, I guess there is--I trusted them to do what they said they were doing and it looked like they did that.

Did your test impressions look like the test impressions earlier done by LAPD?

Yes.

Did you see any--any--any distinctions that caused you to change your opinion as to the conclusion that the pattern--the imprint on the envelope and the paper was consistent with Ron Goldman's jeans?

I had no reason to exclude based upon the second one and they were all the same.

Okay.

No reason to believe my impressions or my imprint patterns would be any different in a comparison side-by-side than the first set.

So the LAPD impressions that were done and the test impressions you that did yourself were the same?

From the same pair of jeans, right.

And doing your own test impression, does that cause you to change any of your opinions previously formed about the jeans having been consistent with the source of the imprint on the envelope and the paper?

No.

Now, sir, is there a difference between blood spatter pattern analysis and the interpretation of a bloody imprint?

Objection. No basis for the witness to answer the question.

Overruled.

Well, sure. Yeah, I think you are talking about an imprint pattern analysis. If it is on fabric it would fall into my area no matter what the medium was that was on that fabric, but blood spatter is a different topic altogether.

And how is it different, sir?

Well, it deals with the movement, the projecting of blood, and what happens to it after it strikes.

Okay. Now, did you hear Dr. Lee state at any time any qualifications he had to compare and identify bloody fabric impressions?

I don't recall--

Objection. He did not hear Dr. Lee's complete testimony. Improper question.

Overruled. Overruled. The answer will stand. He said no. Next question.

And are you aware that Dr. Lee gave no indication that he had any qualifications--

Sustained. It is argumentative.

Do you think--sir, the fact that you cannot recall a specific case in which you compared or identified bloody imprints on fabric, does that inhibit your ability to determine the source of the imprints found in blood in this case?

No, but--no. I mean, there is a lot of cases I don't remember.

The fact that you cannot recall a specific case, does that indicate in any way that you have never compared or attempted to identify a bloody imprint on fabric in your past experience?

No. I mean, I've had blood imprints on sheets, I mentioned that, but I can't recall a specific case. Many of those have been shoeprints.

And when you have determined that you see an imprint that you think is a shoeprint, what do you do with it?

Give it to Mr. Bill Bodziak.

You indicated a--I think you indicated an observation, sir, and I'm showing you People's 619. You indicated an observation of an area on the jeans that you thought might be caused by Ronald Goldman's bloody elbow?

Right. Yes, I believe it is the second circle. Well, it would have been the--right.

The upper circle?

Just below that--that top circle. It would have been the second circle on the black and white photographs on the right.

The upper circle?

No, the second one.

Thank you. And--okay. Is that the curved line you see here, (Indicating)?

No. I think it is in--it is in a little further.

Can you point that out?

(Indicating).

For the record the witness has pointed to a curved line that appears more toward the right of the circle as you face the photograph.

The right, yes, that's correct.

You were asked a question earlier about whether that might be a shoeprint, correct?

I was asked that question, yes.

Is that your field of expertise, sir?

I've already stated I am not an expert in shoeprints.

Now, you indicated that you earlier looked at these items of clothing, the shirt and the jeans earlier in the case, correct?

I did.

And for what purpose?

Mainly to--just to take a look at them after some drying time, and also I wanted to take a look at them to see composition, appearance, type of fabric. And there was some damage. I was interested in determining possibly some damage to the fabrics.

What damage was that?

Well, to see if there was any--any way that I might be able to make a statement about the type of weapon that may have been used.

Objection, outside the scope of cross-examination.

Overruled.

Did you?

Did you make any observation--

--or more, at least one cut that I saw, very sharp.

Did you make any such observations with respect to the shirt?

That was on the shirt and on the jeans, both.

Single-edged weapon as to both?

Well, the ones that were clear. Some were gaping type cuts, but the ones that were clear, about three-quarters inch, it appeared that that was the size of the weapon, and it was a single-edged--

Counsel, we are actually going afield of the cross-examination.

Okay.

We did discuss the other purpose for which Mr. Deedrick looked at the Levis.

Okay. Yes, your Honor. Thank you.

So that was the other purpose that you looked at it for earlier in the case, correct, sir?

Right. A couple things: One, to see it after it has dried a little bit and see if there is any more particulate that I could remove, and for damage.

At that time did you make any observations concerning any imprints of significance?

No, I didn't look at it for that reason.

Now that you have--I take it you have now?

I have, yes.

First of all, now that you have looked at the jeans and the shirt for imprints of some significance to the solution of the case, did you find any imprints that you found were of significance to the identification of the murderer or the manner in which the crime occurred?

No.

And in saying that your--the conclusions you formed placed Ron Goldman at the crime scene, were you attempting to convey that you found no significance in the imprints you had identified?

Well, they didn't seem to me that significant.

I think you indicated that you did not do any test impressions in blood on cross-examination, correct?

That's right.

Did you feel that your failure to have done that in any way has a negative impact on the validity of your opinions?

I don't think it has that--again, I haven't done test imprints in blood. I've done them in a more viscous material, that is ink, with ink pads, but I don't think it detracts from the conclusion at all, just because I didn't use blood.

Why not?

Well, we are looking at test imprints, just an imprint pattern of a medium that is on the surface of a fabric and with blood, I don't think it--I don't think it matters, but again, I haven't done that, so perhaps that is another story.

Something that you might do later?

Well, maybe somebody who is interested in that perhaps.

In any case, sir, the conclusions that you drew in this case, after comparison with test impressions, are you--do you feel confident in those conclusions of consistency with jeans and shirt?

Asked and answered. Improper form, this question.

Overruled.

Yeah, I don't have any problem with that.

And the fact that you used initial photographs of the jeans and shirt to make your comparisons, does that in any way undermine the validity of your opinions concerning the consistency of the jeans with the imprint on the envelope and paper and the consistency of the shirt with the imprint on the jeans?

No, I don't believe so. I mean, with--with some of those patterns, they are pretty simultaneous and you have to enlarge them, and the best way to do that is through photography, so it actually helps you.

All right. Final question, sir: With respect to the imprint on the envelope and the paper, can you tell us whether--and you concluded that that was consistent with Ronald Goldman's jeans, correct?

Right.

Would that--were those imprints on the paper and the envelope consistent with Ron Goldman having fallen and writhing on the ground on top of that paper and envelope at some point during the murder?

Objection, argumentative, and there is nothing in my questions about writhing.

Overruled.

I have nothing further.