On June 29, 1995, the Washington Post reported, “Prosecutors were barred from presenting testimony by an FBI expert about the potential sources of the tan carpet fibers found on a knit cap left at the murder scene as well as on a bloody leather glove found at Simpson’s estate shortly after the killings.
:”However, FBI special agent Douglas W. Deedrick, a 23-year veteran of the agency and supervisor of the hair and fiber unit, will be allowed to testify that the carpet fibers on the glove and cap could have come from the floor of Simpson’s Bronco, which will bolster the prosecution’s getaway vehicle theory.”
The Post neglected to mention that Simpson attorney Johnny Cochran accused the prosecution of “manufacturing evidence” (see the AP trial report, June 30th.)
The Post: “The defense discovered the existence of Deedrick’s report late Wednesday while examining the disputed photographs and questioning the FBI agent.” Simpson’s attorneys learned belatedly that he had a five-page, single-spaced report entitled “The Search for the Source: Carpet Fibers Found on the Leather Glove and the Knit Hat in the O.J. Simpson Case,” and.” Simpson’s attorneys demanded a copy of the report, and Deedrick reluctantly complied.
His report was “discovered” by the prosecution after the trial was well underway, as prosecutors were about to turn witness calls over to the defense. And it was wittheld from Simpson’s defense team: ” Cochran said that the prosecution’s failure to divulge the existence of the report — a violation of state law requiring both sides to share information — was ‘perhaps the most egregious, most outrageous thing that’s happened in this trial.'”
Marcia Clark ridiculed Cochran, noting that the California law does not cover research material. Besides, the defense might have found it themselves if “they had worked hard enough.” She claimed that she was unaware of of Special Agent Deedrick’s report “until the defense learned about it,” and that she subsequently offered to turn if over to Simpson’s lawyers. The AP reported that Deedrick “reluctantly released it to the defense on orders of the judge.”)
Judge Ito was skeptical of f her statements. He ignored her, and observed that the prosecutors were guilty of suppressing “compelling evidence” of Simpson’s guilt. He said that he had heard of a glove with carpet fibers on it, and “pondered where they came from.”
Itp knew about the evidence, but not Marcia Clark?
He also questioned the source of the fibers. Ford manufactures the Bronco, but also police cars.
“It piqued my interest,” Ito said. He asked the Clerk of Courts for photos of police vehicles at the murder scene. His first thought was “cop car,” not Simpson’s Bronco.
But Deedrick insisted that the fibers could only have come from the Bronco. That “narrows down the source of the fibers,” Ito declared.
But Deedrick’s credibility quickly began to crumble.
Judge Ito requested a copy of the five-page report mentioned by Clark.
“I don’t consider it a report,” Deedrick said.
This esponse chilled Ito’s tone. “When was it completed?” he asked.
“Sometime this year,” the FBI supervisor replied. “I don’t remember when.”
Ito insisted that he narrow it down.
“Probably a couple of months ago.”
Ito said sternly that it whatever Deedrick called it, “this is a report.”
So are “Hitler;s Diaries,” and the mating call of a mongoose.
Alarm Bells
Flash forward to August 2013. Another accused murderer standing trial, Jeffrey Wogenstahl, receives a letter from the Department of Justice notifying him that an FBI agent’s sorn testimony in his case should be thrown out o court.
The week before, the DoJ published the results of an internal investigation: “FBI Testimony on Microscopic Hair Analysis Contained Errors in at Least 90 Percent of Cases in Ongoing Review.“
Peter Neufeld, Co-Director of the Innocence Project, commented: “These findings confirm that FBI microscopic hair analysts committed widespread, systematic error, grossly exaggerating the significance of their data under oath with the consequence of unfairly bolstering the prosecutions’ case.”
The DoJ document identified 33 death row inmates whose convictions were based on FBI hair sample analysis — nearly half of then had already been executed or died in prison awaiting the capital punishment.
The Justice for Jeffrey Wogenstahl website zeroed in on Deedrick:
“In Jeff’s case the issues of FBI hair testimony go far beyond the flawed scientific analysis of hair: the very discovery of the hair by the FBI agent, Douglas Deedrick, is itself suspicious, since a previous thorough examination (by the Trace Evidence section of the Hamilton County Coroner’s Office) had revealed no hair to be present. In a case where federal Judge Karen Moore referred to ‘the breadth and depth of prosecutorial misconduct that occurred in this case’ the mysterious arrival of the hair must ring alarm bells loud and clear.”
The shifty behavior of the FBI agent and Marcia Clark triggered Judge Ito’s suspicions. And Johnny Cochran spotted it immediately — the hair evidence, introduced late in the game, was quite possibly manufactured. The DoJ told Wogenstahl that Deedrick’s testimony was worthless, and recommended it be tossed out. Viewed retrospectively, Marcia Clark’s “compelling” FBI “report” should have also rung alarms loud and clear. but only Cochran heard them.
Comments