THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is defense attorney Albert De Blanc Jr., who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: The defense splits hairs.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “FBI Agent Doug Deedrick’s findings spun a web of circumstantial evidence that could help to ensare Simpson: hair ‘consistent’ with O.J.’s on the cap and Ron Goldman’s shirt; carpet fibers on the cap and Rockingham glove that could have come from O.J.’s but not Al Cowling’s Bronco, and cashmere hairs from the gloves’ inside lining on Goldman’s shirt. Hair and fiber evidence is far more tangible than DNA, but it is also far less discriminating.”

On the defense: “F. Lee Bailey’s cross began to unravel the threads of the prosecution’s web. Unlike fingerprints, hair analysis cannot generate positive identifications. Bailey showed that some hairs in the cap were not consistent with Simpson’s or the victims’. Bailey wisely steered clear of the carpet evidence to avoid opening the door to excluded evidence that would have shown those fibers only could have come from a ’93 or ’94 Bronco like Simpson’s.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Blue cotton fibers. Those may be the key threads to bind O.J. to the crime scene. By linking fibers from what is presumed to be Simpson’s sweatsuit to Goldman’s shirt and the bloody glove, the prosecution seeks to tie O.J. to the murders. DNA was impressive, but this evidence does a better job of reconstructing the crime scene.”

On the defense: “Where is he going and why is it taking so long to get there? Much of the time, Bailey was off on his own in a private conversation with the FBI expert on the intricacies of hair, fiber and the dictionary. His overall point, however, was quite simple. Hair evidence does not provide a fingerprint and even experts’ comparisons can be subjective.”

ALBERT DE BLANC JR.

On the prosecution: “Deedrick ended with a strong presentation of hair, fiber and trace evidence, overcoming the limitation imposed on him precluding his use of the words ‘rarity’ and ‘match’ concerning carpet fibers from the Bronco. This evidence is linkage evidence, as was the DNA evidence. It ties Simpson to the Bundy scene, the Bronco and the Rockingham property. The advantage to the prosecution is that it is much simpler to understand than the DNA testimony, which it corroborates.”

On the defense: “Bailey has the difficult task of walking a razor’s edge on the question of rarity and match. If he does not ask closed-end questions, he is very likely to elicit further responses such as Wednesday’s, when the witness uses the term ‘match’--a word to which the defense objected, though Judge Ito overruled it. Bailey’s central focus should be to attack Deedrick’s credibility due to presumed bias as an FBI agent devoted to the prosecution and to hit his credentials as a scientist.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times