DECEMBER 16, 1996





8:45 A.M.



(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Call Herb MacDonell.

HERBERT LEON MacDONELL, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do, yes.

THE CLERK: Please, state and spell both your first and your last names for the record.

THE WITNESS: Herbert Leon MacDonell. Last name M-a-c-D-o-n-e-l-l.


Q. Sir, where do you reside?

A. Corning, New York.

Q. What is your occupation, sir?

A. I'm a forensic scientist, specifically a criminalist, involved in examining physical evidence, evaluating it, and hopefully, the reconstruction of prior events.

Q. And your position at the laboratory is what, sir?

A. I'm director of a small forensic laboratory, a consulting laboratory, which is available to both prosecution and defense in criminal cases, for the plaintiff and defense in civil cases.

Q. And you direct that laboratory, do you not, sir?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And do you have --

Well, tell us about your undergraduate degree.

A. I went to Alfred University, which is also in upstate New York. I received my bachelor of arts degree, with a major in chemistry, and a minor in mathematics. And I have a BA degree.

Q. And do you have any graduate degrees, sir?

A. Yes. I have a master of science, with a major in analytical chemistry and a minor in physics from the University of Rhode Island.

Q. And do you have any other formal education beyond the bachelor's degree and the master's degree in science?

A. Yes, I do.

I've attended many seminars and programs of up to, in one case, ten months in duration, and under the Attorney General, State of Rhode Island, in a course known as criminalistics.

I've attended many analytical chemistry symposiums and courses dealing with forensic science in particular, and analytical chemistry generally. These have been at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other universities.

And I've also attended many police programs under the New York State -- it's called the Municipal Police Training Council. It's been a while since I took that course; I think it was 1964.

I've also taken the same thing at the University of Pennsylvania State Police and other police-oriented programs, as well as forensic science.

Q. And have you taught, Mr. McDonell?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Tell us -- please relate to us what teaching experience you have had, what -- what institutions and what courses you taught.

A. I began teaching, other than graduate assistant work, at Alfred. I began teaching in Milton, Wisconsin as a professor of chemistry and head of the chemistry department for three years, between 1951 and '54. Then did two more years of graduate study at Rhode Island, where I was an assistant in the analytical chemistry department.

I began teaching at Corning Community College in 1960, offering courses in police science. I taught there till 1992, with a five-year sabbatical between about 1972 and '77.

I also taught at Elmira College, a four-year institution in upstate New York, where I taught a total of ten different courses in forensic science. And that was between 1972 and 1983.

I've since conducted an institute specializing in the direction metric interpretation, or the study of appearance of blood, to determine the possible causes that produce these blood-stain appearances. These are one-week institutes.

I have running now, 46 of them: One in Australia, one in Sweden, and the other 44 within the continental United States.

Q. And can you relate to us what industrial experience you've had?

A. I was employed by the DuPont Company, as a research analytical chemist in Philadelphia, to one year following graduate school at Rhode Island. And I then went to Corning, New York, and worked in the analytical department. I was there for 15 years, developing methods of analysis for glass and other materials.

Q. Tell us what experience you've had in the field of scientific crime investigation, please.

A. While I was in graduate school, I was employed by the Attorney General as a forensic scientist for the two years there.

I began consulting after the learning experience and work experience I had in the crime lab, quite a bit, off and on, up to 1958, when I began doing it quite extensively.

I had done a lot of writing, and I guess I was becoming somewhat known, so people called me. And from 1970 on, when I had the laboratory constructed which is the lower level of a large structure -- the upper level is all living facilities -- so we either have a laboratory in the lower level and live in the laboratory, or the laboratory's in our home, whichever way -- whichever floor you're on.

So I began doing a lot of consulting then, and have ever since consulted, so far, I think, 13 foreign countries and all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Q. Do you belong to any professional societies?

A. Yes, quite a few.

Q. Please tell us the major ones.

A. I'm a member of the American Academy of Forensic Science. I have been, since 1964, a fellow in that organization, over 32 years now.

I belong to the British and Canadian Societies of Forensic Science, and to many specific organizations within the general field of forensic science, dealing with criminalistics: Fingerprint identification, firearms identification, and many teaching associations in that field.

Q. Have you ever written or authored any technical articles on forensic science, sir?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Tell us about how many.

A. I know I've written well over 100 articles that have been published dealing with forensic science.

I have written about five books on blood-stain pattern interpretation, and many chapters in other people's books where they were the editor, in Canada and the United States, on blood-stain pattern interpretation.

Q. Have you ever lectured on the subject of forensic science before any professionally recognized organizations?

A. Yes, many times.

Q. How many?

A. I've documented over 600 that I know of, and I'm sure I missed a few.

Q. All right.

Are you certified by any recognized forensic organization, Mr. McDonell?

A. Yes. I'm certified -- and still am -- by the International Association for Identification as a Senior Crime Scene Analyst.

Q. Tell us what experience you've had with human blood evidence.

A. I began working with human blood during my master's thesis at the University of Rhode Island, where I developed a new method, actually, for typing blood, using what is called today, immunoelectrophoresis. At this time, that word had not yet be coined. It was used by the French for six years after I published my thesis, or had it written. It was never actually published.

The subject of blood stains has always interested me from the standpoint of physics to determine from the static aftermath of an event that caused blood shed, what are the possibilities that could have caused that blood-stain pattern.

And I became interested very much, in 1966, when I had a case with a lot of blood and I couldn't understand it. And I since researched the literature and found many other people over the years, going way back, had the same experience: They recognized there was something there they did not understand, so they conducted research.

And that is precisely what I did. I was not original in it; it is not something that I did. I had cases to go back to, 1514 in England, showing blood-stain patterns being recognized for their significance.

Simply stated, to make it very simple, I did research for the government under the Department of Justice on a project known as flight characteristics and stain patterns of human blood in the years 1969 to '71, published a report that was in print by the Superintendent of Documents for over 12 years, distributed worldwide. And then as a result of that, was asked to begin teaching the subject, and that is what I have done, outlining the institutes. I have been working with it, literally, since 1954.

Q. And who attends these institutes that you put on for blood stains?

A. Basically, they're crime-scene technicians; they're people that would go to a scene, investigate, and try to understand what had occurred.

They would be homicide investigators. I'm getting quite a few forensic pathologists. These people come from all over the world. I'm getting attorneys, and we've had veterinarians. We've had a wide variety of people, including forensic odontologists or bite mark people to better understand what this blood means or what it could mean.

Q. And in your experience, have you ever had the opportunity, and actually presented expert testimony on the subject of human blood-stain evidence interpretation?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. How many times have you testified on human blood-stain evidence interpretation?

A. Just on blood stain, I don't honestly know. I would estimate certainly, 175 times. I know it's been in over -- in over 35 states and two foreign countries.

Q. When were you first retained in the O.J. Simpson matter?

A. Well, I was first contacted in August of 1964. I was not --

Q. '94?

A. '94.


A. (Continuing.) 1994. That was through a phone call that I received.

I was not actually retained, as such, until, of course, I received a retainer some couple of months later, I think.

Q. And you were offered to the District Attorney and the Los Angeles D.A.'s office to assist in the investigation of this case?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. It's preliminary.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your services were offered to investigate this crime to Los Angeles Police Department, as well as the L.A. District Attorney's office, by and through Mr. Simpson; isn't that correct?

A. Well, by "you," you mean --

THE COURT: Well, that I'll sustain.

Resume your examination.

Q. You're --

A. I'm not sure I understand the question. I was made available?

THE COURT: The question is not pending, Doctor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were made available to the L.A. --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. And that question is not pending.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is this a copy of your C.V.?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. BAKER: Next number.

THE CLERK: 2266.

(The instrument herein referred to as Curriculum Vitae of Herbert Leon MacDonell was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2266.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of --

You testified in the criminal trial, did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You have reviewed various photographs of the crime scene, have you not, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have done interpretations relative to blood-stain and blood-pattern evidence from this?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

May we approach the bench, Your Honor?

THE COURT: All right.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, this witness -- this witness's deposition was not taken pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, that his testimony would be frozen as the testimony he gave in the criminal trial. At the criminal trial, he testified about something he saw on the inside of the sock.

Mr. Baker appears to be leading him up, now, to blood-stain interpretation at the crime scene, and it wasn't the testimony at the criminal trial. He was frozen. We weren't allowed to take his deposition. And our understanding is, his testimony is to be limited. That's what it was with all the other witnesses.

MR. BAKER: First of all, they were totally allowed to take anybody's deposition they wanted to. That was never stipulated.

THE COURT: Can I have the stipulation?

MR. BAKER: Second -- second of all, Your Honor they put on -- they put on Spitz to testify as to the time of the crime of a minute and 15 seconds. I have to be able to rebut that testimony, that both crimes took a minute and 15 seconds and that can be done in those small measures through the interpretation of blood stains. And I have to have leeway after they put on their evidence to rebut that evidence.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there's nothing --

THE COURT: Excuse me. I want to see the stipulation.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's at the -- Your Honor, I will represent that it recites, and it's in the court file, that the parties stipulate that if they designate a particular person to be frozen, then that person's testimony at trial cannot go beyond anything given at the criminal trial, in return for the other side not taking that person's deposition.

And that's all set out in the stipulation.

And, for example, they asserted that against us in regard to Bruce Weir, we were not allowed to expand his testimony pursuant to that stipulation.

Mr. MacDonell is one of the enumerating deponents on the list of the defense witnesses whose testimony is frozen.

It would take me ten to 15 minutes for me to get it for you. I have to go back to the hotel across the street and get it. He's clearly on the list. That is clearly what's been said; there's never been a dispute about that.

MR. MEDVENE: This is really out of blue, Your Honor, totally, because everything up to now was going to be limited to his area.

MR. BAKER: All I can say, Your Honor, is that when they put on testimony, we have to be able to rebut that testimony. And all of the experts that we're calling are the experts that were called in the criminal trial. So I've got to be able to -- where Spitz was not -- did not testify in the criminal trial -- I've got to be able to rebut his testimony.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, Dr. Spitz's testimony was taken. He offered the opinion. He offered it at trial. And they cross-examined him on that on the length of time his deposition was offered. They cannot do this. This is not what the agreement was.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to go get the stipulation.

THE COURT: All right. I'll sustain the objection pending production of the stipulation. If you don't show me the stipulation, I'll set it aside.

MR. PETROCELLI: Absolutely.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, he did testify on coagulation times during the trial, so I want to go into coagulation.

MR. MEDVENE: Wait. Wait. What do you mean, coagulation times?

MR. BAKER: Basically, how long it takes blood to coagulate.

THE COURT: If he testified to that at trial, he may testify to that.

MR. MEDVENE: I'd like to see the page you're talking about.

No. Excuse me.

Look, I'm trying to play by the same rules that they're supposed to play by. If there's coagulation testimony, just show me what it is. I'm not arguing about it.

THE COURT: Show him the coagulation testimony.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, from the time that you were retained in this case, did you conduct various experiments relative to some physical evidence that you had been presented with in this case, sir?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And relative to the -

- let's talk about the socks for a moment. Did you examine the socks in this case?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you find blood on the socks in this case?

A. Yes, I found stains which gave a chemical test -- a presumptive test for blood, which was done in my presence.

I understand other reports were more specific.

Q. Now, when you examined the socks for blood, sir, where did that occur?

A. That was in a private laboratory in Los Angeles. And the name of the laboratory was Technical Associates, Incorporated. That, as I understand it, is a private laboratory that we were allowed to visit, and it was operated by Mark Scott Taylor.

Q. Okay.

Now, did you have -- when you examined both socks --

And these are the socks that were purportedly recovered from Mr. Simpson's bedroom on June 13, 1994. That was your understanding, was it not, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, did you have any problem visualizing the blood on the socks, on either of the socks?

A. We didn't visualize it. I say "we." Doctor Henry Lee and I were together during this examination.

It was visible. To me, visualization is doing something -- enhancing either chemically or physically by filter photography or something, to show greater contrast.

This was not necessary with high-intensity illumination. You could see that there was visibly a stain on the sock.

Q. And then, as a criminalist, did you pick up the socks and -- and examine them with your naked eye to determine if there was blood, before you did any testing on the socks whatsoever?

A. Of course, yes.

Q. And could you then visualize, with your naked eye, the blood on the socks, or at least the stains on the socks that later turned out to be blood?

A. Yes.

But we didn't pick it up to do it. They were lying flat, and the light was put on them -- it, and it was easier to examine them that way than to physically pick them up.

Q. And did you -- did you do -- well, strike that.

Tell us how big the stain -- the original stain was on the sock, in the area that was cut out, at the time you examined the socks.

A. The stain was of a -- it was almost one by one and a half inches. It was very close to that. And the center portion had been cut out in something like a -- a box, with a little square on the top removed. It was a rectangle with a square portion cut out; so it was not a circular cut. It wasn't an angular cut, but it almost looks like two cuts had been made, one smaller and one larger, which commuted to make one larger hole.

Q. Now, basically, before you ever were able to examine these items of physical evidence, the LAPD had taken and cut out portions of the sock; isn't that correct, sir?

A. Well, somebody cut it out.

Q. Okay.

A. I believe it was LAPD.

Q. All right.

MR. BAKER: And, Phil, can you put that on the Elmo.

THE REPORTER: That's exhibit what, sir?

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1239.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1239.)

(Defendants' Exhibit 1239 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is that the area that was cut out of the -- of the socks before you visualized them?

A. Yes. The very center area where the arrow is pointing now, it looks like a vertical rectangle, is sort of a shoe box, with another portion cut out to the left, which, depending on whether the fabric is lying down or not, can look more angular in a straight-line configuration than it does in that photograph.

Q. All right.

And approximately how big is the area that had been removed?

A. As I recall, it was nearly an inch in length. It was quite long. But again, the overall stain is an inch and a half; and it took the larger portion of that stain. So I would have to proportion it to -- proportion it out. If I remember, it's a good size, three-quarters to an inch in length.

Q. Were you ever able to examine the material that was removed from the sock?

A. No.

Q. And you had to restrict your examination to the periphery of the area that had been removed?

A. Well, yes.

But we -- I examined the whole sock, not just the periphery. But I could see the periphery of the stain, yeah.

Q. And what did you determine when you examined the sock?

A. Well, the surface that we're looking at, through which a hole has been cut, that is the outside surface of the left side of the stocking, as you would look down on it. Regardless of whether it was on the right foot or the left foot, it would be on your left side, as the toes would be over here, to the lower left of this photograph. (Indicating.) And that particular area that had been cut out had this stained area around it, which, on visual observation, you could see that it was a stain.

Using illumination to intensify the contrast, and a microscope, I started, as I believe, as I frequently do, using a pocket microscope, which allows me to examine at 20 magnification, items such as this, to have some idea of what I might look for using more sophisticated microscopy, mainly a stereobinocular microscope, which has two eyepieces. And you can look down and get a stereomicroscopic or 3-D effect, if you will, then I examined it with a stereomicroscope and was able to see the stain much better.

Q. And the side that would be the left side, this side, (indicating) would be side -- this would be side one?

A. Yeah. This would be what we're looking at, we had called side one, to show that it's the outside as the sock would be worn, and you're looking inside to side 3. Side 3 would be the inside of the other half of the sock if you went through like I demonstrated before.

If you went through my coat, I'd have side one, and then inside, you'd have side two. And then side 3 would also be the inside, and then side 4, again, would be the outside. So there are four surfaces. Whether it's a coat sleeve or a sock lying down, you can see side one and side 3.

Q. Now --

A. Or "surface," I think, is a better word.

Q. How did you make a determination as to how that blood was applied to that sock, from your analysis, looking at it through a microscope?

A. Well, more or less, by elimination, I determined how it didn't get there.

Many times, there's more than one mechanism that will cause a staining. But understanding the staining procedure, we can eliminate those kinds of stains that would produce other results. For example, blood did not drip onto this area; it did not splash or spatter onto it.

It was transferred by one of two mechanisms which are very closely associated: One would be simply touching or compressing it; and another would be a lateral motion at the same time, which is called a swiping action, as differentiated from wiping, where you wipe something up and the stain is already there, like on a countertop, if you wipe it up. But if you have blood, for example, on your finger, and you touch something with or without a lateral motion, it is called transfer.

If there is a lateral motion, you may see some feathering out as it moves along and leaves the surface.

And these edges were quite crisp. And while it could have been a swiping-type action, it is also consistent with a -- just straight compression. And that could have resulted by either coming in contact with something that had blood on it or blood simply being added to the surface with something like a pipette or medicine dropper, or just gently putting it on so it didn't drop any distance, or it would have caused satellite spatters, I've seen other spots around it.

So this is just a transfer pattern, either by something like a finger that's very, very bloody, touching in a perfect oval, which is not logical but possible, or a drop of blood, a single drop of blood that is added and "teased around," more or less moved, to create a stain to soak into the fabric.

MR. BAKER: Now, Phil would you put up that next photo.


MR. P. BAKER: This is 1240.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photomicrograph pertaining to socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1240.)

(Defendants' Exhibit 1240 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is what we've -- just shown is this a -- 1240, this is a blow-up of the microscopic photography that you did in your examination of that sock?

A. Yes. This is called a photomicrograph, as opposed to microphotography. It is a photomicrograph taken using a compound microscope.

And the area shown here (indicating) is the stain surface 1 around the area that's cut out. And the blue circle, which was added earlier, is to show the highlight of the blood stains on the fabric.

The easiest way to comprehend this photograph is to think of corduroy pants, something with a very heavy weave. If you were to take, for example, white paint and smear across your pants, wiping your hands, you'd see the ribs very clearly. There would be parallel white lines. These are the high points in the weave of the fabric (indicating). These are individual threads comprised of individual fibers, which are woven together to make the thread, which is woven together to make the fabric. So the circled area shows that the stain is on the top, the protruding portion. The highlight and the clear spots are down in the valley. So again, if you have a weave which is something like this (indicating) and it's pushed across with blood or any other stain material, you will see the surface of the weave; you will not see the valleys.

If there's a large volume of blood that's put on, it will soak indiscriminately within the entire fabric, and all of this area down here would be just as red as the surface.

If it is spattered from an impact, it indiscriminately go in between, as well as on the surface. And this is certainly not a spatter; it's just all in the surface. So this is a transfer pattern.

Q. If, in fact, a spatter would occur when -- for example, we've seen pictures of the crime scene, and there was a large volume of blood around the body of Nicole Brown Simpson -- if someone had stepped into that and caused the spatter of that blood, it would not produce this pattern; is that correct?

A. That's correct. You wouldn't produce one-by-one-and-a-half-inch stain by spatter; it would be a huge splash.

Q. And splash would not encompass a concentrated area one-by-one-and-a-half inches such as was apparently in this sock, because that's the area that's been removed; is that correct?

A. Well, the smaller area, I'm sure, is more concentrated, as were the areas right towards the center more concentrated.

This is taken off a little away from the main stain (indicating), but still very clearly stained heavily, to show that it did not soak through completely. And this could not be a stain produced by spattering or any other mechanism like that. It is on the surface only.

Q. So, in other words, if there was blood on a weapon, for example, and it was cast off, or cast away, you would not get this type of pattern?

A. No, not at all.

Q. And the only way that you could get it is if there was pressure applied to the material by the material coming in contact with something that contained blood, or somebody actually putting a drop of blood on it and compressing it?

A. Yes.

When you said "casting off," it could not be. But if the weapon -- bloody weapon actually struck and grazed across the surface, then you would produce this effect. But you would not produce the heavier concentration in the center, 'cause there isn't that much volume. So this is not from even brushing by a swiping action of a weapon.

Q. Okay.

Now, did you examine side two, as it were, of the fabric?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what did you find on side two?

A. Well, the inside of the surface that was just shown had blood coming through it. And of course, it came through in the heavy concentration area in the center, but not on the area that was just shown. That surface was all confined to the very top of the weave, and so there just wasn't enough blood volume to go through. Very little actually went through.

Q. All right.

Did you examine side three of the sock in the area where the sock had been cut?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you find any material that looked like blood in that area?

A. Yes; I found many little areas of red which had been a fluid and dried, and actually was surrounding, in some cases, the fibers. So it was wet when it went through from side one, soaking through side two, and then touching side three. Or surface three.

Q. Now, did -- obviously, if someone's foot is in the sock, side three should not have received any blood; is that correct?

A. That's correct; it couldn't have. It wouldn't go through the foot.

Q. And the -- describe what you visualized -- all right.

Can you -- is this a photomicrograph of what you visualized on side three?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And tell the jury what -- what the area in the circle is.

A. Well, I'd rather start out here.

This is the area of the circle which has a red center to it. (Indicating.)

These are threads that are woven together by individual fibers (indicating), and there's one here on the left (indicating). And many of them show up quite clearly as individual fibers of a fabric. They are woven together to create a thread.

This is woven together, as you see here (indicating). There are actually four different threads coming across, all comprised of numerous fibers.

In the center, there is a bridging fiber from one part of the thread to another that is encased -- that is, the fiber is encased in a red stain, a little red ball that has welled or caused the fluid to encompass the fiber. And it is dried in that round ball configuration.

It is extremely tiny. I don't think this could be isolated. We're looking at an incredible magnification. And we photographed it to show that it was there. If it were isolated, it could possibly give a presumptive test for blood. Some presumptive tests on that surface were done, but I don't know if it was this one or some other one, because you can't see what you're doing macroscopically or without magnification. When you're trying to find something like this with the naked eye, it's impossible.

MR. P. BAKER: That is 1241.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photomicrograph pertaining to socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1241.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, sir, in terms of this -- this red ball that we see up there, (indicating) how -- how does fluid, if it's dripping through or is compressed through, what -- what form is it going to take?

Is it something going to be spherical, lateral?

A. It's going to tend to form ball, a spheroid, technically.

In air, a drop of rain or blood or milk or any other liquid is not tear-drop shaped, despite some textbooks which have come out recently. One, in particular which makes that erroneous claim. This is not true.

A drop in the air immediately, although it's forming in something like a teardrop off the orifice, whether it's a tap in your bathroom or kitchen or it is a medicine dropper, it does not come out as a teardrop; it comes out as a round ball.

Physically, there are forces within liquids which tend to pull them together. The molecules do not want to spread out. These are called van der Waals' forces. And they pull together so that immediately, when a drop leaves a medicine dropper, it is within microseconds, a round ball.

This phenomenon has been photographed by Professor Edginton at MIT 50 years ago. And it's very common knowledge in physics that -- the lay people look at the television weather screen showing teardrops. We're programmed to think that teardrops like -- like teardrops, but they don't. Raindrops, I mean, do not look like teardrops; they are round.

And I even have a photograph in my pocket of a drop of blood which I didn't realize was there until last night, but it's round. I could show that, if you like.

Q. Okay.

And this -- where you photographed these, you found more than one of these red spheroids?

A. Yes. It's trying to be round; it's trying to form a round ball, but it's encompassing a fiber. And as such, the fiber, of course, is wetted along its length, and so it's kind of pulling apart, because it wants to join the fiber; but yet, it's pulling together because it doesn't want to leave itself.

A speck like that is fighting with itself to retain a perfectly round configuration, although it is still wetting and trying to soak out along the fiber.

Q. How many of these did you find?

Did you find multiple red balls, if you will, in -- in side three of the sock?

A. I would say that I found at least a dozen.

It's difficult, when you're looking at this magnification, to move a material around under a microscope and scan back and forth. And while I could have seen the same one twice and counted it twice, I may have missed three others.

So I would say that I saw a dozen that were different, but I saw several. But this one was the one that showed the clearest, because it was easiest to get the lighting in the photograph.

Q. Now, would --

MR. P. BAKER: That was 1241 on the Elmo.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1239.

(Exhibit 1239 displayed on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The area where you found these red balls was directly under the area that was removed?

A. Yes; it was in this area right in the central portion, which would be the area underneath the greatest soaking through it. It had to soak through, of course, but it would be the area that's apparently cut out, where the concentration on surface one penetrated through to surface two, the inside, and then stained surface three.

Q. And these red balls were on the exterior -- that is the surface of side three -- were they not, sir?

A. That's correct. The one you're looking at right through here.

Q. Wasn't red balls in the area other than the area underneath where there was -- the stain had been cut out of the sock?

A. No, we did not -- I did not see any in any area in the side.

But again, you're looking at an extremely high magnification, and it would be like trying to look at the United States from an airplane and cover the entire United States.

I went around in here quite some distance, but I didn't certainly take the toe areas and other areas that were not even near this area. But anyplace I looked, I did not find them, except in the area -- surface three, directly under surface one and two.

Q. And is -- is that -- the stains, the red stains that you've just shown us -- is that consistent with somebody compressing and putting blood on side one of the sock and pushing it into the sock?

A. Yes; it is like with a medicine dropper or something like that.

Q. And with a swipe pattern on a sock, if there is anything in the sock, you would not anticipate having anything go through to side three, I assume; correct?

A. When you say "something in the sock" --

Q. Yeah, like an ankle.

A. Foot?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yeah. If there's anything in this sock when side one is stained, it certainly would not go through and stain side three, no. Not to any extent.

Q. Okay.

Now, the drying time of -- the drying time of -- of the blood on this sock, in your opinion, would take approximately how long?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. May we approach?

MR. PETROCELLI: Same problem, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, this was in order -- this particular evidence was offered at the criminal trial; that is, any test he did, it was kept out because of no preliminary showing of comparable circumstances of tests.

In other words, the witness said he was not able to duplicate the kind of fabric on the test; he did it -- he was not able to duplicate the amount of blood put on the fabric; he was not able to duplicate the temperature and humidity. And it was kept out previously because of the lack of any showing that the drying time he measured had anything to do with how the -- Mr. Simpson's sock would dry because of his inability to use the same sock or with the same amount of blood.

So we think there should be some preliminary showing by Mr. Baker that that is sufficient to allow this witness to testify to drying time.

MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor, I think under the Culpepper case, we're entitled to show that, first of all, I'll certainly voir dire his amount of expertise in drying time and what experiment he's done. But relative to his experience, we'll lay a foundation. And -- but that was testified to in the -- in the criminal trial.

MR. PETROCELLI: The answer was stricken in the criminal trial. He just showed it to me.

THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.

MR. BAKER: You're not going to let me voir dire him on that issue?

THE COURT: What are you going to ask?

MR. BAKER: Let me ask -- I'm going to ask him about his experiment and what he has done, and what he has done relative to drying times. I mean, this -- we are entitled to rebut, I think, Bodziak. We're entitled to rebut Werner Spitz. And this is all testimony that this jury should hear relative to rebut their testimony concerning the -- the --

Can you not whisper so loud, so I can --

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry.

MR. BAKER: -- so we are entitled to put on our evidence relative to rebutting that testimony. And we're certainly entitled, in my view, to put on testimony relative to this drying time. This guy is probably the foremost expert on drying times, done more experiments on blood than anybody in the world.

THE COURT: I think he can testify as to how long blood takes to dry, but that's about it. I don't think he can testify about this particular material.

MR. BAKER: Well, all right.


(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Sir, approximately how many experiments have you conducted in your career with human blood?

A. I couldn't estimate. Tens of thousands probably, but it's difficult to say. I've done many of them and repeated them time and time again, or directly supervised them in the institute and each student does hundreds.

Q. And throughout your career have you gained knowledge as to what you believe the drying time of blood is?

A. Yeah, that's one -- it used to be one of our classic experiments, but it took so long we finally replaced it. It took longer than the laboratory time.

Q. Now, how long does it take blood to coagulate?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Assuming you mean coagulation as a clotting procedure?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Yes, as a clotting mechanism.

A. Clotting mechanism in normal people runs 3 to 6 minutes, an average of about 4-1/2 minutes, before it actually thickens and becomes noticeably more viscous.

Q. And relative to the drying time of blood on fabric surfaces, have you done any experiments in that regard?

A. Yes, I have; many.

Q. And have you done any experiments of blood on fabric surfaces relative to this case?

A. Yes. Specifically for this case I did an experiment, but I had done others of a similar nature, but not on a material of this same plastic weave material as the sock in this question -- or in this case. I had a question as to how rapidly blood would dry on it. I had done other fabrics, but they were the same material, but thicker weave, such as material for a blouse or a skirt or something as opposed to a thin sock.

Q. So based upon your experience, would blood dry quicker on a thicker material such as a blouse as contrasted to a sock?

A. Well, it would dry much slower --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. It would dry much slower because the blood that can soak into a thicker fabric is greater. The area on a thin fabric would contain much less blood; therefore, it would evaporate and dry quicker.

Q. The material that you used in your drying experiments was thicker than the material of the sock, and therefore should have taken longer to dry; is that correct?

A. That's correct. I've also done it on a material very similar to the sock.

Q. And the material very similar to the sock, what was the drying time that your experiments produced?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, in the material that was virtually identical to the sock, even if it was thicker, what was the drying time that your experiments produced?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, vague, ambiguous, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I've done experiments on similar synthetic materials, in the case of Delaware, involving a quilt which was obviously much thicker. And when not on a person with body heat, these materials would dry in 15 to 20 minutes, sometimes 2 or 3 hours if they were thicker. But a thinner material on a body would dry much, much faster; 5 or 10 minutes if it's thin enough.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right.

And this material is relatively thin, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in terms of blood pattern evidence on -- on the sock, can you produce, or could you have produced the red balls that you saw on side 3 by turning the sock inside out?

A. Well, if it was wet -- if the sock was stained on the outside with a sufficient volume to wet the surface but not soak through, and thereby produce them by the mechanism going from side 2 to side 3, if you could some way stain the outside with sufficient blood and then turn the sock inside out so that the outside, we're looking at surface 1, came in contact with the outside of surface 4, it could stain surface 4 and then theoretically soak back into surface 3.

Q. And there was no stains in surface 4?

A. No.

Q. So taking the sock inside out is not going to produce what you saw on side 3; is that correct, sir?

A. No, it couldn't.

Q. And what is going to be produced on side 3, that is the red balls that are on side 3, are produced without any object inside the sock between side 2 and 3, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That's correct, it couldn't go from 2 to 3 with something in between.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And they had to get the blood in side 3 -- have some sort of compression of the blood on side 3 -- strike that -- on side 1 to have the blood soak through to side 3, correct?

A. Well, I don't know if it would take compression in the sense of pushing in, but if they were in contact, and if there's sufficient blood on side 1, it could -- just by its own weight and gravity, if lying on side 3, directly over it at the time, it could produce this, but a little compression would certainly create it more quickly.

Q. All right.

Now, in terms of other experiments that you performed in this case, did you also perform an experiment relative to the gloves?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what type of gloves did you use?

A. I used gloves that were supplied to me, they were sent by Peter Neufeld, and it was my understanding they were identical to the gloves in this case.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, move to strike his understanding, Your Honor. Conclusion, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The gloves that you used, were they Aris Isotoner gloves?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. And did you attempt to determine whether or not Aris Isotoner gloves would shrink when subjected to human blood?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was your understanding of the shrinkage that -- strike that.

The gloves came from Mr. Rubin, did they not, an executive of Aris Isotoner?

A. That was what I had been informed.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, move to strike what he was informed, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Just a minute.


Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Can you, in terms of your experimentation, tell us what you did with these gloves to see if there could be any shrinkage from the gloves being exposed to blood?

A. I had two gloves of course, a right and a left glove. And it was my understanding that they shrank or could have shrunk as a result of being exposed to moisture, specifically blood, a wet material, and then drying out again. Therefore, I used blood in my experiment. I had the two gloves separated. I had one on of course, the left one on the left hand, the right one on the right hand, but not at the same time. I put a latex glove, for example, on my right hand, and had the Aris extra large glove on my left hand. I had blood drawn, a known volume.

Q. Okay.

Well, let's --

A. And I put my hand over a large glass funnel, which in turn emptied into a graduated cylinder so I could measure the volume that I recovered as I poured the blood onto and into the glove, and dumped the entire amount, which was approximately 2 milliliters, could be centimeters if you prefer, and I smeared it around. I think this is a picture showing me smearing the blood around this funnel underneath, and this was, in my opinion, a very reasonable and logical way to see how much blood I could force into the glove.

I gave it a fair test. I smeared it around with the latex glove, and I did as much as I could for about 30 seconds or so, just smearing it until it was -- I thought it was -- it might begin to clot, so I just stopped, and it all drained, went into the funnel, and then I sat the glove down and timed the drying time.

Then I repeated it with the other glove, done almost immediately because I still had a needle in my arm, so I wanted to continue right along.

And then I did the other glove by switching -- putting on the latex glove.

The reason for the latex glove was so I would have a clean hand to put in the other glove. It wasn't to protect me from my own blood, from any biohazard standpoint at least.

I then did it again.

That tag shows extra large. I left it on.

And did the same thing again by wetting the glove, as I felt was as fair and reasonable as I could do.

I wanted to see the results. I wasn't trying to just pour it on and run it off.

So again, I did the same thing.

I put one in a constant humidity chamber and let them dry and then I timed the drying time.

Before I had started either of these experiments -- I had seen diagrams made previously showing measurements with all kinds of lines and figures which seemed to me to be confusing, and if not confusing to me, I thought it might be confusing to a jury.

So I tried to do something relatively simple. I put the gloves on a copy machine. I calibrated the copy machine that's the constant humidity chamber that's potassium chloride slurry underneath, and this is the system that is used by ASTB, American Standard Testing Bureau, for calibrating hydrometers. I didn't use a dry hydrometer. I used the system that calibrates hydrometers.

Anyway, I copied this on a copy machine that -- I put a transparent ruler, both 90 degrees to each other, previously calibrated to see if there was any elongation or compression of the copy machine itself.

I was delighted to find out my copy machine is quite accurate.

I copied it in this manner, just by laying the glove down prior to the experiment. Then, after the experiment, after the gloves were completely dry, I put them down again, both the right and the left, up and down, every way I could, and I did -- I made absolutely no effort to spread it out, I didn't do that before, I didn't do it afterwards. I put it on, closed the cover, copied it on a transparency so then I could put the transparency of the after on the regular copy, the photocopy of the before. And I wanted to see how much it shrunk.

And that's as simple as I could make the experiment.

I could not detect any measurable shrinkage on -- on either glove. That was the bottom line.

And I have those transparency things. I think they're quite, as I said before, jury friendly, they're quite understandable.

MR. P. BAKER: 1406 was on the screen, and Dr. MacDonell's reference, 1403 to 1405.

THE CLERK: 1403 to --

MR. P. BAKER: 1403, 1404, 1405.

On the board is 1407, on this television.

(The instrument herein referred to as photo depicting a man working with glove was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1403.)

(The instrument herein referred to as photo depicting a man pouring red liquid on glove was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1404.)

(The instrument herein referred to as photo of glove in chamber was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1405.)

(The instrument herein referred to as photocopy of glove was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1406.)

(The instrument herein referred to as transparency overlay was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1407 by reference to case no. BA097211.)

(1407 is displayed.)

A. The red toner was used so you could clearly see the difference from the region of the black. I had them all black and all red, but --

MR. BAKER: Phil, you want to put the photo of the glove underneath it.

MR. P. BAKER: 1406.

MR. P. BAKER: 1407.

A. Move them laterally just a little so you can see the tip. Laterally, sideways.

Well, all right.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Here we go.

A. They're basically congruent, but of course they were done different days, they're not absolutely congruent.

If you look at the lower left, there's a little bit that sticks down there, a little tiny portion right here on the black one. If you move the red one over just a little bit to this position -- bring it over and down a little. No, bring it over to the left, please.

Yeah, now you can see those two. There you go.

And if you come up here (indicating to Elmo), up here is the same, this is a 10-inch glove, a 10 percent shrinkage would be 1 inch shorter, 15 percent would be an inch and a half, and so on.

50 percent would be down to here.

But I could not say there was any measurable shrinkage.

MR. BAKER: Let's put on the 10 percent overlay showing 10 percent shrinkage. That's --

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1411.

(The instrument herein described as transparency overlay was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1411 by reference to case no. BA097211.)

A. The 90 percent means that this was copied at 90 percent of the original size, and that would indicate a 10 percent shrinkage, literally.

If it could be moved over in some way so you can compare the lengths of one side or the other. Move the red one to the right slightly, please. A little more. Get it over where you can see it. Keep this line at the bottom -- could you -- the red one.

Yeah, now, there's 10 percent shrinkage.

Of course, 5 percent shrinkage would be here and so on. I could not say that there was any measurable shrinkage.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1411.

A. This was the other figure mentioned, 10 to 15 percent shrinkage. And 85 percent, of course, would indicate a 15 percent shrinkage.

Could you bring the bottom of those -- both of them up so we can see the -- yup, there you see they're the same, and that's the extent of shrinkage, if indeed it were a 15 percent shrinkage.

Q. How long did it take for you to be certain that those gloves were in fact absolutely dry?

A. I used a ASTM method for paint drying. I modified it because this was blood drying. I've used it before in our previous blood drying experiments. And these were dry within four hours. The method is quite simple. I wouldn't -- won't explain it. It's a method used by the paint industry and I used to work as a paint chemist so I'm familiar with the method.

Q. Did you also run a freezing experiment on this glove?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did that freezing and thawing produce any shrinkage at all?

A. No. I understood they were freeze -- thoroughly freezing, and taken out, measured, examined, and put back, and so on. I cycled both gloves a total of eight times, for different periods of time, to determine if there was any measurable shrinkage.

I did the same thing with overlays, and again, I found absolutely no shrinkage, no variations, no increase. As far as I could tell, the freezing had absolutely no affect.

Q. Now, in -- In terms of your experiments, did you push the blood into the leather and try to get it in as much as you could?

A. Yes. As I said, I was -- being fair, I felt I had to try to work it in. I was, for want of a better term, trying to duplicate some kind of compression that would be consistent with people engaged in some conflict. I was not just dabbing my fingers lightly, I was really trying to see if I could impregnate the blood into the glove, and I tried. I couldn't -- I only lost about 1.9 to 2 milliliters on the entire glove. I recovered all but that much, so it only took about 2 milliliters, that's only 40 drops. That's not a lot of blood, but it was covered, it was glistening.

Q. Now, in terms of the experiments that you did in terms of drying time, did you attempt to replicate the temperature and the humidity as it existed on the night of June 12, 1994?

A. Yes, as closely as I could in the laboratory. I have the figures here that I used. I believe they were something like 20.5 Centigrade, around 67 degrees Fahrenheit.

Q. And did you attempt to -- well, strike that.

Was there a dew point that came into play on the night of June 12, 1994?

In other words --

A. There was a question about dew, and therefore the dew point became a factor, yes.

Q. Okay.

But in terms of the temperature, on the night of June 12, 1994, it was 6 degrees above the dew point, was it not?

A. Yes. From the weather information I reviewed, the dew point, which is the temperature at which condensation begins -- for example, this glass or ceramic material here, if we were to add ice water into the water, if the room temperature is 20 degrees centigrade and there's no condensation on here because the water's the same temperature, but if I were to add ice and keep cooling this down, at a certain point, especially with a metal pitcher, you would see the beginning of condensation, it would look frosty. That temperature would be the dew point. That means that if the temperature in the room dropped to that temperature, everything in the room would begin to have condensation.

And the dew point has to be reached for the relative humidity, the moisture in the air, to begin to condense. And unless you can get the ambient or the room temperature down to the same temperature of the ice water here, you won't have any dew forming. It's that simple. It doesn't condense.

Q. And on the night of June 12, 1994, dew wouldn't form as a result of the temperature and dew point, correct?

A. That is correct. It never got within 6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Q. Okay.

MR. BAKER: I just want to be heard on that other issue.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, 10-minute recess. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion.

(Jurors exit courtroom.)

(The following proceedings were Held in open court, in the Presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.

MR. BAKER: The only other area that I wanted to offer was the area of the blood spatter evidence on the walkway, Your Honor. And as this Court is aware, Werner Spitz testified that in 1 minute and 15 seconds both of these murders occurred. There's blood spatter evidence on the walkway indicating directionality that indicates, indeed, that the assailant was in the area of the walkway some four feet away from where the body of Nicole Brown Simpson was found, and that there is blood spatter evidence going to the north, there's blood spatter evidence going to the south, there is blood spatter evidence going to the east.

And I think that is rebuttal to both Mr. Bodziak and rebuttal with regard to Werner Spitz. And we would -- We would offer -- and make that offer of proof that he will testify that there has been -- there was something that was emitting blood that was four feet away from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, and the blood was being -- directionality of that blood was going in a westerly direction.

There's other blood pattern evidence indicating that there was blood being spattered that is at least 18 inches away from Nicole Brown Simpson in a southeasterly direction, and three feet away in a southeasterly direction, indicating that this took some period of time, with the assailant at a location three to four feet east of where the body was ultimately found, and directly goes to the issue of Werner Spitz's demonstration before this jury of what happened, and where it happened on the stairs, that he did, and it's rebuttal to that testimony.

MR. MEDVENE: There's a stipulation that the Court has been furnished, signed by Mr. Baker, that specifically states that Mr. Simpson agrees that, as we had agreed in the prior paragraph, that none of the following experts will give opinion at the trial of this action, that said expert did not give in his testimony at the criminal trial, and it specifically lists Mr. MacDonell.

It says the parties are entitled -- in paragraph 3 -- to rely on the stipulation in determining to forebear from taking a deposition.

Dr. Spitz's deposition was taken, the opinions he expressed here were expressed, and he was -- he was cross-examined by Mr. Blasier fully about these things. At no time after that did the defense seek to offer Mr. MacDonell for deposition and say his testimony was going to be any broader, or they sought to exclude him from the stipulation. They left him included in the stipulation.

We relied on what they did and we didn't take his deposition. They can't, at this last moment, put him on purportedly for some new and different testimony.


The Court's heard the -- read the stipulation. It was submitted to the Court and adopted by the Court on August 23.

Objection sustained.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. BAKER: That's all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.


Q. Morning, sir.

A. Good morning.

Q. Would you like me to call you Mr. MacDonell or Professor?

A. Call me Herb if you want to. My friends do.

Q. Okay, Herb.


Q. You testified you were the director of a laboratory of forensic science; is that correct?

A. Yeah, independent laboratory, correct.

Q. And that laboratory is located?

A. Corning, New York.

Q. In your house?

A. Yes. Or I live in my laboratory. Either way.

Q. And do you have any full-time scientists that work with you there?

A. Yes. I have one, Paul Kisch, who works with me full-time.

And others come in part-time as needed, and other people come in to use the facilities, which I make available.

Q. My question was do you have any full-time, and your answer is Mr. Kisch?

A. Yes, one.

Q. Are there any licensing requirements for your laboratory, sir?

A. Not that I'm aware of, no.

Q. Is your laboratory certified by any agency, sir?

A. No.

Q. Now, you make your living in large part testifying; is that correct?

A. No, that's not correct at all. I've only testified, I think, once this year before this. I testify rarely, but I do a lot of experimentation and examination of evidence. That's the bulk of my income.

Q. Sir, have you previously, in testifying under oath in response to a question, said whether you were entitled to be -- strike that.

In response to a question, you once told the reporter that you probably were entitled to be included in the Guiness Book of World Records because you testified in more courts, on more subjects, than any other human being. You said I think that is still true. But I don't think I'll do it. It's -- it's just an interesting comment I made after something about the Guiness Book of World Records was quoted to me and I think I made that remark.

Was that a truthful remark, sir?

A. That sounds like something I would have said, yes. I've testified in a variety of --

Q. I asked you if that was a truthful remark, and you said it was, sir?

A. I said I believe it is.

Q. Thank you, sir.

Now, in testifying possibly in more courts, on more subjects than any other human being, could you list for us all the subjects that you've testified as an expert on; just the subjects?

A. Well, generally, by discipline I've testified in forensic science and specifically criminalistics, which includes photography, physics, and chemistry. If you want to list those separately, which is what I think I did when I made that remark --

Q. Let me ask you about that.

You said photography --

MR. BAKER: I'd like him to finish his answer. He's asking to list the subjects and he cut him off.

THE COURT: Did you finish your answer, sir?

A. Yes. And also such things as photography and microscopy which are tools of forensic science. And in the area of blood alcohol and breathalyzer, I was certified as an expert in that area and testified many times on DWI cases in New York State.

I've testified, in one instance, in the case of psychiatry where no one else understood the phenomenon and later it was confirmed by other witnesses.

So I have testified in a variety of courtrooms, from county court and civil court and town court and justice court, up to the Supreme Court in Canada, and the Court of Appeals in Quebec. And I think since only two people have ever testified in the supreme court in Canada as a witness before an appellate decision was made, that limits my remark to two people, and I don't know who the other one was.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Among your areas of expertise, you told us, is photography, and you hold yourself out as somebody that is an expert in taking pictures, particularly when precision is needed; is that correct?

A. I'm experienced and I think -- I've taught forensic photography many semesters. I know the subject quite well.

Q. Is it true, sir, that you -- that the photograph you put up here for the jury to see, you did not take?

A. I'm not sure if Dr. Lee took it or I took it. I really don't know. We both took some. I think that's one he took, but I don't know.

Q. Did you previously testify in this case, sir, that you didn't take the photographs, that Dr. Lee took them?

A. If I did, then Dr. Lee took it. I'm sure the record is better than my memory.

Q. And you didn't take them, did you, sir?

A. Not that particular one.

I took others.

Q. You didn't take any photographs as an expert -- world renowned expert, that you could show this jury to support your opinion, is that true, sir, yes or no?

A. No, I didn't take any of the pictures you saw -- that one that you saw. I think I took the second one.

Q. Sir, my question to you is, is it true you took no pictures of any kind that you showed this jury and said that's the basis for my opinion; is that true? Yes or no, sir?

A. Those pictures. That is true. I didn't take those.

Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Now, you talked about, in your qualifications, the typing of blood and that sort of thing.

A. No, I didn't mention typing of blood.

Q. Mentioned some work that you had done with a French --

A. Oh, all right. I developed a method that can be used --

Q. Yes?

A. -- for typing of blood.

Q. What I want to ask you, sir, is this: You've told this jury about something you saw, some speck, some dot on wall 3, and implied it was blood.

Is it true, sir, you never tested whatever you saw to see if it was blood? Yes or no, sir, is that true?

A. It's true that it could not be tested.

Q. Thank you, sir.

You did not test it for blood?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Nor did anyone to your knowledge; is that correct, sir?

A. To --

Q. To the best of your knowledge?

A. To the best of my knowledge, it was tested when it was swabbed.

Q. Sir, I'm asking you if what you claimed you saw on Wall 3, that you talked to this jury about, is it true you certainly did not test it for blood?

A. It was swabbed by Dr. Lee.

Q. Dr. Lee did not test it for blood, did he, sir?

A. He did a presumptive test with a positive result, yes, he tested it.

Q. Sir, you know the difference between a presumptive test and a test that confirms it's blood, as a world renowned expert, don't you, sir?

A. Of course. I know whether it's renowned or not.

Q. My question, sir, is whatever you claim you saw, this speck, it was not tested to see if it was blood; is that correct? Yes or no, please, sir?

A. It couldn't --

Q. Please, sir.

A. Yes, it was not tested, if you want a double negative.

Q. Thank you.

I don't want to be cute, sir.

My point is it was not tested and proven to be blood, whatever it was you saw; is that a correct statement?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you, sir.

Now, on April 2, when Dr. Lee and you did the examination, or whatever you did, of the sock, that was the first time you saw the sock; is that correct, sir?

A. That's correct.

Q. You're opening something in front of you. I wonder if you can close that, sir, and when you -- close your book if you don't mind. Then when you have a need to open it, just ask and we'll let you open it.

What I want to do --

A. I was checking the date.

MR. BAKER: Wait a minute, Your Honor. I object. He is entitled to use his notes to refresh his recollection. He can't be ordered to close a book by cross-examining counsel.

THE COURT: Leave it closed, Doctor.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And if there comes a time, Mr. MacDonell, when you want to look at it, tell us and we'll let you look at it.

A. I was checking the date. I wanted -- you gave me a date. I wanted to check if it was correct.

Q. It's okay, sir. I want to see what you remember. If you want to look at your notes, then we'll look at those together.

Is that okay?

A. Fair enough.

Q. Okay.

Now, April 2 was your first and only examination of the sock; is that correct?

A. That sounds like the right date. I have it in my book. If you have my records then you know it's correct. I'll agree it's the right time. Seems like the right date.

Q. And it was the one time is what I'm trying to establish?

A. Yes, only one, correct.

Q. Now, the socks were referred to, so we're talking the same language, as 13-A and B or 42-A and B; is that correct?

A. Yes. I remember 42-A and B.

Q. And prior to your examination you had read and were familiar with Mr. Gary Sims's notes from the Department of Justice; is that correct?

A. I was, yes, at that time.

Q. Right.

And you were familiar with the fact that on sock A, the one you've testified about, Mr. Simpson's blood was found at the toe of the sock and at the top of the sock; you were aware of that when you conducted your exam, correct?

A. I believe I was. I have not reviewed it. I think so, yes.

Q. And you were also aware while you testified about the sock we're going to call A -- let's call it 42-A.

Is that okay?

A. Yeah.

Q. You're also aware that on 42-B, there was Ms. Nicole Brown's blood found around the ankle area; is that correct?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. All right.

Now, you made no determination at the time of your examination that any of Mr. Simpson's blood found at the toe of that same sock soaked through and created any little red balls on side 3, did you?

A. Of the other sock, you're talking about?

Q. I'm talking about the same sock you tested. You tested what we're going to call 42-A.

Is that okay?

A. Is that the one that had his blood in the toe.

Q. Yes, sir?

A. I misunderstood that.

No, I did not.

Q. Okay.

And you conducted no test to determine that any of Mr. Simpson's blood at the top of that sock soaked through and created any of these little red balls you say you found on side 3, isn't that true?

A. Well, the word "tested" I'm concerned about. Testing means you're doing something. Examination means you're merely examining.

So I did no testing of that type, no.

Q. You have no evidence of any kind -- strike that.

You have no scientific basis to say that any of Mr. Simpson's blood that was found at the toe and the heel made its way through to side 3; isn't that correct?

MR. BAKER: That misstates the evidence.

A. If it was wet it supposedly could have transferred blood. If it was dry it couldn't have. That's as scientific as I can get.

If it was dry, it's impossible. If it was wet, it is theoretically possible.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Mr. MacDonell, Mr. Simpson's blood was tested -- strike that.

Blood identified as Mr. Simpson's, you've told us it was your understanding, was found at the toe and the top portion of the 42-A sock.

Is it correct, sir, that you have no scientific evidence to indicate that that blood created any little balls on side 3; isn't that correct?

A. If it did, it would have to be wet. That's the only answer I can give you.

Q. Sir, I'm asking you not if it did or not.

But you found no little red balls on side 3 in the toe area where Mr. Simpson's blood was found; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you found none of these little red balls up on the top of the sock where Mr. Simpson's blood was found; is that correct?

A. That is correct, to the best of my memory.

Q. And then certainly, sir, it's true, is it not, that Mr. Simpson's blood being on the toe and the top of his sock when it was found June 13 at the foot of his bed, got there by Mr. Simpson putting a bloody hand or a hand that dropped some blood on the toe and the heel; isn't that correct?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to that entire question, Your Honor. There are presumptions, that's argumentative, and it assumes facts not in evidence. To the contrary --

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Isn't Mr. Simpson's blood being found on the sock -- at the top of the sock consistent with his touching the sock when he took it off, sir?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is outside the scope. If they are going to open that up, I think we're entitled to go into other areas.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: Counsel asked him about the examination of his socks.

THE COURT: That's all he asked him about. He didn't ask about Mr. Simpson taking socks off.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you've also told us, sir, that Ms. Brown's blood -- strike that.

Ms. Brown's blood, to your knowledge, when you performed your examination, was found on the ankle area of what we'll call 42-B, the second sock; is that correct?

A. I believe it was, yes, purported to be.

Q. And you found no evidence that any of Ms. Brown's blood that was reportedly found on the ankle area of the second sock created any of these little red balls on side 3, did you?


A. It couldn't have. Per my recollection, the spots were too small to have sufficient volume to soak through.

Q. Sir, my question is, do you -- and you're an experienced witness -- Guiness Book of Records.

My question is --

A. Thank you.

Q. Did you see any of the little red balls that you claim could have been made when no ankle was in the foot on the second sock, of Ms. Brown's, on side 3?

A. No, for the reason --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- stated.

Q. So that we're clear then, sir, while -- strike that.

Is it true also, sir, that on the side -- the second sock, 42-B, first one with the cut-out that you've told us about with the little red balls and the Simpson blood, second sock, Nicole Brown's blood at the ankle, around the ankle stain, isn't it true that you also saw about 12 to 14 other separate little stains?

MR. BAKER: I object. This is outside the scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no, sir, did you see 12 to 14 other little stains?

A. You said a specific blood type. I don't remember whose blood. I saw some smaller stains, yes. I don't know whose they were.

Q. Now, those stains were consistent with -- strike that.

Is it true, sir, that in a stabbing or cutting of a victim, that can generally result in a -- well, strike that.

Did you attempt to determine whether or not, with respect to these 12 or 14 other blood stains that were found, if any of them created any little red balls on side 3?

MR. BAKER: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no, sir?

A. No, I don't recall.

Q. Now, where we are then is, and correct me if I'm wrong, we have two socks, A sock and a B sock.

On the A sock we have Mr. Simpson's blood at the top and the bottom, and Ms. Brown's blood in the center.

On the B sock we have Ms. Brown's blood.

What you're talking to the jury about is only -- I'm not seeking to minimize it, but only the A sock and a particular dot or ball that you claim you saw on side 3 that has some significance from a -- the ankle cut out; is that correct?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. That misstates the evidence. He said a dozen balls at least.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you've realized before your April 2 examination that it was an important examination, did you not?

A. No, not really. I was asked do examine the sock. I didn't know what I'd find at that time. The red balls had not been seen, so that to me seemed significant, but I didn't anticipate it.

Q. Well, as a scientist it would be fair to say, would it not, sir, that you would customarily take detailed notes of your observations?

A. If I were the only one doing the examination, yes, I would.

Q. And you knew at the time of your examination that you might be a witness in connection with whether or not Mr. Simpson committed the murders we're here discussing today; isn't that true?

A. I anticipated that, yes.

Q. And you knew since that time might be very far off, as you have to look at your red notebook to see what date the meeting was, you would want to have detailed notes so you could tell the jury exactly what you saw with the help of your contemporaneous notes; isn't that true?

A. No. I was relying on the photograph to show anyone who was interested in what I saw.

Q. So is it your practice, then, sir, not to take detailed notes if somebody else with you is taking a photograph?

A. Depends on who it is. In Dr. Lee's case I have no problem.

Q. So did you make a conscious determination not to take any notes or very many notes?

A. I took a few notes, made a few sketches, but I did not take copious notes, no.

Q. Now, you said a few moments ago that, you know, nobody had seen these little red balls you claim you saw and you know that was significant.

That's not in your notes, is it, sir, yes or no?

A. No, it's not in my notes.

Yes, it's not in my notes, no.

Q. In fact, you don't have in your notes not only that you didn't see any little red balls, you don't have the number of these little red balls you claim you saw, do you?

MR. BAKER: Argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, I do not have notes to that effect.

Q. You don't have anything about the size of these little red balls, do you?

A. I just said small I think. No, I didn't measure them. They're microscopic.

Q. You didn't say small, did you, sir?

A. Small.

Q. You didn't say small in your notes, did you?

A. No, I just said it now.

Q. Oh. We can say a lot of things now.

What I'm worried about and wondering about is when you tell the jury what you said then, when you saw what you claim you saw.

And I -- what mean, sir, is we know you didn't write red balls, we know you didn't write the number. Did you write small?

A. No.

Q. Thank you.

A. Took a photograph.

Q. Thank you, sir.

You didn't take the photograph, you told us that already.

A. No, the one shown today I did not take.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I took my own photographs.

Q. Whatever you took, you haven't shown us; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, today you told us about 12 of these balls. At the trial you talked about 6 or 7; is that right? Not 12? 6 or 7?

A. I don't remember what I said then. I don't have a copy of my transcript. If I said 6 or 7 I'll go with 6 or 7. I saw quite a few.

As I said today, I don't know if I saw the same ones twice.

Q. Sir, you say 12 today under oath to this jury.

Are you now saying if you said 6 or 7, you'll buy into that, and maybe it wasn't 6 or 7, maybe it was 12 'cause maybe you saw 6 or 7 twice and that got up to 12, and maybe that's where the 12 is?

MR. BAKER: I have no idea if that's a question or if he's trying to make a speech, but --

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you say 6 or 7?

MR. BAKER: I move to strike his entire colloquy with himself.

MR. MEDVENE: It's very cute.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) But do you know --

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you know, putting aside the objection --

A. Over a year ago if I said 6 or 7, I probably meant 6 or 7. Today I thought about it and I said 12 because I --

Q. Okay, sir.

A. -- I don't know how many I saw, but I saw quite a few.

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, let the witness finish speaking before you start speaking.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir.

A. I don't know. There might have been 30, but I saw 10 or 12 or 6, whatever, I recall at the time. My memory was better a year ago than it is now. I'll go with 6.

Q. And of these 6 or 7 or 12 or 30, we have a photo of one of the balls.

Now, do you have photos that you can show us of the other 6 or 7 or 12 or 30 balls that you claim have some significance?

A. Well, there in the photographs that were taken at lower magnification, but to isolate them and show this magnification, no, we don't -- I don't have those. I've seen others, but I don't have them.

Q. Now, as a world renowned photographer, and knowing the importance of seeing these little red balls which nobody else had seen -- in fact, let me step back for a minute.

You knew at the time of your examination that the place where you claim, on side 3, you saw these tiny little red balls, Gary Sims from the California Department of Justice had previously looked at that area and not seen any such phenomenon, you knew that, did you not? Yes or no?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. There's no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you know that, sir?


THE COURT: Sustained, Mr. Medvene.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is it true that you were aware, sir, that Mr. Sims had previously examined this very sock and this very spot?

MR. BAKER: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You can answer if you knew or not.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you know, sir?

A. I possibly did. I do not specifically remember, but if he didn't he should have. I would have concluded he probably did.

Q. And you reviewed his notes, did you not, sir?

A. I'm sure I did.

Q. And you knew, did you not, that it would be important to document any claimed little red balls which you knew Mr. Sims said he had not seen them; isn't that true, sir?

A. That's why we took the pictures, yes.

Q. Now, when you say that's why we took the pictures, we were shown one picture which we'll talk about.

But these other 5 or 6 or 12 or 30 of these little red balls, since you knew Mr. Sims had previously examined the same place and seen no such phenomenon, didn't you believe, as a scientist, it was important to take pictures with sufficient magnification so you could show them to some jury and say this is what I rely on?

MR. BAKER: You know, Your Honor, I'm going to object. There's no evidence that Sims examined this with a microscope, these socks. He's just keeps throwing it in like he did the same thing this witness did.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Overruled. If you understand the question you may answer.

A. I don't know how he examined them, but he missed them, they were there.

THE COURT: Excuse me. That's not the question.

MR. MEDVENE: With the Court's permission, Ms. Reporter, can you repeat the question, please.

THE REPORTER: (Reading:)

Q. Now, when you say that's why we took the pictures, we were shown one picture which we'll talk about.

But these other 5 or 6 or 12 or 30 of these little red balls, since you knew Mr. Sims had previously examined the same place and seen no such phenomenon, didn't you believe as a scientist it was important to take pictures with sufficient magnification so you could show them to some jury and say this is what I rely on?

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you knew in Mr. Sims's notes that he said he examined this area under his stereomicroscope?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this, Your Honor. This is -- has got to come in from Sims.

MR. MEDVENE: He said he read the notes.

MR. BAKER: He said I may have read the notes and he doesn't recall. To put them in is improper.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may inquire whether or not those are the notes he saw. A. You answered the question. He used a stereomicroscope, and we used a high power microscope. He could not have seen these at the magnification of a stereomicroscope assuming it is 25 diameter maximum. That's -- most of them are 20, 25.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Understanding the importance of what you claim you saw, it's true that you have no picture to show of any other of these balls; isn't that right?

A. I do not have them, no.

Q. Now, is it also true, sir -- well, let's move to another area.

And what you did do on April 2 --

MR. BAKER: April 2 of '95?


(BY MR. MEDVENE) Is it true, Mr. MacDonell, that on your April 2 examination, and at no time up to the present, did you ever look at the cut-out that you spoke to the jury about?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you never asked to see the cut-out?

A. That's correct.

Q. And this cut-out is, so we're picturing it, it's a piece of the sock, side 1 and 2 of the sock, the furthest away, the side you touch putting on, and the inside of that, side 1 and 2 of the sock?

A. I think it's lower than that, but it's on that side, the left side.

Q. Okay.

Now, you don't know then, from your own personal observation that Ms. Brown's, whatever, blood of herself was on side 1 of Mr. Simpson's sock? You don't know from your own personal knowledge, from the cut-out, whether that blood soaked through to side 2 'cause you never examined the cut-out; is that correct?

A. Well, I know it did because it's there. Something soaked through and if you --

Q. Excuse me.

A. -- go around the lake, you don't have to go to the middle to know there's water there.

Q. Sir, I'm not good on those kind of explanations. I just want to stay with the basics with you.

We have a cut-out that there was a stain on side 1, and you showed that stain to the jury, and I think that was what, 1239 or whatever; is that correct?

A. I don't know the number.

Q. A cut-out was taken of that stain, correct?

A. Yes. A cut-out was taken out of the center of the stain.

Q. What you then did was look through that cut-out to what we're calling side 3 of the sock, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And the issue we're discussing is not only what, if anything, did you see on side 3, but how did it get there, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you don't know because you never observed it that -- the cut-out portion, I take it, was above where you claim you saw the little red balls, whether blood soaked through from side 1 to side 2 of that cut-out portion; isn't that correct?

A. No. It soaked through to the periphery, and when you cut out a section it saturated through, it saturated in the center, too.

Q. We'll deal with the periphery in a minute.

I'm talking now about the cut-out itself.

And I'm saying on the cut-out itself, isn't it true since you never saw it, you don't know whether blood went from side 1 to side 2 of the cut-out; is that correct?

A. I never physically seen it and I cannot say that I saw it saturated with blood.

Q. You cannot say that it was -- it went from side 1 to side 2; is that correct, sir?

A. Yes, that's what I'm saying, it did because it's on side 3.

Q. Sir, that's your conclusion, not only that it's blood but what's on side 3 -- but what I'm asking you is on the cut-out -- it's a pretty straightforward question.

A. I did not examine the cut-out. I've testified to that.

Q. So, I want you to tell this jury, is it true that you cannot state, under oath, that on side 2 of the cut-out there was any blood; isn't that true?

A. Within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty I can conclude that, and that is my opinion, yes, it's so true.

Q. Sir, you've never looked at side 2; isn't that correct?

A. That's correct.

It was in the center of the cut-out.

Q. You've mentioned the periphery.

When we say periphery, that's a fancy word for what's around the cut-out?

A. It's an English word.

Q. Not minimizing the word.

It's what's around the cut-out?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you examined the periphery portion around the cut-out?

A. That's correct.

Q. And isn't it true, sir, that the side 2 of the periphery did not show any blood -- any blood soak through?

A. No, it was on both side 1 and side 2. It -- as you get further from the center it's on side 1 only.

Q. Excuse me. The question is, sir, were you asked the following question --

MR. MEDVENE: I'm at page 39,581 of the transcript.


MR. MEDVENE: Starting at line 16.


Q. Without limitation, sir,

but you cannot tell us what portion of

this stain contributed to the little

balls on surface 3, whether it was the

periphery on the center of the stain,

can you? A. Yes. I can eliminate the

periphery because it did not soak

through the fabric.

MR. MEDVENE: I've stopped reading.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) It did not soak through the fabric, only the center area, which, I take it, means the cut-out, only the center area soaked through, so that is the only area that could have caused the staining on the third side.

Now I go back again, Mr. MacDonell, isn't it true, that the periphery -- the area around the cut-out did not have blood soak through from side 1 to 2 of the periphery; isn't that what you said?

A. No, I'm trying to interpret what you read.

Q. Sir?

A. The periphery does not lie over the area we found the balls, so even though it had soaked through in the periphery it would not stain that area.

Q. I understand that, sir, I'm taking it a step at a time, and I'm saying does this refresh you?

A. It does but --

Q. Excuse me, sir.

Does this refresh you, 'cause you don't have any notes that --

A. I have them, but you won't let me look at them.

Q. You can look at them, sir.

A. My recollection is it soaked through the periphery, but the answer given there would indicate it did not -- my meaning is that if it soaked through the periphery it's not over the area, so it is not the area that caused the stain.

Q. I understand that.

And feel free to look the your notes.

A. Not all of it went through.

Q. Sir, there's no question.

And feel free to look at your notes, if you have to, and if there's anything there -- would you look through and see if there's anything to show that it -- contrary to your testimony under oath, that it soaked through from side 1 to 2 of the periphery.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, that's argumentative. I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled. Witness is arguing with the answer he gave at the trial.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, do you have anything in any notes or any records of any kind, Mr. MacDonell, before you, anywhere, to indicate that the statement you gave under oath at the prior proceeding, that there was no soak-through of blood on -- on the periphery area from side 1 to 2 is not accurate, any notes of any kind?

A. Not in notes, no.

Q. All right.

Now, is it fair that what you've now told us is there's -- there's little red balls on side 3, you've never looked at the cut-out to see if there's any soak-through from side 1 and 2, and you did look at the periphery, and there's no soak-through from side 1 or 2?

Is that fair as to where we are now?

A. That's right. I had a periphery. I didn't have a center.

Q. Thank you.

Is it true, sir, that you never conducted any experiments of any kind to determine the amount of blood on the periphery?

A. No, that's not true. I duplicated it with one drop of blood, but depending on how much you smear it around you could cover a bigger area.

Q. When you say you duplicated, you don't know how much blood was on the periphery because you didn't scientifically examine it, isn't that true, yes or no?

A. Yes, I scientifically measured it.

Q. Okay.

How much blood was on the peripheral area, and where in your notes does it say that that's the amount of blood that was on the peripheral area of the sock surrounding the cut-out that you've talked to the jury about? Show me in your notes.

MR. BAKER: Argumentative, compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't have --

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Please show me.

A. -- the periphery.

Q. Sir --

A. I measured the total stain, that includes the periphery.

Q. Sir, is there any indication in your notes of what the volume of blood was in the so-called peripheral area? And if there is, show us.

A. Less than one drop.

Q. You have anything there?

A. No. My knowledge of the subject is it was a 1 by 1-1/2 inch stain, total. You can do that easily with one drop, so if you cut some out it's less than one drop.

Q. I'm asking you around the periphery area?

A. That's what I'm talking about.

Q. Yeah. So you made a judgment by visualizing what it was, and your experience how much blood you thought it was, is that --

A. That is correct.

Q. So the nature of this experiment you did was looking at it, and seeing a blood stain around a hole, and saying in your mind, well, that must be a drop, is that fair?

A. No, I added a drop -- I knew I added 50 microliters, a drop, to reproduce it, and I said it could be as little as one drop. That includes the center.

Q. Now, sir, you don't know who might have touched or manipulated this sock in any way prior to the time you first saw it on April 2 of 1995, so as to possibly account for these little red balls you say you saw; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you, other than knowing you claim you saw them on April 2, you have no idea if they got there in April, if they got there March '92, or '94 or '95, or when or how?

A. No, nor on April 1.

Q. Okay.

And you know from your -- would it have been -- strike that.

It would have been of some importance, would it not, sir, to know who had handled the socks and manipulated them, touched them, prior to your examining them, in terms of possibly explaining how the blood got from side -- the alleged -- what you claim is blood, these red balls, from side 2 to 3?

A. Not at all. I don't know how it got there. I know the mechanism.

Q. Would you agree, sir, with the gentleman that was with you at the examination, Mr. Lee, that there is no scientific evidence to support any statement that law enforcement officers planted any evidence in this case?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you ever discuss with Dr. Lee his testimony that he has no scientific evidence to support any statement that any law enforcement officer planted evidence in this case?

MR. BAKER: I move to strike and have the jury admonished relative to that statement, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

I sustained the first one and the second one is exactly the repeat of the first one. I admonish you not to do that.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, there are -- is it correct, sir, that these little red balls you say you saw are extremely small?

A. That is correct.

Q. How small are they, could you describe it for the jury?

A. I do not recall the diameter. I just don't know. They're extremely small, down in the micron range, smaller than the diameter of a human hair.

Q. Now, is it true, sir, that because you were dealing with something so small, you did not do any testing to try to abrade it or move these little balls? That's true, isn't it, yes or no, sir?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. All right, sir.

I'll read you, sir, what's -- strike that.

Is it true, sir, that you did -- they were so small that you were afraid of fracturing them, and because of that you did no actual testing, only observation; is that true, yes or no?

A. Yes, that's what I did.

Q. So it's true you did not touch the balls?

A. I did not, no.

Q. Nor did Dr. Lee, according to your testimony?

A. Not touching them in that sense, as I --

Q. No manipulation of them of any kind?

A. Dissolved them, he took a sample with a swab in that area. I'm sure he touched this one as well as others.

Q. You didn't see him touch this one, did you?

A. No, I couldn't resolve that one, no.

Q. Okay.

And in terms of you, sir, is it a correct statement that you did no testing to try to move the ball in any way, all you did was look at it; isn't that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And if you were looking -- if these balls, sir, were sitting on this table, and one of them was this bottle and one was this black box, without -- and they're sitting on the fiber --

A. They're bonded there, not just sitting.

Q. Unless you raise this, you don't know if that's stuck to the fiber, did you, sir, from observing this tiny, tiny, tiny, little red ball?

A. Yeah. It's bonded, it's wrapped around it.

Q. Isn't the way to find out, sir, by moving it to see if it stuck, or to see if you can raise it off of the fiber?

A. That would be a way, if it were possible.

Q. That would be a good way, wouldn't it?

A. If you can manipulate it microscopically, yes.

Q. That would tell you, definitely, how deeply embedded in the fibers the so-called little red ball was?

A. It's not embedded in, it's wrapped around fibers, plastic.

Q. Now, sir, did you quantify any of these little red balls, whether it's 6 or 7 or 12 or 30, did you quantify any as to volume?

A. No.

Q. To give us an idea of the size, if you took 6 or 7 of them and put them in a test tube and set them on top of each other, could we see them?

A. I doubt it very seriously, without optical assistance.

Q. Now, the socks of Mr. Simpson, they were elastic socks that stretched; is that correct?

A. They were synthetic, yes, in a weave that did give to it, had give to it.

Q. Now, blood, when it dries, is not elastic, is it?

A. No.

Q. And if blood were dried on the sock, and you stretched the sock, that blood could flake off to the other side of the sock; isn't that true?

A. A large volume, yes. Not those tiny red spots that are on an individual fiber, but a larger volume.

Q. Could flake?

A. It could flake off, could break.

Q. Now, you knew that there was certain presumptive testing done for blood, you've told us about that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And if a little too much solvent was put on the Q-tip, that could hydrate the blood that was on the sock, couldn't it?

A. Certainly.

Q. And it's possible if that were done, that could be another explanation of whatever you saw on side 3, isn't that correct, a possible explanation? Yes or no, sir?

A. In theory, yes.

Q. But -- That's what I want, sir.

Now, how about if they were new, these socks.

MR. BAKER: Could he be given time to finish his answer.

THE COURT: You can do it on redirect, Mr. Baker.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you know that socks are preserved, the blood frozen and unfrozen; isn't that true?

A. Yes, it's preserved whether it's frozen or not, if it's dry.

Q. These socks, you were advised, were frozen and unfrozen?

A. That's what I understand.

Q. And during the course of freezing and unfreezing, it's at least possible that that could have caused the phenomenon with the drop of moisture that would account for what you claim you saw; isn't that correct?

A. No. The sock material has such a low thermal capacity it couldn't be at a temperature gradient enough to cause significant condensation, so I would say that would be almost a physical impossibility.

Theoretically it would be, but practically it would not happen.

Q. Now, you talked about -- you talked about a drying experience, but it's possible, is it not, that if someone was wearing those socks, that had been involved in a quick, violent murder, and was rushing, that their foot would perspire, isn't it?

A. Certainly possible.

Q. And that the perspiration on that person's foot could moisten the blood that was on the sock; isn't that true?

A. It could retard the evaporation in drying, yes.

Q. And it would be possible, then, if that blood was moist, for it to be transferred from side 2 to 3 if they were taken off and inside out, it's possible, is it not, sir?

A. I don't think so, not damp. Wet, yes, but damp, I really don't believe it could happen.

Q. You didn't conduct -- you said you conducted some experiments but that's not --

A. That was wet, that was wet blood.

Q. But you didn't conduct the experiments we just talked about, did you?

A. No.

Q. And in the experiments we talked about, and the drying, you didn't know the amount of blood that was on Mr. Simpson's socks before you did the experiments because you never quantified the volume of blood on A and the volume of blood on B; is that correct?

A. No. I did the experiments after I'd examined the sock, and I had the measurements of the size, and that's the experiments I did afterwards.

Q. My question, sir, is if you put a lot of blood -- we're talking a lot -- a few drops of blood on the sock or a lesser amount of blood on the sock, that can control the drying time, can't it?

A. The variations in volume will control drying time, and the thickness of the material, certainly.

Q. So the first thing we want to know is, in terms of duplicating conditions, you never determined with any scientific accuracy the volume of blood found on Mr. Simpson's socks, so you could duplicate it on these other socks; is that correct, sir, yes or no?

A. That is not correct.

I did it in reverse. I added a drop of blood to see if I could produce a stain anywhere near the size of the stain I'd examined on the sock. And when I added one drop and teased it around a little, it soaked in, it appeared about the same.

My conclusion that it was one drop is an approximation. It certainly wasn't two or three or a tenth of a drop, but it was about a drop.

That's as scientific as I can make it.

Q. That's not very scientific, is it?

MR. BAKER: Argumentative.

A. It's not a guess.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, in the experiments -- one that you did that I don't think you told us about, the blood completely dried in an hour and 35 minutes; isn't that right?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. Now, you didn't -- when you're talking to the jury about 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, you didn't tell them about the experiment where human blood was added to this fabric from a medicine dropper, teased into the fabric, and it took an hour and 35 minutes, you didn't tell them about that one, did you?

A. Yeah, that was 2 or 3 drops.

Q. It took an hour and 35 minutes?

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't do that experiment with someone's ankle in the sock, did you?

A. No, it was just lying flat, and it had more volume, and it soaked into a larger area.

Q. And in terms of your observation of whatever it was you saw, what you were able to see was something that -- it appeared to do something, but from the degree of magnification you were looking at it from, and because you weren't able to touch it, you don't really know if it surrounded or didn't surround the fabric; isn't that true?

MR. BAKER: Well, I object. That question is vague, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I can't make it out either.


(Court reviews realtime computer screen.)

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, I just want to talk about the gloves for a moment, if we can.

The experiment you did was on brand new gloves; is that correct?

A. That is correct, they appeared new.

Q. They appeared to you to be brand new?

A. Brand new, yes.

Q. And you're saying that they hadn't been worn for years, and in wet weather, snow or sleet or whatever, is that true?

A. Apparently not. No, they were new.

Q. And in terms of what we're talking about here is not what shrinkage happened afterwards, but what shrinkage happened before June 12, and is it true that you weren't able, 'cause you weren't there, to conduct any experiment to determine what would happen to those gloves if over a two- or three-year period they were worn during the winter in sleet and snow, you couldn't perform such an experiment, could you?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is argument, this is not a question. There's no probative value. He wasn't there before 1994.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) You were not -- strike that.

You didn't know under what conditions, how many times in the rain, how many times in the snow Mr. Simpson were those gloves prior to June 12 of 1994; is that true?

MR. BAKER: Well, wait a minute. That assumes that Mr. Simpson ever were those gloves and --

THE COURT: Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Whoever wore those gloves prior to June 12, 1994, you have no idea how often they were worn, the weather conditions, how much rain, sleet or snow they were subjected to, do you?

A. They didn't leave Los Angeles. They didn't see much snow.

Q. But if they left Los Angeles on the hands of somebody that was a TV commentator at football games in Buffalo in the snow, in New York's Shea Stadium in the snow, let's assume they saw a lot of snow, you don't know --

MR. BAKER: Your Honor --

(BY MR. MEDVENE) -- do you, sir, how much adverse weather conditions those gloves saw before June 12; is that correct, sir?

MR. BAKER: I object to his arguing the case.

THE COURT: Overruled. The testimony appears to be that the experiment conducted by this witness was on new gloves, and plaintiffs' contention is that the gloves that were recovered were not new gloves.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you answer, sir?

A. The answer is that I grew up in snow.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I've never seen snow on my gloves outdoors. It doesn't accumulate on your gloves.

THE COURT: Mr. Witness, that wasn't the question.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you answer the question, sir?

A. Is this under the assumption there's snow on the gloves?

Q. Sir, you've made --

A. Would you read the question back.

Q. Sir, you've made whatever point you're trying to make, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: We're going to ask the court reporter, with the Court's permission, to repeat the question.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I wonder if you can answer it, sir.

(The court reporter read the question as follows:)

"Q. But if they left

Los Angeles on the hands of somebody

that was a TV commentator at football

games in Buffalo in the snow, in New

York's Shea Stadium in the snow, let's

assume they saw a lot of snow, you don't

know, do you, sir, how much adverse

weather conditions those gloves saw

before June 12; is that correct, sir?"

A. The --

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) That's correct?

A. The last part is.

Q. And, sir, isn't it true that the gloves you tested had not lost their waterproof protection? That's true, isn't it?

A. There was none on that leather. That's my understanding of it. It's not leather that has a treatment. It's naked leather.

Q. Sir, do you know if they're waterproof or not? The gloves you examined, you didn't check them to see if they're waterproof?

A. I don't know how to check them.

Q. You don't know if they were or not?

A. That's true.

Q. If there was waterproofing on the gloves that you checked, and no waterproofing on the other gloves, you would have no way of --

MR. BAKER: There's no evidence of any waterproofing on those gloves. It's improper to ask these questions.

THE COURT: Sustained as to the last question.

MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further. Thank you.


Q. Did you grow up in New York?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you worn gloves all your life?

A. Only in the wintertime.

Q. One for your side.

Did any of those gloves shrink?

A. Only when I grew older and my hands got bigger they seem to shrink. Otherwise, when I come in soaking wet and put them on the furnace pipe in the basement, let the hot air dry them out, I find the next morning they were tough and stiff, but if I broke them up, they fit.

Q. Did you see the glove experiment in the courtroom when Mr. Simpson put on the gloves, or the videotape of him putting on the gloves?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I did at one time. I don't think I saw it at the time it was live.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And did those gloves fit Mr. Simpson?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: On which basis?

THE COURT: He's got no ability to testify whether they fit or not, I find, and I so rule.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your April 2, 1995 when you went to Technical Associates helping in Altadena, California, do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was specifically to examine evidence, was it not?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you went there with Henry Lee, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And Henry Lee is a criminalist of some reputation, is he not, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And he and you examined the socks, did you not?

A. That is correct.

Q. And Dr. Lee took notes during the examination of the socks, did he not?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

A. He was the scribe.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And during the examination, both you and Henry Lee looked through the microscope and saw the red balls that you described in this courtroom, did you not?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for a conclusion as to what Dr. Lee saw or didn't see.

THE COURT: Sustained as to Dr. Lee.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, he was asked these questions -- well, strike that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you have conversations with Dr. Lee about the red balls?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, that was all opened up by his examination and his talking about Dr. Lee being there.

THE COURT: Dr. Lee's opinion can come from Dr. Lee; not from this witness.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did Dr. Lee take photographs along with you, to document what you saw on April 2, 1995?

A. Yes, we could see it the same instant.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And how could you see it at the same instant?

A. It had a ground glass such as this (indicating to television screen) over the microscope which allows you to see what you're about to photograph. And so regardless of who clicks the shutter, that's what we're going to get. And that's the way we took the pictures. I moved it for some; he moved it for others.

Q. So what we're talking about, is when you're taking a photograph or Dr. Lee is taking a photograph --

MR. MEDVENE: I apologize, Mr. Baker. These questions are leading the witness.

THE COURT: I'll allow it.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you want to, whether or not you --

MR. P. BAKER: 1241 on the screen.

(Exhibit 1241 displayed on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were both in the same room, both viewing the same thing; is that correct, sir?

A. Yes, we used two microscopes. This was the one we took pictures with.

Q. When you say you didn't take a picture, does that mean you didn't push the button on the microscope that allows you to take the picture, that Dr. Lee did that?

A. It was a camera -- release on the camera to the microscope. I clicked some; he clicked others.

I think he took this one. That's my best recollection (indicating to 1241).

Q. What you were attempting to do on April 2 was to document what you were able to visualize, is that not correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, leading and suggestive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That's what we did, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, there isn't any question in your mind that -- well, strike that.

Blood, after it dries, can flake, can it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you have blood on a material such as a synthetic sock, that can flake off, can it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And residue of blood -- flakes from blood, would be anticipated to be seen on the socks in various areas from just residue, true?

A. Well, if you knew it had been manipulated and the blood had broken up, you would see flakes -- you could see flakes. They would probably be formed -- they would be much, much larger than this.

Q. And flakes are not spherical in appearance, are they?

A. No, they're jagged, they break up just like peanut brittle.

Q. And they're thin and jagged, are they not?

A. They may not be thin. If the stain and cloth material is thick, they will be larger.

Q. Okay.

And based upon your 40-some years experience, did you have any problems determining whether this was a compression of blood on side 3 as contrasted to a flake?

A. No, I didn't. Looking at this, I didn't think of the size, I saw blood, which is wet and encircled a fiber and also go up the fiber to a certain degree and it's conclusion that it is wrapped around and it certainly not lying there loose so the fluids do that. This is a fluid dynamic that just happens, that fluids will ball up and encircle something like that. That is exactly what it appears like.

Q. Now, while you were in the laboratory, there on April 2, 1995 and examining the socks, did you observe Dr. Lee swatch the area for a presumptive test for blood?

A. When we were through taking pictures, yes. That was the only way we could determine if these did give a positive reaction for blood. Not limiting it to blood, but the negative reaction means it's not blood.

Q. And was a positive reaction observed by you after Dr. Lee swatched the area?

A. Yes.

Q. And there was no question in your mind based upon the location --

MR. BAKER: Put up the cut-out for the sock.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1239.

(Exhibit 1239 is displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you were never provided this cut-out area, were you?

A. No. I never asked for it and I was never given it.

Q. And the area where the red balls were, were directly under where the staining would have been?

A. Well, it is stained -- it's stained all the way around, that light color is the stain, but the center portion has been cut out, and that would have been, of course, the most concentrated area and that's where those red balls were.

Q. And I guess if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may be a duck.

In other words, those balls are right under the area of the highest concentration of where the blood stain would have been on the sock that was removed from -- the portion that was removed, correct?

A. Yes, I can conclude, but I can't prove -- everything that I know about blood tells me this is blood, but I cannot do a serology test on something that small.

Q. Now, in terms of the experiments that you did do, tell the jury the experiment that you did do relative to the socks?

A. Well, having --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You examined.

A. When I returned after examining these socks, quite independent of any intention, I was wearing a pair of very similar socks, and having blood available almost wherever I am, I just put some on my sock for one purpose only, and that was to spread out a drop to see how long it would take to dry on my warm body.

One drop I teased around in an oval which was very close to an inch by an inch and a half, so I know it wasn't two drops or half a drop, it was about a drop, I don't want to say it was within 10 percent, but it was a drop which duplicated what I had seen.

And using a white tissue, which is an extension of the paint drying test done by ASTB -- oh, they use paper, I used tissue, I would touch that spot and apply very little pressure, and after five minutes or so, the stain was completely dry, I could not get any blood adhered to the clean white tissue.

That is a way of determining that it is dry.

So on my body, that day, it dried within about five minutes, and so that was a thin stain.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And Mr. MacDonell, in terms of this drying test, in other words, what you're doing is taking, like a Kleenex tissue, that we have in the bathroom and you're seeing if there's any transfer of the blood that you put on the sock, on yourself, and seeing if there's any transfer onto that white Kleenex, correct?

A. Any microscopic transfer. I was looking at it with my 20-power microscope, and even though you can't see it with the human eye, you can sometimes still see it with this. After that had happened, that I couldn't see it, then I concluded that it was dry.

Q. And obviously the transfer of the red balls is only going to occur while the blood is wet and able to be transferred?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you obviously don't know who manipulated the sock before you saw it on April 2, 1995, do you?

A. I don't like the word manipulated. I don't know what happened to the sock, but it was stained.

Q. And you don't know what happened to any of Mr. Simpson's reference blood or the reference blood of the victims before -- well, at any time, do you?

A. No.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you don't know whether or not the blood that's in that stain contains EDTA, a blood preservative from a reference vial, do you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, he's arguing the case.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, relative to the phenolphthalein --

A. It's phenolphthalein. You drop the E when it's reduced.

Q. All right.

Relative to the -- Mr. Medvene asked you if the presumptive blood test, in putting too much liquid on the swab, could produce the balls that we have shown, or the ball that we have shown in the photograph, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in this case it wasn't swatched until after the photographs were already taken, isn't that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. So it couldn't have produced the red ball that we see in the photograph, correct?

A. Not that swabbing. However, if someone had swabbed the surface on top prior to that and used a lot of liquid, whether it's saline solution or distilled water, just actually soaked it, that is possible. But that would be very poor technique. That's not the way you do it. You usually cut it out and then do it.

Q. If they had done that in this exceedingly poor technique, they would have to have done it at the time before the cut-out was made to have the transfer of blood go through to side 3, correct?

A. Precisely, yes, that's why it's cut out.

Q. You obviously have -- you were not given any information that any such poor technique was ever used, or that any technique was used on this sock before the cut-out was actually cut by LAPD, correct?

A. That's correct. I was not.

Q. And as I think you indicated, freezing and unfreezing just simply isn't going to do it, correct?

A. No. My socks did not get damp when I did that.

Q. Mr. Medvene had asked about perspiration and a quick and violent murder.

Do you have an opinion as to whether or not -- well, this is -- strike that.

This area we're talking about is not on the foot, is it, that's up on the ankle area?

A. Yes, it's on the ankle.

Q. So he talked about perspiration of a foot causing a dilution in the blood and a possible causing of the phenomenon of the balls.

If there was perspiration that got as high as the ankle, would you anticipate that you're going to see some sort of sodium chloride or salt deposit as well?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, speculation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He's an expert on sodium chloride deposits. Overruled.

MR. MEDVENE: No foundation.

A. If you have --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay.

Have you ever seen deposits left from perspiration?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And have you ever examined them under a microscope?

A. Some of them you don't need a microscope. You see crystals of salt, sodium chloride, particularly on the underarm area of clothing, on shirts and blouses.

Q. Was there any sodium chloride deposit on those socks at all?

A. I didn't see anything that I could call crystals, but it would take a lot of perspiration to leave a significant deposit.

I would have to say that the person could perspire and they could have damp skin, cold, clammy skin, but more likely in the shoe than above it, where you got more radiation area, except that area could be confined by the pants, standing up, the pants would cover that, and it might somehow keep it damp longer, but also prevents you from bumping into something and getting it on it if the pants were over the sock.

Q. Now, in terms of your own -- the drying experiment that you did relative to socks that are similar to this, drying at 5 or 6 minutes, that was -- well, strike that.

When did you do that?

A. I did that after I got back, I think, in June. I just did it one day, as I said. I saw I was wearing similar socks, I wanted to see the drying time, and that's why I did it.

Q. Blood is going to dry quicker when the sock is on a person because of the body heat we all radiate; is that correct?

A. That's correct. Not so much what we radiate, but what we transfer to the fluid if we radiate it, it's gone.

Q. Fair enough.

Just one other question on these gloves.

Now, when you have a -- when you looked at those gloves, did you see that there was any coating, or anything whatsoever on the leather?

A. No, it was very smooth leather, and I didn't -- you can't see scotch-guard or anything like that anyway on the clothing, you can't see a treatment if it's there on leather, in my experience, but I did not see any obvious signs of anything except just plain leather.

Q. And the fact that it didn't shrink after you had put blood on it and tried to -- and replicated the atmospheric conditions, was that consistent with your knowledge, and having worn gloves basically since you were a kid, that they don't shrink?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I didn't know if they would shrink or not and if so, how much. I had no idea because I don't have gloves such as that. They're very nice gloves and -- I don't have bad gloves but I don't have nice ones like that, and so -- I've never had them shrink, and that -- I can remember them -- getting them sopping wet. So I didn't expect them to shrink. I gave what I considered a very fair evaluation of it, and I could not detect any shrinkage.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

THE COURT: Recross.


Q. How many pictures of little red balls did you take, Mr. MacDonell?

A. I do not remember. Dr. Lee took the film. It was his microscope and --

Q. More than five, more than ten? You've shown us one. Was it more than five or more than ten or less than that?

A. I would say perhaps a dozen. I don't know -- he might have taken -- used the film up, but he might not have taken it all of the same thing.

Q. I read from the criminal trial transcript, 389, line 4 through 13. (Reading:)

Q. Mr. MacDonell --

MR. BAKER: Wait a minute, wait a minute.

MR. P. BAKER: 39?




Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) (Reading:)

Mr. MacDonell, please listen --

MR. BAKER: Wait a minute.



MR. BAKER: No. Our computer's gone haywire over here.

MR. BAKER: Let me look over your shoulder.


Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) (Reading:)

Mr. MacDonell --

MR. BAKER: Let me read it.


MR. BAKER: Okay. Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) (Reading:)

Mr. MacDonell, please listen to the question I ask you.

When you took only -- there was only one photograph taken of those little balls that you saw on the inner surface of the sock?

A. I answered that when I said Dr. Lee took it, I did not take any.

Q. The question is, only one photograph, correct?

A. To the best of my knowledge.

A. Is there a question?

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. MacDonell -- or Mr. MacDonell, I want to move to a somewhat different area.

Is it true that you cannot tell this jury that the little red balls on the inner surface that you claim you saw are absolutely associated with the outer stain that you testified about, is that correct?

A. I can't absolutely say that they are.

Q. And getting back to that area for just a moment, the space or the spot on side 3, where you claimed something went through to form this ball, is on top of the cut-out where you have no personal knowledge whether there was even any blood there to drip through and surrounded by the periphery where you've told the prior jury there was no blood that went from side 1 to 2; is that correct, sir?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, that's at least three questions, it's compound and argumentative.

THE COURT: I think you asked that question the last time around.


Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You made some reference to Dr. Lee.

Is it correct sir, in his notes he doesn't describe the shape of any alleged round red balls; that's true, is it not?

A. I don't know what his descriptions are or his testimony was.

Q. Is it true, sir, that he never uses the words, I saw 6 or 7 little red balls, he never says that, does he, in his notes; isn't that correct?

MR. BAKER: There's no foundation for that question and he knows it.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) To the best of your knowledge, is it true, sir, that Dr. Lee did not record in his notes seeing any 6 or 7 little round balls?

MR. BAKER: Same question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) You're saying, Mr. MacDonell, that you took no notes on April 2 describing this phenomenon, and yet you have never even seen Dr. Lee's notes?

MR. BAKER: Objection, argumentative, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that your testimony?

A. I've seen Dr. Lee's notes.

Q. Excuse me. You've seen --

A. I've seen Dr. Lee's notes.

And I do believe I may have made a notation about the -- I think it just says photomicrographs were taken, but in that notation on my diagram I made at that time, I don't think I added to it little red ball or something. I have it in here.

Q. Is it true, sir, that Dr. Lee makes no reference to seeing 6 or 7 little red balls?

A. He told me that several times.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Documented, I don't know. But we discussed it at the time.

Q. Sir, you knew. My question --

A. No, I don't know what you said.

Q. My question is, you knew it was not in Dr. Lee's notes 'cause you've now told us you've seen those notes?

A. You didn't say notes in your last question. You asked if we had discussed it.

Q. No, I don't believe I did, but the record will be the best evidence. I don't want to quarrel with you.

A. All right.

Q. Is it true that when you looked at Dr. Lee's notes, you did not see any reference to seeing 6 or 7 little red balls; yes or no, sir?

A. I don't recall. I am not sure whether he put it in or not. He may not have and he may have. I do not remember.

Q. Sir, counsel asked you about, you know, your examination of these little red balls.

Let me ask you, isn't it true that on the side of the cut-out, where you claim you found this little red ball, you tested another spot where there was a Nicole Brown blood stain is; is that true?

MR. BAKER: That's beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Isn't it true, sir, that you probed other places on the sock where Nicole Brown's blood was identified, and did not find any of the blood soak through to side 2 or 3 of the sock?

MR. BAKER: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You wouldn't categorize yourself as an expert on leather gloves, would you?

A. No, just as a wearer thereof.

Q. Just as a wearer.

And you're not testifying here, are you, sir, that the gloves worn by the killer in this case did not shrink to a certain extent prior to the time of the murders; you're not saying that, are you?

MR. BAKER: That's outside the scope, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no, sir?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: I ask to reopen for one area.

THE COURT: No. Finish this.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you tell us how much you've been -- how much you've billed?

MR. BAKER: I object to that. That's outside the scope as well.

THE COURT: That you can answer. Go ahead and answer that.

A. I haven't billed anything.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) How much have you been paid?

A. I received a retainer of $5,000, but that was not something I billed for.

Q. And you have an arrangement for payment?

A. Well, I got paid, I have my airline tickets and that sort of thing.

Q. And you have your arrangement for payment in connection with the work you've done, in connection with your testimony here; yes or no, sir? Yes or no, do you have an arrangement for payment?

A. No arrangement, no.

Q. But you --

A. Going to bill them for the time that's spent, and the three days time away from my laboratory but --

Q. I understand.

A. -- we haven't sat down and said this is what we're going to charge, this is what you're going to pay, no.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you.


Q. Mr. MacDonell, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, is it your opinion that the balls that you and Dr. Lee saw on April 2, 1995 are blood from a wet transfer from side 1 of the sock through side 2 of the sock into side 3?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know of any reason why LAPD would cut out an area in the sock that had no blood or nothing else on it?

A. Yes, they would cut out an area for a control. You always take a sample from an area that is not stained to run reagents on as opposed to an area that you cut out to test with the area that does not have a stain gives a positive test, then the positive test on the other area is meaningless. So you will take out controls. But I think you're referring specifically just to this stained area.

Q. This area is basically in the center of the stain, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's the area from which you would anticipate the highest concentration of blood volume, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

Now, in your analysis, there was blood around the perimeter of the area that was removed, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And as you got further away, the blood volume -- farther away from the cut-out area, the blood volume became less, did it not, sir?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, beyond the copy.

THE COURT: This is beyond the scope of the redirect.

MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

1:30, ladies and gentlemen.

THE CLERK: For the record, Mr. Medvene, you made reference to 42A and B.


THE CLERK: Those weren't exhibits.

MR. MEDVENE: They're not exhibit numbers.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

(At 11:50 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

1:37 P.M.



(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, defense calls Dr. Michael Baden.

MICHAEL BADEN, M.D., was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?


THE BAILIFF: Please be seated.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE CLERK: Sir, if you would, please, when you're ready, state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Michael Baden, B-a-d-e-n.


Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Baden.

You are a forensic pathologist, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And tell the jury briefly what a forensic pathologist does.

A. A forensic pathologist is a physician who specializes in determining how people die from -- from unnatural causes, and who is trained in determining how injury affects the living or dead person. That's to distinguish the forensic pathologist from the general pathologist, which -- whose expertise is to determine disease and abnormalities that are natural, from doing various tests: Looking at tissue under the microscope, or doing chemical tests.

And the pathologist -- forensic pathologist, hospital pathologist doesn't treat living patients, but gives information to the surgeon or the dermatologist, or the internist, who does the treatment.

MR. BLASIER: Erin, can we have a new number?

THE CLERK: 2267.

(The instrument herein referred to as Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael Baden was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2267.)

Q. Dr. Baden, let me show you 2267.

Does this appear to be a copy of your C.V.?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And has that been updated recently?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. But it's recent.

Q. Can you describe to the jury your educational background, please.

A. Yes.

I received a bachelor of science degree in 1955 from the City College of New York, and then a medical degree, an M.D. degree in 1959 from New York University School of Medicine. I then was an intern and resident, initially specializing in internal medicine, and then resident and chief resident in pathology at Bellevue Hospital Medical Center in New York City. And finished my training at Bellevue as a fellow in pathology, 1965.

Q. You mentioned the term "internal medicine." What is that?

A. Yeah. Internal medicine -- there are about 25 specialties in medicine; pathology is one, internal medicine is another.

Internal medicine is that specialty in medicine that treats illness in nonsurgical ways.

Q. Can you describe to the jury the various professional positions that you have held?

A. Yeah.

While a resident doctor at Bellevue Hospital, I became a part-time medical examiner for the City of New York, which is similar to medical examiner/coroner in -- in Los Angeles.

And in that position, I did autopsies on persons who died of, potentially, unnatural causes; went to scenes of death; and stayed as a part-time medical examiner from 1960 to 1965.

When I finished my training at -- as a resident doctor at Bellevue, I then became a full-time medical examiner for the City of New York, and stayed in that office until 1985, holding various positions, including that of Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York.

Since 1985, I have been Director of Forensic Sciences for the New York State Police. But I'm here in a private capacity, not as a representative of that agency.

Q. Now, during the course of your experience, have you -- have you had any clinical experience?

If so, tell us what that is.

A. Yes.

Clinical experience, being the treatment of living patients, was my initial area of specialization. And I was initially starting to specialize in internal medicine. And I did that at New York University Medical School, and Bellevue Hospital, and Columbia Presbyterian School of Medicine, until I entered the pathology program and became an -- have been acting as a pathologist since 1963, about.

Q. With your clinical experience, have you had experience with people who have had stab wounds or other traumatic injuries?

A. Yes.

As an intern and resident and medical student at Bellevue Hospital, New York City, which is the major hospital for trauma then and now in Manhattan, I admitted, treated, diagnosed, assisted in operations on many people, hundreds of people who had injury and trauma and who survived.

Q. And those injuries and trauma, are they similar types of injuries that you -- we have seen in this case?

A. Some of them are, yes.

Q. And do you hold any board certifications?

A. Yes. I hold three board certifications.

Q. Go ahead and describe those.

A. Board certification is a means that's been established largely since World War II, to permit patients to know whether a physician who holds himself or herself out as a specialist, has all the requisite training to be a dermatologist or a pediatrician or whatever.

And the various specialties have boards that set criteria. The criteria, in general, consists of having successfully graduated from an accredited medical school, having successfully completed a residency program in that specialty, in the -- in an approved hospital in the United States, and finally, having passed various examinations at the end of that program, written, oral, and treatment examinations.

Upon successful completion of those examinations, the individual is then a diplomat of that specialty, or board certified in that specialty, and can hold himself or herself out as a board-certified surgeon, pathologist, radiologist et cetera.

Q. And in what fields are you certified?

A. I'm certified in three areas, in three fields in pathology.

First one was anatomic pathology. And that has to do with the evaluation of any abnormalities that might be present in the structure or anatomy of the body, such as determined by looking at a biopsy under the microscope and seeing what it is, cancer or not cancer.

Also, part of that entails doing autopsies to determine what abnormalities were present. And this looks at the actual structure, to see if the liver looks abnormal, if the brain looks abnormal. And that's anatomic pathology.

Secondly, I'm certified in -- board certified in clinical pathology. And clinical pathology looks at the chemistry of the body. The clinical pathologist is often the director of the laboratory at the hospital, the lab that does urine tests and blood tests, and determines if the cholesterol is high, if the sugar is high, et cetera, and gives that information back to the treating doctor to incorporate in evaluation of what's wrong with the patient.

Q. These are living patients?

A. These are living patients.

And the third area that I'm certified, which is really the area that I do 95 percent of my work, is forensic pathology.

And forensic pathology really specializes in unnatural conditions that affect the body, as opposed to natural conditions that 99 percent of pathologists are involved with stroke, heart disease, cancer.

All parts of the hospital pathologist's expertise includes accident, suicide, homicide, drug overdose is part of what the forensic pathologist specializes in, and part of -- that's part of -- the pathology part of it, the forensic part of it, is also -- includes the ability, training to give testimony, and to give evidence in hearing procedures so that other people can understand what our findings are.

Q. In addition to your professional positions that you told us about, have you been appointed to any -- by any government agencies to --

A. Yes. That is, I've been appointed to a number of committees and subcommittees by various mayors of New York City, when I worked there: Committees on drug abuse, child abuse, alcoholism, areas that a medical examiner sees a lot of in an urban area.

On a state level, I have been on various appointments by the governor to be on committees and commissions that examine health care and all deaths that occur in prisons, lock-ups and jails throughout New York State. I'm appointed to a similar commission that evaluates all health care and causes of death -- evaluate causes of death of persons who die in mental institutions and mental hospitals throughout New York State.

On a federal level, I was appointed, back in the late 1970s, Chairman of the Forensic Pathology Panel for the United States Congress Select Committee on Assassination that was charged with the responsibility of reevaluating the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.

Q. Doctor, was Werner Spitz on either of those panels?

A. Yes; he was on the President Kennedy panel.

Q. What was your position on that panel?

A. I was chairman of both panels to look into the -- the pathology and the causes of death of President Kennedy.

And similarly, I was chairman of the panel to look into the death of Dr. Martin Luther King.

On a -- on a federal level, I have served on various commissions and committees to teach aspects of forensic medicine and forensic pathology in South American countries: Panama, Equador, Columbia.

About three years ago, I was a member of a four-member team that went to -- to the Ural Mountains in Russia, arranged by the U.S. State Department and the Russian government to examine remains that were thought to be those of Czar Nicholas, Alexandria, and the Romanoff family that was murdered in 1918, and possible skeletal remains had been recovered.

I've been a member of -- requested by the Singapore government, Philippine government, West Bank, Gaza Strip, human rights groups; Canadian government to do autopsies, examine causes of death, read autopsies in matters that have come up in those countries.

Q. Did you work on the -- Medgar Evers case?

A. Yes, I've served as a consultant to various district attorneys' offices around the country, including that of the District Attorney in Jackson, Mississippi. About 1991, 1992, I was asked by that district attorney's office to do a reautopsy on the body of Medgar Evers, who was a civil rights leader who was murdered in 1963. And there had been a couple trials at that time that were hung juries. And new evidence had come forth, and I was asked to do a reexamination.

I did that reexamination and then did testify at the subsequent murder trial.

Q. You indicated that you've consulted with D.A.'s offices throughout the country. Have you consulted with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office on occasion?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And approximately how many times?

A. A few times I was consulted by them to testify and to reevaluate the death of John Belushi, to evaluate and testify in the cases involving a Dr. Boggs, recently, who was involved in a murder trial.

I've also been retained -- in fact, in this very courthouse, I testified relative to the death of -- involving Christian Brando, Marlin Brando's son, a few years back. That was for the defendant.

Q. The Boggs case that you mentioned, were you testifying as an expert for the Los Angeles D.A.'s office, at the same time you were a defense expert in this case?

A. At the time of the criminal trial in this case, when I testified -- I was testifying in the criminal trial -- I did testify two different times across the hall as an expert for the Los Angeles District Attorney, on their behalf in a homicide trial, yes which involved actually three -- in total, three different defendants.

Q. During the course of your professional experience, can you break down the number of times that you worked for the prosecution versus the defense, just approximately?

A. Well, in general, all my official work as Medical Examiner in New York City, as Medical Examiner for the State Police is almost entirely evaluating and being called to testify by the prosecution.

In my private practice -- and I'm permitted, since working with the New York State Police, to have a private practice, because my job with the state police -- New York State police is not full-time in that capacity. I do private consultations both for -- for prosecution and defense attorneys.

It works out, possibly, about 60 percent for prosecutors' offices, for 40 percent in defense matters.

Q. That's just in your private practice?

A. In my private practice.

But in me official capacity, which 90 percent of my work over the years has been done, officially as the medical examiner for New York City, as the Medical Examer for the state police that's -- 99.9 percent, I'm called by the prosecutor's office to testify.

Q. Now, can you give us an estimate of how many autopsies you think you've done over the years?

A. Over the years, since the 1960s, more than 20,000 autopsies.

Q. Now, during the course of your professional experience, how often do you go to a crime scene?

A. Oh, when I was in New York City, almost all the homicides that I would be involved with, I would go to the crime scene.

Since working for the state police, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

Q. In your opinion, is it important to go to a crime scene, as a forensic pathologist?

A. Yes. The crime scene is extremely important for the forensic pathologist and for the police investigators.

Q. Now, are you acquainted with Dr. Werner Spitz?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Is he a friend of yours?

A. He is a very close friend and a very excellent forensic pathologist.

Q. We need a towel up there?

A. I'm sorry. (Indicating to small spill.)

That wasn't a Freudian slip.

I've known Dr. Spitz for a long time, and I have the greatest respect for him. I think he's excellent. I think we disagree on some matters at issue, but he's an excellent forensic pathologist.

Q. You're aware he's testified in this case on many of the same issues that you testified to in the criminal case?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Now, when did you first start working on the Simpson criminal case?

A. I was called by the attorney for Mr. Simpson, Mr. Robert Shapiro, on the night of June --

Thank you very much. (Bailiff hands paper towels to Dr. Baden.)

June 14, 1994.

Q. That would have been two days after the murders in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you come to Los Angeles at this time?

A. I came to Los Angeles on the 16th -- that is a Thursday -- arrived Thursday, late afternoon, from New York City.

Q. And can you describe briefly the amount of time that you spent working on the criminal case?

A. Yes.

I spent a lot of time. I spent about two or three weeks, initially, review -- going through the crime scenes, of course -- the crime scenes: The Bundy scene, the Rockingham scene; going to the medical examiner's office; going to the Los Angeles Crime Lab; consulting with the attorneys.

I would say over the 1994 -- two-year period of time, 1994, 1995, I spent more than 70 days in Los Angeles, alone, and then I did a lot of work in New York City.

Q. Do you know how many trips you actually made back and forth?

A. I must have made more than a dozen trips back and forth.

Q. And what is your daily fee?

What daily fee did you charge in the criminal case?

A. I charged in this -- in this matter, $150 -- excuse me -- $1500 a day.

Q. Dr. Spitz indicated that his charge was $3,000 a day.

Do you have -- is your $1500 a day fee, is that a governmental fee? Is it some other --

A. Well, presently, my normal fee would be $2500 a day, or up to $3,000 a day, depending on the situation.

But in this matter, since I'd worked out an arrangement with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, and the John Belushi matter and in the Boggs matter, to charge them $1500 a day in the cases I worked with them, I thought it was only fair that I would charge the same to Mr. Simpson.

Q. Now, the 70 days that you spent at $1500 a day is approximately $105,000; is that approximately what you received in the criminal case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you charge for any additional time that you worked in New York?

A. No. I only charged for the time that I had to come here to -- to Los Angeles. I didn't charge for reviewing materials in New York City.

Q. During the course of your preparation for your testimony in the criminal case, did you review all the autopsy reports?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you review all of the testimony in the various proceedings that related to the pathology, forensic pathology issues?

A. Yes.

Q. And specifically, whose testimony did you review?

A. Well, I reviewed from previous proceedings, Dr. Golden's testimony, the doctor who did the two autopsies.

I was present and reviewed Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony in the criminal trial. I reviewed all the documents that were created at the time of the autopsy, including going down and making more sections and looking at the tissues that were retained in formaldehyde and making additional sections from those.

Q. You actually examined all tissue samples that were obtained in the autopsy?

A. I did not do a second autopsy but I did review everything that was retained which included tissues made -- Meant to make microscopic sections and also I reviewed all the tissues that were retained for toxicology purposes to be sent to the laboratory for chemical analyses.

Q. Did you request to do a second autopsy?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you able to do that.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Mr. Shapiro couldn't work it out. As far as making those arrangement.

Q. Now, have you also reviewed the testimony of Werner Spitz, both in deposition and in this civil case with respect to the issues that you testified to in the criminal case?

A. Yes I have.

Q. And have you also discussed the case with Dr. Lakshmanan and Dr. Golden?

A. Yes, I have in the past.

Q. Have you examined all of the physical evidence in this case.

A. Yes. That is, I did examine all the physical evidence that was available at the medical examiner's office. All the clothing from both parties.

All the trace evidence that was available in the Los Angeles crime lab. Whatever microscopic sections were available and all the photographs that were many, many photographs taken of the crime scenes and related to the homicide investigation and I did go to the various -- to Bundy and to Rockingham a number of times and examined those areas.

Q. Now, were you also present with Mr. Simpson on the 17th of June?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you examine him at this time?

A. Yeah. I arrived on June 16th, which is Thursday, late Thursday, and made arrangements with Mr. Shapiro at that time, and Dr. Henry Lee, who came with me, who also arrived that -- that evening, to examine Mr. Simpson the following day.

And we did meet with him the following day, the following morning, to evaluate him for -- first to take samples of hair, to take samples of blood, to take samples of urine. And in the process of that, we're told that the District Attorney's office had decided they were going to arrest him.

Q. Now, during much of the time that you worked on this case, were you also working with Dr. Henry Lee?

A. Yes. The entire time. A great deal of the time, yes.

Q. And are the opinions that you testified to in the criminal case, and the ones you'll be testifying to here today, are they based on all of the information you've reviewed about this case?

A. They incorporate all of the information that I reviewed, all the evaluations I did, and all of the -- and after discussing the matters with other -- with Dr. Golden, Dr. Lakshmanan and, Dr. Lee.

Q. Incidentally, when you were examining physical evidence, was -- one of the items that you examined was the white envelope with the glasses that had been found between the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?

A. Yes. On the first time I went to the Los Angeles Police Department Crime Lab, there were about 57 items of evidence, and one of those items was a white envelope that contained eyeglasses with the name Nicole -- Ms. Simpson on them, or that would identify to me as being the eyeglasses that were being returned to Mrs. Simpson.

Q. When you examined those, how many lenses were in the glasses at this time?

A. There were two lenses. They were separate. I examined them. There was a frame and two lenses, separate. Everything, in fact, intact, nothing broken.

Q. Do you have any idea what happened to one of those lenses?

A. The following January, when we were -- When I was next able to review that evidence, when it was brought to my office in Albany, New York, and I reviewed the evidence with Dr. Lee, Dr. Wolfe, who was also present, one lens was missing. I don't know what happened to it.

Q. Now, I want to ask you some questions about your examination of Mr. Simpson on the 17th of June.

MR. BLASIER: Could we show the middle -- the cut on the middle finger, please.

MR. P. BAKER: This is photograph 715.

Q. Doctor, can you look at the television there and tell us what that is?

A. This is a photograph that I believe I took of Mr. Simpson's hand, left -- left hand.

This would be the middle finger (indicating).

This would be the ring finger (indicating).

And this would be a ruler that I used.

And in the middle of the photograph is the knuckle. The knuckle -- not the knuckle, the middle of the index -- of the middle finger, with a healing laceration on the top of the joint.

Q. Now, do you have an opinion on whether that particular wound could have been caused by a fingernail?

A. It's -- yes, I have an opinion.

Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion then, and my opinion now, is that it was not caused by a fingernail, by somebody's fingernail.

Q. Is it accurate that Dr. Spitz is the first person to have expressed that opinion?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you have an opinion on what could have caused that cut?

A. Well, it's a deep, irregular cut. And it was my opinion, and is my opinion, that it was cut by some sharp, irregular object.

One object that was raised to me as being a jagged piece of glass, which certainly be able -- would cause that kind of injury, could cause that kind of injury, or a very jagged knife could also cause that, not a sharp knife, possibly could cause it.

My opinion, after going over this and consulting with Dr. Lee, was that it was most likely broken glass.

Q. Now, you've observed, also, the wounds on the two victims in this case, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And we'll get into more detail in a minute, but you share the opinion that those wounds were caused by a sharp knife, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Could the kind of -- the sharpness of the knife that caused those wounds on the victims have caused this cut?

A. No. In my opinion, the knife that caused the wounds on Mr. Goldman and Mrs. Simpson, was a sharp knife or knives. It was some -- one or more knives that caused those were sharp.

And this is irregular. (Indicating.) This was an irregular wound that -- and that was the reason that I thought it was most likely caused by glass.

Q. Can you tell us why, in your opinion, that couldn't be a fingernail gouge mark?

A. I've never seen a fingernail gouge mark produce a long -- that long and deep a wound on somebody. Even cats and animals create scratches, but not deep gouges. And that, in addition, which -- when I examined in the Los Angeles Coroner's Office the nail clippings from Mrs. Simpson, for example, there -- they were all intact; none of them were damaged. None of them had skin on them, but none of them were damaged. And she had long, artificial fingernails.

Q. None of those?

A. Whereas, none of them were injured in any way.

Mr. Goldman had very -- didn't have any fingernails; they were clipped; they were very close to the skin.

My impression was, after looking at the fingers of the decedent, and after looking at this wound, that it was not a -- a scratch, but that it was some kind of an irregular, sharp object. And that -- that's what my opinion was and is today.

Q. Have you heard anything since you gave your opinion in the criminal case to change your mind about that?

A. No.

And in the criminal case, it wasn't even raised in the criminal case.

Q. Now, on the 17th, you examined Mr. Simpson's hand.

Did you observe this second area that appears to be a cut?

A. Yeah. There were two other breaks in the skin that I observed. One was on the inside of the same finger, and another was on the opposite portion of the ring finger, the fourth finger. There were two additional healing cuts or tears in the skin.

Q. Let me show you -- this is also part of 715.

Does this appear to be that second cut that you're talking about?

A. This would be the third cut.

Q. Or the third cut?

A. Yeah. This is the cut on the inside of the fourth finger, also of the left hand of Mr. Simpson, a photograph taken on that Friday morning, the 17th I think.

Q. Do you have an opinion on whether the cut that's depicted in this picture could have been caused by a fingernail gouge?

A. Didn't look -- it didn't, and doesn't look like a fingernail mark to me.

Q. Now, how about the second cut on the -- on the middle finger?

A. No, I didn't think at that time, nor do I think now, that any of these are fingernail marks.

And fingernails cause abrasions with different kinds of marks, in my experience, than what is on Mr. Simpson's hands in these photographs, and what I saw with my own eyes back on June 17th.

Q. Let me show you, also, part of 715.

MR. P. BAKER: Yes.


Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recognize these as two small scrapes that you saw on the 17th?

A. Yeah. I -- I don't have an independent recollection, but I think this photograph was taken by Dr. Lee.

That's my finger holding the ruler.

And they certainly do show crusted, superficial abrasions. They weren't cuts; they were broader abrasions.

Q. Are those very small?

A. Yeah, they're very small.

This is an inch between the two lines. This is -- it would be a third of an inch, maybe, in diameter.

And when I examined -- well, they're there.

Q. Do you have an opinion on whether those two abrasions were caused by fingernail gouges?

A. They don't look --

No, in my opinion, they're not caused by fingernails, they're caused by rubbing against something, friction, abrasion, when skinning one's knees, when one rubs off the top layer of the skin and it crusts over.

Q. Let me show you another part -- another picture from that next series.

It's a little hard to see.

Do you see the very small abrasions?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion of whether those were caused by fingernail gouges?

A. Those could be. There are lots of things that could cause those two, and it's possible that fingernails could cause that.

But that wasn't my opinion; but it's possible.

Q. Are those extremely small?

A. Yes, they're pin-head size, very tiny, but a scraping fingernail could cause that.

Q. Dr. Baden, do you have an opinion now -- Withdrawn.

You examined the two scenes involved, the autopsy, and all of the evidence that you've described, in order to form opinions with respect to what might have happened at Bundy at the time of the murders, correct?

A. Yes; that is part of what a forensic pathologist does, is to try and utilize examination of living and dead victims to reconstruct what happened at the time of the injury, yes. And that was one of the areas I was looking into.

Q. Now, you're familiar with Dr. Spitz's testimony in this case, where he provided a very detailed specific recitation of his opinion on how he thought every wound was inflicted and in what order.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That misstates the record.

MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates --

MR. MEDVENE: Misstates Dr. Spitz's testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained, unless you show me where it is.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, you reviewed Dr. Spitz's testimony as to his opinion as to how the murders took place?

A. Yes.

Q. And in your opinion, as a forensic pathologist, do you have an opinion as detailed as Dr. Spitz's, based on the evidence that was presented in this case?

A. In my opinion, in this case, one can't get as detailed as Dr. Spitz had gotten. That are -- there are times you can get detailed if there are eyewitnesses, and we're able to use the autopsy findings to see if they support one version versus another.

But in a situation like this, where there were no eyewitnesses, I don't think it's reasonable to give a blow-by-blow description with any accuracy.

Q. Now, have you formed an opinion with respect to the number of perpetrator or perpetrators that might have been responsible for these murders?

A. I have an opinion.

Q. What's your opinion?

A. My opinion is that -- it's based on all the evidence and all the circumstances -- that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. Because it's very difficult for a single perpetrator to control two victims at the same time in a public place, whether in an apartment or closed-off area.

It would not be, in my experience, possible to reliably prevent people from yelling, screaming, asking for help, from escaping from doing -- taking many evasive actions, that were not done here in a public place, with people walking around outside.

So it's my opinion, it's more likely that there's more than one perpetrator.

Q. Incidentally, did you observe any wounds on Ronald Goldman that would have prevented him from hollering out during the course of whatever struggle took place?

A. Neither victim was incapacitated or unable to call out for help prior to losing consciousness.

That even though the neck was injured in both said individuals, the vocal cords and the voice box were still normal. So even in a two-second struggle, people can yell. One can yell help five times in a second or two seconds or three seconds.

So there was nothing structurally in the victim to prevent either one from yelling for help until the time of loss of consciousness.

Q. As to Nicole Brown Simpson, the large neck wound that she had that went around to the spine, would she be able to holler out at that time?

A. No, because the neck wound went through the top part of the larynx. It didn't injure the voice box; it didn't injure the vocal cords. So even though the very top of the epiglottis, the -- which is sort of back of the throat -- was cut, the other aspect -- the other parts of the voice box was not.

However, my opinion would be that when she suffered that cut, that was the same time that she suffered the cuts to the carotid arteries. And when she suffered the cut to the carotid arteries, she would have lost consciousness in ten seconds or so.

Q. Prior to that injury, was there anything that would have prevented her, from an injury standpoint, from screaming?

A. No. During, whatever preceded the cut wound across the neck, whatever time there was, no reason that she could not have called out for help or yelled in some way. Whatever time interval there was, there was some time interval, because there were cuts on her hands. She had defensive marks on her.

Q. We'll talk about that in a little more detail in a minute.

Do you have an opinion with respect to the number of weapons that were involved inflicting the wounds to the two victims in this case?

A. Yes. I think that it could -- it could be one single weapon, if it was shaped properly, that could have caused the wounds to both individuals -- the wounds to both individuals -- individuals.

But certainly, much of the findings would be equally consistent with two weapons, that there are descriptions and photographs in the -- of the stab wounds, somewhat -- some are double-edged, some are single-edged.

That doesn't mean necessarily that you need more than one weapon, but it would be consistent with a double-edge weapon, as well as a single-edge weapon.

Q. So, is it your opinion that you can't say that it was only one weapon? It could be one; it could be more?

A. I think that's fair. It could be one, could be more; absolutely.

Q. I want to ask you if you have an opinion with respect to -- given the wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, what sort of blood would have resulted on the perpetrator or perpetrators who were involved in this struggle?

A. In my opinion, again, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, when Nicole Simpson's neck was -- was cut so that she bled from the carotid arteries, that blood needn't have gotten on the perpetrator if he were behind her.

But in the course of the struggle with Nicole Simpson and with Ron Goldman -- there was a considerable struggle, in my opinion with Mr. Goldman. The very fact that both had stab wounds and injuries to the hands that bled, would be, in and of itself, a reason that blood would get on the perpetrator, from bleeding hands, in the course of combat. So my opinion would be that there would be blood on the perpetrator's skin or clothing.

Q. Now, is it accurate there were defensive wounds on both victims?

A. There were wounds that -- on both victims that are absolutely alluded to as defensive wounds.

Q. Is it fair to say there are more defensive wounds on Mr. Goldman's hands?

A. Yes. I think he had about three separate cuts on his hands.

Q. We have a board that we have prepared.

(Board referred to was displayed on the Elmo screen.)

MR. BLASIER: For the record, we have a compilation of pictures, that of Mr. Goldman's hands, which include 384, 385, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Dr. Baden, could you step down here briefly.

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Blasier. Are you calling that a number.

MR. BLASIER: No. This is a compilation of already produced exhibits.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Could you point out to the members of the jury, the basis for your opinion that the defensive wounds were -- would have bled on the perpetrator?

A. Yes.

I think on the 384, the first one, the right hand -- yeah, right hand -- there's a stab wound right between the base, between the first and the second -- the second or third fingers, that seems to have a sharp edge on the side. That's a double edge which goes into the underlying skin, which is very vascular, lots of small blood vessels in that area.

And I think in the course of a struggle, blood would be oozing at some rapidity from that stab wound.

And in addition to that, there was a stab wound on this same hand, as seen in 1998, in the palm of the hand, which would also is be in a vascular area that would bleed.

And on the left hand, which is 1986 -- 1996, below the pinky, there's a cut wound on the hand, which would also -- all of which go down into the underlying blood vessels. So all of those would have bled during a struggle. And if the hand came in contact with the clothing or person of the perpetrator or perpetrators, would leave some blood on it.

Q. Now, looking at 1997, could you tell us about the wounds indicated on the back of Mr. Goldman's right hand; what could have caused those?

A. Yeah, there are bruises on the back of Mr. Goldman's right hand, the black-and-blue marks, which are due to blunt-force trauma, due to the fact that the back of the hand came in contact with an object, and is typical, in my experience, with punching injuries, if somebody's punching somebody else.

These bruises kind of curve on the back of the hand, the knuckles and the joint of the fingers in the places that are present in this photograph, which is 1997.

Q. Okay.

(Witness reassumes witness stand.)

Q. Now, Dr. Baden, would you agree that in addition to the wounds on the hands, that there was a tremendous amount of blood at this crime scene, the Bundy scene?

A. I agree; there was a great amount of blood at the Bundy crime scene, yes.

Q. Now, did you examine -- again with respect to the issue of how long the incident took place -- did you examine Mr. Goldman's clothing to attempt to add weight to your opinion?

A. Yeah.

In order to try and determine how long Mr. Goldman was standing up after he started to bleed, the clothing examination would be very helpful in arriving at an opinion in that regard. In addition, the clothing is important to see if there's any evidence of a struggle: Tears in the fabric, torn buttons, are some ways in which clothing can tell us how much of a struggle was going on.

Q. Were there any torn buttons on Mr. Goldman's shirt?

A. Yes, I think three of the buttons were torn off.

Q. And did you observe the amount of blood on Mr. Goldman's shirt?

A. Yes, there were --

Q. Go ahead.

A. Yeah. There was considerable amount of blood when I saw the clothing in the medical examiner's office about a week later. The blood was all dried in the photographs of the crime scene. The blood was not as dry as when I saw it later on. But in looking at the crime-scene photographs of the clothing and examining the clothing at the coroner's office the following week, there was a great deal of blood present on the shirt and on the -- on the jeans, the pants that Mr. Goldman was wearing, particularly on the left leg, the left leg and lower extremity of the blue jeans that he was wearing at the time that he was murdered.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you Exhibit 38. And I apologize for the picture.

(Exhibit 38 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recall seeing this picture of Mr. Goldman after the murders?

A. Yes.

I don't think you have the whole thing on the -- yeah. If you make it a little smaller, I think you'll get the context better.

Yeah, this -- this is a photograph of Mr. Goldman as he lay in the crime scene when -- before the body was moved.

Q. Now, you've examined the jeans, as well as these photographs, correct?

A. Yeah.

If I may, this is Mr. Goldman's back against the -- the metal fence, the blue -- blue jeans going down to the white shoes, the ankle-high boots or shoes. And what impressed me in this photograph, and when I examined the clothing subsequently, was a great deal of blood that had soaked down from the top of the jeans into the -- to where it ended by the shoes, and that blood further soaked into the left shoe.

Q. Now, you observed the shoes, as well, of Mr. Goldman, did you not?

A. I did examine the shoes at the coroner's office a week after this --

Q. And --

A. -- photograph.

Q. -- and your description of the blood-soaked shoes -- did your examination of one of Mr. Goldman's shoes confirm it was blood-soaked?

A. Yes, the left one.

Q. Now, Dr. Spitz testified that, in his opinion, some of that dark area was shadow.

In your opinion, after looking at the pants, was that blood?

A. Yeah.

I think, in fairness to Dr. Spitz, it's hard to tell from the photographs, which are not so distinct on the Elmo, what's shadow and what's dark blood.

But clearly, in my opinion, all of that dark area on the jeans was dry blood when I examined the -- the clothing at the medical examiner's -- at the coroner's office.

Q. All right. Let me show you --

A. And with my naked eye and with a magnifying lens.

Q. Let me show you 2168.

Does this appear to be part of the jeans that showed a continuous stain from top to bottom?

A. Yes.

I'm a little disoriented here. But this would be the jeans. And the dark was -- was -- yes, the dark is dry blood extending down into the left shoe that he was wearing.

And this is a photograph taken after Mr. Goldman was removed from the crime scene. (Indicating.)

Q. Now, did you observe anything about Mr. Goldman's shoes that indicates that he was engaged in a struggle?

A. Well, apart from the blood that was present on the shoes, which turns out was my -- in my opinion, evidence of a struggle, there was also a cut on the top of the right shoe, what I interpreted as a fresh cut, which, in my opinion, was entirely consistent, or appeared to -- appears, to me, to have occurred at the same time that the stab wounds occurred.

Q. Now, I want to ask you about some of the specific wounds, now.

There was an indication of a bruise to Nicole Brown Simpson's brain, correct?

A. There was a bruise; that is, when I examined the tissues that were stored in the medical examiner's office -- and it is usual and customary at the time an autopsy is done to take a little bit of tissue for possible further examination under the microscope -- and when I went to the medical examiner's office, I was able, through the courtesy of Dr. Lakshmanan, to examine the tissues that were in the formaldehyde and preservation. And included in that bottle was a section of brain removed from the time of autopsy from Mrs. Simpson that did contain on it a very prominent bruise, a damage and hemorrhage on the outside of the brain.

Q. Is it accurate that nobody else had observed that until you discovered it?

A. It had not been described in the -- all the protocol, so it was not present in the autopsy description prior to our finding it.

I looked at it, with Dr. Lakshmanan being present, and he then had the autopsy report amended to include that.

Q. Now, did you also observe information in the autopsy report with respect to a bruise on Nicole Brown Simpson's scalp, in the area of that bruise to the brain?

A. Yes.

Dr. Golden, when he prepared the autopsy report on Mrs. Simpson, did note, I believe, on the right side of the top of the -- on the right side, on top of the scalp, a distinct bruise to the skin when he -- he viewed and reviewed the brain injury, it was his recollection, and he so amended his report to indicate that his best recollection, the bruise on the brain was also on the right side, right under the -- the scalp tissue, and he had forgotten to include that in his report. So he amended it.

There was no skull fracture, just a bruise on the scalp and a bruise on the underlying brain.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that bruise could have been caused by Nicole Brown Simpson falling down onto the pavement?

A. Assuming that Dr. Golden's recollection is correct, I have no reason to doubt it. It would be a typical bruise for direct blow to the head.

In general, when the brain is bruised, it's different patterns of injury, depending on a direct blow to the brain -- to the forehead, versus a falling blow to the head. When there's a direct blow to the head, as by a baseball bat or whatever blunt object, there's an injury on the skin and there's an injury on the brain immediately under it. And that's called a coup injury, c-o-u-p-e(sic). And that's to indicate that it is a stationary -- a blow to a stationary head.

When a person falls and injures the head, because our brains are encased in a thin layer of water -- the spinal fluid encases our brain -- when our head strikes something, we fall, the brain is jarred and strikes the other surface, so that the scalp injury may be on the back of the head, but the brain injury will be opposite, on the front of the head. That's called a contrecoup injury.

And that helps the pathologist reconstruct, at the time of an autopsy, whether the injury was due to a fall or due to a direct blow, which sometimes is of importance.

And in this instance, my opinion would be that the nature of the blow -- the coup nature of the blow would indicate that Mrs. Simpson was struck with a blunt object on the top of the head, and that this caused the direct bruising of the brain underneath.

And this opinion is further supported by the nature of the wound. The -- the injury to the scalp is near the top of the scalp, and it's not a likely place to be injured during a fall.

Usually, during a fall, it's more to the side.

So my opinion is that Mrs. Simpson, at some point during her struggle, was struck in the forehead with a blunt object.

Q. Now, did you -- from the autopsy report, can you tell us approximately how many wounds, in your opinion, were inflicted on Nicole Brown Simpson prior to the fatal neck wound?

A. About ten cut and stab wounds. There could be more, because -- depends how one distinguishes the wounds. There are about ten wounds prior to the fatal neck wounds.

Q. Can you describe the direction of those wounds in relation to each other?

A. They were on both sides of the body. There was a clustering of four on the left side of the neck, in addition to the stab wound, to the cut wound. But the knife that caused those stab wounds were in different directions. The blood was in varying directions, so that -- and there were injuries to both sides of the body, different kinds of blunt force and stabbing injuries, which indicated to me that it was part of the struggle.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor this might be a good time.

THE COURT: Okay ten minutes.

THE CLERK: For the record Exhibits 1407 and 1411 from this morning are by reference to Case Number BA097211.

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, the first week that you were out here after the murders in June of '94, did you and Dr. Lee and others inspect some of the physical evidence that had been collected?

A. Yes.

Q. Where was that done?

A. At the Los Angeles Police Department Crime Laboratory in Los Angeles.

Q. And who supervised that for the police?

A. Detective Vannatter seemed to be in charge of the operation, and Dr. Kestler, who was the chief criminalist there, was also there.

Q. Was one of the items that you requested to examine a pair of socks that supposedly had been found on Mr. Simpson's bedroom floor?

A. Yes. I believe that was item 13 out of the -- of the evidence that we -- that was then at the crime lab. And I did look at them.

Q. Were you actually prevented, however, from examining them personally?

A. I was not permitted to touch or photograph any evidence. It was more of a documenting what was there, according to Detective Vannatter.

And I did look at the socks. I didn't touch it; I didn't handle the socks.

Q. Were they in a container when you looked at them?

A. As I recall, they were in a clear plastic container.

Q. Did you observe, at this time, any blood on those socks?

A. No.

Q. Now, I want to ask you some questions about the length of the incident in this case, that resulted in the murders.

Now, would you agree that the question of how long a period of time elapsed, from the time the perpetrator or perpetrators got to the scene and left the scene, is a different question from how long it took to inflict various wounds?

A. Yes.

Q. And in terms of looking at wounds after -- after a homicide, are there certain things that you can infer from the nature of the wounds as to the sequence of wounds?

A. Sometimes we can get information as to sequence of wounds, and certainly we can distinguish and autopsy the degree of injury each wound causes, which may be helpful in determining what was first and what was last, and whether the person could have yelled or struggled or -- and how long the person could be conscious after receiving certain wounds.

Q. Now, you used an analogy with me the other day about a boxing match to try and illustrate this idea.

A. Yes.

Q. What is -- explain that analogy.

A. In a boxing match, one can wind up at the end as -- a recent boxing match, with a boxer having many injuries on the face, tears, lacerations, and bleeding points and all.

As a medical examiner, I can determine the minimum length of time it took to get those injuries, but I can't tell the maximum length of time the same injuries any boxer has at the end of nine rounds, 27 minutes could be incurred in one or two minutes. So I could say these injuries took at least a minute or two minutes with a blunt object, a fist or a gloved fist, to produce; but I can't tell if there were time periods in between the injuries.

Q. You can describe how the injuries got there; you can't say how many rounds the fight was?

A. Exactly. I could say that there are injuries, but I can't tell if it lasted one round or ten rounds.

Q. Now, I want to ask you some questions about the wounds to Mr. Goldman and how this fits into the idea of how long the perpetrator or perpetrators were on the scene, as a minimum.

Do you have that in mind?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, what is your opinion as to the --

Well, let me ask you this: Do you agree that both victims bled to death?

A. Yes.

Q. And is bleeding to death from a -- from a knife wound, for instance, different than when one is struck with a blunt object or shot?

A. Yes.

Q. And explain that difference. END SECTION 4A BEGIN SECTION 4B

A. Yeah.

In deaths caused by shootings or blunt objects, baseball bats, or an automobile accident, when there's crushing injuries to organs, damage to organs -- bullets through the brain or crushing injury to the chest and heart, can cause death by direct organ damage. And loss of consciousness immediately by direct organ damage, direct brain damage, or heart damage.

In stabbings or cuttings, incapacity, impairment, and death doesn't result from direct organ damage, as in these instances, but from loss of blood. It's the bleeding that causes incapacity and death, not the damage to the organ.

So that when somebody is stabbed, as Mr. Goldman was, and/or cut and stabbed, he is not immediately incapacitated, necessarily, depending how rapidly the blood flows out, and also depending on whether an artery is injured or a vein, because they have different rates of blood flow, and depending on the size of the blood vessels and where the blood vessel is. Blood vessels near the surface of the skin, the wrists -- blood vessels to the wrists, for example, will bleed more profusely than the same size blood vessels that may be in muscle which is -- contracts; the blood collapses the blood vessel.

So, in stabbing and cutting injuries, as opposed to blunt force and shootings, it's the hemorrhage and bleeding that causes gradual incapacity, depending how quickly the blood flows, unconsciousness, and then death. And those are all different periods of time.

Because even once we lose consciousness from bleeding, we may still -- the heart can still pump, and a person be technically alive for five or ten minutes after loss of consciousness, 'cause the heart doesn't need as much -- much oxygen, where the brain needs a great deal of oxygen, and causing unconsciousness.

Q. Now, do you have an opinion with respect to the principal wound that caused Ronald Goldman's death?

A. In my opinion -- and this was my opinion when I first reviewed the autopsy findings, and in agreement with what I felt interpreted was doctor -- the opinion of the person who did the autopsy, the main source of bleeding and the main vessel that was injured that caused Mr. Goldman's death was the cut jugular vein, the internal jugular vein, which is right next to where the carotid artery.

We feel for a pulse in the neck; we feel the artery. Right next to it is the internal jugular vein. And this was severed, cut through completely, as found by Dr. Golden when he did the autopsy on Mr. Goldman. And that's my opinion as to the principal reason for cause of death.

Q. In the autopsy report, would you agree that that's the first wound that's listed by Dr. Golden?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that have any significance of being the first wound?

A. Yes.

It is customary and traditional that whenever we do an autopsy -- we find many abnormalities in the body, many abnormalities that are of interest but not caused -- do not immediately cause death. And the most important abnormality related to the death is customarily listed first. And is -- is customarily listed first. And the listing of the abnormalities are done in an order that roughly approximates how significant it was in leading to the cause of death.

Q. Now, can you describe what kind of bleeding would result from the wound to the neck, to Mr. Goldman?

A. As opposed to the wounds that Mrs. Simpson suffered with the carotid arteries, were cut, which bleed very rapidly, these arteries were not injured in Mr. Goldman. He suffered a severance, a cutting through of the internal jugular vein. That's the main vein in the forehead that brings blood back from the brain and from other parts of the head, back to the heart. And that is a large blood vessel that bleeds slowly. It bleeds profusely, but slowly, when it's severed.

Q. Would it bleed internally, externally, or a combination?

A. Because it's near the skin, it bleeds externally. Essentially, blood vessels under the skin, near the wrists, and in the neck, will bleed externally, outside of the body, because there's no compartment for the blood to go into.

Q. And would it be blood from that wound that would or could account for the blood on Mr. Goldman's shirt?

A. In my opinion, the blood oozing from the cut left internal jugular vein is the blood that continued down the shirt and down the blue jeans into the shoe. Because blood, like water, flows by gravity. And if Mr. Goldman is standing up, it will flow from the cut, the severed jugular vein in the neck, downward to the shoes, so long as he is standing, more or less upright.

And once he's on the ground, it will then flow horizontally and not downward.

Q. And the speed with which the neck wound would bleed, did you say whether or not that would be fast or slow, or how would it relate to it in terms of timing?

A. It would be slow, especially compared to the carotid arteries, which was the cause of Ms. Simpson's death, which is very rapid, because the arteries are pumping blood under a very high head of pressure. And the pressure in the jugular veins are very low. But there's a lot of blood that comes back. All the blood that goes up to the carotid arteries has to come back through the jugular veins.

Even though it's bigger and under less pressure, there's a lot of blood coming back into the heart through the jugular vein.

Q. And that's called venous bleeding versus arterial bleeding, correct?

A. Yes.

Arterial bleeding, what we refer to when we do a blood pressure -- when we have a blood pressure 120 over 80, we're measuring the head of pressure in the arteries, and the areas are the arm -- in the arteries of the arm; and venous pressure would be more about 3, 4, or 5, compared to 120 over 80 in an artery.

Q. Now, there were three other major stab wounds to Mr. Goldman, were there not?

A. Well, there were three other stab wounds that struck vital organs.

Mr. Goldman suffered about 22 to 30 stab wounds or cut wounds, depending how each one is counted. Only four of the stab wounds injured a vital organ; the others were on the surface of the skin and the hands.

One of them cut the internal jugular vein; three, a vital organ. Two of them entered the right chest and the right lung -- the lung is a vital organ -- and one entered the left side, the left flank, and went from back, forward through the aorta. The aorta is about an inch and a half above the belly button, in that area where the aorta is.

And all of those are vital organs.

But only -- only the jugular vein bled.

Q. Now, would you agree that the testimony of Dr. Spitz, that all of these injuries were inflicted in about a minute, depends upon his conclusion that it was the wound to the aorta that was one of the earliest -- were the first wounds?

A. That's my interpretation of Dr. Spitz's testimony in this courthouse.

Q. And would you agree that, of necessity, if that was an earlier wound, there would be massive bleeding in the peritoneal area?

A. Yes.

Yes, that would be my opinion, strongly my opinion. That is, if any of us in this room were stabbed in the aorta or stabbed in the lung, we would have massive internal bleeding very quickly, as long as our heart was beating. And that massive bleeding would continue until the heart became feeble and couldn't beat effectively. But we would wind up with a -- two quarts of blood in the right lung area, one or two quarts of lung -- of blood in the abdominal cavity, some blood in the peritoneal space.

Q. Now, what was the finding of Dr. Golden with respect to blood in the chest area or the lung area?

A. As I recall, there were -- in the right chest area, there was about 100 or 200 cc's -- that's about 6 or 7 ounces, at most -- of blood around the left -- around the right lung.

And that is a very small amount for a stab wound to the lung.

That would indicate -- and I agree with Dr. Spitz's interpretation of that -- that when the two stab wounds occurred in the lungs, in the right lung, the heart was not beating effectively; it was --

In effect, the heart is just a pump; the only job is to pump blood around the body. And normally, if a healthy person is stabbed in the lung, within a few minutes, the whole lung cavity would fill with blood.

This did not happen to Mr. Goldman. So this would reasonably be interpreted, and I -- it's my opinion and Dr. Spitz's opinion, as I read his testimony, that that indicated that he was -- Mr. Goldman was not -- the heart was not functioning properly. He was near to death at the time of those stab wounds.

Q. Is it accurate you can conclude from that, those two wounds to the chest were probably toward the end of sequence of wounds?

A. That's right. Because the heart continues to beat, even after the brain is dead, and after the body is not able to function, because it doesn't need much oxygen.

And it would represent feeble, passive bleeding. That is, I say passive bleeding. Even after death, every death, even after the heart stops, if we stab a body when we do an autopsy, some blood flows out that's already in the blood vessels. There's no pumping of new blood, but there -- blood will flow as we do an autopsy.

In this instance, about 100, 200 cc's of blood could passively come from the lungs if the lungs were stabbed as the person was dying, or even after death.

Q. Now, would you agree that Dr. Spitz's opinion with respect to the aorta wound was based on his concluding that there were approximately two quarts of blood in the retroperitoneal space?

A. Yes, that's my interpretation, again, of his testimony.

Q. Now, let's take a look at exhibit -- I think it's 2025, Plaintiffs' Exhibit.

And, Doctor, could you tell us if this is an accurate drawing of the aorta and the peritoneum?

A. May I approach?

Thank you.

The drawing is diagramatic. It's a diagram; it's not an accurate drawing.

It indicates the peritoneum, which is like a thin cellophane, a very thin plastic. That's one layer or two layers thick, that lies over the back of the abdominal cavity. And it covers the aorta. It's right against -- there's no space between the peritoneum and the -- and the aorta.

So that on this cross-section of the body that is shown in this exhibit, the back bone is up by 12 o'clock; that's the spine bone in the back. And the spine goes about halfway through the body.

And the green space -- it's not really green -- it's just the lining. The lining is the -- lining the whole peritoneal cavity and all of the intestines in this very thin membrane which lays directly on top of the aorta, that lays against the spine.

See, the aorta itself touches the spine. It lays on the spine. And it's covered in the front and sides by the peritoneum, so that if something happens inside, the peritoneum cavity -- suppose somebody gets appendicitis. The appendix lays in here. (Indicating.) They get peritonitis that stays in this area; it doesn't go back because this membrane prevents it from spreading to other part of the body.

Q. The membrane is like a sack?

A. I took this from lunch, if I may, a plastic bag. It's thin as plastic (indicating to a plastic bag.)

It would be a plastic lining of everything. My hands might be the intestines. And so the intestines lay within this sack. And the sack is -- there's no space in it; there's no air in it. It just lays on top of all of the organs: The liver, the spleen, the intestines. They're all covered by this membrane.

And the back side, where my left index finger is, would be the aorta. Again, the spine, if I might use this.

Q. Now, we'll use that a little more in a second.

But on the diagram, you see where there's an indication of a knife going through the aorta and subsequently going through the peritoneum?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this misleading in a sense, that the size of the tear in the peritoneum is smaller than the size of the aorta?

A. To that extent, it would be. That is, if the stab wound in the back is a half an inch, as Dr. Golden described in the autopsy, and it's a half an inch on the way out to the front, it would also be a half an inch through this thin membrane, because the membrane is just -- is as close to the aorta as this. (Indicating.) This plastic is around my finger. Anything going through my finger will cause the same hole in the plastic as it would in the skin of my finger, because it's right on top of it.

Q. So?

A. So it would be the same size, a half an inch.

Q. Can you describe what would happen in a person who suffered a wound such as this, where that wound was one of the first wounds that they suffered?

In other words, they were still pumping blood and had a regular blood pressure, maybe a higher blood pressure.

A. A stab wound of the abdominal aorta is very serious and will bleed very profusely. Any of us here who suffered such a stab wound would have a belly filled with blood. The abdominal cavity filled with blood within a few minutes.

Q. What is it that's filling up?

A. What's filling up is from -- since the stab wound goes through the peritoneum, the blood would come out from the aorta, through this membrane. And whereas I would have -- the intestines would be in the sack. As the blood filled the sack, the sack would get bigger and bigger. The abdominal cavity -- the abdominal cavity can expand.

So, like somebody -- most common thing is an alcoholic who gets ascites and gets a lot of fluid in this space. The abdominal cavity can get very big because the peritoneal sack can expand a great deal. And this is what happens when there's hemorrhage into the peritoneal space. This sack just enlarges and enlarges and accommodates all of the blood that accumulates.

Now, in this instance, there would be bleeding into the space and back into the -- around the aorta, which is called the retroperitoneal space. Behind the peritoneal here, another peritoneum. This is behind the peritoneum. However, the retroperitoneal space isn't really a space; it's filled with fat and soft tissues, so that the blood can bleed backwards into that space, but that space kind of seals itself off and causes what's called a pseudo aneurysm, because it's one of those hemorrhages that are increasingly common as we get older and have aortic aneurysms, and mini aortic aneurysms that occur to men in about the 70s or so, and they'll rupture back here behind, and this space will fill up. But it compresses the aorta and slows the bleeding down, so that person can get to a hospital in timely fashion and get operated upon.

But in this instance, there would be hemorrhage both into the back and into the front at a very rapid rate if the heart was functioning properly.

Q. You can resume your chair.

A. Thank you.

Q. How much blood did Dr. Golden find in the peritoneal sack?

A. About 100 -- again, about 100, maybe 200, he says, different cc's. Four, five, six ounces of blood in the peritoneal cavity and peritoneal sack, which is, again, a very small amount.

Q. And what does that tell you with respect to Mr. Goldman's state of health at the time that that wound was inflicted?

A. At the time I examined the autopsy, and my testimony previously, my opinion now is, I interpret the small amount of blood in the peritoneal cavity the same way as the small amount of blood in the right chest cavity: That all three of those wounds were inflicted at a time when Mr. Goldman's heart was not beating effectively and not functioning properly. Undoubtedly, when he was unconscious, and very little bleeding occurred as a result.

If this were the first wound, I would expect quarts of blood to be in the peritoneal cavity and in the retroperitoneal space, neither of which was found by Dr. Golden at autopsy, nor testified to at any of the previous testimonies by him or by Dr. Lakshmanan, his boss.

Q. Do you recall Dr. Spitz's testimony, that he concluded there was two quarts of blood in the retroperitoneal space, based on a picture of a piece of tissue?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Can we look at that, please.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1977.

MR. BLASIER: 1977.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection to the question. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dr. Spitz did not say there were two quarts in the retroperitoneal cavity.

MR. BAKER: Yes, he did.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Incidentally, Dr. Baden, you actually examined that piece of tissue, did you not?

A. Yes. But I use quart and liter to be the same -- essentially the same.

They were quart and liter, about the same. Yes, I examined this. This is one of the pieces of tissue that Dr. Golden removed at the time of the autopsy and put into the formaldehyde bottle in which he preserved tissues, which is customary.

And this -- a small piece -- this is -- there's an inch ruler. And this is about a little more than an inch in either direction, I guess, or two inches.

This is the inside of the aorta after it was opened up. The aorta is a round tube. And look, what is done at the time of the autopsy is, the tube is cut open from the front, in this instance. And this is the back of the aorta.

In this area where there are lines is one area of stabbing, a cut through the back of the aorta. And then there was -- would have been another area -- it's not quite clear -- in the front. That's where the knife came out. And each was measured by Dr. Golden to be about half an inch.

Q. Now, the tissue there, what is the most approximate size of that piece of tissue?

A. It's at most, about two inches in greatest dimension, and it's about three-eighths of an inch thick or so.

Q. What did you say from observing the tissue itself, with respect to the amount of blood in that tissue?

A. This tissue -- this is not a blood clot around it. It looks dark around it. And I felt it. I looked at it, this is fatty tissue that's been infiltrated with blood; that is, hemorrhages from the stab wound has bled into the fatty tissue that's normally present in the back of the aorta, because there's no space.

Those white areas on the diagram are not spaces; it's all solidly packed with muscle tissue and with fatty tissue. And this is the normal fatty tissue that has been infiltrated by the aorta bleeding into it.

And this tissue is in the retroperitoneal space; that is, it's in the tissue behind the peritoneal lining. And this is what happens whenever there's a stab wound.

Dr. Golden, in the autopsy report, describes all of the stab wound tracks in the lungs in the -- in the flank, in the jugular vein, the stab wound tracks in Ms. Simpson, as having hemorrhage around the stab wound track, because whenever there's a stab wound, blood vessels are broken, and a little bit of blood always accompanies the passive bleeding that goes along with a stab wound.

Q. So the appearance of this tissue is blood that you would expect to find along a wound path, which is described that way in Dr. Golden's autopsy, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Dr. Golden, also in his autopsy, described various areas where there was bleeding, did he not?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Well, he described various quantities of blood, such as in the lungs and in the peritoneum?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he anywhere describe any massive amounts of blood in the retroperitoneal space?

A. He did not.

Q. And can you conclude in figures, about how much blood is in the retroperitoneal space from this small piece of tissue?

A. No. No. All you can conclude is that there was hemorrhage along the stab wound track, which would be present. This would be present whether there was bleeding into the retroperitoneal space or whether it wasn't. And clearly, hemorrhages into the retroperitoneal space is very obvious at an autopsy.

It sits there for the pathologist to see when he does or she does the examination. And no retroperitoneal hemorrhage was described, except for the hemorrhage that occurred along that wound tract that goes from the back to the front, through the aorta. If you'll note that there, the kidney and the pancreas, adrenal gland are all in that retroperitoneal space. And there's no blood described about any of the organs, except for a small amount next to the adrenal gland.

Q. Now, in the autopsy protocol, where does the description of this wound to the aorta appear in terms of the sequence of wounds?

A. Oh, it's the first wound listed in the anatomic -- in the diagnoses, after the autopsy is completed, is the cut wound of the internal jugular vein.

May I look at the autopsy report?

Q. Sure.

A. In the next grouping of -- of wounds, number 2 are stab wounds of the chest, abdomen and left thigh, which is not distinguished as to which bled more or less. And it lists with resultant hemothorax. That's the 200 cc's of blood around the right lung and hemoperitoneum -- that's blood in the peritoneal cavity, also about 100 cc's. Those are listed.

He does not say in this report, and this conclusion doesn't mention the retroperitoneal hemorrhage.

Q. Had there been massive bleeding in that area, would that be something that should be in the report?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, assuming that, as listed in the autopsy report, the wound to the neck of Mr. Goldman was one of the first or the earliest wounds inflicted -- have you that in mind?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion on how long it would take from the time, given the rate at which that wound would bleed, between that wound and the wound to the aorta?

A. Yes, I have an opinion.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. And I've expressed it previously.

My opinion is that, once this wound was inflicted in the neck, causing complete transection of the internal jugular vein, Mr. Goldman was able to stand up at the -- and to continue struggling for perhaps up to five minutes, until he lost enough blood to lose -- to get dizzy and to collapse because not enough oxygen and blood was going to the brain.

This is supported by the path of the blood down the -- the left side of the clothing to the shoe. It takes time. It would take that much time for the oozing blood from the neck to reach the shoe that Mr. Goldman was wearing.

At that point, at some point, about five minutes or perhaps a little longer, he would collapse, would not be able to stand up. And at that point, any blood coming out would go sideways, wouldn't go down anymore, either from his neck or from the thigh.

He also had a stab wound in the left thigh, blood from that stab wound could have contributed to the blood adherent to the blue jeans, but again, as long as he was standing up, because it has -- blood goes down by gravity.

At that point, when Mr. Goldman would collapse, he would then -- the heart would still be beating. He'd still be alive. And if he were stabbed at that point, there would be very little bleeding from the lungs and from the aorta.

Q. So what is your estimate of the total time that it would take from -- forgetting whether he was struggling all this time -- but how much time would it take between the neck wound and the last wound, if that's the wounded aorta?

A. My opinion would be that once the neck wound was incurred and he started bleeding, he would be able to stand up for a few minutes, plus or minus five minutes, maybe three minutes or four minutes, or five minutes, and then he would collapse. And he would stay that way for five or ten minutes longer, until the heart would stop beating completely.

During that time period, if he were stabbed, then there would just be a trickle of blood, as was present in the lungs or the aorta, as found in Mr. Goldman's autopsy.

Q. So as best you can opine, what is the range of time that we're talking about in terms of the time between the neck wound and the aorta wound?

A. I think between the first neck wound and the final aortic wound, I think the aorta -- my interpretation is that the wound to the flank and aorta was the last wound, because it matches the final position he was in, that he was found lying on his right side, with the left side exposed upwards. And if somebody stabbed him in that position, the stab wound would go from the left flank down into the -- to the aorta. And the time interval between the jugular vein until the aorta would not have bled anymore, is at least five or ten minutes, possibly a little longer.

Q. Now, you're not saying that he was struggling all that time?

A. No, he's not struggling the whole time. He stopped struggling, effectively, pretty quickly after a few minutes -- after a few minutes of bleeding. But he can stand up until -- he did manage to stand up until the blood from the jugular vein got down to his shoes, because once he collapses, the blood no longer goes down to his shoes.

Q. So is it accurate that this interval you've given, this five- to ten-minute, does not count how much time the perpetrator or perpetrators might have been on the scene before the next wound was inflicted, as well as after the wound to the aorta?

A. That's right. I can't factor into this with the information I have, how long the perpetrator or perpetrators were there before the neck wound was -- was inflicted. And I can't factor in how long the perpetrator or perpetrators remained there after the stab wound in the flank.

But somehow, there had to be a delay between the jugular vein cut and the stab wound to the flank of at least five or ten minutes -- at least five or ten minutes, so that when the aorta was stabbed, it did not bleed very much.

Q. Okay.

Doctor, one final area:

When you examined Mr. Simpson on the 17th, a bunch of pictures were taken of him, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me show you one of those pictures.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have the number?

MR. P. BAKER: 714.


Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You observe the mark that appears where my finger is?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you review the part of Dr. Spitz's testimony where he described that as a fresh bruise?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me show you another picture.

Is that ticket picture taken at the same time?

A. Yes. I took that picture, yes.

Q. Does that show that mark a little better?

A. It shows the mark around this area, there was -- he had -- Mr. Simpson has lots of marks on his body.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, at this time, I would ask that Mr. Simpson be allowed to remove his shirt so Dr. Baden can examine his left arm.

THE COURT: You want him to disrobe?

MR. BLASIER: I want him to take his shirt off.

THE COURT: I am not going to have him disrobe.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, did you look at Mr. Simpson's left arm just the other day?

A. I again, yesterday, examined that area because of the testimony of Dr. Spitz, yes.

Q. It's still there, isn't it?

A. Yeah. That same mark is still there. It's an old scar, and it's not a fresh bruise.

Q. Was it a fresh bruise on June 17th of 1994?

A. No, it was not.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you. That's all I have.

Just a minute, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did he have any fresh bruises on his body whatsoever on the 17th?

A. No, there were no bruises, other than -- the only injuries I saw were on the hand.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have..

THE COURT: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, take a short break.

Bring them back in 10 minutes exactly.


(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. BLASIER: May we approach briefly?


(The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, it's my understanding that the plaintiffs may be trying to play a part of the Geraldo show that Dr. Baden appeared on a month or so ago.

I would object to that on the presumption of -- I'm not aware of any inconsistencies or anything relevant on that.

MR. MEDVENE: They got into Dr. Spitz's testimony pretty heavily, and if Dr. Baden is -- if he's inconsistent in particular areas with what he said during his TV appearance, we would intend to play it.

MR. BLASIER: I would ask there be an offer of proof prior to doing that.

THE COURT: I would like to see an offer of proof before you play it.

MR. MEDVENE: Okay. Well, we have to see what his testimony is.

THE COURT: Well, you will not put on anything from any TV show without some offer of proof.

MR. MEDVENE: I understand, Your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)


Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Baden?

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Medvene.

Q. Is it fair to say you have the greatest respect for Dr. Spitz as a forensic pathologist and the quality of work that he does?

A. Yeah. I think that's fair, yes.

Q. And his book, the Spitz and Fisher book, "Medical Legal Investigation of Death," fair to say that's a standard reference work in the field of pathology?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And on occasion, if there's a need, you yourself use it?

A. I certainly -- I've read it through. I contributed some chapters in the first two editions.

Q. Contributed a chapter on?

A. Drug abuse.

Q. Drug abuse.

Now, fair to say you regard Dr. Spitz as not only an excellent pathologist, but an excellent teacher in the field of pathology?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. And in Dr. Spitz's book, being familiar with it, you're aware that he has a section on fingernails, fingernail marks, and a series of pictures on fingernails; is that correct?

A. I believe there's such a description in the chapter on strangulation.

Q. Now, is it correct, sir, that you've never published an article in any recognized forensic pathology text on the subject of sharp force injuries, including stab wounds? That's a correct statement, isn't it, sir?

A. I've never written an article specifically about that. I think there's a book that I edited that has a chapter on sharp force injuries, an atlas of legal medicine.

Q. My question, sir, is, is it correct that you never published an article on sharp force injuries including stab wounds in any recognized forensic pathology text book?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: You may answer.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that a correct statement?

A. I think the text that I referred to is a Japanese text that published in Japan and the United States, an atlas of legal medicine that contains a chapter on the stab wounds, that was published back in the 1960's.

But I haven't written specific articles about stab wounds.

Q. Is it fair to say you've not published a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology text book on the subject of blunt force trauma; is that correct?

A. The same -- the same caveat that is in this atlas of legal medicine, there's a chapter on blunt and force trauma, too, but I haven't specifically written articles about it for publication in medical journals.

Q. You've not published or written a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology text on the subject of fingernails and how you identify fingernail markings; isn't that true?

A. That's true.

Q. You haven't published -- strike that.

Now, is it correct, sir, that you were -- you made some reference several times in your testimony to your position as a medical examiner of New York City?

A. I was in that office from 1960 part-time, '65 full-time, till 1985, yes.

Q. And you were terminated or fired at that time?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. May we approach?

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that correct, sir?

THE COURT: You may.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter:)

MR. BLASIER: He knows there was a political dispute with Mayor Koch. Now that he asked the question, I think I better withdraw my objection because I'm going to go into it, too.


(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Were you terminated, sir, from your job as medical examiner in New York City in approximately 1985, sir?

A. That's not true.

I can explain to you what happened, but that's not true, as you say it.

Q. Were you terminated at that time, sir?

A. No, absolutely not.

Q. You left the job at that time?

A. In 1985 I left --

Q. Excuse me, sir.

My question is did you leave your job as medical examiner of New York City in 1985?

A. I left it to take a better job, yes, in 1985.

Q. You were asked to leave, were you not, sir?

A. No, absolutely not true.

Q. You mentioned work with the state police.

Is that work about 20 hours a week, sir, roughly?

A. It's a half-time job, but it's 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

Q. Is it on average about 20 hours a week, sir?

A. I have to put in at least 20 hours a week, but it permits me to do private practice. That was the arrangement I made with the state, yes.

Q. And your testimony here today has nothing to do with that job, it's completely in your private capacity as a retained consultant; is that right?

A. That's true, yes. Absolutely.

Q. Fair to say that you make four plus times as much money working as a consultant and testifying as you do in that other job?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that a correct statement?

A. I make appreciably more income in my private practice of forensic pathology than with my pay from the New York State Police. That's true, yes.

Q. Now, you've told us you were paid over $100,000 in connection with your function in this case, and that was up through what time, sir?

A. Up from June of '94 until the present time, that encompasses two and a half years or so.

Q. Now, since the criminal trial was over, have you been paid anything?

A. No.

Q. Have you billed anything?

A. No.

Q. Is it your intention to work for free, to continue on the case?

A. No, I intend to submit a bill.

Q. And how many hours have you spent, sir?

A. I've spent a lot of hours, but I'm not billing for the hours that I was in New York City.

Q. Do you treat this case because of the high profile nature of it, in terms of billing practices, somewhat differently than you handle your other cases, sir?

A. No, I am billing less in this matter because of the inability of the defendant to pay money.

Q. Now --

A. As happens not infrequently in my private practice.

Q. Now, you spent, in addition to your 70 trips to Los Angeles --

A. No, 70 days.

Q. Excuse me. 70 days in Los Angeles. Your expenses were paid, I take it?

A. Yes.

Q. And in addition to that time, you spent some several hundred hours talking to Mr. Shapiro by phone; is that correct, in terms of discussing the case in its various details?

A. I spent several hundred hours reviewing the case and looking at photographs and talking to Mr. Shapiro, but -- and being on the telephone and consulting on the matter, but I did not bill for the time that I was able to function from my office in New York.

Q. You had -- no, I wasn't asking about billing right now, I was asking you if it isn't true, sir, that in addition to the time here, you spent several hundred hours talking to Mr. Shapiro about various aspects of the case?

A. I think several hundred hours should include time spent in New York City. I don't think I spent several hundred hours on the phone with Mr. Shapiro.

I did spend a lot of time talking on the phone. I don't think that much, but I did spend more than that time reviewing records, reviewing testimony, reviewing photographs and the discussions with Mr. Shapiro.

Q. I read you, sir, from page 41021 of the criminal trial transcript, and I will start at line 15 when Mr. Blasier has it.

MR. BLASIER: 4102 --

MR. MEDVENE: I can read the whole section if counsel wants, but I intend now to read you the part about the hours on the phone.

MR. BLASIER: Starting with which line?

MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, which line?


MR. BLASIER: I think you need to read the whole answer and the question. I have no objection to that.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Well, I think this is the portion -- it's a long answer. I'd suggest that Mr. Blasier read it all. I'm going to read the part about the hours.

MR. BLASIER: No, I object to him reading part of an answer. He's got to read the whole thing and a question.

MR. MEDVENE: I'll read the whole thing if, Your Honor, wants me to. I was just --

THE COURT: You're the one that volunteered to read it. You want to read it, you read it.

MR. MEDVENE: I shouldn't have volunteered.

41020, and I will read the whole thing.

(Reading:) Q. Were you able to -- Did

you follow and listen to all of his

testimony in this case? Yes, I did.

MR. MEDVENE: This is at line 11.


In addition to those times, what

other time have you spent generally in

preparing for your evaluation and

opinions in this case. Well, I spent time with Dr. Lee

arriving in from Los Angeles immediately

the -- the next morning examined

Mr. Simpson for any forensic evidence,

any injuries, any medical or scientific

findings that might aid in the

evaluation of what happened and how it

happened. I did spend time in the coroner's

office with Dr. Lakshmanan reviewing

records and photographs. I did spend time in Los Angeles

Police Department laboratory with Dr.

Kestler and others reviewing evidence. I did make a few trips in, and

examinations of the crime scene at the

Bundy location and at evaluation and

examination at Mr. Simpson's home in

Rockingham. I did review evidence that was

sent to Albany Medical Center for review

in February of this year. Much of the

evidence was made available to the

forensic scientists for the defense for

review. I did visit the crime laboratory

in March of '95 in Los Angeles to review

additional materials. And in addition to that, I

participated in many, many conferences

in Los Angeles with you -- (Referring to Mr. Shapiro.)

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. --- with you and

Mr. Cochran and associates in reviewing

and going over and trying to interpret

the medical and scientific evidence that

I would have knowledge of and

interpreted in the light of the

questions that lawyers have and other

information that was being gathered and

developed by Dr. Lee and others.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And now the portion I wanted to read you. At line 15.

(Reading:) And I spent hundreds of hours on

the telephone with you from New York

City over the time reviewing evidence

and materials.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Does that refresh you, sir, that in addition to the 70 days in Los Angeles, and what you described as doing, you spent hundreds of hours with Mr. Shapiro on the telephone going over various aspects and strategies to develop in the case?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. That's not what it says. Is says hundreds of hours on the phone and reviewing evidence and materials.

THE COURT: Answer the question.

A. Yeah. I --

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Excuse me, sir. Could you -- and it yes or no, just yes or no, sir, if you could.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you, sir.

A. To speaking to Mr. Shapiro and looking at evidence.

Q. Okay, sir.

Now, is that your answer, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you've appeared on TV a number of times as an advocate or spokesman for Mr. Simpson, have you not?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. Well, you've appeared on TV and put forward certain material as to his defense; isn't that true?

A. No. I appeared -- may I answer the question, Mr. Medvene?

Q. No. If you say no, that's fine, sir.

A. No.

Q. Is it correct that you have appeared on TV a number of times?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've given press conferences yourself, and with Dr. Lee, about various aspects of this case; is that correct, sir?

A. The only press conference that I can remember was at Albany Medical Center when Dr. Lee and I did examine evidence at Albany Medical Center, and it was a press conference just to say that we examined the evidence, not to discuss any aspect of the evidence, and that was because the director --

Q. Excuse me.

A. -- director of Albany Medical Center wished us to do that. It didn't discuss the evidence, just said yes, we did it.

Q. Well, in addition to that time when you appeared, you appeared a number of times on TV after you first came to Los Angeles, did you not?

A. In the first week before we were allowed to look at the evidence.

Q. My question --

A. I did appear on television, but that was before we saw the evidence, any evidence. I wasn't an advocate.

Q. Well, when you say before you saw any evidence, you appeared on programs after you examined Mr. Simpson, did you not, yes or no?

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object to the relevance of any of this.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or --

A. You're correct. I examined Mr. Simpson on the 17th of June, and I think I did appear in some television programs up until June 23 or something like that.

Q. And you also were at the coroner's office and examined things at the coroner's office and then appeared on TV; isn't that correct, sir?

A. I believe we were at the coroner's office around June 23. Once I examined things at the coroner's office I did not -- there may have been one program that was in the works, but I did not otherwise appear on television, as far as I remember.

Q. You appeared on television as recently as a month ago, after Dr. Spitz testified, to give some contrary version on the Rivera show in November this year?

Could you answer that yes or no, sir.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object.

And --

THE COURT: You may answer that yes or no.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you answer it yes or no.

A. No. No, as you asked the question that's not true.

Q. But did you appear on November 11 on the Rivera show, and discuss this very case and the facts of this very case; yes or no, sir, just yes or no?

A. The date is what I'm -- I'll adopt the date. I did appear on the Rivera show.

Q. November 11. Sir, my question --

A. I'll adopt your date. I mean I'm not sure about the date. I'll adopt what you say.

I did appear on the Rivera show.

Q. Excuse me, sir.

My question is did you appear on November 11, or some date in November, on Rivera Live along with Mr. Simpson's criminal counsel, Mr. Dershowitz, and others, and discuss the facts of this case?

Could you answer yes or no.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: You may answer?

A. You --

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no.

A. The way you say it is no.

You're not getting it right, no.

Q. Sir, let's see if I can get it right.

A. Okay.

Q. Was it the day Mr. -- while Dr. Spitz was testifying, you got on TV, on the Rivera show?

A. Not Rivera Live -- Rivera Live.

Q. Oh, that's what I mixed --

A. That's one of the things you missed.

Q. It's a different show?

A. It's a different show. It's the evening show where he talks about this case.

Q. At the evening show where he talks about this case, and you knew he talked about this case, and you got on that show with Mr. Dershowitz and talked about this case; is that correct, sir, yes or no?

Just yes or no.

A. Yes, as you say it.

Q. Thank you.

A. That wasn't the purpose of my appearance, but that's what happened, yes.

Q. And on -- And that was the date when actually Dr. Spitz, to your knowledge, had testified; is that correct, sir?

A. As far as I can remember, the first day he testified, yes, that night.

Q. You didn't get back on the second day he testified?

A. It was one day to publicize an HBO special. That's what I was on for.

MR. MEDVENE: Move to strike. I didn't ask that.

THE COURT: Stricken.

A. Sorry.

Q. Now, you gave a bunch of opinions today, Dr. Baden, and you've been doing this long enough to know that there are opinions that are -- that have a certain percentage of probabilities and there are opinions that are only possibilities; isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it true there's certain magic words that people that testify a lot use, and one of them is "consistent with," is that true?

MR. BLASIER: I'll object to the characterization of the magic word.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) One of the words you used was "consistent with"?

A. I don't think I used the word consistent with in my testimony.

That's one form of opinion that can be held, consistent with.

I try in my -- all my testimony to be beyond a reasonable medical certainty.

Q. You're telling us -- are you telling this jury -- well, let me withdraw that.

What percentage is -- what word did you use, beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty, or with reasonable medical certainty, or would you use them interchangeably?

A. I would use them interchangeably.

Q. You said, in the past, that's up in the 95 percent category, didn't you?

A. Or more.

Q. Or more than 95 percent?

A. Yes.

Q. Right?

A. Yes, Mr. Medvene.

Q. Are you telling this jury, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, more than 95 percent, that it's your opinion there were two assailants that slaughtered Ms. Brown and Ron Goldman; is that what you're saying, yes or no, sir?

A. That opinion was not to a reasonable degree of -- reasonable degree of medical certainty, it was more likely than not.

Q. Do you remember telling this jury that, unlike other opinions, when you threw out this two assailants, that it was more likely than not, and not beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

Did you tell that to this jury, sir, yes or no, sir?

A. I answered the question that Mr. Blasier asked.

Q. But you knew as a witness -- how many times have you testified?

A. Many hundreds of times.

Q. And you knew when you answered that question that you were conveying or attempting to convey an impression to this jury that wasn't fair, it was --

A. No, Mr. Medvene.

Q. -- is that correct, sir?

A. No, it's not correct.

If you can read back to me the question that Blasier asked, I could -- I answered the question as Mr. Blasier asked it.

Q. Now, you went over --

A. If you can pull it back and ask it I can relate to it directly.

Q. You went over with Mr. Blasier, did you not, his questions before he asked them to you?

A. No, no. I had not heard that question.

We haven't even -- hadn't even discussed that in any degree. I didn't know what kinds of questions he was going to ask.

Q. You didn't go over anything you were going to say?

A. Oh, in general terms, but I didn't know the questions. I tried to listen --

Q. You went --

A. -- to the way the questions are asked, and I try to answer them accordingly.

Q. You went over in general terms --

A. We discussed the matter.

Q. Well, when you say you went over in general terms, it's not too complicated a question, one assailant or more than one assailant.

Now, you went over that in general terms with Mr. Blasier, didn't you?

A. Very general terms.

Q. Well, when you say very general, I can get a hold of that, is it one assailant or two; did you talk about that?

I mean it's not a matter of general terms. You knew that was going to be asked, didn't you?

A. I didn't know it was going to be asked, no.

Q. Well, you said you talked about it in general terms?

A. Lots of things we talked about that Mr. Blasier didn't ask me about.

Q. I'm not talking about what he didn't ask you about. I'm talking about what he did ask you about.

And you told us --

A. I didn't know he would ask that question.

Q. Excuse me, sir.

You told us a few moments ago you talked with Mr. Blasier in general terms. I don't want to misstate it. If you didn't say it, tell me you didn't say it.

Didn't you just tell this jury that you spoke to Mr. Blasier in general terms about the area, was there one assailant or two assailants?

A. Yes, I think in very general terms.

Q. And you had spoken about it months before with Mr. Shapiro, had you not?

A. I don't recall that. That may be. If you could refresh -- I don't remember being asked that question at the first trial.

Q. Let's go back to Mr. Blasier.

In terms of what you're conveying and what impression you're conveying to this jury, you would agree that when you testified that if you testified it was your opinion it was two assailants, that was misleading in the sense that you weren't giving that opinion to a reasonable medical certainty, which is really your area, isn't it, Dr. Baden?

A. No. I can answer things more likely than not.

I can't understand how these two people could have been murdered and not yell out --

Q. Excuse me?

A. -- unless there were two people there.

Q. Dr. Baden --

A. That's what I'm --

Q. Dr. Baden, there's no question pending.

A. I can't quantitate that.

Q. Now, the facts, as you see them, and I won't go through them, but the one set of the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints leading away from the scene, the facts are certainly consistent, are they not, Dr. Baden, with there being one assailant?

You would say that, wouldn't you? Yes or no, sir, not a speech, just yes or no.

A. No, I find it difficult to put it together with a single assailant.

Q. Now, the only set of bloody shoe prints leaving the scene are size -- the evidence is they're size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints, Dr. Baden.

Now --

A. No, I don't agree with that. There were other shoe prints that Dr. Lee referred to.

Q. No, he did not refer to other shoe prints, Dr. Baden, and I move to strike that answer, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's his answer.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) If Dr. Lee withdrew that testimony, and the jury will get to see it, maybe next week if he's now withdrawn that testimony, after the FBI agent have now testified, and all we have, Dr. Baden, is one set of bloody shoe prints going west, as far as your testimony is concerned, and what you know, isn't the scene consistent with one assailant?

MR. BLASIER: I object to the part of that about Dr. Lee's testimony. It misstates the evidence.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Just assume it.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Why don't you approach the bench a minute.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter:)

THE COURT: Okay, what about it?

MR. MEDVENE: What about what?

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Lee hasn't changed his testimony.

MR. MEDVENE: Dr. Lee's testimony is that there was one set of bloody shoe prints. He did not identify -- he did not identify one other thing as a shoe print and --

MR. BAKER: That's not true.

THE COURT: There's the transcript.

MR. BLASIER: There's evidence consistent --

THE COURT: Just a minute. Show me in the transcript.

MR. BAKER: Judge --

THE COURT: Just a minute. I want to see the transcript.

MR. PETROCELLI: Would you like me to find it?

THE COURT: I'm waiting.

MR. MEDVENE: We'll have to find it, Your Honor, but my memory is he said --

THE COURT: Excuse me. There's an objection and there's a contention by the objecting party that that was not the evidence.

MR. MEDVENE: I understand, sir.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's going to take too long, Your Honor. It's 4:30.

THE COURT: There is no too long.

MR. MEDVENE: We do know there --

(Counsel reads transcript.)

MR. PETROCELLI: There's one reference, Your Honor. I think there are other references in there.

(Court reviews transcript.)

THE COURT: Okay. Page 26 is not very conclusive.

MR. MEDVENE: Well, we will look in at the evening break, Your Honor, but I'll represent to you --

THE COURT: I don't need a representation. I want to see it. This is a crucial point, and this is a crucial objection. I'm not going to go on representations.

MR. MEDVENE: We'll find it for you late this afternoon.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, see you tomorrow at 8:30. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions, don't watch anything on TV about this case. See you in the morning.

Do a little research.

(At 4:33 P.M. a recess was taken until Tuesday, December 17, 1996 at 8:30 A.M.)