|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (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. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: 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. (Laughter.) 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. Yeah. 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 COURT: Okay. (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. Stricken. 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: Okay. 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. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: 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. (Laughter) 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? END SECTION O1216-2A BEGIN SECTION O1216-2B 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? MR. BAKER: I -- 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? MR. MEDVENE: Yes. (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. BLASIER: Line. MR. MEDVENE: Starting at line 16. (Reading:) 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. Sustained. (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. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: 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. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: 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? MR. MEDVENE: 389. MR. BLASIER: 39? MR. MEDVENE: 389. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) (Reading:) Mr. MacDonell, please listen -- MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. (Pause.) MR. MEDVENE: Okay? MR. BAKER: No. Our computer's gone haywire over here. MR. BAKER: Let me look over your shoulder. MR. MEDVENE: Sure. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) (Reading:) Mr. MacDonell -- MR. BAKER: Let me read it. (Pause.) 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. Sustained. 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.< |