PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 16, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1996
8:45 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(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.

A. All right.

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

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

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

Let me ask you, isn't it true that on the side of the cut-out, where
you claim you found this little red ball, you tested another spot
where there was a Nicole Brown blood stain is; is that true?

MR. BAKER: That's beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Isn't it true, sir, that you probed other places on
the sock where Nicole Brown's blood was identified, and did not find
any of the blood soak through to side 2 or 3 of the sock?

MR. BAKER: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You wouldn't categorize yourself as an expert on
leather gloves, would you?

A. No, just as a wearer thereof.

Q. Just as a wearer.

And you're not testifying here, are you, sir, that the gloves worn by
the killer in this case did not shrink to a certain extent prior to
the time of the murders; you're not saying that, are you?

MR. BAKER: That's outside the scope, Your Honor.

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: I ask to reopen for one area.

THE COURT: No. Finish this.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you tell us how much you've been -- how much
you've billed?

MR. BAKER: I object to that. That's outside the scope as well.

THE COURT: That you can answer. Go ahead and answer that.

A. I haven't billed anything.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) How much have you been paid?

A. I received a retainer of $5,000, but that was not something I
billed for.

Q. And you have an arrangement for payment?

A. Well, I got paid, I have my airline tickets and that sort of thing.

Q. And you have your arrangement for payment in connection with the
work you've done, in connection with your testimony here; yes or no,
sir? Yes or no, do you have an arrangement for payment?

A. No arrangement, no.

Q. But you --

A. Going to bill them for the time that's spent, and the three days
time away from my laboratory but --

Q. I understand.

A. -- we haven't sat down and said this is what we're going to charge,
this is what you're going to pay, no.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Mr. MacDonell, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, is
it your opinion that the balls that you and Dr. Lee saw on April 2,
1995 are blood from a wet transfer from side 1 of the sock through
side 2 of the sock into side 3?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know of any reason why LAPD would cut out an area in the
sock that had no blood or nothing else on it?

A. Yes, they would cut out an area for a control. You always take a
sample from an area that is not stained to run reagents on as opposed
to an area that you cut out to test with the area that does not have a
stain gives a positive test, then the positive test on the other area
is meaningless. So you will take out controls. But I think you're
referring specifically just to this stained area.

Q. This area is basically in the center of the stain, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's the area from which you would anticipate the highest
concentration of blood volume, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

Now, in your analysis, there was blood around the perimeter of the
area that was removed, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And as you got further away, the blood volume -- farther away from
the cut-out area, the blood volume became less, did it not, sir?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, beyond the copy.

THE COURT: This is beyond the scope of the redirect.

MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

1:30, ladies and gentlemen.

THE CLERK: For the record, Mr. Medvene, you made reference to 42A and
B.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes.

THE CLERK: Those weren't exhibits.

MR. MEDVENE: They're not exhibit numbers.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

(At 11:50 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1996
1:37 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, defense calls Dr. Michael Baden.

MICHAEL BADEN, M.D., was called as a witness on behalf of the
Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE BAILIFF: Please be seated.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE CLERK: Sir, if you would, please, when you're ready, state and
spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Michael Baden, B-a-d-e-n.

Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Baden.

You are a forensic pathologist, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And tell the jury briefly what a forensic pathologist does.

A. A forensic pathologist is a physician who specializes in
determining how people die from -- from unnatural causes, and who is
trained in determining how injury affects the living or dead person.
That's to distinguish the forensic pathologist from the general
pathologist, which -- whose expertise is to determine disease and
abnormalities that are natural, from doing various tests: Looking at
tissue under the microscope, or doing chemical tests.

And the pathologist -- forensic pathologist, hospital pathologist
doesn't treat living patients, but gives information to the surgeon or
the dermatologist, or the internist, who does the treatment.

MR. BLASIER: Erin, can we have a new number?

THE CLERK: 2267.

(The instrument herein referred to as Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael
Baden was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2267.)

Q. Dr. Baden, let me show you 2267.

Does this appear to be a copy of your C.V.?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And has that been updated recently?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. But it's recent.

Q. Can you describe to the jury your educational background, please.

A. Yes.

I received a bachelor of science degree in 1955 from the City College
of New York, and then a medical degree, an M.D. degree in 1959 from
New York University School of Medicine. I then was an intern and
resident, initially specializing in internal medicine, and then
resident and chief resident in pathology at Bellevue Hospital Medical
Center in New York City. And finished my training at Bellevue as a
fellow in pathology, 1965.

Q. You mentioned the term "internal medicine." What is that?

A. Yeah. Internal medicine -- there are about 25 specialties in
medicine; pathology is one, internal medicine is another.

Internal medicine is that specialty in medicine that treats illness in
nonsurgical ways.

Q. Can you describe to the jury the various professional positions
that you have held?

A. Yeah.

While a resident doctor at Bellevue Hospital, I became a part-time
medical examiner for the City of New York, which is similar to medical
examiner/coroner in -- in Los Angeles.

And in that position, I did autopsies on persons who died of,
potentially, unnatural causes; went to scenes of death; and stayed as