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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Well, having --

Objection, outside the scope, Your Honor.

Overruled. You examined.

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.

(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?

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.

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

Objection, leading, Your Honor.

Overruled.

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

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?

No.

Objection, argumentative.

(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?

Objection, he's arguing the case.

Sustained.

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

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

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?

Yes.

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

That's correct.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

That's correct. I was not.

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

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

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?

Yes, it's on the ankle.

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?

Objection, speculation, Your Honor.

No foundation.

If you have --

(BY MR. BAKER) Okay.

Have you ever seen deposits left from perspiration?

Yes, I have.

And have you ever examined them under a microscope?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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?

Objection, lack of foundation, Your Honor.

Overruled.

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.

Thank you.