(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?

Yes, I did.

And relative to the -

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

Yes, I did.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

Yes.

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?

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.

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?

Of course, yes.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Well, somebody cut it out.

Okay.

I believe it was LAPD.

All right.

And, Phil, can you put that on the Elmo.

That's exhibit what, sir?

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1239.

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

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.

All right.

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

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.

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

No.

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

Well, yes.

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

And what did you determine when you examined the sock?

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.

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

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.

Now --

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

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?

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.

Now, Phil would you put up that next photo.

Yeah.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1240.

(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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

No, not at all.

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?

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.

Okay.

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

Yes, I did.

And what did you find on side two?

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.

All right.

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

Yes, I did.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Yes, it is.

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

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.

(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?

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.

Okay.

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

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.

How many of these did you find?

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

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.

Now, would --

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

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1239.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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?

When you say "something in the sock" --

Yeah, like an ankle.

Foot?

Yeah.

Okay.

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