(BY MR. BAKER) Sir, approximately how many experiments have you conducted in your career with human blood?
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.
And throughout your career have you gained knowledge as to what you believe the drying time of blood is?
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.
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.
And relative to the drying time of blood on fabric surfaces, have you done any experiments in that regard?
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.
So based upon your experience, would blood dry quicker on a thicker material such as a blouse as contrasted to a sock?
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.
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?
And the material very similar to the sock, what was the drying time that your experiments produced?
(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?
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.
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?
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.
So taking the sock inside out is not going to produce what you saw on side 3; is that correct, sir?
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?
(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?
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.
All right.
Now, in terms of other experiments that you performed in this case, did you also perform an experiment relative to the gloves?
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.
Objection, move to strike his understanding, Your Honor. Conclusion, lack of foundation.
And did you attempt to determine whether or not Aris Isotoner gloves would shrink when subjected to human blood?
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?
(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?
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.
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 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 --
Phil, you want to put the photo of the glove underneath it.
MR. P. BAKER: 1406.
MR. P. BAKER: 1407.
Move them laterally just a little so you can see the tip. Laterally, sideways.
Well, all right.
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.
Let's put on the 10 percent overlay showing 10 percent shrinkage. That's --
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1411.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 --
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?
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.
And on the night of June 12, 1994, dew wouldn't form as a result of the temperature and dew point, correct?
Ladies and gentlemen, 10-minute recess. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion.
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.
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.
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.
I could not detect any measurable shrinkage on -- on either glove. That was the bottom line.
it couldn't go from 2 to 3 with something in between
It never got within 6 degrees Fahrenheit.
It specifically lists Mr. MacDonell... 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.