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.
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.
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?
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?
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 --
I'd like him to finish his answer. He's asking to list the subjects and he cut him off.
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.
(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?
I'm experienced and I think -- I've taught forensic photography many semesters. I know the subject quite well.
Is it true, sir, that you -- that the photograph you put up here for the jury to see, you did not take?
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.
Did you previously testify in this case, sir, that you didn't take the photographs, that Dr. Lee took them?
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?
No, I didn't take any of the pictures you saw -- that one that you saw. I think I took the second one.
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?
Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Now, you talked about, in your qualifications, the typing of blood and that sort of thing.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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 --
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.
(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.
I was checking the date. I wanted -- you gave me a date. I wanted to check if it was correct.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
You're also aware that on 42-B, there was Ms. Nicole Brown's blood found around the ankle area; is that correct?
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?
I'm talking about the same sock you tested. You tested what we're going to call 42-A.
Is that okay?
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?
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.
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?
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.
(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?
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?
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?
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?
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 --
(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?
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.
(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?
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
It couldn't have. Per my recollection, the spots were too small to have sufficient volume to soak through.
Sir, my question is, do you -- and you're an experienced witness -- Guiness Book of Records.
My question is --
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you've realized before your April 2 examination that it was an important examination, did you not?
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.
Well, as a scientist it would be fair to say, would it not, sir, that you would customarily take detailed notes of your observations?
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?
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?
So is it your practice, then, sir, not to take detailed notes if somebody else with you is taking a photograph?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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 --
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.
KEY QUOTEAnd 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?
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.
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?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Is it true that you were aware, sir, that Mr. Sims had previously examined this very sock and this very spot?
I possibly did. I do not specifically remember, but if he didn't he should have. I would have concluded he probably did.
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?
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?
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.
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?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you knew in Mr. Sims's notes that he said he examined this area under his stereomicroscope?
He said I may have read the notes and he doesn't recall. To put them in is improper.
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.
(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?
Now, is it also true, sir -- well, let's move to another area.
And what you did do on April 2 --
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?
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?
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?
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?
What you then did was look through that cut-out to what we're calling side 3 of the sock, right?
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?
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?
No. It soaked through to the periphery, and when you cut out a section it saturated through, it saturated in the center, too.
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?
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.
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?
Within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty I can conclude that, and that is my opinion, yes, it's so true.
You've mentioned the periphery.
When we say periphery, that's a fancy word for what's around the cut-out?
And isn't it true, sir, that the side 2 of the periphery did not show any blood -- any blood soak through?
No, it was on both side 1 and side 2. It -- as you get further from the center it's on side 1 only.
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.
(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?
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.
I understand that, sir, I'm taking it a step at a time, and I'm saying does this refresh you?
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.
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.
(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?
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?
Thank you.
Is it true, sir, that you never conducted any experiments of any kind to determine the amount of blood on the periphery?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah. So you made a judgment by visualizing what it was, and your experience how much blood you thought it was, is that --
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
(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?
I move to strike and have the jury admonished relative to that statement, Your Honor.
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.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, there are -- is it correct, sir, that these little red balls you say you saw are extremely small?
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.
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?
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?
Dissolved them, he took a sample with a swab in that area. I'm sure he touched this one as well as others.
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?
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 --
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?
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?
That would tell you, definitely, how deeply embedded in the fibers the so-called little red ball was?
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?
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?
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 large volume, yes. Not those tiny red spots that are on an individual fiber, but a larger volume.
Now, you knew that there was certain presumptive testing done for blood, you've told us about that?
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?
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?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you know that socks are preserved, the blood frozen and unfrozen; isn't that true?
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?
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.
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?
And that the perspiration on that person's foot could moisten the blood that was on the sock; isn't that true?
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?
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?
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.
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?
The variations in volume will control drying time, and the thickness of the material, certainly.
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?
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.
(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?
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?
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?
And you're saying that they hadn't been worn for years, and in wet weather, snow or sleet or whatever, is that true?
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?
Your Honor, this is argument, this is not a question. There's no probative value. He wasn't there before 1994.
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?
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?
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 --
Your Honor --
(BY MR. MEDVENE) -- do you, sir, how much adverse weather conditions those gloves saw before June 12; is that correct, sir?
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.
We're going to ask the court reporter, with the Court's permission, to repeat the question.
And, sir, isn't it true that the gloves you tested had not lost their waterproof protection? That's true, isn't it?
There was none on that leather. That's my understanding of it. It's not leather that has a treatment. It's naked leather.
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?
If there was waterproofing on the gloves that you checked, and no waterproofing on the other gloves, you would have no way of --
There's no evidence of any waterproofing on those gloves. It's improper to ask these questions.
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.
I did not examine the cut-out. I've testified to that.
Call me Herb if you want to. My friends do.
I can eliminate the periphery because it did not soak through the fabric.
That's as scientific as I can make it.