That's what I read, and that's where my disagreement on procedure is. But once again, whatever he said, they've heard. I can't argue with what he said.
Just one last question. The testimony was that -- Mr. Simpson testified that he did have some blood on his hands that particular night in question. Would that be consistent with one of the possible explanations you gave of how blood could get on side 3 when one would take their socks off?
(BY MR. BAKER) You have -- you're not attempting to tell this jury, Mr. Fox, that you have no ability to see other than two dimensions in a binocular microscopy?
I said I can see under or through an object. I certainly can see down and width, length, and depth, yes.
Binocular microscopy does give you a field of vision and a depth of vision, does it not, sir?
And the depth of vision that you get from a binocular microscope allows to you see, for example, where this picture appears to wrap around the fiber, correct?
That does not allow me to see whether it's bonded to the fiber; it only will allow me to see the position on the top. And remember, I showed a little blood speck earlier that had this -- a configuration almost like a child's Tinker Toy. So what I'm saying is, you're right. I've used 3-D stereomicroscopes for 35 years. They do give you a good depth of vision, especially a good microscope. But they're not X-ray; they don't show you what's underneath; they don't show you if it's bonded. Even if they were to show that, there is some area that is not just flat, okay, on the fiber. It doesn't tell me it's bonded; it doesn't tell me it couldn't have dropped on there; it doesn't tell me it couldn't have had that molded shape from being on a fiber on wall 2 and fallen onto wall 3.
Now, you're not telling this jury that that piece of blood on -- is it 1241 -- will --
MR. P. BAKER: Yes.
And you would agree with me that the person who saw it -- the persons who saw it are in a better position than you to determine whether or not that blood part, which was, in fact, bonded to that fiber -- you would agree with that?
Herb MacDonell was in a better position, but he did not do it. He did not manipulate it to see whether it was bonded. He certainly was in a better position than I could ever be.
KEY QUOTEAnd so you, as a criminalist, would want to destroy the evidence in an effort to determine whether or not it was, in fact, bonded. Right?
If you touched that particular part which -- that's on 1241, you would agree that it would be destroyed?
(BY MR. BAKER) When you -- in an attempt to sell your theory to this jury, that is the only thing that you could figure out that you could criticize Herb MacDonell for, is that he didn't manipulate it; true?
I'm not arguing with him at all. And it is one of the factors that I feel strongly about. I've told the jury about it. And I don't see that you couldn't probe it. I don't think that you would have to break it up. And, quite frankly, after photographing it -- and if I did probe it and break it up and got an answer, I would be willing to accept that. If there were six or seven of these things, as they said, then if I destroyed one to get an answer and photographed the other five, I wouldn't be unhappy.
(BY MR. BAKER) And if they felt that they could see that this was bonded, as it appears in 1241, and felt no need to break it up or to probe it, you wouldn't disregard their opinions, would you, sir?
He's calling for speculation and conclusion, opinion on what somebody else might think, Your Honor.
I believe he's being asked his opinion of their opinion. To that extent, I'll overrule it.
I haven't argued at all that they did what they thought was necessary. And they've reported it to the jury. And I'm not going to do a final argument in this case. It's not my job.
For the record, Exhibit 716 was originally a 16-page document, but there was only evidence as to ten pages. What would plaintiffs like to do? Would you like to withdraw the other six pages, or would you like to keep Exhibit 716?
We don't need the reporter. May we reapproach? I'm sorry. We don't need the reporter.
Yes. And what I'll do, either now or later, we'll give you the numbers in 716 that we're moving in. We can do that later. But we're also moving in 2393 through 2402. (The instruments herein described were admitted into Evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 2393, 2394, 2395, 2396, 2397, 2398, 2399, 2400, 2401, 2402)
Those portions of 716 that the witness testified to. And if it would be helpful, I can --
It will be ten pages for Exhibit 716. (The instrument herein described was admitted into Evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 716)
Okay. We'll see you all tomorrow at 8:30. We're getting right to the end of the case. It's very important you maintain your integrity. Don't listen to any news; don't watch any newscasts; don't read any newspaper articles; don't let any other source of information regarding this case come to you except through the trial process. Everybody understand that? JURORS: Yes.
Thank you. See you tomorrow, 8:30. (At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Thursday, January 16, 1997, at 8:30 A.M.)
That certainly could explain the origin of the blood and why it's on side 3, yes.
They don't show you what's underneath; they don't show you if it's bonded. Even if they were to show that, there is some area that is not just flat, okay, on the fiber. It doesn't tell me it's bonded; it doesn't tell me it couldn't have dropped on there.
If there were six or seven of these things, as they said, then if I destroyed one to get an answer and photographed the other five, I wouldn't be unhappy.
Herb MacDonell was in a better position, but he did not do it. He did not manipulate it to see whether it was bonded.