And you know he's thought of as a very careful and a very highly regarded scientist; you would agree with that?
He's known to have a good reputation in the field. I don't know this. I've never discussed his integrity nor have I ever challenged it.
All right. Now, same with Herb MacDonell; he has an excellent reputation in the forensic community?
And in terms of your retention in this case, you were retained to refute the fact that there were blood drops on side 3, and Herb MacDonell and Henry Lee testified that is because those blood drops were applied without - you know, subsequent to the socks being collected, right?
You were retained, and you knew you were retained, to refute the testimony of Henry Lee and Herb MacDonell, that side 3 had red blood that was adherent to fibers in the sock on side 3, correct?
I was hired to examine the premise and to give, as it turned out, other possible mechanisms. I don't know that I have refuted other theories at all.
And what a criminalist does is a criminalist will take and look at a theory, and then put that theory -- place it over the facts of a particular case and see if the theory makes any sense based on the facts of the case, true?
Sometimes. Sometimes a criminalist looks at a fact and tries to make it reasonable. For example, a blood stain is not a theory, it's a fact. The question then is how did it get there, whose is it, it becomes a matter of scientific testing.
Okay. And criminalists test their theory based upon the facts of the case that they're retained in, do they not?
And you want to check the theory, because you have talked about possibilities to this jury, correct?
You never mentioned the word probability in one part of your testimony this afternoon, did you, sir?
(BY MR. BAKER) You did not mention the word probability one time in your testimony this afternoon; is that correct?
I don't know what absolutely is. I don't believe I used this -- the word probability in my direct testimony, no.
Okay. Fair enough. Now, in determining -- correct that. In arriving at your opinions and conclusions that you've given the jury today, you obviously determined what the history of these socks were, did you not?
Well, you were aware, certainly, that on June 24, Drs. Baden and Wolff inspected the socks at the Los Angeles Police Department and found no blood on the socks whatsoever, correct?
In the interest of time, the record is what it is and we'll withdraw our objection.
(BY MR. BAKER) You aware that Drs. Baden and Wolff inspected the socks on June 24, 1994 and found no blood at all on the socks?
And are you aware that on June 29, 1994, Michelle Kestler, the director of the LAPD crime lab, Greg Matheson, criminalist, and Colin Yamauchi, criminalist, did a blood search on the socks and found none obvious?
We think it's inappropriate to put the exhibit up. The witness says he has no knowledge of it. Mr. Baker can certainly show it to him to see if it refreshes his recollection.
You can show it to him, you can't show it to the jury until you lay some foundation for the document.
(BY MR. BAKER) Socks navy blue, right, two of them, right (indicating to Elmo), dress socks blood search none obvious, right?
All right. Fair enough. Now, that's significant in arriving at a conclusion as to what theory would be appropriate in this case; you would agree with that?
-- a lot of latitude. I don't know -- and I don't want to get into testimony I haven't heard. If someone wrote none obvious, it doesn't tell me there's no blood there. And until -- I would rely on a scientific report that said examination was made microscopic, et cetera, no blood was found, so that -- I mean I can't respond and give you what you want from that. I know there have been other people here who testified. They have to speak for themselves.
Now, I want you to assume that five criminalists looked at the socks before August 4, 1994 looking for blood, and no one found blood.
Objection, Your Honor, that misstates the record. There's no evidence five people looked for blood and none found any. When they looked, they found it.
Okay. Excuse me. You want to state a hypothetical, you can state a hypothetical. I'll explain to the jury. Just because Mr. Baker says so, that's not what the evidence is, that's only a hypothetical, and you'll have to look to the evidence whether what he says is real or not real. Okay. Now, go.
(BY MR. BAKER) I want you to assume on June 24, 1994, Dr. Baden, a respected forensic pathologist, and Dr. Barbara Wolff looked at the socks, found no blood. I want you to further assume that on August -- or June 29, the head of the LAPD crime lab and two other criminalists looked at the socks and did a blood search and found none, found none obvious. Can you assume that, sir?
Now, that would be important in determining which of your theories had any validity; you would agree with that?
Okay. So it doesn't matter to you that there may have been no blood on these socks at any time before August 4, 1994, correct or incorrect?
Okay. Thank you. Now, you are aware that the FBI inspected these socks and that FBI Agent Martz designed the test to determine whether or not EDTA was present on the socks, correct?
Well, certainly if EDTA were in the blood on the socks, all of your theories would basically be valueless; you would agree with that?
No, I don't agree. I would agree that if there was an elevated EDTA confirmed and that -- this would be highly suspicious and -- but to find EDTA in the blood, as I understand it, this would -- this is beyond the scope of my expertise.
My understanding, once again based on some media involvement that I've read, is that there's reportedly EDTA present in blood, that Mr. Martz or somebody even had EDTA in their own blood, and so I would not be able to parry and thrust on the subject, unless -- to say, unless the test you're talking about showed elevated EDTA, EDTA that could only come from a preservative, if that were true, then yes, you and I would have more agreement on that question.
(BY MR. BAKER) You don't, of course, know what levels of EDTA are in the blood or not in the blood; you would agree with that?
I don't know anything about EDTA, which is what I said in the first place. (Laughter.)
KEY QUOTENo, I don't know what the level -- I don't want to argue with you. I don't know what the level has to be, but I do know that normal human blood has EDTA in it, that any scientist who would then reach a conclusion as to EDTA coming from a preservative would have to establish that it was elevated and the level of elevation necessary to reach that conclusion as a scientist. I know that.
Okay. So if we had an expert come in here who said the EDTA levels were such that if, in fact, they were in the human blood, it was inconsistent with life, you would agree that your theories are irrelevant relative to the possibilities of how blood is on side 3, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had a couple of theories to refute, a couple of possibilities to refute, Herb MacDonell's and Dr. Terry Lee's testimony, correct?
And you -- in your deposition you indicated that if Mr. Simpson were the murderer and he had bloody hands, that he could have possibly caused the blood to be transferred onto side 3, right?
And, of course, you want to check to see if there was any blood on doorknobs, if there was any blood up the stairs, you want to check if there was any blood on hand rails, and there was no blood anywhere, was there, sir?
No, I don't know where there was or wasn't blood. I indicated that if Mr. Simpson had blood on his hands and touched the socks, this would be a mechanism by which to transfer blood to the socks.
And you want to test that theory by determining in Mr. Simpson's house whether there was blood anywhere on the doors, the socks or anywhere in his bedroom, correct?
Whether this witness wants to test it in his expertise, within that scope of the question, you may answer it.
-- I was not able to see Mr. Simpson's hands on that night. If I could see his hands, I might know whether there was blood on them or not.
Well, if you -- if you're saying that Mr. Simpson, if he -- if he had done these horrible crimes, had transferred blood to his socks, he'd transfer it, you talked about his bloody clothes or the clothes of whoever did this, and none of that was ever found, was it, sir?
(BY MR. BAKER) Page 67 of your deposition, sir. You don't have any information that Mr. Simpson could have transferred blood to any part of the socks, isn't that true, sir?
Thank you. Now, relative to the other theories that you had, you have no information that whoever did these crimes were perspiring at the ankle, do you?
You don't have any information that a Q-tip was ever pressed through the socks at the laboratory to cause any blood on side 3, do you, sir?
You have no information that that occurred or could have occurred at all; isn't that true, sir?
Now, relative to the testimony of -- of Herb MacDonell, you are aware, of course, that Dr. Lee and Herb MacDonell saw these round spheres in side 3, correct?
All right. Fair enough. Now, you also read Herb MacDonell's testimony that they saw five or six of these spheres and they were entwined around the fibers in side 3, correct?
I don't know that that was his testimony. I think you need to show that to me. I don't recall it, I don't recall that he said that. Once again, I'm not arguing with you.
(BY MR. BAKER) -- these were wrapped around the fibers in side 3. Now, that would be significant, would it not, if the blood was wrapped around the fibers in side 3?
Your experiments, as I understand them, what you did, you first cut part of the sock out in the halo area, correct?
And you allowed the blood by gravity to drop on -- from side 1 and 2 onto side 3 under the area where the cut was, correct?
Then when you did your other experiment, when you cut the material out of the sock, you cut it out of the sock, put two drops of blood on it, as I understand it, let it dry for six days, and then cut the sock, and you got debris, correct?
You recall the testimony of Herb MacDonell that the area where they found these round spheres wrapped around the fibers within side 3 was in the center area of the cutout where the blood was more probably than not highly concentrated?
And the importance of that is that that's not near the area where the cut was made; isn't that correct, sir?
-- you aren't necessarily going to have the blood end up in one location. Just in terms of handling. It would be my opinion that no matter what else could have happened to the sock, the cutting would have caused droppings when MacDonell looked at the sock. If some droppings hadn't fallen off or been moved, there should have been more than what they reported seeing, and so that -- no, I don't really think that that's going to be -- that's the issue that I would have.
Well, you found -- whenever the sock was cut, you found an immense amount, I mean hundreds of flakes and spheres, did you not?
That was 1278 at the criminal trial. I don't remember what it is now.
MR. P. BAKER: That's 1241.
(BY MR. BAKER) -- 1241, that indicates that that drop dried obviously in a spherical configuration during the time that it dried, true?
It's a small, microscopic crust. And it did -- it did -- it's spherical. It did dry in a spherical manner.
The importance of that is that the drop was not like you have testified here in the courtroom this afternoon; it wasn't a flake, correct?
All right. And if the drop dries in a round configuration, that means it's trying to adhere to itself; that's basically why it's a spherical shape?
And if, in fact, that sphere dried around the fiber -- fabric or fibril on side 3, that would be indicative that it was still wet when it, in fact, got to side 3, true?
Yes, if it could be shown to have dried around that fabric, it would mean that it was wet when it went on that fabric; it would therefore mean that if the -- you can show that the fabric didn't fall, that the fabric was a part of wall 3, then that would have dried onto wall 3, yes.
And that would be consistent with someone putting blood on side 1, squeezing it, and having it go through side 2 and into side 3. You would agree with that?
And if, in fact, there had been no blood on the socks until August 4; and if, in fact, there's EDTA on the socks, and if, in fact, the blood dries around the fiber in side 3, you would agree that more likely than not, the way that that blood got there is, somebody, subsequent to June 29, 1994, put a drop or more of blood on the sock, pushed it down, and got it through side 1, 2, and into side 3. Correct?
Objection. It assumes three separate facts, not one of which are in evidence in this case.
It's a hypothetical question, ladies and gentlemen, and you may decide what's been proved and what hasn't been proved in terms of hypothetical. Go ahead and answer it?
Now, assume that there was no blood on the socks on June 24, 1994, when they were first inspected by Dr. Baden. And assume there was no blood on the socks when the blood search was done by three LAPD criminalists: Michelle Kestler, Baden, and Wolff up there, Greg Matheson, and Colin Yamauchi. And assume blood was put on the socks subsequent to June 29, 1994, so it could be discovered on August 4, 1994. Assume further that blood was put on the socks by a drop of blood being placed on the socks pushed through side 1 to side 2, and six or so small particles, spheres of blood got through side 2 and into side 3. That would be a logical explanation for what you have on the board, and that Dr. Lee photographed, correct?
If I assume all of those things happened, then they happened by assumption, and that would indicate that, for many of those things that you gave me, that the blood was placed on the sock after it was collected. I have to assume those things. And if I do, yes.
KEY QUOTENow, Herb MacDonell and Dr. Lee looked through the microscope. And you would agree that -- empirical vision that you have at the time you look at the microscope, or look through it, it's better than any photograph?
And if Herb MacDonell testified on December 16, that -- page 86, lines 17 and 18 -- that sphere was bonded, it is wrapped around the fiber in side 3, you would have absolutely no reason to disbelieve that; true?
MacDonell testified that, in his opinion, when he examined those spheres, they were bonded to the fiber. I'm not challenging his opinion that -- he has a right to have his opinion, and I'm not saying he's lying in having that opinion. What I am saying is, I find it difficult to perceive looking through a microscope and being able to see the under side of any object, to tell me whether it's bonded or not. If I take this little glass of water and lay it on this counter, I can't tell whether someone has Super-Glued it to the counter. Now, I could come in here and I could Super-Glue this to the counter, and it wouldn't look any different to me looking down or from the side; but when I try to pick it up, it wouldn't move. On the other hand, I didn't Super-Glue it, so it came back up. So what I'm saying is that, one must be careful to make an assumption that what you're Super-Gluing is bonding. If you have not tried to see -- actually, you have it under the microscope -- move it, see whether it is bonded. But I'm not arguing that. He has that opinion, and those are the people that will decide. (Indicating to jury.)
Is the analogy you're drawing, sir, that if we took 1241 and what is circled in blue, is that the same thing as the cup sitting on the table?
Yes. It's clear under a microscope. I responded to Mr. Baker, in that way than it is in the photograph but the microscope can't see through the object; it can't see under the object. So that's the only way you would know, in my opinion, whether it was bonded to the surface it was on, would be to manipulate it to find out for sure.
That's probably true, yes.
I don't know anything about EDTA, which is what I said in the first place.
If I assume all of those things happened, then they happened by assumption, and that would indicate that, for many of those things that you gave me, that the blood was placed on the sock after it was collected. I have to assume those things. And if I do, yes.
If I take this little glass of water and lay it on this counter, I can't tell whether someone has Super-Glued it to the counter... I could Super-Glue this to the counter, and it wouldn't look any different to me looking down or from the side.