What I would like to you do, Professor MacDonell, for most of these questions, is use the same terminology that the Prosecutor used; namely, we have side 1, side 2, side 3 and side 4 of the socks. And could you just quickly show, perhaps using your own sock again, what we mean by that with side 1, side 2, side 3 and side 4?
If the stain is on the top, that is considered side 1. Side 2 would be inside where liquid could soak through. Side 3 would be opposite, if the garment were lying flat, and side 4 would be the outside, which would be opposite the side 3.
Thank you. Now, on cross-examination the Prosecutor asked you a series of questions concerning the manner in which the sock had been handled prior to your examination on April 2nd. Do you recall her asking you those questions?
And do you recall her in those series of questions asking you whether, for instance, if the socks were twisted in a certain way could that produce the red balls that you observed on surface 3? Do you recall her asking you that question?
All right. Professor MacDonell, in your opinion could twisting the socks result in producing the red balls that looked like blood bonded to the fiber on surface 3?
You can't create little round balls of fluid that dry on a fiber by simply twisting a garment. You can't do it.
KEY QUOTEProfessor MacDonell, could freezing and thawing the sock in the laboratory's freezer after the stains had already dried produce the red balls that looked like blood bonded to the fiber of surface 3?
There would have to be a substantial amount of moisture and that would show up by diluting and diffusing the clear sharp stains around the periphery of the major cut-out area.
Professor MacDonell, I'm going to be showing you the Prosecution's exhibit 554. Do you see that picture of Dr. Henry Lee?
In your opinion could Dr. Henry lee's stretch the socks as shown in that photograph result in producing the red balls that look like blood bonded to the fiber on surface 3?
Again there is no moisture, there is nothing that would cause a transfer. They would have to have been there prior to this photograph.
I show you Prosecution's exhibit no. 555. Here again you see a photograph that was shown to you by the Prosecutor yesterday of Dr. Lee apparently turning a portion of the socks inside out. Sir, in your opinion could Dr. Lee's turning these socks inside out result in producing the red balls that look like blood bonded to the fiber on surface 3 of the sock?
Again, it requires moisture. The creation of those red balls was due to a liquid drying, and merely manipulating the socks cannot produce that. It would have to be there.
Professor MacDonell, could using a scissors or a scalpel to cut pieces of the sock out for additional testing result in producing the red balls that looked like blood bonded to the fiber on surface 3 of the sock?
The Prosecutor also showed you a photograph of somebody, prior to the time that you examined the socks on April 2nd, conducting a presumptive test on the sock before any area of it was cut out. In your opinion, sir, could conducting a phenolphthalein test on the outside surface of that stain, prior to the time that any of it was cut out, result in producing the red balls that looked like blood bonded to the fiber of surface 3?
It could only do that if there was an abundance of liquid to dissolve blood from the surface. And I don't--I'm not being disrespectful. I'm saying it would be a sloppy technique in that there would be a lot of liquid on the q-tip.
And when you looked at that picture did you see what appeared to be a--you said a yellow oval on the piece of paper?
And would that be consistent with your understanding that when it is done properly someone simply takes the swab and dabs that preexisting wet stain on the paper and then applies it to the material on the sock?
That is one way it is done because it requires a minimal amount of liquid to dissolve the surface of the bloodstain or the stain being tested to determine if presumptively it could be blood. The amount that is removed that is necessary for a test is very, very small. The phenolphtalein test is a very sensitive test.
And sir, is it your opinion if the test was conducted in a normal fashion, and simply dab that yellowish oval, would that produce or could that produce the red balls that looked like blood bonded to the fiber of surface 3 of the sock?
Now, the Prosecutor asked you whether since you saw the evidence of a wet transfer stain on surface 3 on April 2nd that you can't say for sure when the stain on surface 3 got there; isn't that correct?
Well, sir, in this case there has already been testimony that the first time anyone observed a bloodstain on the sock was August 4th. The question I have for you, sir, is can anyone tell when before August 4th any of the stains on that sock got there?
You recall when Miss Clark asked you questions about when the transfer stain appeared on surface 3 and she gave you a series of different dates and you said you couldn't rule out those dates. Do you recall that?
Likewise, sir, can you rule out or can any scientist rule out that the initial bloodstains found on that sock were not put on that sock on August 3rd?
Do you recall--do you remember the Prosecutor asking you some questions about differences between the term "Swipe" and the term "Compression"? Do you recall that?
And I believe you just said to her on cross-examination that they were quite similar and that in fact a swipe was a subcategory of a compression stain. Do you recall that?
But are both those stains, that is a swipe or a compression, significantly different than the stain that results from blood spatter?
A spatter is projected blood just like a drop would fall on to a surface and again it will be indiscriminately between fibers as well as on the surface. A swipe pattern or wiping of the surface with blood, a transfer pattern, will only be on the surface of the fibers unless there is sufficient blood to penetrate the central area. And that is why I characterize this as a transfer pattern with indications of lateral motion which could make it then a swipe pattern.
Sir, you stated that you observed a wet transfer stain on side 1 and side 2 and side 3 of the sock; is that correct?
No. There was very little on surface 3; not sufficient to penetrate the fibers and come outside 4.
Does the absence of any blood on side 4 indicate that the--that these red balls seen on side 3 did not soak through from side 4?
Now, the Prosecutor asked you some other questions about the April 2nd examination that you attended with Dr. Henry Lee. Do you recall that?
And she asked you questions about the presence of Gregory Matheson from the LAPD SID laboratory. Do you recall that?
Was Gregory Matheson present in the room during the entire time that photographs were taken of the socks through the microscope?
And the Prosecutor asked you why in your own notes you didn't personally describe seeing the red balls bonded to the fabric on surface 3. Who was the primary note taker on April 2nd?
Sir, have you ever heard the expression that a picture is worth a thousand words?
In your professional opinion, sir, is a photograph an adequate way of documenting what you observed in the microscope instead of simply writing it down in your notes?
Well, as you've just stated, a picture is worth a thousand words and, I could not sketch it or describe it as accurately as it can be recorded on film.
Earlier yesterday the Prosecutor asked you some questions about your academic career. Before you started teaching at Milton College, what was the extent of your education?
I had a four-year degree with a major in chemistry and a minor in mathematics from Alfred University and one year of graduate study in chemistry from Alfred University.
Were you proud of the fact that you were asked to teach college students without receiving an advanced degree first?
I was both proud and surprised. The recommendation from Dr. Saunders must have been quite good. I haven't seen it.
Sir, remember I asked you about the John Dondero award which you and J. Edgar Hoover had been recipients of?
When you were selected, did the size of the college you attended or taught play a role in the selection process?
I doubt it very much. I don't know whether they even know which college I taught at or attended.
The Prosecutor asked you questions about perspiration. Is there any evidence in the sock stains that you observed of the presence of significant perspiration, sir?
Sir, is there a basis for you to conclude whether or not those socks had significant amounts of perspiration at the time that the blood was put there?
The appearance of the blood on the surface of the fibers around the periphery is very clear and sharp. If any significant amount of moisture, such as perspiration, had penetrated those fibers, they would have been diluted and diffused.
KEY QUOTEAt the end of her cross-examination yesterday the Prosecutor asked you whether the stain observed on the outside of the ankle portion of the sock could have been had--I'm sorry--could have been made when the wearer of the sock brushed against Nicole Brown Simpson's hand or another bloody surface at the Bundy crime scene. And I believe you answered that it could. Do you recall that, sir?
But let me ask you this, sir: Given all your observations on sides 1, 2 and 3 and 4 of the ankle area, are the transfer stains that you observed consistent with the wearer of the sock brushing against Mrs. Brown Simpson or some other bloody surface at the Bundy crime scene?
The crime scene, as I understand it, is at least six minutes from the residence of Mr. Simpson.
KEY QUOTEThe Prosecutor also asked you whether or not the stain is consistent with Mr. Simpson with bloody hands taking off the socks. Do you recall that?
Well, if Mr. Simpson--I'm sorry. Again, sir, based on your observations and your expertise, is the evidence you have seen--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. I will rephrase the question.
Let me ask you a hypothetical, Professor MacDonell. If Mr. Simpson had come home with blood on his hands from Nicole Simpson Brown and went upstairs to his bedroom to take his socks off, would you expect to see a trace of his blood on the light switches in the house.
Are you aware of the fact, Professor MacDonell, that the criminalists in this case have evidence that there were absolutely no bloodstains consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson recovered anywhere inside Mr. Simpson's home?
Sir, in your expertise on blood spatter patterns and bloodstain interpretation, have you studied the rate at which blood clots and what role that plays in providing features of particular bloodstains?
Since we began drawing blood in 1954. If we didn't have an anticoagulant, it would always clot, of course.
Normal range, not only in our experiments and observations, but in the published literature, is between--generally between three and six minutes. If someone is hemophiliac then of course it will be much, much longer, if at all.
And what is the significance of your knowledge of the clothing factor in giving an opinion on whether or not the bloodstains seen on those socks would have been made had Mr. Simpson come home with Nicole Brown Simpson's blood on his hand when he took off those socks?
Objection, your Honor. Objection. No foundation, calls for speculation and assumes facts not in evidence.
I would expect to see traces of clot material on the surface, because it would not penetrate into the fabric, but the amount of clot material on a dark surface like that could be the first thing removed if a testing was made. It would not necessarily bond as quickly as the blood that saturated and soaked into the fabric.
And in the notes that you have reviewed by Greg Matheson and Mr. Sims of their observations of the stain on the outside surface of the sock, do any of them mention seeing any clot-like material?
Yesterday Miss Clark asked you whether or not the surface of the stains that you saw on the ankle could have happened--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. I will rephrase the question. Yesterday Miss Clark asked you whether or not the surface stain you saw, surface 1 of the sock, could have been made by contact at the Bundy crime scene. Is there anything about not just the stain you saw on surface 1, but the stain you saw on surface 2 and surface 3 which would indicate to you that it couldn't have happened that way?
The red balls that were on the inside on surface 3, if blood and had transferred from surface 2, could have to be transferred by a moist or wet stain and that wet, moist stain could not persist for a period of time, six minutes, seven minutes, eight minutes would be far beyond the drying time.
KEY QUOTEYou can't create little round balls of fluid that dry on a fiber by simply twisting a garment. You can't do it.
The crime scene, as I understand it, is at least six minutes from the residence of Mr. Simpson.
The red balls that were on the inside on surface 3, if blood had transferred from surface 2, could have to be transferred by a moist or wet stain and that wet, moist stain could not persist for a period of time, six minutes, seven minutes, eight minutes would be far beyond the drying time.
The appearance of the blood on the surface of the fibers around the periphery is very clear and sharp. If any significant amount of moisture, such as perspiration, had penetrated those fibers, they would have been diluted and diffused.