Yes. Thank you, your Honor. And I hope to conclude the direct examination. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK
Excuse me, Mr. Scheck. Miss Moxham, our court reporter, indicates that she's probably able to go through to the noon hour.
This would be Defense next in order, 1356, and this board is entitled Rockingham residence, front foyer.
Dr. Lee, were these photographs taken on the June 25th visit that you previously have described to us at Mr. Simpson's home?
All right. And could you please, starting with the photograph on the upper left-hand corner of 1356, entitled "Front entrance," describe for us what is shown on this board?
In June 25th, 1994, afternoon, approximately 4:00 o'clock, I took this photograph (Indicating). Shows a overall view of this front entrance door, enter the residence.
Dr. Lee, at that time, did you perform any presumptive tests on the doorknobs and lock mechanisms and light switches in this area?
I did that chemical presumptive test, generally refer o-tolidine test, which will react with heme or any peroxidase, a colorless reagent will turn to a blue color. If that turn to blue, indicates certain result. If no reaction, did not turn blue, means absence of blood.
I test both outside, inside doorknob, door hinge, other area, the light switches and all this area, metal surface, the door side (Indicating).
I use a magnify glass, look through every steps. Any step have a discoloration or brownish color or any other indication, I will perform a test.
Would that be an indication that there was no blood of any kind that you could detect in your examination of the stairs leading up to Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
Did you do something--did you perform a--the same examination of the hallway that leads into Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
Now, call your attention to the foyer floor photograph. Could you tell us what that is?
Foyer floor photograph is depict a center portion of the front enter foyer--foyer. I have to point it out. This is not an imperfection of the floorboard. It's a photograph provide to me by Mr. Shapiro. That's a original photograph was taken by LAPD. I use that photograph to locate the floorboard. Floorboard have different number of some type of--like nail-type of object so I can identify this area (Indicating). So I was subsequently able to locate the area LAPD tested.
Now, this is--if one gets close to this photograph, one can detect that this is an evidence card indicating item no. 12, and it shows three blood drops in that area; is that correct?
And so this photograph then I guess you're saying is your effort to locate exactly where that was on the floor as you saw it on June 25th?
Upon checking the area, I was able to identify the three locations. The three location apparently been swabbed and created a swab pattern. I was able to recognize that. Compare with the photograph, I was able to identify the location.
Did you locate any other reddish stains that were consistent with bloodstains in that area?
Subsequently, I noticed there are three additional stain, this stain 1, stain no. 2, stain no. 3. This is a close-up view. The last column top picture shows this close-up view of this particular stain (Indicating).
So altogether, if one counts the three stains identified by LAPD as item no. 12 and the stains that you found, how many bloodstains were in this area altogether?
Were there any differences that you could detect between the--in terms of size with respect to these stains?
The three which are already swabbed, one I was able positively determine the size because the periphery cross still remain. Two other, as you can see depict in this photo, been swabbed around, swabbed around. The diameter of this swabbed-around area is approximately half inch. The original blood drop size is going to be much smaller than what been swabbed because when you drop a drop of stain, if you try to swipe it, you going to create bigger area. The three I examed, I was use a scale was able to determine two smaller one, is one 15, one of 15 in diameter. Other one is one of the 10 inches, one of 10 inches, 10th of an inch, 15th of an inch. So it is relative small bloodstain (Indicating).
They're all consistent with droplets. It's not a regular blood drop. It's a droplet, smaller drops.
Would the smaller stains--would any of these be consistent with what is known as a cast-off pattern?
And so if one had a superficial cut on the side of a finger and shook it in the fashion that I'm doing--
Could the pattern that you found here be consistent with a superficial cut on the side of the finger?
Dr. Lee, before I move on to the next series of boards, I'd like to ask you briefly some questions about the Bronco. Did you have an opportunity to personally examine and look at the Bronco?
I cannot do a reconstruction because I did not have a direct examination, observation of original condition.
Could you, from looking at those pictures, characterize what kind of bloodstain you saw?
All right. Were the pattern of bloodstains that you saw depicted in the photographs on the door and the console, were they smears?
To the extent you could tell from the photographs, what kinds of smears are they in terms of the saturation?
From the photographs, could you make a judgment as to whether these were heavily saturated smears or slight smears?
Is a plastic--could you describe--in terms of absorbencies, can you characterize categories of surfaces?
Well, you can put in two general category. Some are absorbent, some not absorbent. Of course, there are some in-between. A surface like plastic generally refer nonabsorbent surface. A surface with a tissue, cotton, those clothes is referred as an absorbent surface.
I ask you to assume that the console that you saw in that photograph is a plastic surface, nonabsorbent surface. Based on the photographs, can you make an estimate as to the volume of blood that it would take to create the smears, the light smears you saw on that surface?
I think it's vague because there are separate smears on--appear to be on the console.
All right. Now, from those photographs, what can you--can you tell precisely what the volume of blood is on those surfaces?
From those photographs, can you tell us precisely how much blood there was on that console?
Counsel, as soon you say--we're not getting past the photographs. What photographs?
Did you see additional photographs taken on August 26th that had numbers 303, 304, 305?
Counsel, these photographs are in evidence on boards. Why don't we just show them to Dr. Lee and say, "Are these the photographs you saw? Based upon what you saw there as to this area, can you tell us how much blood is there?" Otherwise, the jury has no idea what we're talking about.
Well, I'm trying to be expeditious, your Honor. I think we've all seen these photographs.
We will move on to something else, your Honor. I thought this was self-evident, but in my desire to be expeditious--
Your Honor, I would ask that this board be marked as Defendant's 1357 entitled, "Bloodstains on evidence bag."
Well, better yet, before we do that, your Honor, with the court's permission, I'd like to display 1167 and 1087. 11--1087 is photograph of the console with tags 30 and 31 and 1167 is the August 26th photographs of the stains on the console.
Dr. Lee, I show you first 1087. Is that the photograph we were referring to before with the evidence tags 30 and 31 taken on June 14?
I'd like to show you the next photograph, which is 1167. Is that the console picture from the August 26th search with the numbers 303, 304, 305 and 306 on it, the ones we were talking about before?
All right. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to these photographs, going back to the question I was asking you before, I'm asking you to assume--you did not actually inspect the physical--the console itself?
And the assumption that this is a nonabsorbent plastic surface that I'm asking you to make?
Based--given those limitations, based on what you see, can you tell precisely how much blood is on the console?
I cannot tell you exactly volume just by looking these two pictures. There are methods. If I have the console, I can determine the volume.
Can you give us from the pictures an estimate as to terms of small or large the kind of volume that would be required to make those kinds of smears that you observed in the photograph given the limitations that have been described?
Thank you. Now, turning to what is 1357, the board "Entitled bloodstain on evidence bag." Doctor, I would ask you to come off the witness stand and describe for us--could you first tell us what are these pictures and where were they taken?
This board consist of four pictures which was taken February 18, 1995, while I was in Albany medical center, exam some evidence sent to me by LAPD.
The picture on the upper left-hand corner of this board entitled "Bloodstains on outside of paper bag, item 78, boots," what does that show?
This is a view of a portion of the brown paper bag which have a labeling, numbering outside of the initial "CY," and some lettering. It describe to me this bag--
All right. Based on the numbers there and the property report records you had, what item did this bag correlate with?
This photograph at the opening of this paper bag near the lettering A-774, here I see a contact smear approximately four inches long. The ruler where indicates shows the length of this contact smear (Indicating).
The photograph--I'm sorry. Is there anything else that we should observe about the close-up of this what you have called--why do you call this "Wet blood transfers"?
All right. The board contains the phrase "Wet blood transfers" in relation to this picture. Could you please explain that?
When I exam this stain carefully, it's a contact smear made of blood. This blood has to be in wet stage to get transfer. Once it dry, you cannot transfer anymore. So that's why I refer a close-up view of a wet blood transfer.
And let me see if I understand this. You're saying that what has to be wet in order to cause this kind of transfer stain?
The object, the surface of items on either a glove or any object have some wet blood touch this brown paper bag cause this transfer with the motion.
And what is the photograph on the upper right-hand corner of this board entitled, "Bloodstains inside paper bag, item 78?" What does that represent?
The paper bag when I look at the inside, I see wet transfer inside of the bag. The mechanism of this transfer remains the same. Has to be a wet surface, wet object with some wet blood--I'm sorry--a surface object with some wet blood contact this brown paper bag cause such transfer.
And what is the picture, the lower right hand that says close-up wet blood transfers?
The close-up shows some of the blood has soaked through other side to the exterior surface.
All right. Now, is it a good procedure to put an object such as a boot that is still wet with blood inside a paper bag?
I cannot say what LAPD procedure. I did not review it. I've not come here to criticize anybody. My own procedure, if I collect, I don't put an object wet.
KEY QUOTEBecause a transfer, you change the pattern. If an object have two or three different type of blood grouping, because this transfer, now you may resolve some false reading.
KEY QUOTE--58, and this board is entitled, "History of item 47 blood drop on Bundy walkway."
Now, Dr. Lee, could you please describe for us this board starting with the picture on the upper left-hand side entitled, "Item 47 overall view." What is that photograph? What does it show?
Items 47, overall view, is a crime scene photograph taken by LAPD photographer subsequently provide to me by Defense team which depicts overall view of walkway with some number plate indicate certain locations.
This photograph also provide by the Defense team. It shows a close-up view of this 112, photo plate no. 112. That's a blood-like drop on the walkway, the Bundy walkway.
Now, on the bottom left-hand side of the board, there is a work sheet entitled, "Collection note, June 13th, 1994." Could you please describe for us what this is?
All right. Were you provided the collection notes made out by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola as well as serology notes made by Collin Yamauchi as part of the discovery process in this case?
It appear to be a documentation which shows the collection, the location of each stain, where they collected and item number, property item number and photograph.
Your Honor, with permission, I would like to take one of yellow marker to just highlight item 47 on this particular note.
Dr. Lee, does this indicate--well, this photograph of, referring now to item 47, close-up photo 112, this does not contain an id photo with scale and id?
Were the number of swatches used to collect the stain counted or recorded on this note?
Dr. Lee, in your opinion, would it be your practice, if you were to take swatches in this fashion, to count and record the number?
I only can testify our procedure. I'm not here to criticize anybody else procedure. It's a good practice to count the number.
And now call your attention to a serology note of June 19th, 1994 of Collin Yamauchi and call your attention to the item 47. Have you reviewed this, Dr. Lee?
All right. The record should reflect that counsel is highlighting that portion on that lower right-hand photograph.
Are you familiar with the drawings made by Mr. Yamauchi of the swatches he found in the bindle for item no. 47 on the morning of June 14th?
Your Honor, this has been the subject of previous testimony. I object under 352.
Your Honor, I'm going to object to any further questions on this document. It speaks for itself.
Counsel, we've seen it. You cross-examined Mr. Yamauchi extensively on it. What this witness happens to see there, the jurors have seen the document, the document is here in front of them.
This board would be 1359. It's entitled, "History of item 47, blood drop on Bundy walkway."
Dr. Lee, on the left-hand side of this board, there's a--something in--there's a report indicating work sheet by Mr. Yamauchi that's entitled "Serology note of July 21st, 1994." Do you recognize this as a summary sheet indicating a transfer of swatches?
"Daytime sample prepared 7-1994, size, description, prepared sample" and a diagram of five swatches and then the next box indicating date sent July 24th, 1994. Do you see that.
And there's another box here indicating "Sample remaining size and description" and that has two swatches, correct?
Overruled. Counsel is directing the witness' attention to a particular part of this document. I assume there's a question coming after this.
Dr. Lee, now, on the right-hand side of that diagram, there's a picture, indicates five swatches, July 27th, 1994, Cellmark. Did you take that picture?
Could you please explain the facts and circumstances that led you to take that picture?
On July 27th, 1994, I have a call order, receive that document by the Defense team to appear in Cellmark to observe the testing and to remove 10 percent of the sample from each item.
When you arrived at Cellmark, did you have an opportunity to see the samples unpacked?
This photograph depicts on July 27 when this sample, no. Item 47, with the letter H unpacked, inside contents, five swatches. Subsequently, we label together with the Cellmark scientist HA, HB, HC, HE and HD to indicate this H that's from 47 and five separate swatches, A, B, C, D, E.
All right. Did you subsequently receive a photograph that was taken on August 12th, 1994 at the Department of Justice of two swatches from item 47 and the bindle in which it arrived?
This photograph depicts a portion view of a manila envelope with item 47, however, with a letter B as in boy. Inside contents, two swatches.
Have the next board, please. This would be 1360. Your Honor, just for the record, I'm going to highlight the item 47 on the work sheet.
Now, Dr. Lee, do you have--you're familiar with the kinds of swatches used by the Los Angeles Police Department for creating the swatches in this case?
Do you have experience in how long it would take one of these swatches that had distilled water and blood on it in the fashion described by Miss Mazzola in terms of swatching blood? Do you have some experience in assessing the time it takes such a swatch to dry?
I have experience swatch, use similar kind of cotton swatch myself. My people or my student, we determine the time required for a swatch to dry. I don't know what Miss Mazzola--I did not observe her to swatch it. So I cannot say I have experience with her.
Now, in your opinion, how long would it take one of these swatches to dry if it were put into a test tube in a wet state and the test tube was open and the test tube--and the environment was a cabinet at room temperature?
Ask you to assume that a swatch, a wet blood swatch was put into a test tube and left there for 12 hours, 10 to 12 hours--I'll withdraw that question for the time being. Dr. Lee, I call your attention now to what has been marked as Defense 1360, a board entitled, "History of item 47, blood drop on Bundy walkway, blood swatches and bloodstain patterns of wet transfers." Dr. Lee, could you describe what the first photograph in the middle of this board is?
The first photograph depicts on the board upper row is Cellmark. At that time, we photograph the five swatches.
Second photograph is a close-up view of the DOJ photograph, shows the two swatches. In addition, there are some reddish color imprint on this so-called bindle, paper. Actually it's a piece of paper.
Incidentally, Dr. Lee, what procedures do you use to dry swatches with blood and how long in your experience does it generally take?
I'm going to get to that, your Honor, but I think--well, we'll discuss this later.
Now, Dr. Lee, in the course of reviewing discovery in this matter, did you have occasion to review notes made by Gary Sims at the Department of Justice with--with respect to his observations of item no. 47, the bindle and the swatches that he received on August 18th, 1994?
Overruled. The fact he observed something doesn't call for hearsay. Want an answer to that question, Mr. Scheck?
And are the notes that Mr. Sims made with respect to his observations the kinds of materials that an expert in your field ordinarily relies upon in forming scientific opinions?
Your Honor, for the record, I'll ask to mark these two pages 1360-A, document of two pages.
All right. Your Honor, with your permission, I'd like to read the note and ask Dr. Lee if the observations here are consistent with what he sees in the photograph.
Well, does--do these notes reflect observations by Mr. Sims that are consistent with what you see in this photograph?
All right. Is there a record here of the wet transfer that you just pointed out to the jury and a description of it?
On the second page of this document, does Mr. Sims indicate with respect to item 49--
I call your attention now to the photograph entitled, "New haven," on this board. Could you please describe what that is?
This is a photograph which I took at new haven on April 2nd, 1995 when finally the original bindle, so-called bindle--actually it's a paper packet--sent to me. I photograph that. Shows one swatch left.
I think a were the two pieces of paper for Mr. Sims, and I'd ask that this photograph be marked as B.
1360-B is a photograph which I took, shows the interior surface of this paper packet or bindle which, with my ruler, indicates the presence of some wet transfer imprints.
Your Honor, I'd ask that the witness be allowed to use the telestrator and focus on the two on the top.
Dr. Lee, using the telestrator, could you point out the stains of interest and please direct Mr. Harris on--
Dr. Lee, you've now focused in on two of these transfers. Could you please identify them and describe them?
The first one appears to be a parallelogram, a pattern of transfer. The second one is consistent with a square shape transfer.
Here is another parallelogram transfer imprint. Here appears to be a double triangle transfer imprint (Indicating).
Now, Dr. Lee--now, Dr. Lee, I take it that the picture in 1360 that you made of swatches at Cellmark from the picture that you took in new haven as is reflected by 1360-A, the one that we had up on the elmo, both have rulers?
All right. And by means of that as a scale, were you able to do enlargements of--and I should--withdraw--and also the picture from the Department of Justice I see has a ruler.
And by means of using those rulers as scales, were you able to do enlargements of the swatches depicted in this board and also the bindle that you saw in new haven?
Wait. Excuse me, counsel. Mr. Scheck, why don't you confer with your witness for a moment.
Dr. Lee, you just indicated that you made an error in your discussion. Could you please describe what that is?
Just now, I appear say April 6th, 1995. If my memory serve me correctly, that's incorrect. Should be March 9, 1995 in new haven.
This shows the date which when the bindle shipped to me by Johnnie Cochran's office. I open up the bindle, paper packet. Inside have a small paper packet, contents, one swatch. Wet transfer was noticed. So I took a series of photograph to show this wet transfer.
1360-C is a close-up of blood patterns of wet transfer that is reflected on this exhibit in the upper right-hand corner and is so labeled?
Your Honor, on this board, I'm going to object subject to a motion to strike for accurately blowing up the photograph.
This is a further enlargement of the photograph just depicts in the previous exhibit, the top one of the second column.
All right. And, Dr. Lee, I'm going to mark a series of--have seven brown photographs, each separate, and ask you to tell us what these are, and first just generally, and then we'll mark them individually. What are these in general?
This in general stains, seven pieces of enlargement of blood swatches, one set label HA through E, five of them, HA, HB, HC, HD, HE.
Are those blow-ups of pictures that we saw in the tray that had the same markings, the one picture you took at Cellmark?
The other two is the enlargement, same scale, same proportion, the two swatches from DOJ, Department of Justice photo.
Your Honor, the--on the back of the magnified swatches are labels HA, HB, HC, HD and he that correspond with the Cellmark swatches. So I'd ask that those be labeled--
And the record should reflect I'm--I'm just going to lay them out for a second, your Honor, if I might on the jury box so that the jury can see the labels on the back.
Dr. Lee, could you describe the process by which the swatches and this board were enlarged?
You all have a ruler. The red ruler is my ruler. That take so-called 16-inch ruler. So basically you can look at this. This is a metric system, and one millimeter is equivalent now to 18 millimeter. That's the ruler enlargement. So the rest of a pattern is enlarged with that.
Your Honor, for the record, Dr. Lee produced one of his rulers. Could we mark that as an exhibit?
And also for the record--I don't know if this was reflected--he was using this ruler to measure the enlargement.
Now, Dr. Lee, what can you tell us about the nature of these wet transfer patterns that are depicted on 1362?
Those--the mechanism of this transfer is relative straightforward and simple. A wet swatch have to contact this surface cause such a transfer. It's no alternative. That's scientific fact. We see some transfer. That's called mechanism. As far as manners, they may have different explanation.
All right. Dr. Lee, have you made an effort using these swatches and looking at the transfer patterns to see if you can match up the swatches to the patterns? And could you please explain your analysis.
We have seven swatches, appear to be four patterns. However, we do see some of the pattern appear to either have a movement or some addition. But we don't have all seven.
KEY QUOTEI don't have seven perfect pattern, transfer pattern. I have seven swatches. One of those pattern appear to be a mirror image of each other. That's consistent with a parallelogram which almost fit of one of these swatches.
One second, please. The record will reflect that Dr. Lee has pointed to the pattern on the upper left-hand side of 1362, a pattern on the upper right-hand side of 1362 and he is handling a swatch that is labeled "He."
You can fit here. If this portion of the paper touch this one, because this side going to fit on this side. So that's why we refer a copy or mirror image. The next one I can see copy fit is this one, only portion fit this corner, but the other side may be some reason did not have a direct contact so that this one is a copy (Indicating).
Let the record reflect that Dr. Lee has been referring here to the swatch labeled "HD" and is referring to the transfer pattern on the left side of 1362, but is lower than the other one we previously referred to.
Why don't we mark these 1 through 4 going left to right. That will be easier if we do that for the record.
Why don't you take a marker and just have Dr. Lee number them 1 through 4 starting at the left.
All right. Dr. Lee, you were about to, before I interrupted you, move on to the next swatch and pattern.
As I explain earlier, 1 and 4 could be a mirror image. 2 may be explainable. 3, if you look carefully, may be--the view is not too good, but you look carefully, appear to be a double image with a triangle shape. So the only triangle I have is this HB. However, this triangle is much bigger than this triangle unless this triangle folded in certain condition, which I have no knowledge of it. The rest of 4, I can't find anyplace to fit by looking at pattern, looking at the shape and the number unless have other type of explanation (Indicating).
All right. Mr. Scheck, I'm sorry. Forgive me for interrupting you at this time. We have a request for a comfort break. So we'll stay in place, and any jurors who need to take a quick comfort break, go ahead right now.
Now, Dr. Lee, have you had experience over the years dealing with swatches of this nature?
Do you have an opinion as to whether or not swatches of this size, moistened with blood and distilled water, would be dry if left in a test tube for more than five hours?
All right. Dr. Lee, what is your experience with drying of swatches of this nature?
Specifically, what experience, personal experience do you have in observing and noting the drying of swatches of this nature? Could you describe that experience for us?
A drop of stain, bloodstain found on a surface, if the stain already dry, if you try to transfer it to a swatch, you have to wet the swatch.
State another question. The issue is this witness' personal experience with blood swatching using swatches of this technique, this particular size and type, handling, packaging, et cetera.
Dr. Lee, do you have experience with the use of wetting swatches of this nature, swatching bloodstains and then observing how long it takes them to dry?
All right. And when you have done that and observed others do that, how long does it take swatches of this nature to dry?
Mr. Scheck, what I'm interested in, personal experience swatching, personal experience in the drying process, personal experience then having dried them, then packaging them, personal experience, number of years, et cetera, et cetera.
I'll overrule myself. Mr. Scheck, proceed. But that's my area of interest at this point.
Dr. Lee, have you had experience using swatches of this kind to collect bloodstains?
Over the year, I collect numerous stain, especially early days, we don't--we have to do electrophoresis of blood grouping. We generally use a swatch method. Nowaday, we don't use that anymore.
All right. And in those days when you used the swatch method, what would you do and what is your experience in collecting the swatch, drying it and putting it in paper material?
All right. Have you had experience in putting swatches that were not dry on top of paper surfaces such as this?
He's in the process of laying the foundation, counsel. He's not giving an opinion yet.
In your experience, what happens when a wet swatch is laid on a piece of paper such as this?
All right. Do you have experience with how long it takes a swatch such as the kind used here and such as the kind you've used before to dry?
No foundation to explain his experience? Overruled. Dr. Lee, what's your experience handling swatches, drying them, packaging them?
Okay. I have a lot of experience handling, drying and packaging. If a wet swatch did not dry, if you put the paper packet, going to have a transfer. Swatch will take a while to dry.
I dried in the open air. I also dried in the test tube or dry in a open blood bench with a cover or cabinet.
Doctor, after you put a swatch in a test tube to dry, I take it you leave it for a period of time?
In your experience, how long in your procedure do you leave those swatches in test tubes to dry?
All right. Now, Dr. Lee, given your experience with how long it takes swatches to dry, let me ask you to assume that the swatches in question here were put into test tube at around 6:30 on the evening of June 13th and then removed and placed in a bindle, at the earliest, 7:30 A.M. the next morning.
Given that, Dr. Lee, how can you explain the wet transfer patterns you have identified on the bindle from item 47?
The mechanism of creation of those bloodstain has to have a wet swatch touch the surface of the paper and with certain pressure cause such a transfer.
All right. Based on this bloodstain pattern, what is your opinion with respect to the method of transfer--manner of transfer?
As a manner, something, somebody has to put the swatch in the bindle, cause such a transfer. Who did it, what happened, I don't know.
All right. On the face of it, are the existence of these wet transfer patterns, based on your experience, inconsistent with the swatches having been put in the test tube 6:30 P.M. on June 13th and then removed at 7:30 A.M. on June 14th?
Would you--let's put it--start it this way. You told us that one would expect that these swatches, having been put in a test tube at 6:30 P.M. on June 13th and removed at 7:30 A.M. on June 14th, to be dry.
Given that opinion, what is your opinion about the existence of these transfer stains?
One second. I want to talk to my counsel. But I think that's the end of the examination.
All right. Folks, there's a request by the lawyers for about a five- or 10-minute break. Let's take that break, and we'll come back and see if we can do some more business today. All right. Let's take 10. All right. Dr. Lee, you can step down.
All my test result were negative.
I cannot say what LAPD procedure. I did not review it. I've not come here to criticize anybody. My own procedure, if I collect, I don't put an object wet.
Because a transfer, you change the pattern. If an object have two or three different type of blood grouping, because this transfer, now you may resolve some false reading.
We have seven swatches, appear to be four patterns. However, we do see some of the pattern appear to either have a movement or some addition. But we don't have all seven.
Yes. Could be made much less than 1 cc.