The Defense calls Herbert MacDonell.
Herbert MacDonell, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:
Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
My first name is Herbert. The last name is MacDonell, capital m-a-c, capital d-o-n-e-l-l.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD
Sir, I guess you already gave your name. Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury where you live, sir.
I'm director of the laboratory of forensic science which is an independent laboratory available to both Prosecution and Defense in criminal and civil cases, and I have been involved in cases other than civil and criminal, mainly private.
Yes. I am president of what is called MacDonell associates, incorporated, a company that manufactures fingerprint equipment that I invented some years ago.
Yes. I have a master of science from the University of Rhode Island, a major in analytical chemistry and a minor in physics, and a bachelor of arts degree from Alfred University in upstate New York with a major in chemistry and a minor in mathematics.
Yes. I have taken many courses under the state municipal police training council, such as Pennsylvania and New York, and also I took a ten-month program under the Department of Attorney General of the state of Rhode Island dealing with what was then called criminalistics, and the course involved mainly physical evidence.
Yes. I was professor of chemistry and headed the department in a small midwest college in Milton, Wisconsin, for three years, and other than graduate work, I began teaching at corning community college, a two-year course under the state university of New York from 1960 to 1992, with a five-year sabbatical in there off and on. I also taught at a four-year school in upstate New York, Elmira College, and that was from 1972 to 1983. At that institution I taught many forensic courses, ten specifically.
So in all you said you started teaching in 1951 when you were the chairman of the department at Milton college?
I'm teaching but not with any college or universities. I run institutes, specialized schools that are usually one-week in duration, and conduct many workshops and seminars of 1, 2, 3-day duration, but I am not currently affiliated with any particular college.
All right. We will come back to that other institute later, sir, but you mention that you began in 1951 as a professor and head of department at Milton college. And you finished--your last professorship was in what year, sir?
All right. Even though you are not technically teaching right now, having taught for forty years as a professor, do the people still address you as Professor.
Given the duration of time that you actually were a professor, since 1951, as a result of that do people refer to you as Professor?
Yes, quite frequently they do. I'm referred to as doctor many times. I do not have a doctor's degree, but I received this title quite often and it is embarrassing to either correct the person or ignore it. It is a difficult choice sometimes.
All right. Professor MacDonell, what experience have you had in the field of scientific crime investigation?
Well, when I went to the University of Rhode Island in 1954 I worked for two years in the state crime laboratory in Kingston. It was located at the University of Rhode Island. I worked with Dr. Harrison who was director of the crime lab and my master's thesis was on the forensic applications of bloodstain pattern and typing and so on. Dr. Harrison conducted the courses in criminalistics, and in the process of taking the courses, we very often worked on cases together, around the area of the state of Rhode Island. In 1957 I began consulting on a more frequent basis and have done so ever since.
I don't want you to list them all, sir, but are there any societies in particular which you feel are relevant to the testimony you are about to give in this case?
Well, I'm a fellow in the American academy of forensic science. I have been for over 31 years; a member, several years before that. I am a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts.
Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what that second association is.
That is an association that was founded to encourage people who have studied the subject of interpreting bloodstain patterns, not serology, but the geometry of bloodstains. It was founded in 1983, at the request of many of my former students, to have additional training, so we conducted an advanced school, and during the first advanced school in November, 1983, this association was founded. It now has anywhere from 250 to 400 members. I'm not sure of the total, because some drop in and some drop out, and the ones that don't pay their dues aren't on the roster, so it is at least 250.
And do you have a special title in regards to the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts?
Yes. I am the historian. I have been since the substitute--the organization was founded. I also classified as a distinguished member of that association.
It is recognized by your peers as having made substantial contributions to the subject or discipline of interpreting bloodstain patterns.
Are there any other people in this 200 to 400 member International Association of Bloodstain Analysts who have the title of distinguished member?
I think my curriculum vitae says 95. I think it is well over a hundred by now.
Have you authored any chapters in books or books themselves on the subject forensic science?
Yes. I issued initially a report for the Department of Justice that was I would call a pamphlet, or being very kind, a booklet. It was only 77 pages, but it included the results of two years of research for the law enforcement assistance administration under the Department of Justice. And since then I have revised that, 1983, and most recently 1993 I completely rewrote the text and it is now approximately 200 pages, I think, perhaps a little more.
And has that textbook on bloodstain interpretation been translated into foreign languages?
Yes. I know it has been translated into Swedish, German and Spanish. I'm not sure about French.
Do you know whether or not that textbook that you wrote on bloodstain interpretation is used by law enforcement agencies throughout the world?
Now, in addition to your writing and your publication of books on the subject of bloodstain interpretation Professor MacDonell, have you ever lectured on the subject of forensic science before any recognized professional organizations?
Oh, yes, many times in Australia, New Zealand, Europe in general, London, England, Scotland Yard, the United States, many, many states in the United States.
Yes. I am certified as a senior crime scene analyst by the International Association for Identification.
It is the largest organization comprised of fingerprint identification technicians, photographers who go to crime scenes, people who would be involved in accident reconstruction or crime scene reconstruction, firearms identification experts, people that do questioned documents examination. It all has to do with identification in general, but it is more specifically fingerprinting in particular. It is a very large organization. It has membership all over the world.
Sir, have you ever received any awards in your particular field of forensic science?
Now, I'm asking you this one. Is there any particular award in the area of forensic science that you are particularly proud of?
Well, I'm always grateful and proud for all of them, but to say the most important--specifically in forensics?
I would say the John Dondero award which is given by the International Association for Identification which I received in 1974 in Washington, would be the one that I think is the one I hold most dear.
John Edgar Hoover, director then at the time, 1957, he was given the first one, and he was director of the FBI at the time.
Now, you've heard the names since you have become involved in this case of some of the experts who have become involved as well for both sides?
Are you aware of any other expert who was involved in this case who has also won the Dondero award?
The only one that I know is involved is Dr. Henry Lee. If someone else has received it, I apologize to them, because I did not check the list for that particular question.
Now, in particular as a criminalist, sir, what experience have you had with human blood as evidence?
I began actually working with human blood during my master's thesis at the University of Rhode Island where I effectively did what is now called immunoelectrophoresis, and in that process we created many bloodstains so we could analyze them, so--but in the process of creating them we were aware of the geometry that results from different events, different angular impacts and so on, so I began then. But as far as studying the geometry specifically, that began in 1966 when I had a case that I knew the patterns told me something, but I just did not know what, so I began doing research the same way Dr. Piotrosky did in Poland for this same reason. That was in 1895. He did the same thing. He had a case he didn't understand, at least that is in his text, and so he did a lot of research, too. It was not original with me. Many people have done this long before I did. I just was not aware of it. So I began actively working in 1966 and continued on and I was asked in a meeting in Toronto, 1969, to apply for a grant from the government to pursue this specific subject of interpreting the geometry of bloodstains, the cause/effect relationship. And after I did that and it was published and distributed worldwide by the superintendent of documents, I had a lot more research to do. People continually brought cases to us.
Now, Professor MacDonell, you mentioned before something about an institute. Are you currently teaching and have you been teaching for some period of time the discipline known as human bloodstain interpretation?
Yes. As a direct result of the 1971 publication, it was called "Flight characteristics and stain patterns of human blood," I was asked first by the law enforcement assistance administration in Mississippi to come down and teach what I had written and I did. In March, 1973, I conducted what we call the first bloodstain institute. It was an institute on the physical significance of bloodstain pattern. It has a longer title. We refer to it as the bloodstain institute.
And directly following that, in the spring of the next year or later in the same year and then the spring of the next year, there was a demand from students who wished to study with me on this subject, and to date I have conducted 43 of these, with another one scheduled in September. The last one was in Sweden at the national police college in Sweden in May--in June. The one in May was in corning and the one in January was at the University of New Haven. We have run these in I think 13 states, the District of Colombia and in Australia and in Sweden and currently negotiating to run them in Denmark and Norway.
Generally who are your students at these various institutes that you run in this country?
These would be mainly law enforcement personnel. They might be in a crime lab. A serologist, evidence technician that would go to the crime scene. We have had many forensic pathologists attend. We have had lawyers. We even had a veterinarian, so there is no restriction on who can apply, but they are welcome to come and learn. What they do with that knowledge of course is something else. I don't know what they will do.
Sir, in your capacity as a consulting criminalist have you ever had occasion to present expert testimony on the subject of human bloodstain evidence interpretation?
Approximately, do you have any idea how many times or at least in how many states?
On that particular subject, I would say conservatively 150 times in 32 states and two foreign countries--three foreign countries, excuse me.
Initially I was retained by the Prosecution more than the Defense and as I train more and more Prosecution--I won't say Prosecution--I have trained more and more laboratory personnel who would be called by the Prosecution, it has become less and less difficult for the Prosecution to find their own expert and not call me, so currently I am called less by the Prosecution and more by the Defense, but that is just the number of times I may be asked to investigate a case. It is not the number of times I testify, by any stretch of the imagination.
By the way, professor, you mentioned that in your very early work back in 1954, `55, you did something involving electrophoresis. Would that fall into the category of serology?
Yes, it would be serology, but that is the last contact I have had with serology except for doing routine blood grouping tests on wet blood, not even on bloodstains, so I am not a serologist.
Okay. Could you explain briefly to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the difference between serology and bloodstain evidence interpretation?
Serology is basically chemical reaction, serological reaction, immunological reactions, how one blood reacts with another or how blood clots or how it behaves in general. Bloodstain pattern interpretation is concerned only with the static aftermath when blood is divided up into smaller and smaller spots or droplets that produce small spots. We are interested in the cause and effect relationship and knowing the size, the shape, the distribution of bloodstains of any size, we can generally determine the kind of activity that could have produced it. We can't say a specific activity did this, but we can more often than not say this could not have done it, but here is one, two, three, four things that could have done it. We study, as I said, size, shape and distribution. Size will give you an idea of the energy available. Large drops, passive drops, falling, there is no active energy other than gravity. If you have an impact from a beating or a stabbing, the viscosity and the surface tension of blood come into play. Surface tension is what holds blood together like it does water or any other liquid. If you have energy to break the surface tension, it will subdivide into smaller and smaller particles. If you have a lot of energy, like a gunshot impact, then you have sufficient energy to literally atomize mist or create a fog, a fine spray. It is very characteristic of high energy. Most often gunshot, but not limited to gunshot, hand grenades, bombs, other such things. Airplane propellers will do the same thing. We have seen all of those. So the size gives us the energy, the shape gives you the directionality which you can trace back usually to an origin. Knowing the ellipticity or the distortion of the circular spot, we can project the angle of impact back and estimate the origin, say, above the floor or from a wall, based upon the shape. The distribution, its fanning out or dispersion, comes back to a common point of origin in two dimensions which we then can convert to three dimensions, but it also involves the dispersion and concentration. More concentrated the spots are, the closer you are to the origin, and then there are infinite numbers of transfer patterns from fingerprints, palm prints, to tool marks, and your imagination can be equivalent of putting something on an ink pad and transferring it to another surface. It doesn't matter whether it is appendage of a human being or a knife blade or a ballpoint pen or a ball hammer.
Professor MacDonell, let me see if I can simplify it a little bit. There has been testimony in this case by a number of witnesses about conventional genetic markers and DNA genetic markers. Is that something that is in the field of serology?
Okay. On the other hand, your work involves sort of actually analyzing bloodstain form shapes, how they got there, that kind of thing, once they actually leave the body; is that right?
That's correct. When the blood is out of the body, it is physics. When it is in the body, it is medicine.
KEY QUOTEOkay. Sir, you mentioned generally how many times you have testified as an expert. Have you also testified a number of times as an expert in this state, in California?
Yes, I have. I testified 21 times; one was a hearing and--I think maybe two were hearings. They weren't--they were in court--one was in court and one was not, but for the most part they have been in a court of law.
Of those 21 time do you know how many of them were you an expert for the Prosecution and how many of those you were an expert for the Defense?
I think nine were from the Prosecution and that number varies, because to be fair, sometimes I testified more than once in the same case, not the next day, but maybe a week or a month or a year later, so if you take the three times I testified, for example, in a case, if I call that a case, then the percentages vary a little bit, so it is anywhere from 40 to 47 percent for the Prosecution and the difference for the Defense.
Okay. That is what I meant. And since last August how much have you been paid for your expertise, sir?
Well, it is not current. I've made two trips since then and done a few experiments, so it is really not up-to-date, but that is what I had been paid if that was your question.
Okay. Now, sir, in connection with your work in this case, did you, on April 2nd of 1995, conduct an examination of the socks which are commonly referred to as item 13, socks recovered from the bedroom of Mr. Simpson?
Well, I would have to consult my notes to be sure of the names, but it was here in the Los Angeles area. It was at the technical associates, incorporated, forensic laboratory in Altadena, California, and present were Dr. Henry Lee, Peter Neufeld, Mark Taylor and Greg Matheson.
And at that point the person who actually brought the evidence to the laboratory, would that be Mr. Matheson from the Los Angeles Police Department?
I'm not sure whether he did or Dr. Lee did, because I think was done in more than one bag. He may have opened the first one and Dr. Lee or Mark Scott Taylor may have opened the second one.
When you examined the socks on that occasion, April 2nd, did you specifically examine sock 13-a, also known as sock 42-a by Mr. Sims at the Department of Justice?
And when you examined that sock did you specifically examine an ankle stain which had already been DNA typed consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?
Yes. There was a rather irregular area cut out that was basically rectangular with another rectangular appendage sort of on one side of the long dimension.
And were you able to see the remaining portion of that ankle stain with the naked eye?
During the April 2nd examination with you and Dr. Henry Lee, did you use microscopes to assist you?
Yes, we used microscopes. I used my hand magnifier and high-intensity illumination, but we used microscopes, compound microscopes, stereo binocular microscopes to be specific.
Yes. We alternated. If I found something that I thought Dr. Lee should see, I directed him to see what I had just been observing, and vice versa.
Now, sir, have you had an opportunity to review portions of the Department of Justice serologist Gary Sims' testimony in this case?
Yes, I have read it. I have read quite a few. I had to stop and think just a moment which one that was, yes.
Are you aware, sir, that Gary Sims testified that bloodstains on this sock may be spatter stains?
Objection, your Honor. I think that misstates--I think that misstates the testimony. I would like to see the transcript reference.
May we also see what Mr. MacDonell is referring to? I--I don't know if it refreshes memory.
Were you aware that Mr. Sims said that what he saw were spatter stains or something along those lines?
All right. In your opinion, Professor MacDonell, is the ankle stain that you saw a spatter stain?
Objection. That misstates the witness' testimony. He never indicated he saw a stain, just a cut-out.
Not based upon the examination that I made of the socks at that time. I did not find any distribution of blood that I could consider a spatter. I have seen other more convincing evidence of it.
Okay. Now, with respect to the ankle stain, I want you to focus on that, in your opinion was the ankle stain a spatter stain?
Objection, your Honor. That calls for speculation. This witness only saw a hole. There was no stain there; it was cut out.
Professor MacDonell, first of all, was there stain surrounding the perimeter of the hole that was cut out?
Yes. The cut-out was taken out of the middle of the stain. That is the way you usually do it.
KEY QUOTEAre you aware that Mr. Sims has already testified that there was a bloodstain on the perimeter of that cut-out area?
"Spatter" is simply the result of impact to usually a liquid. In this instance we are discussing blood, and it creates a spray of small drops, not like gunshot, but it creates a spray and that spray then is projected, and if it strikes a target, in the case of the target, I mean a surface that it hits, like it might hit the table or a table top or a wall, when it strikes that, when you see a sufficient number of small spots, you can determine that it is the result of an energy source consistent with a spattering, such as just clapping your hands if you had a liquid in your hands.
Now, you said that in your opinion the stain on the ankle was not a spatter--spatter pattern or spatter?
That was a transfer pattern resulting from, I'm quite sure but not positive, a compression transfer. A lateral or swiping action is the other possibility, but on the dark socks I could not see any evidence of a feathering out on either side, so I conclude it has to be a compression transfer with no lateral movement sideways, or if any, extremely slight.
Now, when you say a compression movement, would that be consistent with a smear as opposed to a spatter?
Yes. A smear generally I think is interpreted as having some kind of a lateral motion, otherwise it is just a drop or a pool, but it is not as consistent with a smear as it is just having blood on your hand or some object and touching it and pulling it away. For example, a fingerprint made with blood that is identifiable is not a swipe action or a smear or it would not be identifiable. It is a direct compression and release.
Okay. You mentioned earlier that you and Dr. Lee took some photographs through the microscope that day; is that correct?
It is a photograph--not--it is a photograph without the aid of a microscope of sock 13-a.
I show you this photograph, Professor MacDonell, and ask you if you recognize it?
Is that picture a fair and accurate depiction of the way the sock with the cut-out at the ankle and the ankle stain appeared to you when you observed it with Dr. Lee on April 2nd of 1995?
Now, you mentioned a moment ago, Professor MacDonell, that when you looked at the stain around the outside of the cut-out area that you could tell that it was not the result of a spatter or a splash on that sock; is that correct?
And what was it about what you saw on that stain that led you to that conclusion?
It is really very simple. The stains that are produced by projection of any liquid will go between the fibers. If you had on, say, very heavy corduroy jeans or something and you were to drop a drop of paint, it would go right between the fibers and you would have a round uniform stain. If you had paint on your fingers and wiped across it or just touched it lightly, you would stain only the top part of the weave so you would see dark ribs between the white paint, and that is the analogy that allows you to see whether blood is on the surface of a fiber or it is actually saturated and down through it. If you have enough, as in this case, enough blood to stain deeply enough, you will have it going through even though it is a transfer, except on the periphery where it will show that there wasn't as much blood and it is more easily identified on the top of the fibers, so there again, we are looking at a two-dimensional representation of what we saw in a three-dimensional format with a stereo binocular microscope. Further, we could manipulate by rotating, tipping and so on, the material we were examining and in that way we can see many things that cannot be reduced to a single depth of field where you are looking at the surface of an object. We had great advantage doing it actually with the physical evidence, above and beyond a simple photograph.
By the way, Professor MacDonell, could you estimate about what percentage of that stain at the ankle is cut out in the picture and how much remains?
I'm just estimating the overall area from the extent of the stain as I see it and then the cut-out area. I would estimate that the cut-out is perhaps 40 percent. I don't think it is half the amount is there and I say that because it is usually more difficult to estimate the peripheral concentration than it is the center, so I say about 40 to 50 percent maximum.
Okay. And you said a moment ago that the way you can distinguish between a splash of blood that dropped onto a sock, as opposed to blood that is actually placed onto the sock by some other object, is the way it actually appears on the fibers themselves; is that right?
Yes. I have some samples even in my book or I brought photographs of that if you think the description is not adequate.
Here is what I would like, sir. First of all, tell me--you said that you also took photographs with Dr. Lee that day with the aid of the microscope; is that correct?
And I show you this picture, sir. Now, sir, is that photograph--do you recognize that photograph?
Okay. Is that photograph a fair and accurate representation of the way the stain appears when you look at it under the microscope on the outer surface just outside the area that has been cut out?
Now, Professor MacDonell, could you please explain what it is about this photograph that is taken of the outer surface of that sock and the perimeter just around the cut-out area that indicates to you this is a contact stain made by some object coming into contact with the sock as opposed to blood splashing onto the sock?
Yes. I think it is very clear that the staining, the dark or red portion which is blood or purported to be blood, I did not do any presumptive tests on it even, the red area is just on the surface of the fibers and very non-uniform. There are many white voids. Now, I must explain the white voids are the reflection of the black threads. It is very high illumination and intensity is high and therefore even though it is a black fiber, it reflects light and glistens, the same way a black cat would glisten in the sun, so that is not a distortion other than by color. The red, however, absorbs the illumination and reflects more or less its accurate color and you can see the many voids in it, particularly as the screen as I see it, on the right about halfway up, there is a nice clear void that shows and it is surrounded by red and they are all over, so that is what a transfer looks like. It is classic.
Could you on the one that you have, sir, in front of you--you have markers, your Honor, I believe?
All right. Could you, using a--for contrast--could you please make a blue circle around what you regard as that upper surface of the fiber where the blood makes contact?
And sir, could you now using the black marker, could you please circle for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury a portion of the sock which shows the area that doesn't get--I'm sorry, that is not in contact with the blood?
Professor MacDonell, just so I understand it a little more clearly, for myself at least, what you are saying is that the--that what makes this this kind of--this kind of stain, as opposed to a splash or spatter, is that the blood is only hitting the upper portions of the fibers; is that correct?
That's correct. The red areas are where blood is on the top of the fibers. The white area, if it had been projected, would be also stained, so it is just on the surface.
Your Honor, with the Court's permission, because I do believe that there is a little bit more detail, may I pass these two around to the jury? They are identical. It will save some time.
They are identical except one has been marked and one has not, so they are no longer identical.
All right. The record should reflect that 1277 has been viewed by each member of the jury panel.
By the way, Professor MacDonell, if two stains occupy the same, let say, dimension--do you know the approximate dimensions, by the way, of this stain that you saw on the ankle?
Yes. The overall stain before it was--well, even after it is cut out, my best estimate is about one by one and a half inches. One and a half inches running in this picture horizontally and the one invertically (Sic) as you look at the picture, as I am looking at it with the arrow facing up.
Now, assume for the moment that you have two stains that are the same dimensions, each an inch by an inch and a half. One is the result of blood splashing in that area, the other is the result of this kind of contact with another object that you just described as occurring here. Which stain would actually have more blood in it, if they occupy the same surface area?
Oh, the one that was added by, I would say, dripping. It is difficult to say how you project a stain that size or a blood volume that large. Dripping blood would take considerably more.
Okay. And so--by the way, did you need the--I'm sorry. Now, sir, are you familiar with Gary Sims' testimony that when he examined--well, let's go back one second.
First of all, could you--can you point out--maybe it would be useful to use the pointer. What is the inner surface of the opposite side of this sock?
I'm just saying, I mean, do you want the professor to do that with the superimposed arrow?
Would that be characterized, that area, as the inner surface now of the opposite side of the sock?
Okay. Now, are you familiar, sir, with Gary Sims' testimony that when he examined the inner surface of the opposite side of this ankle stain he said, "There was no indication seen of soaking through to the other side," unquote? That is at page 27767 in the transcript. Were you aware that Mr. Sims said that?
And sir, are you familiar with Mr. Sims' testimony that the few reddish brown specks he observed on this inner surface of the opposite side were merely powdered blood that he believed had flaked off the initial stain after it was already dried? Are you aware of that, sir?
Well, I can't disagree with what he has said about what he saw, but I saw things in addition to what he has said. He said he saw powdered blood, powdered red material. He may have. I didn't see very much of that, but I did see some red spots that could be characterized as powdered blood, but to me a powder is ground up. It is like fine sugar, powdered sugar, confectioner's sugar as opposed to flakes, and I saw more of what you might call Cornflakes compared to sugar or something like that.
When you looked through the microscope at the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock, did you see any evidence that the blood had actually soaked through to the other side of the sock?
Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what evidence you saw that led you to that conclusion.
Could you, without making a conclusion as to what the balls were, could you please describe them for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
I saw some small red balls that appeared to be a dried liquid that was on some of the fibers on the inside of the opposite side and some of these were photographed, one in particular. But again, it is impossible to see from a single photograph the different depths of focus or depths of field, rather, so we had one that was particularly good, Dr. Lee called my attention to it, and we photographed it. There were several.
Without reaching the conclusion of what they actually were, did these little red balls have the appearance of blood?
And what about them gave the appearance of being blood on the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock?
They appeared to be the right color and give what I would call the right sheen or reflection. Blood has various characteristics and one of them is its appearance under illumination and whether transmitted or reflected.
Now, Professor MacDonell, you said that you examined this inner surface of the opposite side of the sock under the microscope; is that correct?
Professor MacDonell, I show you what has been marked as Defendant's 1278. Do you recognize that photograph?
Is that blow-up a fair and accurate representation of what you observed under the microscope on April 2nd, 1995, when you looked at the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock?
Now, would it help to explain what you saw on the inner surface of the sock by showing that to the jury?
Okay. Your Honor, with the Court's permission, may Professor MacDonell stand up, because the photograph is only of a limited size and if he holds it up from where he is not everyone would be able to see it. I would ask that he be able to approach the jury.
What we are going to do is he is going to have to show it to various portions of the jury panel at different times because of the length of the jury box. Explain it once and then you can re-point to the same location for the other jurors but start there where you are, professor.
These are many fibers constituting what you call a thread, and I think perhaps the best one that we photographed that shows a dried, red fluid, is round and it is adhering to a fiber which, in my opinion, is part of the thread. It is woven in. It is not dropped there. And these are--these are high magnification. I don't know the exact magnification, but the smaller print was seventy. I think this is perhaps well over a hundred magnification. And that just shows a red area that is, in my opinion, and conclusion, a fluid that is dried on this fiber which again appears to be part of the thread. There are other red spots in this picture, but they are not in focus because it is a very narrow depth of focus--depth of field, to be completely accurate, with an objective lens of probably seven or ten diameters. I don't know which one was the objective lens, but whichever one was the objective, the other one, the ocular was the converse, so one was seven and one was ten on the microscope. That gives us 70 magnification as we took it and that gives you the view on the microscope.
All right. Mr. MacDonell, would you point to that red smear and show the members of the jury to your right. To the right.
Your Honor, with the Court's permission I would ask that he actually make a green circle around that red sphere.
I just want to make sure he points to it before it is marked, so that all the jurors can see it before it is marked, and then we will allow him to do that.
All right. The record should reflect that Professor MacDonell has placed a blue circle around what appears to be a red spherical object--
Now, I'm calling your attention again to the elmo, the overhead, Professor MacDonell. Do you see what is the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock?
Okay. Can you--maybe you should use the arrows--can you describe, while you are holding up the large photo in front of you, what is actually being depicted in that photograph in terms of the weave of the fibers?
Well, right at the moment the arrow on this screen--the arrow on this screen is right on one of the fibers which would be a thread that is vertical in this picture, and that would correspond to these very light areas on the large photograph--
I'm sorry, could you hold it up vertically and point to what you are describing to the jury?
Well, the large white threads that are comprised of many fibers interwoven is shown where the arrow is right at the moment. It is almost to a dark line on the left which would be between the threads, just the same thing. The inner surface is shown there but at a much higher magnification.
And sir, would these red balls that you observed when you looked through the microscope, would that be readily observed with the naked eye?
Okay. And sir, you said that you simply took this photograph to illustrate for the jury one of those red balls that looks like blood?
My question is when you looked through the microscope did you see many more of those red-like balls?
I saw perhaps six or seven that I would say appeared like this that were round. There were other red, I would call them flakes or if you like powder, that were not, in my opinion, bonded to the fibers, but the ones that were bonded would indicate to me that whatever it was that had bonded was wet at the time it dried.
And when you say, sir, that you saw six or seven of those rounded red liquid balls that had the appearance of blood that were bonded to the material, was that from a search of the entire inner area of that cut or was it from a very small area within that inner surface of the opposite side?
First, it wasn't liquid. It had been liquid, but it is impossible to tell where this photograph was taken, other than it was within the cut-out area. I saw several of them, and obviously this is the best one that Dr. Lee and I saw together and it is the one that he photographed. He took some other photographs, but this I think depicts most clearly what we saw.
Now, sir, you said a moment ago that--well, withdrawn. Seeing these bonded drops, as opposed to those flakes that you were describing, what does that tell you about the condition of those red balls at the time they first made contact with the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock? In other words, were they wet or were they dry?
They were fluid, and like fluids, they formed a ball, because that is the lowest surface area to any geometric figure that is in air, blood, rain, any liquid, is round; it is not teardrop-shape. It is erroneous to show a teardrop to depict perspiration, blood drops, anything. Artists do that and we are conditioned that that is what we are supposed to think of as a liquid in the air, like rain. It does not look like that. It is round. Because it has this cohesive force to pull it together, when it is bonded to something, a wet something, I should say, such as this red liquid has done, it will tend to ball up very much like a drop of water on the hood of a car that has been waxed. It looks like it is a ball sitting there rather than spreading out. It does not wet the surface. So when given the chance a liquid will pull together in the shape of a sphere or a ball and so there was a liquid before it dried.
And sir, having observed these different balls of red liquid that appeared to--that looked like blood bonded to the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock, what conclusion did you make about whether the ankle was in or outside that sock at the time the transfer occurred?
Sir, were you able, based on your observations of your microscopic examination of this sock, to reach an opinion as to at what point those liquid balls were transferred to the inner surface of the other side of the sock?
When the blood is out of the body, it is physics. When it is in the body, it is medicine.
The ankle stain was very large; it was not spatter.
The cut-out was taken out of the middle of the stain. That is the way you usually do it.
I saw little balls of blood which were obviously wet.
I absolutely don't understand a bit of it.