All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. MacDonell, would you resume the witness stand, please. And, Miss Clark, you may continue with your cross examination.

Thank you, your Honor.

Now, when we left off, sir, we were discussing the fact that you were not aware of the history of the sock before you saw it on April 2nd, 1995.

Object--

Do you recall that?

Objection. He didn't say anything about history.

Overruled.

No, I do not know the history prior to that, how it was stored, maintained, no.

And you made no effort to determine what the history of the sock was with respect to how it was handled before you saw it on April 2nd of 1995?

All right, we've established that already. Let's proceed.

I think I only asked him about Greg Matheson. I would have liked--

Let's proceed.

Well, can you tell us, sir, what effort you made to determine what the history of the handling and testing of that sock was before you saw it on April 2nd, 1995?

I did not make any determination of the history. My purpose there was to examine it as it was in the condition received.

In that case, sir, then you can not tell us whether the condition that you observed on April 2nd was there before August 4th, 1994?

No. Of course not.

Miss Clark.

Yes, your Honor. I'd ask that this photograph be marked People's next in order, People's 5--

553.

-53?

Appears to be a photograph of a sock with a q-tip.

Do you recognize what's being done in this photograph, sir?

Yes, I do.

That's a phenolphthalein test, isn't it?

Well, it's the sampling prior to the phenolphthalein test.

Yes. And the phenolphthalein test is a presumptive test for blood; is it not?

That's correct.

Now, do you--

If you would focus in, Jonathan, on that. Thanks.

Do you see that spot there, sir?

Well, I did.

Used to. Do you see it?

I see--yeah. There it comes. I see a spot, yes.

All right. Does that appear to be water, sir?

Objection, your Honor.

Sustained.

No foundation for that.

Sustained.

Does it look wet?

Objection, your Honor.

Sustained. Sustained.

Appear wet?

Yes.

What does it look like to you?

Looks like a yellow ellipse.

And does it look like liquid?

Objection, your Honor.

Sustained.

Is there a form of phenolphthalein test that uses distilled water, sir?

Yes. Certainly. You have to have a solvent, either phenolphthalein or distilled water.

And if that is the test being--does that appear to be the test being performed here, sir?

Objection, your Honor, what appears.

Overruled.

As stated before, it appears to me to be the sampling phase. First you sample the material and then you analyze it by adding the reagent to it. This would be just sampling, removing a suspect stain or a portion thereof for testing.

Okay. And you remove the suspect stain or portion thereof by adding--by using a damp q-tip to sample the area; is that correct?

That's correct. A damp q-tip or whatever. Filter paper you can use also.

In this case, they used what appears to be a damp q-tip; would you agree, sir?

I would agree it's a q-tip and it apparently has been damped. It should be if it's going to be used.

Now, are you aware of the date on which this photograph was taken?

No.

Now, sir, would it be important to you to know whether as of the date--after the date of this photograph, assumed for the hypothetical that it's August 4th, 1994--

Objection. There's been no evidence as to when this particular test was made.

Overruled. Overruled.

--that the socks were frozen and unfrozen, twisted, cut?

Objection as to "Twisted."

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Objection as to "Cut."

Overruled.

At this point.

Overruled.

Would you agree, sir, that it would be important to know that after the point of the testing shown in this photograph, the socks had been frozen and unfrozen repeatedly? Would that be good for you to know?

Well, again, this is not testing in the photograph. The test followed the photograph. It would not be important for me to know because I saw what I saw at the time I examined it. If you want me to speculate as to what could have caused it, then if I knew certain factors, I might be in a position to speculate.

Then you would agree, sir, that your lack of knowledge as to whether or not the socks had been frozen and unfrozen repeatedly would have an impact on your ability to give us some opinion as to how the microbe--the little balls that you saw got to be on the inner side of the sock that you saw on April 2nd, correct?

Objection, your Honor.

What's the objection?

Objection as to the form of the question.

Overruled.

Freezing and thawing I do not conceive as a mechanism that would allow the things that I observed in the cut-out portion on the opposite side to have been formed. I can't imagine a mechanism by simply freezing and thawing unless you purposely put it in a high-humidity cabinet. That could cause that. I just don't see that that's a factor.

So it's your opinion then, sir, that even though you're not aware of how many times it was frozen and unfrozen, you are willing to give the opinion to this jury that that would have no impact on whether or not those little balls would appear on the other side of the sock; is that correct?

Objection. Argumentative.

Overruled.

The statement I made did not say "Have no effect." I said that might explain an effect, but I can not imagine how simply freezing and thawing or the number of times it's done would have any significant effect upon creating what I observed when I looked at them on April 2nd.

But you don't know, do you, sir?

Of course not.

And you can not tell this jury whether or not that's how those little balls came to be on the other side of the stain; isn't that right, sir?

Objection. Asked and answered twice.

Overruled.

I don't know what you mean by "That." You'll have to explain. Is "That" supposed to mean a mechanism? Would you rephrase that, please?

You can not tell us, sir, whether or not--you can not state to this jury that the freezing and unfreezing process absolutely did not cause the appearance of those little balls on the inside of the sock that you saw on April 2nd, 1995; isn't that true?

Objection. Asked and answered twice.

Overruled.

And you did not inquire--you examined these socks with Dr. Lee on April 2nd; isn't that right?

That is correct.

Did you discuss with him his examination of the socks on February 16th, 1994--5?

No.

Were you aware of his examination of the socks that he had conducted on February 16th, 1995?

To the extent that he just observed them. I do not believe he made a microscopic examination at that time. That is my best recollection.

But you do not know?

I don't recall further. So I don't know.

And you do not know if he during the process of his experiment on February 16, 1995 twisted and pulled the socks in an effort to get a better look at any side of it or any aspect of it, do you?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained. Sustained.

Are you aware, sir, of the fact that LAPD set up a microscope for Dr. Lee to use in his February 16th examination?

No. I was not aware of that.

And in the course of a microscopic examination, sir, in your experience, can it occur that material or fabric will be pulled or twisted in an effort to get a certain area under the field of view?

Certainly.

And would it be important to know whether that that had occurred on multiple occasions with this particular sock?

It could be, but I can't imagine exactly how.

But it could add important information, sir, with respect to determining how those little microbes got onto the side of the sock when you observed them in 1995?

Objection.

Sustained. Sustained. Rephrase the question.

I'm sorry. Little balls.

All right. Could it be important information whether or not the sock was repeatedly manipulated and twisted during microscopic--repeated microscopic examinations to determine how those little balls got onto the side of the sock when you observed them on April 2nd, 1995?

Let me ask you something, sir. You said you observed one of those little balls to be adherent to the fiber; is that correct?

Objection. That is not his testimony.

Overruled.

I observed several, I think half a dozen at least. We photographed the one that showed the bonding to the fiber the most distinctly.

Okay. Is it--sir, based on your examination, one was bonded well enough to photograph; is that correct?

Objection. That's not his testimony.

Overruled.

I think they were all bonded, but this one showed the bonding to a fiber that was also part of the woven thread. That's the reason it was selected.

And that's the reason you took only one photograph although you saw six or seven of these little balls; is that right?

I didn't take the photographs. Dr. Lee actually clicked them off. I observed them.

You observed them, but there was only one photograph taken; is that right, sir?

It's the only one that I have seen. I think it's the best representation and I'm sure that's why he enlarged it.

Is your answer yes?

What was the question? Did I observe just one?

No. No. Mr. MacDonell, please listen to the question. I asked you whether you took only--there was only one photograph taken of those little balls that you saw on the inner surface of the sock.

I answered that when I said Dr. Lee took it. I did not take any.

The question is, only one photograph, correct?

To the best of my knowledge.

And that one photograph was taken because in your opinion or in your collective opinion, that demonstrated most clearly the bonding of that little ball; is that correct?

That is correct.

Now, let me ask you something. With respect to that little ball that you saw bonded, what tests did you perform to determine whether it was in fact adherent to the fabric or simply lying in the weave where you saw it?

It seems to surround the fiber or the thread-like material to which it is bonded, and it didn't move. So it didn't fall off. We're dealing with something extremely small. We didn't do any testing to dry to abrade it to perhaps fracture it. But it's exceedingly small. We did no actual testing except observation.

All right. As a matter of fact, those little balls that you saw--you said six or seven of them?

Yes.

Did you make any effort to quantify those little balls?

As to volume?

Yes. As to volume, sir.

No.

And yet the stain on the outside of the opposite side of the sock you said was 50 microliters, 60 maybe?

Yes.

And all you had were those six little balls, six or seven little balls that you couldn't even see if stacked up together with the naked eye; is that right?

Or grouped, yes.

Now, with respect to the manipulation of the sock, sir, you indicated that you--strike that. These socks, they were stretchy, elastic in nature; were they not?

Yes.

Blood when it dries is not elastic, is it, sir?

No.

Now, if you were to have blood dry on a sock and then you were to stretch it, blood might flake off, if even in only microscopic amounts. Would that be true, sir?

Yes, it is.

And if the sock is stretched in some fashion, which causes the blood to flake and then the sock is compressed through storage in a bag, you can--there will be some microscopic or some flaking happening of the blood that has dried on the sock; isn't that correct?

That's correct. There should be.

And if in fact the blood that has hit the outer surface of the sock has seeped through to the inside, if it rubs against the other side in a dried condition causing--by friction, there will be some flaking as well, would there not, even if only in microscopic in amount?

Well, it's even simpler than that. It wouldn't have to flake off and go through the sock because when it dries, it's through the sock to begin with. So could flake off from the inside of the outside surface at that point. And then if it landed on the inside, you would have some flakes on the side opposite the inside. Yes, that could happen.

And you indicated that you were not present when Dr. Lee did his examination of the socks on February 16th, 1995; is that right, sir?

That is correct.

Now, on the date that you did the examination with him, did you turn the socks inside out?

I think we did after the initial photographs were taken.

And when you say the initial photographs were taken, are you talking about the photographs of the little balls?

Yes. We--I believe we took all the photographs before we did any what you could call stretching or manipulation of the socks. We left them quite flat as we took them out.

Do you know whether anyone turned those socks inside out or twisted them in any fashion before you made that examination on April 2nd, 1995?

No, I don't.

Would that be information that you would like to have, sir, in forming your opinion as to how those little balls got onto that side of the sock?

No.

You don't think that would be important to know?

No. Not unless you added many factors such as if the socks were wet and you turn them inside out. That might make a difference. But you're exposing the inside where I detected these small balls of red material to the outside at that point. So you're defeating the purpose of transfer.

Uh-huh.

That would no longer be in contact with the area that was stained. So you're losing ground that way if you're trying to transfer them.

No. You're--let me ask you this, sir. You don't know whether they were wet on some occasion after the blood was detected on August 4th with that q-tip, correct?

Objection. No foundation for that.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Well, let me--

Your Honor, I have a series of three photographs I'd like to show to the witness. I'm going to show them to counsel. Be marked People's 554--

554.

--555 and 556.

554, your Honor?

Yes. 554 is the first one.

All right. Sir, I'm going to show you a photograph. Do you recognize--do you recognize the person in that photograph, sir?

Yes, I do.

Who's that?

That's Dr. Henry Chung Lee.

All right. Did you see him perform the manipulation with the sock that he used in this photograph in your presence on April 2nd?

No, I did not.

Did anyone--were you ever--

Your Honor--I'm sorry, your Honor. Can we have a sidebar?

Let me see the photographs. With the court reporter, please.