All right. These photographs we will stipulate were taken on February 16, 1995.

All right. Is that agreeable to the Defense?

Yes. On a date when Professor MacDonell wasn't there.

That's correct.

So you did not see this manipulation by Dr. Lee, correct?

I wasn't there. No, I did not see them.

And he didn't do that kind of manipulation again in your presence on April 2nd; is that right?

If he did, I didn't see him do it. I don't believe he did.

I'm showing you now People's 555. Again, you recognize Dr. Henry Lee?

Yes, I do.

This is his manipulation of the sock on February 16th, 1995 again?

Now, that appears more a manipulation than the first one. The first one, I'd say he was just holding it up, not manipulating it. This one, it appears he is either turning it inside out or at least manipulating it in some fashion.

And is that something that you also did on April 2nd, 1995?

We turned them inside out, yes.

In the manner in which Dr. Lee is doing?

Well, in any manner you can to turn socks inside out. I don't think there's much choice. This looks about the only way to do it.

All right. Now, showing you People's 556. Does that appear to be a photograph of Dr. Lee taking a picture through a microscope, sir?

Yes. He's taking a picture through a stereobinocular microscope using the right ocular.

And again, we stipulate this is February 16th, 1995; is that right?

I don't know.

No. I'm asking counsel.

I'm sorry.

Oh, yes.

So it would appear that he did examine the socks under a microscope on that date, correct, sir?

Yes. A low-power stereobinocular. I think the maximum magnification is about 25 diameters with most stereobinocular microscope.

Now, the microscope that you used on April the 2nd, 1995 had what power magnification?

It was 7 to 70.

You do not know or do you know for a fact--have you ever seen this microscope up close, sir?

Not this particular one, no. I have one, but not exactly the same model.

So are you sure when you say that this--the greatest magnification, power on this microscope would be 25 times?

No. That's why I said they're usually 7 to 25.

Okay. Now, the photograph that you've shown us here--the photograph that you've shown us here of the little ball on the inside of the sock, that was taken on April 2nd when you were present, correct?

That's correct.

You don't know of any such photographs that were taken on February 16th by Dr. Lee, do you?

No, I--

Objection. No foundation for that question. He didn't even know it was there.

Sustained. Sustained.

Have you been shown any photographs taken by Dr. Lee on February 16th showing the little balls on the inside of the sock?

No, I have not.

And the photograph that you produced here in court showing the little ball on the inside of the sock, the one that you have shown is what magnification?

I would approximate the magnification of the actual print to well over 100 diameters, but I have not made that calculation. I do not know the diameter of the first picture that I saw, which is a four by six. And if I don't know how big the magnification is on this, I could ordinarily make it--make the correction. But without knowing a starting point, I can't proportion it up. I'm estimating from memory of what I saw, that that would be about a hundred or more diameters. Dr. Lee could tell you exactly.

All right. Miss Clark, our record is rather sloppy here. You're referring to photographs of red balls. Which exhibit are we talking about here? I think it's 1278 I think. I'm not certain.

1278?

Yes.

Because one is--

You're referring to it, counsel. So you tell us which one you are talking about.

1279.

It's 1278.

That one.

Is that large one 1278, Mr. Gordon?

Yes, your Honor.

1278.

Is that 1278?

Okay. The one we're referring to, sir, is the one with the little ball in the blue circle.

Yes.

That's 1278.

Correct.

Okay. You were not shown any such photographs that were taken by Dr. Lee on February 16th, 1995, correct?

That's correct.

To your knowledge, do any exist?

Objection.

Sustained. He hasn't seen any.

All right, sir. Now, were you aware that on August 4th, the same day the socks were tested, given the presumptive test for blood, the first step of which you saw the sampling of which you saw in the photograph, Susan Brockbank also examined those socks for hair and trace. Were you made aware of that?

I believe I read that, yes.

Okay. And that has no impact on your opinion as to how those little balls got there?

No, it does not.

And you were also made aware then that Greg Matheson performed serological testing for PGM subtyping on that sock after August the 4th. Were you made aware of that, sir?

Objection. It's misleading. May we approach?

Overruled. Rephrase the question though.

Greg Matheson performed PGM subtyping on the--that stained area of the sock after August 4th. Were you made aware of that?

Objection, because he cuts out a portion and removes it.

Yes. Rephrase the question.

Were you made aware of the fact, sir, that in order--that to perform PGM subtyping testing, Greg Matheson cut a portion out of the sock in order to perform that testing?

Yes.

And that he had to handle the sock in the process of doing that?

Obviously.

And that has no impact on your opinion as to how those little balls got there?

No. No, it doesn't.

All right. Sir, now you prepared a report in this case; did you not?

Yes, I did.

And that report is dated July 11th, 1995?

I believe it is.

You've been working for the Defense since August of `94; is that right?

Well, that's when they first contacted me. I actually didn't have anything to do until I'd made a trip to Albany I think in December.

And this report is the only one that you have prepared in this case, correct?

That's correct.

And it details only your observation of the one area of the sock where you saw those little balls, correct?

That's correct.

You examined both socks, didn't you?

Yes, I did.

And there's nothing in your report about the other sock; is that right?

No, there isn't.

Or any of the other stains on the sock that you did observe?

That's correct.

So it's just--so your report is confined to the one stain that you testified to here in court; is that right?

That's correct.

Now, if I understand your testimony correctly, sir, the inside of that stain--I'm going to try and number these surfaces, make it easier. The outside portion of the stain where the blood was first received is surface 1, inside, surface 2, the inside of the opposite side, surface 3. Okay? It's your testimony, sir, that the transfer to surface 3 came from surface 2; is that right?

Yes. It--if it's transferred from that surface. Again, I did not determine what that material is. The only way it could have gotten there is for a liquid that is red to have gone from surface 2 to surface 3.

And now, you've testified that you did not perform any tests on the cut-out area, on that cut-out fabric from the center of the stain to quantify how much blood was in it?

That's correct.

Now, if the--as a matter of common sense, would it be fair to state, sir, that the more blood you have on the inner aspect of that stain, the more little balls you expect to find on the opposite side?

Objection. Vague as to "Inner aspect."

Sustained. You just finished numbering the sides. Why don't you--

All right. The more blood, the more liquid or blood that you have on the area of surface 2, the inside of the sock, the more little balls you're going to expect to see on surface 3; is that right?

As you've said, it would be more likely. It's common sense. Certainly.

And of course, this assumes that the little balls on surface 3 can be attributed to the stain on surface 2, correct?

Absolutely.

And you have not said that you make that assumption; have you not, sir?

You can not say that you haven't said it; have you not?

No. See? Clear to me.

All right.

You indicated that--I believe in your direct testimony, you've made the statement that if the stain in surface 2 is related to the little balls on surface 3, that they would have gotten there when wet. Do you recall that?

Yes.

But you can not say that the little balls on surface 3 are related to the stain on surface 2, can you, sir?

No, I can't.

Now, it would be true, would it not, that the more blood you have on surface 2, the more little balls you expect to find on surface 3?

Only if the little balls are blood.

If they are.

Yes. Certainly.

And you found only six or seven; is that right?

That's the number of what I would call balls which look like a wet material that dried adhering to fibers, yes. I saw other red spots.

Let's just talk about those little balls for a sec. You only brought in a photograph of one of them, correct?

I think we've asked this question now three times, counsel.

Why weren't all of them photographed, sir?

I have no idea. We photographed the most representative. Dr. Lee, again, took the pictures, and that's a question you'd have to direct to him. I observed them.

Now, you made no attempt to quantify the volume of those six or seven little balls, did you?

Objection.

We've asked that question already.

Okay. You indicated that there were also other little flakes?

There are many red spots that show up in the photograph that has been introduced that are clearly little red areas. And if the microscope was adjusted in its depth of field, in other words, focused, you would lose the one that we have photographed and then you would see others. So they're clearly evident. There are red areas in there, and those are the areas to which I made reference.

But they are not photographed, are they, sir?

Yes, but they're out of focus.

So you can't see them in the photograph that you took?

You can see them, but you can't resolve them.

So did you make any attempt to have a photograph taken that would resolve them so the jury could see them?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Did you make any effort to take a photograph that would have those flakes that you saw in good resolution?

Objection. He's not talking about flakes.

Overruled.

The photograph that's introduced shows the best representation of the drying of a red fluid. Other red spots could be flakes as you just stated. They could have been other of the red balls we saw. I can not tell because they're so far out of focus. They are not resolved.

Though these little balls are a very important aspect of your testimony; are they not, sir?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained.

All right. Sir, in your terminology, a swipe is different than a compression; is that right?

To the extent that one involves lateral motion, the other involves compression. They are both transfer mechanisms.

They are both methods of transfer. Is that what you said?

I said they're both transfer mechanisms.

Nevertheless, are they separate and distinct mechanisms of transfer?

Yes. As opposed to other means of staining such as dripping or projection.

Well, you took great pains to explain to this jury, did you not, that this was a compression and not a swipe; is that right?

Objection.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

You went to some length in your testimony, sir, to describe for this jury how this was a compression and not a swipe?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained. Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Sir, were you attempting to explain to this jury the difference between a swipe and a compression with regard to your observation of the stain on this sock?

Well, I thought I did. I didn't attempt. I thought I explained it clearly enough, the difference, yes.

And why did you want to explain to them the difference between a swipe and a compression?

So they would know they're both surface. I think I was asked if it was a swipe initially or that came up. So I differentiated between the two. I said I looked to see if there were any trailings or featherings to see if it was a swipe. The difference between the two is really not significant. It's just a matter of my classification.

If it's not significant, sir, then why did you draw a distinction before the jury?

Because there is a distinction.

Then some transfers are swipe and others are compression; is that right, sir?

That is correct.

And they are distinct in your opinion?

They're different. One involves lateral motion. The other does not. That's the extent of the difference.

Okay. So a swipe could occur if I move my ankle across a wet surface; is that right?

Objection. Vague as to the "Wet surface."

Sustained.

A swipe could occur if I move my ankle against a wet wound?

Certainly.

Now, your report, sir, is an accurate summary of your findings with respect to the sock a; is it not?

I believe so, yes.

And you took pains to make sure that it accurately reflected your findings in this case; did you not?

Objection as to "Pains."

Overruled.

I prepared it as accurately as I could at the time. I have no reason to suspect there's any error.

And you signed the report; did you not?

Yes.

And you reviewed the report before signing it I take it?

I usually do.

And you examined that report before you testified; did you not?

Not recently. I did it I think two trips ago.

You prepared that report, sir, based on your observations of April the 2nd, 1995; is that right?

That's correct.

And in that report, you documented what your observations were?

To some extent, yes.

But it was an accurate summary; was it not?

I believe it to be.

Do you have a copy of your report here, sir?

Yes, I do.

Would you mind getting it out, please?

Too much stuff.

One moment, please.

All right. Proceed.

Thank you.

Sir, let me direct your attention to paragraph 4. Did you not write in this report, sir, when the sock is laid flat, the stain described in .2 is directly below the stained area described in .1, the only reasonable conclusion therefore is that the fluid that caused these stains was swiped against the outside of the left side of the sock? That is what you wrote in your report; is it not?

That is correct.

And you considered that to be an accurate depiction of what you observed on April the 2nd, 1995; is that correct?

That's what I wrote, yes.

That's what you wrote. And yet, you testified to the fact that you now believe that to be a compression and not a swipe. Wasn't that your testimony, sir?

That was my testimony.

Now, sir, wouldn't you agree that with respect to the differentiation that you have made, the distinctions that you have indicated you made between swiped and compression, that was an important distinction; was it not?

That's not important at all. As I said, swiping shows there is a lateral component to a compression. They're both transfer mechanisms. Compression occurs in swiping. And I wrote "Swiping" here. It does not matter whether it said compression or swiping. This pushing of blood or any flood into a fabric is a compression.

And yet--

Swiping merely means there's lateral movement accompanying it. When I looked at it here, it appeared to be swiping. I have since seen enlarged photographs that we took that show that the swiping appearance which is on the surface of the fibers seems to be fairly uniform on both sides. So now I would say it's more likely a compression only. Both are compression. One has lateral movement. I described lateral movement as well.

All right. Did you take any notes at the time that you made your observations of this sock to document what you saw?

Yes. Very--very few. Dr. Lee was describe.

You personally took notes, sir?

Yes. Very--

Did you turn them over to the Defense?

Yes.

They have been turned over to the Prosecution, your Honor.

No, they have not.

All right. We'll take this up later. Proceed.

May I see those notes, sir?

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Tell me where in those notes, sir, you indicate that there was no lateral movement in the stain that you characterized in your report as a swipe?

I don't characterize it either way.

And tell me where in your report you demonstrate or you document your observation that there was no lateral movement.

I don't believe I did.

And tell us where in your report you document the observation of voids that you've testified to here in court.

I don't believe I did that either.

Now, the lack of lateral movement and the appearance of voids were the indicia that you testified to as evidence that this was a compression and not a swipe. Isn't that your testimony?

That's correct. And when I indicate voids for descriptive purposes, that's one thing. But I don't have to indicate them to know what I'm seeing. So I know what the meaning of the term is. And that's why I wouldn't bother to put there are voids here, there are voids there. That is part of seeing a compression transfer or a lateral transfer.

But you did not put down "Compression transfer" in your report, did you, sir?

Sir, you are aware of the fact that counsel has retained you as an expert; isn't that right?

I hope so.

And you are aware of the fact that the report that you give to them is turned over to the People as well before you testify?

Certainly it is.

You filed no addendum to your report to reflect the change from swipe to compression, did you?

They are both transfers, but you made a distinction, you made a point of telling us it was a compression and not a swipe; isn't that right?

That is the way it appeared at the examination. The photographs I examined later showed it to be more uniform, and, therefore, I concluded it was more likely simply a compression. It could still be a swipe.

And you filed no addendum to indicate to the People that you were going to change from a swipe that you indicated in your report to a compression that you testified to here in court; isn't that right?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

What effort did you make, sir, to inform the People of the fact that you weren't sure if it was a swipe or a compression, but you were leaning towards compression?

Objection. Irrelevant as to what is assumed by the People.

Sustained.

Sir, knowing that your report said a swipe and said nothing about a compression, wouldn't you agree it was very misleading not to make an effort to inform--

Sustained. Argumentative, counsel.

You did not write any new report to indicate that you were uncertain as to whether it was a swipe or that you had changed your mind to say now that it was a compression?

From July 11th, I haven't had time to read my initial report. I've been traveling. I have not made any addendum, no. There's no correction to be made.

No correction to be made because it still could be a swipe. Is that your testimony?

It's a matter of interpretation. If you agree that the fine blood on the surface of the fibers is uniform on each side of that elliptical stain, then it's more likely compression. It's a compression mechanism. If it's a swipe, it could be that the leading edge and the trailing edge are basically the same geometry. It's a distinction that is really in my mind totally irrelevant.

So to you, it makes no difference whether you call it a swipe or compression. Is that your testimony, sir?

A swipe is a compression with lateral motion.

Do you recall how many times in your testimony on direct examination you said that this was a compression and not a swipe?

I may have said it several times. I have no idea how many.

And if that is the case, sir, that you said it several times, what would be the point of that if it were unimportant to distinguish between the two?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained.

Objection. Argumentative.

Overruled.

So they would be reminded and understand it.

But you didn't make any effort to tell this jury that it didn't matter whether you call it a swipe or a compression until just now; isn't that right, sir?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained.

You did not tell the jury before cross-examination that it didn't matter whether it was a swipe or a compression, did you, sir?

No, I did not.

Objection.

Overruled.

Now, is it--now, the notes that you have before you that were taken--made contemporaneously with the observations on April the 2nd, contain no description of little balls, do they?

And can you tell us, sir, if you have his notes with you?

I believe I do have his notes.

Please look at his notes and tell us whether Dr. Lee makes any--has any description in his notes of little balls, lateral swipe or voids.

(The witness complies.) No. He only mentioned that he takes photographs of them.

He mentions that there are photographs taken of the holes; isn't that right, sir?

Photographs taken, and he indicates little tiny dots within the cut-out area. He states blood-like materials were observed on the inner surface of the other side of this cut, and he's got many little tiny dots, and it says photographs taken, photo micrographs.

And where is the description in his notes of lateral transfer--of lateral swipe? Excuse me.

He doesn't use those words. He says a reddish brown color around--he shows it around the cut-out area.

Uh-huh. There is no note there concerning lateral swipe; isn't that right?

Not on this page, no.

Nor on any page of his notes?

No, not that I recall.

Right. And there's no mention in there of voids either, is there?

There was mention of voids and lateral transfer or transfer, but not in his report. We discussed it.

There was verbal discussion on April the 2nd. Is that what you're saying, sir?

There was.

But there is no written record to document that; isn't that right?

Not that I'm aware of.

And the only written record that you made concerning your observations of the socks with respect to the nature of the stain and the little balls is the report dated July 11th; isn't that right?

That's correct.

So between April the 2nd and July 11th, you made the observations on April the 2nd, but you wrote nothing down concerning your observation of the little balls, the voids, the lateral swipe until July 11th; is that right?

That's correct. I wasn't in the country.

So you wrote that report from memory; is that right?

I'm sorry?

The few notes that I made are in your possession. I referred to them.

No. I gave them back to you, didn't I?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you did. Thank you.

But these notes do not contain--excuse me, sir--a description of evidence, do they?

No. Just sketch.

Matter of fact, those notes just document your receipt of the evidence and the date and time and what you got; isn't that right?

Well, it lists the time that was spent examining the two items, 42a and b, according to my notes, and the length of time.

Now, your examination on April the 2nd was done with a very high intensity light; is that right?

Yes. High intensity.

And microscope; is that right?

Correct.

And you will agree, will you not, that the observation of blood on those socks was a difficult one in view of the dark color of the fabric, sir?

Not when you've got good high intensity illumination. It would be difficult in this room, yes. But under the conditions that you would use for an examination, it was not difficult. It was straightforward.

And, again, though, when you're talking about high intensity light, can you explain to the jury what you mean by that?

High intensity is more lumens per square centimeter. A pocket light like this can give extremely high intensity right at the end, much more than a thousand watt bulb would give here on the ceiling if the bulb was on the ceiling. So high intensity is the concentration of light in a given area, and it's expressed physically as lumens per square centimeter.

So it would be--if we were to light up this courtroom with that kind of high intensity light, would we all be wearing sunglasses?

We ought to be. I would be if I could or I'd close my eyes.

Now, with respect to the distinction between swipe and compression, sir--

You did indicate that you observed crime scene photographs, correct?

Yes, I did.

Can I approach?

I think you'd better.