Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD

Professor MacDonell, in this case you mentioned, I believe last week, that you were retained by the Defense, did you not?

Yes, I did.

You are of course testifying at this trial; is that right?

Yes, obviously.

All right. Now, could you please give us an estimate, over the last two years, approximately how many cases have you been retained either by the Prosecution or the Defense?

Probably somewhere between 50 and 75, more likely the 75.

And do you have an estimate about the approximate percentage which would be cases where you were retained by the Prosecution and an estimate to the percentage of cases where you were retained by the Defense?

I would say about fifty percent for the Defense and perhaps forty percent by the Prosecution and ten percent might be private or other investigations. It could be civil rather than criminal.

Now, of all those cases that you just described, the 75 to a hundred cases in which you were retained to examine and analyze evidence, approximately how many of those cases did you actually come to court and testify at a trial?

About ten percent. That might be high. I do not testify that often in court.

Sir, is one of the reasons that you testify so rarely, compared to the number of times that you are retained, because your findings did not help the side that retained you?

Objection, speculation.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Okay. Do you know the reasons why you testify so infrequently, comparatively, to the number of times where you are actually retained by one side or another to examine and analyze evidence?

Objection. Again that calls for speculation.

Overruled. The answer is yes?

Yes.

Could you please tell us what the reasons are?

Speculation, hearsay.

Overruled.

The reason is that when I'm asked to investigate a case and examine physical evidence or go to a crime scene, there are times when there is absolutely no evidence that can be useful in determining what occurred. The evidence may be too old, it may just not exist, and so if there is nothing that I can conclude that is of any value to either side, naturally I cannot write a report, I cannot give any information. On occasion when I investigate a case for the Defense and the findings would not be helpful, they do not call me to testify.

Now, what I would like to do is resume the discussion we were having on Thursday concerning the ankle stains on sock 13-a. I would like to show you, Professor MacDonell, Defendant's exhibit 1278, 1277 and 1276 which you had looked at last week. Do you recall that when we left off last week you were explaining your observations regarding the ankle stain on sock 13-a?

Yes, I do.

Now, based on your observations, professor, and expertise in the area of bloodstain interpretation, what conclusions did you reach concerning the stains on the ankle of sock 13-a?

Well, I concluded from exhibit 1276 that the overall stain area, which is--surrounds the cut-out portion, was the result of a transfer of blood to that area and not projected. It is a very large stain and blood does not spatter in that large an area. It might be splash, but it doesn't spatter. That would take a very large volume of blood. But this is transferred to the surface of the fiber on the outside. And looking at 1277, the photograph--photomicrograph taken by Dr. Lee and myself, shows the high spots of the weave, the upper portion, which are brushed with--which I believe has been identified as blood.

Professor MacDonell, by the way, while you are giving this explanation, if you would be so kind if you can hold up the photographs to the jury so that they can at least see what it is that you are describing. Actually, why don't I use the--

Do you want to put it on the elmo?

It might be easier on the elmo.

Do you want me to start with that one?

Up to you.

All right. This is 1276, if I'm not mistaken.

That's correct.

Okay.

Can you see that well, professor?

Yes, I can.

Okay. So what were you saying you learned from your observations--what conclusions did you make, beginning with this photograph, and then we will move on from there?

I concluded that the stain which surrounds the cut-out portion which is much lighter in appearance in almost a yellowish/red coloration on this screen, was the result of a transfer of a liquid to the surface more as a direct compression rather than a side or lateral movement, which we call a swipe pattern, because of the peripheral responding of blood to the top of the fibers which is shown in I think it is 1277 more accurately.

And now, referring you to Defendant's 1277, based on your observations and expertise in the field, what conclusions did you reach about the--that stain on the outside perimeter of the area that had been cut out?

Well, as I stated, the area to the left circled in blue is a reflection of a red glistening substance which has previously been identified as blood. And on the right side in the lower right there is a dark circle showing the area which is not glistening insofar as having a red coloration. That is just the black fiber which under high-intensity illumination appears to be white in this picture, but that is the void areas and the stains are on the surface of the fibers and they are not distorted, they are very sharp and very clear. That is one of the things that I considered in the swipe type pattern or transfer pattern that occurs.

Now, again based on your observations of the socks and based on your expertise in this area, sir, what additional conclusions did you make regarding the stains seen in the sock area?

Well, the other red substance that I saw was not on the surface of this fabric. Maybe I could demonstrate better--I'm looking at the outside of what is called the left side of the sock. Whether it is the right sock or a left sock cannot be determined, but it is the left side in the ankle area.

I'm sorry, one second, professor. Could you, your Honor, just inquire with the jurors as to whether or not they can all see what Professor MacDonell is doing?

I don't believe they can.

All right. Now, I'm referring to the outside of the left side of a sock. Whether it was the left foot or the right foot again is not clear. This area has been cut out. It is stained and cut out. I continued the examination when the socks were lying flat on a table surface in the laboratory and observed additional red balls of blood on the inside of the side opposite this cut-out portion, and that is what the greater enlargement that has been introduced, probably 1278--1278, showing one of the those bonded dried liquid red materials.

And there are any additional conclusions you have made regarding the relation of these stains?

Well, yes. That is what I saw. I hadn't gotten to the conclusion.

I'm sorry.

The conclusion would be, obviously, that if the stain directly opposite the cut-out portion on the inside is in any way related to the stain itself, then the stain occurred when this material soaked through and stained the inside of the side opposite. I would conclude that is what happened.

Your Honor, with the Court's permission at this time, I would like to pass around 1278, I believe, which I did not pass around to the jurors last week.

Certainly. If you will hand that to juror no. 1, please.

May I give to it juror no. 1?

Juror no. 1.

All right. Mr. Neufeld, would you collect 1278 from Deputy Smith, please. The record should reflect that each of the jurors has now had the opportunity to view exhibit 1278. Mr. Neufeld.

Thank you, your Honor.

Professor MacDonell, what is it about the way that red ball is configured and bonded to the actual fiber that you find to be significant in that photomicrograph?

As I am holding this so the label on the back is up to describe that, that little red area simply shows that it is a round, glistening, reddish, ball-shaped configuration which I interpret as being bonded to the fiber to its lower right and that fiber is woven into the overall thread, so that that spot of red fluid dried when it was wet, initially dried on a fiber, bonded; therefore it is part of a liquid transfer and not caused by flaking or powdering or something that may have broken off when a cutting occurred on the area above it.

And sir, I hate to burden you one more time, but it has been suggested that when you use your own socks it may not have been completely clear for everybody. I will take one of Mr. Cochran's socks and have it next in order, your Honor, which is--

1278, I believe. 1279.

And could you, for demonstrative purposes, sir, simply describe to the jury where you saw stains simply, using this sock as an example? Hold it up, please.

I'm sorry. One second also. With the Court's permission, may we have the witness step down?

Why don't we have him step down right to the rail here.

Yeah.

And please keep your voice up, professor.

The general area of the outside on what I am calling the left side of the sock for my purposes of identification, this would be the right side, again regardless of which foot it happens to be on. On the left side, the overall inch-by-inch-and-a-half stain is seen on the surface and when it is cut out this is on the inside of the side opposite, that would be the inside here, (Indicating). If you turned it inside out, this is where there is transferred liquid that is dried. And I interpret that as being part of the staining action here, (Indicating), at the time this was wet and went through, without a foot inside, obviously.

There will be an objection to that, your Honor.

Overruled.

Do we need to--

Mr. Neufeld, I'm sorry. 1279. What about 1279?

1279. I would ask permission actually at some point to substitute it if I could, since it is generic item.

Yes.

The objection is that the latter opinion stated by MacDonell called for speculation and there is no foundation.

Overruled.

Now, professor, let me ask you a hypothetical. Assume that a doctor examined Mr. Simpson head to foot on June 15th and there were no cuts, scratches or scrapes observed on Mr. Simpson's ankles. Would what you observed on the sock when you examined it, both with the naked eye and with the microscope, be consistent with a bloodstain passing through one side of the sock to the other when the sock is not on the foot and is instead lying flat on a surface?

Yes, it would be consistent with that.

Same objection, your Honor. That is speculation; no foundation.

Overruled.

And why is that, sir?

Well, as I stated, when I had the sock on this board, there is something like a foot inside the sock, if there is a tremendous hole right through the ankle, there is no way that anything can go from one side of the sock to the other simply by transferring from inside the left or outside portion through to the inside of the opposite side of the right side.

Same objection, your Honor. That is an incomplete hypothetical.

Overruled.

Now, sir, over the last forty years that you have been working with blood, have you investigated the drying time of blood on different surfaces?

Yes.

How is it that you are familiar with the various drying times of bloodstains under different conditions?

Objection, your Honor. Ask to approach.

With the court reporter, please.