Direct examination of Professor Herbert MacDonell (part 3)

📄 Direct examination of Professor Herbert MacDonell (part 3) — Monday, July 31, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\31\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-PROFESSO.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 125 of 167

◀ Jury return (afternoon) Sidebar: cross-exam procedure ▶

Witness: Prof. Herbert MacDonell
Examiner: Peter Neufeld
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, July 31, 1995 • Utterances: 62

Defense attorney Peter Neufeld concluded his direct examination of bloodstain expert Professor Herbert MacDonell, focusing on two key points: whether the wet transfer stains on sock 13-a were consistent with blood being dabbed onto the sock while it lay flat (not worn), and whether LAPD criminalists who handled the socks on June 29th, 1994 should have noticed the ankle bloodstain that MacDonell later observed on April 2nd. MacDonell testified that trained criminalists should have seen the stain had it been present, and that cooler temperatures (63-66°F on the night of the murders) would have slowed blood drying time.

# 1 MR. NEUFELD:

Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, everyone.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

# 2 MR. NEUFELD:

Professor MacDonell, you may recall this morning, I asked you a couple of different hypothetical questions. Let me begin by asking you another hypothetical. Sir, based on your observations of the sock and your expertise, are the wet transfer stains that you observed on the ankle area of sock 13-a consistent with someone dabbing the sock with blood after it has been removed from Mr. Simpson's foot?

# 3 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Objection. Beyond the scope of his expertise, speculation, improper hypothetical.

# 4 THE COURT:

Rephrase the question, counsel.

# 5 MR. NEUFELD:

Hypothetically, sir, and based on your examination of the sock and based on your four years of expertise in interpreting bloodstain patterns, are the wet transfer stains that you observed on the ankle area of sock 13-a consistent with someone dabbing the sock with blood after it has been removed from Mr. Simpson's foot and--

# 6 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor.

# 7 THE COURT:

Sustained. Problem is removal. Well, it's not being worn.

# 8 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. You mean, you want me to rephrase it.

# 9 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 10 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Based on your observations of the socks and based upon your 40 years of experience in this field, sir, are the wet transfer stains you observed on the ankle area of sock 13-a consistent with someone dabbing the sock with blood when it is not being worn by Mr. Simpson and instead spread out and laid flat on a flat surface?

# 11 MS. CLARK:

Same objection.

# 12 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 13 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes, they are. The stain is I should say.

KEY QUOTE

# 14 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Now, I believe you testified earlier last week when we started the direct examination, professor, that the ankle stain, even that portion of the ankle stain that's remaining was visible to the naked eye when you examined it on April 2nd; is that correct?

# 15 PROF. MACDONELL:

That's correct.

# 16 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, you're a trained criminalist; is that correct, sir?

# 17 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes.

# 18 MR. NEUFELD:

All right. In your expert opinion, sir, should other trained criminalists be expected to visualize the bloodstain on the ankle with the naked eye?

# 19 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes, they should.

# 20 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, let me ask you--

# 21 MS. CLARK:

Irrelevant.

# 22 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 23 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, let me ask you one last hypothetical, sir. Assume that on June 29th, 1994, three criminalists from the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory, Greg Matheson, laboratory director Michelle Kestler and Collin Yamauchi removed the socks from their packaging and laid them out on a white sheet of paper to inspect them. Given what you observed on April 2nd, would you have expected the trained criminalist on June 29th to discover the bloodstain on the ankle had it been there on June 29th?

# 24 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That calls for speculation, improper hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence.

# 25 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 26 MR. NEUFELD:

Are you aware of the fact, sir, that Greg Matheson and Collin Yamauchi testified that on June 29th, 1994, they took the socks out of its packaging and examined it on a white sheet of laboratory paper?

# 27 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence, calls for speculation, improper hypothetical.

# 28 THE COURT:

Sustained. Sustained. I know what they said, counsel. The problem is "Examined," is the word "Examined." It's a vague term in the context of this question.

# 29 MR. NEUFELD:

All right. Are you aware of the fact that Collin Yamauchi and Greg Matheson testified that on June 29th, they removed the socks from their packaging and placed them on a white sheet of laboratory paper?

# 30 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes. I have read that.

KEY QUOTE

# 31 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Are you--

# 32 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

# 33 MR. NEUFELD:

And are you aware of the fact, sir, that they testified that they looked at the socks at the time that they removed them from their packaging and placed them on a white sheet of paper?

# 34 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Objection. That misstates the testimony.

# 35 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 36 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes, I am.

# 37 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, given those facts, would you expect that those trained criminalists would have observed--would be expected to have observed the bloodstain on the ankle that you observed on April the 2nd?

# 38 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That calls for speculation, argumentative.

# 39 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 40 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes.

# 41 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, right before lunch, I asked you some questions about body temperature. Do you recall that?

# 42 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes, I do.

# 43 MR. NEUFELD:

And I also asked you some questions, sir, where I asked you to literally read from the official records of the U.S. weather service. Do you recall that?

# 44 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes I do.

# 45 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, you're not a meteorologist, are you?

# 46 PROF. MACDONELL:

No, I'm not.

# 47 MR. NEUFELD:

You're not an expert on weather conditions, are you?

# 48 PROF. MACDONELL:

Well, as a layperson, yes, but not as an expert.

# 49 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. But you're able to read numbers off of this sheet; are you not?

# 50 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes, I am.

# 51 MR. NEUFELD:

And I'm--when I say "This sheet," I'm referring to I think--

# 52 THE COURT:

1280.

# 53 MR. NEUFELD:

--1280, the official records of the U.S. weather service.

# 54 MR. NEUFELD:

And, sir, when you read those numbers, it revealed that the temperature range between the evening of June 12th and the morning hours of June 13th were between 63 and 66 degrees; is that correct?

# 55 PROF. MACDONELL:

That's correct.

# 56 MR. NEUFELD:

When--earlier this morning, you were talking about the different factors that can affect drying time of blood. Does temperature affect drying time?

# 57 PROF. MACDONELL:

Oh, certainly.

# 58 MR. NEUFELD:

Will a stain dry faster at 90 degrees than at say 64 degrees?

# 59 MS. CLARK:

Objection. No foundation.

# 60 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 61 PROF. MACDONELL:

Yes, it certainly will.

# 62 MR. NEUFELD:

No further questions, your Honor.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Prof. Herbert MacDonell

Yes, they are. The stain is I should say.

MacDonell confirms the ankle stain pattern is consistent with blood being dabbed onto the sock while laid flat — supporting the defense theory of planted evidence.

Prof. Herbert MacDonell

Yes.

MacDonell directly states that trained criminalists should have been expected to observe the ankle bloodstain on June 29th — implying they either missed it or it wasn't there yet.

Lance A. Ito

The problem is 'Examined,' is the word 'Examined.' It's a vague term in the context of this question.

Ito's precise parsing of language illustrates how carefully the court managed this volatile testimony about evidence handling.

Evidence (2)

Defense 1280

Official records of the U.S. Weather Service showing temperature range of 63-66°F on the evening of June 12th through morning of June 13th, 1994

discussed

Sock 13-a

Ankle sock with wet transfer bloodstains on the ankle area, central to defense planted evidence theory

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Peter Neufeld•Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Neufeld made three attempts to ask whether LAPD criminalists should have seen the sock bloodstain, with Clark objecting each time. Ito sustained some and overruled others, ultimately allowing MacDonell to say 'Yes' — that trained criminalists examining the socks on June 29th should have seen the stain.

strategic

Peter Neufeld•Prof. Herbert MacDonell

Neufeld elicited that cooler temperatures (63-66°F) on the night of June 12-13 would have slowed blood drying, with MacDonell confirming blood dries faster at 90°F than 64°F — laying groundwork for arguments about blood transfer timing.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Greg Matheson / Collin Yamauchi

impeachment by omission

MacDonell testified that trained criminalists examining the socks on June 29th, 1994 should have observed the ankle bloodstain — implying that if Matheson and Yamauchi did not see it, it may not have been there yet, supporting the planted evidence theory.

Witness Demeanor

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

Objections

10 objections (4 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 7088 • 62 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103