The--the actual sketch was made on November 11th of 1994, and then I went--and it says in the middle of the page I went back and noted some additional stains on November 21st of 1994.
What I'd like to do--Mr. Sims, I think we've covered both sides of the sock now. You saw four on the opposite side of the sock, two stains that you typed and then 12 other little areas on the side that's on 288, the sketch, right?
Okay. And you have already set up the stereomicroscope on one of those areas; is that correct?
And could you help Jonathan? We want to put an arrow to the--that points out the area on the sock that the stereomicroscope is focused on at this point.
Now, Mr. Sims, you've looked at the sock this morning under the stereomicroscope that's before me on the counsel table; have you not?
Before you looked at the sock--or strike that. Is what that arrow is pointing to, is that visible to the naked eye?
It's--it's only visible to the naked eye under special--if you illuminate it strongly, get the proper illumination, you can sort of see the discoloration.
Okay. And you reviewed this sock B this morning to locate the area on 288-A that we just showed on your sketch there?
At this particular location, I see some reddish staining. It's almost like a fine powder that's over the--the black fibers that are present, and you can see that--under the microscope, you can see well the difference between the reddish area of the stain against the background.
KEY QUOTEAnd have you seen that reddish staining in other areas; for example, in an area 42B2 that we'll have the jury look at later on?
Your Honor, objection. That if we're going to--we have a plan here. I would request that maybe we do--we elicit the foundation as to both places for observation, then just do it in seriatim.
At this particular location, I see some reddish staining. It's almost like a fine powder that's over the--the black fibers that are present, and you can see that--under the microscope, you can see well the difference between the reddish area of the stain against the background.
Yes. It looks like blood.
I--I don't notice any difference. It appears to be similar.
I would request that maybe we do--we elicit the foundation as to both places for observation, then just do it in seriatim.