All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr.--Professor Herbert MacDonell is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Miss Clark. Miss Clark.
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
Now, the gloves that you performed your experiment on were brand new gloves; is that right?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. The gloves that I received.
Showing you, sir, 1378-C--no. I'm not--yes, I am. There's a tag on that glove?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, there is.
That's a tag that would be like on a brand new glove; is that right?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. That is the way I kept the right and the left separated without having to open envelopes. This is the right glove.
And when you got the glove, was it still in its plastic packaging, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: I believe it was, yes.
Okay. Now, the crime scene gloves that you examined were clearly not new gloves; isn't that right, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: Oh, that's true. They were well-worn.
And the gloves that you tested, being brand new, were never rained on, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: Not that I know of, no. They could have been repackaged. I'm not sure it was the original package. I've had them in and out of plastic--protecting plastic bags. So I don't honestly know if it was a brand new package I got them in when I received them, but they were wrapped up.
Okay. And they appeared to be brand new to you, didn't they, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: They were definitely brand new.
Okay. So they'd never been--as far as you could tell, they had never been rained on?
PROF. MACDONELL: No.
All right. They appear to you to be pretty pristine. Would that be a fair statement, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: Very much so, yes.
Now, you picked a certain amount of blood to pour on the glove to do your experiment. Can you tell us why you picked that particular amount?
PROF. MACDONELL: That's what a vacutainer contains. I felt it would be adequate and I was giving the blood.
It was your blood?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. I didn't need 25 milliliters I didn't think.
All right. Do you know, sir, precisely how much blood was on the Bundy and Rockingham gloves?
PROF. MACDONELL: No, I do not.
So this was just kind of a random selection of an amount of blood to put on there?
PROF. MACDONELL: No. It was what I felt would be an adequate volume to smear all over a surface. And as it was, it only took two out of nine milliliters. So it was certainly more than adequate.
All right. Now, you smeared it on with your latex glove, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.
You don't have any reason to believe that blood was smeared in that fashion on the Rockingham or Bundy gloves, do you, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: No. I'm sure it was not.
Now, do you hold yourself out to be an expert in glove manufacturing?
PROF. MACDONELL: Certainly not.
Or in the process of leather treatment, leather of the type used to make gloves?
PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I tanned--caught a few hides when I used to hunt as a boy, but not in making gloves, no.
Did you hear Mr. Rubin's testimony concerning the preparation of the treatment of glove leather for the purpose of making it less water permeable?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I recall that. I think it was referred to as naked leather.
Yes. Do you recall his testimony concerning the treatment of leather for gloves with the--by emerging them in chromium formaldehyde and certain oils to prevent rot?
PROF. MACDONELL: No, but it sounds like a good procedure. I'm not familiar with it.
Are you familiar with the use of fat liquors and oils that are added to reduce the potential of shrinkage when the gloves get wet?
PROF. MACDONELL: No. Not at all.
Do you have experience, sir, in the weathering of gloves that strip the fat liquor and those treatments to prevent shrinkage?
PROF. MACDONELL: No.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence as to these gloves as opposed to other types of gloves.
And do you have personal knowledge and experience as an expert, sir, in the manner in which stretchability will be affected by the weathering of gloves in which the fat liquor is stripped by being subjected to weather such as rain, sleet or snow?
PROF. MACDONELL: No.
And do you have any expertise or knowledge, sir, in the properties, the resistance that a glove will have--strike that. Let me start again. Do you have any expertise or knowledge, sir, in the decreasing ability of weathered gloves to resist shrinkage due to the strip panel of the fat liquor and other treatment processes?
Overruled.
PROF. MACDONELL: Well, the first part I understand, but the last part I don't.
I'm going to try. Okay. Is it part of your fund of knowledge, experience and expertise as a forensic scientist, sir, that the--strike that. Do you have experience and knowledge and expertise in leather gloves and the properties of their ability to resist shrinkage after having been subjected to various weather conditions?
PROF. MACDONELL: Not in their ability to do it. I observe it, but I don't know what it is that causes leather--I don't know if it's to shrink or to return to its original size.
Uh-huh.
PROF. MACDONELL: My experience with rawhide in leather is that if you wet it, you can stretch it and then it will shrink back to the original size. So that is not shrinkage. That's just returning to status quo. That's why I wondered about your previous question. I'm still not sure, but I'm not an expert on glove shrinkage.
Okay. And I think what I'm getting at, sir, is this. As a glove ages, the treatment that had been initially put on it, do you have expertise in the field to know whether that treatment will wear off to the point where it will resist shrinkage less when subjected to wetness or water?
PROF. MACDONELL: No, I don't have. Certainly if there's a treatment that's put on anything to prevent something, as the chemical, whatever it may be, is worn away or leached away for whatever reason, then the purpose it was put in there is going to be most achieved when it was fresh, if that comes close to the answer to your question.
Okay. Yeah. And that seems clear as a matter of common sense, doesn't it, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. Exactly.
Now, you do not know the history of the gloves that were found at Bundy and Rockingham. Would that be a fair statement, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: That is.
And the only pair of gloves that you tested were the brand new pair of gloves that were given to you as provided by Richard Rubin, the glove manufacturer expert?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. That's correct. They were not given to me directly by him, but indirectly.
And your knowledge is that they came from him; is that right, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct. That's my belief.
Now, do you know anything in particular about the properties of these Aris light gloves?
PROF. MACDONELL: I never heard of them before this case.
And can you name for us specifically any prior case in which you've come in to testify to a jury concerning the property--the shrinkage of gloves due to the application of blood?
PROF. MACDONELL: No. Counting this one, once.
Okay. And are you aware--not being a glove expert by your own admission, sir, are you aware of the variation in range of sizes of extra large? In other words, that there is variation in the size of extra large?
PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I don't know about extra large, but when I buy large, some of them fit, some don't and they both say large. So I'm sure there is a difference in extra large as well.
Now, the--do you have any gloves, sir, that are handmade?
PROF. MACDONELL: I think I do.
I'm sorry?
PROF. MACDONELL: Work gloves for stacking wood. That is the most leather gloves I have.
Are you aware, sir, that the--that there is testimony to the effect that this type of glove retailed back in 1990 for $77?
Excuse me, counsel. I think we're--remember, there was a discount--there was a manufacturer's--and these were two pairs, wasn't it, for 77?
Let me amend that statement, sir. Do you have any gloves that cost $55?
PROF. MACDONELL: I hope not. I don't know. My wife frequently buys gloves for Christmas and I hope she doesn't spend that much.
Does that impress you as a pretty expensive glove, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: I would say it's got to be very nice gloves and these are nice gloves. I'm not questioning the retail price of them or the sale price, but I would not ordinarily expect to have a glove like that myself.
Now, you, of course, did not measure the Rockingham and Bundy gloves before the murders, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: No.
And you don't know what the conditions of those gloves was with respect to the fat liquor and all of the chemicals applied to resist shrinkage prior to the murders, correct?
Overruled. Overruled.
PROF. MACDONELL: Only to the extent because of wear, whatever was there originally wasn't there in the same amount that it was to begin with because if they were worn, certainly things were missing.
So then you would agree, sir, that prior to the murders, as worn as they appeared, there was some lesser degree of protection from shrinkage on those gloves?
Overruled.
PROF. MACDONELL: I don't know. I would assume so, but I really don't know. If a worn glove loses its ability to resist penetration by moisture or whatever it is that could cause shrinkage over a period of time, then yes. But I really don't know. It would be logical. So I'll say conditionally, it seems that it would be less likely to resist shrinkage or anything else, staining, whatever, if the chemicals that are put in to prevent that are no longer in the same concentration.
Which is a likely thing to occur over a period of time and to be found in worn gloves such as that, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: It would seem so, yes.
Now, you did not measure the gloves in their original size just before the murders occurred, did you, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: No. I think I've already said that.
Nevertheless, and you're aware that these were--these are extra large gloves, the Rockingham and Bundy gloves?
PROF. MACDONELL: They are so stated, yes.
Then presumably whoever wore them fit the size extra large. That would be a fair common sense inference, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.
Now, you do not know what conditions those crime scene gloves were subjected to before the murders, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.
And you don't know what--precisely what conditions they were subjected to after the murders; is that correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: Are you referring to immediately after the crime and before they're collected or from the collection point on? Before they were collected, I have no idea. From collection on, I assume they would be preserved in some forensic manner that would not further alter them.
Okay. Then you don't have any personal knowledge of either aspect, of how the crime scene gloves were treated after the murder?
PROF. MACDONELL: That is correct.
All right. Then you do not--you are not aware of the fact that the crime scene gloves were frozen and unfrozen a number of times?
PROF. MACDONELL: I had heard that they were, yes.
And you do not know precisely how much blood was actually on them; is that true?
PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.
And you said they were nine inches?
PROF. MACDONELL: Approximately nine inches in length.
And the gloves, the brand new ones that you had were 10 inches in length?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.
Then you found that there was indeed a 10-percent difference between them, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct, yes.
Now, you testified to temperature and humidity based on reports taken that were generated from the Los Angeles International airport?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.
You attempted to duplicate the weather conditions stated for the Los Angeles International airport for the night of June the 12th, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.
Showing you People's 60, sir--People's 44. Showing you that photograph, sir, you did not place your glove, the experiment glove on soil, did you?
PROF. MACDONELL: No.
And showing you People's 169--People's 69, you didn't put your experiment glove on pavement on--on pavement that had leaves on it, did you, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: No, I did not.
And you didn't put it on a pavement that had leaves on it with overhanging trees, did you, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: No. Well, actually, there were overhanging trees, but they were over the roof. So they were under overhanging trees. The laboratory's in the woods.
They were hanging over the glove though, were they, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: Not without the roof in-between, no.
All right, sir. Are you aware that the first time the crime scene gloves were ever measured was after they had been frozen on June the 21st, 1994? Were you aware of that?
PROF. MACDONELL: No. I didn't know when they were measured.
Now, sir, you testified concerning bloody shoeprints. Let me just ask you a couple questions about that if I might. Sir, you're not testifying that shoeprints never fade, are you?
PROF. MACDONELL: No. There can be reasons that they will fade I'm sure.
And would you expect to find shoeprints that were not visible at the time of the murder to suddenly become visible in detail two weeks later?
PROF. MACDONELL: In blood you're referring?
Yes.
PROF. MACDONELL: Not without some enhancement procedure. I wouldn't think they would just appear suddenly. They might be more noticeable, but if you're talking about stark contrast, I couldn't see how they would suddenly appear very dark.
And let me ask you something else, sir. If after photographs are taken of a crime scene to depict all of the bloody shoeprints at a crime scene and people walk through the crime scene after that, that is after it's broken down, and subsequently pictures are taken--
Your Honor, objection. Beyond the scope. He just talked about biochemical reaction.
--and subsequently pictures are taken that show the appearance of shoeprints that were not shown in the photographs before the crime scene was broken down, would those shoeprints have any significance to you as a forensic scientist--
--in solution of the murders, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: I don't think I should generalize on that. I would certainly want to study it in as much detail as possible. But simply stated, shoeprints, heel prints do not appear unless somebody's been there.
Right. On a common sense basis, sir, if you see a somewhat faint shoeprint in a bloody crime scene, would you expect to see a similar shoeprint somewhere nearby?
And the new gloves that you tested that were given to you initially by Richard Rubin, those were the only gloves that you tested in this case, correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.
And with your experiments, sir, you cannot tell us why the crime scene gloves are 10 percent smaller than your brand new gloves; isn't that correct?
PROF. MACDONELL: If they're the same size, they shrunk, yes. But other than that, no. I don't know what caused it.
KEY QUOTENo. Counting this one, once.
No. I'm Scottish. No.
And with your experiments, sir, you cannot tell us why the crime scene gloves are 10 percent smaller than your brand new gloves; isn't that correct?
If they're the same size, they shrunk, yes. But other than that, no. I don't know what caused it.
Never buy retail.