But you did give your opinion that whatever caused it wasn't the amount of blood that was smeared on it on the night of June 12th; isn't that correct, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: No.
Objection.
PROF. MACDONELL: If I would have used 10 times as much blood, I could get 10 times as much shrinkage, which is 10 times. Nothing is still nothing. So I wouldn't use anymore.
Thank you. And, sir, do you remember when Miss Clark asked you some questions about shrinkage and new gloves versus old gloves, do you recall Mr. Rubin's testimony that these gloves were made with something known as naked leather?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.
And are you aware of the fact, sir, that these gloves did not have any scotch guard or other type of water repellent chemical sprayed on it?
And, sir, are you aware of the fact that between June 21st, 1994 and June of 1995, a year later, that these gloves were frozen and thawed many times in the crime laboratory?
PROF. MACDONELL: I think I've been told that. I would not be surprised. If they keep them in a freezer, to examine them, they have to take them out.
And are you aware of the fact that notwithstanding that they were frozen and thawed and frozen and thawed and frozen and thawed repeatedly over that 12-month period of time, when the gloves were measured in June of this year, they were not any smaller than they were on June 21st of 1994?
To your--did you have an opportunity to see a diagram that was made by Susan Brockbank of the gloves in question in this case at some point during your investigation of this matter?
PROF. MACDONELL: I may have. I do not honestly remember.
Do you recall that the measurements of Susan Brockbank testified to regarding the gloves in June of 1995 were not at all different--I'm sorry--were not at all more than one percent different in 1995 than they were in 1994?
Overruled.
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I do remember that. I believe I saw that particular testimony.
And finally, sir, Miss Clark asked you a series of questions about whether you could replicate every condition that these gloves were in when they were recovered on the morning of June 13th and she showed you a picture before or asked you about when you did your experiment, did you put the glove in soil. Remember her asking you that?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.
Would putting the--would--given the fact that there is no testimony at all in this case about any precipitation or any wetness at the Bundy location, would putting the glove under a plant or plant leaf make any difference in the amount of wetness that those gloves--I'm sorry--that those gloves had as a result of being soaked with blood?
And, sir, she also showed you the photograph the way the glove appeared at Rockingham when it was collected on the morning of June 13th. Did you see that photograph?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.
Do you see anywhere in that photograph leaves glistening to indicate there was any moisture at all on those leaves?
Would the fact that there is no moisture on those leaves or on that pavement do anything--
Assumes facts not in evidence, counsel. We've already talked about the dew, we've talked about the humidity, we've talked about these other factors. The jury knows what he said.
Would the fact that the glove in your experiment is not on pavement but is in that glass contraption that you created, would that make any difference, any appreciable difference in the results you generated?
PROF. MACDONELL: I didn't create it. I got it from the research laboratory. No, I don't think that it would.
If I would have used 10 times as much blood, I could get 10 times as much shrinkage, which is 10 times. Nothing is still nothing. So I wouldn't use anymore.
I cannot imagine how it would, no.
I didn't create it. I got it from the research laboratory. No, I don't think that it would.