SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 15, 1997
VOLUME 43

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor. I have just one brief procedural
matter. I spoke to brother counsel this morning, and I would like
the opportunity to reserve cross-examination until Mr. Richards is
returned tomorrow, pending the Court of Appeals' decision, if we get
one today. We filed a writ this morning, and the tact that I take on
cross-examination, strategy and so forth, will depend on whether or
not he's allowed to testify as to the Flammer photographs. There's
also another area that I think they want to get into which involves
the analysis of a totally different photograph, the Bundy glove, and
I would object to any testimony about that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Morning, Your Honor. I don't think he has a right to
reserve his cross-examination until tomorrow for tactical reasons.
They insisted on bifurcating, so it was at their insistence that the
Court ordered that Mr. Richards' examination be split up. We're
doing the Groden rebuttal and they need to do the cross-examination
on that. Tomorrow we're coming back to do the Flammer issue, and
then they can do the cross-examination on that. For tactical
reasons, they can't break it up -- they can't make us break up our
direct, and yet they can do a single integrated cross-examination
for purely tactical reasons, as he just said. I don't think there's
any basis for that.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, my cross-examination is going to be brief,
45 minutes.
THE COURT: That's brief?
MR. LEONARD: Well, what's a three-hour examination?
MR. PETROCELLI: It's not the length of time.
MR. LEONARD: There is no breaking up.
MR. PETROCELLI: You made us break it up.
THE COURT: What did the other --
MR. PETROCELLI: The other photo, Your Honor, this -- this photo --
Mr. Richards will testify that this is not a hole; this is debris
lying on the top of the glove. We let him testify about this at his
deposition after court yesterday, so they've examined him on this.
I will point out that, in interrogatories, we asked for all facts
and evidence that they had in support of a planting theory. They
told us nothing about this Bundy glove being planted, in regard to a
hole and debris. This is all brand new, Your Honor. We had no
opportunity at all to prepare for this new claim, which to this day,
I do not understand. But apparently, they want to make it, as you
heard Mr. Leonard so boisterously argue earlier in the week. We
asked Mr. Richards to take a look at these photos just the other
day. He did and he testified about them yesterday. We would like him
to testify about that as well, since this is a new claim that they
have put into the case after -- after orders of preclusion, as well,
that they weren't able to get into any matters outside of what was
in the interrogatories. And they did. This is brand new. We had no
time, opportunity or ability to prepare. They never made this claim.
Despite a year of hotly contested discovery, we learned about it
last week. So we would like an opportunity to address it so the jury
is not in any way, shape or form misled.
MR. BAKER: Comes ill from the mouth of the plaintiffs to say that it
was sprung on them, when they sprang 30 photos on us, and then
have their experts fly to Buffalo, and we have no opportunity to
review the photos at all; to come in here and say it was sprung on
us, and now we should have an opportunity to have an expert testify
to that. 2034, specifically, code sections
(k) and
(l), require them -- what they have to do if they want to amend and
enlarge the designation of their expert. They have never done that
on either the 30 photos, or this photo, or anything else. We think
they ought to be precluded.
THE COURT: When was this photograph, this one with the glove,
discovered?
MR. BAKER: Well, they've had it as long as we've had it. Since June
14. It was taken on -- on, I think, June 14, 1994. So they've had it
since the inception of the case.
MR. PETROCELLI: The glove photos have been around. But we've asked
them for every fact known to mankind on which they intend to assert
planting of evidence, in voluminous discovery. We had to go to court
three or four times to get orders. In fact, we got the last order
from this court on what they could argue and not argue in opening
statement. At no time did they tell us that they were going to
contend that the Bundy glove was planted. At no time did they say
that one glove had a hole in it and the other doesn't. They didn't
say any of that, Your Honor. They talked about the Rockingham glove.
This is brand new. We learned about this claim when Mr. Leonard
stood up in court the other day and said now we have proof. That's
what we're.
MR. LEONARD: Submitted.
THE COURT: Okay. You may do that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, with regard to the reservation of
cross-examination?
THE COURT: You can cross-examine on what he's said so far.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
(Chart displayed on easel.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:
(continued)
Q. Morning, Mr. Richards?
A. Good morning.
Q. When we left off yesterday, we were talking about the point that
Mr. Groden made about the photograph of Mr. Simpson in the end zone.
On the list that we have up on the easel, the next point had to do
with the shoes, the right shoe in particular, where Mr. Groden said
that there was -- the red reflection that appears on the sole of the
right shoe should be white rather than red. Do you agree with that?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay. Let me show you a photograph.
MR. GELBLUM: Can we mark that next in order.
THE CLERK: 2369.
MR. GELBLUM: 2369.
(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of O.J. Simpson
in the end zone was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2369.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Does 2369 show the reflection on the sole of
the right shoe, sir?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And what color is it?
A. It has a red tint to it.
Q. And do you agree that -- or do you think that red is the color it
should be?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Can you explain, please.
A. Yes. If I may show this to the jury? Basically, the right foot is
slightly angled up and over the red area of the field itself. This
pretty well is exemplified by the placement of the heel and the
shadow directly under it, it hasn't quite crossed that small blue
line there into the white area. The light shining down onto the
field is going to reflect back whatever area or color it is. If the
foot was over the white area, it would reflect back white. If it's
over the red area, it's going to reflect back red. This is a
diffused light. In other words, the light will be fairly soft but
diffused in all directions up under -- up under the foot itself. You
would expect that that would be natural, that any color that's being
-- the light shining on it will reflect that same color. The general
position of the foot is pretty evident even though there is some
foreshortening because of the long lens. It's pretty well evident
that it's back far enough that the majority of the shoe is over the
red area as opposed to the white.
Q. Can you explain that foreshortening?
A. Yes. When photographs are taken, depending on where the
photographer is with his camera, the position, it will create
anomalies that we call in some cases, foreshortening, or wide angle
distortion. They really aren't distortions; they are a function of
where the observer is or the camera is in comparison to other
objects out in front. If the object -- all of the objects are far
away and they're fairly close together by themselves, the farther
away they get, you will have a foreshortening effect which will make
them appear to shorten -- to become shorter than they are.
Inversely, if you use a very wide-angle lens, or you see things in a
very wide-angle state, things will tend to elongate. Some of you may
have seen wide-angle pictures that are taken very closely to
people's faces which makes their nose look three times bigger than
their head, and their ears six inches behind the back of their head.
That's the inverse of foreshortening. In this case, there was a long
lens used so the foot and the shoe would be somewhat
foreshortened.
Q. Mr. Groden also opined that there may not -- it may -- that there
shouldn't be any reflection at all on the sole of that shoe. Do you
agree with that?
A. No, not necessarily. There -- you may not be able to detect in a
photograph a reflection, there may not be enough light. But if the
bottom of the shoe has enough sheen or reflection to it, it very
well may record as the -- actually, the sole pattern records on the
bottom of there.
Q. Do you consider the reflection on the bottom of the sole of the
right shoe evidence of alteration of this photograph?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Next point Mr. Groden made on the list, we discussed what he
called, I think, sort of a halo effect on both the left and the
right shoe. Do you know what he's talking about there?
A. On both the left and right shoe?
Q. I believe so, yes. Do you see what he's referring to on the
soles?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it this picture?
A. Yes.
Q. Showing you Exhibit 2287.
MR. GELBLUM: Can the jurors see that? Can he come down to the jury?
You want to come down to the jury because we're talking about small
parts on the shoes there.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. GELBLUM: If that's okay, Your Honor?
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) First, sir, if you can point out the area where
this halo effect is.
A. Basically, there's actually a halo effect which appears around
most of the image. I think the one in question, though, is around
the edges -- the edges of the shoes, on the bottom, by the soles, by
the tip of the right shoe, and then the back here, it's very, very
-- it's difficult to see, but right at the sole level of the left
shoe, back by the heel again.
MR. GELBLUM: For the record, we're looking at Exhibit 2287.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you have an opinion as to the cause of that
halo effect?
A. Yes. It's quite common and can actually be seen in a number of
other portions of this picture and in other pictures also. Any time
you have something that is backlit -- slightly backlit, and this
picture is backlit, meaning that the light -- the main body of the
light is coming a little bit in back and to the right of Mr.
Simpson.
Q. How can you tell that?
A. I can tell by the highlights on the pants, the shoulders, the
forehead, the back lighting on the hand, on the right hand, and the
way the shadows are falling here. In this particular case, that
highlighting effect leaves a very light area anyplace there is a
distinct edge. This is a fraction of the light actually around the
edge slightly, and it takes on the color of whatever the background
or the closest edge to it is. It can take on the color. Our eyes
kind of -- kind of force us into seeing that color. As a matter of
fact, that can be seen, the same halo effect that goes up the side
of the leg here, as it transverses from red to white, the little
halo effect along the side of the pants, you'll see red to white,
red to white, red to white, as it goes up the side of the pants.
Q. What would that be from?
A. Again, it's just a transition of the light from the dark area to
the light area of the background of the field, and just where the
light is, right at the edge from -- it's being backlit, that very
bright spot is taking on the color of whatever is nearest to it.
Q. You said you could see that on other photographs?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me take a look at the photograph of Mr. Simpson with Keith
Byars. I think he's been identified as -- that's Exhibit 2289. Do
you see that effect in that photograph?
A. Actually, the effect can probably be shown a little bit better in
this photograph because the left arm -- see this white line along
the left arm; this is the halo effect we were talking about. That's
also on the shoes, but since the shoes are so small, it's a little
indistinction to it. We can see that it picks up a grayish bluish
effect as it goes up or grayish bluish. Then it picks up a yellow
tint when it met the background. Again, it's a common phenomenon
when something is backlit. It will have a very slight halo effect to
it when it's backlit, and that halo effect will take on a color of
the background or sometimes the color of the object, depending on
what the color is. But it is basically a natural phenomenon.
Q. Do you consider that halo effect on the shoes that Mr. Groden
described as evidence of alteration of this photograph?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Mr. Groden also said that he had some kind of problem, although
he -- I think he said it was conjecture about the two photographs
adjoining the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone
on the contact sheet, being different exposures than the rest of
the roll. First of all, do you agree they are different exposures?
A. They're slightly overexposed, maybe a stop, stop and a half,
something like that.
Q. And do you see any problem with that in terms of the authenticity
of the photo of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone?
A. No, not particularly. This is not a fully automatic camera like
the new modern cameras of today; it's a semi-automatic camera. So
you have to set one of the controls one way or another and
physically adjust the other control. It's very common to be a stop
or two off as you're moving from subject to subject. And here he was
moving from a fairly dark scene -- Mr. Simpson -- where we have dark
red -- dark pants, dark jacket, to a fairly bright scene, and he
just may have miscompensated a stop for it. To be very candid, the
entire roll is very well exposed, for the most part.
Q. Is the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone
properly exposed?
A. It appears to be, yes.
Q. Do you consider the exposure evidence -- an indication of --
evidence of an alteration?
A. No, I do not.
Q. The next point that Mr. Groden made had to do with it wasn't an
analysis of the photos. You didn't see any evidence of moisture in
this photograph? Do you see any evidence of moisture in the
photograph?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen any evidence of moisture on any of the other frames
or on any -- either of the contact sheets Mr. Scull shot?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. You consider the lack of evidence of moisture in the
photograph evidence of alteration?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And the last point Mr. Groden made was that the photograph of Mr.
Simpson is the first frame on the roll. In your opinion, and in your
experience, does that have anything whatsoever to do with alteration
of a photograph?
A. No, not any, not to any technique that I'm aware of would the
first frame make any difference whatsoever. It could have been any
frame in a roll, if it was to be altered, the first one has no
significance whatsoever.
Q. So then, do you consider any of the points that Mr. Groden made
regarding the photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes
walking to the end zone to be evidence of alteration of that
photograph, whatsoever?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And did you, in your own examination, determine any evidence of
alteration in that photograph?
A. I could find no characteristics in those photographs, whatsoever,
that led me to the conclusion that any alteration had been made on
the photograph or, in particular, the shoe or pants area.
Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to turn to another issue entirely, sir. Have
you had an opportunity to look at the photographs of the -- a glove
--
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. -- at issue in this case? Let me show you --
MR. LEONARD: For the record, objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) We place before you, sir --
MR. GELBLUM: Can I mark the chart we were talking about for
identification next in order.
THE CLERK: That would be 2370.
MR. GELBLUM: That's the chart with the list of Groden's issues.
(The instrument herein referred to as a chart listing Mr. Groden's
points was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2370.)
MR. GELBLUM: I ask Mr. Foster to put on the Elmo what was previously
marked as 2309.
MR. FOSTER: 2311.
MR. GELBLUM: 2311, sorry.
(Exhibit 2311 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This has been represented to be the glove that
was found at the crime scene at Bundy. Did you have an opportunity
to look at this photograph, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you look at an enlargement of the photograph?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is what I'm handing you the enlargement that you looked at?
A. This appears to be the same enlargement that I originally looked
at, and this also appears to be a slightly reduced enlargement of
the -- of the glove.
Q. Did you look at that as well?
A. It appears to be the same one, yes.
Q. And did you also look at another photograph that I'm handing you
-- I'll mark these in a minute -- showing the label on the glove.
A. Yes, I did.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. I'd like to mark this enlargement, the closest
enlargement, as next in order.
THE CLERK: 2371.
(The instrument herein referred to as anenlargementt of a photograph
of a glove was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2371.)
MR. GELBLUM: And one slightly more distant as 2372.
(The instrument herein referred to as an enlargement of a photograph
of a glove was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2372.)
MR. GELBLUM: And the small one showing a label as 2373.
(The instrument herein referred to as an enlargement of a photograph
of a glove showing a label was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2373.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) How did you examine those photographs, sir?
A. Basically, I examined it using a head loupe, the same head loupe
that I used here yesterday in court, in addition to a small second
eye loupe that is a little more powerful than that particular
device.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, can you focus -- zoom in on the white spot.
(Elmo adjusted.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Could you come to a conclusion, sir, about what
that white spot is?
A. I was asked to examine that particular white spot to see if I
could determine what it was and how it was orientated to the glove.
In this particular case, it was my determination that that was a
piece of debris sitting on top of the glove itself. However, the
exact material that it was, I was not able to determine from the
photographic examination.
Q. And what was the basis for your conclusion that it is a piece
of debris sitting on top of the glove?
A. Well, basically, the positioning, the material that it's composed
of in the back -- back portion -- if I might, Your Honor, might I
step down?
THE COURT:
(Nods affirmative.)
A. It's debris back in the -- for the sake of this particular image,
on the upper portion of it, there appears to be dirt or soil similar
to the dirt and soil up in this particular area. And also, on the
smaller reduction -- reduced portion of the photograph, there's dirt
and debris very similar to that soil. It could also be seen on the
left side of the -- the white piece of debris. And in further
examining it, it appears there are like little hair-like fibers in
the debris itself. Those hair-like fibers can be seen dipping down
under in the base -- on the right-hand side into the shadow area. If
we look very closely into the shadow area, you can just see the
weave or the texture of the glove going into the shadow area. In
addition to that, in examining the shadow itself, it was totally
consistent with the shadow of the rest of the debris as to the
direction and angle, making it consistent with the flash that took
this picture producing a shadow in the lower half of that portion,
which indicates that it is above the surface of the glove itself.
Q. Can you explain that -- why the fact -- why there's a shadow
indicating there is debris above the surface of the glove?
A. Well, in this particular case, if a light source which is coming
from the upper left-hand corner here is shining down in this
direction on all of the other material, and you can see it here on
the back, how the shadow falls in this direction, if this in fact --
let's say it was a hole, this portion would be lit and the top
portion would be in shadow, and it's the inverse of that, indicating
that the material's on top of the surface, producing a shadow
directly underneath.
Q. Okay. Did you make a determination whether that white material
could be the lining of the glove?
A. Well, I asked to look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2373 --
MR. GELBLUM: Let me put that on the Elmo.
A. -- to determine what the lining of the glove is to see, if
perhaps, it was a piece of lining itself that had got lodged or
possibly come from the inside of the glove onto the surface of it.
However, the lining of the glove appears to be a brown color as
opposed to a white and doesn't have the same texture around the top
and -- or textured material around the top and left edge, which,
as I said, appears to be a soil of some sort.
Q. Well --
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, for the jury's benefit, may I pass around
2371, this enlargement that we had made?
THE COURT: You may.
(Jurors examine Exhibit 2371.)
MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions for the witness, Your
Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Put that back up, if you will, please. Thank you.
Actually, the exhibit before.
MR. FOSTER: 2311.
(Exhibit 2311 is displayed.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Mr. Richards.
A. Morning, sir.
Q. Let me ask you something before we get started on some background
questions and so forth. Let's get right to this issue -- to this
issue of the glove. You've made a determination that there's a
piece of debris on the top of the glove, correct?
A. That's my opinion, yes, sir.
Q. You're aware of the fact, are you not, that Mr. Fung testified
before this jury that there was a cut underneath the piece of
debris? Are you aware of that?
MR. GELBLUM: Object, Your Honor, no foundation, misstates the
testimony.
MR. LEONARD: Exactly what he testified.
MR. GELBLUM: Not what he testified.
MR. BAKER: Page 63, January 8, bottom of 62, top of 63.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Are you aware of the fact --
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's also argumentative.
MR. GELBLUM: It's not what it says at all.
THE COURT: Approach the bench with the reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. GELBLUM: They're saying top of -- bottom of 62 to 63.
(Court reviews transcript.)
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. But Mr. Leonard could read
that portion to the witness.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Reading from page 62, line -- page 62, line 16.
(Reading:) And you're telling me that's not a cut, Mr. -- Question
by Mr. Baker. -- Mr. Fung? Well, there's an area of damage on there;
I don't know if it's a cut or if it was caused by a rip.
Q. Now, are you telling this jury that there was a rock in that
exact area and you have a recollection of that when you collected
the Bundy glove on June 13, 1994? Yes.
Q. And you didn't see the damaged area because a rock was on it;
is that what you're telling this jury? I'm telling you that damaged
area was where a rock was.
Q. And you couldn't see the damaged area because there was a rock on
top of it; is that your testimony, sir?
A. I'm saying it was embedded in that damaged area.
Q. So it was embedded in the damaged area?
A. Yes. Now, you were -- sir, let me put this question to you: You
have no idea from your examination of this photograph whether
there's a damaged area underneath that piece of debris, do you?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you have any reason to doubt Mr. Fung's testimony that he saw
a damaged area?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, I do not.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, let's talk a little bit about you. Mr.
Gelblum spent some considerable amount of time going through your
qualifications. He asked you a lot of questions about your
experience in questioned documents -- examination of questioned
documents and photographic examination. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when you were testifying about your experience, were you
trying to leave the impression with the jury that you spent a great
majority of your time examining questioned photographs? Were you
trying to leave that impression, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. You may ask him how much time he did it.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You have testified in how many cases, total,
sir, in your career?
A. Over 100.
Q. Would you say 200?
A. Over 100. I don't -- I don't keep track of how many cases I
testified to, but I would definitely -- I would be certain it would
be over a hundred.
Q. Now, is it fair to say, sir, that in less than ten of those cases
were you called upon to render an opinion about whether or not a
photograph was faked or not? Is that fair to say?
A. That's fair to say.
Q. In fact, it would be less than five?
A. That's fair to say.
Q. Would it be less than three, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this the first case you've ever testified in which there was
an issue of whether or not there was a photograph faked or not?
A. I have testified in a deposition regarding a faked photograph but
not in a trial court.
Q. You've never testified before a jury on that issue, have you,
sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. And in your career at the FBI, sir, you spent the vast majority
of your time when you were examining photographs doing analysis of
the photograph to determine what images were on the photograph,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For instance, to determine the height of a bank robber from a
surveillance video, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You spent very little time at all examining photographs to
determine whether or not they were real or fake; isn't that right,
sir?
A. I spent just exactly the amount of time that was necessary on
each case.
Q. You spent, sir -- the percent of your cases that involved the
question of whether or not a photograph was faked was very small,
wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Less than one percent, wouldn't you say, sir?
A. Probably.
Q. Did you tell that to Mr. Gelblum when he was interviewing you
before your testimony?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you ever work in the field of creating
composite negatives, sir?
A. In the field itself?
Q. Yeah. Did you ever work making composite negatives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't do that for a living at any time, did you, sir?
A. Well, it was part of my duties as what I was doing, yes.
Q. By the way, when is the last time that you testified with regard
to the allegation that a photograph was faked?
A. As I mentioned, I only testified in a deposition. That was about
two years ago -- or, excuse me -- it was two and a half years ago.
Q. Now, the examination of a photograph to determine whether or not
it's altered, that's not an exact science, is it?
A. No, sir.
Q. In fact, it involves a lot of subjective determinations on the
part of the examiner, doesn't it?
A. Yes, sir, based on experience and education.
Q. Can you answer my question yes or no? You can explain all you
want.
MR. GELBLUM: He did. I object to the comment.
THE COURT: Question may remain.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) There are no standards, are there, with regard
to the examination of questioned photographs?
A. Would you define for me what you mean by standards.
Q. Yeah. Are there any guidelines you can look to, standards that
say you should look for X, Y and Z if you see any indicia of a fake
that allows you to call a photograph a fake? Is there anything like
that that you rely on?
A. No, sir.
Q. It's up to each individual examiner to make a subjective decision
about whether or not the photograph is a fake, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you make a judgment as to whether or not a particular
phenomenon or indication on a photograph is innocent, that is it
doesn't lead to a conclusion of fakery, as opposed to culpatory,
leading to a conclusion that a photograph is a fake, you take into
account all of your past experience, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any biases that you may bring into the case, right?
A. I take into account any of my biases.
Q. You would agree if there is any bias you have, that could very
well influence you? Do you agree with that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you would also agree that in order to make the ultimate
determination of whether or not a photograph is fake, you have to
take into account not just what you see within the four corners of
the photograph but all of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the photograph, the conditions under which it was taken and the
history of the negative and so forth? Would you agree with that,
sir?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Not necessarily?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Sir, you were -- you were an FBI investigator, Mr. -- you were
actually a specialist, you were a special agent, you were actually a
field investigator for some period of time, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is it your testimony before this jury, if you were going to
make a determination whether or not a photograph is a fake or not,
that you could disregard these other external factors, that is
factors that you don't see within the four corners of the
photograph?
A. One, what are the factors that we're talking about?
Q. Whether or not there was a motivation on the part of a
photographer or his agent, for instance, to fake the photograph, do
you think that's something that should be taken into account, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, any such
motivation in this case.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. No, sir.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) That's not something that should be taken into
account?
A. Not by me.
Q. Do you think it should be taken into account by the jury or
someone who should be --
MR. GELBLUM: That's really improper; ask that it be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Your job was to look at these photographs with
tunnel vision, looking at just the four corners of the
photographs, the negatives and the contact sheets, to see whether
you could see any indicia of fakery, correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Was that your job?
THE COURT: He may answer.
A. As stated, no.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When you were told -- were you told by the
plaintiffs to disregard anything other than what you saw in the
actual photographs, negatives and contact sheet?
A. No.
Q. Did you disregard that?
A. What do you mean by disregard?
Q. Any other information you received other than what you saw
through the microscope, through the loupe, and measured.
A. Not anything that had significance to my exam, no.
Q. Did it have significance to your exam, sir, that this photograph
was to be sold? Did that have -- that it was sold? Did that have any
significance, sir?
A. No.
Q. Did it have significance to you, sir, that the photograph got
into the hands of a fellow named McElroy, as testified by Mr. Scull,
was flown to London and came back on the Concord? Did that have
any significance to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever talked to McElroy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ask him about the history of the photograph?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ask him why he had the negative flown to London? Did you
ask him that, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't think that was important?
A. I didn't know it was flown to London.
Q. You didn't?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you read Harry Scull's deposition?
A. I finally read Harry Scull's deposition yesterday.
Q. Well, that's in there, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You just told the jury you didn't know that?
A. I didn't know when I talked to Mr. McElroy.
Q. Oh, I see. Did you think that was important when you read it in
Scull's deposition?
A. No.
Q. Did you wonder why McElroy had the photograph flown to London and
back on the Concord?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you know how much Scull got for the
photograph?
A. No, sir.
Q. That wasn't important to you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, goes to motive.
MR. GELBLUM: Not this witness.
THE COURT: This is not his expertise.
MR. GELBLUM: It's argument.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, is it true, sir, that you can't always tell
whether a photograph is fake? Is that true?
A. That I can't always tell?
Q. Yeah.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, the technology and techniques that exist today can be
fairly sophisticated and very good, can't they?
A. They can be, yes, sir.
Q. To the extent to where even a seasoned examiner like you can't
see any indicia of a fake?
A. Under some circumstances, yes.
Q. And by the way, you're not telling this jury that you're 100
percent certain that this photograph isn't a fake, are you, sir?
A. In my mind?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You're saying 100 percent?
A. I'm saying that around the area that is in question, the feet and
shoes and leg areas, my opinion is 100 percent certain it is not a
fake.
Q. Despite the fact, sir, that you testified in your deposition, did
you not, that there are techniques out there and technology
available that could make it literally impossible under certain
circumstances -- in fact, in many cases, for photographs to be faked
with no indicia of fakery, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what you do when you look to see if there's any fakery in a
photograph is you basically look to see if there are any clues left
behind, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Clues that the photograph has been faked, correct. And would you
agree with me, sir, that the areas that Mr. Gelblum had up on that
board, in general terms, would be areas of clues or indicators
that a photograph would be fake? Would you agree with that?
A. I would say the great majority would not be.
Q. But there were some up there that were, weren't there, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, you would agree with me that the existence of an edge
that shouldn't be there is an indicator of a faked photograph,
right, that can be?
A. An edge that shouldn't be there?
Q. Yeah.
A. Be where?
Q. An edge along the side of a negative that shouldn't be there,
that -- wouldn't that be an indication that there's been a cutout,
sir?
A. In the picture area or outside of the picture area?
Q. Outside the picture area, sir.
A. Probably not.
Q. It could be, though, isn't that right, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It could be.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, one -- one of the areas, also, that Mr.
Groden testified to was whether or not there was an edge along the
bottom of the first photograph, the subject photograph, that
shouldn't be there. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. And you had taken the position with this jury that that is
actually some kind of an image of a football field; is that correct?

A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Can we put that up. Hold on, I got it right here. Would
you mind stepping down, holding this up for the jury.
THE COURT REPORTER: What number is that, please?
MR. LEONARD: That's 2368.
(Exhibit 2368 is displayed for jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Can everyone see that?
(Jury panel nods affirmatively.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, is it your testimony, sir, that that --
that these lines represent the lines of the football field?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. And you testified yesterday that the camera was facing down
when that photograph was -- when that image was taken. Do you
remember that, sir?
A. Facing slightly down, yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember saying yesterday that it was facing down? Do you
remember that?
A. Facing in a down direction, relative to the other image that I
was showing on frame 12, yes, sir.
Q. With the lens down, correct?
A. Not down. Slightly down, as I said yesterday, pointing in a
slightly down direction.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that you're opining that that
photograph was taken from the end zone; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would you agree with me, sir, that if the photograph is taken
from the end zone, that the person taking the photograph had to be
about 60 or 70 feet off the ground? Would you agree with me about
that, sir?
A. No, I would not.
MR. LEONARD: Show that to the jury again, please.
THE COURT: You want him to still stand there?
MR. LEONARD: No, he can resume.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(Witness resumes witness stand.)
(Jurors pass around Exhibit 2368 among themselves.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Sir, did you compare that photograph with any of
the other images -- any of the other images -- that image which you
say is a -- is a partial photograph of the football field, with any
of the other images on the contact sheet?
A. Yes, I believe I used my frame 12 here as an illustration to
compare it with that. We passed it around to the jury yesterday.
Q. Did you see, sir, that when -- when a photograph was taken with
the lines of the football field, that the lines, as -- as they -- as
they move away from the position of the photographer, they got
closer and closer together? Did you see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you see that they got -- at the end, the last couple lines
were virtually right next to each other? Did you see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't see that in this photograph, do you?
A. And you wouldn't, either. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, the last two lines are almost equal distance from each
other -- the last three lines, isn't that right, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, we also talked about the issue of the reflection on the
bottom of the shoe purported to be worn by Mr. Simpson in that
photograph. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you told this jury that there you'd expect reflection no
matter what the surface was, whether -- what the color, whether it
was red, white or green for that matter, correct?
A. I would expect that color to be reflected onto whatever surface
is directly above it, yes.
Q. Including green --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- right? Did you have an opportunity to look at any of the other
-- there were other images there where the foot is slightly raised,
other images where the foot of the individual in the photograph is
slightly raised. Did you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have a chance to look at those, sir?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you notice that you can't see any detail on the sole --
underside of the soles of any of those photographs? Did you notice
that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you think that was a little strange?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you notice that there's no reflection underneath the soles on
any of those photographs, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And some of those were over green and some of those are over
other colors, aren't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No reflection?
A. None that I could see, no, sir.
MR. LEONARD: I'll put up some photographs. Start with contact sheet
2 at frame 17
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1833.
(The instrument herein referred to as contact sheet was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1925.)
(Exhibit 1925 displayed on Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You're looking at frame 17, which is a
photograph of --
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry; it's 1925.
MR. LEONARD: If you could zoom in -- there you go.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) That's a photograph of Marv Levi, correct? Do
you know who that is, by the way?
A. Do I?
Q. Yeah.
A. I believe he's the Buffalo Bills coach.
Q. Fine. Take a look at the underside of the sole, there.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You can't see any -- you can't see any detail on the bottom of
that sole, can you?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you can't see any reflection of any green, can you, sir?
A. No, I cannot.
MR. LEONARD: The next photograph would be C2F -- frame 15, contact
sheet 2, frame 15. Can you zoom in on the feet?
MR. P. BAKER: That's as far as that goes.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You examined that?
A. Yes, from --
MR. P. BAKER: I'm going to -- the pro has told me how to work this
thing.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I'm glad you learned by the end of the trial.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Couldn't see any detail whatsoever on the
underside of the sole?
A. That's correct.
Q. No reflection, correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Can we go to contact sheet 1, frame 26.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, that's coach Don Schula, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Same question, sir: Do you see any detail on the bottom of the
sole?
A. Yes. In that particular picture, you can see detail.
Q. Do you see any reflection, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Show the jury where the detail is.
A. Could -- would you enlarge that to the maximum capability?
Q. That's it.
A. Well, it isn't evident. But on -- I'll explain it from here.
That's the left shoe. On the right-hand side of the shoe, you can
see the serration of the sole itself. In other words, the design is
somewhat of a serrated design, and you can see the detail of it on
the right-hand portion of it when you look at it under
magnification.
Q. Sir, would you agree with me that the amount of detail that you
can see in that sole is nowhere near the amount of detail you can
see in the sole of the shoe depicted in the subject photograph? You
agree with that, wouldn't you, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. You'd also agree there's no reflection there, wouldn't you?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. There's no halo effect around that shoe, is there, sir?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Well, look at it, if you don't recall. There's no halo on that,
is there, sir?
A. Well, from that particular image, I would not be able to
determine. I would have to go back and look.
Q. Your best recollection is, there was none?
A. Not --
MR. PETROCELLI: He was in the middle of an answer, Your Honor, and
he interrupted him.
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE CLERK: For the record, this is Exhibit 1924.
Q. Now, you also testified, I believe --
MR. LEONARD: Can we put the photograph that has the close-up. Yeah.
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1830 going on the screen.
(Exhibit 1830 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. LEONARD: If you go down to the area of the foot, particularly
the right foot, and focus as best you can.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You testified just now on direct examination,
that the majority of that shoe was over the red. Do you remember
saying that on direct examination, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Some of it's over the white. Would you agree with that, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that there should be some white
reflection, if that is a valid photograph, on the very tip of that
shoe?
A. No, sir.
MR. LEONARD: Now, let's move -- let's pull back on this particular
image. Do we have a number on this --
MR. P. BAKER: 1830.
MR. LEONARD: -- so the record is clear? And if you could, try to
focus on the scratch along the right-hand side.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: Not that close. Pull back a little.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: And up a little bit, please.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: There we go.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you spent a lot of time on your direct
examination talking about this -- what you described as a scratch
made by the camera.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Never got a chance to examine the camera, correct?
A. I didn't hear.
Q. You never got a chance to examine Scull's camera, correct?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Scull told you that it had been stolen, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, before we get into the specifics here, would you agree
that if you were going to fake a photograph, and that you wanted to
do a thorough job of covering your tracks, that you would attempt to
create a duplicate negative and fit it back into the original roll
that you were claiming the photograph was taken on? Would you agree
with that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Never heard of that happening; is that right?
A. Not in that -- not that technique as you've just described it.
Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that if you were going to do that,
that you would try to use the same camera to recreate the fake roll
of film?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. He just said he never heard of
anybody doing that.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you were going to use that technique that you
haven't heard of?
(Laughter.)
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
MR. PETROCELLI: Now we're in Never Never Land, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: No, we're not.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, we've been there.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: Well, it calls for speculation. It's close, so I'll allow
it.
A. No, sir.
(Laughter.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, when you -- I take it you examined this
rather closely, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And one of the things you were looking for was to see if there
was a continuous scratch, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And, first of all, this -- this illustrates quite nicely
how the first slide is out of line with the second. Would you agree
with that?
A.
(No verbal response.)
Q. Do you follow that scratch up there, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And, of course, your explanation for that is an innocent
one; that it has something to do with the movement of the camera,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It can also be that that was inserted into -- that was a fake
negative inserted into this film, correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. When you see a fake negative inserted into a -- into a strip, if
you don't insert it exactly correct, it can be out of line, correct?

A. I would never -- I've never heard of, nor would I understand, any
reason to do it in that manner.
Q. Now, if -- You are telling the jury that -- that this scratch was
caused by the camera, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you're saying that the scratch occurs as the film is pulled
through the camera, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that if the film was moving, you
wouldn't see any change in that scratch whatsoever? Is that what
you're saying?
A. You're going to have to wind the film. If the film was moving,
you wouldn't see any change -- that kind of change.
Q. You said that the fact that this negative is out of alignment has
something to do with the fact that the film was moving in the
camera, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Wouldn't you expect to see some change in that scratch, sir, that
the scratch would move?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't see any between these frames, do you, sir?
A. I wouldn't expect to, necessarily.
Q. You don't see any, do you?
A. No, sir, I do not.
MR. LEONARD: Can you put up -- yeah, put that photograph up again.
The one that's on the Elmo, just pull it back. Focus on that right
foot again, please.
(Mr. P. Baker adjusts Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I want you to take a look carefully, sir, at the
positioning of that foot on the ground, and in particular, at the
position of the heel. You see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That heel is flat on the ground, is it not, sir?
A. From that photograph, I cannot tell.
MR. LEONARD: Now what are we putting up?
MR. P. BAKER: This is a zoomed 1931.
(Exhibit 1931 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. LEONARD: Just zoom back first.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me ask you a couple foundational questions.
You testified in your deposition that -- that the shoe was in the
position where the toe is up and it's cocked to the left, correct?
A. I said to the left. It should be -- it should have been to the
left.
Q. Cocked to the right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I want to you take a look at that heel. Is that heel not
flat on the ground, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. With no portion above the surface?
A. No, sir.
Q. How much is above the surface, sir?
A. A small portion in the front of the heel.
Q. Extremely small portion, right?
MR. LEONARD: Zoom in.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
A. It depends on how you define "extremely." I say a small portion
of it is above the ground.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Measure it. Can you measure it? Did you attempt
to measure it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you've discussed in your direct testimony a lot of
experiments. You did demonstrations; you put those in front of the
jury. Let me ask you something. Did you ever try to replicate this
photograph? In other words, did you ever attempt to try to take a
similar photograph, sir, with -- with someone walking in the manner
that Mr. Simpson is, with the same stride pattern? Did you ever try
to do that?
A. No, sir. That would be extremely difficult.
Q. You didn't do that, right?
A. No, sir, I did not.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. LEONARD: Maybe I do. Hold on.
MR. BAKER: We can take a ten-minute recess.
THE COURT: Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any
opinions.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR.
GELBLUM: (continued)
Q. You said this is the first time -- I think the first time you
testified in court on the subject of an altered photographed; is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir, that's true.
Q. How many cases have you worked on involving alteration of
photographs?
A. Probably somewhere between 50 and 60.
Q. In all the professional organizations that you belong to and the
agencies you've worked with, do you know anybody in the country who
has worked on more cases involving altered photographs than you?
A. Not that I'm aware of no, sir.
Q. On those 50 or 60 cases, do you know why those didn't come to
court?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: You may explain.
A. I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Go ahead.
A. In about half of them, they were not criminal matters, they were
cases involving alterations made such as in MIA cases, prisoner of
war cases, where photographs had been put forth as being individuals
who were in the military being held by Vietnamese; those type of
examinations. The other half, approximately, were criminal
matters. However, most of them just did not go to trial. I was
called a number of times for testimony, but the cases settled before
that particular time.
Q. I think you testified over 100 times in court?
A. Somewhere between 100 and 200, yes, sir.
Q. And some of those involved forensic photography issues?
A. Yes, sir, a great many of them.
Q. Do you use the same, or some of the same, skills examining a
photo for alteration as you do in examining a photo for comparison
purposes?
A. First of all, you have to have a good understanding of the
photographic process, from the camera, to the film, to the
processing techniques, pretty well across the board. You to have a
basic knowledge through training, education, and also just pure
experience looking at a lot of -- lot of film, lot of negatives, lot
of prints, over the years, to understand the many characteristics in
photography that you may run across in doing an examination. And all
of these relate one way or another, eventually, to doing an
examination of alterations.
Q. Okay. Does the FBI, when you were working with the FBI, get
many alteration cases?
A. The FBI itself will accept cases from all 56 of the field
divisions and 11,000 police departments throughout the United States
and the unit was the special photographic unit, we would get
somewhere between three or possibly four a year of this type of
case.
Q. Did you work on those?
A. I worked on the grand majority of them. Other agents there also
worked on them, but not as many as normally I would.
Q. So you just don't see many claims about photographs that have
been altered?
A. You just don't see many claims, yes.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you when determining whether a photograph had
been altered is an exact science. You said it is not, sir?
A. It is not.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. An exact science. I don't think any science is exact. Even in
mathematics there's idiosyncrasies that don't make it exact, like
pi; you can't get an exact number for pi. But most sciences are not
exact, most sciences require a -- a methodology and an analysis,
evaluations, and a conclusion, as a rule, and this science follows
just like most others. Some sciences, you have to use more
experience than others, and this is one of them.
Q. In this field, training and experience is important?
A. Very important.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you questions about bias. Do you have any bias
in this case?
A. I feel I do not.
Q. Have you ever had a case where you were hired to determine some
issue with respect to a photograph and you gave your employer an
answer they didn't want?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LEONARD: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. Yes. Particularly since I have been in private practice, I would
say probably one-third of cases I receive, I provide the answer to
my client, and they would rather not talk to me again after that.
When I was in the FBI, I would also, even though those were all
criminal cases, and mostly all prosecution cases that were coming
in, many times I would issue a report that was contrary to the -- to
the beliefs of the prosecution, and henceforth, the case may or may
not go to court.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Leonard also asked you if you had
looked at anything outside the four corners of this particular
photograph in reaching your conclusion that it has not been altered.
Did you look at any other photographs?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What photographs did you look at?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
MR. GELBLUM: He opened the door.
MR. LEONARD: Based on your prior ruling --
MR. GELBLUM: He opened the door, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Approach the bench and tell me which door he opened.
(Laughter.)
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Leonard asked did he look at anything else. In
fact, he looked at the Flammer photographs. And those re-enforce his
opinion -- supports his conclusion about the authenticity of the
Scull photographs and these other photographs showing the same shoes
-- just not going to go into detail of authenticity itself or
anything else. He did ask him whether he looked at anything else
and the fact is he did.
MR. LEONARD: That was specifically in the context of questions about
motive and such things as that. I did not intend to, nor did I
communicate to this jury anything that would open the door to the
Flammer photos. That's a subject of a writ at this point and this --

THE COURT: All right. Save it for tomorrow.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. GELBLUM: We may try to talk about that later.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Leonard asked you whether a -- if you could
see a false edge outside the image, whether that could be evidence
of alterations. Is there any doubt in your mind about this false
edge issue in this case?
A. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind about the false edge issue
in this case. There's no doubt in my mind that it is the frame
previous to it that's underexposed that's taken during the initial
loading of the camera.
Q. Is there a false edge in this case?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you whether the photographer would have to be
60 or 70 feet above ground to get this image, and you said no?
A. No, sir, it would not.
Q. Would you explain?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I?
THE COURT:
(Nods affirmatively.)
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
A. I'll go through the process of loading the camera. Let's assume
this is the end zone of the football field, and the football field
is -- looking down here, all the lines are parallel to my particular
camera. Where I'm standing, I'm just looking down the football
field, and loading the camera. Normally, the position would be to
hold it -- pick it up, as I'm doing here, take the film out of my,
possibly, bag, and place it into the camera, and once I get it into
the camera, close the back -- close the back, look at where No. 1 is
on the top of my camera here, and click off two or three shots. Now,
if I were to hold the camera exactly at 90 degrees to the ground,
pointing straightforward, we would see -- and if we have the
photographs here -- we would see the horizon line. And the horizon
line being the image in back of here, we would see the ground
portion as we see them in Exhibit -- I mean in frame No. 12, 13, 14,
the great majority of these.
(Indicating to Exhibit 2366.)
A. As we tip the camera down, even a few degrees, this much -- let's
say 15 degrees down, the top of the camera is no longer going to see
the end of the field, it's going to see what's in front of me to
this point on, out to a certain distance, depending on what the tilt
is. If I were to hold it directly down, it would see none of the
field, of course. But somewhere between 90 degrees and looking
straight down, the camera would pick up the first few lines, and
they would tend to diminish, as they did, until it was out of the
field of view any longer.
Q. Is that the normal position for loading a camera?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do the lines in frame 0 diminish as you would expect them to
diminish?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. I think you told Mr. Leonard that you would not expect to see the
last couple of lines in frame 0 right next to each other?
A. No, because basically, we're not seeing far enough down the
field. If we were seeing farther down the field, they would continue
to get closer and closer until either we ran out of lines or
eventually they would appear all to be touching as one big line at
the end of the field, very similar to when I showed the image of the
railroad ties yesterday; we could see the first couple ties in front
of us very plainly, but as they continued on down the track, they
were no longer distinct, they all kind of merged into one.
Q. Can you hold up the exhibit in front of you. What's the number on
the back?
A. Yes, Exhibit 2365.
Q. And that shows the lines there?
A. Yes. This would be the closest line to the camera. There very
well may be a line closer than that we can't see, it's out of the
frame, and then continuing up at least six lines here until we no
longer see them, but the lines will continue on down the field to
the end zone.
Q. If you say you see more lines, they would in fact get closer and
closer together?
A. Yes. If we tipped the camera up to the horizon, we would see
images very, very similar to what we see in the other frames.
However, when you're loading the camera, as I said, you're pointing
the camera slightly down, you're not intending to take a picture.
And if you remember the example I used yesterday, many times when
amateurs take pictures, they get pictures of their feet or the
kitchen tiles or what have you, because they're pointing the camera
basically down.
Q. Now, Mr. Leonard showed you some photographs of some other shoes
on the field, some other people's shoes, and the soles of those
shoes, and you said, I think, you saw less detail in the soles of
those shoes than you do in the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking
across the end zone.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That misstates his testimony. He said he
didn't see any detail except for one. When he says soles --
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) He talked about the detail and the soles. Do you
recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And why would you -- do you have an opinion as to why you don't
see the detail in those shoes, or as much detail as the one in the
photographs?
A. Well, there may be numerous reasons: One of them is the different
types of shoes, different types of materials on the bottom.
Different lighting conditions very well may cause it. And when we
actually look at the shoe of -- Mr. Simpson's shoe, here at the
bottom we can see -- we only see a very small portion of the sole
where the light is reflecting off of it on the far right-hand side.
All the rest of it is black and has no detail, just like the other
shoes in the other photographs.
Q. Okay. Mr. Leonard also showed you some of the other shoes, and I
think you said there was no reflection visible, at least in the ones
he showed you on the other soles?
A. Yes.
Q. What could the reason for that be?
A. Well, again, because the material may not reflect very well, the
lighting may not -- there may not be enough light to reflect that
green back on up to -- up to the black sole. There's a number of
reasons. I can't explain why it wouldn't be there because of the
numerous reasons or possibilities of it. In this one particular
case, we do have just enough light at just the right angle, and it
is backlit where it is reflecting up, to show just a portion of the
sole, just the edge of the sole.
Q. Okay. And finally, Mr. Leonard asked you some questions about the
position of Mr. Simpson's foot, his right foot, in the photograph.
In your 25 years of work in forensic photography, is one of the
things you do when you're comparing photographs, when you're
determining whether a photograph has been altered, to look at the
position of different body parts?
A. Well, I always look to see if they're unusual. Obviously, if the
body part isn't in correct anatomical position, in other words, if
the foot isn't facing forward, it would concern me greatly. But in
most cases, it is a natural part of viewing the picture. I look at
the body parts to make sure that they are not completely out of
sync. Perhaps, if a person is falling, they may be in a very
contorted position which would be natural for a person falling. But
in a contorted position, if they are normally walking, there would
have to be some other explanation for it.
Q. And did you look at the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking across
the end zone to determine whether his feet seemed to be in a natural
and proper position?
A. Yes. It appears to me they are.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further, Your Honor. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR.
LEONARD:
Q. When you made this determination about the natural and
appropriate position of Mr. Simpson's feet, did you actually try to
walk like that and see if your heel would be flat on the ground,
sir, and your foot was up like that? Did you try to do that?
A. No, sir.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, misstates the evidence about flat on the
ground. This witness said it wasn't.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you went through this demonstration here
about how Harry Scull loaded the film that day, where he was
pointing the camera. You have no idea where he loaded the film or
how he was pointing the camera, do you, sir?
A. Based on my analysis of the photograph, yes.
Q. Did you -- you actually interviewed Harry Scull? You talked to
him, didn't you?
A. I did not interview him. I talked to him, yes.
Q. You never asked him that, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, you know, sir, don't you, that there's an issue in this case
regarding some footprints that were left behind at the Bundy crime
scene? Do you know that, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
MR. LEONARD: I'll make it up.
MR. PETROCELLI: No. I want to know now.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Let's go.
MR. GELBLUM: I want an offer of proof.
MR. LEONARD: Let's go.
MR. PETROCELLI: I guess we're going, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Well, you want to know.
MR. KELLY: So we'll go.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. LEONARD: I guess it's my turn. I just want to ask him if he
knows that that's an issue in this case with regard to the
footprints, and the fact that it just so happens there's a portion
of the -- of the sole that's visible on the shoe that's not visible
on the other shoes. That's all I want to ask him.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to that.
(Laughter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, at this point I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further until tomorrow, if that comes to pass.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to move in various exhibits, if I can find my
list. 2369 through 2373, is the list I have. That's from today.
MR. FOSTER: Yesterday, starting at 2357 through 23 --
MR. GELBLUM: It's 2357 through 2373.
THE REPORTER: Those are all consecutive, right?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2357 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2358 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2359 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2360 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2361 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2362 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2363 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2364 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2365 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2366 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2367 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2368 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2369 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2370 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2371 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2372 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2373 was
received in evidence.)
MR. GELBLUM: I'm just going to take these away from the stand.
(Indicating to exhibits.)
MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiffs' call Gregory Matheson, Your Honor.
THE BAILIFF: You can retake the stand.
THE CLERK: You've been sworn previously and you are still under
oath. Would you please state your name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Gregory Matheson.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to go to sidebar real quickly on
this issue.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. P. BAKER: I want to object. I'm sorry. You here? I want to
object to this. I asked what Mr. Matheson was going to testify to,
and he was going to testify about the glove. Now, they're bringing
out a Bronco board.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, no, no, no. I said many, many times to him, and
on the record here when you asked me to lay out the witnesses, that
Matheson and the photographers were talking about the second Bronco
collection and the gloves. I never --
MR. P. BAKER: That was -- you never said that. I want an offer of
proof.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not capable of making that mistake. Go ahead.
MR. LAMBERT: They've done -- Your Honor, they've shown the jury a
photograph that was taken on August the 10th that they claim -- this
photograph is in evidence, which they claim shows there's no blood
in the Bronco on August the 10. We're going to have Matheson point
out the blood that he collected, that he can see in this photograph,
and four other photographs also taken on August the 10th.
MR. P. BAKER: What date did he collect them?
MR. LAMBERT: September the 1st.
MR. P. BAKER: That's not relevant.
MR. LAMBERT: They put the photograph in.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: We'll be dismissing the three photographers that
were on the list; Carmaney, Taggert and Wilson. We've stipulated as
to the photos.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: So we only have a couple of witnesses after today. I
don't think we're going to be here very long.
THE COURT: Good.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Morning, Mr. Matheson.
A. Morning.
Q. Would you please tell the jury once again what your occupation
is, sir?
A. I'm assistant director of the Los Angeles Police Department Crime
Laboratory.
Q. Up in front of you here, or off to the side, is Exhibit 211 which
is the Bronco evidence collection board. You've testified briefly
about this when you were here last time. You personally did some
collection of evidence from the Bronco, sir?
A. Well, not from the Bronco itself, from parts of the Bronco that
were brought into the laboratory.
Q. When was that done?
A. September 1, 1994.
Q. And which parts of the Bronco were brought into the laboratory?
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. There's no foundation
as to the offer of proof.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The left door of the driver's door, both front seats, the center
console of the vehicle, and the steering wheel, plus there was a
couple of little trim pieces.
MR. LAMBERT: Let's put the next exhibit in order up on the Elmo.
(Exhibit 2374 displayed on Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you identify for the jury what it is a
photograph of, sir?
A. What this photograph shows is the driver's door, the interior of
the driver's door. This is a photograph that was taken in the
laboratory. I believe at this point, the door is actually laying on
the ground. That's one reason why the mirror is turned flat. You'll
see in the picture three numbers, I believe, 296, 297, 298 and 299.
Those numbers are placed as evidence item numbers next to blood
items that I collected, along with scales, to show the size of it.

THE CLERK: That's Exhibit 2374.
MR. LAMBERT: 283 --
THE CLERK: 2374.
MR. LAMBERT: 2374.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) These were items that you collected on September
the 1st; is that what you're saying?
A. That's correct.
Q. Would you please compare for the jury the items that you
collected from the door on September the 1st to the items collected
by Dennis Fung, depicted in this photograph on June 14, from the
door.
MR. LAMBERT: Indicating to Exhibit 211.
Q. Starting with the lowest number, No. 296, in the photograph on
the TV screen.
A. That would be stain Item 223, on the other exhibit from the
original evidence collection,
(indicating to Exhibit 211), taken from the Bronco. Item No. 298 on
the television
(2374), corresponds with what is No. 22, which is kind of a swipe or
a light smear-type of blood-stain area above the armrest
(indicating to Exhibit 211).
Q. And number 299 on the TV screen here
(indicating to Exhibit 2374) refers to a stain that's up on the trim
area. This does not -- the number is not depicted but it corresponds
with the stain that is kind of above the 22 -- number 22 stain, up
kind of towards the front of the car a little bit up on this trim
(indicating to Exhibit 211.)
Q. So those three items that you collected on September the 1st were
re-collections of items that Dennis Fung had already done on June
14?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And when you were here last time, Mr. Matheson,
you also mentioned that of the items that you collected off the
console on September the 1st, that some of those were items that Mr.
Fung had collected on the earlier occasion, too. Which items are
those?
A. Can I step down?
(Indicating to Exhibit 211.) Referring to this display here, the
lower right-hand photograph is a photograph of the console that's
actually taken in the laboratory. The numbers that appear on it are
numbers that I placed there during my collection on that day. To
compare it to a collection that was done by Mr. Fung earlier,
there's a kind of a continuous stain here that is actually item
number 303 on the console which would correspond with item number 30
from the original collection, and item number 304 from my collection
corresponds with the right rear of the console, item number 31.
Q. And when you collected items 303 and 304, were you able to
determine if they had previously been the subject of a collection
effort by Mr. Fung?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. You could tell there had already been some blood removed from
that area.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, sir, I'd like to show you some photographs
taken on August the 10th by two different LAPD photographers. And
what I'd like you to do is to examine each of the photographs in the
order in which I give them to you, and on this copy of the
photographs, I'd like you to mark whether you see any of the blood
that you collected on September the 1st in these photographs.
MR. LAMBERT: The first one, Your Honor, is Exhibit 1420, already in
evidence.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And if you could -- we've put the same
photograph up on the Elmo here. If you could point out to the jury
any of the blood evidence that you see in Exhibit 1420?
A. Okay. In this particular exhibit, looking at the photograph
that's in front of me, I can make out -- doesn't show up quite as
clearly on the screen, but in the recessed area of the driver's door
handle, there is a -- a dark stain area that would coincide with a
stain that was collected both by Mr. Fung and by myself. In this
exhibit that's the only, you know, clear stain that I could make
out. There are some kind of hazy areas that, you know, may or may
not be blood. I know where they're at so it makes it maybe a little
easier to see it so -- I'm not totally sure it's obvious in the
picture that's what they are. That one stain is clear down in the
recess, and when you look with a magnifying glass --
Q. Would you take this copy of that exhibit and mark the blood area
that you can see in the photograph?
A. It's not as clear in this copy as it is on the original
photograph. But I'm circling an area down in the recess of the
driver's door handle.
MR. LAMBERT: And, Your Honor, could we mark this as the next in
order. Which would be what?
MR. FOSTER: 2375.
MR. LAMBERT: 2375.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2375.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, I'll show you the exhibit -- next exhibit
--
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2376.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This is another photograph taken on August the
10th.
MR. LAMBERT: Steve, if you could put that up.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2376.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you point out to the -- on the television
screen, to the jury, where you see any of the blood evidence that
you collected on September 1 in this August 10 photograph?
A. Okay. The most apparent stain in this photograph is the one that
was collected above the arm rest on the driver's door. In this area
right here, you can make out, you know, on the video screen, a
little bit of a darkened area that corresponds to where that red
stain was collected.
Q. Okay. Thank you. And on Exhibit 2377, would you please mark where
it is you could see the blood on that particular photograph?
A. Okay. I'm circling on 2377 the stained area that corresponds with
blood that I collected at a later date.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2377.)
Q. Thank you. Now, I'll show you the next photograph --
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 23 --
THE COURT: What is on the Elmo?
MR. LAMBERT: Pardon me?
THE COURT: What do you have on the video screen?
MR. LAMBERT: That's the next one. He beat me to the punch.
THE COURT: Let's not confuse the jury.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm confused, if you can imagine that.
THE COURT: I can't imagine. Would you take that off.
MR. LAMBERT: Don't beat me to the punch, Steve. The next one now is
going to be 23 -- 23 what? 2378. Which is another photograph taken
on September 1. And could you please put that up now, Steve.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2378.)
MR. GELBLUM: Which one? Steve doesn't know which one.
MR. LAMBERT: Put it up and I'll tell you if it's the right one. No.
The one you had up before.
MR. FOSTER: Okay.
MR. LAMBERT: Okay. Put it up a little higher. There you go.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, would you point out to the jury where you
see blood that was collected by you on September the 1st in this
August 10 photograph?
A. Okay. The area that I'm concerned with here that shows a stained
area is on that right rear area of the console, would be right down
in this area here
(indicating). You can see the darkened area. That corresponds with
the stains that were collected by Mr. Fung and by myself on that
upper corner.
Q. Would you on 23 --
MR. LAMBERT: What's the number on that? 78.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) 2379, would you mark the area that you're
describing to the jury.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2379.)
A. On 2379 I'm circling with a red pen the right rear corner of the
console showing the stained area.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay. Now, on the next exhibit --
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2380.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2380.)
MR. LAMBERT: Okay, Steve, the one with the three numbers, 2380.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you please take a look at that one and
tell the jury if you can see any of the blood that you collected on
September the 1st in that photograph?
A. This photograph actually shows two faint areas of staining that
was later collected. One that was depicted earlier in a previous
photograph, the smear or swipe stained area that's above the left
arm rest on the side. And there also is another area which is on the
inner side of -- of this console, appears right where I'm pointing
to the picture, right there.
Q. Now, I also would ask you whether this appears to be one of the
stains that you collected in that photograph as well?
A. Yes, that's correct, that's a third area that we talked about
previously up on the trim piece up here
(indicating).
Q. Can you please mark those, then, on the next one -- exhibit in
order -- which is 2381?
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2381.)
A. Okay. On 2381, I am circling with the red pen the stained area
above the arm rest, the stained area on that control module edge,
and the stained area on the trim piece.
Q. And finally, on Exhibit 2382, the final photograph we have taken
on August 10, could you point out if you see any of the blood you
collected on September 1 in that photograph and then point it out
to the jury?
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2382.)
A. Okay. This photograph -- actually the photograph shows it better
than up on the video screen. But it's very evident. The red staining
on the right rear of the console back in this area right here which
is a lower part of it. Little bit of staining on the upper right
corner where the blood was collected from. And it does show a little
bit of staining that's on the lower right side of the console,
obviously -- or previously collected in the -- and collected by
myself at a later time.
Q. Would you, on Exhibit 2383, please mark the spots that you just
pointed out to the jury where you see blood evidence?
A. Okay. I'm going to put one red circle around the combined stains
on the right rear of the console area and one red circle around the
stain that appears farther forward on the right-hand side of the
console.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LAMBERT: Now, Your Honor, with your permission, I'd ask that I
pass these photographs with the magnifying glass to the jury so they
have an opportunity to look at them themselves close up.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Photographs and magnifying glass passed around among jurors.).
THE COURT: Turn the light on.
(Bailiff complies.)
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, for one minute I'm going to run back for
an exhibit. Are you taking a quick -- are you --
MR. LAMBERT: I'll wait.
MR. LEONARD: Are you waiting?
MR. LAMBERT:
(Nods affirmatively.)
(Pause.)
MR. PETROCELLI: May I approach without the reporter with Mr. Baker?
(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)
(Counsel resume their seats.)
MR. BAKER: Why don't we go back up there.
(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Matheson, the photographs from August 10
showing the blood that you collected on September the 1st that we
just passed around, those were taken outdoors at Viertel's. Have you
ever been to the indoor Viertel's facility where cars are stored?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you ever attempted to do a search of any of the vehicles
indoors at Viertel's?
A. Yes, I've been sent over to do a few car searches in my career.
Q. Are you able to do a search for something like these blood traces
that we've been looking at in a car indoors at Viertel's without
special lighting equipment?
MR. BAKER: Objection, outside the scope, Your Honor. This is not
rebuttal.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, may I approach on that?
THE COURT: Oh, no.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Blasini, they put --
MR. P. BAKER: No speaking --
MR. PETROCELLI: It's directly rebuttal to Mr. Blasini's testimony.
THE COURT: You may have him testify to what he did.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) When you did car searches at Viertel's inside
the lot, did you use a flashlight?
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, Your Honor, it doesn't have to do with
this case.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, I use flashlights.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And would you have been able to see the evidence
without a flashlight?
MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It would be very difficult.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now let's turn to another subject. Before you is
exhibit number -- what is this exhibit number -- 2312, the Bundy
glove. Do you recognize that glove, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. The glove has some writing on it. Would you please tell the jury
what that writing is?
A. Yes. Appearing on the lower palm area of the glove are my
initials, GBM, along with the letter A and an arrow pointing to an
area I sampled for testing, a D and a line pointing to an area that
was sampled for testing. On the back of the palm is a white B with
an arrow pointing to an area where I -- I did some testing. There
should also be a C which may appear under the -- under the tag.
Q. And the marks that are on there, were those put by you on that
glove?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. And you tested this glove in what fashion, Mr. Matheson?
A. I removed portions of the stains on there to do serological or
blood typing, type of testing.
Q. And was that conventional serology?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what were the results that you got from that conventional
serology test?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, outside -- that's not rebuttal.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The results that I obtained from all four of the stained areas
that I tested off of this glove was in an enzyme system called PGM
subtyping. The results were a 2 plus 1 plus.
Q. And is that result consistent with any of Mr. Simpson, Nicole
Brown or Ronald Goldman?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. P. BAKER: This is not rebuttal.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
A. Yes, it is.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Who is it consistent with?
A. Of the three, that type is consistent with Ron Goldman.
Q. After obtaining those conventional serology tests, was any
further testing done with regard -- in regard to this glove?
A. Not as far as serology goes, no.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, the indication of who's blood it was was Mr. Goldman, the
glove was found at the scene in proximity to Mr. Goldman's body, did
not seem necessary at that point to do any further testing on this
item.
Q. Is that glove that's in front of you the same glove that you did
that testing on?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, I'd like to show you some photographs of the glove, the
first one of which is Exhibit 40, which is from the crime scene, and
then in addition, I'd like to show you Exhibits 2309 -- put the
number on the back.
THE COURT REPORTER: Have those been previously marked?
MR. LAMBERT: They've been previously marked. Yeah. 2309, 2310.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2309.)
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2310.)
MR. LAMBERT: I have six new -- what's the next number?
MR. FOSTER: 2384.
THE CLERK: Correct.
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2384.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2384.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2385.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2385.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2386.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2386.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2387.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2387.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2388.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2388.)
MR. LAMBERT: And 2389.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2389.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) I would ask you, Mr. Matheson, if you could
compare first the glove to the crime scene photograph, Exhibit 40,
and tell me if the glove depicted in the crime scene is the same as
the glove in front of you?
MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Witness examines glove and photo with magnifying glass.)
A. Yes it is.
Q. And could you point out to the jury --
MR. LAMBERT: Do we have this up on the screen, please, Steve,
Exhibit Number 40.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you point out to the jury on the Elmo up
here, the stains on the crime scene photograph that appear on the
glove here in court?
A. Again, some of it is a little more difficult to see up on the
video screen, but I was making the comparison, just both a general
appearance of the glove, but in particular there are a number of --
of stained areas or stains on the glove that appear in the
photograph. There's two in this vicinity, and then along kind of
drooling kind of stain on this side along with a larger pooled area
of blood along this area of the glove and a stain up towards the
kind of palm area. From looking at the location of those stains, and
looking at the glove itself, even though you no longer have the
chips of blood or the chunks of blood that are visible in this
picture, on the glove, you can make out stained areas that are the
same in appearance. There's -- in the lower portion of the glove
itself, as a matter of fact, one of the stains sampled for testing
is D. There's the -- two kind of roundish stains that appear here
and here. There's the elongated kind of what I call a drooling type
of stain that appears across here. An area of staining here near
this notch in the glove where I -- it appears there was a larger
amount of blood that would coincide with this stained area here,
which also is, you know, the label is in a similar location to the
label. And then in the palm area, there was a -- a chip or a stain,
and that coincides with the stained area that I actually sampled
and did some testing as point A on the glove.
Q. Now, have you also compared the glove here in court to the other
photographs I showed you which were taken on June 14 of the glove,
and are there additional similarities between those photographs and
the glove that you could point out to the jury?
(Witness reviews photographs.)
MR. LAMBERT: I can put it up on the Elmo, if that will work.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Are these them?
A. That, that
(indicating to photographs.) Several of the photographs are kind of
wide shots or overall shots of the glove. The pictures that show the
palm area have a similar type of staining as the crime scene
photograph showing that they are the same glove. There are also some
closeup pictures that are taken of the label on the glove itself.
MR. LAMBERT: Let's put that up.
MR. FOSTER: 2373.
(Exhibit 2373 is displayed on Elmo.)
A. This picture depicts the -- the label that's on the inside of the
glove which has some red staining on it, particularly heaviest down
in the area where it attaches to the glove itself. If you compare
that to the exhibit that's here in court, the red stain has faded
considerably over what it appears there. However, this is a --
excuse me
(indicating to Elmo) -- a pattern that has, you know, some unique
features to it. It is not just a circle or something. It has a
couple of little protrusions that go across the printed line that if
you look you can compare -- those same protrusions appear on the
label itself just past the printed line, this staining here that
extends between the stitch and the printed line also appears on the
label on the glove here in court.
Q. Looking at -- after looking at those photographs, Mr. Matheson,
do you believe that this glove here in court is the same glove
depicted in the crime scene photographs and in the June 14
photographs?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, a few days ago Mr. Baker showed Mr. Fung a photograph taken
on June 14, the same time that these other ones, which is -- this is
a blown-up version of Exhibit 2372. Have you seen that photograph
before, sir?
MR. P. BAKER: I object to the question, Judge, it misstates the
evidence, what transpired with Mr. Fung.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you.
MR. P. BAKER: What transpired with Mr. Fung, the examination of Mr.
Fung. Move to strike the preface. If he wants to ask him a question,
he can ask the question.
THE COURT: What was the question?
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The question is, a few days ago this photograph
was shown to Mr. Fung. Have you seen the photograph before?
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, I have.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Have you seen this close-up photograph of that
same area on the glove?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What do those photographs depict?
A. The first photograph you handed me, which I believe is marked
2372, is more a close-up picture of the glove than some of the ones
I was looking at before. It shows the back left or -- excuse me --
the back side of the glove, in particular the ring finger and the
middle finger. On the ring finger you can see a small amount of
debris that's adhering to the surface of the leather.
Q. Do you have any question as to whether this thing that we see
on the glove is debris as opposed to a cut in the glove or a tear in
the glove?
A. No, on examining particularly the close-up photograph, it's
clearly a piece of debris that's sitting on the surface, kind of
crusted in or caked in with what appears to be a little dirt and a
hair that -- or a fiber that kind of wraps around it.
MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) How are you, Mr. Matheson?
A. Fine.
Q. I got a chance to talk with you in the hallway; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I asked you what the substance of your testimony was going to
be, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you told me it was going to be about the glove, right?
A. I said it was going to be about some blood and the glove.
Q. Didn't mention the Bronco, right?
A. Well, when I was talking about the blood, that's what I was
referring to.
Q. Kind of sprung that one on me.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You're in the plaintiffs' camp, aren't you?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
MR. P. BAKER: Goes to bias.
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know what it means.
THE COURT: You may ask that a little more up-front.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Are you here by subpoena?
A. I was subpoenaed originally in the case. For today I was called
and requested to come back in to testify.
Q. Who called you?
A. The plaintiffs did.
Q. Which one?
A. I believe it was Mr. Lambert.
Q. He didn't serve you with another subpoena?
A. No.
Q. Do you know why, when the defense tries to call a police officer,
they have to resubpoena them?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. P. BAKER: Goes to bias.
THE COURT: It's the wrong person you're directing that question to.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did they call you after Mr. Fung testified?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. They called you the day after Mr. Fung testified, didn't they?
A. Yes. As a matter of fact, it was the morning following.
Q. They said we have a problem, didn't they? That's what they said?
A. I don't know if those terms were used. We talked about the debris
on the glove.
Q. Did they tell you that Mr. Fung testified it was a cut or a rip?
A. Well, actually, I heard on the news, on my drive home, that there
was some indication of that.
Q. Did the plaintiffs tell you that? That was my question. Did they
tell you that Mr. Fung sat in that seat and told the jury there was
a cut or a rip on the Bundy glove?
A. I don't know if I -- if they specifically said it to me or if,
during the course of our conversation, I pointed out that it wasn't.

Q. Just answer my question.
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did they tell you that?
A. I don't remember the exact words of the conversation. We
discussed it, discussed a cut or tear.
Q. Did they read any portions of his testimony?
A. I don't believe I was read any. I was supplied with a copy of the
transcript.
Q. Did you read it?
A. I skimmed it; read parts, yes.
Q. By the way, how much have you charged the plaintiffs for your
work on the civil case?
A. I am not charging anything; that's being left to the city and our
discovery unit.
Q. How much has the discovery charged the plaintiffs, as far as you
know?
A. I don't have a clue.
Q. Have you submitted a bill?
A. That's not the arrangement. I'm just --
Q. You just wait until they call you and then you come running down
here, right?
A. Just --
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A.
(Continuing.) I call or I respond to court anytime that I'm called,
both for the plaintiff and the defense.
Q. But we have to subpoena you, right?
A. I believe that -- the last time that I was requested by the
defense to appear, it was a telephone call, and I said, sure, I will
respond.
Q. You weren't served with a subpoena; is that what you're telling
this jury?
A. No. I was served with a subpoena.
Q. Okay. Now, did they read to you where Mr. Fung told this jury,
when talking about the gloves, "I did note, when I got back to the
laboratory, some -- some cuts on them." Did they read that to you?
A. I don't believe they read it. It sounds familiar from what I read
in the transcript.
Q. They never told you he said that, right?
A. I don't remember, like I said, the exact content of the
conversation.
Q. Did they tell you that he also testified that he saw a rock or a
piece of stucco embedded in the glove where a cut was? Did they tell
you that?
A. Again, I remember reading something to the effect of a rock
present on the glove from the transcripts, or from the conversation.

Q. I'm just asking you, Mr. Matheson, if they told you that. Did
they tell you that?
A. I don't remember if they specifically told me that.
Q. You examined the glove on June 14, right?
A. I was present when the gloves were examined; that's correct.
Q. You examined it pretty closely, right?
A. Like I said, I was present. I was not the primary criminalist
dealing with it.
MR. P. BAKER: I'd ask the Court to have this witness answer my
question.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You examined it pretty closely, didn't you, Mr.
Matheson?
A. No.
Q. You didn't?
A. I was not the criminalist that was doing the examination. I was
present to assist them with some decision-making on tests.
Q. So you're not here to tell this jury there wasn't cuts on the
glove you examined on the 14th, are you?
A. I didn't examine a glove. I saw this glove there.
Q. Did you see any cuts on it?
A. I didn't make any notation of any, no.
Q. You didn't look at it very closely, did you?
A. That's correct.
Q. You looked at it in the same manner you looked at socks, when you
saw no blood on the socks, right?

Q. You didn't see any debris on the Bundy glove when you looked at
it on June 14, did you?
A. I don't specifically remember.
Q. Remember me asking you that question right on the bench, right
outside that door? Remember me just asking you that?
A. You asked me if I had seen debris on it before. I have seen these
photographs prior to this court.
Q. And you said you didn't see any debris on the glove, didn't you,
Mr. Matheson?
A. I'm trying to keep -- keep the times separate, exactly what we
were talking about. I did not do an examination of the glove on the
14th. I was present when they were looked at. I don't specifically
remember any debris.
Q. You saw no debris on it on June 14, as far as you know, correct?
A. I don't remember; that's correct.
Q. You didn't see any stucco on it, as far as you know, on June 14,
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you've worked with Dennis Fung for quite a while, haven't
you?
A. Actually, I have never worked along with him as a criminalist. I
currently manage the section in which he works.
Q. How long have you known Dennis Fung?
A. Well, I started with the laboratory before him, so it would be
the length of his career with the lab. I don't remember how long
that is.
Q. Over five years?
A. Oh, definitely.
Q. Over ten years?
A. I believe he's been there longer than ten.
Q. Is he an honest guy?
A. I've never run into a situation where he lied to me; that, I
know.
Q. You don't have any reason to believe he'd lie to this jury, do
you?
A. No.
Q. You didn't see the glove on June 13, right?
A. June 13, no, I did not.
Q. So if Dennis Fung told the jury he saw a cut or a rip on it on
June 13, you would have no way to dispute that, would you?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll read it.. If Dennis Fung testified in the
following manner --
MR. PETROCELLI: And give us a line.
MR. P. BAKER: Sure. Page 62, lines 13 through 19.
Q. Well, that's exactly the same area I pointed to on the other two
exhibits, isn't it, sir?
A. Yes it is.
Q. And you're telling me that's not a cut?
A. Well, there's an area of damage on there. I don't know if it's a
cut or if it was caused by a rip. You didn't see the glove on the
13th, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You have no reason whatsoever to believe that Mr. Fung was lying
when he testified on January 8, 1996
(sic), do you?
A. I have no reason to believe he would lie in court at all.
Q. And when Mr. Fung testified that he wasn't sure that glove right
here was the glove he collected at the scene, you have no way of
disagreeing with that, do you Mr. Matheson?
A. I don't disagree with it, that's what he thought.
Q. Have you no idea? You didn't see the glove on June 13, did you?
A. Like I said, no, I did not.
Q. So the first time you saw it was on June 14, when you didn't even
really look at it, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And when was the next time you saw it?
A. I don't specifically remember. We -- the inventory that we did on
June 29, I'm assuming it was pulled out at that point.
Q. When did you examine it closely?
A. I have never done a close examination of this glove until I did
my blood removal.
Q. So that -- were you in this courtroom two days ago?
A. No.
Q. Did they ask to you look at the glove in the past days?
A. I'm sorry. I wasn't in during court. Monday morning, prior to the
Court's session, yes, we did come over and take a look at the glove.

Q. Who's "we?"
A. It was myself, Mr. Fung, and Mr. Lambert.
Q. Did they pay you for that?
A. It was being paid by the city.
Q. The taxpayers paid you to come over here and look at the glove;
is that right?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Were you served with a subpoena to come over
here and look at the glove?
A. No, I was not.
Q. They just called you up and you came over and you looked at the
glove?
A. That's right.
Q. It's really the first time you looked at it closely, right?
A. No. Actually, when I removed my blood samples off of it, I looked
at it. At that point, I was looking for blood.
Q. When did you lift the blood samples?
A. Can I refer to my notes?
Q. Sure.
A. That would be on September 18, 1994.
Q. That's the first time you looked at it closely, just so the
record's clear, Mr. Matheson?
A. That's the first time I did an examination of it; that's correct.

Q. And you did the sero -- how do you pronounce it? You're better at
this than I am.
A. I did a ser --
(Laughter.)
MR. LEONARD: No, he's not.
A. The testing was serological. I was removing blood samples from it
to do serology tests.
Q. All right. And not one drop of blood on the Bundy glove matched
O.J. Simpson, did it?
A. Of the four I tested, that's correct.
Q. You never tested any more, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And no one ever asked you to test it anymore, right?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. And you have no knowledge of who handled the glove between the
time Mr. Fung saw it, collected it on June 13, until you saw it on
the morning of the 14th, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And on the 14th, you didn't look at it very closely, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then you didn't -- you don't know who handled the glove from
the 14th through the 29th, when you looked at it more closely,
right? Or, no. September 1. I'm sorry.
A. That's correct. It was within our control, but I don't know
everybody that looked at it.
Q. When was O.J. Simpson's reference vial taken?
MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
MR. P. BAKER: Goes to the blood --
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) When were the victim reference vials taken?
MR. LAMBERT: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, you were asked some questions about your
inspection of the Bronco on September 1; is that right? I'm sorry.
You didn't inspect the Bronco, right?
A. That's correct. Just the parts that were brought to the
laboratory.
Q. You just got what they brought to you?
A. That's correct.
Q. What you are talking about on September 1 are the swatches that
were collected on August 26, right?
A. No.
Q. When were they collected?
A. September 1.
Q. Swatches were collected on September the 1st?
A. That's correct. That's when I collected the swatches off the
stains.
Q. Okay. The stains were collected on August 26, right?
A. No. The items that were brought to the laboratory were collected
on the 26th. The blood was not removed until September 1.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Lambert showed you some photographs of the Bronco
taken on August 10, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Show you that Monday or today?
A. I looked at them both today and some on Monday.
Q. How much time have you spent with Mr. Lambert to prepare yourself
for this testimony today?
A. Probably a total of about two and a half hours.
Q. Did you do that over at the Doubletree?
A. Some was done over there this morning. A little bit was done
there Monday morning, along with here. A little bit -- it was done
in the laboratory.
Q. Mr. Lambert came down to the laboratory?
A. Yes.
Q. And they let you into the Doubletree suite?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: They won't let me in.
MR. PETROCELLI: Anybody can go there, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, did he show you all the photos Mr.
Carmaney took on August 10?
A. There was a pretty good stack. He did not indicate to me that
this was every one of them.
Q. Were the photos taken indoors or out of doors?
A. Out of doors.
Q. Was it cloudy, rainy, or bright sunshine?
A. Appears that it was bright.
Q. Is this a photograph -- are these a couple of the photographs he
showed you?
MR. P. BAKER: I'll mark these two --
MR. LAMBERT: Let's see them first.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry.
(Mr. Lambert reviews photos.)
MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to mark these next in order.
THE CLERK: 2390 and 2391.
(The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2390.)
(The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2391.)
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) 2390 and 2391, are those the photographs he
showed you?
A. These look familiar.
Q. By the way, going back to the glove, did Mr. Lambert ever ask to
you compare the wear of the glove in the photograph you observed,
and the glove you saw in court on Monday?
A. No, he didn't.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 2390.
(Defendants' Exhibit 2390 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Pretty sunny?
A. I'm sorry. What?
Q. Pretty sunny when that photograph was taken?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Pretty sunny when that photograph was taken?
A. It -- I see shadows. It looks like the sun was out.
Q. 2391, pretty bright?
A. Same thing. That's correct.
Q. Now, did Mr. Lambert describe the lighting conditions to you
when he showed you those photos?
A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Q. Did Mr. Lambert describe the lighting conditions to you when he
showed you those photos?
A. I believe we discussed whether or not it was outdoors. And you
could see from the photos that it was bright.
Q. Now, did you talk to Mr. Carmaney about the photos he took?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ask him if he saw any blood when he took that photograph
on the console?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Now, I want to look at 14 -- show you 1420, before I throw it up
on the Elmo.
(Witness reviews Exhibit 1420 with a magnifying glass.)
A. Okay.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) See any blood on the front of that console,
where item No. 303 was collected, sir?
A. No, I do not.
Q. When was item 303 collected?
A. That would have been on September 1, 1994.
Q. About three weeks after this photograph was taken?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. Now, I want to show you -- it's actually page 2 of 1420.
MR. LAMBERT: What is it, Phil?
MR. P. BAKER: You want me to show it to you, too?
MR. LAMBERT: What is it?
MR. P. BAKER: It's a photo I showed to the jury, page 2 of 1420.
MR. LEONARD: For the record, can we make sure we've got the right
exhibit?
MR. P. BAKER: He is presently looking at page 2 of 1420. 1420, page
1, is on the screen.
MR. BAKER: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
MR. LEONARD: It was a test.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You got it in mind, Mr. Matheson?
A. Yes.
Q. See the blood stain where item 380 -- strike that -- where 303
was collected?
A. Can I refer to my notes?
Q. Sure.
MR. BAKER: Sure.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry?
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
A. 303 was collected from this stain on the console lid, on the
right-hand side.
Q. Okay. And that's about where 306 was collected?
A. 306 actually, I believe, was either a hair or fiber that was down
in the lower part here.
(Indicating.)
Q. 303 is the blood stain, for the record, referring to the mid
portion of the console. Am I right, Mr. Matheson?
A. That is correct.
Q. That photograph -- was that photograph shown to you?
A. I believe I've seen it. I don't know if it was shown to me
recently or if it was during my many times looking at photographs of
this case.
Q. This photograph was taken on August 26. You're aware of that,
right?
A. Not specifically, no. But I have no reason to dispute it.
Q. That's about two weeks after the other photograph I just showed
you, 1420 page 1?
A. That's correct, if that's the right date on it.
Q. Just one final area. You are going to be on the stand longer than
Kato. I show you that photo.
(Witness reviews a photograph.)
MR. P. BAKER: Actually, this one is better. Let me show you this
one. What number is this, 2380?
MR. LAMBERT: It's on the back of it.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Referring to 2380.
A. Okay.
Q. You're aware that blood was collected from the door sill of the
'94 Ford Bronco?
A. I'm aware of it, yes.
Q. You're also aware that you could not -- and the blood was
collected in this area; is that correct?
A. Actually, I don't know the specific spot. If we have some
documentation, I can refer to that. I was not involved --
Q. Do you have documentation?
A. Not as far as that stain goes, no.
Q. Are you aware that you couldn't see that area when the door is
closed?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
(The Court reviews realtime screen.)
MR. P. BAKER: Sure.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's beyond the scope of this witness's
examination of the exhibit.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I've got one more brief area. I'd like to
take the lunch recess now, if that's possible.
THE COURT: You may. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case.
Don't form or express any opinions. 1:30.
(At 11:59
A.M., luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1997 1:30 PM.
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES:
(PER COVER PAGE)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions for Mr. Matheson. I'm
sorry.
(Laughter.)
MR. LAMBERT: Just a couple questions, Your Honor. It's no surprise,
Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. Mr. Matheson, you were asked on cross-examination in some of the
photographs, some of which you could see the blood, some of which
you couldn't see the blood. Is it common in your experience to not
always be able to see blood in these photographs
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation. He's not an expert in this.
THE COURT: Lay some foundation.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Matheson, how often have you seen
photographs of blood evidence as part of your duties as a
criminalist?
A. I can't give you an exact number. It's easily in excess of 100
times.
Q. Are photographs taken whenever blood evidence is collected?
A. Yes. Photos are taken whenever evidence is collected of anything.

Q. And you then sometimes called upon to review those photographs?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is that part of your duties as a criminalist?
A. When I was a supervisor criminalist. It isn't as much now.
Q. Now that you're a supervisor?
A. Now that I'm the assistant director I don't get as directly
involved in the case work, but I do occasionally still review
photos.
Q. When photographs were taken of blood evidence at -- when it's
being collected, do the photographs always depict the evidence?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Not always, no.
Q. Can you explain to the jury why the blood shows up in some
photographs and not other in others?
MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) In this case, Mr. Matheson, you can see the
blood in some of the photographs, you can see it real clearly in
other photographs, and there are some photographs where you can't
see the blood where you know it was there because you later checked
them?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, that's true.
Q. Now, you were also asked some questions about why you're here
today. Would you explain to the jury whether I contacted you or you
contacted me after Mr. Fung's testimony last week?
A. Yes. After leaving work, I believe it was on Wednesday, driving
home I was listening to the news, and through the media, heard some
of the comments, or their opinion of some of the comments that were
made in court, and I believed that I knew exactly what Mr. Fung was
testifying to; the stain -- the debris or -- excuse me, not the
stain, but the debris or the possible hole that was there, because
it was an issue that I dealt with during investigation of the
criminal case back in, I think, late October of 1994. When I got
home --
MR. P. BAKER: This is nonresponsive, Judge. He's speculating as to
Mr. Fung.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Upon arriving home I called your office and left a message on
your machine to contact me the next day regarding this issue.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And the work that you had done back in October
of 1994, did you say it was?
A. Yes.
Q. Yeah. Was that in regard to this same photograph that we've been
talking about here today?
A. Some of the same photographs, yes. It was the same issue of a
possible hole in one of the gloves that appears in the photograph.
Q. And what determination did you make back in October of 1994?
A. That it was not a hole, that it was in fact some debris sitting
on the surface of the glove.
Q. Was Mr. Fung involved at all in those discussions back in October
of '94.
MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Not at all.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LAMBERT: No further questions. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P.
BAKER:
Q. Mr. Fung wasn't involved in that at all?
A. Not regarding that issue, that's correct.
Q. He collected the glove, didn't he?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. You never asked him?
A. No.
Q. Not at all?
A. Not that I remember, that I recall, no. It was -- he wasn't
involved.
Q. I got it. Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: I got it should be stricken.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll agree to that.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Mr. Lambert asked you some questions about the
console and how you'd seen blood missing in some photographs when
you knew it was there, right?
A. I don't think he specifically said console. I think he mentioned
in the case.
Q. You never got in the Bronco, did you, Mr. Matheson?
A. No, I never got --
MR. LAMBERT: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) On September 1st, you got the swatches; you
didn't go look in the Bronco?
MR. LAMBERT: Misstates the evidence. He didn't say anything about
getting swatches.
THE COURT: Lay some foundation.
MR. P. BAKER: You got the stains?
A. Actually, I received in the laboratory, the parts of the car, the
door, the console, the chairs -- seats, and I collected the stains
myself, that's correct.
Q. You never got in the Bronco.
A. That's correct. I've never seen the Bronco.
Q. You didn't get the console until three weeks after this picture
was taken?
MR. P. BAKER: The first page of 1420.
A. Correct. The first time I saw it was September 1.
Q. You have no idea that there was blood on that console on August
10, 1994, right?
A. I do believe that I know there's blood there, I have seen
photographs that show it.
Q. You've seen photographs that show the exact location of where
Item 30 was collected that shows blood on that console on August 10;
is that what you're telling this jury?
A. I've seen --
Q. Answer that question, sir.
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Item 30 -- you've seen a picture where it shows blood on the
console where Item 30 was collected on August 10; is that what
you're telling this jury?
MR. LAMBERT: Misstates the testimony. Item 30 was checked on August
14th.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Where Item 30 was collected. Where Item 303 was
collected. You understand what I'm asking you, don't you, Mr.
Matheson?
A. I'd like you to repeat it so it's clear.
Q. Are you telling this jury that you've seen a photograph that was
taken on August 10, 1994, which shows blood in the console where
Items 30 and 303 were collected; is that what you're telling this
jury, yes or no?
A. Trying to think back on all the pictures we looked at. My memory
at the moment is no.
MR. P. BAKER: I've got nothing further.
MR. LAMBERT: Nothing further. I'd like to move in Exhibits 2374
through 2389, inclusive.
THE COURT: You may step down. *
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2374 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2375 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2376 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2377 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2378 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2379 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2380 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2381 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2382 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2383 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2384 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2385 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2386 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2387 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2388 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2389 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to move in 2390 and 2391.
THE COURT: Okay.
(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2390 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2391 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiffs call Dennis Fung, Your Honor. DENNIS FUNG,
was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was previously
duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You have been sworn previously. Would you please state
your name again for the record, you are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Dennis Fung.
MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR.
LAMBERT:
Q. Mr. Fung, when you were here last week, Mr. Baker showed you
Exhibit 2311, a photograph of the Bundy glove. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. And had you ever seen that photograph before you testified here
last week?
A. I don't recall seeing it, no.
Q. After you collected the evidence in this case and booked it into
evidence, did you have any further involvement with that evidence
after that?
A. Not until the criminal trial.
Q. So you didn't -- you weren't involved in any of the testing, any
of the manipulation or handling of this glove after it was booked?

A. That is correct.
Q. So other than testifying in court, your involvement was done a
couple days after the murders?
MR. BAKER: Argumentative, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) After a couple -- Start with a couple of days
after the murders, when you booked the evidence, two or three days
afterwards?
A. I had no involvement after I booked the glove. I did not analyze
it or anything like that.
Q. Okay. And you certainly hadn't been involved in studying
photographs any time, other than in connection with the criminal
case?
MR. BAKER: That's leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If you'd ask a question as a question, it wouldn't be
leading, would it?
MR. LAMBERT: All right. Let me try it this way.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Were you involved in studying any photographs
other than in connection with testifying at the trial in this case?
A. No.
Q. And other than this -- Strike that. After you testified last week
in this case, have you had an opportunity to look at some other
photographs of that glove taken on the same day?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Including these blown-up photographs that are now 2371 and 2372?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you also had an opportunity to look at the -- the glove
that's here in evidence itself?
A. Yes.
Q. Having done that, do you now believe that those photographs
depict a cut or a tear in the glove?
A. No, I do not.
Q. So are you saying that you were mistaken in your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you believe is on that glove now, Mr. Fung?
A. The white area here appears to be some kind of debris.
Q. And let me show you an exhibit. This is --
THE CLERK: That would be next in order, 2392, marked by reference.
(The instrument herein referred to as a Plastic bag and paper bag
collectively was marked by reference for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2392.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Can you please identify for the jury what this
is.
MR. LAMBERT: I'm sorry. Do you want to take a look?
(Mr. Baker reviewed exhibit.)
MR. BAKER: I want to make sure you guys haven't put the debris in
there.
Q. Would you please identify what this is, Mr. Fung?
A. This is the bag that the glove was originally put into. It has
writing on it by Ms. Mazzola where it says 102, it has my initials,
and the Item No. 37 on it, and my initials.
Q. So is this the bag that the glove at Bundy was placed into when
it was first collected on June 13?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And is this the bag that's been with that glove ever since?
MR. BAKER: There's no foundation for that question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Was the bag -- when you booked it into evidence,
was it placed in evidence with this bag?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, having looked at these other photographs, the glove itself,
and this bag, Mr. Fung, do you have any doubts in your mind that
this glove that's in evidence in this case is the same glove that
you collected on Bundy on June 13?
MR. BAKER: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It is the same glove.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And let me ask you this, Mr. Fung: When did you
first believe that you had made some mistake in your testimony here
last week?
A. Actually, while I was leaving the courtroom. I couldn't -- the
problem I had last week was why there was an apparent defect in the
glove when the glove in front of me did not have a defect. And when
I was out in the hall, I was -- it dawned on me what the reason was.
Should I go on.
Q. Yeah, go ahead. Finish.
A. The reason that I came to in the hall was that this defect is
white and -- or piece of debris is white and the lining in the glove
is brown, and I came back into the courtroom after the break, looked
at both the glove and the picture, and that's when I confirmed that
I had been in error.
Q. And then you later looked at all these other photographs, and
did that confirm your opinion that you'd been in error?
A. Yes. That just strengthened my -- that I had -- what I had come
to conclude.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Fung.
MR. LAMBERT: No further questions, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Mr. Fung, you find yourself in a bad spot here, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got some telephone calls when you got back to LAPD about
-- about your testimony here last week on December 8, didn't you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You were told by various people that LAPD had a lot invested in
the civil case for -- against Mr. Simpson, weren't you?
MR. LAMBERT: No foundation, argumentative, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, since you got off the stand on January 8,
have you -- is it your testimony to this jury that you had
absolutely no discussions with anyone at LAPD about your testimony
on January 8 concerning the glove, sir?
A. That is not my testimony.
Q. You've had conversations with your bosses at LAPD about your
testimony and that you had to fix it; isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) How many hours have you spent trying to come up
with testimony in this courtroom today since January 8th, to cover
the testimony you gave on January 8th?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I haven't spent even one hour trying to cover what I did last
week.
Q. Well, how many hours did you spend in here on Monday in the jury
room?
A. I spent about ten minutes looking at the photographs and the
glove.
Q. So it's your testimony that it was ten minutes with Mr. Matheson?

A. He was present, but --
Q. And it was ten minutes, right, that's how long you were in that
jury room?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. And how long were you with Mr. Lambert over the weekend before
you came into the jury room?
A. Not at all.
Q. How many times have you met with Mr. Lambert before you came on
the stand today, after you left the stand on December 8th?
A. Maybe twice.
Q. And the whole conversation that you had with Mr. Lambert, Mr.
Matheson, is relative to your testimony on January 8th, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on January 8th, when you were on the witness stand, Mr.
Fung, you didn't lie to this jury, did you?
MR. LAMBERT: It's argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I didn't lie, but I was mistaken.
Q. You didn't miss -- you hadn't had all of this time with Mr.
Lambert relative to the position you're now taking on the glove
before you got on the witness stand on January 8, had you, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: I don't understand the question, but if you can answer
it, go ahead.
MR. BAKER: Was it that bad?
THE COURT: Well, at least, that's the way it's written.
MR. BAKER: Let me reask it.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you got on the witness stand on January 8,
1997, last week, you had not spent an hour, two hours, whatever the
number is that you have just recently spent with Mr. Lambert on the
glove, correct; you had just come in fresh to get on the witness
stand and answer questions, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you didn't misrepresent the truth to this jury when you said
that you were extremely vigilant about looking for everything that
may be evidence in the case, true?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, misstates the evidence, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't know what part of the testimony that was referring to.
Q. Well, let me read it to you and ask you if you're attempting to
misrepresent to the jury.
MR. BAKER: Page 58, lines 9 through 13.
(Mr. Baker read a portion from the transcript of Dennis Fung's civil
trial testimony.)
Q. And when you're at a crime scene and there's been a double
homicide, I take it you're extremely vigilant about looking for
everything that may be evidence in the case, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you weren't attempting to misrepresent that
to the jury, were you?
A. No, I was not.
Q. So you're attempting to be extremely vigilant in your dealings
with the crime scene at 875 South Bundy, true?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you didn't misrepresent to this jury when you told
this jury on January 8, 1997, that when you got back to the
laboratory, you found some cuts on them, referring to the gloves,
correct?
A. I don't recall exactly what my testimony was in that, but --
Q. Well, let me read it to you, and then you tell us whether or not
you were trying to misrepresent to the jury when you said the
following. MS. MOLINARO: Mr. Baker, may I have a page reference?
MR. BAKER: You certainly may. It is page 59, lines 2 through 10.
(Mr. Baker reads a portion from the transcript of Dennis Fung's
civil trial testimony.) "
Q. Now, did you -- in your view, in looking at the gloves, did you
determine where the cuts were on those gloves, if any?
A. We're talking about the gloves now?"
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) My question to you:
(Mr. Baker reads a portion from the transcript of Dennis Fung's
civil trial testimony.) "
Q. Yes, the gloves. Yes, sir. I switched to the gloves, sorry.
A. I did note when I got back to the laboratory, some -- some cuts
on them."
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That was your answer, sir, you were not attempting
to misrepresent that to the jury when you said that in this
courtroom under oath, true?
A. I was not attempting to misrepresent myself, no, but I was
mistaken.
Q. And were you attempting, sir, to misrepresent to the jury when
you told the jury that there was a damaged area under where a rock
was; were you attempting to misrepresent that to the jury, sir?
A. No.
Q. And is it your present testimony that there, in fact, was a
damaged area underneath where the debris was?
A. Can you repeat that question?
Q. You told this jury last week that there was a damaged area
underneath where the debris or rock was, did you not, sir?
A. I assumed it was.
Q. Just answer the question, Mr. Fung. Did you or did you not tell
the jury there was a damaged area on the Bundy glove underneath
where the rock was?
A. I may have implied that.
Q. Implied that. Let me read from your sworn testimony; page 62,
line 16 through page 63, line 8.
(Mr. Baker read a portion from the transcript of Dennis Fung's civil
trial testimony.)
Q. And you're telling me that's not a cut?
A. Well, there's an area of damage on there. I don't know if it's a
cut or if it was caused by a rip.
Q. Now, you're telling this jury that there was a rock in that exact
area and you have a recollection of that when you collected the
Bundy glove on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't see the damaged area because the rock was on it;
is that what you're telling this jury?
A. I'm telling you the damaged area was where a rock was.
Q. And you couldn't see the damaged area because there was a rock
on top of it; is that your testimony, sir?
A. I'm saying it was embedded in the damage -- that damaged area.
Q. So it was embedded in the damaged area?
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that was your testimony last week, was it
not, sir?
A. I was referring to --
Q. Was that your testimony last week or not?
A. That was the testimony, yes.
Q. And obviously, if there was a damaged area under that rock, the
glove had to have been switched because there's no damage there,
isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, assumes facts not in
evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, leather doesn't necessarily heal itself,
does it?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If there was a damaged area under the rock --
there is no damaged area on the glove, correct?
A. The damaged area I was referring to --
Q. Can you answer the question instead of giving a speech, Mr.
Fung. I want you to answer the question.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. I think he was answering the question.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. The damaged area I was referring to was what was depicted in the
photograph, not what was on the actual glove.
Q. Now, then you changed your testimony last week and said it wasn't
even in that area, true?
A. Well, because I had looked at the photograph, and it did look --
Q. No. Maybe you didn't understand the question.
A. There was an area of damage.
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. I wish this witness would be
instructed to answer the question that's put to him. He can make his
speech when he gets back to the station.
MR. LAMBERT: He is answering. I don't think he should be interrupted
while he is answering.
THE COURT: Strike all of that and you can start over.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Fung, you were able to examine the glove here
in the courtroom, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And this case is the biggest case you have ever in your entire
police career worked on, isn't that true?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LAMBERT: Irrelevant.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Have you ever worked in a case that has had more
publicity than this case, sir?
A. No.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Ask the question. You know, you asked these questions
last week. We don't need to go over them again, the preambles. Just
ask the essential questions.
MR. BAKER: Judge, I think I'll probably ask the questions that I
want to ask.
THE COURT: Well, then I'm going to strike them.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Fung, after you had talked about the
damaged area, then you switched, did you not, in terms of where you
thought the cuts were on the glove?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative as framed.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Well, my memory was shaken because I couldn't --
Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. You then switched,
did you not, as to the area, true or untrue, Mr. Fung?
A. I did switch.
Q. Now, you have testified in this case, this is the third time in
the civil Simpson case, this is the third time. You have -- you have
testified for how many days in the criminal trial?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, Your Honor, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I think it goes to --
THE COURT: Sustained. I sustained the objection.
MR. BAKER: It goes to the issue of --
THE COURT: Sustained. Ask another question.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had seen the Bundy glove in the criminal
trial, had you not?
A. Only to identify it.
Q. Well, you -- that's what you looked at it for, was to identify
it, wasn't that true, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And you identified it at the preliminary hearing?
A. Yes.
Q. And you identified it in the grand jury hearing?
A. I'm not sure about that.
Q. You've had this glove in front of you on numerous occasions
before it was placed in front of you last week on January 8, isn't
that correct, sir?
A. Actually I'm not sure if it was the Bundy glove that was ever
shown to me before. I remember the other glove was.
Q. In fact, you told this jury you couldn't be sure that the glove
in front of you last week was the glove that you collected on Bundy,
isn't that true, sir?
A. I did state that.
Q. And you weren't attempting to misrepresent the truth to the jury
at that time, were you, sir?
A. No, I was not.
Q. One other area I want to reopen on -- on a different subject.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection to reopening, Your Honor, at this stage.
THE COURT: I'll permit it.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Just one other question about the photograph. You
testified last week on December 8, 1997
(sic), that that area was debris, did you not, that is the whitened
area on the glove, did you not?
A. My first testimony was that -- that I believed it was debris,
yes.
Q. Thank you. Now, I want to go back to June 13, 1994 for a minute,
when you went to the laboratory, and that's when you looked at both
gloves, right?
A. The June 14, yes.
Q. 14?
A. June 13.
Q. June 13. Remember the day where you collected the evidence, sir?
A. Okay.
Q. That was when you were back in the laboratory and you looked at
both of those gloves, correct?
A. I'm not exactly sure when -- when I looked at them. I know that I
did look at them between the time I collected them and the time I
booked them.
Q. When did you book them?
A. They were finally booked on -- approximately three days after the
day they were picked up.
Q. Now, those gloves should have been booked immediately, shouldn't
they?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. You can ask him when he booked them.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you were in -- strike that. When you got
back to SID on the night of the 13th, and you took the blood
swatches and you and Andrea put blood swatches in glass test tubes
for drying, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have done that on previous occasions, have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're certainly familiar with the fact that if you clump
swatches together, you diminish the surface area and they don't dry,
correct?
A. I am now.
Q. You were then -- I mean you're not telling this jury that you
didn't understand that if you take the damp objects and put them on
damp objects -- and put them on damp objects, that they're going to
dry quicker than if you spread them all out? You're not telling the
jury that, are you, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I may answer?
THE COURT: Yes.
A. Well, I was aware of it but --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you certainly made efforts to ensure, because
you wanted those swatches to dry, that they were in the best
position in the test tube so that they could be in the drying rack
and -- and get dried, didn't you? I mean you -- didn't you, sir?
A. No, not at that point.
Q. So you were negligent in that regard as well?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you negligent or not, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection.
THE COURT: I'll sustain it. You can ask him what he did.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you watch Andrea Mazzola put the initials on
the bindle, Mr. Fung, in 1994, that she testified to putting on the
bindle?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, misstates the evidence, not what she
testified to.
THE COURT: You want to show me?
MR. LAMBERT: We're going to have to find Andrea Mazzola's testimony.
She testified to the opposite.
THE COURT: You make objections, you have to back them up.
MR. LAMBERT: He has to have a good basis for asking the question.
MR. BAKER: I have a very good basis for asking the question.
MR. PETROCELLI: He doesn't have to --
MR. P. BAKER: Page 89 of December 10, Judge. Would you like me to
bring it up there?
THE COURT: They made the objection.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: Are you going to help them on it? MS. MOLINARO: You can
take it up.
(Indicating to notebook computer.)
MR. BAKER: It's on 89 and 90, 20 for the record.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter.)
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LAMBERT: Let me get the right spot. This is Mr. Blasier, I
guess.
MR. BAKER: I can ask the question. Right there.
MR. LAMBERT: What she testified to she -- in August of '94, she had
testified that she put her initials on the bindles. She now realizes
that she didn't.
MR. BAKER: That's enough to ask the question.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. LAMBERT: The testimony in this case was she did not put the name
on bindles.
MR. BAKER: They twisted every witness. That is enough to ask the
question. She said, "I believe I had."
MR. LAMBERT: She believed in August of '94.
THE COURT: Let me see what you have.
MR. LAMBERT: They're asking her about a hearing that took place
before the criminal trial
(indicating).
(Court reads computer screen of Mr. Lambert.)
THE COURT: What are you pointing out to me?
MR. LAMBERT: This here. Right here. I do not believe -- well, you
put your initials. I believed that I had. Yes. And she said -- and
you testified that you had in August. This is at a pretrial hearing
before the criminal trial. I believed that I had, but I -- and you
found out at some later time after the hearing, but before the
criminal trial, that the bindles didn't have your initials on it,
correct? She said -- and you then changed your testimony now at the
criminal trial. She testified she didn't have the initials on the
bindle. That's what this is all about. So she's not testified in
this trial that she had her initials on bindles. She's saying the
opposite.
THE COURT: Okay. If you want to ask whether he saw her put initials
on, you may.
MR. BAKER: All right.
THE COURT: But the objection is sustained with regards to the form
of the question implying that she testified that she put it on. I
think the evidence shows that she said she didn't.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you see Andrea Mazzola write her initials on
the night -- or the morning of the 14th when you took the swatches
out of the -- out of test tubes in the drying area?
A. I don't recall seeing her write her initials.
Q. Not one way or the other, right?
A. No.
Q. All right. Just one other area. You did testify that the area of
damage was exactly where the rock was, did you not, on January 8,
1997?
A. I thought the rock was the area of damage.
Q. Did you testify -- did you testify that the rock was at the exact
area of the damage, sir? Can you answer that question? It was one
week ago.
A. Yes, I testified to that because I thought the piece of debris
was an area of damage.
Q. Okay. Let me read your deposition -- or your testimony, sir. MS.
MOLINARO: May I have the page numbers.
MR. BAKER: You sure may. It's 62, line 6.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER)
(Reading:)
Q. Now, does that look like a rock to you or does it look like a
cut?
A. That's a damaged area on the finger that -- there you go.
Q. That area?
A. This area here could be -- could be that rock I remember.
Q. Well, that's exactly the same area I pointed to on the other two
exhibits, isn't it, sir?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you're telling me that's not a cut?
A. Well, that's an area of damage on there. I don't know if it's a
rip, I don't know if it's a cut or if it was caused by a rip.
Q. Now, are you telling this jury that there was a rock in that
exact area and you have a recollection of that when you collected
the Bundy glove on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes. That was your testimony then, sir, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And now you say it wasn't a rock over a rip or a tear; it was
just a piece of debris, right?
A. Well, going over the photographs and -- yes.
Q. Can you answer my question. And you have no idea where this
purported piece of debris is now and no idea where the damaged area
underneath it is, true?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, compound,
argumentative.
(Court reviews real time screen.)
THE COURT: It is compound. Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have no idea where the damaged area is that
you testified under that rock is, because it's not on the glove,
isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, assumes facts not in
evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Isn't that true, sir? Yes or no?
A. We were referring to a --
Q. Yes or no?
A. -- photograph.
Q. And when -- you testified to this jury you had a recollection of
the glove that you collected on Bundy on June 13, true?
A. I had some recollection of it.
Q. Well, you testified you had a recollection of it -- strike that.
MR. BAKER: I have nothing further of this witness. REDIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. The -- Mr. Fung, you were asked a bunch of questions about
whether you were trying to mislead the jury. Were you trying to
mislead the jury in your testimony?
A. No.
Q. Did you make a mistake in your testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. LAMBERT: Okay. Nothing further, Your Honor.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:
Q. How many mistakes did you make, Mr. Fung?
A. One that I know of.
Q. How about the back gate, was that a mistake?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't make a mistake when you testified that
every swatch that you put in on June 13, 1994 was all dried when
they were removed on June 14, 1994; you didn't make the mistake
then, did you, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. They appeared dry to me when I put them in bindles.
MR. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. LAMBERT: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down.
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, may we briefly approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter.)
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, our next witness is Richard Fox.
He's a criminalist. He's being put on for the limited purpose of
offering an alternative explanation for why it was -- what appeared
to be a red spot on side 3 of the sock. It's our belief from
something that counsel had said that they may attempt to question
the witness about an area we think is not relevant. The witness made
some comments critical of SID that related to SID and the procedures
four or five years ago. We think that area is irrelevant and counsel
should not be permitted to go into that area. We wanted a
preliminary ruling, Your Honor, prior to putting the witness on.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, they -- they can't run their people. He
testified that -- he's been critical of SID. This whole case is
about -- a good portion of it is about SID practice and procedures,
and I think his -- his criticism of SID goes to his qualifications
and it goes to -- to his background. I mean he's testified to a lot
of things a lot of times and with that, he's testified to more than
once.
MR. MEDVENE: We're not going to ask him anything about SID, just
to his limited examination of the sock. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Fox?
MR. MEDVENE: He's a criminologist, Your Honor, and he's offered
directly on Mr. MacDonell.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. MEDVENE: He's offered directly to counter the testimony of Mr.
MacDonell and to give an alternative explanation to why blood --
blood would be on side 3 of the sock. Mr. MacDonell's explanation
was it had to be poured on or placed on after the fact. He offers an
alternative explanation. His deposition's been taken. His comments
about SID had to do with four or five years ago. He's not going to
talk about SID at all. His comments have nothing to do with the SID
people that testified in this case. And we think it would be highly
prejudicial and not relevant since he's not talking about SID.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, the socks -- as the Court will recall, these
socks were collected on June 13. Nobody found any blood on them
until August 4, August 4.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's when they were first examined.
MR. BAKER: That isn't when they were first examined. These socks
were seen by -- they went through SID, they went through -- Michelle
Kestler, Colin Yamauchi and Matheson all looked at those socks to
determine what tests they were going to run on those socks, and
found there was no blood. Then, all of the sudden, on August 4, 1994
-- 1994, they find blood that they -- and those socks at all times
were in the custody of SID. His testimony relative to what he
believes about SID goes directly to that issue.
THE COURT: Which is what?
MR. BAKER: Which is how do you get socks all of the sudden that have
blood on them when their people say there's no blood, our people
looked at them, said there's no blood.
THE COURT: You're not responding to my question. What is it you wish
to ask him with regards to SID?
MR. BAKER: Whether he has ever had any criticism of them, whether he
thinks their procedures --
THE COURT: Such as what?
MR. BAKER: That their procedures are sloppy.
THE COURT: As to what?
MR. BAKER: As to evidence handling, they have no manual.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to that.
MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor --
THE COURT: We'll get to it.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. MEDVENE: Richard Fox.
THE COURT: How many more witnesses do you have?
MR. MEDVENE: Last one, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: Last one.
MR. MEDVENE: For today. RICHARD FOX, called as a witness on behalf
of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Sir, if you would please state and spell your name for
the record.
THE WITNESS: Richard H. Fox. R-i-c-h-a-r-d H. F-o-x. DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:
Q. What is your business or profession?
A. I'm a criminalist, which is a forensic scientist.
Q. Could you briefly give me your scholastic background?
A. I graduated University of Pittsburgh with a baccalaureate degree
in biology. I took education courses at night but I do not have my
teaching certificate.
Q. Can you go through for us your work history?
A. After leaving the university, I was a research assistant at two
medical centers; at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
and then Emery University School of Medicine. Neither of these jobs
had anything to do with forensics or criminalistics. They were
scientific in nature. In 1965, I became a criminalist in the
Pittsburgh and Allegheny crime laboratory. While at that laboratory,
I worked in the trace evidence and serology sections; serology
having to do with body fluids such as blood, semen, et cetera. And
was on the crime lab mobile unit which processed major crime
scenes in the County of Allegheny. In 1971 I became the founding
director of the regional crime laboratory for northwest Missouri and
eastern Kansas. This laboratory was funded in great part by the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration and I served under then Chief
Clarence M. Kelly prior to him becoming director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. In 1976 I moved to California and became
the chief of the Ventura sheriff's crime laboratory. In 1980 I left
government service and became a private consultant.
Q. You're a private consultant now?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You have any teaching experience?
A. Yes. I've taught at the University of Pittsburgh graduate school
of chemistry, I taught forensic chemistry, which was a graduate
program that led to a Master's Degree in forensic chemistry. I've
also taught at Southern Police Institute as a visiting instructor
for their homicide and sex crimes schools. I lectured at police
academies in the jurisdictions where I worked; Pennsylvania,
Missouri, Kansas and California. I taught criminalistics, one course
at Central Missouri State University in Missouri while I was
there. And I guest lectured at California State L.
A. in both their baccalaureate and master's program in
criminalistics.
Q. Have you published, sir, any articles?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Approximately how many and in what publications? Just the nature
of the publications.
A. Well, I'm the co-author of the Crime Scene Search Physical
Evidence Handbook which was published by the University --
Department of Justice. I have written the chapter on criminalistics
for local government police administration textbook. I've
co-authored chapters in the Legal Medicine Annual, which was a
hardcopy put out back in the 70's. I've published papers in the
Journal of Forensic Science the Association of an Official
Analytical Chemist Journal and several monographs with my lectures
have been put out for seminars.
Q. Have you qualified as an expert and testified in various
jurisdictions throughout the United States?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. As an example?
A. Well, in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Utah, Idaho, California,
Kansas -- or Kansas, Missouri, Utah, Oregon, Washington State.
Basically in some of those instances numerous times and sometimes
only once.
Q. Were you, with respect to this matter, requested to look at a
particular ankle stain on a sock that had been identified as a sock
of Mr. O.J. Simpson's that was found at the foot of his bed on June
13, 1994?
A. I was.
Q. Could you briefly tell us with respect to your assignment, what
of your past history and experience deals with the kind of
assignment that you undertook?
A. Well, the assignment had to do with a blood stain and some
observations made by Herbert MacDonell and Henry Lee. From the time
I started in the laboratory in 1965, I was running blood tests,
which just by their nature I had to look at blood samples, thousands
of blood samples, both macroscopically, that's with the naked eye,
or through a microscope. I also, in our crime scene processing -- as
a matter of normal processing, we would document the scene, which
would include any blood that was found at the scene. Whether it be
pooled blood, blood spattered blood, it moved through the air and
struck an object, or blood that was on an object due to contact.
For example, a bloody palm print or hand print, if someone touched
an object. So all of these areas were actually part of routine
testing and examination back in 1965, when I started. In subsequent
times, I have actually tried to reproduce blood flight and blood
stains when there was a particular question. I've shot guns into
makeshift objects with blood in them; I've kicked blood, stepped in
blood, and objects -- hit objects with baseball bats, not just
capriciously, but to try to reproduce a pattern to see whether it
fit the reasoning that I had given to how something happened. Then I
try to make it happen to show whether I was correct or not.
Q. What was your understanding of the examination that you were to
perform in this matter?
A. Well, I was given testimony by Dr. Lee and Herbert MacDonell,
which talked about some little balls of blood that was found on the
subject's sock, specifically in what was called wall 3 of the sock.
And this would have to do with, if you look at the sock, one outside
layer of the sock would be wall 1.
Q. Would it be possible to stand up, because it's confusing
sometimes, with 1, 2, and 3, and just show with your hand?
A. Take off my sock?
Q. That would be good, too, but let's leave your ankle in the middle
of it.
THE COURT: You want to take off your sock?
THE WITNESS: No, to -- can -- may I just stand up?
(Witness indicates to sock.)
A. If we just designate either outside of my sock as wall 1, we can
then discuss the inside of that same fabric as Wall 2 of the sock.
And then we can move to the next inner layer opposite that, and call
it wall 3, and the outer layer and call it wall 4. I know you've had
that testimony already, so that I'm going to be using the same
designations, hopefully, so I don't have to dance again when we
discuss the sock. So that -- I understood what they said they
observed on wall 3. I also understood that one of the mechanisms
that was suggested was that the blood could have been planted on the
sock, that it was added to the sock at some time when no one was
wearing the sock, and the sock may be laying, for example, flat
someplace, and a drop of blood added to wall 1, which would have
subsequently soaked through to Wall 2 and caused these little balls
-- these microscopic balls to appear on wall -- to appear on wall 3.
So my assignment was to look at this and see whether there were
other mechanisms that I was able to ascertain could have done the
same thing. In other words, are we stuck with one explanation, or
are there others?
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, before we get into what you did, sir, was
any portion of your assignment to examine what has been identified
in this trial as Mr. Simpson's blood, that's on the same sock, was
found on the upper part of the sock and in the toe area?
A. No. I was basically -- I was specifically looking at this one
problem that had arisen, for the purposes that I've explained.
Q. While I believe you've answered it, but just for the record, was
any part of your assignment to look at the other sock with respect
to what's previously been identified as Ms. Nicole Brown's blood
found on the ankle area of the other side?
A. No.
Q. Now, in terms of the alternative explanations, before we get to
your experiment, do you agree with Mr. MacDonell, when he talked
about presumptive testing, and that is a possible explanation of how
blood innocently could have gotten onto wall 3?
MR. BAKER: Objection. Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes. I agree.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you explain how that would happen?
A. If after the sock was in the laboratory environment, a
criminalist were to be testing wall 1 or Wall 2 area, for example,
with a swab or a Q-Tip that had liquid on it, mostly distilled
water, and if any of that distilled water was in sufficient amount
to go through the layer of sock, it could cause the blood already
dried on the sock to hydrate, to get wet, to get gummy, and then a
microscopic -- we're talking about a very, very small amount --
could transfer while in a wet condition, or at least in a gummy,
damp condition, to wall 3. In my opinion, this is a mechanism which,
you know, could explain what I understand they observed.
Q. Mr. MacDonell was also questioned about the possibility of one
perspiring in the course of an act, or even possibly a violent act,
and the effect of perspiration on the blood being a possible source
of what was seen on wall 3. Is that a possibility, in your opinion?
A. Yes, I agree with him.
Q. And how --
MR. BAKER: I object. That isn't what he agreed with. They're just
putting --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: -- Mr. MacDonell to the side.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) How would that occur, or how might possibly that
occur?
A. If there was a combination of blood on wall 1 and 2 of the sock,
over some period of time, one would expect it to dry. However, if at
the same time it was being mixed with perspiration, then, as long as
the perspiration and the blood were wet, and if the perspiration
were to continue, preventing the blood from drying, then when the
socks were taken off, there could be a transfer of wet blood from
the Wall 2 area to the wall 3 area, simply because it was kept
hydrated. From the idea of presumptive testing, adding water is a
reasonable mechanism, then perspiring, adding water, would be
another possible mechanism to discuss.
Q. Now, in addition to those mechanisms, are there other mechanisms,
based on your experience and training, that may well have occurred
in this case?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. I'd like to lay a foundation of his
dealing with socks and blood on sides 1, 2, and 3.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell us what those explanations are,
sir.
A. If anyone had blood on their hands -- for example, if they were
cut and were bleeding -- then if they touched wall 3, they could
transfer blood to wall 3. This would be coincidental with blood on
wall 1 and 2.
Q. You mean in the course of taking the sock off?
A. Taking it off, handling it in any way. If an individual had
blood, not necessarily their own on their hands, and this blood was
tacky -- it doesn't have to be wet, like it's running -- and they
touched the sock while they had this wet or tacky blood on their
hands, it could account for the blood on wall 3. If an individual
had other clothing that was soaked with blood or had blood in it
that hadn't dried yet, they could handle that clothing, then handle
the sock, and in the same manner, transfer blood to wall 3. And if
an individual had wet blood on some other object of clothing, and
the sock was taken off and then just touched incidentally to a part
of the clothing that had blood, that could cause the transfer of
blood to wall 3.
Q. In your opinion, can you tell us whether or not a possible
mechanism would have anything to do with a criminalist cutting a
hole in wall 1 and 2?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor. I'm going to object.
This was not in his deposition, Your Honor.
MR. MEDVENE: Yes, it is, Your Honor. That's what he specifically was
questioned about.
THE COURT: Am I going have to look at the deposition? Bring it up.
MR. BAKER: Rather than -- rather than -- just go ahead. I really
don't -- doesn't matter.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you tell us how that could occur?
A. If the sock had a blood stain that was on wall 1, soaked through
to Wall 2, and no blood whatsoever on wall 3, if someone were to cut
-- and this is now dry; this is in a laboratory environment -- when
someone would cut segments of the blood stain out, that would mean
wall 1 and 2, that the mere physical cutting could easily -- and I
would -- what I would expect to have dislodged the crust of blood
from Wall 2 while the cutting procedure is going on, falling by
gravity from the laying on a bench, and wall 3 is under Wall 2, just
by gravity, falling to wall 3. So in cutting out a blood stain, this
is a mechanism that might explain how blood would and could get onto
wall 3.
Q. Did you perform any experiment to see whether or not this would
happened?
A. I did, to demonstrate this, yes.
Q. We'll place on the TV monitor 716, what's been marked number 11
from roll 609. Do you have a blow-up? Let me show you first on the
TV monitor what that is. And do you have a blow-up of that?
(The instrument herein referred to as 10 page document with one
photograph per page was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 716.)
A. Yes. I actually, with the exception of one photograph, have
blow-ups that matches the photos I gave you. And I do have a blow-up
of that particular photograph.
Q. Would you mark the blow-up as next in order, which is 2393, I
believe.
THE CLERK: Correct.
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 1 of
plaintiff's exhibit 716 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2393.)
THE WITNESS: I've put 2393 on the back of that photograph.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) All right. Sir, I had asked you if you had
performed any experiment of any kind. And do you recognize that
photo?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that photo? What does that photo represent?
A. The evidence that was brought to my laboratory, namely, these
socks. The photograph shows some of the packaging material that came
with it. And then I just laid the socks on some clean, white paper,
and took a photograph, to just show those are the socks.
Q. Is it your understanding those were Mr. Simpson's socks found at
the foot of his bed on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on August 14th of this year, did you perform an examination?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And where was that examination performed?
A. In my laboratory.
Q. And where is that?
A. Altadena, California.
Q. And who else was present?
A. Two people were present at the beginning: A criminalist by the
name of Mary Pierce, and a criminalist by the name of John Riegal.
Q. And who was Mary Pierce, as you understand it?
A. Mary Pierce was the woman in charge of bringing the evidence to
my laboratory, maintaining the custody of the evidence, and also
observing my handling of the evidence. And she had the right, if she
thought I was doing anything that wasn't correct, to stop me at any
time.
Q. And who was Mr. Riegal, to your knowledge?
A. Mr. Riegal was working for the defense in this case, and he's the
former director of the Orange County Crime Laboratory.
Q. All right, sir. Let me place on the TV, 716 number 12, if I
might, which comes from roll 609.
THE CLERK: For the record, quickly, Exhibit 716 is a 16-page
document. We're now on page 2.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And if you would be good enough -- do you have a
blow-up of that? Could we put that on the board, please -- on the TV
screen.
(Exhibit is displayed. Do you have a blow-up of that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you mark that 2394.
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 2 of
plaintiff's exhibit 716 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2394.)
(Witness places exhibit number on back of Exhibit 2394.)
THE WITNESS: Okay. If he's done, so --
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What is 2394?
A. That was identified to me as the subject ankle stain in this
case.
Q. Is this one of the socks that we just looked at, and the ankle
stain on that particular sock?
A. Yes.
Q. And what do -- are we seeing when we're looking there through --
can you orient the jury?
A. Yes. You can see the sock; you can see a marking with the white
arrow that would be written on what would be side 1, wall 1, as you
look through the hole with the cut-out.
Q. You can see what we've talked about as wall 3?
(Mr. Medvene indicates to Elmo screen.)
A. Yes, that would be wall 3.
Q. Now, first off, did you observe anything around the cut-out
portion of this sock?
A. Yes. There is a border of blood that is located around the border
of the cut-out.
Q. Can you point to that?
A. You're not going to see it with the naked eye; you have to see it
microscopically. But it's a -- you know, it's very difficult to see,
even with the photograph and the light.
MR. MEDVENE: Can you pull it up closer to see if we can see?
THE WITNESS: You've actually blown it up too far.
MR. FOSTER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
THE WITNESS: There we go.
A. The area would be around the outside of the sock. And you'll see
in a minute that I removed a piece.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Okay. Now, what did you -- what experiment did
you have in mind? And then tell us what you did.
A. Well, I wanted to be able to see or demonstrate that if you
have -- if you had a wall 1 area with blood on it --
Q. And we're talking about the wall 1 area with blood on it. You
told us a moment ago this wall 1 and 2 was cut out, so we're talking
about some -- this so-called halo, or peripheral area?
A. Yes.
Q. And we're calling that wall 1 for this purpose?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Go ahead.
A. If I cut a piece of that stain out, I want to be able to
demonstrate, just by cutting a piece out, where the blood, in a form
of both flakes and ball-like blood, would fall to wall 3. And so I
did so.
Q. So you cut a piece out?
A. Yes.
MR. MEDVENE: I'm going to ask it to -- we put on the board 716,
what's marked C, or -- excuse me. 716, number 17. And if you have a
blow-up of that, I'd ask if you would mark that 2395.
THE WITNESS: I've done so.
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 3 of
plaintiff's exhibit 716, was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2395.)
(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2395 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What's that?
A. I took my scissors and I cut a rectangle out of wall 1 and
removed it from the sock. And that just shows a photograph of the
piece that I cut out.
Q. Could you please put that back.
THE COURT: Excuse me just a second.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT: Did you change the numbering on the exhibits?
MR. MEDVENE: All the pictures that are being put up --
THE COURT: The one you just put on the Elmo says 17.
MR. MEDVENE: It was part of 716 Your Honor, 716, or a series of
photos. And we're marking certain of them. And the ones we're
marking, we also have blow-ups that we're giving alternative
markings.
THE COURT: You're giving us different numbers?
THE CLERK: I thought you referred to it as number 17.
THE WITNESS: No. I'm sorry. 716.
THE CLERK: Correct on the back.
MR. MEDVENE: On the back of them --
MR. FOSTER: A negative number and a roll number.
MR. MEDVENE: For example, then, on the first one of the two socks,
the number is 11 on the back. And I could do it at the recess, if
you want, and it's from roll 609.
THE CLERK: That's right; that's what we have.
MR. MEDVENE: The second one, 2394, which is the photo of the cut-out
portion of the sock, on the back, there's a number 12.
THE CLERK: Correct.
MR. MEDVENE: That's roll 609. That's 2394.
THE CLERK: Correct.
MR. MEDVENE: The third one -- the third one, which we're marking
2395, is number 17 on the back. And that's from roll 604.
THE CLERK: Can you put that up?
MR. FOSTER: That's what confused you, that number 15 here, from 69.
MR. MEDVENE: Oh I see. Okay. I see what confused you. I apologize.
There's certain ones we've taken out. The third exhibit, that we're
going to call 2395, is number 15.
THE COURT: Now we're okay?
THE CLERK: Yes.
MR. MEDVENE: Okay. I apologize. I took out a couple exhibits.
THE CLERK: Okay. Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you show us, sir -- I've put back up 2394,
which was the sock that you originally given with the cut-out that
was already there, and the cut-out that you just identified, that we
marked as 2395, that he had that little picture of -- could you
point out where on that sock you cut that out from?
A. Yes. In fact, I cut it out in the area I'm pointing to
(indicating), and I laid it up on the sock so you could see the
cut-out adjacent to the area that it was cut out of. So if you look
close, you may not have noticed earlier, but that rectangular piece
is sitting on top of the sock, and it came from that area that I've
just circled with my pen.
(Indicating.)
Q. Now, after the -- after you cut out that piece, what did you next
do as part of the experiment you were trying to do to see if there
was an alternative mechanism to explain, in effect, what Mr.
MacDonell saw on wall 3?
A. I microscopically examined wall 3. I had looked at wall 3 earlier
and found some blood present on wall 3 at the time I examined it.
Q. When you say you found some blood, in other words, in the place
where Mr. MacDonell testified he saw these blood drops -- Dr. Lee,
you saw no blood?
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. They said they saw them right in
the center of the cut-out area, not over in the halo area. That
question --
THE COURT: Excuse me just a minute.
MR. MEDVENE: Did you --
THE COURT: Wait a minute.
MR. MEDVENE: I'll restate the question.
THE COURT: All right.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you describe for us where you looked and
what you saw before you did your experiment?
A. Yes. I examined the entire area of wall 3 that would be
circumscribed by the cut-out, and found no evidence at that time of
any blood on wall 3.
Q. And that includes the center of the cut-out that Mr. Baker was
just making reference to?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what possible explanation is there, in terms of your
background and expertise, in terms of why you did not see it?
A. Well, I'm assuming it was there; therefore, it's been removed. It
might have fallen off. I really don't know. I mean, it's not there
when I look, and I can't attest to some prior handling of this
garment.
Q. Okay. It was possibly there and fell off?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you then tell us what you did as part of your experiment
-- you told us you cut off that piece -- and then what did you do?
A. I then reexamined wall 3, the area that would have been opened,
and under where I did my cutting, and I found that there were
numerous flakes, or what we call crusts of blood present. Some of
them were spherical; some of them were crusts -- crusty, as opposed
to being round, polished looking. They were more like the -- like
corn flakes. That is not uncommon when blood gets broken up and
dries. You have spheres; you also have flakes, if you will. And I
also found that there were bits of fiber with blood on them that had
also fallen when I cut, that were present on wall 3. So I took some
photographs to illustrate what I was looking at through the
microscope.
MR. MEDVENE: I would ask to put up on the TV monitor next, three
photos. One, that 716 on the back, you'll see 1-A, and that's from
roll 608. And would you mark that, please, 2396. Would you mark your
blow-up.
THE WITNESS: I've done so.
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 4 of
plaintiff's exhibit 716, was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2396.)
MR. MEDVENE: Next, 716 on the back is 11-A; that's from roll 608.
And would you mark that, please, 2397. That's your blow-up. And the
third is 16-A from 716. Would you mark that 2398.
THE WITNESS: 2397 and 98. I've done so.
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 5 of
plaintiff's exhibit 716, was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2397.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 6 of
plaintiff's exhibit 716, was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2398.)
MR. MEDVENE: Right. Would you put up on the TV screen, please, the
716 1-A, which is also 2396.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And can you describe what's depicted on that
photograph?
A. May I step down?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. The photograph is specifically focusing in on several flakes of
blood, but one in particular, which is rounded and is sitting in an
area of some fibers. It almost has an arch at some point in time. It
was on a thread. And then when it was cut, it broke off and fell to
wall 3. There also are some little blood flakes, but flakes -- but
this is, in particular the larger one, that was focusing in on, this
was taken through a microscope with a camera, to show -- try to show
the type of rounded, spherical, polished blood flake that fell to --
to wall 3.
Q. Do you have a blow-up of that?
A. Yes.
MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, may I pass that on around to the jury?
THE COURT: Okay.
(Exhibit 2396 is passed to the jury.)
MR. MEDVENE: Now, while that's happening, could you put up, please,
the next photo.
(Exhibit 2397 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. MEDVENE: That's 716 11-
A. And we've also marked as -- we've marked the blow-up 2397.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What does that depict?
A. Once again, looking at wall 3, there are rounded blood particles
that can be seen in various locations, and there's a fiber, not a
thread, but a fiber, that has blood on it, that appears to be part
of -- a lengthy part of the wall of the sock. But, in fact, upon
manipulation, you could find that it was just a small segment that
was not part of wall 3. But I had to manipulate it to see that it
wasn't. Under the microscope, it looks like it's part of wall 3.
It's kind of intertwined with some of the other fibrils basically
showing once again, that blood that, at least in my opinion, can be
described as spherical, rounded and some flakes on wall 3 after the
cutting.
MR. MEDVENE: May I have that photo. Again, may I?
(Counsel hands Exhibit 2397 to the jury.
Q. Let's go, if we could to the third photo of this series, which
we've marked 16-A -- it's 16-A on the back of 716. And we've also
marked the enlargement 2398. We now have 16-A on the monitor. You
have 2398?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain to the jury what this is?
A. It's the same photograph that we've seen before, except where --
or it's the same area, except it's under higher magnification. What
happens under higher magnification, it's less distinct, but it's an
attempt to show the threads or fiber that bridges across, and to
show that by photograph. And then I have to tell you, by looking
into the microscope, unless I manipulated it, I wouldn't be able to
be certain whether it was a loose fiber or a part of wall 3. And the
blow-up is the same. It's really not as good visually.
Q. And this is, again, the blood that got there after the cutting,
as a result of cutting?
A. Yes.
Q. May I have that photo --
THE COURT REPORTER: What number was that, again?
MR. MEDVENE: This is 2398, the blow-up. And number 716, 16-
A. With the Court's permission . . .
(Mr. Medvene hands Exhibit 2398 to the jury for their review.)
MR. MEDVENE: Now, we're about to go to a new area. If this is a
convenient time, or we can keep going --
THE COURT: Let's let the jury finish looking.
MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. MEDVENE: I believe the jurors have seen the exhibit.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
THE BAILIFF: Quiet in the audience, please; the Judge is still on
the bench. Quiet. Or you can go out to your break.
THE COURT: Okay. The Court has received fax notification from the
Court of Appeals that the defendant's issue for Writ of Mandate or
Prohibition with regard to testimony of Richards and Bodziak
regarding Flammer's photographs has been denied.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) On August 14, you told us, in your lab, under
the eyes of the monitor and the defense criminologist, you did
certain things. Did you make another cutting on August 14th for
purposes of doing another experiment?
A. Yes. And can I just add something to that statement?
Q. Yes.
A. Mr. Riegal was present for the cutting. He was not present for
the entire operation.
Q. Okay.
A. And I did make another cutting, yes.
Q. Okay. We'll put on the board what's marked 716, No. 17, and if
you'd be good enough, Mr. Fox, have you a blow-up of this?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you mark that 2399?
A. I have done so.
(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of page 7 of
plaintiff's exhibit 716 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2399.)
Q. Can you tell us what that is on the TV monitor?
A. I located an area on the other sock, the sock that was not
questioned, as far as the ankle stain, examined it thoroughly and
found an area where there was no blood stain, and then I cut a
swatch out of that sock. This photograph shows the sock is folded
over so that when I cut out an inch long segment and then I opened
it, it's a 2-inch long segment of clean fabric material from the
pair of socks.
Q. And it would measure about 2 by what?
A. By a half.
Q. Okay. Can you tell us what you did with that clean segment from
the second sock that you cut out that was 2 by 1/2 an inch?
A. I cut it into thirds. I took one-third and taped it down onto a
piece of cardboard or paper -- something to hold it. I took another
piece and laid it on some clean filter paper and I punctured my
finger with a lancet. That is an implement that puts a neat little
hole in your finger so you can get blood out of your own finger,
drop by drop. And I got a drop on my finger and I touched it with
the clean -- with the blood-free third of the sock that I had cut
out. I then, as it absorbed into the fabric, did that a second time.
I added another touch of a droplet from my finger to the swatch,
thus creating a blood-rich stain on a small segment of the sock.
Q. What did you then do?
A. I allowed it to air dry. Then it was time to quit for the day. I
packaged it and gave it to Mary Pearson
(sic); that was on the 14th. And I arranged for her to come back on
the 20th so I could finish my photography and examinations.
Q. And what did she then take off?
A. She took off everything. She took the socks, the wrappings, and
all the cuttings, that is the third that had cut out, one now has a
blood stain on it, she took that. She also took the cutting that I
made around the halo area, the so-called halo area. Each of those
items were put into a clean container and all packaged up and given
to her and she removed them from the laboratory to be brought back
at another date.
Q. And was there another day when the items were brought back?
A. Yes, on the 20th. She bought them back to the lab.
Q. And who was present?
A. Just myself.
Q. And was she there?
A. Yes.
Q. And could you tell us then, what you did on the 20th?
A. Yes. I held in forceps the little segment of sock that had the
blood on it, which I refer to as mockup side 1, side 2. Over the
clean piece of sock material that I had taped down so it wouldn't
move around, which I would call mockup side 3, that is the side
facing upwards, would be the equivalent of side 3, and I held the
side 1, 2 over that, not touching it, but close, within say a half
an inch or so -- I didn't measure it, and I cut a little piece out
of the stain so that while I was cutting it, I could actually see --
actually see blood and material falling onto the mockup wall 3, that
is, the clean piece of sock. Then I examined it microscopically and
took photographs.
Q. What did you observe?
A. Well, I observed very similar results to the cutting of the halo,
except that since I was dealing with more blood, there was more
crust and more spherical -- and more rounded polished particles of
blood, so that I had more to look at and to attempt to photograph.
I'm sure -- I've been told already how difficult it has been -- how
difficult to photograph what's been done prior. I did this and
took some photomicrographs similar to what I did on the 14th with
the halo cutting, and brought several into court today.
Q. Now, had you, prior to doing the two experiments you told us
about, seen the picture that Mr. MacDonell said was taken when he
did his examination?
A. Yes, I have.
MR. MEDVENE: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT:
(Nods affirmative.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I show you what's been marked 1214 --
MR. FOSTER: 1241.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Excuse me, 1241. I ask you if this is a blow-up
of that picture?
A. Yes, it is.
(Counsel displayed Exhibit 1241.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You said that you took several pictures. Let me
ask -- the first one to be put up on the TV screen is 716, No. 25.
Do you have that in front, your blow-up?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you be good enough to mark the blow-up as 2400, sir?
A. Okay, it's marked.
(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of mockup 3 was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2400.)
Q. Can you tell us what you see?
A. Yes. What you're looking at is the mockup wall 3 with the blood
that has fallen from my cutting of wall 1, 2. And there's quite a
bit of blood here because it was a blood-rich segment that I had cut
from; it had two drops of blood on it. And what is demonstrated, and
what can be seen in the microscope, and I'll explain to you, are
many flakes of blood and many spheres -- many rounded ball-like and
spherical particles of blood, very similar in appearance to what Dr.
Lee photographed for Herbert MacDonell at another time. Like
snowflakes, no two are going to be identical, but the same --
following the same basic shape. We have blood that is dried. All
blood was wet at one time, and that is rounded or spherical and has
that polished appearance, as opposed to some of the other crusts
which have a duller -- we call it the cornflake appearance.
Q. Now, do you have in front of you what's marked 17, No. 32?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you be good enough to put on the enlargement, 2401. And
could you describe for the jury --
A. Do you want to mark my blow-up?
Q. Yes, sir. 2401.
(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of mockup 3 was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2401.)
A. Thank you.
Q. And if you could tell me how it got there and what it is?
A. Well, we're looking at the same thing right now, the mockup of
side 3, the droppings, if you will. We have the reddish polished, we
have the flakes, we have fibrils that have blood on it, and we have
even what appears to be a fibril that's covered with blood that has
fallen to the wall 3 area.
MR. MEDVENE: And lastly, let's mark 716, that's picture No. 29.
A. Do you want me to mark mine?
Q. Would you mark yours. Do you have the blow-up in front of you?
A. 2402? Thank you.
(The instrument herein referred to as photograph of page 10 of
plaintiff's exhibit 716 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2402.)
MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Foster, would you put that on the board, sir.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you tell us and the ladies and gentlemen
of the jury what you observed there and how it got there?
A. Same mockup wall 3, cutting of the blood-rich segment. And this
is really one of the fortuitous sections that I could see because it
has numerous of the rounded, polished looking spherical blood
stains.
THE WITNESS: I wonder if you can take that down a little bit. I
think it may be -- okay.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
THE WITNESS: Is that in focus all the way from where you are? Go the
other way.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
THE WITNESS: Little more.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
MR. FOSTER: That's it.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
A. I'm going to point out that there are numerous polished looking
rounded droplets, as you will, blood particles, not the cornflake
looking type, and this is a blow-up showing those. And if you look
at the one that MacDonell had talked about, which interestingly
enough is not totally rounded because it has more of an elliptical
-- a length and width to it, you'll see that the same type of
formations are seen on this photograph. In fact, when I look through
the microscope, there are numerous such formations, some easier than
others to get good photographs of. But this particular picture is
very good and it has a number of the polished, rounded different
sizes.
MR. MEDVENE: Now, may I exhibit this to the jury, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. MEDVENE: This is No. 29 that's marked as 2402.
(Jurors reviewed Exhibit 2402.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) When you use the words "manipulate the balls,"
what do you mean by that word?
A. I look under the microscope, I can see some of these spheric
blood crusts; some look like they've fallen and are embedded between
the fibers themselves, some appear to be on top of a thread or a
fiber. The one thing that I can't tell when looking through the
microscope -- and some appear to be loosely sitting there. But there
are those that you cannot tell -- I cannot tell just by looking at
it, since I can't see the underside, whether they would -- I know,
of course, that they came from above. But if I look at them to see
whether I would be able to tell whether they were bonded to wall 3,
that is, had gone on wet, or had fallen, unless I get in with a
forceps or a piece of wire, I use forceps and push at them a little
bit. You don't want to break them up, but push at it a little bit.
It's my opinion that you can't tell whether they are just lying on
or even somewhat attached to the fibrils grabbing at the blood
itself, unless you manipulate, unless you touch, unless you move it,
unless you probe it in some way.
Q. And you read Mr. MacDonell's testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. And he said he did not manipulate or touch the balls because of
their smallness; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, do you have an opinion, sir, based upon your training and
experience and the experiments that you did in this matter, as to
whether or not the microscopic blood particles or flakes or spheres
could have fallen to wall 3 of the sock when the blood-stain area
was cut by the criminalist?
A. My opinion --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor. That's irrelevant if it
could have.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. My answer to that question is that the blood could have fallen to
wall 3 when it was cut, and I would be surprised if some blood
didn't fall to wall 3 when it was cut.
Q. And the basis for your opinion, sir?
A. Gravity. If wall 1 and 2 have blood, especially if there's enough
blood to soak through wall 2, and it's sitting over wall 3, which
when you cut it there are going to be flakes of blood dislodged just
by the mechanical cutting, that has to go somewhere, and they're
going to go down. If wall 3 is under it, it's going to fall on wall
3.
Q. Is your conclusion supported by any independent facts that you
observed in the course of your experiment?
A. Well, that's exactly what happened during my experiment; that
when I cut wall 1 and 2 on the actual sock, blood fell to wall 3
when I did the mockup using the blood-rich sample; wall 3 mockup
received blood when I cut it.
Q. If one were to -- instead of performing the experiment you
performed, if one were to have after the fact poured blood on side
1, what would you have expected to see, in your experience, with
your background; what would you expect to see on wall 3?
A. If the sock were lying in a position where wall 1 and 2 were
covering wall 3, the liquid blood were put onto wall 1 sufficient to
go through wall 1 and stain wall 2, then I would suspect that we
should also get a stain on wall 3; the stain might be smaller in
circumference than wall 1. Wall 2 would be somewhat smaller if the
blood didn't go through in the peripheral areas. And wall 3 may also
be smaller, but if you put a drop on that sock, as thin as it is, I
would expect that there would be a stain on wall 3.
Q. When you performed your experiment, did you find a stain on wall
3?
A. I didn't do it in that manner, but when I put my blood on wall 1
--
MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I put the blood on wall 1, on my mockup, and the blood went
through to wall 2 and also went through to the filter paper, it was
lying on -- leaving a red stain on the filter paper.
Q. Thank you.
MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Dr. Fox, you know of Dr. Henry Lee's reputation as a criminalist,
do you not?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you know he's thought of as a very careful and a very highly
regarded scientist; you would agree with that?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Henry Lee has a good reputation in the field.
Q. And he's known to be an honest scientist; you would agree with
that?
A. He's known to have a good reputation in the field. I don't know
this. I've never discussed his integrity nor have I ever challenged
it.
Q. All right. Now, same with Herb MacDonell; he has an excellent
reputation in the forensic community?
A. There are those that like Herb very much, yes.
Q. And in terms of your retention in this case, you were retained to
refute the fact that there were blood drops on side 3, and Herb
MacDonell and Henry Lee testified that is because those blood drops
were applied without - you know, subsequent to the socks being
collected, right?
A. I'm not sure of the question. Can you read that back to me.
Q. I'll be happy to rephrase it.
A. I lost you.
Q. Sure. Be happy to rephrase it.
A. Thank you.
Q. You were retained, and you knew you were retained, to refute the
testimony of Henry Lee and Herb MacDonell, that side 3 had red blood
that was adherent to fibers in the sock on side 3, correct?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, misstates their testimony, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I was hired to examine the premise and to give, as it turned out,
other possible mechanisms. I don't know that I have refuted other
theories at all.
Q. I agree with you. Now, relative to what a criminalist does -- you
are a criminalist, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what a criminalist does is a criminalist will take and look
at a theory, and then put that theory -- place it over the facts of
a particular case and see if the theory makes any sense based on the
facts of the case, true?
A. Sometimes. Sometimes a criminalist looks at a fact and tries to
make it reasonable. For example, a blood stain is not a theory, it's
a fact. The question then is how did it get there, whose is it, it
becomes a matter of scientific testing.
Q. Sure.
A. I'm not arguing with the statement that sometimes we have a
theory and we test it.
Q. Okay. And criminalists test their theory based upon the facts of
the case that they're retained in, do they not?
A. Sometimes, sometimes, yes.
Q. And you want to check the theory, because you have talked about
possibilities to this jury, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You haven't talked even about probability to this jury, have you?

A. Actually I indicate --
Q. You never mentioned the word probability in one part of your
testimony this afternoon, did you, sir?
MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. There's two questions.
MR. BAKER: I'll withdraw the first one.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You did not mention the word probability one time
in your testimony this afternoon; is that correct?
A. That's probably true, yes.
(Laughter.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Thank you. That's the first time. Would you agree
it's absolutely true?
A. I don't know what absolutely is. I don't believe I used this --
the word probability in my direct testimony, no.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, in determining -- correct that. In
arriving at your opinions and conclusions that you've given the jury
today, you obviously determined what the history of these socks
were, did you not?
A. Only in part.
Q. Well, you were aware, certainly, that on June 24, Drs. Baden and
Wolff inspected the socks at the Los Angeles Police Department and
found no blood on the socks whatsoever, correct?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, misstates the testimony, no examination,
just inventoried the socks.
THE COURT: Well --
MR. BAKER: Dr. Baden testified that he looked at the socks,
inspected the socks.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. There's an objection. Bring it up.
MR. P. BAKER: You looking at me?
MR. BAKER: No, he's not looking at you. You don't have the burden.
THE COURT: I'm looking at the people who have the computers.
MR. BAKER: What are you looking for? MS. MOLINARO: What are you
looking for?
MR. BAKER: I'm not looking for anything.
MR. MEDVENE: In the interest of time, the record is what it is and
we'll withdraw our objection.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You aware that Drs. Baden and Wolff inspected the
socks on June 24, 1994 and found no blood at all on the socks?
A. It's my understanding that they reported that they observed no
blood, yes. Yes.
Q. And are you aware that on June 29, 1994, Michelle Kestler, the
director of the LAPD crime lab, Greg Matheson, criminalist, and
Colin Yamauchi, criminalist, did a blood search on the socks and
found none obvious?
A. I'm not aware that that ever happened, as part of my examination.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, would you take that off for a
minute
(indicating to Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: We think it's --
MR. MEDVENE: We think it's inappropriate to put the exhibit up. The
witness says he has no knowledge of it. Mr. Baker can certainly show
it to him to see if it refreshes his recollection.
MR. BAKER: I want to show him the document that's in evidence.
THE COURT: You can show it to him, you can't show it to the jury
until you lay some foundation for the document.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, the document is in evidence.
THE COURT: If it's in evidence, you can show it.
MR. MEDVENE: There's no evidence that this witness ever saw it or
relied on it.
MR. BAKER: I'm cross-examining.
THE COURT: Put it up. Let's get it on.
MR. BAKER: The Judge is ready for this case to be over.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Socks navy blue, right, two of them, right
(indicating to Elmo), dress socks blood search none obvious, right?

A. Okay, if that says none obvious, I think it does.
Q. Okay. I think that is cut off, but that's the testimony, that
it's none obvious, okay?
A. If that's what the document says. I don't know what the testimony
is. I wasn't here.
Q. All right. Fair enough. Now, that's significant in arriving at a
conclusion as to what theory would be appropriate in this case; you
would agree with that?
A. Well, I don't know that -- agree with that because you're giving
me --
Q. All right.
A. -- a lot of latitude. I don't know -- and I don't want to get
into testimony I haven't heard. If someone wrote none obvious, it
doesn't tell me there's no blood there. And until -- I would rely on
a scientific report that said examination was made microscopic, et
cetera, no blood was found, so that -- I mean I can't respond and
give you what you want from that. I know there have been other
people here who testified. They have to speak for themselves.
Q. Now, I want you to assume that five criminalists looked at the
socks before August 4, 1994 looking for blood, and no one found
blood.
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, that misstates the record.
There's no evidence five people looked for blood and none found
any. When they looked, they found it.
MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor, that absolutely misstates the facts.
THE COURT: Okay. Excuse me. You want to state a hypothetical, you
can state a hypothetical. I'll explain to the jury. Just because Mr.
Baker says so, that's not what the evidence is, that's only a
hypothetical, and you'll have to look to the evidence whether what
he says is real or not real. Okay. Now, go.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want you to assume on June 24, 1994, Dr. Baden,
a respected forensic pathologist, and Dr. Barbara Wolff looked at
the socks, found no blood. I want you to further assume that on
August -- or June 29, the head of the LAPD crime lab and two other
criminalists looked at the socks and did a blood search and found
none, found none obvious. Can you assume that, sir?
A. I follow the hypothetical, yes.
Q. Now, that would be important in determining which of your
theories had any validity; you would agree with that?
A. I would not.
Q. Okay. So it doesn't matter to you that there may have been no
blood on these socks at any time before August 4, 1994, correct or
incorrect?
A. No, incorrect, sir.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, you are aware that the FBI inspected these
socks and that FBI Agent Martz designed the test to determine
whether or not EDTA was present on the socks, correct?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, outside the scope.
THE COURT: I'll presume it's foundation and I'll allow it. If it's
not, I'll strike it.
Q. Are you aware of that?
A. I've seen reports in the media having to do with EDT
A. I have no personal knowledge of any tests run by Martz on the EDT
A.
Q. Well, certainly if EDTA were in the blood on the socks, all of
your theories would basically be valueless; you would agree with
that?
A. No, I don't agree. I would agree that if there was an elevated
EDTA confirmed and that -- this would be highly suspicious and --
but to find EDTA in the blood, as I understand it, this would --
this is beyond the scope of my expertise.
MR. BAKER: Well, then I move to strike.
MR. MEDVENE: Let him finish. We can't just have Mr. Baker's
question.
THE COURT: Finish your answer.
A. My understanding, once again based on some media involvement that
I've read, is that there's reportedly EDTA present in blood, that
Mr. Martz or somebody even had EDTA in their own blood, and so I
would not be able to parry and thrust on the subject, unless -- to
say, unless the test you're talking about showed elevated EDTA, EDTA
that could only come from a preservative, if that were true, then
yes, you and I would have more agreement on that question.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't, of course, know what levels of EDTA are
in the blood or not in the blood; you would agree with that?
A. I don't know anything about EDTA, which is what I said in the
first place.
(Laughter.)
Q. So elevated levels, we can strike that, because you don't know
what elevated levels are?
A. No, I don't know what the level -- I don't want to argue with
you. I don't know what the level has to be, but I do know that
normal human blood has EDTA in it, that any scientist who would then
reach a conclusion as to EDTA coming from a preservative would have
to establish that it was elevated and the level of elevation
necessary to reach that conclusion as a scientist. I know that.
Q. All right.
A. What the level is, I don't have the foggiest.
Q. Okay. So if we had an expert come in here who said the EDTA
levels were such that if, in fact, they were in the human blood, it
was inconsistent with life, you would agree that your theories are
irrelevant relative to the possibilities of how blood is on side 3,
correct?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, question's argumentative.
THE COURT: I'll sustain it.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had a couple of theories to refute, a
couple of possibilities to refute, Herb MacDonell's and Dr. Terry
Lee's testimony, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And one of them was the theory of bloody hands, correct?
A. Touching the garment, yes.
Q. And you -- in your deposition you indicated that if Mr. Simpson
were the murderer and he had bloody hands, that he could have
possibly caused the blood to be transferred onto side 3, right?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And, of course, you want to check to see if there was any blood
on doorknobs, if there was any blood up the stairs, you want to
check if there was any blood on hand rails, and there was no blood
anywhere, was there, sir?
A. First of all, you're testifying.
Q. Did you --
A. I don't --
Q. Did you want to do that, sir?
A. No, I don't know where there was or wasn't blood. I indicated
that if Mr. Simpson had blood on his hands and touched the socks,
this would be a mechanism by which to transfer blood to the socks.
Q. And you want to test that theory by determining in Mr. Simpson's
house whether there was blood anywhere on the doors, the socks or
anywhere in his bedroom, correct?
MR. MEDVENE: Argumentative question. We'd object on that basis.
THE COURT: Whether this witness wants to test it in his expertise,
within that scope of the question, you may answer it.
A. No, I don't want to test anything. Because --
Q. Fair enough.
A. -- I was not able to see Mr. Simpson's hands on that night. If I
could see his hands, I might know whether there was blood on them
or not.
Q. Well, if you -- if you're saying that Mr. Simpson, if he -- if he
had done these horrible crimes, had transferred blood to his socks,
he'd transfer it, you talked about his bloody clothes or the clothes
of whoever did this, and none of that was ever found, was it, sir?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection. The witness --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MEDVENE: The witness can't testify to that.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Page 67 of your deposition, sir. You don't have
any information that Mr. Simpson could have transferred blood to any
part of the socks, isn't that true, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Thank you. Now, relative to the other theories that you had, you
have no information that whoever did these crimes were perspiring at
the ankle, do you?
A. That's correct.
Q. You don't have any information that a Q-tip was ever pressed
through the socks at the laboratory to cause any blood on side 3, do
you, sir?
A. No. I was just agreeing with Dr. MacDonell and his testimony.
Q. You have no information that that occurred or could have
occurred at all; isn't that true, sir?
A. Well, it could occur but I can't show that it did.
Q. Now, relative to the testimony of -- of Herb MacDonell, you are
aware, of course, that Dr. Lee and Herb MacDonell saw these round
spheres in side 3, correct?
A. That's correct, that's their testimony.
Q. And you have no reason to disbelieve that?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Even though when you looked at it you didn't see it, correct?
A. That has nothing to do with the first question.
Q. I understand.
A. They've testified to that and I can't -- I have no reason to
refute that.
Q. All right. Fair enough. Now, you also read Herb MacDonell's
testimony that they saw five or six of these spheres and they were
entwined around the fibers in side 3, correct?
A. I don't know that that was his testimony. I think you need to
show that to me. I don't recall it, I don't recall that he said
that. Once again, I'm not arguing with you.
Q. Fair enough. I want you to assume --
MR. BAKER: Phil, you want to pull that up, Herb McDonell.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- these were wrapped around the fibers in side 3.
Now, that would be significant, would it not, if the blood was
wrapped around the fibers in side 3?
A. If they were bound to it and could be shown to be bonded to it,
it would be significant.
Q. Your experiments, as I understand them, what you did, you first
cut part of the sock out in the halo area, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you allowed the blood by gravity to drop on -- from side 1
and 2 onto side 3 under the area where the cut was, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Then when you did your other experiment, when you cut the
material out of the sock, you cut it out of the sock, put two drops
of blood on it, as I understand it, let it dry for six days, and
then cut the sock, and you got debris, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You got debris in the area where you cut, right?
A. Right.
Q. You recall the testimony of Herb MacDonell that the area where
they found these round spheres wrapped around the fibers within side
3 was in the center area of the cutout where the blood was more
probably than not highly concentrated?
A. Yes.
Q. And the importance of that is that that's not near the area where
the cut was made; isn't that correct, sir?
A. Well, no, because if you're cutting segments out of the sock area
--
MR. BAKER: Put up 24, would you?
A. -- you aren't necessarily going to have the blood end up in one
location. Just in terms of handling. It would be my opinion that no
matter what else could have happened to the sock, the cutting would
have caused droppings when MacDonell looked at the sock. If some
droppings hadn't fallen off or been moved, there should have been
more than what they reported seeing, and so that -- no, I don't
really think that that's going to be -- that's the issue that I
would have.
Q. Well, you found -- whenever the sock was cut, you found an
immense amount, I mean hundreds of flakes and spheres, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you would agree that the sphere that is indicated in --
MR. BAKER: That was 1278 at the criminal trial. I don't remember
what it is now.
MR. P. BAKER: That's 1241.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- 1241, that indicates that that drop dried
obviously in a spherical configuration during the time that it
dried, true?
A. Well it's not a drop; it's a --
Q. Well, it's a drop --
A. It's not at drop. Let me finish.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. It's a small, microscopic crust. And it did -- it did -- it's
spherical. It did dry in a spherical manner.
Q. The importance of that is that the drop was not like you have
testified here in the courtroom this afternoon; it wasn't a flake,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And if the drop dries in a round configuration, that
means it's trying to adhere to itself; that's basically why it's a
spherical shape?
A. Yes.
Q. The surface tension kind of takes most liquids and makes them
into spheres; true?
A. Yes.
Q. And if, in fact, that sphere dried around the fiber -- fabric or
fibril on side 3, that would be indicative that it was still wet
when it, in fact, got to side 3, true?
A. Yes, if it could be shown to have dried around that fabric, it
would mean that it was wet when it went on that fabric; it would
therefore mean that if the -- you can show that the fabric didn't
fall, that the fabric was a part of wall 3, then that would have
dried onto wall 3, yes.
Q. And that would be consistent with someone putting blood on side
1, squeezing it, and having it go through side 2 and into side 3.
You would agree with that?
A. That would be one explanation, yes.
Q. And if, in fact, there had been no blood on the socks until
August 4; and if, in fact, there's EDTA on the socks, and if, in
fact, the blood dries around the fiber in side 3, you would agree
that more likely than not, the way that that blood got there is,
somebody, subsequent to June 29, 1994, put a drop or more of blood
on the sock, pushed it down, and got it through side 1, 2, and into
side 3. Correct?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection. It assumes three separate facts, not one of
which are in evidence in this case.
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. All three are in evidence in this
case.
THE COURT: It's a hypothetical question, ladies and gentlemen, and
you may decide what's been proved and what hasn't been proved in
terms of hypothetical. Go ahead and answer it?
A. You didn't indicate -- would you please repeat it slowly, so I
can catch each point.
Q. Be happy to?
A. Thank you.
Q. Now, assume that there was no blood on the socks on June 24,
1994, when they were first inspected by Dr. Baden. And assume there
was no blood on the socks when the blood search was done by three
LAPD criminalists: Michelle Kestler, Baden, and Wolff up there, Greg
Matheson, and Colin Yamauchi. And assume blood was put on the socks
subsequent to June 29, 1994, so it could be discovered on August 4,
1994. Assume further that blood was put on the socks by a drop of
blood being placed on the socks pushed through side 1 to side 2, and
six or so small particles, spheres of blood got through side 2 and
into side 3. That would be a logical explanation for what you have
on the board, and that Dr. Lee photographed, correct?
A. If I assume all of those things happened, then they happened by
assumption, and that would indicate that, for many of those things
that you gave me, that the blood was placed on the sock after it was
collected. I have to assume those things. And if I do, yes.
Q. Now, Herb MacDonell and Dr. Lee looked through the microscope.
And you would agree that -- empirical vision that you have at the
time you look at the microscope, or look through it, it's better
than any photograph?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And if Herb MacDonell testified on December 16, that -- page 86,
lines 17 and 18 -- that sphere was bonded, it is wrapped around the
fiber in side 3, you would have absolutely no reason to disbelieve
that; true?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Okay. So you believed that he was misrepresenting the truth when
he so testified?
A. That's not true. It's putting words in my mouth. MacDonell,
looking through the scope --
Q. There is no question pending.
MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, may he explain his answer?
THE COURT: You can do it on redirect.
MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir.
MR. BAKER: Right now. Thank you, sir.
MR. MEDVENE: Right now. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:
Q. Right now.
A. MacDonell testified that, in his opinion, when he examined those
spheres, they were bonded to the fiber. I'm not challenging his
opinion that -- he has a right to have his opinion, and I'm not
saying he's lying in having that opinion. What I am saying is, I
find it difficult to perceive looking through a microscope and being
able to see the under side of any object, to tell me whether it's
bonded or not. If I take this little glass of water and lay it on
this counter, I can't tell whether someone has Super-Glued it to the
counter. Now, I could come in here and I could Super-Glue this to
the counter, and it wouldn't look any different to me looking down
or from the side; but when I try to pick it up, it wouldn't move. On
the other hand, I didn't Super-Glue it, so it came back up. So
what I'm saying is that, one must be careful to make an assumption
that what you're Super-Gluing is bonding. If you have not tried to
see -- actually, you have it under the microscope -- move it, see
whether it is bonded. But I'm not arguing that. He has that opinion,
and those are the people that will decide.
(Indicating to jury.)
Q. Is the analogy you're drawing, sir, that if we took 1241 and what
is circled in blue, is that the same thing as the cup sitting on the
table?
A. Yes. It's clear under a microscope. I responded to Mr. Baker, in
that way than it is in the photograph but the microscope can't see
through the object; it can't see under the object. So that's the
only way you would know, in my opinion, whether it was bonded to the
surface it was on, would be to manipulate it to find out for sure.
Q. And Mr. MacDonell said he did not do that, didn't he, sir?
A. That's what he said.
MR. BAKER: I object. That's not accurate.
MR. MEDVENE: I'll read Your Honor from page 85, lines 14 through 20
of Mr. MacDonell's testimony.
Q. It is true, sir, that you did -- they were so small, you were
afraid of fracturing them; and because of that, you did no actual
testing, only observation. Is that true, sir? Yes or no?
A. Yes; that's what I did.
Q. So it's true you did not touch the balls?
A. I did not, no.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that what you were referring to?
A. That's what I read, and that's where my disagreement on procedure
is. But once again, whatever he said, they've heard. I can't argue
with what he said.
Q. Just one last question. The testimony was that -- Mr. Simpson
testified that he did have some blood on his hands that particular
night in question. Would that be consistent with one of the possible
explanations you gave of how blood could get on side 3 when one
would take their socks off?
A. That certainly could explain the origin of the blood and why it's
on side 3, yes.
MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, sir. Nothing further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have -- you're not attempting to tell this
jury, Mr. Fox, that you have no ability to see other than two
dimensions in a binocular microscopy?
A. I said I can see under or through an object. I certainly can see
down and width, length, and depth, yes.
Q. Binocular microscopy does give you a field of vision and a depth
of vision, does it not, sir?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And the depth of vision that you get from a binocular microscope
allows to you see, for example, where this picture appears to wrap
around the fiber, correct?
A. That does not allow me to see whether it's bonded to the fiber;
it only will allow me to see the position on the top. And remember,
I showed a little blood speck earlier that had this -- a
configuration almost like a child's Tinker Toy. So what I'm saying
is, you're right. I've used 3-D stereomicroscopes for 35 years. They
do give you a good depth of vision, especially a good microscope.
But they're not X-ray; they don't show you what's underneath; they
don't show you if it's bonded. Even if they were to show that, there
is some area that is not just flat, okay, on the fiber. It doesn't
tell me it's bonded; it doesn't tell me it couldn't have dropped on
there; it doesn't tell me it couldn't have had that molded shape
from being on a fiber on wall 2 and fallen onto wall 3.
Q. Now, you're not telling this jury that that piece of blood on --
is it 1241 -- will --
MR. P. BAKER: Yes.
Q. -- is not bonded to that fiber, are you?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. And you would agree with me that the person who saw it -- the
persons who saw it are in a better position than you to determine
whether or not that blood part, which was, in fact, bonded to that
fiber -- you would agree with that?
A. Herb MacDonell was in a better position, but he did not do it. He
did not manipulate it to see whether it was bonded. He certainly was
in a better position than I could ever be.
Q. And so you, as a criminalist, would want to destroy the evidence
in an effort to determine whether or not it was, in fact, bonded.
Right?
A. I wouldn't have to destroy anything to make that determination.
Q. If you touched that particular part which -- that's on 1241, you
would agree that it would be destroyed?
A. No. You don't know that. You don't know that at all.
Q. Well --
A. I --
Q. I know one thing: That's exceedingly small.
MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. He was -- I'm sorry.
THE WITNESS: Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you -- in an attempt to sell your theory to
this jury, that is the only thing that you could figure out that you
could criticize Herb MacDonell for, is that he didn't manipulate it;
true?
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, argumentative use of words and
inappropriate.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I'm not arguing with him at all. And it is one of the factors
that I feel strongly about. I've told the jury about it. And I don't
see that you couldn't probe it. I don't think that you would have to
break it up. And, quite frankly, after photographing it -- and if I
did probe it and break it up and got an answer, I would be willing
to accept that. If there were six or seven of these things, as they
said, then if I destroyed one to get an answer and photographed the
other five, I wouldn't be unhappy.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And if they felt that they could see that this was
bonded, as it appears in 1241, and felt no need to break it up or to
probe it, you wouldn't disregard their opinions, would you, sir?
MR. MEDVENE: He's calling for speculation and conclusion, opinion on
what somebody else might think, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I believe he's being asked his opinion of their opinion.
To that extent, I'll overrule it.
A. I haven't argued at all that they did what they thought was
necessary. And they've reported it to the jury. And I'm not going to
do a final argument in this case. It's not my job.
MR. BAKER: No further questions.
MR. MEDVENE: No questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, please.
THE WITNESS: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.
THE CLERK: For the record, Exhibit 716 was originally a 16-page
document, but there was only evidence as to ten pages. What would
plaintiffs like to do? Would you like to withdraw the other six
pages, or would you like to keep Exhibit 716?
MR. MEDVENE: Let us reserve on those, if we might. And we would
move in at this time 23 --
THE CLERK: One moment.
MR. MEDVENE: We don't need the reporter. May we reapproach? I'm
sorry. We don't need the reporter.
MR. GELBLUM: Moving in some exhibits.
MR. BAKER: I apologize.
THE CLERK: For the record, Exhibit 716 remains 16 pages.
MR. MEDVENE: Yes. And what I'll do, either now or later, we'll give
you the numbers in 716 that we're moving in. We can do that later.
But we're also moving in 2393 through 2402.
(The instruments herein described were admitted into Evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 2393, 2394, 2395, 2396, 2397, 2398, 2399,
2400, 2401, 2402)
THE COURT: Do you wish to move in Exhibit 716?
MR. MEDVENE: Those portions of 716 that the witness testified to.
And if it would be helpful, I can --
THE CLERK: It won't be.
MR. MEDVENE: -- Those portions the witness testified about.
THE CLERK: It will be ten pages for Exhibit 716.
(The instrument herein described was admitted into Evidence as
Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 716)
MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Baker, you want to do something before I excuse the
jury?
MR. GELBLUM: Before you excuse the jury
(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)
THE COURT: Okay. We'll see you all tomorrow at 8:30. We're getting
right to the end of the case. It's very important you maintain your
integrity. Don't listen to any news; don't watch any newscasts;
don't read any newspaper articles; don't let any other source of
information regarding this case come to you except through the trial
process. Everybody understand that?
JURORS: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. See you tomorrow, 8:30.
(At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Thursday, January 16, 1997, at 8:30 A.M.)