Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Uelmen, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel, with regard to the schedule today, just to refresh your recollections, this afternoon we have to break at 3:45. One of our jurors has a dentist appointment that the transportation is difficult and the sheriff's department has asked that we break at 3:45 to allow that juror to be transported to the dentist. Isn't that thrilling to have two sheriff's deputies drag you to the dentist? We will take a break at 3:45 for fifteen minutes and then at four o'clock we will take up the evidentiary issue as to the Chicago telephone calls, that hearing. We will--I understand that counsel for Mr. Fuhrman wishes to be heard on the issue of getting copies of the so-called Fuhrman tapes. I anticipate a representative from the city of Los Angeles will appear to request from the court copies of those audiotapes and any transcripts that are in existence, so we will have those hearings at four o'clock. And today is--and we will just go until we finish those hearings. All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, with respect to scheduling, I don't expect until the afternoon that we will get to the issue of the sock, but we have the submitted proposed stipulation having to do with what the testimony of counsel would be concerning the sock examination and in my letter I said February 15th. It is February 16th. So we have the proposed stipulations about what Mr. Harmon, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Blasier and myself would testify to.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Which I propose that the court just read to the jury at the appropriate time. That is my proposal.

THE COURT: Have you discussed this with Mr. Goldberg?

MR. SCHECK: Well, we submitted this memorandum to the court and to counsel yesterday. I don't know what their position is on this.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: This is the first time I saw it, your Honor, although Mr. Scheck did mention something about a stipulation to me and I didn't quite understand what he was saying. I think it was yesterday.

THE COURT: All right. When do you anticipate we will get to the sock issues, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: This afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. Then Mr. Goldberg, why don't you take the morning to take a look at it, or the lunch hour, and then we will come back and before we hit the sock issue then we will take it up again.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, how long is the lunch break today?

THE COURT: Let's go one hour today. All right. Anything else before I have the jury come out?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, there were several issues that we wanted to take up that we did not need to get to yesterday for the evidence that was presented in the afternoon. One was as to the question of the sock--excuse me--the swatch drying experiment. I don't know whether we need to bring that up now or whether that can be reserved for the afternoon. Maybe Mr. Scheck can let us know about that.

THE COURT: When do you anticipate, Mr. Scheck, getting to the sock drying experiment?

MR. SCHECK: Friday morning.

THE COURT: All right. Then we'll take it up this afternoon.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I propose--we were served with that memo yesterday, so if I could suggest, we would like an opportunity to give a written reply and we can take it up Friday morning.

THE COURT: All right. I don't have a problem with that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Just for the record--

THE COURT: It is not like we don't have a lot of things to do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Just for the record, I was saying swatch, not sock, swatch drying experiment.

MR. SCHECK: I know.

MR. GOLDBERG: The other issue, your Honor, we've discussed before the question of trying to get examination quality photographs of at least these exhibits that counsel has put on the board. They gave us photographs of photographs and it is not a technical dispute. The problem is, is that when you are looking at tiny little parallel lines and the like and you are trying to decide what is that and where did it come from, and such, it can't really be done with a photo of a photo. So I think the People are entitled to actual photographs, and even possibly the negatives, although it is conceivable that the photographs themselves might suffice.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, do you have a specific list of which photos you want?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I wanted actual photographs of everything on the Defendant's boards with the--the only things that I think I have photographs of now--I'm not talking about my photographs. The only things of theirs where I think I actually have photographs are the photographs that were taken by Dr. Lee on the 25th of June at Bundy and Rockingham. I believe what Defense provided to me in that regard appears to be an actual photograph, as opposed to a photo of a photo. Other than that, everything else that I've received from the Defense is a photo of a photo. So that is one issue. The other issue as to some of the boards, is that particularly in the area of the hair and trace examinations, there are a series of boards that talk about evidence found. We believe that the term "Evidence" is argumentative in that context in the sense that the things that are found are sometimes soil, debris, that would not have--

THE COURT: So what do you call it? Stuff?

MR. GOLDBERG: Hair and trace or stuff if the court prefers. I would like stuff, but hair and trace would be fine. That is a technical term as opposed to evidence, which implies that it is something that has a probative evidentiary significance in this case. Because obviously the People will be arguing, as we are entitled to, that these items do not--and I believe from my conversations with Dr. Lee he would agree with that, at least as to many, if not most of these items. So we do feel that the term "Evidence" is a loaded concept and an argumentative one.

MR. SCHECK: I think that Dr. Lee's testimony will make it clear that this term--

THE COURT: Do you really find yourself compelled to argue this?

MR. SCHECK: No.

THE COURT: All right. That objection as to the use of the word "Evidence" on the board is overruled. It is not an inappropriate phrase in the context of this case. All right. As to the--Mr. Scheck--excuse me. Mr. Goldberg, would you prepare a list of the items, the actual photographs, keyed to the exhibits, so I know specifically which photos you want produced, because I agree with you that if you are going to have your own expert do recomparisons of items, you need to have an actual photograph. But I need to have a specific list for any order that I issue, so if you will submit that to the court, and time is of the essence, because if they are photographs that have to be reproduced from photographs, obviously that will take some time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lee, would you resume the witness stand, please.

DR. LEE: Yes, sir,

Henry Lee, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

DR. LEE: Good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that Dr. Henry Lee is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Scheck on behalf of the Defendant. Good morning again, Dr. Lee.

DR. LEE: Good morning.

THE COURT: Doctor, you are reminded, sir, you that are still under oath. And Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, we were talking yesterday about imprint evidence at Bundy and we had discussed first the board concerning the walkway; second, the board concerning the pieces of paper. And now I would like to turn our attention to a third board dealing with Mr. Goldman's jeans.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, have we marked this board yet?

MR. SCHECK: We have not, your Honor. I think this would be, if my memory serves, 1339.

THE COURT: All right. 1339.

(Deft's 1339 for id = posterboard)

THE COURT: Are there any remains on this matter?

MR. SCHECK: Any remains? No, no.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft, may I see this, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, if you could come down from the witness stand.

DR. LEE: Your Honor, may I step down? (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: And Dr. Lee, on February 19th, I believe a little over a month or so into this trial, did you have an opportunity to examine Mr. Goldman's jeans?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And could you describe, using the photograph on the far left-hand side, the blood spatter patterns that you found.

DR. LEE: The first picture on the left-hand side appears to depict an overhead view of the front portion of the blue jean of Mr. Goldman. What we viewing now is flat, the blue jean put on--appear to be on the piece of paper. By no means that I try to say this is a three-dimensional setting where somebody wear a blue jean like this, (Indicating). That only shows a two-dimensional side. On the left-hand side we see large amount of bloodstain, covers from the top and downwards. In between there are some area we see the involved area. In addition we see blood spatter, like pattern. Other could be bloody imprint; however, when the large amount of blood cover the surface, those difficult to see and very difficult to determine what type of imprint evidence. However, on the right-hand side the amount of blood is much less than the left-hand side. On the waistband area we have a large blood pattern. In the lower leg area we do see large amount of blood pattern, (Indicating). In addition, some blood drops, blood spatters, but this middle portion, (Indicating), appear to have a lot of imprint type of pattern. This is a black and white picture. It is not a color picture. The real color picture of this, the blue--the jeans supposed to look like blue jean. By the way, it is a Levi type of blue jean. The black area is consistent with reddish color bloodstain.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, the reason that you have put these up in black and white is what?

DR. LEE: I'm not sure this is my picture or the picture state provide to me. It is a black and white picture that shows the pattern, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, have you been able to identify three areas of imprints that are of interest here that are depicted on the board?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a conclusion as to whether they are of interest.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Do you have a red tape with you?

DR. LEE: No, I don't have a red tape. I have a red marker.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm talking about the red line tape?

DR. LEE: I don't have that. Used to be on the table somewhere.

THE COURT: What are you looking for, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: I have a sort of red twine.

THE COURT: Twine?

MR. SCHECK: We will find it.

MR. SCHECK: Well, let me turn your attention first to imprint--what is labeled "Imprint 1." Could you please indicate for us, perhaps on the photograph--the larger photograph, where imprint 1 is? And your Honor, the record should reflect that we have created plastic overlays around each of these pictures so that Dr. Lee can draw on the plastic overlays.

THE COURT: All right. The record should will reflect that this exhibit 1339 is comprised of four photographs. One photograph is marked "Blue jeans," and the remaining three are imprint 1, 2 and 3. Proceed.

DR. LEE: Yes, sir. Imprint no. 1 is located in this area, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Could you just put a "1" to the left of that arrow.

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

DR. LEE: The landmark of this we see three consecutive drop--drops. Here is the three consecutive drops, (Indicating). That is the only area on this side of blue jean shows this landmark pattern. 1, 2, 3, (Indicating). 1, 2, 3, (Indicating). We see an imprint like pattern on the top right corner which is here, (Indicating). We see an imprint pattern consistent with a linear type of pattern in the middle portion, which in this location, (Indicating). Then we see additional pattern like two V's which located in here, (Indicating). So imprint no. 1 is the lower right side of the length area of this blue jean.

MR. SCHECK: Now, when you talk about the v patterns, what kind of patterns are those?

DR. LEE: When I talk about v pattern--

MR. SCHECK: Could you put "V's" at the top of those arrows?

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.) This v pattern is caused by so-called accordion effect. When the blue jean crunch up, the pant or shirt crunched up, some blood transfer onto this crunched area. Later, when you smooth it out, the exposed area going to have blood transfer. Unexposed area, exposed area, have now looks like a V, actually like an accordion when folding transfer. When you stretched out, you see this pattern, so which indicative, this portion of blue jean probably crunched up a little bit and we see two V's, yet we see a multiple V's, that is crunched up a lot.

MR. SCHECK: Is there blood dripping patterns here?

DR. LEE: In this location, (Indicating), we see blood dripping.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please mark that "Bd."

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, do you see, Dr. Lee, in imprint area no. 1, parallel line imprint patterns?

DR. LEE: I see some parallel line consistent with imprint.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please indicate where that is?

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: And could you mark below the arrow, why don't we call it "PLP," parallel imprint line pattern, what you think is appropriate.

DR. LEE: You are the lawyer; I'm a scientist. "PLP."

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is there anything else that we should discuss about imprint no. 1?

DR. LEE: Here have another imprint which I cannot tell, but it is not a parallel line pattern, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Do you want to--how would you like to label that? Question mark or--

DR. LEE: You are attorney. Tell me--

MR. SCHECK: What do you think is the most scientifically appropriate term?

DR. LEE: Imprint with a question mark.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Moving now to imprint no. 2.

DR. LEE: Imprint no. 2, again we see some accordion effect. In addition, we see a pretty clear imprint on the--if I'm the board, on my right hand lower corner, this location, (Indicating), in the center of this location. It appears to have some parallel line.

MR. SCHECK: So could you label that circle pattern "PLP again."

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: And could you show us where on Mr. Goldman's jeans on the right pant leg that would be?

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Could you put a "2" near that arrow.

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to imprint area no. 2, is the parallel line pattern that you've circled there consistent with a partial shoeprint?

DR. LEE: I cannot definitively say that is definite a shoeprint; it could be.

MR. SCHECK: Now, let's--is there anything else we should note about this area before turning to imprint no. 3?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I would ask you to turn to imprint area no. 3.

DR. LEE: Imprint pattern no. 3. Here appear to have a pattern. Again looks like a block, a group of blocks, but very difficult to say whether or not this is a shoeprint or not. Just like any other imprint pattern, I know this is an imprint pattern. At this point in time I examine the blue jean flat, a two-dimensional examination, which not really represent three-dimensional setting. Very difficult for any scientist to go back, mentally reconstruct that blue jean in a three-dimensional setting. All I'm coming here today to report to you, they are imprint evidence on the blue jean. There are other imprint evidence in this location, (Indicating), appear to be--have some parallel line.

MR. SCHECK: Marking those "PLP"?

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.) And this group of parallel lines appear to be applied on top of each other, a multiple applications, (Indicating). How that happened, the simple explanation--

MR. GOLDBERG: No question pending, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Ask another question.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: So you are indicating here that this parallel line pattern on imprint no. 3, that there are a series of them on top of each other?

DR. LEE: It appears to be.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Can you--what mechanism--well, let me ask this: Is this consistent with multiple contacts from whatever it is that is making the parallel line pattern impression, a parallel line imprint?

DR. LEE: An imprint is created by an object with a certain design. It is sort of like a replicate. If this is a stamp, if I step on it, you are going to call an imprint, yet a multiple imprint on top of each other which could suggest have a multiple contact.

MR. SCHECK: If the mechanism that caused this imprint was a shoe, is this consistent with partial shoe impressions kicking multiple times in that area?

DR. LEE: If it is a shoe, which suggest it could be a multiple contact by the same type of a design, parallel design.

MR. SCHECK: If this were--if this parallel line imprint comes from a shoe, could it be the Bruno Magli shoe?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: It would be some other shoe?

DR. LEE: If this is a shoeprint, this is a different type of design than Bruno Magli.

MR. SCHECK: Now, these are partial imprint patterns?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Are they all consistent with being in blood?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Are they against the grain of the fabric?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Do these parallel line imprint patterns, they are not caused by folding of the fabric?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: In other words, the accordion effect comes from the folding of the fabric but these parallel line imprints do not?

DR. LEE: Does not.

MR. SCHECK: The ones you've located you have indicated are on the right leg?

DR. LEE: Right.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, as I understand your testimony, the left leg in the area that is covered more with blood, one cannot see such patterns?

DR. LEE: I cannot tell any pattern, just cover saturated with blood. I don't see anybody can come here, say they can see pattern through the blood.

MR. SCHECK: Are these parallel line imprint patterns that you've identified for us, they are on different locations and come from different directions?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I request at this time--could we put in--

MR. SCHECK: Could you please identify where imprint pattern no. 3 is?

DR. LEE: In this area, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, since this board is such that I think one requires study, may I request that the jury be allowed to come up and look at each of these markings now?

THE COURT: All right. Let me have counsel take a seat. All right. Deputy Jex, I think we need to open the door here, side door. All right. And we will start with 1386 as soon as Deputy Jex will come down around.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. You can come down.

(The jurors view the exhibit.)

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that every one of our jury members has had the opportunity to carefully examine Defense exhibit 1339. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you very much, your Honor. Dr. Lee, I would like to go back for a moment to what I believe is 1337.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is the first board entitled "Imprint evidence at Bundy."

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, first of all, Dr. Lee, I think that trying to complete yesterday's testimony we neglected to draw circles around the imprints that you described yesterday on the piece of paper and the envelope, the piece of paper being marked 1338-A, and the envelope being marked 1338-B. Could you please do so.

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: And maybe could we mark that--would it be accurate to mark that as "PLP," parallel line pattern?

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lee has placed a blue semicircle on 1338.

MR. HARRIS: A.

THE COURT: A.

MR. SCHECK: Ask you to do the same thing with respect to 1338-B.

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. And the witness has complied.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to both 1338-A and 1338-B, and I would ask--first 1338-A, is this parallel line imprint pattern consistent with having been made in blue?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: So that means whatever caused this imprint had blood on it or stepped on blood? How does that work.

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: The parallel line, as I explained a minute ago, represent an object. An object have certain structure, pattern. This just a replicate when this object surface design have some blood transfer, have a physical contact, a direct contact with this portion of the paper, (Indicating), a stationary contact. If a movement, we are going to see smear, a contact. Cause this transfer. However, subsequently some other bloodstain got on top of this, so covers a portion of this pattern; therefore, difficult to see it.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would just like to take 1338-A and I will walk from the right of the jury box to the left to slowly display that, with the court's permission.

THE COURT: Proceed.

(The exhibit was displayed to the jury.)

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, would you give Dr. Lee our short pointer there since it is a little more visible.

DR. LEE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: And may I do the same thing briefly with 1338-B?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

(The exhibit was displayed to the jury.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, yesterday you drew circles around patterns on 1337-A and 1337-B?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Perhaps for consistency sake first on 1337-B, would it be accurate to mark this one as a PLP as well?

DR. LEE: Yes. (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: And 1337-A, would it be accurate to mark that as PLP, and would you say that that is in fact a shoeprint?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: So let's mark that "PLP" and then underneath it write "Shoeprint."

DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to 1337-A and 1337-B, are the parallel line patterns here consistent with having been made in blood?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Your Honor, may I again slowly display these?

THE COURT: Although I seem to recollect we did that yesterday with those, but go ahead.

MR. SCHECK: We just held them up but I don't think we--

THE COURT: Go ahead.

(The exhibit was displayed to the jury.)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could--on 1337 there are--there is a diagram of the Bundy area and some dots on it. Could you draw lines between these pictures indicating where all of them are located with respect to those dots?

DR. LEE: Yes. The extremely left corner one is located on no. 10 tile. The middle one located between fifth and sixth tile. The envelope is approximately in this location, (Indicating). The piece of paper that is on the lower level walkway, (Indicating). The blue jean located approximately this location, (Indicating). This the limit pattern here, (Indicating), is somewhere long the walkway.

MR. SCHECK: And incidentally, Dr. Lee, with respect to the parallel line imprint pattern that you identified for us on this June 12/june 13 walkway photograph, in theory is it possible that that imprint pattern could arise from an imperfection in the tile?

DR. LEE: It could be, because I only look at a picture. I myself did not have an opportunity to go there, identify the tile. It could be anything. What--I don't want to misled people, and ladies and gentlemen, say that is a shoeprint. By no means I did not say that is a shoeprint; just a partial imprint with some parallel line.

MR. SCHECK: You say that--so with respect to I guess all the imprint patterns other than what I think we've marked as the lower right-hand photograph on 1337 and a larger photograph that we've called 1337-A, you cannot definitively call these parallel line imprint patterns, with that exception, a shoeprint; is that correct?

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: However, are these parallel line imprint patterns consistent with coming from the Bruno Magli?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Goldman's boot?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Could they come from Mr. Goldman's jeans?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Could they come from Mr. Goldman's shirt?

DR. LEE: Inconsistent with it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Could it come from a lip print?

DR. LEE: No. That is not a lip print.

MR. SCHECK: An ear print?

DR. LEE: Your ear, no.

MR. SCHECK: All right. I'm loathe to say it, nose print?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: No, not be--this is inconsistent with a nose print either.

MR. SCHECK: However, these parallel line imprint patterns are consistent with having come from a shoe?

DR. LEE: Could have.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, if we assume that these parallel line imprint patterns come from a shoe, I think you've told us they are not consistent with the Bruno Magli or Mr. Goldman's shoe, correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Would that mean that it--assuming it is a shoeprint, it came from another person?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, your Honor, improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, in your experience at crime scenes have you ever seen a single assailant wear two pairs of shoes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: No.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: I think we are finished with these boards now.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris. Let me ask counsel to have a seat, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, you were discussing with us, in the course of your description of the imprint pattern evidence, different kinds of bloodstain patterns; is that correct?

DR. LEE: I'm confused by question. Can you--

MR. SCHECK: Sure.

DR. LEE: --rephrase that, please?

MR. SCHECK: There is a discipline of analysis known as bloodstain spatter or splatter interpretation?

DR. LEE: Bloodstain pattern analysis, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you were making reference in your testimony so far to certain kind of bloodstain patterns?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And are there different kind of patterns that an expert in this area can identify?

DR. LEE: You mean bloodstain pattern?

MR. SCHECK: That's correct.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is there a way that you can demonstrate for us, by the use of paper and ink, the different kind of bloodstain patterns that you've already discussed, and you would discuss in our examination of further evidence in this case?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, at this time I would ask permission to, with a bottle of red ink and paper, have Dr. Lee demonstrate different kind of bloodstain patterns.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: What I would suggest, your Honor, is that we have some paper--may I consult with Dr. Lee as to which is the best one--some red ink, and what I would suggest is that--ask that Dr. Lee be given permission to take the ink, the paper, and using this--

THE COURT: All right. We need to have Dr. Lee examine the papers to see which ones he feels is appropriate first.

MR. SCHECK: Right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck. And Dr. Lee, you can step down, but if you would, because you will have your back to the court reporter, if you could keep your voice up, please.

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. It appears that Dr. Lee has a stack of what appears to be white cotton fiber paper and various inks.

MR. SCHECK: What kind of paper is this, Dr. Lee, just for the record?

DR. LEE: 25 percent cotton.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, with the use of the red ink and the paper can you demonstrate for us bloodstain patterns?

DR. LEE: Yes. Blood circulating in our body system in a constant speed depends on capillary, vein or artery. With a different speed, artery circulating faster than the vein and the vein circulating faster than the capillary. This circulation system--

MR. GOLDBERG: At this time I would object that Dr. Lee's answer is narrative and it is also nonresponsive.

THE COURT: It is nonresponsive to the question. Do you want to have him explain the blood system and how it impacts blood patterns?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: As a predicate for explaining bloodstain patterns, could you explain for us briefing something about the circulatory system as it relates to how blood comes out of the body?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir. In this closed circulation system carry the oxygen nutrient through the body and that is why we can function. Once this system interrupt, the blood will come up. Depends which part of the body. If an artery, the blood will gush out, so-called arterial spurting, arterial gushing. If a vein was cut, the blood will rush out. If just a capillary cut, the blood dripping out. Once it has come out of our body, we cannot take back any more, we cannot control any more. The environment and the physics takes over. It is no longer--can be controlled by an individual. Once the blood come out, would deposit to a surface. The surface usually is the lowest surface, whatever lowest surface. For example, here, that is--if I dripping the blood or ink onto this surface, that is the lowest surface. If I drip here, (Indicating), the carpet going to be lowest surface. It stop on the surface according to the physics, the gravity.

MR. SCHECK: Could you demonstrate for the jury, for example, you mentioned a drop, what is known as a low velocity drop?

DR. LEE: Yes. If the blood come out without any force, just dripping, going to form certain patterns. This pattern, (Indicating), generally we consider a low velocity blood drop.

MR. SCHECK: All right. The record should reflect that Dr. Lee has taken a bottle of--out of a bottle of red ink a dropper.

THE COURT: Eyedropper.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry, an eyedropper, and dropped it directly down onto a piece of paper.

MR. SCHECK: And how would you like to label this one, Dr. Lee? Maybe we should use a--

THE COURT: Low velocity drops?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir, just low velocity.

THE COURT: All right.

DR. LEE: You just create some blood smear.

MR. SCHECK: I smeared the paper and I created blood smear on one piece of paper.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Dr. Lee, is this actually ink that you are using?

DR. LEE: Ink, actually ink.

THE COURT: Thank you.

DR. LEE: Regular writing ink. Maybe I should put some paper underneath here.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, on this low velocity drop, the way you did it, it was vertical?

DR. LEE: It is directly perpendicular to the surface, ninety-degree drop.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if one were to measure the diameter of those drops, could this be correlated with the source of it to the target?

DR. LEE: In general we can do an estimation. We have to know the substrata. Is this paper, carpet, pavement or wood? Each substrata surface will have different effect. You cannot use the paper to compare a carpet or use the carpet to compare the pavement; therefore, you have to know the drop size, how big a drop, and have to know the substrata. Sometime we can make some correlation. We cannot make, say, an exact determination how high.

MR. SCHECK: But can one make a reasonable approximation, in certain instances, by measuring the diameter of a vertical drop such as this with respect to where the source was?

DR. LEE: If we know every parameters, then we can make a reasonable interpretation.

MR. SCHECK: Is it therefore important, when documenting, preserving evidence at a crime scene, to make an effort to document the size of drops?

DR. LEE: Yes. We generally conduct such documentation.

MR. SCHECK: And the photographs taken in this case of the bloodstain evidence at the Bundy and Rockingham scenes, did they contain rulers in them so that such measurements could be made?

DR. LEE: I did not have opportunity to see every photograph. I cannot tell you. The photograph what I examined I did not see rulers.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, on these--

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to this low velocity drop, are there something known as jagged edges and satellite spatter?

DR. LEE: Yes. If you look the periphery area, you see this jagged edge and small spatter around this main group. Those called satellite pattern.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is there something known as angular deposits at low velocity?

DR. LEE: Well, before we go--

MR. SCHECK: Before we discuss angular deposits, is there another point you think should be made?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that calls for a narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled. Ask a question.

DR. LEE: Counsel just asking me--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Ask a question, Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you please continue your description of--

THE COURT: That is not a question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. That is a direct--

MR. SCHECK: Before we discussed the issue of angular deposits, is there a principle that we should appreciate?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What is that?

DR. LEE: This diameter sometime give us some information, how big a drop, what the possible estimation of distance by correlation of a known casting. Such as let's say assume everything equal. We use the paper. If I let the drop on--at about three inches, second 16 inches, keep increase the distance, you see the diameter varies. When I increase the distance, but to a limit, doesn't matter how I increase the distance, will not increase the diameter that reach the terminal velocity.

MR. SCHECK: So this piece--

DR. LEE: Otherwise--

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me.

DR. LEE: --if I climb up a tall building, such as empire state building, drop a drop of ink, it will cover the whole manhattan, because this relationship. It is not. It is not going to happen this way, only to a certain distance. That is why this correlation--you just changed the pattern.

MR. SCHECK: I understand. Let the record reflect first that Dr. Lee took the eyedropper and dropped a series of drops, as he indicated, at different heights on this piece of paper and causing circles of different size, as he went upwards, increasingly larger, and when I took the paper to move it and show it to the other jurors, I turned it a little and it caused some of those drops to move, but--

THE COURT: If you asked for my permission I would have encouraged you to wait until it dried a little.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. And I should have done that and you are right.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, how would we mark this piece of paper?

DR. LEE: Drop size.

MR. SCHECK: Drop size?

DR. LEE: Low velocity.

MR. SCHECK: Drop size, low velocity?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Are we now ready to discuss angular deposits?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please describe for us what an angular deposit is, low velocity.

DR. LEE: What so far we talking about, the receiving surface, is flat, horizontal, but in a three-dimensional setting, a room or scene, you have vertical surface, for example, the wall. You have climbing surface at an angle. A drop of blood deposit on a vertical surface, a wall or in climbing surface, will have a different pattern than what I have--just have a minute ago demonstrated. Those called angular deposit. If the source of this liquid almost parallel to the receiving surface, when I drop, it form a specific pattern. If I vary this surface angle a little bit, it change the shape. Finally become ninety degree receiving surface, it will become a circular pattern.

THE COURT: Any juror in the back row who thinks they need to stand up to view any of these things, feel free to do so. All right. 165, can you see that?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: How shall we label this one?

DR. LEE: Angular deposit.

MR. SCHECK: Low velocity?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, when we finish with these, we will put numbers on all of them.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, 10:30.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: 10:30.

MR. SCHECK: 10:30.

MR. SCHECK: So would it be fair to say that the impact angle can be determined to some extent by the width and length of the bloodstain pattern?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: If one were to measure the width and length of the bloodstain pattern--

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --can that give useful information to do a reconstruction as to the source?

DR. LEE: Yes. We can determine the possible angle of deposit.

MR. SCHECK: And is that something that ought to be done when properly processing a crime scene?

DR. LEE: I usually--if a blood pattern become crucial, we document that.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is there something known as medium velocity?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And could you describe that for us?

DR. LEE: A medium velocity involving certain force. It could be an internal force, the blood pressure, or an external force, for example, a person swinging a hand, swinging a bat or a weapon. Those encompass a large group of bloodstain pattern we call medium velocity bloodstain pattern.

MR. SCHECK: And can one determine direction or position from this?

DR. LEE: Sometime, yes, we can go back, reconstruct the possible direction of impact, can project back, say, the possible source, the location of the blood source.

MR. SCHECK: Can you demonstrate for us, for example--what is impact spatter?

DR. LEE: (No audible response.)

MR. SCHECK: Well, first let's move--can you demonstrate for us medium velocity--

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --drops.

DR. LEE: A medium velocity, I indicate quite a few different type. The simplest type we usually see at the scene, that is a medium velocity pattern. A medium velocity pattern give you a direction. It usually consist several, a trail. When this force increase, the spot getting smaller, (Indicating). Now, this also consistent with a medium velocity cast-off pattern. Sometime we can look at how many trails at the scene, determine how many blow or possibly weapon was lift up and down by looking at ceiling, looking at wall.

MR. GOLDBERG: At this time it is narrative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ask another question.

MR. SCHECK: Perhaps we could take this first piece of paper and we will mark it medium velocity 1, and the second medium velocity 2. And would it be fair to say that increased velocity, smaller--

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --pattern?

DR. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, I'm going to direct that we mark all of these blood spatter or drop demonstration papers as Defense exhibit 1340-A through whatever. And what I would like for you to do at the conclusion of the court day, present to Mrs. Robertson a key, 1340-A through B and then the key as to what it is.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: For the record, with a copy to the Prosecution.

(Deft's 1340 for id = blood spatter patterns)

MR. SCHECK: Is there any other pattern, with respect to medium velocity, that you think we should demonstrate to understand bloodstain patterns?

DR. LEE: Impact spatter.

MR. SCHECK: What is some impact?

DR. LEE: Impact spatter have some force on the surface. A force direct apply to the surface can cause a splash pattern or project a pattern and all those pattern are considered medium velocity spatter pattern.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Can you demonstrate one for us?

THE COURT: You are making juror 63 awfully nervous?

DR. LEE: That is why I feel very reluctant to do that. You have to hold it. Can you see it? Maybe like this, (Indicating).

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, if you want to stand up and move away, you are welcome to do so.

MR. SCHECK: I'm the one that is going to pay for this suit.

DR. LEE: If, say, a couple drop of blood on the surface, if a force apply to this surface, you going to have certain so-called medium velocity pattern. May I have some tissue?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah, I've got them right here.

DR. LEE: You just ruined the pattern.

MR. SCHECK: I know. I'm sorry.

DR. LEE: That is a medium velocity pattern. It is a projected pattern.

MR. SCHECK: I'm going to write on this exhibit.

THE COURT: Is that still a viable pattern, given Dr. Lee's comment?

MR. SCHECK: Let me ask him.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, would you examine that. Is that--

DR. LEE: In general still.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Actually medium velocity impact pattern?

DR. LEE: Project.

MR. SCHECK: Medium velocity and what do you want to say?

DR. LEE: Projected pattern.

MR. SCHECK: Projected pattern?

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, are we going to go much further in this demonstration?

DR. LEE: I should be finished soon.

MR. SCHECK: I think we will finish at exactly the break.

THE COURT: No. Have you ever been to a Gallagher show?

MR. SCHECK: I have. Doesn't he use more props?

THE COURT: We are getting close.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm just concerned about the proximity.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

DR. LEE: This is a medium velocity impact.

MR. SCHECK: This one as well?

DR. LEE: This have some medium velocity also imprint.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I'm going to object to any further demonstrations as being irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you've handed me this piece of paper you put your fingers on, after you slammed the table?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please--and you are characterizing this as a medium velocity pattern and imprint. Could you please explain that to the jury?

DR. LEE: Those are direct contact imprint; however, on the paper some small spatter also deposit on this piece of paper so here, (Indicating), you have a combination of two patterns. An experienced examiner can look at this pattern, determine the sequence, which one applied first, the imprint or a spatter.

MR. SCHECK: So we'll label this combination imprint spatter?

DR. LEE: Right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, would it be fair to say that--what is a compression?

DR. LEE: A compression, which I just demonstrate, have some blood-like material directly contact the surface with the energy of force result lateral movement. That is a compression.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is the paper up there a compression?

DR. LEE: Yes. If this compression with a movement, now become a smear. This is a compression, this is a smear, (Indicating). Both have to have surface contact.

MR. SCHECK: I'm going to label the pattern that--as compression and the other one as smear.

MR. SCHECK: Is that accurate?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is there something known as a mirror image?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please demonstrate what that is.

DR. LEE: If you have one surface have some wet blood, the next surface have a contact, you have a mirror image. If this surface against another surface, now we have a wet transfer.

MR. SCHECK: Let's mark--the paper that I have marked mirror image. The record should reflect is the paper that Dr. Lee dropped blood on and then folded creating the mirror image.

MR. SCHECK: And then the piece of paper where he then took the mirror image pattern and placed it on another piece of paper, that one should be called wet transfer?

DR. LEE: Wet transfer.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, what is a wipe and what is a swipe?

DR. LEE: If a surface have some liquid, blood, ketchup or anything, if a person use a kitchen towel or a person's clothes contact and wipe it, that is called wipe. Now, this surface have some transfer, if touch a clean surface, now this become a swipe. Wipe and swipe, (Indicating). Both are transfer pattern, but different, which experienced examiner can tell at the scene which one is which.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Let's mark--

DR. LEE: Whip and swipe. Wipe.

MR. SCHECK: The wipe is when the blood is there?

DR. LEE: A surface touch that, brushed over, and that is called wipe.

MR. SCHECK: And the swipe?

DR. LEE: Swipe is another surface. For example, my clothing have some blood, touch a clean surface and that is a swipe.

MR. SCHECK: Could you describe for us what are known as contact patterns?

DR. LEE: Which we already indicate a contact pattern can be any surface with some amount of liquid; finger, shoes, ear, nose, body, touch a surface and cause a direct transfer, that is called a contact pattern. If this bottle touch surface, leave a pattern, that is a contact transfer pattern.

MR. SCHECK: Would you call that a stationary contact?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: So how would you suggest we label this?

DR. LEE: Stationary contact.

MR. SCHECK: Stationary contact. Is there such a thing as dynamic contact?

DR. LEE: A dynamic contact is with a movement. Contact with a movement. Now, you have a pattern with a movement pattern. This movement can cause the deposit surface, the receiving surface can be both moved or one surface moved and then we can tell the direction of this movement.

MR. SCHECK: Label this?

DR. LEE: Dynamic--

MR. SCHECK: Dynamic contact?

DR. LEE: With movement.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, are there any other bloodstain patterns that we should--you believe we should demonstrate to understand your testimony about--that we are going to be discussing about bloodstain evidence at the crime scenes?

DR. LEE: There are many other patterns; however, some pattern not totally relevant, such as high velocity blood spatter pattern, that is due to gunshot wound. Some pattern which difficult to demonstrate; arterial spurt, arterial gushing, which I really don't want to do here.

MR. SCHECK: Don't want to do here?

DR. LEE: Reluctant to do here.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think this would be--

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will stand in recess for fifteen. Dr. Lee, you can step down.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Darden, are you going to soldier on for Mr. Goldberg?

MR. DARDEN: I'm sure he will be here in just a moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, new court rule. While counsel are gathered within mere feet of the jury box, there is to be no discussion amongst counsel. I notice the whispering is getting a little loud, Mr. Neufeld being the primary offender in this.

MR. COCHRAN: He is not here today, your Honor. You are picking on him. He is in New York.

MR. BLASIER: He is still in Los Angeles.

THE COURT: He is still the primary offender because I can hear counsel talking and I can hear it from both ends. You guys have plenty of post-it notes and you need to converse with each other, go back to counsel table, but if you are standing and near the rail, let's go back to counsel table.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Got enough water there, Dr. Lee?

DR. LEE: Yes, thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Are we done with the Gallagher show? Mr. Scheck? All right. I need a catalogue of what each one of those things are.

MR. COCHRAN: We have done it already.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: It is probably the elevators.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I thought we were starting at ten of.

THE COURT: I figured it was the elevators.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, should I save time and put up the new board?

THE COURT: Which board are you going to--

MR. SCHECK: The closed-in crime scene board.

THE COURT: Yes, why don't you go ahead.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Henry Lee is again on the witness stand, still undergoing direct examination by Mr. Scheck. And Mr. Scheck, you have placed another board on the--

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: --on the easel. And this does reflect--has one photograph that reflects remains, so I'm going to direct Mr. Bancroft to avoid this board.

MR. SCHECK: No, I don't believe it does, your Honor.

THE COURT: It does.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, yes.

THE COURT: It does. All right. Avoid that, Mr. Bancroft. All right. Proceed. Do you want to mark this next in order?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: This would be Defense 1341.

MR. SCHECK: 1341.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. 1341.

(Deft's 1341 for id = posterboard)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, I call your attention now to the board that we've marked 1341 entitled "Bloodstain from closed-in area of Bundy." With the court's permission may Dr. Lee--

THE COURT: Yes, he may.

MR. SCHECK: --get off the witness stand and with the aid of a pointer or whatever else you want to use, Dr. Lee.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft, the remains are in the bottom.

MR. SCHECK: Right-hand photo.

THE COURT: If you can catch the top two rows, you can do those. Do not go to the bottom row. Do you understand, sir?

MR. BANCROFT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, what does the center picture in this board depict?

DR. LEE: The center picture second row second line--second column, second row, this depicts an overall view of a corner of a fenced in area at the Bundy scene.

MR. SCHECK: And Dr. Lee, are there recognizable blood spatter patterns that are highlighted in the peripheral pictures on this board?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, whose pictures are these?

DR. LEE: Those are the pictures supplied to me by attorney Shapiro.

MR. SCHECK: So these are from, to the best of your knowledge, the Prosecution?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And with respect to these bloodstain patterns, there are no rulers in this--these pictures so that we can measure any of these deposits?

DR. LEE: I did not see any.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, ask that this photograph be marked as 1341-A.

THE COURT: All right. 1341-A.

(Deft's 1341-A for id = photograph)

MR. SCHECK: And what is that?

DR. LEE: This appear to be a copy--this appear to be copy of this one, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: So 1341-A is the original from which a print was made that is the center picture on the board 1341?

DR. LEE: I don't think it is an original. Probably a copy of another one.

MR. SCHECK: Right. But it is an earlier generation?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, let me call your attention first to the upper left-hand corner. Could you--do you recognize--that is the one that has the photo card no. 119?

DR. LEE: Umm, 109. This one, (Indicating). 119.

MR. SCHECK: 119. And what does that represent?

DR. LEE: This appear to depict a location of the fence near the gate area.

MR. SCHECK: And could you point out on the center picture the direction that would be?

DR. LEE: Appear to be this location, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: So that is the front gate area?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what is that bloodstain pattern?

DR. LEE: Those are considered a medium velocity cast-off pattern.

MR. SCHECK: And what, if anything, can you determine from that pattern with respect to the blood source?

DR. LEE: In this location it depicts a group of bloodstains; however, this picture is slightly out of focus because this is a cylindrical surface. It is not the photographer's fault, because a surface have a coverage, so certain area in focus, certain area out of focus. However, this group of stains shows a direction consistent with fronts--if I face the picture, left to right. This appear to be--indicate the location of about approximately three feet two inches high from the ground, which means the blood source has to be at least that high, (Indicating), which again indicates this source has to be in a vertical position.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, photo no. 119, that would be item no. 54 on LAPD item numbers as recorded in this case?

DR. LEE: I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: Well, when you say three foot two inches up, you are referring to the measurements recorded by Mr. Fung?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: So in other words, he recorded these bloodstain items as being three feet two inches above--up on this pole?

DR. LEE: I assume. I don't know which drop. I assume in general location. That is why I say approximate.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what does this indicate, this--would you characterize this as horizontal cast off pattern?

DR. LEE: It is consistent with.

MR. SCHECK: And what would that indicate about the blood--in this--if the source of this blood were a person, would that be consistent with somebody being--standing upright?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Do you know whose blood that is or is there any typing indicating whose blood that is, to your knowledge?

DR. LEE: I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: Now, which picture would you like to move to next in terms of indicating bloodstain patterns?

DR. LEE: We can finish--

MR. SCHECK: Please proceed.

DR. LEE: --column no. 1. The next photograph going to be the second picture of column 1. This picture depicts a variety of bloodstain pattern. The first group I notice is in the center post, which correlate to this location, (Indicating). The center post I can see a contact transfer pattern, smear pattern, additional contact transfer pattern and some dripping pattern on this one area.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is--what does that indicate with respect to--what determinations can you make as to the blood source from that?

DR. LEE: Which indicative either somebody close in of body or surface have a direct contact of this location cause a transfer. Then subsequently have another contact at the same time I see some blood dripping, which means have liquid blood flow downwards.

MR. SCHECK: So just from that pole from the two contact smears made at different times?

DR. LEE: Could be different times; could be same time.

MR. SCHECK: And blood dripping down?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What other bloodstain pattern do you see in that photograph?

DR. LEE: This area, (Indicating), depicts the back portion of this metal gate. If we start counting this as column 1, 2, 3, 4, I can see starting no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 have a variety of pattern. We see a contact, we see a smear, we see some swiping pattern, wiping pattern, we see angular deposit, we see vertical drip blood. A variety of different pattern appear on this location.

MR. SCHECK: Can we tell anything about the source of that from these photographs?

DR. LEE: Those angular deposit, those drop has to be above the surface, have a vertical direction. How high I cannot tell you, but has to be above this contact, which means have a direct transfer, and smear on different location means movement.

MR. SCHECK: Movement meaning multiple contact?

DR. LEE: Multiple contact with a dynamic movement, either a wipe or swipe type of fashion.

MR. SCHECK: If we could have done measurements or if measurements had been taken of these bloodstain patterns, would that be more useful information in doing a more complete reconstruction of what occurred and when?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence that any reconstruction has been done.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: If measurements had been made at the scene could, that give additional information that could assist in making further determinations as to the source of the blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation and vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: If was measurement and clear documentation maybe we can do some further limit reconstruction.

MR. SCHECK: You indicated you were going to move now to the--and this was--the bottom left-hand photograph on this board.

DR. LEE: Yes, yes. This is a close-up view depict the color, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5--4th and 5th, this location with a number plate 101, which depicts a beeper like object. In addition, on the surface we see transfer pattern wiping, swiping and dripping on the ground. I see patterns consistent with a vertical dripping.

MR. SCHECK: Now, that beeper, would that be consistent with the beeper being kicked under that pole?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in terms of the soil surface there, would you expect that if the beeper, if dropped from a height, to bounce?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for that.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: You have been to the Bundy crime scene?

DR. LEE: I only visit the scene, as I indicate yesterday, a brief inspection on June 25. I did not visit the whole regional scene.

MR. SCHECK: But you did see the dirt in that closed-in area?

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And in what you see would you expect a beeper dropped from some height to bounce on that soil?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Anything else with respect to bloodstain patterns on this photograph of interest?

DR. LEE: On the ground, on the leaves and soil I see multiple drops. Those are consistent with a low velocity blood drops, which indicative the blood source has to be above this area and dripping onto the soil surface.

MR. SCHECK: Would you move now to the picture in the middle of the top row.

DR. LEE: The middle of the top row have a number plate 109 which depicts a close-up view showing the back metal fence between the fifth, sixth and seventh, this area, (Indicating), and this photograph is a much better picture which we can look at a pattern and shows much more detail compared to previous one. Have a contact--direct contact transfer, have a transfer smear, another dynamic transfer and dripping pattern, further con--contact pattern, angular deposit and a row of three here have more drops. And in addition, on the ground and the leaf material we see multiple drops.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Could those drops be from more than one source.

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Is there anyway, from looking at that photograph, of determining how many individuals contributed to those bloodstain patterns?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: I cannot make such determination how much person contribute those blood drops.

MR. SCHECK: But can you say something with respect to whether or not a source of those blood drops was upright in that area?

DR. LEE: Assume--

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Assume those are vertical droplet, which is consistent with vertical droplet, has to be from certain high, from one location to another location.

MR. SCHECK: And again if we had measurement of the diameters, we could--

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Would measurements assist, if they existed, in being able to determine the height from which--of the blood source?

DR. LEE: We can estimate--from multiple droplet we can maybe estimate the possible height.

MR. SCHECK: Is the data available for you to make those kinds of estimations here?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Would you--would the next picture you would discuss be the one on the upper far right-hand corner of this board?

DR. LEE: The third column, third picture--first picture of the third column. This picture depicts the reverse side of this same metal fence, other side.

MR. SCHECK: This would be from the Salinger property looking into the closed-in area?

THE COURT: Salinger property?

MR. SCHECK: The property next door.

THE COURT: Salingers are at Rockingham.

MR. SCHECK: My apologies.

MR. SCHECK: The--this would be the closed-in area, this would be the building to--

THE COURT: North.

MR. SCHECK: North of 875 south Bundy?

DR. LEE: It appears to be.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Could you describe for us the bloodstain patterns here?

DR. LEE: Here, beside this long contact pattern shows the other side. Also this contact pattern start dripping, which indicative the quantities of blood deposit on the surface still wet, running along this curvature surface and come downwards. Large amount of blood pool, it is underneath here, (Indicating), form a trail in this location. Here is another good example of an angular deposit, shows in that column, which indicative that drop of blood hit this column in a very acute angle.

MR. SCHECK: Would that bloodstain pattern be consistent with a source being upright?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Multiple contacts with that area?

DR. LEE: This blood drop, no.

MR. SCHECK: Of the pattern?

DR. LEE: The totality--

MR. SCHECK: Total pattern?

DR. LEE: --of pattern which may indicate a multiple deposit.

MR. SCHECK: Moving down to the middle--the right-hand picture, far right-hand side of the middle row.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you describe the bloodstain patterns here?

DR. LEE: This picture depicts a close-up view showing the column on the front, the no. 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, no. 8 column, not consistent swipe contact movement which indicative in this column area have some direct contact and cause those transfer.

MR. SCHECK: Incidentally, on the photograph in the middle of the top row, the picture has an evidence card indicating 109?

DR. LEE: 109.

MR. SCHECK: Does that--is the positioning of that card blocking a view of the bloodstain pattern?

DR. LEE: In this particular photo, yes, but there are other photo, no.

MR. SCHECK: With respect to the--well, all right. The card number labeled 108, does that obscure a pole?

DR. LEE: The column next to it appear to be some blood-like stain which I cannot report to you exactly pattern what it is. Here also have some reddish color stain and again I cannot really report to you what kind of pattern. However, this stain, (Indicating), on the lower portion, shows an angular deposit, vertical downwards hit this location in an angle.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, this photograph that has been labeled photo i.d. number by LAPD 108, that is in a different section of the close-in area?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you were discussing previously with the other pictures a different part of the closed-in area?

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now, this represents contact?

DR. LEE: Another contact.

MR. SCHECK: So would this mean that there is contact in one part of the closed-in area and then other contact in the other parts of the closed-in area?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And would the bloodstain pattern reflected in the photograph 108, would that be consistent with the source or sources being upright?

DR. LEE: This particular column which means a blood source have to have a direct contact with a movement because we see smear, not a definitive pattern with movement, so this high, we say the course of blood contact this high of the column.

MR. SCHECK: With movement?

DR. LEE: With a movement.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I would like to turn your attention to the photograph in the middle of the bottom row.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you describe that for us.

DR. LEE: This--

MR. SCHECK: What that represents.

DR. LEE: This appears to be a close-up photo showing this plant, (Indicating), and which is focusing some key-like material.

MR. SCHECK: Now, when you say "This plant," you are indicating a plant that is close to the walkway and the front gate area?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And the middle photograph on the bottom row you say is keys?

DR. LEE: Here, this location, (Indicating), appear to be--have a set of key. This depicts one of the boots of Mr. Goldman.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would like to mark a photograph as 1341-B, which is a photograph of the key, and I would like to put that on the elmo and display it to the jury.

(Deft's 1341-B for id = photograph)

MR. SCHECK: Perhaps if we could--

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: It appears to be a Kwik Set type key.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. Could we go in even tighter on the key itself?

MR. SCHECK: What do you notice about the key, Dr. Lee?

DR. LEE: It appear to be exposed a set of key with one key--the majority of the key sticking out can be visible, that key. On the key we see some reddish stain, another reddish stain, this area more stain, (Indicating). There are multiple area appear to be reddish color stain.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is objectionable because there is no evidence that he saw the keys themselves.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, have you--were the keys available to you for inspection?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Could those reddish stains be consistent with blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I make a motion to strike as no foundation for that.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. I would ask that we print this photograph and we would make that 1341-C, I believe.

(Deft's 1341-C for id = photograph)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, is there anything else about bloodstain patterns or your observations of this key photograph?

DR. LEE: Direct above the key some white colored object will have multiple area of some reddish stain.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Your Honor, maybe what I ought to do is have this--instead--instead of the last printout being 1341-C, we should make the one printout here of 1341-C that--

THE COURT: With the additional arrow regarding the white object, correct?

MR. SCHECK: The additional arrow.

THE COURT: Correct. That will be substituted.

(Deft's 1341-C for id = photograph/substituted)

MR. SCHECK: Now, before we leave the elmo, I would like to show you a photograph that I ask be marked as 1341-D.

(Deft's 1341-D for id = photograph)

MR. SCHECK: That I believe is the same photograph as the one on the left-hand side showing the beeper in the middle row of the board entitled "Bloodstains from closed-in area at Bundy."

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Did you observe in the--this photograph any--anything with respect to the soil?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What did you observe?

DR. LEE: I see some indentation, impression.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Clear.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you please direct Mr. Harris in terms of focus.

DR. LEE: Here.

MR. SCHECK: Here?

DR. LEE: Yeah.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Could you please with the use of the telestrator illustrate what you mean by the impressions.

THE COURT: All right. This is the photograph that is the middle photograph first column on 1341.

MR. SCHECK: And what is that that you have indicated, Dr. Lee?

DR. LEE: In this area appear to be a depression on the ground, appear to be a large indentation in this area with some loose soil.

MR. SCHECK: Would this be consistent with a struggle and people digging out that area?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, Detective Lange testified in this case that--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that is improper.

THE COURT: Overruled. He's an expert. He can be asked about other people's testimony.

MR. SCHECK: Detective Lange testified that the--this dug-out area of dirt was consistent with Mr. Goldman struggling with someone and in that struggle the dirt being dug out.

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: What is your judgment of that?

MR. GOLDBERG: It still calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: If he say that, that consistent with, I have no additional opinion.

MR. SCHECK: Now, turning to--is there anything else of interest in this photograph with respect to impressions or bloodstains that we should notice?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what have you--

DR. LEE: In this area, (Indicating), I see an impression. That impression is in this area, (Indicating), this area, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is that impression consistent with a shoeprint?

DR. LEE: It could be a shoeprint.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is that the kind of impression that can be preserved, documented and cast?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. I would ask that this be printed out.

THE COURT: All right. What do you want this, 1341-E? E, as in Edward.

(Deft's 1341-E for id = photograph)

MR. SCHECK: Now, your Honor, I would like to also put up the photograph that has been marked 1341-A.

THE COURT: All right. Let's clear the telestrator, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, did you see in this photograph any other impressions of interest?

THE COURT: All right. This is the center picture, center column on 1341.

MR. GOLDBERG: Object to the phrase "Of interest."

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: In this area shows again a hole. This is difficult. We see a hole in the top corner.

MR. SCHECK: The top right-hand corner is the hole we just discussed before?

DR. LEE: Yeah, in this area, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

DR. LEE: And directly underneath to this hole, this area, (Indicating), another possible imprint indentation--not imprint, I'm sorry, impression.

MR. SCHECK: Umm, could you--should we ask Mr. Harris to label the arrows, the hole and the circle--why don't we call it imp for impression--that won't do it.

THE COURT: I think the jury heard the testimony as to what it is.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: Their attention has been focused on it.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: We have already heard testimony from other witnesses that there were these--

MR. SCHECK: Different from the hole?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: That's fine.

MR. SCHECK: Is there anything else about this photograph?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: I mean, have we decided to mark that 1341-F?

MR. SCHECK: Yes, thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: F, as in Frank.

(Deft's 1341-F for id = photograph)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, looking at all the photographs on this board, "Bloodstains from closed-in area at Bundy," would it be fair to say at this point that at different areas of this closed-in area we have contact smears?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is that indicative of--that we have vertical droppings?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Would the vertical droppings be--

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: --indicative of an upright source?

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Is there indication of--through the bloodstain patterns, of multiple contacts in this closed-in area?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is there indication of movement, dynamic contact movement in this closed-in area?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, the last photo that we want to deal with--I think we can turn up the lights. The last one is the far right-hand corner that contains remains.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, I call your attention to the photograph in the bottom right-hand area. What is that?

DR. LEE: This appear to be--depicts a view of the sole of Mr. Goldman's left boot.

MR. SCHECK: And what is it about--could you describe for us the bloodstain pattern, its relationship to the soil on this boot?

DR. LEE: Appear to be contact pattern on various location of this boot, (Indicating), which indicative at one point in time, this portion of the boots have to step into the blood with movement. That cause those smear, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: So in other words, the boot would have to move onto the surface and then the soil would become caked on the blood?

DR. LEE: Soil, yeah, mixed--intermixed with liquid blood.

MR. SCHECK: And before we leave this board, Dr. Lee, can keys be used as a weapon in a fight?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: In your experience investigating homicides can keys be used as a weapon?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. But counsel, we have to trust the common sense of our jurors, don't we?

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of doing a reconstruction--well, withdrawn. Is there any other point of interest with respect to the bloodstain pattern on the boot?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What is it?

DR. LEE: In this area, (Indicating), we see some blood drops. The direction of this drop, it appear to be strange. It is inconsistent with somebody stepping into it. This drop has to be deposit on this surface at an angle.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, looking at the bloodstain patterns and the impression evidence in this closed-in area, is it consistent with a prolonged struggle between Mr. Goldman and assailant or assailants?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Prolonged."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, no foundation.

MR. SCHECK: Is it still consistent with a struggle?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Can you tell how long that struggle took place?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: I cannot tell you exactly how long. It is not a short struggle.

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: And the basis for saying not a short struggle has to do with what?

DR. LEE: The bloodstain pattern, the deposit of the key, beeper in different location, the bloodstain smears, contact pattern under the boots, and vertical droplet in different location which shows a movement.

MR. SCHECK: Is there anything else that we have not mentioned with respect to the bloodstain patterns that is of importance on this board, before we move to the next one?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: I would like to move to a board that we would call 1342.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Are there any remains on this board, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: No, there is not, your Honor.

THE COURT: Which board is this?

MR. SCHECK: The board is entitled "Evidence from closed-in area at Bundy."

(Deft's 1342 for id = posterboard)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, I call your attention to the photographs in the top row depicting first Mr. Goldman's boot, and secondly, the sole, trace evidence. What are these photos?

DR. LEE: This board consist of composite of six. The top row, the three, is--relate to Mr. Goldman's boot. The bottom three, one depicts an overall view of the blue jean. Second, the middle one, depicts a portion of Mr. Goldman's shirt. The third one depicts two buttons which recover when I examine this particular garment.

MR. SCHECK: That was where when you recovered the buttons?

DR. LEE: Where I examined this garment, Albany Medical Center, New York.

MR. SCHECK: And that was when?

DR. LEE: That is February 18, 19, 1995.

MR. SCHECK: And that was the first time you had an opportunity to actually physically examine it?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that was well into a period of time into this trial? This trial started when?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, there is no foundation for this.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is leading also, but the jury knows when we started the trial.

MR. SCHECK: Right. I don't, but they do.

THE COURT: They do.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: I would ask you to discuss the significance of the first picture showing Mr. Goldman's boot.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What does the bloodstain pattern and drip patterns there indicate?

DR. LEE: The bloodstain pattern basically is a saturated pattern which indicative in large amount of blood that deposit onto the surface. Large amount of soil, debris-like material was noticed caked on the bloodstain surface which indicative soil deposit. Meanwhile, the blood still wet which is a further indication consistent with the hole, the loose soil on the previous board I show you in a closed-in area.

MR. SCHECK: So in other words, that--the bloodstain pattern with the soil caked on the blood in this boot is consistent with digging in that hole that you described previously by the fence in the closed-in pattern?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that is speculation. Objection no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Now, could you describe for us the pattern of trace evidence pattern in the middle picture?

DR. LEE: Yes. This picture was provided to me by the Defense counsel, appears to be taken at the Coroner's office. Soil, debris, hair, fiber-like material was noticed on the middle of this gouged pattern area. Loose soil when noticed on this piece of white paper.

MR. SCHECK: What does this indicate again in terms of bloodstain patterns and trace evidence with respect to Mr. Goldman's boot?

DR. LEE: When I examine the boots I did not see those material any more. Assume those are hair and fibers, which indicative this portion of the boot near the heel has to stack onto surface. Soil have hairs and fibers and imbed into this area and cause the transfer.

MR. SCHECK: So in other words, the soil on the ground--if the soil on the ground had hair and fiber in it and a boot with blood on it stepped in it, that would be consistent with the pattern you see in this photograph?

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Would it be consistent with the pattern you see in this photograph that a boot stepping into soil with trace evidence on it and either the boot or the soil had blood, you would see this kind of trace evidence pattern?

DR. LEE: Yes, but you don't need necessarily have blood, just a certain force can force the soil, fiber imbed into the pattern.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I call your attention to the photograph on the far right-hand side. What is that?

DR. LEE: This is a close-up view shows the top of the plastic rubber area of this boot, the front part.

MR. SCHECK: Whose photograph is that?

DR. LEE: Mine.

MR. SCHECK: And when did you take that?

DR. LEE: February between 18, 19, `95 sometime. I don't remember exactly hour and minute I took this photograph.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is that a cut?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is that cut consistent with coming from a knife?

DR. LEE: A sharp instrument.

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. No foundation.

MR. SCHECK: From the cut, what kind of instrument could cause it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Foundation, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Do you have experience, Dr. Lee, in examining items of clothing and shoes with respect to punctures and other damage to them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: How much experience?

DR. LEE: I cannot measure that experience. I have been in my present job for approximately 17 years. During the course I have examined a lot of the clothing, shoes, object with puncture, cut, damage and other material--other damage of the surface. I do study those materials.

MR. SCHECK: What is your opinion of the damage you see to Mr. Goldman's boot?

DR. LEE: That is consistent with a sharp instrument.

MR. SCHECK: Such as a knife?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And can you tell us something about whether or not that cut is fresh or represents recent damage?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, first can I ask him--can I elicit his opinion and then the basis?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that is a fresh cut?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What is the basis for that opinion?

DR. LEE: Base my--on my direct observation and microscopic examination of this cutting area.

MR. SCHECK: And what is your opinion?

DR. LEE: It is consistent with a fresh cut.

MR. SCHECK: And why is that?

DR. LEE: The surface of this sneaker you can see it is pretty dirt--a lot of dirt, a lot of weathering. This cutting area exposed is white, fresh in this groove area, (Indicating). That indicates has to be recent.

MR. SCHECK: Now, can you tell anything about the direction of this cut?

DR. LEE: We see parallel line on this portion of the shoes. This cut is against this line. The cut appear to be from the left moving to the right with a slight curvature. This approximately 1.5 centimeter long. The tail end I can see it start lifting. In other words, the depth in the front end is much deeper than the tail end, which indicative of movement.

MR. SCHECK: Would this be consistent with the sneaker not being on the ground when the cut occurred?

DR. LEE: More likely it is not on the ground.

MR. SCHECK: It is more likely that when this cut occurred that sneaker was not on the ground?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did the sneaker meet the sharp instrument in the same direction or plane or can you describe that--how this contact would occur?

DR. LEE: This cut, (Indicating), which is different than the staff, it is a surface. It indicate a movement. Either the sharp instrument was moved or this receiving surface was moved or both surface moving at the same time.

MR. SCHECK: With your hands can you indicate how that would occur?

DR. LEE: Let's say my left hand is the sneaker. If my right hand the cutting instrument can be moving the direction, (Indicating). Can be both move in the same opposite direction, (Indicating). Or this cutting instrument is stationary and however the receiving surface is moving, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Would this cut be consistent with Mr. Goldman kicking towards someone with a sharp instrument and the sharp instrument striking the boot?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: If that sneaker were--you say it is more likely that the sneaker was not on the ground at the time that cut was made?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Would that be consistent with a kicking movement and the sneaker then being struck by a sharp instrument?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Is there anything else in terms of bloodstain evidence or--

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Could you turn then to the jeans. Could you describe for us the bloodstain pattern here and what it represents?

DR. LEE: This photo was taken again in February 18 and 19, 1995, at Albany Medical Center, depicts the rear view of the blue jean.

MR. SCHECK: The back of the jeans?

DR. LEE: The back of the blue jean. The back of the blue jean shows large amount of bloodstain. In the top portion not consistent with a direct contact transfer and blood soak into the surface. In the middle portion we see this brush tail fashion end which indicative contact smear movement. The lower portion we see some drops and individual pattern, some contact transfer pattern, and here we see a multiple deposit pattern, (Indicating), of blood on top of the blood.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is it important to have photographic documentation, if possible, of a victim's clothing as it is found at the scene?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Why is that?

DR. LEE: Because this pattern can cause by secondary changes when bodies start moving or carry out or drag out only put in a body bag or move from the body bag to autopsy table. Each time the movement can create new patterns. Once those new pattern created, very difficult for us to tell which one is which by which transfer.

MR. SCHECK: Any other bloodstain patterns of interest or--well, with respect to the jeans?

DR. LEE: The jeans shows a lot of blood.

MR. SCHECK: Turn now to the buttons. Could you describe how those photographs were taken?

DR. LEE: This photograph also taken February 18, 19, 1995, when I examine this shirt of Mr. Goldman. The shirt, when I exam, as you can see, have greenish whiteish mold-like material start growing. Make an interpretation of the pattern almost impossible. What I did notice is some button missing. A total three button appear to be separate from his shirt; the no. 3 position, no. 5 position, no. 6 position. A portion of the plastic-like material and thread still attached on those location. Subsequently exam this shirt. On the left breast pocket I recover an envelope. Inside an envelope have two buttons. Each of this button, the center portion of the plastic missing. The button itself is about one centimeter in diameter. In other words, we have--

MR. GOLDBERG: No question pending.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. SCHECK: What does the fact that the buttons--pattern on the inside of the buttons indicate in terms of issues of force?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, conjecture, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Since the thread still intact in the location, since have appear to be plastic-like material, which indicative could be suggest those button was separate with certain force.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if a criminalist were to remove buttons from a shirt for purposes of some analysis, how would--what is the proper procedure for doing so?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, are buttons potentially important evidence in assessing a crime scene, buttons on a victim's shirt?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes. Button often indicates to us the location. If the button drop in a certain location which may indicate at that particular location a force apply, one of the button fall onto the surface. By study the pattern, we can look at whether or not center still intact or not. If the center broken, which you have to have certain force to separate.

MR. SCHECK: Would it be proper in analysis for a criminalist to pull a button off a shirt and remove the center?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: I never do those things, but I really cannot answer.

MR. SCHECK: Would you expect that that--

DR. LEE: I don't expect anyone to do that.

MR. SCHECK: No? Okay. So assuming that a criminalist had not forcibly removed the buttons from the shirt, what does the pattern that you see in the photograph labeled "Broken buttons" indicate with respect to the issue of force?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Assume this button was separate at the time of incident, which could indicative a struggle and force was applied.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, looking at this evidence from the closed-in area depicted on this board, is the patterns you find on Mr. Goldman's shoes, boots, and the buttons consistent with a struggle?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is it consistent with a struggle where a sharp instrument made contact with Mr. Goldman's sneaker while it was not on the ground?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, speculation.

THE COURT: It is asked and answered. We have answered that question twice now.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. It is a summary question, your Honor, because--

THE COURT: I understand, but we have--

MR. SCHECK: All right.

THE COURT: Dr. Lee has answered this question twice already.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we are finished with this section, and I'm moving to a new board. I have six minutes, but it is your pleasure.

THE COURT: We will use the six minutes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is a board entitled "Evidence found, eyeglasses envelope, envelope at Bundy scene" and we have marked that 1342 (Sic).

THE COURT: All right. So marked.

(Deft's 1343 for id = posterboard)

MR. SCHECK: And your Honor, there are no remains on these photographs.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you describe for us these photographs and the meaning of the two indications of position 1 and position 2?

DR. LEE: Yes. This photograph, this board actually a composite of four different pictures. There is four different pictures being divided in two groups. The top row represent one group; the bottom row represent the second group. The first group, first column first picture, which indicative at the time this photo was taken, the blanket was not used to cover this area, depicts in this photo a certain position of this envelope.

MR. SCHECK: The record should reflect Dr. Lee is pointing to the photograph on the upper left-hand column which we have evidence is Detective Fuhrman pointing downwards and has pointed to what is known as the envelope and the piece of paper.

THE COURT: Yes.

DR. LEE: The second photograph first row--first column second one indicates this photo was taken after the previous one. A blanket was used and this is the position of this envelope, (Indicating). The next--

MR. GOLDBERG: No question pending, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: Moving to the envelope on the upper right-hand corner and comparing it to the envelope in what is indicated as position 1 and the envelope in position 2, are there differences?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is cumulative.

THE COURT: I assume this will be brief.

MR. SCHECK: Well, yeah. This is an introductory to a whole series of boards, your Honor, about the differences.

THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed.

DR. LEE: Okay. This shows this envelope that is in two different positions. The envelope has been moved since the first picture taken to the second picture, (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: All right. You are indicating here a--

DR. LEE: That is a landmark.

MR. SCHECK: That is a groove in the tile?

DR. LEE: Groove in the tile. The previous one, this envelope is--

THE COURT: Aren't we talking about grouting in between tiles, not grooves in tiles?

MR. SCHECK: That is probably more correct, thank you. Grouting in the tile.

THE COURT: Between tiles.

MR. SCHECK: Between tiles?

DR. LEE: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Let the record reflect Dr. Lee has taken a piece of red tape and drawn it from grout to grout.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And are we going to move on in other boards and pictures you have shown us to show changes--differences between the envelopes and the two positions?

DR. LEE: Sure.

THE COURT: All right. Let's--let's take our break at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the noon hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss this case amongst yourselves. Most importantly, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess for one hour. Dr. Lee, you may step down. You are ordered to come back at one o'clock. Thank you.

(At 12:00 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1995 1:05 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, did you want to--at some point, I can indicate it, but I thought it was this afternoon we were going to the socks, and we had to resolve the stipulation question. I thought you had asked Mr. Goldberg--

THE COURT: Sometime this afternoon? All right. The socks. Do you have an extra copy of that stipulation? And more importantly, have you had the opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Goldberg?

MR. SCHECK: Briefly yesterday.

THE COURT: Well, the stipulation is agreement between the parties as to the evidence. If you can't agree amongst yourselves, then--

MR. GOLDBERG: We don't stipulate.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let's have the jurors, if there's no stipulation.

MR. SCHECK: Well, my request, as the court noted, is that you take judicial notice of what was said in the record and that--at the time that this was done, I made an objection to the court and it was done with the full knowledge that the only two witnesses in the room, aside from Dr. Lee, were the two lawyers who were sitting next to him, myself and Mr. Blasier on the other side of Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke.

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at the sidebar to continue our discussion since the jury is coming in. Counsel, the problem is, we're talking about a disputed fact, and that's not something that's appropriate for judicial notice. I can't do that.

MR. SCHECK: What I would request of the court and of my adversary here is that we have some resolution of this. I have no desire testifying in front of this jury nor does Mr. Blasier, but our representations were made on the record at the time they introduced the board. Mr. Harmon made representations on the record as to what he didn't see or saw and Mr. Clarke I believe in an off the record discussion present in the court indicated his position was the same as Mr. Harmon. And when we had this discussion, it was very clear when the court overruled the 352 objection that I made on this issue that this would involve lawyers testifying.

THE COURT: But the problem is, the manipulations of this particular piece of evidence, any handling of this particular piece of evidence is crucial to both sides. So that's why I overruled the 352 objection, because the manner that things happened is relevant.

MR. SCHECK: I understand that.

THE COURT: So I can not force a stipulation nor can I take judicial notice of something that's a disputed fact.

MR. SCHECK: I'm trying to avoid climbing on the witness stand. I don't know what the Prosecution's position is, how they want to bring this out.

MR. GOLDBERG: We're not going to stipulate. It's a disputed fact. Our view is different from the Defense view.

MR. SCHECK: That's not the point.

THE COURT: Are you going to present this or rock?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's been presented, your Honor. They have a witness up on the stand right now that can present their version.

THE COURT: That's true.

MR. SCHECK: My point is this. The photographs they had on the board show Mr. Blasier and Mr. Scheck standing there and Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke standing there, and we are the only witnesses from the Defense that can comment on anything under oath. And I saw it. I was paying attention to it because I was very cognizant of this issue. So it's very upsetting to me and I want to get on the witness stand and say so, but I think that's totally inappropriate.

THE COURT: But you have a witness that can--Dr. Lee is in the perfect position to explain what happened as well. So there's not an absolute necessity that an attorney be called on this issue. So let's proceed.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lee, would you resume the witness stand.

Henry C. Lee, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: The record should reflect we've been joined by all the members of our jury. Dr. Henry Lee is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Scheck. Good afternoon again, Dr. Lee.

DR. LEE: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Doctor, you are reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you very much, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, over lunch, did you have some opportunity to place some red tape on the board entitled "Closed-in area of Bundy"?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And does this red tape reflect the different portions of the central photograph that you were discussing in your testimony with the jury?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And at various times, you pointed to one photograph and explained its relation to the other. And does this red tape reflect what you were testifying to this morning?

DR. LEE: This red tape basically indicate the location which I explain this morning and shows the general correlation between one photograph to another.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: This for the record is 1341.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, we ended the morning by discussing the envelope and the two different positions. Do you recall that, sir?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I move to the next exhibit, which would be marked 1344, and this one is entitled, "Evidence found, eyeglasses envelope, envelope at Bundy scene." And, Dr. Lee, I would ask you, if you could, to come down and discuss this with us.

(Deft's 1344 for id = board)

DR. LEE: Sure.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. This has no remains, correct?

MR. SCHECK: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, if you would tell me that since it's--I can't tell which one we're talking about here.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Bancroft, may I see that, please? Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, could you explain what the photographs on this board reflect?

DR. LEE: This board consist of six photographs. I took this photograph on February 18, 1995 at Albany Medical Center. The first photograph depicts an overall view of this item, taking out front of box, shows item no. 39, brown paper bag inside of a plastic bag. First column, second photograph depicts a close-up view of this top opening of the brown paper bag of a scotch tape, that scotch tape depicting this area (Indicating). They're trace material, some are consistent with blood crust, was noticed on those plastic scotch tape. The middle column are those blood-stained debris found inside of the brown paper bag, predominantly consist of leaf material. However, on the leaves, there are hairs and fiber-like trace was noticed. In addition, blood like crust also noticed on the leaf which depicts a close-up view, shows one of the leaf in column no. 2, photograph no. 2. Some of the blood crust, it's clearly flaked out to a regional location. Other still are here on the surface. The next two photograph depicts the envelope inside this plastic bag. Column 3, top view, depicts the front portion of this envelope with some writing and some blood-like stain. Column no. 3, photograph 2, depicts an overall view of this envelope which shows large amount of bloodstain, blood spatter were noticed on the surface of this backside of envelope.

MR. SCHECK: Any other observations with respect to this?

DR. LEE: Uh, basically, at one point in time, those material probably collect with those envelope together and place in a brown paper bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation. Motion to strike. No foundation, personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would ask this board be marked as 1345.

THE COURT: All right. 1345.

(Deft's 1345 for id = board)

MR. SCHECK: And it's entitled, "Evidence found--eyeglasses envelope, evidence found at Albany Medical Center."

DR. LEE: This board--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Question.

MR. SCHECK: Question is, Dr. Lee, could you please explain the photographs on this board?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a narrative.

THE COURT: It does. Let's do it one at a time.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee, will you start, please, with the overall view in the center.

DR. LEE: The overall view of the center picture depicts the items I found inside of the envelope and the brown paper bag which consist a pair of eyeglasses. However, only one lens was found.

MR. SCHECK: Now, are you familiar with the testimony of Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf that on June 22nd, when they were at the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory with Michele Kestler, they observed the eyeglasses with two lenses?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: They observed in a bag eyeglasses with two lenses within the bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: That also misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You--are you aware of the testimony of Dr. Baden--

THE COURT: Counsel, it's also argument. The jury was here, has heard the testimony. They know the state of the record. Ask the questions about what's there, please.

MR. SCHECK: All right. In the records you have received with respect to discovery in this case, do you have any records indicating what happened to the other lens?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Call your attention now to the picture in the upper left-hand column indicating "Eyeglasses with single lens." Could you describe the evidence pattern there?

DR. LEE: This picture depicts when a time we remove the eyeglasses out the envelope. I found this lens already out of the eyeglass. The left lens, a single lens, it's a bifocal type of a lens. The right side lens appeared to be missing. On this remaining lens, there are smears and debris on the lens itself. Also noticed are material on the earpiece of the eyeglass (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: And where is that reflected?

DR. LEE: This reflect the earpiece on the right-hand side. There are some reddish color material adhere.

MR. SCHECK: That indicates the photograph on the bottom left-hand column of this board indicating "Trace evidence on earpiece"?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is there a close-up photograph of what you described as the smear on the lens?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you describe that for us?

DR. LEE: On the third column top frame, the picture depicts a close-up view of this lens. Reddish blood-like smear can be seen on the top of the lens (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph on the bottom right-hand?

DR. LEE: The bottom right-hand depicts a further close-up view for this portion of the lens, have large amount of a trace material. Those trace material consists predominantly of soil, blood crust, fiber and hair-like material.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, does the smearing you saw in this lens, is that consistent with someone touching the lens of the glasses?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Based on the pattern that you see on the lens, can you describe the mechanism that would be consistent with creating that pattern?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What is it?

DR. LEE: At one point in time, a small amount of blood-like substance have contact with portion of lens, cause a transfer.

MR. SCHECK: Could that transfer be consistent with a finger smearing the lens?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation. Same objections.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in terms of mechanisms, what kind of mechanisms could cause that kind of smear?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: The jury's already heard what's called smearing.

MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor, I'm just trying to--

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. SCHECK: --elicit the mechanisms.

THE COURT: He's told us smearing. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Can smearing be caused by manipulation with someone's fingers?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: It could be.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, is it possible to lift fingerprints from glass?

DR. LEE: You can develop latent print on a glass. Subsequently, you can lift the fingerprint. First you have to develop it.

MR. SCHECK: Now, are the reddish materials here consistent just by observation with blood?

DR. LEE: Maybe, maybe not. I did not do any test.

MR. SCHECK: When you examined--I'm sorry. Were you about to finish your answer?

DR. LEE: Yeah.

MR. SCHECK: At the Albany Medical Center, when you examined this, were--were you allowed to test this in terms of the order?

DR. LEE: My order is, I can only do physical observation, microscopic examination and photographing, measurement, cannot remove or cutting, doing destructive test.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, assuming--well, withdrawn. From the photographs of the crime scene, where are the glasses in relation to the envelope? Are they inside or outside?

DR. LEE: Inside.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Is the smearing pattern you observed consistent with someone manipulating that envelope and touching the glasses inside of it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections to the previous questions.

THE COURT: There were many. Which one do you want?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, speculation, calls for conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Let's move to the next board in terms of foundation.

THE COURT: 1346.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. Entitled "Evidence found, eyeglasses, envelope, bloodstain evidence on envelope."

(Deft's 1346 for id = board)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you please describe for us the bloodstain patterns depicted on this board?

DR. LEE: This board consist of again six individual photographs. Depicts various view on the back of this envelope, the backside of an envelope (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation as to when the photos were taken, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, when were these photographs taken?

DR. LEE: Was taken February 18 to 19 in 1995 at Albany Medical Center.

MR. SCHECK: Please proceed with your description of the bloodstain pattern as depicted on the board.

DR. LEE: The bloodstain pattern on the back of the envelope consists of great amount, over hundreds of bloodstain pattern. What the photograph depict, only certain sections. The top row middle column shows, if I look at an envelope in the back directly, it's on my left-hand side. If I'm--and envelope should be on the right. So basically depends which side you're looking at. Here clearly have another imprint consistent like a shape of an E, which later was identify consistent with a portion of the sole pattern of a Bruno Magli. Besides that, we have large amount of blood drops, blood spatter, blood smear cover the whole area. This area alone probably consists 200 or more individual bloodstain. The most interesting one is one in the lower middle portion here. A crease was noticed on the envelope. This was enlarged, which depicts in the photograph on the third column, top view. I'm showing here that's the crease. Here have a blood pattern, two pattern, look like a mirror image, which suggest this portion and this portion could have made contact, meanwhile the blood still wet (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Well, Dr. Lee, could you with the red tape please indicate where the mirror image is on bloodstain pattern no. 1 and what you just described in the photograph with close-up view 1-B?

DR. LEE: Yes. (The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in order to obtain a mirror image pattern such as this, what state does the liquid blood--what state does the blood have to be in?

DR. LEE: Blood have to be in liquid state. Cannot be a bloodstain. Still wet in a liquid stage.

MR. SCHECK: So would this mirror image pattern be consistent with someone folding or manipulating this envelope while the blood depicted in the close-up view of 1-B is still wet?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, no foundation, conjecture.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes. Consistent with.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Could you please now turn to the close-up view, 1-A, and indicate where that is on bloodstain pattern no. 1?

DR. LEE: (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee--I have to ask you a question first. Dr. Lee, could you please describe the bloodstain patterns in close-up view 1-A?

DR. LEE: The close-up view 1-A depicts an area on the--when I place the envelope on the right-hand corner, this blood smear, blood spatter, that's angular deposit, blood drops and could be contact pattern deposit in that little area. It also indicate to me the smear has to be applied on the envelope first and the spatter apply afterward (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: So might I ask you, could you indicate with the pen the smear and put down "1" next to it indicating that's first and the spatter--maybe "SM" for smear, "SP" for spatter.

DR. LEE: (The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. So in other words, the smear had to come first and then spatter after that?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Anything else with respect to this bloodstain pattern?

DR. LEE: In addition, a small drop consistent vertical deposit. Those consistent with impact splash path with an angular deposit.

MR. SCHECK: Now, are those--is this smear, is that what you call dynamic--

DR. LEE: Movement. Have a lateral movement, dynamic contact.

MR. SCHECK: Is that smear--can that be caused--can the mechanism for that smear be a hand brushing against the envelope?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, conjecture, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Is the smear consistent with the mechanism of a hand brushing against the envelope?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections. Also argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Can you tell us what kinds of mechanisms are consistent with the scientific evidence you see here of that smear?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what kinds of mechanisms?

DR. LEE: Contact mechanism of this, a surface have to have some wet blood, has to have a direct contact with the movement. The movement here is from the left to right, being lateral movement (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Anything else about the bloodstain patterns of interest on the top row?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Could you please move to bloodstain pattern no. 2?

DR. LEE: Bloodstain pattern no. 2 is--depicts an envelope, upper--if I place the envelope upper right corner of this envelope. A multiple bloodstain pattern can be seen in this location. Over hundreds of bloodstain can be counted in this area too (Indicating). The most important observation of this area consist of a three, four areas. Close-up view no. 2-A, which depicts this area, a teardrop type of pattern, a vertical drop blood pattern, a contact transfer pattern, additional spatter pattern.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please with the red tape indicate for the jury the relationship of the close-up view 2-A to bloodstain pattern no. 2?

DR. LEE: (The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, so you've indicated here that we have a contact impression?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Which one is that?

DR. LEE: Not impression. Is a contact pattern.

MR. SCHECK: Pattern. We have a droplet?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: We have spatter?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, can you tell from this pattern which of these came first?

DR. LEE: Some area I can tell. Other area I can not. For example, this one, I can tell deposit after this group of a pattern has to be applied on the envelope first. It clearly shows this on top, the rest of it. As far this one, this one, I can not tell when was deposit (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: However, could the ones that you can tell which came first or second, could they have come at the same time?

DR. LEE: Some of those, more likely from different time.

MR. SCHECK: So your judgment is, it's more likely they came at different times, but you can't tell which came first or second?

DR. LEE: Yes, because the angular and vertical droplet cannot be created by same motion here.

MR. SCHECK: Would this kind of blood pattern that we see on 1-A and 2-A be consistent with struggle in the area, struggle between two individuals around this envelope?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, conjecture, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: It could indicate dynamic movement, different time contact, could be consistent with this.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Any other observations of interest with respect to the close-up on view 2-A?

DR. LEE: View 2-A, in the lower portion middle, have a place labeled 1-B, something like that. Have one drop. This drop, the side appear to be diluted and a swab motion appear to apply into this drop. This indicates this drop has been sampled by laboratory examiner to type this drop (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: And on this photograph, are there initials there?

DR. LEE: No. Just 1-B.

MR. SCHECK: A b?

DR. LEE: Yeah.

MR. SCHECK: Indication of "B." Now, could you move to close-up view 2-B. What does the close-up view 2-B indicate in terms of the pattern?

DR. LEE: Close-up view 2-B consist of heavy bloodstain on top of the bloodstain caked with some soil debris. In addition, numerous hair, fiber-like material adhere on this surface (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Now, what is the--the fact that this debris, the soil and fibers caked on the surface, what does that indicate about the mechanism of transfer?

DR. LEE: This area indicates blood has to be deposit on the envelope first. Subsequently, the soil, hair, fiber debris was deposit on top of this bloodstain area; and during this drying and coagulation process, this material cake onto the surface (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: So this debris came onto the surface while the blood was still wet?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, show you two additional photographs that are not on this board that--

THE COURT: 1345.

MR. SCHECK: Well, should we make them subdivisions of the board even though they're not on it? What's the court's preference?

THE COURT: No. Let's make them subsequent--

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So this would be 13--

THE COURT: 1347.

MR. SCHECK: 47 and 48?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Deft's 1347 and 1348 for id = photographs)

MR. SCHECK: Show you two photographs that have been marked 1347 and 1348 and ask you if you recognize them.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What are they?

DR. LEE: It's two picture which depict, 1347, the mid portion of this envelope; 1348 is this faint area of this envelope (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Could you in the two areas you've indicated write "1347" in the area depicted in the photograph 1347 and "1348" for the area of 1348?

DR. LEE: (The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, with permission of the court, I'd like to place 1347--1348 first on the elmo.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: And ask that Dr. Lee approach the telestrator and direct Mr. Harris on focusing in on the areas of interest.

(The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, look--please tell us when it's in the correct position.

DR. LEE: Yeah. That's the correct position.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee, what pattern is depicted--what kind of pattern is depicted by 1348?

DR. LEE: This encompass area which appear to be--have some ridge pattern on there.

MR. SCHECK: Now, that ridge pattern, that is an imprint?

DR. LEE: That's an imprint, considered as an imprint pattern.

MR. SCHECK: And that imprint pattern, the ridges, are those consistent with the pattern given by a fingerprint in blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading, your Honor. Also, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: What is that consistent with--start this way. Dr. Lee, in your observations of evidence at crime scenes, can you make observations from blood patterns with respect to fingerprints?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: How do you do that?

DR. LEE: By recognize the shape, contour or ridge characteristics.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to that, what is your opinion of the pattern depicted on 1348?

DR. LEE: All I can report to you, it's consistent with imprint pattern. I can not definitively tell you this is a fingerprint.

MR. SCHECK: What about this pattern makes it consistent with the pattern that would be caused by a bloody fingerprint?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, your Honor, conjecture, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: It's have the general contour, have some appear to be certain pattern there and any of those pattern which indicate indicative of pattern transfer of course and hence would be able to shows exact pattern.

MR. SCHECK: Ask that we put now 1347 on the elmo. Yeah. We should print this out. I'm sorry. Can we make that 1348-A?

THE COURT: 1348-A.

(Deft's 1348-A for id = printout)

MR. SCHECK: Now, while that's printing out, Dr. Lee, this imprint pattern, would the blood have to be wet at the time this imprint pattern was made?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now ready for 1347.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, looking at 1347, is this a proper focus?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please describe to us the pattern here?

DR. LEE: This is a pattern area which we notice in this exhibit. This pattern area shows here it's not a drop, it's not a spatter, it's not a smear. It's a contact impression type of pattern. Fiber-like material can be seen adhere onto the surface. This area consist of large quantity of blood. No ridge characteristic can be clearly seen (Indicating). However, in the middle--

MR. GOLDBERG: No question pending.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: In the middle, there are some appear to be pattern area which consistent again we say imprint.

MR. SCHECK: Now, the imprint you've indicated by the arrows, is that consistent with a bloody finger making the contact imprint that you've indicated there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, conjecture, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. In terms of the mechanism of transfer, is that imprint pattern consistent with a finger covered with blood making contact with the envelope?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection, your Honor, and also, it's leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Again, Dr. Lee, based on your observations of fingerprint patterns at crime scenes, if a finger is covered with lots of blood and makes contact with a paper surface, will it necessarily leave a ridge design?

DR. LEE: No. It will not leave any ridge characteristic. Once the blood cover the whole surface, fell the land and groove of the finger surface when you have this contact because abundance of blood, you only leave a general pattern, will not transfer individual ridge characteristics.

MR. SCHECK: Is the pattern depicted here in 1347 consistent with a finger covered with blood to the point that it would make a contact impression in the envelope, but not leave ridge characteristics?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection. Also, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. In terms of fingerprint impressions, is that consistent with the--an imprint of a finger covered with blood as you just explained before?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let's move on.

MR. SCHECK: Can you please describe for us in terms of mechanisms of transfer how that pattern might be consistent, if it is, with a finger imprint?

THE COURT: Sustained. Dr. Lee, this is a compression transfer; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Did you examine that carefully as much as you could from the photograph?

DR. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: Did you see anything that indicates that that might be a fingerprint?

DR. LEE: No. Only the contour.

THE COURT: Thank you. Next question.

MR. SCHECK: So from the contour of this imprint, it is consistent with a bloody finger making contact with the envelope?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: It consistent with a--either finger or an object have same contour cause such transfer.

MR. SCHECK: So it's either a finger or an object that has the same contour as the finger?

THE COURT: I think we've covered this.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Would that imprint have to be made when the blood was wet?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, the imprint that you described on 1348, the imprint you've described as 1347, the mirror image you've described under the picture, close-up view 1-B, are all those consistent with this envelope being manipulated when the blood was wet?

DR. LEE: Well, it indicates have contact. Assume those are fingerprint pattern.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point. I think this would call for speculation and conjecture.

THE COURT: Overruled. Answer will stand. Next question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee, assuming that these imprint patterns are consistent with fingerprints, what does these patterns indicate with respect to the manipulation of this envelope when the blood was wet?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, conjecture, no foundation, calls for opinion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, with respect to the close-up view 1-B and your observations of the glasses in the envelope, could the envelope be folded in that fashion while the glasses were in it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, there's no foundation.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. SCHECK: Well, were you able to examine the envelope and the glasses?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. From your observations, could this what you've described as a mirror image pattern in the close-up view 1-B have been made when the glasses were in the envelope while wet blood was in the envelope?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in terms of the fold with the glasses in the envelope, could--would the glasses in the envelope prevent this manipu--the fold that we see in the close-up view 1-B?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: If the glass is in this area, very difficult to fold over the glass itself (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm sorry. For the record, maybe we could have the court indicate where he pointed at this time.

THE COURT: He pointed to--

MR. GOLDBERG: May I stand up?

THE COURT: Yes, you may. He pointed to 1345, 1-B.

MR. GOLDBERG: But he said "If the glasses were in this area." Could we just have the record reflect where he was pointing when he said that? Well, your Honor, just for the record, when he was pointing, he was pointing on the "Evidence found, eyeglass envelope" exhibit, the photograph on the top center, bloodstain pattern 1, approximately bisecting the photograph in what appears to be a fold.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: In fact, I would add to that description that the fold begins at the bottom of the picture--

THE COURT: No, counsel. The photograph speaks for itself. Let's move on.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: Blood transfers are what--the envelope's been moved around. It's at a crime scene. Let's proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Well, these--the mirror image, that's when the blood is wet, correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: We've established that.

MR. SCHECK: Can we have the next board, please? Your Honor, this is 1349 and it's entitled, "Evidence found, envelope."

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(Deft's 1349 for id = board)

MR. SCHECK: And, Dr. Lee, could you please explain what these three pictures show?

DR. LEE: These three picture depicts the same envelope, show the three pictures were taken different point of time. The first picture, second picture were provide to me by attorney Shapiro. Those picture depicts here appear to be taken by LAPD photographer. The third one is a picture which I took February 18, 1995 at Albany Medical Center (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, would the picture in the middle represent the envelope as shown in the photograph in what we have been calling position no. 1?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: So that is the photograph, the first photograph in time that we know of of that envelope?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And the one to the left is position no. 2?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And the one to the right are the pictures taken--picture taken at Albany Medical Center?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, could you describe to us some of the differences on these pictures between these envelopes?

DR. LEE: The center envelope is this envelope which the first record, the first documentation which I can see. On the envelope near the top region, large amount of trace material. Hair and fiber-like trace appear to be in this area. The one I just show you previously, here some soil trace material already caked in this area. The photograph which I received subsequently, those trace material was found to be absent. It's gone. It's no longer on this surface. The leaf, for example, here, it's absent from this location. The leaves underneath this envelope are absent from this location. This piece of material appear to be absent from this location (Indicating). In addition, I notice some other changes. The most clear one is here. I see a blood drop in this location absent. No blood drop.

MR. SCHECK: Could you circle that blood drop, please, that you have indicated is in the envelope on position no. 2 that is not in position no. 1?

DR. LEE: (The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, when you were discussing before the parallel line imprint pattern--

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --that we began with yesterday, is that visible in the position no. 1 photograph?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is the Bruno Magli imprint visible in the position no. 1 photograph?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Are the imprint patterns that were consistent with fingers visible on the original photographs?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: It's appear in this location and this location still remain on the surface (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: So in other words, those patterns which you indicated before had to be made when blood was wet or in the original photograph of position no. 1?

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: So when those were made, the blood was wet at that time?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And to your understanding, is that before anybody came and touched that envelope and processed that scene?

DR. LEE: This appears--

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for lack of personal knowledge, speculation, conjecture.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, have you kept track of the testimony to some degree of the various witnesses in this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, vague.

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Is it your understanding from the testimony in this case, Dr. Lee, that the crime scene had been processed--

THE COURT: Sustained. It's leading. He's also said he didn't follow the testimony.

MR. SCHECK: All right. We'll leave that. In terms of the bloodstain that you've circled, are there any other stains on the envelope in position no. 1 that weren't there in position--position no. 2 that weren't there in position no. 1?

DR. LEE: There are some stains. However, very difficult to make a comparison due to this again is three-dimensional setting, we look at two-dimensional picture. I can tell this clearly, this one wasn't there. There are some subtle one, minor one which I'm not going to testify.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in conclusion, Dr. Lee, from this envelope, can you determine from bloodstain pattern that imprint impressions that you've described were made on it in wet blood in the course of the struggle?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion, speculation, conjecture.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

DR. LEE: Assume those are footwear, part of footwear imprint, which indicative these two have to be deposit when envelope was on the ground. Assume those material--

MR. GOLDBERG: At this time, I'm going to object. He's just making a series of assumptions.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. SCHECK: Based on the assumption that the trace evidence and bloodstains as reflected in the envelope on position no. 1 were deposited there during the course of the homicides in this case, what does the pattern indicate?

MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, conjecture, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Which indicative with movement and consistent with struggle.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you're talking about the Bruno Magli imprint?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: The parallel line imprint?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: The imprints you've described as being consistent with fingers making contact with the envelope?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: The imprints on the envelope that you described in 1347 and 1348--

MR. GOLDBERG: At this point, counsel is just testifying.

THE COURT: No, he's not. He's asking a question. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: 1347 and 1348?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And those are all on position no. 1?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Any other bloodstain patterns of interest in this board?

DR. LEE: This particular drop (Indicating) which appeared to be grouped when I examine this envelope at February 18, 19, which correlate to this drop which was original absent from.

MR. SCHECK: And are you aware that conventional serology was done on that drop?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Your Honor, in terms of timing--

THE COURT: 2:30.

MR. SCHECK: 2:30?

THE COURT: 2:30.

MR. SCHECK: Would ask that this board be marked Defendant's next in order.

THE COURT: 1349?

THE CLERK: 50.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. 1350.

(Deft's 1350 for id = board)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, does this board reflect something that appears in one of the books you've written?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what is it?

DR. LEE: This is steps for forensic examination, the logic sequence when we get to crime scene or examine piece of physical evidence. That's the required step of process.

MR. SCHECK: And I ask you to review these steps very briefly and connect it to what was available to you in the course of your investigation in this case and what wasn't.

DR. LEE: The first step of any crime scene is recognition.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, let me ask you a question just logistically. Given the nature of this chart, is there any reason we can't have Dr. Lee back on the witness stand and with the chart turned the other way?

MR. SCHECK: No, there isn't--

THE COURT: So it doesn't block my view.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lee, why don't you pull the microphone close to you, please. Thank you. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: You were discussing the recognition stage and what that means.

DR. LEE: First step of any forensic examination of the crime scene of physical evidence have to go through a step called recognition. You have to see it, recognize it before we can do anything. If any potential evidence you did not see it or imprint evidence on certain object, you did not recognize, subsequent step become obsolete since did not recognize, then we did not go through identification examination. So recognition is very crucial for any crime scene investigation, for any examination of physical evidence. Once we recognize the particular item, have particular importance or potential of value relate to a case, then we go through the next step. The next step is a composition of a lot of sub steps.

MR. GOLDBERG: At this point, this is a narrative, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you ask him category by category, Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. First, with respect to recognition, when you're saying that's the most important step, for example, you discussed briefly yesterday how one can go about identifying latent footprints. Do you recall that?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, just as an example, if one does not carefully examine a scene to find latent footprints, would that be what you would call a failure of recognition?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And are failures of recognition--withdrawn. And evidence that is not recognized--all right. Let's--I'm mindful of the time. Let's move on to the next step, preservation, documentation and collection. What do you mean by that?

DR. LEE: This is a group activity. Have to be performed right after recognition to document the original shape by variety of methods, notes, diagram, photograph, videotaping, description prior to the collection. Also have to at the same time preserve the scientific integrity and the legal integrity of this potential evidence after it recognized.

MR. SCHECK: So would videotaping a crime scene be a method in terms of preservation and documentation?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And would keeping accurate notes with respect to what was collected, when it was collected and who collected it be the kind of thing that you mean by documentation and collection?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: At this point, your Honor, this is cumulative, irrelevant.

MR. SCHECK: I'm trying to move through it.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Would--what is chain of custody, Dr. Lee?

MR. GOLDBERG: Cumulative under 352.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Also, calls for legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: To a scientist, a forensic scientist, chain of custody means start of initial step. We have to keep a record of this, any transaction of this piece of evidence.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Would, for example, counting the number of swatches used to collect the bloodstain be an example of activities in this preservation, documentation and collection area?

MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible and argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: We did go through this with a variety of witnesses, Mr. Ragle.

MR. SCHECK: I'm moving quickly.

MR. SCHECK: What do you mean by identification?

DR. LEE: Once the sample collected, submit to the laboratory, first we go through identification step, try to use methodological pattern, physical characters and simple chemical tests to identify a certain piece of material and the nature of such piece of evidence.

MR. SCHECK: And if the preservation, documentation and collection is not done correctly, does that undermine your ability to do identification?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And if the preservation, documentation, collection stage evidence is contaminated, does that undermine you to do identification?

DR. LEE: Maybe.

MR. SCHECK: What is "Comparison"?

DR. LEE: Comparison, once you identify a particular object, for example, a hair, and we'll have known and questioned hair to compare. With a blood sample, known and questioned, soil sample, any type of sample, you need the known and question to make a comparison. Can compare biological property, physical property, microscopic characteristics and physical characteristic, try to see can we make a match.

MR. SCHECK: What is "Individualization"?

DR. LEE: Whether or not you can trace to the source origin. For example, simple example, a fingerprint. If you match all the ridge characteristics from a known fingerprint card to a latent fingerprint from a scene, then you say you individualize it now.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what is meant by the term "Class characteristics"?

DR. LEE: A large group of physical evidence at the current stage, there are limitation. We cannot reach a stage called individualization. We can only compare class characteristics, but not individual characteristics.

MR. SCHECK: Would hair and fiber be an example of this?

DR. LEE: Hair if just microscopic comparison, that's consistent. Not as an individualization. Cannot use as a positive identification of an individual.

MR. SCHECK: That's what you would call just "Class characteristic comparison"?

DR. LEE: It's little bit more than class, little lower than individualization.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what is meant by "Reconstruction"?

DR. LEE: Reconstruction is, after we go through all the step, now we start putting together what the significance of this piece of physical evidence fitting in the case like putting the puzzles together. Can we put the puzzle together and make some sense or we cannot put the puzzle together, make any sense.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, if the recognition stage and the preservation of documentation and collection stage is not performed correctly, what does that do to the ability to do reconstruction?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: This is the foundation. If you turn this chart upside down, if the foundation--we don't have a foundation, you take the building block away, whatever reconstruction becomes speculation.

MR. SCHECK: So if evidence is contaminated or compromised in the recognition, preservation, documentation and collection phase, that makes it--undermines ability to do reconstruction?

DR. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.

MR. SCHECK: That's it. Is it 2:30?

THE COURT: 2:30.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, can I have a minute to get a board that's behind the door?

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Ask this be marked 1351.

THE COURT: What is it?

MR. SCHECK: It's entitled, "Trace material found on--physical evidence at Bundy, soil sample from item--from Bundy item 114."

(Deft's 1351 for id = board)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you please describe to us what is depicted by the photographs on this board?

DR. LEE: This board consists of four pictures. Shows a sample numbered 114, soil sample front, northwest of gate.

MR. SCHECK: Says here "Soil exemplar." What does that mean?

DR. LEE: My definition is control sample of the soil.

MR. SCHECK: And when you say "A control sample of the soil," what would that mean in forensics?

DR. LEE: It's an exemplar of soil collected from the scene.

MR. SCHECK: In other words, to determine--

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Please continue with respect to the photographs here.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. What is depicted in the central photograph indicating "Soil sample examined"?

DR. LEE: On March 4th, 1995, while exam this sample, I put a piece of paper, clean paper, remove the soil debris from this envelope. That shows an overall view of those soil samples in this plastic bag.

MR. SCHECK: What do the two pictures on the far right represent?

DR. LEE: This two photograph are photomicrograph, taking the pictures through a microscope, which shows besides the soil, there are large amount of a trace material present in the soil, the soil sample.

MR. SCHECK: And when you say "Trace material," what are you referring to?

DR. LEE: I see dry vegetation, wood fragment, hairs, paint chip-like material, more hairs, fibers, a large amount of material in this envelope.

MR. SCHECK: And when a soil exemplar is taken, is the purpose of that to take it from an area where there is no activity to get a sense of what is generally in the soil? Is that the idea behind it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Generally, soil exemplar, we're taking at the location which we think has activities.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So in other words--and what is the purpose of taking such an exemplar?

DR. LEE: For example, subsequently, you found the shoes, suspect's shoes, you can compare the soil, or you have hairs, you can compare the hair was original present in the soil or subsequently deposit on the surface.

MR. SCHECK: I would like to now turn to a discussion of the socks, and I'd ask that this board be marked Defendant's next in order.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, which--

MR. SCHECK: 1352 I believe.

THE COURT: All right.

(Deft's 1352 for id = board)

MR. SCHECK: This first board marked 1352 entitled, "History of socks, item 13, June 13th, 1994 at Rockingham," briefly, Dr. Lee, what is this?

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think there's going to be any foundation for personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: He wasn't there.

DR. LEE: This board consists three picture. This three picture was supplied to me by attorney Shapiro.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Picture no. 1 is a--represents what in terms of the bedroom?

DR. LEE: Depicts an overall view, shows this corner of the bedroom and a rug on the carpet, the bed and appear to be--in the center of this picture appear to be pair of socks (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Direct your attention to the picture on the upper right-hand corner.

DR. LEE: This picture is taken appear to be a different point of time. We see some changes in the picture. However, this pair of socks appear to be in the middle of this rug (Indicating).

THE COURT: Isn't this redundant of Mr. Ford's testimony?

MR. SCHECK: No, no. We're going in a different direction, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: May I call your attention to close-up of two socks?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And what does that appear to be in relation to the picture above it?

DR. LEE: This appear to be a close-up showing this pair of same socks.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, is there anything about the way those socks are lying on the carpet that is of interest in terms of subsequent analysis?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What is it?

DR. LEE: This two socks is clearly in two different location, not on top each other. This two socks both have a similarity. The top appear to be folding downward. These two socks, both side, the tip, the toe area cannot be seen whether or not due to this photograph, two-dimensional representation or in reality was tucked in, which I don't know. One sock appear to be crunched in a three-dimensional setting. The other one also, it's not flat. It's also crunched in certain fashion. These two socks, I can not determine just by looking at them inside out or outside in (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: In terms of the proper practices for collection of these socks, what should be done?

DR. LEE: If I do it, I can not say about any other people. These two socks--

MR. GOLDBERG: Not responsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: These two socks should be put in two separate bags. However, before I even pick it up, should noted the condition, dry, wet, moist or damp. In addition, should definite indicates inside out or outside in, the toe stuck inside or not or exposed, the top, whether or not in fact fall down works or not. A physical description and any obvious trace material or stain should be noted.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we have two minutes and I have another board that will take longer. So I would suggest this would be a time.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let's take our mid-afternoon break at this point. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll stand in recess for 15 minutes. All right. Dr. Lee, you can step down.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, Mr. Scheck, we're going to go to quarter till 4:00, correct, Deputy Jex?

DEPUTY JEX: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach for just a second on a scheduling matter?

THE COURT: Without the reporter.

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Without the reporter.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel, that Dr. Henry C. Lee is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Scheck. And, Mr. Scheck, you may continue until a quarter to 4:00.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Harris, could we have the next board, which would be Defendant's 13--

THE COURT: 53.

MR. SCHECK: --53.

(Deft's 1353 for id = board)

THE COURT: I think we'll have to give juror no. 1 hazardous duty pay, pay her $6 a day.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, Dr. Lee, you mentioned before that arrangements were made so that Defense experts for the first time could actually examine items of evidence in this case at Albany Medical Center on February 17th and 18th and 19th, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence. No personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sounds like testimony to me in the question, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor--

THE COURT: Let's just proceed with what's there.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Were you able to--you or other Defense experts, to your knowledge, were you given an opportunity to actually examine physical evidence by touching it, microscopic examination prior to the shipment of that evidence to Albany on February 17th, 1995?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And when was that?

DR. LEE: February 16.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of the arrangements being made with respect to this evidence, what was your understanding about whether or not the socks were going to be sent to Albany?

DR. LEE: I understand the socks was sent to a different location than Albany.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And was it your understanding that the socks were not going to be sent to Albany--

THE COURT: Sounds like testimony to me, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor--

THE COURT: This is testimony. Ask a question about what he did.

MR. SCHECK: All right. May we approach for a second, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MR. SCHECK: A matter of judicial notice?

THE COURT: No. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, do you have knowledge as to whether or not testing was scheduled on the socks for purposes of detecting EDTA by the FBI?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And when were you informed that was to take place?

THE COURT: That is hearsay. That's not a relevant issue. Counsel, we've had that testimony about EDTA. Let's proceed with what this witness did.

MR. SCHECK: When did you get a call with respect to an opportunity to examine the socks?

DR. LEE: The night of February 15th, 1995.

MR. SCHECK: Can you explain how that--where you were?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: That day, I was in Seattle, Washington, attend academy of forensic science annual meeting which held in Seattle, other forensic scientists--

THE COURT: All right. That's not necessary. Just where were you. Next question.

MR. SCHECK: Did you have plans to return to Albany?

DR. LEE: I come from Connecticut, not Albany.

MR. SCHECK: Did you have plans to go to the Albany Medical Center on February 17th after your--after the convention?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, the jury understands he's from Connecticut, he works in Connecticut--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I approach?

THE COURT: No. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: I believe the circumstances here are relevant.

THE COURT: Proceed. No, they're not. They're not.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, when did you--did you receive a phone call from me on February 15th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And pursuant to that phone call, what did you do?

DR. LEE: To make arrangement to come to Los Angeles to exam a pair of socks.

MR. SCHECK: Did you have any expectation that you would be doing this?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Where did you think you would have an opportunity to examine the socks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. When did you leave to come to Los Angeles?

DR. LEE: At the 16th, February 16th, early morning, I left hotel probably 3:30, 4:00 o'clock to Seattle airport to catch a flight, 6:00 o'clock flight to L.A.

MR. SCHECK: Was it your understanding, Dr. Lee, that this would be your only opportunity to examine the socks before EDTA testing was performed on them by Agent Martz?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes. That's what my understanding. Before any additional tests were done, that's the only opportunity to look at socks in the original condition.

MR. SCHECK: When you say "Original condition," you mean--

THE COURT: Sustained. Leading.

MR. SCHECK: What do you mean by "Original condition"?

DR. LEE: At that point, what I understand, the socks still intact or original condition when they're collected.

MR. SCHECK: Well, when you arrived--what happened--when did you arrive in Los Angeles?

DR. LEE: Approximately 9:00, 9:00 o'clock.

MR. SCHECK: Where did you go?

DR. LEE: I was picked up and drove to this courtroom.

MR. SCHECK: And after you came to this courthouse, where did you go?

DR. LEE: I was staying in hallway. I wasn't allowed to get in.

MR. SCHECK: Did you meet any other individuals?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Did there come a time when you were allowed to go to the piper tech laboratory, Los Angeles Police Department?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And when was that?

DR. LEE: I would say approximately 9:30, 10:00 o'clock, something around that neighborhood.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And when you arrived there, with whom were--who were you with?

DR. LEE: Uh, you and attorney Neufeld.

MR. SCHECK: Do you--

DR. LEE: Peter Neufeld.

MR. SCHECK: Do you mean Mr.--was Mr. Blasier there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

DR. LEE: Oh, maybe him. You all look alike. I don't know.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. And from around 10:00 o'clock, 9:30, 10:00 o'clock, when you arrived there, were we joined by anyone else from the District Attorney's office?

DR. LEE: Yes. Quite a few attorney, assistant state attorneys.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And where were we waiting?

DR. LEE: We waiting in a hallway, front entrance hallway.

MR. SCHECK: All right. About how long did we wait before you were given an opportunity to get into a room and begin examining the socks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: A long, long, long wait. Very long.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

DR. LEE: Until approximately 12:40.

MR. SCHECK: Did you have an understanding as to whether or not there was a deadline that you had in terms of your ability to examine these socks, when they would be taken away?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: I was informed in the afternoon, approximately 1:30, these socks going to fly to Washington.

MR. SCHECK: Now, did you, starting at 12:40, have an opportunity to examine the socks?

DR. LEE: Exact time, as to 1:41, I exam the socks.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, before we get to this board entitled, "History of the socks, item 13, February 16, 1995 examination at LAPD lab," I would like to put on the board a Prosecution exhibit which is 285 entitled, "Henry lee's sock examination."

DR. LEE: Can I step down, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, where did this examination of the sock take place?

DR. LEE: It taken place a small conference room at LAPD laboratory.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you tell us, first of all, whose equipment was being used?

DR. LEE: Before I left Seattle, I made a request because I can not bring my own laboratory to L.A. I was in a conference give speech. I have no equipment, no camera, no gears. I said have to provide me with all those equipment, all the gears, glove, anything I need. I was informed, yes, everything you need will be there.

MR. SCHECK: All right. When you got there, what was provided to you?

DR. LEE: When I get there, they provide a microscope, a box of glove.

MR. SCHECK: Now, this microscope, could you describe for us the nature of this microscope?

DR. LEE: This microscope appears to be similar to a stereoscope. Have two oculars, so-called binocular. Will view from the top. The object is putting underneath, and the external light source was also provided.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what was the quality of this microscope?

DR. LEE: It's terrible shape, unacceptable in the scientific standard.

MR. SCHECK: Why do you say that?

DR. LEE: The ocular is moving. The objective shaky. I can't even focus. Looks like need a lot of w--DW--WD 40, something.

MR. SCHECK: What was that?

DR. LEE: Some kind of solution. WD 40, degrease type of solution. I can't even focus. I wasn't provide any microphotographer attachment. In other words, I have yeen ability to take pictures through the microscope.

MR. SCHECK: What's been called photomicrograph?

DR. LEE: Photomicrograph to document what I'm seeing.

MR. SCHECK: What about the power of that microscope?

DR. LEE: Because the adjustment almost impossible to make a true assessment. So impossible for me to make a--such determination.

MR. SCHECK: Can you please describe your activities as depicted on Prosecution 285?

DR. LEE: There are seven lawyers in the room, including my good friend here, Mr. Goldberg, yourself, Bob Blasier, Hodgman, he's another excellent attorney, and attorney Clark, another excellent attorney, good friend, and another attorney.

MR. SCHECK: You're indicating here Mr. Harmon.

DR. LEE: Mr. Harmon. Used to be a friend. Also, there are laboratory people. When I walk in, I can see this feeling, I'm not welcome.

MR. SCHECK: Anything said to you as to instructions at the beginning of this examination?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What was that?

DR. LEE: I ask what procedure for this examination, what's the rule or regulation, what can I do, what can I not do.

MR. SCHECK: What was said to you?

DR. LEE: An individual that's not the attorney, it's laboratory scientist, say, "You're the expert. You should know it," in a very mean manner and unprofessional.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please go back to the board, describe what happened next in terms of what's depicted here, the course of the examination.

DR. LEE: The next question I ask, is there any better equipment I can use. The same manner, "That's the best we can give you." I feel little bit upset for this, uncalled for, unprofessional.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, you need to ask questions here.

MR. SCHECK: Now, this picture over here, there's an indication--you're putting your arm into the bag up to the elbow. Why were you doing that?

DR. LEE: To exam whether or not have trace material inside the bag.

MR. SCHECK: The second picture shows you with a piece of paper in the bag. What are you doing there?

DR. LEE: I notice some trace material. However, I was instruct cannot be collected. So I put hand into the paper bag.

MR. SCHECK: What were you doing next with respect to the picture on the far right?

DR. LEE: I notice the socks already cut, seven holes from the one sock, three holes from the other sock. It's not in original condition which I understand.

MR. SCHECK: Now, it's not depicted on this board, but another photograph has been shown in this courtroom of you holding socks up to a light for examination.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Can you explain why you were doing that?

DR. LEE: This is simple basic technique which we use which we call back lighting. You have fabric material, any stain on it, if you lift it up, look, the light shine from the back, it's easily--quickly you can identify potential stain. That's the first, you know, basic technique we instruct student to do.

MR. SCHECK: And incidentally, given the bloodstains that were eventually identified in the sock, if in earlier examination, the criminalist had picked up one of these socks and looked up into the light, would they have been able to visualize a bloodstain if it were there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

DR. LEE: In theory, should be able to see that. When I pick up the socks, I can see all the stain.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, there's an indication here of moving from one sock to the other sock.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did you examine one sock and then the other sock?

DR. LEE: Yes. I exam one sock at a time.

MR. SCHECK: And between the examination of one sock to the other sock, did you change gloves?

DR. LEE: Yes, I did.

MR. SCHECK: Any question about that in your mind?

DR. LEE: No question about it.

MR. SCHECK: Now, can you tell us what you were able to observe--I think we're--is there anything else of note on this board?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What is that?

DR. LEE: I notice that both socks in one bag, in one envelope. I made a comment, I said why those two socks in one envelope.

MR. SCHECK: And what is the significance of putting both socks in one envelope for--in terms of forensic procedure?

DR. LEE: Start that initial moment, you pick up the socks, put in one envelope, you already contaminate both socks. You have a cross-contamination. It's no longer its virgin state.

MR. SCHECK: Is there any significance in terms of this examination that you are not wearing a lab coat or a hair net?

DR. LEE: I wasn't provide with a lab coat nor a hair net. After I look, these both socks already put in one envelope. Doesn't matter what I wear, space suit, body armor. Still contaminated.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, is there anything else of interest depicted on this board with respect to your examination on February 16th before we move to the Defense board?

DR. LEE: Yes. Because the difficulty of this microscope, I start using magnifying lens to exam. A magnifying lens can only go to four times. Not really great magnification. I look at the microscope. Yes, I can see some reddish stain which resemble to blood. However, if I can not focus onto the surface, I'm not sure. As I scientist, if anything I'm not sure, I don't want to come to this courtroom to testify.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, as you were conducting this examination, what was your--and you indicated that began around 12:40?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: What was your understanding as to when it had to end?

DR. LEE: Has to be ended before 1:30.

MR. SCHECK: Move to the next board?

DR. LEE: No. Not yet. I haven't finished.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. You have a--

THE COURT: Well, who's doing the examination here, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, call your attention to the picture in the bottom right-hand column, "Turns inside out." Can you explain the significance of that?

DR. LEE: I want to see both side of the socks.

MR. SCHECK: Why is that important?

DR. LEE: The out--exterior surface and interior surface, when you made transfer, you should see both side, try to understand the nature or mechanism of any of those transfer.

MR. SCHECK: With respect to the bottom left-hand photograph, could you describe what's going on there?

DR. LEE: I'm taking pictures. However, only this not a photomicrograph, just a regular picture. In addition, I put a ruler on top of the socks.

MR. SCHECK: Why did you put a ruler there?

DR. LEE: To show the dimension of this cutting.

MR. SCHECK: Any other pictures that would assist you in describing the next board that's on the Prosecution's board?

DR. LEE: The ruler of this and that is a two different rulers.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, these are--and what are these rulers?

DR. LEE: The ruler--I carry a lot of rulers. As matter of fact, like a business card. A lot of people collect my rulers or usual, after I exam, just pass away, give it to someone. In this day, I give quite a few ruler to people in the room.

MR. SCHECK: So these are two different rulers?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now turning to--I forget the number.

THE COURT: 1353.

MR. SCHECK: 1353.

MR. SCHECK: Could you describe for us what these photographs are on 1353?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Concerning the examination you did on February 16th, 1995.

DR. LEE: This board consist of nine pictures, three columns. Column 1, picture no. 1 depicts a portion of view of this brown paper bag, numerous writing on this brown paper bag, initials, numbers, tape, which indicative numerous examination already performed. Second photograph depicts an envelope appear to be from Department of Justice. This envelope also have initials and writings and different date, which again consistent with this envelope being open, socks being exam. The last picture of this first column is an overall view when I took the content out. Consists of two socks, two little subterfuge tubes. Inside of subterfuge tube appear to be little fabric material remain in those tubes (Indicating). Column no. 2 depicts the socks--

MR. GOLDBERG: Narrative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Depicts socks 13-A, an overall view, shows the socks with my ruler. On the socks, I notice some trace material adhere on the socks. I did not remove it. Also, I notice there cutting. One of the cutting have blood-like stain on the periphery area. There are some reddish smear on the other side of the socks.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, let me stop you right there. Would you say that this photograph is what is 13-A, right?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And this is the cutout from the ankle stain area, 13-A?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And this is--the cut-out section was the material that was used to do RFLP typing by the Department of Justice and cellmark that got RFLP results consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you've indicated that on what has been characterized in previous testimony as surface no. 3--

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --that you saw reddish stain?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did you put that in your notes?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Why not?

DR. LEE: I can not document. I can not prove the existence of it. Therefore, I did not put down.

MR. SCHECK: And you can't do that because?

DR. LEE: Because I don't have a--equipment capable to do a close-up photomicrograph documentation.

MR. SCHECK: Could you please move on to the column 13-B.

DR. LEE: Column 13-B shows the other socks, overall view picture. It's the first frame. Next picture shows the three cutting on the socks, some marking on the socks. The last frame of the socks again shows they are different stain and trace material adhere on the socks.

MR. SCHECK: Anything else of interest with respect to the socks on this board?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: And I'd ask that the next board be put up, which would be marked 13--

THE COURT: 54.

MR. SCHECK: 54? 1354, your Honor, is entitled, "History of socks, item 13, April 2nd, 1995, examination at Taylor's laboratory."

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Deft's 1354 for id = board)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, did you have an opportunity to examine the socks again on April 2nd, 1995?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And where did this take place?

DR. LEE: This take mark Taylor's laboratory in California.

MR. SCHECK: And were representatives of the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory present?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And when you were conducting this examination?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you please describe for us through these photographs the examination.

DR. LEE: The overall picture shows the package April the 2nd when this been transferred to me to exam. Before any cutting, I photograph document, now have more bags, envelopes.

MR. SCHECK: Is it your understanding that between the time that you examined the sock on February 16th and this examination, that Agent Martz performed the EDTA testing at the FBI?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Do you have an understanding an examination was performed at the FBI prior to your receiving this on April 2nd?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Please proceed.

DR. LEE: Examine this envelope, I see FBI labels which indicative this--

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: So first paragraph indicates the package.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of your examination in the photographs, can you describe what was done next?

DR. LEE: Next one, after this envelope was cut open, inside contents of envelope, I photograph this envelope again to document the condition. Now have more signatures and initials.

MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph 13-A, 42-A?

DR. LEE: 13-A, because this have different numbering system, I see some locations say 42. So that's why we say parenthesis 42-A. That's one socks, the ankle stain depicts in this photo.

MR. SCHECK: Now, to your knowledge, is 42-A the Department of Justice reference to the sock and 13 would be the LAPD item number?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Were there any differences between the cutting as you saw it on April 2nd and the one on February 16th?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What are they?

DR. LEE: I saw this hole being enlarged, additional piece being cut away. Initially, it's a rectangle shape. Now, become irregular jagged edge shape.

MR. SCHECK: Call your attention now to 13-B, parenthesis 42-B photograph. What's that?

DR. LEE: 13-B, 42-B depicts a close-up view, shows that's three holes which been cut from this particular socks.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Call your attention now to a photograph that is called close-up 42-A-1. What is that?

DR. LEE: This because the quashing, which we want to constantly reexam, is relate to this particular stain. This particular stain, which shows a close-up view, shows the surface 1 and surface 3 (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Now, incidentally, what kind of equipment were you using at the time of this examination?

DR. LEE: I use my own microscope with photographic attachment. Also use a light source, which my own light source.

MR. SCHECK: And what is the magnification on that microscope?

DR. LEE: It's approximately seven to 17 times.

MR. SCHECK: And--why does the color change incidentally between the photographs in the middle that are dark and the close-up of 42-A-1 that appears--

DR. LEE: You have an external light source and start reflecting and photograph the document, going to have artificial light source for color.

MR. SCHECK: What is the next photograph in the upper right-hand side labeled, "Close-up exterior surface left side 42-A-1"?

DR. LEE: This one depicts an area here, the periphery surface, one in the photomicrograph, approximately 25 times. Shows where bloodstain on the surface still remain on the surface.

MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph on the bottom right hand?

DR. LEE: The bottom right hand, it's approximately the same magnification. However, shows surface 3, one area of surface 3.

MR. SCHECK: Did you make any observations from this photograph B, surface 3?

DR. LEE: Surface 3, if we look at this picture around 5:00 o'clock, this location, I see numerous little dot, reddish color blood-like substances.

MR. SCHECK: You actually can see that on the picture entitled close-up interior surface?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Would it be possible to just circle a few of them?

DR. LEE: Yes. (The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Before we turn to the next--the next board has further close-ups; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is there anything else of interest before we move to the next set of close-ups?

DR. LEE: Yes. With this magnification, I can see a different population as a blood-like material. Some appear in a ball shape. Other appear in a crust, flaked type of shape. Some of those flecks, flake appear adhere on the fiber. Other appear to be loosely on the surface.

MR. SCHECK: So those are flakes and balls?

DR. LEE: And crust.

MR. SCHECK: Crust. Any other observations before we move to the next set of close-ups?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Can we have the next board, please? This would be, your Honor?

THE COURT: 1355.

MR. SCHECK: 1355 entitled, "History of socks, item 13, close-up view of bloodstain on item 13-A, (42-A)."

(Deft's 1355 for id = board)

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, would you explain to us what these series of six photographs represent?

DR. LEE: The six photograph, the top row, three, represent exterior surface with magnification. The bottom row, three frame of picture, represent the interior surface with magnification.

MR. SCHECK: So the bottom row is what's known as surface 3?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Now, we previously had, when Professor MacDonell was testifying, two photographs put into evidence, one exhibit no. 1277, and the other one, 1278. Ask you to examine these and tell us if either of these photographs are also on this board.

DR. LEE: Yes. Exhibit no. 1277 represent a view of the 3rd column, top. The landmark is a 2 curvature of fabric showing in the middle portion of this photograph. The second one, which representing this board, the second column, bottom frame, a ball-like reddish stain showing in this location.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And so this photograph, Defendant's 1278, with the circle, the blue circle, that is what Professor MacDonell was referring to as a little red ball?

DR. LEE: Yes. The same location, but this have a higher, bigger enlargement.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee, would you please proceed with your description of the examination you performed in terms of these six photographs.

DR. LEE: First row, exterior surface, on the surface, fabric surface, have blood-like stain. Those bloodstain basically distribute on the fabric itself. So these two view represent two different locations. When you enlarge it, you see the socks have gaps, little holes. When you look at the fabric itself, the wave pattern looks very tight. The fabric itself very smooth. It's a non-absorbent type of a fabric. The bloodstain basically sitting on the surface, did not absorb into the fabric itself. These little holes, if you focus through the hole, you can see some reddish stain, blood-like stain went through the hole. Next row of picture depicts the surface 3. Again, we can see those little ball-like, bead-like material. However, it's become very difficult to photograph to--into 70 time. The distance, room for focus getting less and less. So you only can focus and photograph one stain at a time. You can not say take a picture, shows a row of balls. You only can show one. The rest going to be out of focus. This picture shows one of the better representation. Subsequently, I took some other picture, and I see some little ball material in here. In addition, there piece of unknown substances was also found on these socks (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Could you please circle on the photograph to the far--far right-hand corner some of the other little balls that you saw.

DR. LEE: (The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, altogether, how many little balls did you observe on April 2nd?

DR. LEE: I observed--observed approximately 10.

MR. SCHECK: If--and you say that this observation was made by changing the focus of the microscope?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, why did you just document these two pictures?

DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in order for these red balls to have come to be as they appear on surface no. 3, does this require a transfer between surface 2 and surface 3?

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: It not necessary to have a surface 2, surface 3, but surface 1--surface 2 have to be contact surface 3.

MR. SCHECK: So surface 1 has to contact surface 3?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Surface 2 has to contact surface 3. They'd be lying on each other?

DR. LEE: Right.

MR. SCHECK: And in terms of the significance of these balls, what does--what does that indicate, the form of those red balls?

DR. LEE: It consistent with this transfer being a liquid stage.

MR. SCHECK: And how does that distinguished from the--you said there were flakings that you had seen in other photographs. What's the difference?

DR. LEE: Those transfer, some could be in liquid stage, did not form a ball, prior to the forming of ball, collect, or due to a secondary transfer from another surface during examination and get transfer.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Professor MacDonell testified that the stain on surface 1 and surface 2 and surface 3 was consistent with a transfer stain starting when the socks were laying on a flat surface and no leg was in the sock. Are you aware of that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: That's his testimony. I have nothing to dispute with him.

MR. SCHECK: So you agree?

DR. LEE: I agree.

MR. SCHECK: Now, let me ask you--well, I take it, if a leg is in the sock, you can't have contact between those two surfaces?

DR. LEE: Very difficult to do such a thing.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Let me ask you about some suggestions that have been made about mechanisms of transfer. Let me ask you to assume that this sock were--was at the crime scene and one of the victims, perhaps Miss Simpson, grabbed the sock. Could that have caused the transfer, assuming there was a leg in the sock?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, calls for speculation, conjecture.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Before I answer this, the mechanism, manner of transfer, that's two separate thing. Mechanism and manner is different.

MR. SCHECK: Well, could you please explain the difference?

DR. LEE: A mechanism, for example, if the blood goes through this little hole, did not touch the foot surface too, that's a mechanism. Just like a screen window have little holes. When the screen window wet, the stain going to be on top of the screen window. Unless certain force, certain condition, that little drop of a liquid may go through the hole, and subsequently, you have a contact, can soak through and get the formation. That's called mechanism. Manner can be touching with hand, touch with pointer, touch with an ear, touch with a nose. Those manner can be different, can subject to a lot of interpretation and possibilities.

MR. SCHECK: So let me rephrase my question in terms of the manner of transfer.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Assume that these socks were at the crime scene on an individual. If they had been grabbed by one of the victims whose hands were bloody, could that manner of transfer have caused what you see?

DR. LEE: It's hard--

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: It's highly unlikely.

MR. SCHECK: Why is that?

DR. LEE: If a grabbing, if both--other side of forefinger touch, I should see both sock have a contact or contact smear. In addition, if somebody's leg is inside of the socks, still, when that cause this manner of mechanism of transfer.

MR. SCHECK: If--ask you--a suggestion has been made that--you're aware that a phenolphtalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, ask you to assume that a phenolphthalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994. Could the application of a swab in a phenolphthalein test to this stain be the mechanism of transfer?

DR. LEE: If a phenolphthalein test, the technique used properly, in other words, not soaking the swab wet to wet, usually just moist the swab, it's not sufficient liquid to redissolve because the contact of the swab to surface should be brief. Shouldn't have that, but I can not rule out all the possibilities. As a scientist, I only can tell you some may be consistent with, some may be high unlikely.

MR. SCHECK: Is this one unlikely?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: This probably unlikely, but I can not rule out. I'm not the one did the swabbing.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of the blood crust and the issue of diffusion, does that have some relationship to your opinion that this is an unlikely mechanism of transfer?

DR. LEE: Because here have sufficient amount of blood crust on a surface, in general, we use a dry swab or dry filter paper, which will avoid this potential problem since all those crusts, you probably don't need to rub back and forth hard to cause a transfer.

MR. SCHECK: It has been suggested that if a bloodstain occurred on this sock and then someone was sweating in the socks, that this would cause the stain to dry more slowly and could be the mechanism of transfer.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: That's as to the form of the question, your Honor?

THE COURT: Foundation is what it is.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. SCHECK: Foundation?

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, let's assume that a bloodstain was deposited on the sock and then 10, 15 minutes later, some--during that 10-, 15-minute period, someone was sweating in the socks and then the socks were taken off. Could that result--could that be a mechanism or manner of transfer that would be consistent with your observations here?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Also calls for speculation, conjecture.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: The bloodstain on the surface still in an intact shape, if a bloodstain dissolves, say, the socks with a lot of sweat should become a diffused pattern. But again, I can not rule out any possibility. May be possible, but unlikely.

MR. SCHECK: Last question. Assume, Dr. Lee, that the socks--a cutout was made of the socks, there was some patterning of blood, the sock was put into a freezer, taken out and then condensation occurred. Could that form the little balls that you observed?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Assume that the socks were cut, that after the cutting of the socks, there was patterning of blood, that the socks were then put into a freezer. Assume further they were taken out of a freezer. Assume further that there was condensation. Could that form the little balls that you observed?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation. Calls for opinion, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, Dr.--

THE COURT: No foundation as to experience in this sort of thing, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Do you have foundation--do you have experience, Dr. Lee, with putting biological evidence in and out of freezers?

DR. LEE: We store our biological specimen in the freezer. We have to take in and out once a while, but not every minute. So I really cannot say take out every minute, what kind of effect going to cause.

MR. SCHECK: But do you take--when you say "Every minute," what do you mean by every minute? If biological evidence is stored--ask you to assume biological evidence is stored for a matter of days and then taken out. Cutout is made. Could patterning from that cutout--let me start it this way.

MR. SCHECK: I'm running--maybe I should--rather than struggle with this hypothetical, my last hypothetical in this area, I think we should go to the dentist.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the evening. Please remember all of my admonitions; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess. All right. When we regroup, I would like to see counsel, and we'll proceed to arguments on the other matters.

(Recess.)

(Pages 42937 through 42940, volume 211A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. We have two matters that we can resolve at this point. First of all, we have an issue regarding access to the tape-recordings, the so-called Fuhrman tape-recordings. And yesterday the court received via telephone through the clerk a request from counsel Darryl Mounger who I understand now represents mark Fuhrman and a request for access to the tape recordings that are involved here. I also understand that the Los Angeles city attorney's office, at the request of the Los Angeles police commission, is going to also be requesting access to those tapes.

And I note the presence of our city attorney, James Hahn and Miss House as well. Also present, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan representing the interests of Miss McKinny. Let me ask, first of all, informally, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Mounger, have you discussed the matters with Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan to see if you can informally resolve the matter?

MR. MOUNGER: Yes, your Honor. I talked to Mr. Regwan today and asked him if his client would agree to Detective Fuhrman being included in the protective order that was provided around the tapes, and he indicated that his client was not willing to do that, so therefore I am here.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Hahn.

MR. HAHN: Yes. We have spoken with the attorneys and we were just speaking just before the court took the bench. They are still opposed to allowing the police commission access to copies of these materials. We are trying--we are hopeful that we can continue to maybe persuade them, but perhaps the court could be helpful in that matter.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Regwan, good afternoon, gentlemen.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: You seem to be regular participants here these days.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Unfortunately. What we did do is we offered to give access to both the city attorney's office and the Los Angeles Police Department and Mr. Mounger under our supervision in our office so that they can listen to any and all portions of the tape that they feel is necessary for their own interest and to let them read from the corresponding transcripts. We are reluctant to make other copies. As the court well knows, there is a terrible problem with leaks and it is debilitating the value of my client's intellectual properties and I have to do everything I can to protect against that. So at least the city attorney's office and the police commission and the LAPD have already taken us up on our offer. They have been in our offices the last two days and they are going through these materials and I don't know how they can better their investigation aside from just listening to these tapes and taking their appropriate notes and hearing what they need to hear. I don't think it is necessary to actually have to make other copies and have them floating around. That is just posing another danger to our client's intellectual property interests. And we are doing everything we can to cooperate. We know everyone has a lot of concerns regarding these materials. We have been working with everybody. We just don't want to make other copies available to other people, but we will give everybody access for their own purposes.

THE COURT: All right. Is that correct, Mr. Hahn, that the police commission has had access to at least be able to listen to the tapes and take notes and review the transcripts?

MR. HAHN: That's correct, your Honor, and for the past two days that has been going on. I apologize to the fact that we just now were able to prepare some documents that were submitted to the court. Included in those documents is a declaration from the commission president, Deirdra Hill, indicating that she has gone over and taken advantage of this offer, but that she believes in order for the commission to really do its job and for the police department to be able to fully investigate these matters, this is a somewhat cumbersome way of doing things and taking notes when sometimes the exact words are going to be important is not as accurate for them. In order to do the kind of investigation that would--would satisfy them and have that kind of reliability, they would want to go back and review portions of these transcripts, review portions of these tapes. Maybe there is words that are unclear that need to be listened to by two or three people. We don't know yet what the accuracy of the transcripts are versus what is actually on the tapes. Those kind of issues are ones that certainly we can get a general idea by listening and taking notes, but it is not the way, and I'm sure the court is familiar with this, that Los Angeles Police Department likes to conduct these kind of investigations. And they believe in order to do a proper investigation, which they believe the public really demands, that they need access to these materials in a way so that they can view them on their time on their schedule and in a way that is most beneficial to getting at the bottom of these allegations to see whether or not there is any truth to them, to see whether or not this is going to lead to further investigations. And while we are very grateful for the opportunity to be able to listen to these tapes and to review the transcripts at the law office, it really is not going to be the way that we can complete this investigation.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Hahn, you indicated--did you file something this afternoon?

MR. HAHN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I have not had the chance to peruse that.

MR. HAHN: I recognize that.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Mounger, what is your position on behalf of Mr. Fuhrman?

MR. MOUNGER: My position is somewhat different. I have a client who the media and the world has been told has perjured himself and I have to advise that client on what his legal position must be when he come back to this witness stand. Therefore, I need to listen to those tapes or at least the proffered areas that they plan on cross-examining him on so that he can know what his position is. When he was--my position is that when he was first here, as all police officers that were here, his statements were compelled, because his department requires that he testify. If he does not testify, he can be terminated for insubordination. That is part of the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles Police Department. But now when he returns he returns as a private citizen, and unlike a position he would have if he took the 5th amendment before, he may in fact need to take the 5th amendment or choose to take the 5th amendment at this point. Until I have an opportunity to review what the statements are and have access to them, as well as my client, to know the context in which they are said, I'm not in a position to properly advise him. My client additionally is without the state. He is not in California at this point. And whatever communication I have with him needs to be in privacy. I would hope that I have enough of a reputation with at least this court that I am not going to disclose anything. I have been involved in cases that have protective orders before and have never revealed any information. I wish only to use them for as long as it takes me to review them with my client. I will immediately return them. I'm not in the same position as the city with administrative investigation. I have a client witness that is going to take the witness stand that is supposed to be a perjurer.

THE COURT: All right. The difficulty I have, counsel, is that this is a relatively unusual situation for which there is no guidance or precedent. We have two non-parties, the city of Los Angeles and Detective Fuhrman, coming to this court asking for access to evidence that we have gotten by means of a subpoena duces tecum through the interstate process, that the person who owns these materials owns it both physically, and as an intellectual property, has consented to give us these materials without too much of a fight and has asked for reasonable restrictions on the use of those items. The problem being is that for reasons that are pretty transparent, those items have been leaked and has the impact of--I don't know that it necessarily diminishes the value, perhaps it hypes even it more to pique the interest, because we are talking about hours and hours of tapes which the proffer is less than an hour at this point. So my--my concern is that the court in a criminal case has jurisdiction over the items, so far as it relates to the parties before me, and I don't know that either Detective Fuhrman or the city of Los Angeles or the police commission has standing to ask this court to do anything other than disclose these--this information to the parties--real parties in interest, plus I don't know that I would be exceeding my jurisdictional authority if I did that. And judges these days, given the growing area of non-judicial immunity, are loathe to go into areas where there is no clear precedent that this would be within my judicial discretion to grant the relief that you are asking. So I think that the--at this point the offer of Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan to make the tapes available to you to listen to I think at this point is probably the best compromise. I realize it is not the most convenient thing to do, Mr. Mounger and Mr. Hahn.

MR. MOUNGER: Well, your Honor, may I--

THE COURT: Let me just make one further observation. The transcript that accompanied Miss McKinny's materials I think we all agree is not a professionally prepared transcript. I understand the Prosecution has prepared their own transcript and I believe that was delivered to the court this morning; is that correct, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And the Defense has also prepared some of its own transcriptions as well; is that correct, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: All of them.

THE COURT: All right. So now we are going to have three sets of transcripts as to one tape all from three different sources. Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Regwan, I am acquainted with these three counsel, Miss House, Mr. Mounger and Mr. Hahn, and I have great faith in their professional integrity. I am inclined to request that you talk to your client, to allow the court to give to Mr. Mounger and Mr. Hahn and Miss House, one copy for the police commission, one copy for Mr. Mounger of the District Attorney's prepared transcript with each copy with the appropriate "Do not copy" stamp on it so we can tell if it ever turns up again photocopied where it came from, but I feel confident that I could order both Mr. Hahn and Mr. Mounger not to make any copies, and return those transcripts to the court within a reasonable period of time. I understand you would need, however, the consent of your client to do that, and if you could consult with your client, contemplate that.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you, your Honor. I will do as you request; however, I'm sure this court has the same level of confidence for the professionalism of all the other attorneys here, and as we know, something is amiss and something has been leaked by somebody this court has confidence in, and the more people that have this--

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Schwartz, what I said is I have personal confidence in Mr. Hahn, Mr. Mounger and Miss House, since I know these people. That is what I've said, so--

MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Your Honor, I will ask my client for her permission to do that. We would request, if she is so inclined, reimbursement for the copying costs.

THE COURT: Actually what I had in mind is the transcript prepared by the District Attorney's office.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. That will be fine, as long as it is okay with my client.

THE COURT: It would not be at her cost.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Subject to my client's approval, that will be fine.

THE COURT: All right. My staff would do the stamping for purposes of photocopy protection.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. May I address the issue of the leaks and the proposed hearing?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. We have done what you--

THE COURT: Actually, counsel, let me do this: Let me ask you to step into chambers and discuss this matter with you, the court reporter, two counsel from each side.

MR. SCHWARTZ: That will be fine.

THE COURT: All right. Let's do that.

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, may I address one thing before leaving the bench?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MOUNGER: I understand there is also under seal a proffer of items that will be offered against Mr. Fuhrman. May I will get a copy of that document?

THE COURT: Yes, I will order that.

MR. COCHRAN: What is that?

THE COURT: And the People's response.

MR. COCHRAN: I didn't hear the question.

THE COURT: A request for Detective Fuhrman's counsel to have a copy of the proffers that have been filed.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor, may I say one thing? And I am really gland to see Mr. Mounger here, a fine criminal lawyer. This is in the nature of impeachment and before the court orders that I think the court would want to perhaps hear from the Defense in that regard. This is our proffer and I would just think you would want to do that. That would seem reasonable and fair. This is the nature of impeachment with tapes that we pursued and got that, so I would ask the court to consider that before you make a final order.

THE COURT: You are objecting I take it?

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to think about it if I might.

THE COURT: I want to deal with the issue with the leak, however, with counsel.

MS. CLARK: May we ask, your Honor, that the court provide Mr. Mounger with a copy of the People's--that the court's copy be provided to Mr. Mounger of the People's transcript?

THE COURT: I will make arrangements to have it photocopied.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm not asking you to do that.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may I be excused or does the court want to hear the swatch issue now, this afternoon?

THE COURT: Sure, why not. I thought we were going to do that Friday.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: That was our agreement I thought.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: We are busy.

MR. GOLDBERG: I just wanted to make sure, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel in chambers with the court reporter, please.

(Recess.)

(A conference was held in chambers, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Regwan, I understand that you've been SDT'd for other materials for tomorrow. We will be dark tomorrow, so I will direct you to file any written responses at your earliest convenience. And we will schedule any argument on any issues you may want to raise for Tuesday, August 29, 9:00 A.M.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I have indicated to counsel that I would not object to the court holding an in camera 352 review of the screenplay, that is, after you rule on the admissibility, if all of the other--

THE COURT: But I may be required to read that to make the ruling on the admissibility as well.

MR. DARDEN: Okay, okay.

THE COURT: So I get to listen to all these tapes, read all these transcripts and now I get to read a screenplay. All right. Anything else with regard to that issue?

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, the last thing I would ask for is just a time frame that I will know--

THE COURT: All right. I anticipate that counsel will be able to communicate with their client sometime over the evening hours. They can inform the clerk. And why don't you give Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Regwan your card, they can notify you by phone of their client's response, and if you feel that there is any other case law, any other authority that I might have in this area, you know, you are welcome to file any points and authorities. I anticipate the hearing on these matters, various and sundry matters, Tuesday morning at nine o'clock.

MR. MOUNGER: All right. Your Honor, it was also my understanding that there was an objection by the Defense to the proffer of proof. Will I be receiving that?

THE COURT: They indicated they wanted some time to think about what their position was.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And unfortunately I won't be able to address that until Friday morning.

MR. COCHRAN: We will think that by Friday I will have some cogent--you might want to call me tomorrow afternoon.

MR. MOUNGER: My last question would be on the copy of the D.A.'s transcripts, when would they be available?

THE COURT: That will be available as soon as I hear what Miss McKinny's response is, since it is actually still her property.

MR. MOUNGER: Thank you very much, your Honor.

THE COURT: In the meantime you may want to avail yourself of the offer to at least hear them, and Mr. Hahn, Miss House, same thing for your position. All right. Okay. Menzione. Miss Snider, good afternoon.

MS. CHAPMAN: Shows how far we go back, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CHAPMAN: It is Chapman now.

THE COURT: My apologies. I wish we could all go back.

MS. CHAPMAN: Yes. When last this issue was before the court, Mr. Douglas was arguing that Miss Menzione's testimony should be admitted and the court asked him to lay a proper foundation and the court felt that he had been unable to do that and I think indicated that we needed to just get a little bit more and perhaps the court would reconsider admitting Miss Menzione's testimony. So we are revisiting that issue today, and if I could just for a moment go back and reiterate what Mr. Douglas said very briefly. And he indicated that Miss Menzione, if she were to testify, would say that she was a travel agent for Thomas Cook Travel corporate emergency travel services and that she would testify under oath and penalty of perjury that on the morning of June 13, 1994, she spoke to a male who identified himself as Orenthal Simpson, that he also indicated his ex-wife had just been murdered, that he had two children, age 9 and almost 6, and that he needed to get back to Los Angeles from Chicago. Also that he had taken the redeye the night before. It was Mr. Douglas' position that this information was very specific and particular and it was his feeling and position that this was specific and particular enough to lay the proper foundation. The court, however, deemed it an inadequate foundation and the Defense has since that time made certain efforts to hopefully augment the foundation that was previously laid by Mr. Douglas. And in that connection, Mr. Pat McKenna and I traveled to Chicago two weeks ago to follow up on business records which we had subpoenaed I believe to this court, and the business records that were SDT'd were records from Hertz Corporation, records from American Airlines. I believe the court has a copy of all of these records. I gave them to Ms. Robertson. The American Airlines records are called the p and R, which is the passenger number record, and those are documents that pertain to the airline ticket that Mr. Simpson had. Any activity surrounding that ticket is indicated on those records, the American Airlines p and R. We also subpoenaed records from Thomas Cook Travel and Thomas cook's watts line, which we are still waiting for and won't be available for several weeks. We also have the hotel phone records, and at least two of these business records are corroborative of Miss Menzione's statement. The hotel phone records indicate that Mr. Simpson--

THE COURT: My recollection is that part of the offer of proof made by Mr. Douglas that--excuse me--the offer of proof by Mr. Douglas did not include the phone records.

MS. CHAPMAN: Oh, really? Okay.

THE COURT: Is my recollection.

MS. CHAPMAN: Okay. Well, included in your packet, and also we provided a packet of material to the Prosecution, there is a copy of the telephone calls that were made from Mr. Simpson's hotel room. I believe those records were included in the discovery originally provided by the People in the murder book. And those records indicate that there was a call made from Mr. Simpson's room at 8:27 to American Airlines. Additionally, further corroborative, is the American Airlines p and r which indicates that a call was made again surrounding that airline ticket at 8:24 to American Airlines. On that American Airlines p and r there is a number which is 21pu, and that is the employee number of the person who took the call. We also believe that that is the person who connected Mr. Simpson to Lori Menzione; however, American Airlines will not reveal the name of that person to us until they've had an opportunity to okay it with that person and they have been unable to reach her. They did indicate, however, that if the court wanted to call them, they would give that information to you. So it is our belief that it is that individual who connected Mr. Simpson to Lori Menzione. It was very, very troubling because Thomas Cook Travel agency was purchased last year by American Express Travel Services and all of their in-house notes and back-up records were destroyed. The Hertz records--we went to Hertz in Chicago. We talked to those employees and an exhaustive search revealed that no employee of Hertz took the call, so we are relatively certain that it was American Airlines that made this connection. It is our feeling then, therefore, that because we have these two corroborative records, the hotel phone records, in addition to the American Airlines p and R, that hopefully that will augment the foundation enough such that Miss Menzione could then come in and testify about the telephone conversation that she had with Mr. Simpson on that morning.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I will hear from the People.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Very briefly. Even if we assume that the p and r is admissible as a business record and they can lay a foundation for that independently, it still does not match up with the time on the phone bill that indicates a phone call was made to American Airlines. American Airlines call indicated on the phone bill is timed at 8:27. The p and r call to Thomas cook is indicated at 8:24. Beyond that, I see--the bigger problem I see, your Honor, which is--I would like to cut to the chase. I think we are all tired. The bigger problem with this issue is that even if they meet the foundational requirement for linking up the identity of who the caller was by phone record, we have a much more grave problem with the exception to the hearsay rule under 1240. There is no indication, either in--in either the notes of Miss Menzione, which were made closest in time to the phone call and most representative of her recollection, nor in a subsequent interview that was conducted with Miss Lewis, that indicates that anytime the Defendant was at all upset or excited or any of the other foundational requirements that would have to be laid for the admissibility of this hearsay. And it reflects in her statement, your Honor--does the court have a copy of this? All right. The statement indicates that Mr. Simpson was calm, was not upset, was not excited, that the--there was a shattering motion as--a crashing sound as though a phone had fallen.

THE COURT: The phone had fallen.

MS. CLARK: Correct.

THE COURT: I have read the papers.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Thank you. But he was calm about that. The only time there is indicated any kind of concern that might approach excitement is when Miss Menzione suggested to him that his children might have seen the murder. There is lots of import in that, but nevertheless, I'm sure that is not the focus of what the Defense wants to get in through Miss Menzione. That would be the only even arguable basis for the admission where they have some foundation. And so the People submit that the foundation has not been laid either as to the identity of the caller but certainly completely not been made as to 1240.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Chapman.

MS. CHAPMAN: Well, again it is our position that the foundation has now been laid and we also think that it is an exception to the hearsay rule, both under 1240 as well as under 1250. We think that all of the--

THE COURT: But how would his mental state be relevant to the issues in this case?

MS. CHAPMAN: Well, as your Honor knows, an issue in this case is when Mr. Simpson cut himself. And there has now been testimony from Detective Berris at least that there was a broken glass in the hotel room. There has been testimony from Dr. Baden about the origination of that cut and so it would certainly be relevant.

THE COURT: I agree with you as to that, but doesn't 1250 have to do with mental state and that sort of thing?

MS. CHAPMAN: Well, yes, his mental state at the time certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MS. CHAPMAN: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: The point I'm making is I don't think 1250 is a particularly good argument to make. I think the argument is 1240, spontaneous declaration. The argument that Miss Clark is making is that reading between the lines she is going to say that a macho professional athlete like Mr. Simpson could--he could play Superbowls with injuries like that, he wouldn't care, that that is something to him would be a minor inconvenience and would not--would be something that he would ignore.

MS. CHAPMAN: Well--

THE COURT: And that this is an event that is not likely to engender the kind of spontaneous declaration that you are attempting to offer here.

MS. CHAPMAN: Well, I disagree with that. I think that all of the exceptions to the hearsay rule are exceptions because they are statements that have inherent trustworthiness and because we have someone who is stating something as it is occurring. We also have the further corroboration of Miss Menzione hearing the sound, then I think that that further establishes the trustworthiness which gives rise to the exception in and of itself.

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you this: Miss Chapman, do you believe that we have any dispute as to what it is Miss Menzione is going to say if she is called to testify, given the reports and interviews that have been conducted?

MS. CHAPMAN: I don't think so.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

MS. CHAPMAN: We agree.

THE COURT: Okay. That is pleasant. All right. Anything else?

MS. CHAPMAN: No.

THE COURT: I guess maybe there is a lesson here. All right. Counsel, the issue that I was most concerned with--actually, the issues here are two-fold: One, since Ms. Menzione was not personally acquainted with Mr. Simpson is there enough here in the record for me to believe that there is--in terms of reliability, that the person to whom she was speaking was in fact Mr. Simpson? I don't think that there is too many people needing to go from Chicago to Los Angeles whose name--whose name is Orenthal Simpson who needs to then on an emergency basis change his plane reservations and those reservations are in fact changed and he does in fact come back to Los Angeles on an earlier flight. And if you can produce the phone records--and I'm not concerned about a three-minute difference between American Airlines and a hotel bill because I don't think that they are necessarily--they have to be in sync with each other, that is close enough for this purpose that I am persuaded that they probably reflect the same call so far as the foundation as to whom it was Miss Menzione was talking to--I'm persuaded that there is enough indicia of reliability there for me to believe that it was in fact Mr. Simpson making the phone call. As to the reaction of Miss Menzione and her description of Mr. Simpson's reaction, I don't have a clear enough flavor from the offer, so I'm going to put you between a rock and a hard place. I'm going to tell you that you've made the indicia of who it is you are calling. I don't know if you are over the 1240 hurdle as far as the excitement of the event, because to have somebody say it is a crashing sound I think I need--I want to hear a little flavor to it, so you probably need to bring her out and have her testify out of the presence to see what is there.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may we be heard?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: In order to save everybody some trouble with this, Miss Chapman and I agree that her testimony would be as represented in the statement which indicates that he was calm and reported to her calmly that he had broken a glass.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: He was very--he was somber. There is no indication at all that he was excited at the time of the occurrence. To the contrary, she indicates he was not, so if all of a sudden she is going to take the witness stand and say something different, we are going to have a real trustworthiness problem, your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't know yet. That is the point I'm making. It is hard for me, reading just this here, to make a ruling on the admissibility. I would like to hear from the witness herself. Unfortunately she is in Chicago. So what I'm telling you, Miss Chapman, is that I would like to hear from the witness, but I think you are over the--who it is who is calling aspect, assuming you can lay the foundation for those records.

MS. CHAPMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CHAPMAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MS. CHAPMAN: No.

THE COURT: It is one of those factual calls that is kind of hard to do it from here. I would like to hear from the witness. Is that unreasonable? All right. Anything else. What do we have scheduled for Friday morning? Swatch drying. Got it. All right. We are in recess. Thank you.

(At 4:58 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Friday, August 25, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

The People of the state of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. Ba097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, August 23, 1995 volume 211

Pages 42747 through 42969, inclusive

(Pages 42937 through 42940, inclusive, sealed)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

ALSO PRESENT: Matthew Schwartz, Esquire Ron Regwan, Esquire James Hahn, city attorney Mary House, assistant city attorney Darryl Mounger, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 211 pages 42747 - 42969

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday August 23, 1995 A.M. 42747 211 P.M. 42844 211

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

Motion re access to "Fuhrman" tapes 42941 211

Motion re witness Menzione 42957 211

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Lee, Henry C. 211 (Resumed) 42756bs (Resumed) 42851bs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Lee, Henry C. 211 (Resumed) 42756bs (Resumed) 42851bs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1339 - Posterboard 42756 211 entitled "Imprint evidence at Bundy - imprint evidence on Goldman's blue jeans"

1340-A thru 1340-N - 42789 211 all consisting of 1-page documents of various blood spatter patterns

1341 - Posterboard 42801 211 entitled "Blood stains from closed-in area at Bundy"

1341-A - photograph 42802 211 of a gate, ground and foliage at the Bundy crime scene

1341-B - photograph 42815 211 of a key on the ground and foliage at the Bundy crime scene

1341-C - photograph 42817 211 of a close-up view of a key on the ground with markings (Computer printout)

1341-D - photograph 42818 211 of a gate and ground at the Bundy crime scene

1341-E - photograph 42821 211 of a close-up view of the lower portion of the gate and ground at the Bundy crime scene with markings (Computer printout)

1341-F - photograph 42823 211 of the ground at the Bundy crime scene with markings (Computer printout)

1342 - Posterboard 42827 211 entitled "Evidence from closed-in area at Bundy"

1343 - Posterboard 42840 211 entitled "Evidence found: Eyeglasses/envelope - envelope at Bundy scene"

1344 - Posterboard 42852 211 entitled "Evidence found: Eyeglasses/envelope - envelope at Bundy scene"

1345 - Posterboard 42854 211 entitled "Evidence found: Eyeglasses/envelope - envelope at Albany Medical Center"

1346 - Posterboard 42860 211 entitled "Evidence found: Eyeglasses/envelope - bloodstain evidence on envelope"

1347 - Photograph 42869 211 of red stains on the ground at the crime scene

1348 - Photograph 42869 211 of red stains on the ground at the crime scene

1348-A - photograph 42871 211 of red stains on the ground at the crime scene (Computer printout)

1349 - Posterboard 42878 211 entitled "Evidence found: Envelope"

1350 - Posterboard 42885 211 entitled "Steps in forensic examination

1351 - Posterboard 42892 211 entitled "Trace material found on physical evidence at Bundy"

1352 - Posterboard 42895 211 entitled "History of socks: Item 13, June 13, 1994, at Rockingham"

1353 - Posterboard 42900 211 entitled "History of socks: Item 13, February 16, 1995, examination at LAPD lab"

1354 - Posterboard 42919 211 entitled "History of socks: Item 13, April 2, 1995, examination at Taylor's lab"

1355 - Posterboard 42924 211 entitled "History of socks: Close-up view of bloodstain on item 13A"