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: 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. Bailey, Mr. Scheck. The People are represent the by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel, is there anything we need to take up before we--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, we were in the process of showing exhibits to the Defense and I don't know if we have shown them all of them yet. We have shown them the boards that we brought down, I think all of which--all of which were completed either on Saturday or Sunday--in other words, completed and delivered to our office on Saturday and Sunday. I would like the opportunity just to make sure I have shown the rest of the exhibits to counsel. What I did want to bring up, prior to that, however, your Honor, is that the court may recall that with respect to a couple of our forensic witnesses, particularly Greg Matheson, there was an order by the court that the People not be allowed to discuss certain exhibits that were going to be used during cross-examination with the witness until those exhibits were used, and we would just like a similar arrangement here.
THE COURT: All right. That is reasonable. Mr. Goldberg, how many of these exhibits have you brought down?
MR. GOLDBERG: I have all of my exhibits down in court now and it may take a few more minutes just to make sure with counsel that I've gone over my list and I want to be sure that he has seen everything. Maybe I can do that while I'm standing here.
THE COURT: All right. Well, let's do it right now then.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, any other items you need to show Mr. Scheck?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. I am showing him a couple other items.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, do we have to show pictures of things that are already Defense pictures or already marked? I would assume not.
THE COURT: No. This is new stuff that has already been used, already been presented.
MR. GOLDBERG: There were two video clips that we wanted to use. One was a video clip that was taken after the crime scene was shut down on June 13th of a photographer taking some pictures at Bundy.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't want to describe it further for the record at this point in time. And another one is a video that was taken on the 17th.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. GOLDBERG: Actually that one came from the Defense.
MR. SCHECK: When you say "Turned over," these are tapes that were not put into evidence yet?
MR. GOLDBERG: Portions of the second tape were, but not the clips that we are going to show, and may I just check on the other one?
MR. SCHECK: I think we have a right to see what they are going to use before they use it.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And one was, Miss Clark advises me, was played before the jury.
THE COURT: All right. One has already been played.
MR. GOLDBERG: That is what she has advised me.
THE COURT: The other one?
MR. GOLDBERG: Has not been played, the portion, the clip that we are going to show.
THE COURT: What is the source of this video?
MR. GOLDBERG: News footage that came to us through the Defense from one of their tapes.
THE COURT: All right. This is from the 17th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. News footage as to what? From the Bundy crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I just wanted to look at to it see what they are talking about before they show it. That is all.
THE COURT: All right. Do you want to screen this with Dr. Lee out of the courtroom?
MR. GOLDBERG: If we could, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lee, why don't you step outside for us, please.
DR. LEE: Very well.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Dr. Lee exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, do you have that available?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Approximately how long is this?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Approximately two--two to three minutes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see it.
(At 9:11 A.m., a videotape was played.)
(The playing of the videotape concludes.)
MR. GOLDBERG: That was the clip we wanted to show.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: The footage at the beginning of the police walking in and the grieving couple and then the police walking out, I don't remember that.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: The footage--the aerial footage of the people walking around the rear of Bundy and the back gate, that I remember as being on the clips. I don't remember where the other clips came from. I don't recall having seen this.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: I remember seeing it, but more importantly Mr. Fairtlough tells me that that is where it comes from and I know that he is very familiar with these tapes.
THE COURT: Well, the question being are you going to be able to lay a foundation for the source of this tape and the date and time?
MR. GOLDBERG: We will be able to lay a foundation for the date and the time just as was done with all of the other tapes that were shown here.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Wait. The way we did that was--we were very strictly limited to laying the foundation through the witnesses themselves. We had to show it to the witnesses who were at the scene and have them acknowledge that that was themselves and those we're events that they saw.
THE COURT: At a particular date and time?
MR. GOLDBERG: No. Actually that didn't happen at all, your Honor, and that was a major source of contention.
THE COURT: No, Mr. Goldberg. I allowed the videotape subject to the parties laying a foundation for it as far as date and time.
MR. GOLDBERG: I understand.
THE COURT: My only question as far as I assume the reason for this is to show that there are other explanations why there may be other footprints around?
MR. GOLDBERG: Correct.
THE COURT: Because of the multiplicity of people going up and down that walkway? That is what I assume this is for.
MR. GOLDBERG: Correct.
THE COURT: The problem being is obviously we need a date and time as to when these people are walking up and down the walkway. Do you have some of those police who can testify?
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, yes, we have people who can authenticate this.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: As the court--
MR. GOLDBERG: I think we probably also have a civilian witness who may be here today, but at any rate, we do.
THE COURT: As an a offer of proof you need to tell me who the people are and what they are going to testify to.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well--
THE COURT: You need to make an offer of proof that you can lay the foundation for this.
MR. GOLDBERG: The offer of proof would be that there are police officers that were there at the time that will be able to say that is the 17th, including people like Ron Phillips, including Ron hardy who is one of the civilian witnesses depicted in the tape.
THE COURT: I saw Mr. Hardy.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this is not at all going to be difficult. I mean, these are very unique events that hopefully will never happen again.
THE COURT: No, Mr. Goldberg, the only point I'm making is that you need to make me an offer of proof naming names as to who is going to tell me this.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. It would seem to me that if they want to put this on in terms of the facts and circumstances of what those people walking in--well, it was my understanding, for example, from speaking with Mr. Hardy when we went to visit the crime scene, that he had washed down the front area of all the blood.
Now, the question is, you know, when did these events take place? They are not presumably walking through blood from the front walkway up. All those would have to be examined with some particularity. It seems to me for purposes of cross-examining Dr. Lee it is sufficient to ask him questions about how foot impressions could occur at dates prior to the time that he was there and would that change his opinion. But it seems to me improper at this point in time, given this offer, to allow them to show the tapes. They can put it on in their rebuttal case, they can lay the proper foundation, but it seems to me doing this at this time would be improper and certainly something that we were not permitted to do with any of the Prosecution witnesses. In other words, every tape we had to have a Prosecution witness, be it Detective Lange or be it Fung or Mazzola, who would say, yes, I remember either seeing those people--
THE COURT: That is not correct, Mr. Scheck. A allowed you to use several videotapes on offers of proof that you could establish when they were made and when they came--where they were from, and some of them obviously were self-authenticating, given the events that they depicted. That wasn't necessary.
MR. SCHECK: I thought--my recollection was, is that in each and every instance we had to show the tape to the witness and the witness had to say I recall those events or I was there at that event.
THE COURT: Somebody has to lay a foundation for it, but I have accepted offers of proof.
MR. SCHECK: Well, in any event, it seems to me that at this point in time it would be sufficient to simply ask him questions about that that are consistent with that they think these tapes will show before showing these tapes without an offer. That is all.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, you indicated that there are two videos?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: What is the second?
MR. GOLDBERG: The second video is a video of--that Miss Clark advises me has already been shown from American Journal that shows a photographer walking on the Bundy walk after the--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: No?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Actually I guess there are two tapes. We may have had a miscommunication. One is a tape from American Journal that is People's 101 which shows the police officers rolling up the crime tape and walking up the bloody walk. I think it was originally introduced by the Defense or portions of it, as I recall, with Riske, and showing that the police trampled through and stomped over the blood and so on and contaminated the crime scene and later on the People show that this happened after the crime scene was broken down, so that is one tape. But there was another tape which was apparently then taken chronologically after that which is taken by a photographer or a videographer that shows what I refer to as the second plane of tiles. In other words, the plane of tiles that is immediately west of where Nicole would have been located, and he is walking up and down and he scans back and forth over these tiles and shoots into the apartment, and you can see some of the letters still intact, the chalk letters from the crime scene. Crime scene is closed. You can see some of the footprints on the walk and you can see this photographer's foot--feet coming into contact with the walk of course.
THE COURT: And who is this videographer? Who is the videographer?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not sure if it is the same--I'm not sure if it is Darryl Williams.
THE COURT: What is your offer of proof as to being able to lay a foundation?
MR. GOLDBERG: We lay the foundation for this exactly the same way that we lay the foundation for the sequence of tapes that the Defense first showed of Dennis Fung going in and out of Rockingham. That is circumstantially, just as they did.
THE COURT: How long is this second tape?
MR. GOLDBERG: This second one is only about ten seconds.
THE COURT: Let's see it.
(At 9:19 A.m., a videotape was played.)
(The playing of the videotape concludes.)
THE COURT: Is this best quality that you have?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: What were we supposed to have seen from that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you can see a photographer walking on the walkway. You can see chalk marks on the walkway with letters on them. You can see some of the Bruno Magli shoeprints on the walkway.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, let me see it again.
MR. GOLDBERG: You do actually have to look at it more than once to catch all those features, but they are all there.
(At 9:20 A.m., a videotape was played.)
(The playing of the videotape concludes.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And you can also see the photographer's toes, I believe.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you see that? Catch that, your Honor?
THE COURT: There appears to be also candles burning.
MR. GOLDBERG: What? Yes.
MS. CLARK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Do we have a source for this?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Mr. Fairtlough tells us this was provided in video clips provided to us by the Defense, and no, we do not have a source other than that. But the point is, your Honor, that it is obvious it is after the murder because we have chalk marks. It is after the murder because we have Bruno Magli prints and it is before Henry Lee did his examination, and that is all we need to show circumstantially for these purposes.
THE COURT: How do we know it is before Henry Lee did his examination?
MR. GOLDBERG: How would the candles still be burning on June the 25th inside the apartment? And also the--the--the prints at the location weren't as--
THE COURT: You see the Bruno Magli shoeprint--this is a very poor quality videotape. Let me see this again, Mr. Fairtlough.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And on the June 17th video you can see that they did some clean-up, and these look fairly pristine, the Bruno Magli prints.
(At 9:22 A.m., a videotape was played.)
(The playing of the videotape concludes.)
THE COURT: I didn't see anything that lept at me as Bruno Magli shoeprints.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, if the court is--you see, I have been out to the scene now about a half a dozen times and I've been out there with those photographs and I am familiar--very familiar with that Bodziak chart and you can figure out exactly what tiles various prints are on. It is fairly easy to do. Our chart is laid out that way. And if you concentrate on those tiles, and you can tell which tell numbers they are from that photograph, too--
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --once you start orienting yourself with the geographic features.
THE COURT: What is the purpose of this?
MR. GOLDBERG: That there--
THE COURT: Just to show that there is some videographer who is running up and down the walkway taking pictures? Is that the point?
MR. GOLDBERG: Right. It is pretty simple. There is a person who is walking on the walkway.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: I think that this particular one certainly is--based on this offer we have no way of knowing exactly when this picture was taken, who was there, how they were working, what their shoes were like or anything to that effect, so I don't think that based on this offer it could be used at this point for impeachment.
THE COURT: I don't think it is for impeachment. I think it is for cross-examination; did Dr. Lee take this into consideration, the public access to that walkway immediately after the crime scene was processed. I think that is the issue.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I think he can ask that question, but it seems to me that it would be--without knowing when this was taken and what was involved at the time, it seems to me that it would be certainly a 352 problem with respect to showing that to the jury.
THE COURT: But aren't those--isn't the depiction of the candles still burning pretty key indication as to what, when, where and why?
MR. SCHECK: Maybe. I understand that there were even some instances where certain television people went back and did pictures with recreations and may have relit the candles. I mean, I don't know. We haven't been able to authenticate precisely that tape either.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, this is kind of funny because we showed the videotape of--to Riske of someone tromping up the walk based on the same kind of circumstantial argument, only there wasn't anything really to say when it was the defense. The Defense simply wanted to infer, even though Riske, didn't see those events.
THE COURT: Have you made any efforts whatsoever to locate somebody to lay a foundation for this?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, we have started making efforts, but as your Honor knows, we were jammed with the tremendous amount of information at the last minute, and I have been working full-time on this everyday.
THE COURT: Well, you've had this videotape for a long time, counsel.
MR. GOLDBERG: I realize that, but as the court can appreciate, my attentions have been distracted to other things. Your Honor, the way that the court should view these kind of problems is what sorts of arguments can be made and what sorts of inferences can be reasonably drawn from the evidence by the attorneys at the time it is argued. Miss Clark is going to be able to say, look, we know when it was taken because there are chalk marks, there are Bruno Magli imprints. She is going to be able to correlate it back to our chart a hundred percent to show that this was taken after the murder. She is going to be able to point out to the candles to show that it was taken before the 25th of June, and also show the evidence that the walkway was walked--was washed down and therefore the chalk marks wouldn't have appeared, also showing it was before June 25th. What is Mr. Cochran going to do?
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Who washed down the walkway?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think that was already in evidence. That was Ron hardy.
THE COURT: Has he testified?
MS. CLARK: No, he hasn't testified.
MR. GOLDBERG: I thought there was some evidence about him washing it down, but at any rate--at any rate, your Honor, what is Mr. Cochran going to argue? Maybe this wasn't--
THE COURT: Well, at this point it is not relevant as to what Mr. Cochran is going to argue or not argue.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the point is in terms of--
THE COURT: No, no, counsel. That is not the point. The point is if you tell me you are going to bring in Ron hardy to say that he washed down the walkway and washed down the blood and washed away the chalk and that this--then this videotape took place prior to that, then I will allow this. If you can't make that representation to me, then I'm not going to allow it. Take your pick.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, we would like to confirm how far up the walkway he washed before I make that representation.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Miss Clark tells me he washed the whole thing.
MS. CLARK: We have spoken to him.
THE COURT: All right. Then I will allow it.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have a problem with that.
THE COURT: I have ruled, counsel. Next issue.
MR. SCHECK: On the factual representation, I just want to make this point to the court. You should know--
THE COURT: Counsel, I will allow it. It will be subject to a motion to strike. Let's proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Let me put this on the record before they make their representation just so it is clear, and that is it is my understanding the chalk marks were visible all the way to the 25th, all right, and in that walkway area. In addition, when we were at the scene for our last visit prior to the night viewing matter, I had a discussion with Mr. Hardy, and I think it is also in the so-called murder book, about what he washed down and what he didn't, and I think it is perfectly apparent and it is what he told me, that he washed down the front area, all right, the lower plane near the closed-in area, he did not wash down the other walkway. That is clear, because even when Dr. Lee was looking there on June 25th there are still imprints of Bruno Magli shoes, so I don't see how they can make this representation that he washed down that entire walkway area, because I think that on the face of it, that is impossible.
THE COURT: Well, they are making that representation. We will proceed on that.
MR. SCHECK: I find that troubling because it is contrary to what we were told.
THE COURT: Counsel, I find the fact that the candles are there burning and the prints are still there and the chalk is still there pretty compelling circumstantially, so I'm going to allow it.
MR. SCHECK: The candles are the only issue, but I'm--I can't--how do we know that those candles--
THE COURT: Counsel, I've ruled.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
THE COURT: I have explained to you. Anything else?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. There is one more chart that I wanted to use that has been bar coded and it is called "Four-way linkage." It comes from Dr. Lee's book "Crime scene investigation." Can we put that up just so they can see that?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Fascinating.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know it is not a big deal, but I want to give counsel notice of it. It is on page 80.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, you are aware of that? I'm sure you have seen that before.
MR. SCHECK: No. Crime scene investigation?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Nothing too surprising about that since it comes from Dr. Lee's works? All right. Anything else that you need to display?
MR. GOLDBERG: No.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: --with respect to the offers on the footage that was seen before, I take it that--have you ruled on the--I take it you made a ruling on the one with the candles?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I didn't know if you made a ruling on the others before.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Just with respect to those, it seems to me that without any showing as to footwear or if they made any efforts to figure out what the footwear was and what the situation was with respect to blood on what I guess they are saying is June 17th is the offer, as I understand it, it seems to me at this point in time it would--it is a 352 problem. I think it is more prejudicial than relevant at this point. It seems to me that it is perfectly okay for them to ask whether Dr. Lee has considered who has been to the crime scene, under what circumstances on previous occasions and would certain things make a difference, but to show him a tape like that, without any foundation that we have at this point as to exactly what they were wearing, what the circumstances were, what the clean-up was of the area, it seems to me, before they put on those witnesses, unfairly prejudicial.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to overrule the objection subject to the offer of proof by the Prosecution that they can produce a police officer to lay the foundation for that particular videotape.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors. Also, as a matter of scheduling, counsel, we have a juror dental appointment Wednesday, the 31st. That requires us to conclude at 3:15 on Wednesday, just for your scheduling.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, is it the 31st or the 30th?
THE COURT: I'm sorry, the 30th.
MS. CLARK: The 30th?
THE COURT: 30th, Wednesday.
MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I inquire about one other thing on scheduling?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Just so we are ahead. I spoke--first of all, good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: I spoke briefly with Mr. Goldberg this morning because I don't want to have any more down time if we can avoid it, and he indicates he perhaps will finish with Dr. Lee in a half day. The court is aware that you had earlier said we would do--you are smiling. We would do the McKinny matter tomorrow morning. We have another witness we have given the Prosecution I think that will be here for this afternoon. Today is a five o'clock day, right? I'm trying to use as much time as possible. Did the court want to do the McKinny tapes this afternoon? Is there a possibility of that?
THE COURT: I haven't finished my preparations yet.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. We will have one other witness today and we will have a Chicago witness coming tonight.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
(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. 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. Henry Lee.
DR. LEE: Yes.
THE COURT: Dr. Lee, would you resume the witness stand, please.
DR. LEE: Your Honor. Good morning.
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 that Dr. Henry Lee is again on the witness stand. Good morning, Dr. Lee.
DR. LEE: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: Doctor, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may commence your cross-examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning, Dr. Lee.
DR. LEE: Good morning.
MR. GOLDBERG: How are you doing today?
DR. LEE: A little tired.
MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, I just wanted very briefly to ask you a few questions about some of the qualifications that you went over with Mr. Scheck when you began your testimony. Just so we are clear, you are an expert in forensic DNA technology; is that correct?
DR. LEE: A lot of people refer me as an expert, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you consider yourself to be an expert in forensic DNA technology?
DR. LEE: I know something about DNA. Little bit; not everything.
MR. GOLDBERG: Quite a bit, right, in terms of its forensic application?
DR. LEE: Forensic application, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And Mr. Scheck was asking you about some of the things that your laboratory does in the forensic area. Is this laboratory exclusively a forensic laboratory?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And are you using RFLP technology in forensic cases?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are you also using PCR technology in forensic cases?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, are you using PCR technology in criminal cases both to include and exclude people as having committed a crime?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you were asked about some of the cases that you and your lab people have participated in involving the identification of human remains. Do you remember that?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, most of the cases that were referred to happened abroad, I think one in South America and then there was a number of instances in Europe; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Some in this country, too, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What were the technologies that are being used in the cases that you referred to on direct examination for purposes of human identification?
DR. LEE: Human identification basically bone technique, depends on the bone sample. Smaller sample, we have to use PCR, no other choice. If no high molecular weight DNA, with extract from the sample, we will have to do the best we can do. If have a large amount of sample, of course RFLP is a choice.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And sir, when you are saying that you used PCR technology, does that include the cases that you were referring to in--as a result of the conflicts in Europe to identify people that have been killed as a result of the war there?
DR. LEE: Yes. Those are victim was found on an unnamed grave or masked grave, unidentified human remains. For humanity reason we want to find out what is the loved one, so we try to help those country identify those human remain.
MR. GOLDBERG: And Dr. Lee, is it your stated position that forensic scientists are in the best position to evaluate whether PCR technology is ready to make the technology transfer into the forensic field?
DR. LEE: I think forensic scientists should have a good say about what method we should do, what is the reliable procedure, what kind of applications. Certain sample, doesn't matter what we do, we have problems. Other samples, forensic scientists, we should have a choice not dictated by molecular biologist or other scientists tell us what to do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, I wanted to just mention very briefly or ask you very briefly about one of the matters that you just alluded to a few moments ago.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Regarding identification of human remains in cases here in the continental United States.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your most famous such case where you were personally involved at the crime scene, not at the time of the crime, but afterwards.
DR. LEE: Thank you very much.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.--was the People versus Crafts case; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was that a case, sir, where the victim in that case, Helen Crafts, was killed by her husband and she was--he disposed of her by putting her body through a wood chipper machine?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar.
MR. SCHECK: As the jury was filing in Miss Martinez walked over and handed me this rather thick volume and said, "Oh, we are also going to be asking about the Crafts case." So I would like to know--he may know all about Dr. Lee's cases, but I certainly don't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I don't intend to use this for impeachment purposes because I think he is going to tell me everything I want to know. And I'm going to ask him about this case for about three or four minutes very, very briefly.
THE COURT: What are we talking about? Using DNA to tell us who this was?
MR. GOLDBERG: And conventional serology.
MR. SCHECK: Well, could he tell me with some specificity so I know? I may not regard it as impeachment, but I'm entitled no know what he is going to be referring to.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know if he is actually. The body was chopped up, was spread outdoors, it was there for some time, the police collected it, think--
THE COURT: Bits and pieces.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. It is a very famous case.
THE COURT: Yes, I am familiar with it.
MR. SCHECK: I am the only one that isn't.
THE COURT: This is the one where the guy kills his wife, chops her up and puts her in a wood chipper.
MR. SCHECK: This is the wood chipper case?
THE COURT: There is little bits of bones and they do DNA and he says the wife took off. He gives some alibi that she--
MS. CLARK: She split.
THE COURT: --she split or left him or something like that, but she is actually spread over the north forty.
MS. CLARK: Remind you of Trott's case?
THE COURT: Okay. Let's proceed.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Goldberg, you may proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in that particular case is it a fair summary of what happened that the biological evidence was spread over a very significant amount of territory, about 2500 square feet, in the snow by a river as a result of the body having gone through the wood clipper machine?
DR. LEE: The majority this and probably wound up in the river. Only small fragment were found scattered around the river bank.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you got out to the crime scene the police officers were picking out one little piece of evidence at a time; is that correct, in a very laborious process?
DR. LEE: We actually melt the snow inch by inch and we don't know what we picked up, just leaves, debris, and go through preliminary recognition and identification through that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That was the suggestion that you came up with to speed things up, because you saw that the police method was just going to take too long; is that correct?
DR. LEE: No. We work together. It is a team effort.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right. And just so it is clear, what was done in this case is large amounts of snow were put in buckets and then taken into tents and melted and the biological evidence would tend to fall or sink to the bottom of the bucket and all the debris would tend to rise to the top and you just throw the debris out and take the biological evidence out in the bottom?
DR. LEE: Not exactly. Any recognizable material, for example, we found a fingernail, you can recognize, you don't have to throw in a bucket. You just taken it out. If it is bone chips, we can recognize, or a tooth. We have a team of scientists, team of investigator work together since we can see and recognizable right away, you remove it. For example, I can see a scissor, I collect a scissor. I don't have to throw the scissor in the bucket. Things we cannot visually recognize, we use the second procedure.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that included some of the biological evidence in the case?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And Dr. Lee, when that occurred, when the items would fall to the bottom of the bucket, various different biological samples could get mixed together or were mixed together; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And it also mixed together human biological samples with others that were out there, like deer bones and the like; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And despite that, sir, it was proper and you did decide to attempt DNA technology on this evidence; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But this case was a little while ago, as I recall, it was in the mid-eighties?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So with the state of the technology at that time, you were not actually able to do DNA, true?
DR. LEE: No. We did some DNA work.
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you did?
DR. LEE: We did some X, Y, determine male, female.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You were also able to do--when I say "You" I'm also including your laboratory people--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --able to do some conventional serology; is that true?
DR. LEE: We did with laboratory scientists also are some consultant life code scientists, University of New Haven, Dr. Gaensslen, and we bring in a lot of other expert together work on the evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you were able to get results that identified the human remains in that case even though all the biological evidence was mixed together at the time that it was collected?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in fact in that case, to your recollection, did the police transport the biological evidence to the lab in sealed containers?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think that this is outside the scope of direct and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: We--those material collect in a container is a plastic cup, have a screw-up cap. Also put in an envelope, it is a sealed paper bag.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. Now, when you were looking at the soil samples in this particular case, you didn't find biological material such as deer bones or anything like that at the Bundy location, did you?
DR. LEE: I found some biological material, as I testified, hair, that is considered as a biological material. I did not look for deer bone.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you were also asked some questions about your laboratory in general and the people that work for you and such, the environment in which you are working as a forensic scientist, and I wanted to ask you a couple questions there, if I may.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you agree, sir, that one of the practical realities that criminalists face who are working for law enforcement, is budgetary problems and monetary shortfalls?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it true that even recently, after you got into your new laboratory, you had to lay off some people due to some financial difficulties in the state?
DR. LEE: Have to remove, no, that is not correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was that slightly--
DR. LEE: Before. A couple years ago we have to lay off some people. After we moved to the laboratory we have some vacant positions and with the assistance of governor and legislature, we was able to fill those positions.
MR. GOLDBERG: So would you agree, sir, that generally speaking, forensic resources are scarce in the sense that we can't do all the testing and all the study in every case that we would like to do?
DR. LEE: That is absolute correct. Of course if you have the support of the leadership, for example, I have a good boss, my commissioner very supportive to forensic science, so we try to do what supposed to do. Of course impossible to do every possible test in this earth for a certain case.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So in theory there are theories about the ideal in terms of crime scene processing and handling a case that are stated in the textbooks; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Handling crime scene and laboratory tests, that is two separate things. Handling crime scene, you don't need sophisticated instruments such as SEM or mass spectrograph, or handling crime scene basically is training and experience and some mechanic issues.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me give a concrete example. We talked about using videotapes at crime scenes.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And ideally that would be a good idea if we could use that at every crime scene?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: But based upon your experience, not only at your own lab, but traveling around the country as you do into other countries, is it correct to say that even in very serious crimes a videotape is not now currently being used as a standard technique at crime scene identification, crime scene investigation?
DR. LEE: It is difficult to--most--most of crime scene involve homicide usually we suggest use videotaping and most the cases I see videotape when it submit to me, but once in a while cases without videotaping.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that is because we don't have the resources necessarily to do all the videotaping we would like to do; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That is a judgment call. If you want to find a videotape, you always can find a camcorder. Whether or not the department has that, I don't know. I cannot come here to tell you what the LAPD budget looks like.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, does financial difficulty also play a little bit of a role in terms of testing at the laboratory and the amount of testing that do you in a like--
DR. LEE: Yes. That is an excellent question. We usually have to determine what type of test to do first, second, third, so non-destructive test. Basically visual examination, microscopic, microscopic examination, that don't cost any money, then the rest of tests, some are more sophisticated, them cost money, you have to make a judgment call.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to face a lot of problems along those lines over the years in your laboratory, for example, in the old facilities, is it true that when you would use the electrophoresis machines the air conditioning would shut down?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think that this line is going to be irrelevant.
THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm almost finished, your Honor. I just have a couple more questions.
MR. GOLDBERG: And for example, in the DNA testing, you have used paper towels as blotters instead of the blotter paper, to save money?
DR. LEE: Early days. Early days we have to--my laboratory is a mens room, literally a mens room, so you have to do the best you can.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
DR. LEE: You can't just say I'm in a mens room, I don't do any tests.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right. And the drying facilities, up until quite recently, for biological evidence, was in the yard of the laboratory; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That is about fifteen years ago. We don't have a drying room, so everything have to dry in the yard. Even now sometimes dry my clothes in the yard. Nothing wrong dry in the yard.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, no, not at all, and that was particularly true in the summer months, some of the biological evidence you would try to dry in the yard because it was smelly?
DR. LEE: Yes. The older really terrible, you don't want to have the whole laboratory evacuate. Sometime the odor the young and normal person can take.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was the practice of drying the biological evidence in the yard discontinued once when a dog absconded with a rape victim's panties?
DR. LEE: Not really. There are numerous clothing. One of my analysts was assigned to guard those clothing. Somehow a wild dog took a piece of garment and run away and luckily that just one piece of an undergarment. It is not all decomposed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: So since then we have to post two guards to watching the clothing.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And despite these kinds of problems and issues that we have been discussing this morning, generally, Dr. Lee, would it be fair to say that you and your laboratory people in the area of DNA and conventional serology have still been doing a very high quality work?
DR. LEE: We try our best.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. These are little obstacles that have to be overcome; is that true?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, I would like to turn to the shoeprints at Bundy and let's try to divide our discussion up into three categories, if we can. I want to talk about the shoeprints, or excuse me, the--the items that we cannot say are impressions at all for sure.
DR. LEE: What I testify is imprint evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
DR. LEE: Imprint evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is one category, though, items where you can't even be sure that it is in fact an imprint; it could be an imprint, it might not be?
DR. LEE: Well, imprint it is different--it is a term we use to differentiate from impression. Impression is a three-dimensional pattern. An imprint is a two-dimensional pattern. What I testified first day I was here to report to you those two-dimensional imprint pattern I observe on different areas.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, what I'm asking you, though, Dr. Lee, at the Bundy location and the evidence that came from the Bundy location--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --were there certain instances where you saw something and it was your opinion I can't tell whether that is an imprint or not?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: Some evidence I see a pattern because I examine picture. When you examine picture, you are examining something through photographer's camera lens. I wasn't there myself. If I see something, I can tell that is some kind of an imprint. As far as a shoeprint or not, I don't know. I don't want to make an opinion on that.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Well, let's see if we can get into some of the specifics here. Regarding Ron Goldman's jeans--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --with respect to some of the items on the jeans, was it your opinion "I see to parallel line imprint consistent with imprint"?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And by that did you mean I'm not positive whether this is an imprint or not?
DR. LEE: Well, I'm pretty sure it is an imprint; however, as a scientist I usually report to you what I see. I did examine the blue jean, by the way, however, I don't know the blue jean--when somebody wear the blue jean, that is three-dimensional setting.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I think he has answered the question.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. GOLDBERG: It will make things a little faster. I will give you the opportunity to explain.
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, so with respect to some of the items on the blue jeans, it was a situation where you cannot state to a scientific certainty that they were in fact impressions at all; is that true?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, vague, as to which items.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, as to the prints that you were talking about on the right portion of the lower leg--
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: That is vague, "Right portion lower leg."
MR. GOLDBERG: On the right leg, lower portion, Dr. Lee?
MR. SCHECK: There is a board, your Honor. There is a lot on the right--
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: I see some patterns, parallel pattern consistent with imprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And "Consistent with" is a phrase that is used when we are not certain; is that right?
DR. LEE: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sometimes?
DR. LEE: Yeah.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, there was also a photograph that you were shown that depicted the caged-off area and we will get to that in a little more detail later.
DR. LEE: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: But there was something that looked like a hole in that. Do you remember that?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And with regard to that hole, was it your view that you don't know whether it is an imprint or not, it could just be a hole?
DR. LEE: I say that is an indentation. It is not an imprint. Definitely not a two-dimensional thing. It is an indentation.
MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, it could be something that the dog or the gardener dug out?
DR. LEE: I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, were there also some items at the Bundy location where you were able to determine that was an imprint but you weren't sure that it was a shoeprints?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with regard to that, would the envelope fit into that category?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And could that be a fabric pattern on the envelope?
DR. LEE: I compare some known fabric pattern. I cannot match the pattern.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that was the jeans and the shirt?
DR. LEE: Shirt.
MR. GOLDBERG: But is there any way of matching it to the fabric that the suspect was wearing?
DR. LEE: I don't know what the suspect or suspects wearing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. What I'm asking you, Dr. Lee, is could it be some type of fabric pattern on the envelope?
DR. LEE: It could be a parallel line. Any type of object have this same design--
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: --cause a replicate.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you familiar, sir, with the kind of parallel lines that are sometimes on the cuffs of men's sweatsuits?
DR. LEE: I don't know what kind of sweatsuit you refer to. If, say, a fabric design, you have a weave pattern, that couldn't be just a parallel line. It is no other horizontal weave pattern I can see.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we have a parallel line, for example, on a cuff--
DR. LEE: It may be.
MR. GOLDBERG: It may be. And this could be fabric of some type that imprinted the envelope; is that true?
DR. LEE: It is difficult to--if you just look at a surface, it is a flat surface. Something has to be--are a certain force or flat. We say certain force applied have a very definitive line, not something being a curvature surface. I did not see a curvature pattern. Neither I did not see any fabric design.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. We will get back to that a little later then. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to--well, did you form the opinion that that was a shoeprint?
DR. LEE: No. I said consistent--could have made by a shoe.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the prints on the Bundy walk--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --there were two parallel line prints that you saw on the walk; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those were in fact shoeprints, correct?
DR. LEE: In June 25th that--yes, I did issue opinion one definite is a shoeprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, would it be fair to say, Dr. Lee, that the only items that you identified that you are certain that it is, one, an imprint?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And two, a shoeprint?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are those two items on the Bundy walk?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would it be correct to say that in your opinion you determined that they were in blood?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you say, therefore, Dr. Lee, would it be fair to say that from a forensic science standpoint by far the most important compelling imprint evidence that you discovered would be those imprints?
DR. LEE: All the imprint evidence important. If you say shoeprints, you are right, you are correct, that, too, is compelling. If you say imprint, those--every imprint is equally important.
MR. GOLDBERG: But only those that you were able to identify are the ones on the Bundy walk?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And there were two of those?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And we will come back to those a little bit later, but let's just move on to bindle 47, which was the one that had the transfer stains in it. Do you recall what I'm talking about?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is it your view, Dr. Lee, that often science cannot provide explanations for every phenomena that we see?
DR. LEE: Yes. I spend my life in this. Still a lot of phenomena I still cannot explain and report to you.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the way, you sometimes put that is that life is complex, right?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, does that mean that if you look at something and you can't explain it as a forensic scientist, that there is something wrong?
DR. LEE: Yes, there is something wrong.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But isn't it often that you look at something and you can't explain it?
DR. LEE: If everything right, I should be explainable. If something I cannot explain, I see something, I observe, for example, you mention 47 like imprint. Doesn't matter what, you see a wet transfer which means something wrong.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not asking you about that. We will get back to that in a few seconds. But just in general, Dr. Lee, are there many occasions where you said as a forensic scientist where you look at a case or a piece of evidence and you just don't have all the answers?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And there is nothing surprising about that, is there?
DR. LEE: Nothing surprising.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if there is in fact a situation where a swatch is packaged when it is still damp, in a bindle, and there is a transfer, is that situation going to cause the blood to change into someone else's blood?
DR. LEE: That is a difficult question. If that is original bindle, therefore should not change. If it is not the original bindle, am going to change.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let me just give you a hypothetical so we are clear on what you are saying.
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's say that I'm a criminalist and I take some swatches out of a drying cabinet in a test-tube. I don't touch them to see whether they are dry.
DR. LEE: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But I think that they look dry. I'm looking through the test-tube and they look dry, and I dump them out into the bindle. Are you following me so far?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, by the way, is it okay, from a forensic science standpoint, that I did not take off my glove and touch the swatches with my hand to check to see whether they were dry?
DR. LEE: Usually experienced criminalist--
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm just asking you that question. Should I have done that?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: It would be a very bad idea to actually take my glove off and touch it to make sure, wouldn't it?
DR. LEE: Well, some people does that, but I don't do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you wouldn't recommend doing that, would you?
DR. LEE: I would not suggest people--you should make sure it dry basically.
MR. GOLDBERG: But not with your hands, right?
DR. LEE: Not your hand.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, let's say that I dumped it out into the bindle and I just didn't wait long enough, okay, and I closed up the bindle and there is a transfer in the bindle. Following me?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is that going to change the blood into someone else's blood in my hypothetical?
DR. LEE: In theory will not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be your forensic opinion?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: As a leading--as an expert in conventional and DNA technology?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, would it change the DNA pattern of the evidence?
DR. LEE: Sometime it will change the pattern, make it unreadable.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. It might cause more degradation?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right. But if we were able to test that, for example, and get a five-probe match--
MR. SCHECK: Objection. I think this is now irrelevant and hypothetical, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if we were able to get a five-probe match, would the packaging procedure have caused that five-probe match to have occurred erroneously?
DR. LEE: In theory not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that is your opinion?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, misstates the evidence--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: --on the item in question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: We are just trying to get the principles.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if you were able to do conventional serology, same answers, correct?
DR. LEE: In theory should if you get an answer, the answer should be there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Should be correct?
DR. LEE: If you did not get that answer or the answer become so ambiguous you cannot make a determination, now you have a--
MR. GOLDBERG: So in other words, you might get an inconclusive result or no result as a result of degradation?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. For--now, I would like to show you the exhibit that has been marked as Defense 1362 for identification if we could put that up. It is the large swatch blow-up.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. 1386, can you see that?
JUROR NO. 1386: (Nods head up and down.)
THE COURT: 165, can you see this?
JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, would it be correct to say that the four transfers you saw on this item, item 47, were in fact relatively light?
DR. LEE: Relative--
MR. GOLDBERG: Light?
DR. LEE: No, that is not say relative light. I saw lighter than those kind of transfer. In my opinion this transfer sort of consider pretty--some are pretty defined and heavy. Other maybe classify lighter.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that we are clear, though, Dr. Lee, this is the interior of the bindle so that if I unfolded it, this is the inside; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you see any evidence of blood on the outside of the bindle?
DR. LEE: I did not see that.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, Dr. Lee, if we had a situation where I was working with a reference vial standing approximately where I am right now and this bindle were sealed closed in a coin envelope that was taped shut and sitting on the little podium in front of you and I'm working with the reference vial, you wouldn't expect that to account for these transfers, would you?
DR. LEE: If the envelope sealed with tape, put in an envelope, in theory should not get to the envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: It would be very difficult to imagine that happening, correct?
DR. LEE: Very, very difficult.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, we use the term here wet and dry in connection with discussing exhibit 1362; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And from a forensic science standpoint, as a forensic scientist, is there a little bit of an ambiguity when we are talking about the word wet and dry in relationship to blood?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is that because the threshold between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy?
DR. LEE: Wet and dry, that is not fuzzy at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Either wet or dry, but they are in between damp. Not say soaking wet. What the definition of the wet? You kind of get into a semantic issue. As a scientist, if a swatch dry, it is dry. If it is not dry, anything else I call it wet.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. I will come back to that in just a second. But doctor, can you tell us when a swatch is dry in the sense that it looks dry and if I felt it, it would feel dry--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --how much water does it have in it?
DR. LEE: I have no idea how much water.
MR. GOLDBERG: But it does have water in it?
DR. LEE: I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, doctor, I just want to ask you a little bit about the book that you participated in "Forensic science handbook," Richard Saferstein. You are very familiar with it?
DR. LEE: Sort of.
MR. GOLDBERG: This is one of the references that you talked about when you were talking about the twenty books?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And sir, would you agree with the proposition that--
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Goldberg. Can you show Mr. Scheck whatever it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm looking at page 385.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: He has it.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you agree with the proposition that: "The threshold between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy. Most importantly, dry material does in fact contain some water. Proteins, for example, bind water very tenaciously."
DR. LEE: Yes, agree.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And do you agree that: "The water contents of dried materials is an equilibrium with a fractional saturation of water vapor in the surrounding atmosphere, that is, the relative humidity. Thus, for example, blood dried to an equilibrium in air at 25 percent relative humidity may contain about five percent of its total weight in water."
DR. LEE: May, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And sir, what would the amount of water be if swatches were dried at 50 percent relative humidity?
DR. LEE: I don't know how to calculate at this moment. May contain some water.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, would you agree that it would contain as much as ten percent of its weight in water?
DR. LEE: Maybe.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if the swatches were dried at 75 percent relative humidity, what would the percentage of water be in the swatches?
DR. LEE: I have no idea.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would 20 percent sound reasonable to you?
DR. LEE: Reasonable.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Did you happen to go back and check the Saferstein reference book before testifying here about the swatches in this case?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there would be a number of facts that we would have to know, such as relative humidity, in order to figure out how much water the swatches in this case had after they looked dry?
DR. LEE: It doesn't matter. If seven swatches--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm just asking you that.
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.
DR. LEE: If it dry--
THE COURT: Wait. Finish your answer.
DR. LEE: Thank you. Even if dry, should be all dry. If, say, some contains 20 percent of water, seven all should contain 20 percent of water.
MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would we have to know the relative humidity to know how much water was in the swatches?
DR. LEE: That is why I say I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: I have no idea what the percentage.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, can you explain for us a little--in a little bit more detail the relationship between relative humidity and amount of water that is in a dried swatch?
DR. LEE: I guess the best person have to explain that is whoever wrote that chapter. I did not read that. I want to see it. Is that my writing, then I have to explain. If it is not my writing, I don't have to explain.
MR. GOLDBERG: Actually I think it is in Mr. Sensabaugh's chapter.
DR. LEE: Okay. Let George examine that--explain that. That is not my problem.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would you like to take a look at it?
DR. LEE: No, no. If that is not my writing, I don't have to explain.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: Because very difficult for you to determine in a swatch how many percent of a humidity. If he come up with a number, I'm not going to argue with George; he is the one have to explain.
MR. GOLDBERG: The bottom line is that after something is drying it still does have to water in it, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, I agree.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, doctor, would you also agree that there are a lot of variables in determining how long something takes to dry?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you looked at the labor and Epstein materials that they put together in connection with MacDonnell's book dealing with experiments and blood spatter analysis?
DR. LEE: A long time I did read some of their material.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: Excellent material.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And sir, do you agree with the proposition that the amount of time required for a bloodstain--
MR. SCHECK: Is he reading something, your Honor?
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm actually reading it out of my notes.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: At any rate, for the record, we have handed him a copy of labor and Epstein.
MR. SCHECK: Wait, wait, wait. Can I see what he is reading?
THE COURT: He says he is reading his notes. He can ask questions as he chooses.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you agree with the proposition that the amount of time required for a bloodstain to dry is dependent upon various factors, such as weather conditions, temperature, air movement, humidity, size and depth of stain or blood pool, and the nature of the surface upon which the blood is shed?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you also agree that it is very difficult to predict all of the factors that go into determining how long something is going to take to dry?
DR. LEE: Not necessarily.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let me just ask you this, sir: Do you agree that there are so many combinations of factors that exist that affect the time required for blood to dry that it would be impossible to make determinations in every situation how long it is going to take?
DR. LEE: If you look at a crime scene, bloodstain, I agree whole heartily, totally, because that beyond our control; weather, rain, sunlight, shade, concrete versus carpet. If you are talking about a swatch, that is a totally separate situation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, according to your recollections of the labor and Epstein materials, didn't they do a number of drying experiments of a single drop of blood on cotton to show that there were extremely wide ranges of how long--
MR. SCHECK: Object to this, your Honor, unless he is able to be shown the material and look at it for whether he relies on it and what it is.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: I thought those were our procedures.
THE COURT: No, he doesn't have to see it. It has to be exhibited to counsel.
MR. SCHECK: Well, that I haven't seen.
THE COURT: Do you have that?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think he has all of labor and Epstein.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, he just handed me as he is asking questions.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: Have a seat, Mr. Scheck. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, did I--
DR. LEE: Do I answer the question now?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, you may answer the question if you remember it?
DR. LEE: Well, in contrast I think they come up some tables, give some general guideline. For example, single drop on cotton, if I remember correctly, is about five minute or something, or 45 minute, something like that. I don't remember exactly. I read long time ago. They have a table published in there, I see appendix, back of the book, give more or less specific time.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well--
DR. LEE: If you give me the book I can show you where it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let me--yes, I am familiar with what you are talking about.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, is it your understanding--
MR. SCHECK: May I approach?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: --that they concluded that the single drop on blood on cotton cloth could take from 55 to 330 minutes depending on the circumstances when they changed circumstances around?
DR. LEE: Right. That is the--if you look at condition 3, that is a total different condition.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, right, and the purpose of this was to try to educate forensic scientists how difficult it is to ever predict how long it is going to take something to dry; is that true?
DR. LEE: At the crime scene again it is difficult to predict. In the laboratory setting should be controllable condition, we should know take how long a swatch can dry.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Wasn't the purpose of their exercise to educate the forensic science student in how difficult it is, even in a laboratory setting, with the single drop of blood on a cotton, to predict how long it is going to take to dry? Wasn't that what labor and Epstein--
DR. LEE: I don't think that you can--you can call them on the stand. I don't think they are going to say a single drop of bloodstain on the cotton cloth going to be unpredictable.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, what I'm asking you, doctor, is what the intent was of this material, and wasn't the intent to get across to the forensic science student be careful because it is hard to figure out how long something is going to take to dry, even in a laboratory?
DR. LEE: Yes, in certain condition, yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, let's move on to the socks, doctor.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: On the socks, there was a sock that you were asked about that we've numbered 13-A. Do you know what I'm talking about?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree, sir, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct all of the various ways that different parts of a sock could come into contact with each other when you are taking it off?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would it--and there is a stain on the sock that has been labeled 42-A?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you know what I'm talking about?
DR. LEE: Ankle stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are you generally aware that that has been identified as having blood that was consistent with Nicole brown?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And then there is another stain that we have been referring to in the testimony that is on the inside, what we've been referring to as wall 3. Do you know what I'm talking about?
DR. LEE: Yes, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, doctor, is it your position that we cannot say with positiveness whether stain 42 is in fact related to the stain on wall 3?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, could the quantity of blood on stain 42--42-A--be as much as a milliliter?
DR. LEE: 42-A? You mean surface 1 or surface--
MR. GOLDBERG: Surface 1.
DR. LEE: Surface 1. Again the calculating of the volume of the blood is a difficult chore and I probably the only one wrote a paper in that; however, I entitled the paper called "Estimation of the volume of the blood--bloodstain." I choose the word "Estimation" not "Determination." As a scientist I cannot come here to determine that is one cc of blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: There are so many way to calculate, so many way to try to come up some reasonable explanation. Unfortunately, although these socks--probably I would say the most examine socks in the world, so many people look at these socks, but a big hole being sampled. Now, I look at the remainder, try to go back, say what's the volume? I did not look at the center portion. I cannot come here, in fairness, tell you how much blood in there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And this is another one of those examples of something where a leading forensic scientist or a number of forensic scientists can look at an item and they just can't provide us with all of the answers; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it?
DR. LEE: It does mean something wrong. If at the beginning first day I have an opportunity to look at the socks, I can give you a really, really close estimation, but since a big hole there, I cannot create or recreate a hole.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, weren't there photographs, though, of the socks before the hole was cut out?
DR. LEE: I was not privileged to have a photograph shows the bloodstain intact.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But the point is, is that even with all those things, sometimes we can't do anything more than give a rough estimation; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, let's talk a little bit about the mechanism of transfer. You've explained what a compression transfer is. Can you just give us a very, very brief additional explanation of that, sir?
DR. LEE: The liquid blood either on an object or already on surface have certain pressure applied to it. I cannot come here again tell you how big the pressure, certain pressure. This liquid transfer onto the surface, that is called compression stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you give us a brief explanation as to what a swipe is?
DR. LEE: A swipe you start generally when first moment contact, that probably can be a compression. Then with a lateral movement you--either the surface--receiving surface move or the applying surface move and could be both surface moved. That is called a swipe.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those are two separate things; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LEE: They are two separate definition.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to a forensic scientist, such as yourself, that has some expertise in the area of blood splatter, that is an important distinction, isn't it, between swipe and compression?
DR. LEE: It is important, but sometime again have a gray area. You can't really tell too clearly that is a compression or a swipe. Sometime it is a combination.
MR. GOLDBERG: But if you can make a distinction, that is an important one from--for a forensic scientist, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if Mr. MacDonnell testified that that distinction was not important, would you agree with it?
DR. LEE: I don't know exactly he refer to. If you refer a special situation, that is not wrong. If, say, every case you shouldn't distinguish a compression or a swipe, then it is wrong. Certain situation a compression and swipe may be a combination. That is again each individual have their own opinion and I'm not going to argue with other--everybody entitle, other expert entitled to their opinion. Certain scientific fact should not be argued about it. As far as the opinion, they are entitle give their opinion.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well I don't want to ask you to criticize someone else, but would it be fair to say that whether or not to that part of Mr. MacDonell's testimony you take a little bit of a different view?
DR. LEE: Again, as I indicate, if on the particular item may be no differences. Giving overall picture a crime scene, a swipe, a compression, maybe make a difference.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you heard that part of the testimony, didn't you?
DR. LEE: I did not pay much attention on everything.
MR. GOLDBERG: No, no, that particular part that I'm talking about where we got into the distinction between swipe and compression?
DR. LEE: I don't recall. Some people may discuss with me; however, I did not really firsthand hear from herb MacDonell.
MR. GOLDBERG: You weren't in the courtroom?
DR. LEE: I wasn't in the courtroom.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
DR. LEE: I wasn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: No, I don't think I was in the courtroom.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to the socks, getting back to the socks, is the stain 42-A that we've been talking about--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --consistent with a person at the crime scene touching the socks?
DR. LEE: You just look at surface 1 or you look at the whole socks?
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's take surface 1 so far.
DR. LEE: Surface 1, in order to have that, that is my interpretation now, okay? In order to have somebody touch somebody else socks, the pants and the shoes have to have a separation to expose the surface. The best example I can give to you, have to wear the pants like Michael Jackson. Certain portion of socks have to expose. If I wear my pants and socks like that, if touch, have to touch my pants, not going to be the socks, so that is one condition. The second condition the blood has to be liquid, not coagulate, not dry, has to be in liquid state. Third thing has to have certain pressure. I don't--I cannot tell you how much pressure. Not just a gentle touch.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, having said all that, if the pants are pulled up--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --or if someone is bent over or however it happens, the sock is exposed and someone didn't grab the socks, but touched the sock with a bloody finger, wet bloody finger--
DR. LEE: Has to be single finger.
MR. GOLDBERG: Single finger?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And could it also be a--a result--this transfer, of or consistent with someone wearing that sock and the sock coming up against a bloody object?
DR. LEE: Has to have a pressure in that one location, because we look at that--just that one location and very defined parameter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the answer is yes?
DR. LEE: Has to be certain condition to cause that transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, yeah. If someone come into contact with some pressure with some object that has wet blood on it, you can get that transfer?
DR. LEE: Right.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would be a good spot?
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break. Meals 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: 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, please?
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Scheck. Hold on, Deputy Magnera.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, my apologies for making a statement to the court in the presence of the jury about these exhibits. I just want to be clear about the rules. If the witness is going to be questioned about a section from a treatise, it has to be established, as I understood, that he relied upon it, and I thought as well that counsel would be given an opportunity.
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. SCHECK: I just want to make it clear to the court that we had some discussion about what would be used with Dr. Lee and I was handed this paper seconds before the question was asked and that is the only reason I wanted time to see exactly what was being asked of the witness.
THE COURT: You were given--you see, let me tell you what my perspective is, Mr. Scheck, so we understand each other.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: I did not hear the foundational questions to Dr. Lee that he was about to be cross-examined as to somebody else's opinion in a learned treatise. I didn't hear the questions. I didn't hear anything read from an article, so I assumed that your objections were premature. And that is the way I felt at that time and I think that is the way the testimony unfolded, that is what came out, because he was not cross-examined or impeached as to anything in a learned treatise that he didn't rely upon or agree with.
MR. SCHECK: Well, if I--
THE COURT: I have much more confidence in this witness than apparently the lawyers do.
MR. SCHECK: No, nobody can--I yield to no one in my confidence in this witness. But the point is simply a procedural one because I don't want to be in the position of where I say something in front of the jury that--
THE COURT: But understand the context of my comment.
MR. SCHECK: --if you and I get into a dialect--
THE COURT: This witness is not going to argue with either side about other scientist's opinions.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, the point I want to maybe, for the record--
THE COURT: You are entitled to it, and if he is about to be cross-examined, you have the opportunity to read to see what it is.
MR. SCHECK: And he did. And just so that I'm clear on the practice, he was asked about labor and Epstein generally he said excellent people, and then Mr. Goldberg read something from his notes which in fact it was my understanding was either a direct quote or a summary of this and I thought at that point--
THE COURT: It was such an innocuous question, aren't there variables that have to do with how long it takes something to dry? That is a question that doesn't have to come out of a learned treatise and was obviously the focus of where Mr. Goldberg was going. It was not directly from this article. I agree with you, you have got the materials, if he is going to use specific passages to cross-examine before he goes into it.
MR. SCHECK: Just for the record, I will make a copy. What then unfolded is that specific tables were used with different conditions for drying cloth swatches with one drop of blood.
THE COURT: But the objection should been then foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I thought I was trying to make them, but I also--
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, that was a speaking objection. If you had said "Foundation" you probably would have been sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor, I will get to it. I just want to have any misunderstanding between us--
THE COURT: We have none.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And I will make an application when this is done, I want you to take a look at it, because I think it opens the door to some other things that had previously been--
THE COURT: It may very well might.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: That thought crossed my mind when I heard it.
MR. COCHRAN: Ours, too, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't ask about any experiments. I asked him about the generalized knowledge that he has which is what he testified to on direct. He was testifying from his generalized knowledge.
THE COURT: I understand, but then you went into this chart where somebody else did an experiment about drying times.
MR. GOLDBERG: He was the one that told me about it. I wasn't going to get into that except Dr. Lee wanted to.
THE COURT: Just because they go into it doesn't mean you should cross-examine on that. I thought he left you with a pretty wide parameter, if you set it out to dry at night and you come back the next morning it ought to be dry. I think that left you a wide enough parameter to work with, but you insisted on making it tighter, so I don't know. But I will see what the article says and probably get to read the article over the lunch hour, not that I have other things to occupy my time with.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: If the Defense insists on pursuing this particular line.
MR. SCHECK: I read you, your Honor, but you should look at it.
THE COURT: But you got the transfers. I mean, what more do you want?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
(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. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Dr. Henry Lee is still on the witness stand under going cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, you distinguished in your testimony between the manner of transfer as opposed to the mode of transfer; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the mode of transfer would be the exact mechanism, in other words, was it a hand, was it a gloved hand, was it an object, what is it exactly that caused that blood transfer; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to that issue, the mode of transfer, were you able to render any opinion regarding the mode of transfer onto the socks?
DR. LEE: There are numerous possibilities. I cannot tell you which one is definitively one method.
MR. GOLDBERG: So would it be fair to say that on that this is an area where you were unable to render an opinion on that question, mode of transfer?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked a little bit about trace analysis on direct examination and you said that it fell in the area of hair examination somewhere in between class characteristics and individualization; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you explain this--excuse me. Do you agree with the following statement: "While it is difficult to make absolute individualizations in these areas, the trace analyst can make identifications with a high degree of certainly and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence based on experience and analytical results"?
DR. LEE: I would say eighty to ninety percent that statement correct. They forgot one thing. Depends on samples. Not all the sample you can reach that degree of certainty. Some of the sample, yes, you can. Other sample maybe only can do a class characteristic identification.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, have you ever publicly stated the comment that I just made in any public forum, whether it is published or oral?
DR. LEE: Maybe in certain context. I try to tell the investigator how important trace evidence is in solving crime or to disassociate a person from a crime. Trace evidence have particular value. Don't overlook trace evidence. Although trace evidence we cannot approach positive identification, two extreme. One, called individualization; one called identification. A lot of physical evidence fall in between; degree, different degree. Fingerprint, that is a possible identification. A hair we cannot reach to that, say, just from this person, no other person.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this, doctor. Maybe I can just approach counsel for a moment.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, your Honor. I just need to look at my index for a second.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I will come back to it later.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me just ask you this, Dr. Lee--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --with respect to trace analysis, would it be your position that in some cases regarding hair comparisons that identifications can be made with a high degree of certainty and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And there were certain items that you looked at where you packaged some hair and trace evidence in bindles in this case; is that right?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And one was the envelope and one was Ron Goldman's boots, and the other one was the soil sample; is that correct?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: That you were--
DR. LEE: Actually 21 bindles.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that you testified to on direct examination?
DR. LEE: I testify on direct, yes, only three, but in reality when I examine I found 21 separate bindles of trace evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I was asking about the testimony. Now, with respect to these three items, Dr. Lee, did you do any comparisons yourself on any of the hair and trace evidence in those bindles?
DR. LEE: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is there any forensic significance to finding the materials that you found in those three items?
DR. LEE: Unless examined, maybe some significance.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, sir, is it common to find stray hair and trace materials when you are analyzing a particular piece of evidence for hair and trace?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there anything unusual about that?
DR. LEE: Just shows the presence of trace and of course what type of trace becomes significant. Whether or not can link a person or disassociate a person now become significant. If you found trace, that is uncommon. If you give me time, I go to jewelry box, I can probably find hundreds of hairs, all different fibers.
MR. GOLDBERG: And we might be able to find some hairs and fibers--we would be able to find some hairs and fibers in the jury box that don't belong to any of the jurors in this case?
DR. LEE: If you give me time I will found a lot of hairs and fibers, maybe nothing to do with the jury panel.
MR. GOLDBERG: Even though this jury panel has been sitting in this jury box for quite sometime?
DR. LEE: Sure. Maybe I can find your hair there, too.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there wouldn't be anything unusual about being able to find hairs and fibers at a crime scene that don't belong to the suspects and the victim; is that true?
DR. LEE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked a little bit about the generalities of crime scene identification and the Defense used a chart that was Defense 1350, if we could just take a look at that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, this chart was intended in order to represent the basic steps in terms of categories of forensic examination from crime scene forward; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I just want to make sure that I'm understanding exactly how to interpret the chart correctly. Let's say that we have a situation, doctor, where the biological evidence at a crime scene, let's say it is blood, is stepped in by a Defendant and it is deposited on the sole of his shoes and then he takes it to some other location.
MR. SCHECK: Objection to the form of this hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, in that hypothetical scenario that I have given you has the collection, in effect, been done by the suspect himself instead of by a police officer?
DR. LEE: The collection actually involve two force. You start with recognition. If say an individual step in the blood, walk on the surface, you deposit some evidence on that walking--say walkway surface. Not--it is not by Defendant himself. The detective or the criminalist at the scene have to see it to recognize it, try to enhance it and then collect it. If you forget about that you create a big problem for future reconstruction. The second half you are correct, the shoe itself become a valuable piece of evidence. Unless you find the shoe you can't really do a side-by-side comparison.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in that kind of a hypothetical situation where you had found the shoe like that, say, you would still be able to test that shoe for conventional testing and for DNA testing; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yeah. The shoe again, the testing involve quite a bit now. Not only serological analysis, you have to--the most valuable is a pattern comparison, side-by-side the shoe and the footprint. You will have compare not only look at general characteristic, also look at the wear, cut, pattern, so-called individual characteristics. Grouping just one part of it, whether or not you can link to certain source of a blood, just like hair, soil, whether or not you are link to the--back to the scene, so the whole process is involved in recognition, preservation, documentation, collection, everything.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you would agree that--that--let me ask another question. Let's change the hypothetical a little bit.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And let's say that instead of a suspect at the crime scene we have a brand new police officer at his first crime scene.
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he accidentally steps in some blood.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he is a little panicked and he is nervous about doing that, obviously, and he--but he immediately takes his shoe off, Dr. Lee.
DR. LEE: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he brings it to you.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: You would still be able to analyze the blood on that shoe, wouldn't you?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I haven't heard--no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: If the shoe bring to me, yes, I will be able to identify whether or not that is blood. If in fact blood, human blood or not. If it is human blood, of course just like you indicate that additional serological grouping type A, type B, type O, DNA typing try to see whose blood. Equally important I have to look at a scene whether or not have same type of shoeprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: So there is a variety of testing that you could do even in the hypothetical that I gave you?
DR. LEE: All start with recognition.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
DR. LEE: You have to see it first.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in my particular hypothetical, though, doctor, the police officer obviously didn't recognize the blood at the time that he stepped in it, right?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he didn't accurately document it or--or photograph it; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I object to this on foundational grounds and 352 grounds.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree, doctor, that a police officer dabbing his foot in blood is--and then using his shoe for analysis wouldn't be the recommended collection technique?
DR. LEE: I'm lost.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, you go out and lecture police officers?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's say a police officer raises his hand, he is in the audience. "Dr. Lee, if I don't have any swatches or I don't have any bindles to scrape off the blood, can I just dab my foot in it and submit my shoe for analysis?"
MR. SCHECK: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would you tell the officer, "Well, I don't recommend that"?
DR. LEE: I probably tell don't dab, just give me your shoes and don't do it next time.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. So even though we have a big mistake in terms of recognition, in terms of preservation, documentation, collection, identification, we can still do comparison, we can still do individualization; is that correct, in my hypothetical?
DR. LEE: You going to be on shaky ground because unless we recognize everything where we can do partial reconstruction.
MR. GOLDBERG: We probably can't do reconstruction?
DR. LEE: Cannot do a complete reconstruction.
MR. GOLDBERG: If I may approach for a second.
MR. GOLDBERG: So in my hypothetical we are probably going to--
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Goldberg. You are blocking juror no. 7.
MR. GOLDBERG: We botched preservation documentation and collection in the hypothetical. Identification we nailed, right?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Comparison we nailed?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Correct? Individualization depends on how many problems?
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Reconstruction probably not?
DR. LEE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So doctor, if we wanted to change the title of the chart from "Steps in forensic examination" to "Garbage in, garbage out," that would be incorrect from a scientific standpoint, wouldn't it?
DR. LEE: No, you cannot change my title.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. Good.
DR. LEE: But garbage in, garbage out, that is a common thing I use in lecture. You collect a lot of garbage from the crime scene. Laboratory scientist, my report going to like garbage. You don't really don't know where it come from, what is going to happen, like a garbage report. You have to do a so-called total team approach. Everybody have to work together do the best job.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right. But known cases, just as the one I related, sometimes--I won't say that you can save the case, but you can still get some very meaningful test results, very meaningful evidence?
DR. LEE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if we changed our hypothetical again, Dr. Lee, see that the police officer photographed the bloodstain properly--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --before he stepped in it, then we might even be able to do some reconstruction as well; is that true, limited?
DR. LEE: Limited.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I will again object to--unless there is facts in evidence, I think the hypotheticals and changes have no basis in foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, when I was questioning you a little while ago, you were talking--I think that you said something to the effect that you wouldn't recommend someone using their hands to touch the swatches to see whether they were dry?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: But if we had someone who did that, and let's say our same police officer, our new police officer who is new, oh, my heavens, not only did I do all those other things, I also touched the swatches with my hands--
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is foundation, facts not in evidence; swatches.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, would your procedure there be that you would take a blood sample from the police officer, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you would test his--depending on what testing you were doing, you might do conventional serology, you might do PCR and RFLP, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you would still then test the evidence; is that true?
DR. LEE: Yes. I will test the evidence with the control. If somebody touch it, the body cell may contaminate to the evidence. That is one possibility. Second, only for the protection of the individual may have a cut, some hepatitis or aids or other virus may infect the individual, so touching, not only is a contamination, also protection. If have some body material transfer to that sample, now you are going to have a contaminated sample. We have to have a known control compare, try to resolve, see what we can do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And although things like that aren't supposed to happen, every once in awhile there are cases where something like that does occur?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you were asked about the socks being packaged together in an envelope and I just wanted to clarify your testimony on this topic. Is the packaging--let's say that you have two socks at a crime scene and you collect them together and you put them in the same bag together.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it your position that there could be a transfer from one sock to another sock?
DR. LEE: Could be.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that transfer could be hair and trace?
DR. LEE: Also could be biological material.
MR. GOLDBERG: If the socks are wet at the time they are collected?
DR. LEE: If the socks are wet, if have some body tissues or body material can cause a transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you going to expect a transfer, in your experience, at that time if the socks are dry?
DR. LEE: If have dry skin, tissue, those you don't need any wet material. If it is bloodstain, sometime this touch can have a trace transfer. If it is wet, you definitely going to expect transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is packaging the socks together the way that I just described going to change the DNA type on the socks that was deposited there?
DR. LEE: I cannot say specifically will relate to this case, but if a case, for example, a simple example, let's say ABO typing, the victim is type A, the decedent is type B. If have a transfer, our reading going to be type AB, a mixture. What AB means could be an AB type. There are people AB type. There could be a mixture of a and B. In other words, the interpretation gets so complicated now. Sometime possible to resolve; other times just impossible. You just call it could be a mixture.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Let me make the hypothetical a little bit more specific then. Let's say that in our hypothetical we have a 15-probe RFLP match--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --on one of the stains on our hypothetical socks that were packaged together at the time they were collected.
DR. LEE: Yes, right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does packaging at the time that they were collected change the DNA type?
DR. LEE: In theory shouldn't; however, if let's say hypothetical because a lot of impossible, let's say just happen, I have to look at the band, I have a homozygote or heterozygote--let's call the band a heterozygote, two bands instead of one, it is remote, almost remote, but do have a possibility two individual, each one have one band mixed together become two bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if we know the contributors to the biological evidence on that sock and let's say we know there is more than one donor--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --to the blood on the two socks--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --then we can eliminate some of those mixture problems; is that correct?
DR. LEE: If we have a complete profile maybe we can be able to do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that even if the two socks are packaged together, a 15-probe match would be an extremely significant piece of evidence?
DR. LEE: If it is genuine, that is an important piece of evidence.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, just very briefly on the issue of collecting clothes and then we will move on to a different topic. Is it your position that in training police officers that where clothes are in a pile, for example, a number of different articles of clothes, they should in fact collect the clothes as a group and package them together in the same package? Is that the way that you train them?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there is not an absolute that you always have to package the clothing separately?
DR. LEE: If they are separate, you should package separate. If you have clothing on top of each other, or mingled together, for example, certain people take off their pants, the underpant come with it altogether, you don't have to separate them in the crime scene, you should collect as one group.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that with respect to the sock photos that you have seen in this case, in your analysis of the sock, we could never exclude the possibility that the sock came into contact with one another prior to being collected anyway?
DR. LEE: I only can testify what I see. I saw the picture, there is two socks separate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
DR. LEE: Clearly. Before that, I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, the--getting back just to our chart, do you have another chart that you sometimes use in explaining the concept of crime scene investigation called your four-way transfer theory that is contained in the--excuse me. I think it is four-way linkage. I got it wrong. That has become an international well-known four-way linkage theory?
DR. LEE: That is one of my theory, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can we mark as People's next in order, it will be 591, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You have given a copy of this item to Mr. Scheck?
MR. GOLDBERG: Umm, I don't know if we gave him a copy or whether we just showed it this morning.
(Peo's 591 for id = document)
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: But it is also--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm just going to give Mr. Scheck a copy of the--I'm not going to give it to him, I'm going to let him borrow the page in the book.
MR. SCHECK: That is okay.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed. This is a slide you had made up?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And Dr. Lee, is this exhibit that we have just marked as "Henry Lee's four-way linkage theory," a--
DR. LEE: I wish only one Henry Lee. There are too many people called Henry Lee. I just found out in L.A. the telephone books a lot of Henry Lee.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is this a summary of your concept of four-way linkage?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it true that this is the goal of crime scene processing?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we are--if a criminalist goes out to a crime scene, what he is trying to accomplish is the idea of--I'm sorry--what he or she is trying to accomplish is the idea of four-way linkage?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you please explain this to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
DR. LEE: With a pointer, your Honor, or if is--
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know if there is a pointer.
THE COURT: No, we don't have that working right now.
DR. LEE: The crime scene--
MR. GOLDBERG: I think that we can use the telestrator.
DR. LEE: Just the pointer is fine.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: Any investigation involve four important elements. One is the scene, the crime scene itself has to be in fact preserved. Anytime have a crime, have a victim, so victim itself become a crime scene. For example, a hit and run case, a pedestrian got hit, the pedestrian's body become a crime scene. A rape case, same thing. The rape victim become a crime scene. Of course the suspect who person or persons commit the crime become a crime scene itself. And physical evidence such as guns, shoeprint, hair, sometime earring can become a piece of physical evidence, tire track. All those four area as a good investigator, good criminalist, we have to have a concept of this back in our mind. When you walk through the crime scene you should understand this nature. To link you need the four-way linkage. You can link the suspect to the scene if you find certain crucial physical evidence. Also you can link the physical evidence back to the suspect or suspects. Also you can link the physical evidence to the victim. So this four-way linkage is rather important by using same analogy to case, let's say, a hit and run case. On that street we have a scene. At the scene you can find blood, you can find tire track, you can find glass, metal, soil. The victim's body take to the hospital. On his chest maybe we find tire track. On his clothing we may find imprint pattern. Maybe have glass fragment. The vehicle itself become a physical evidence which--such as a broken lens, lost--of course ideally lost an muffler, we can pick up the muffler, and it physically fit, you can have a link. And the suspect, of course if the suspect after hit and run stopped, step in the blood, now we have a footprint. We can link the suspect. So this so-called four-way linkage you have to always consider all the possibilities.
MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, can we perhaps use a simpler analogy or fact pattern. Let's say that we have a crime scene.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's say it is a robbery.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Just so we are understanding the concept. And there is an article of clothing at the scene that has a hair that is consistent with the suspect that he dropped at the crime scene.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think at this point it is foundational, 352.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on that same article of clothing there is also a hair that is consistent with the victim.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you explain how that would work with your four-way linkage theory?
DR. LEE: Let's say piece of garment which we do have cases, for example, robbery or burglary, getting too hot, they take off their jacket, somehow left in a hurry leaving the scene. We found hairs. That hair can link to a victim. That hair also can link to a suspect. This hair also can link to a crime scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if the suspect and victim hair is found on the same item, it also links the victim to the suspect?
DR. LEE: Yes. Link depend on the condition of the hair, depends on whether or not this hair so-called secondary transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: And it would also, if the clothing is found at the crime scene, link the physical evidence up to the scene?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is it true, Dr. Lee--I think we are finished with that. Is it true, Dr. Lee, that the hallmark of a crime scene identification is whether or not we were successful in establishing four-way linkage?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, would you agree that it is very often that very experienced capable criminalists or crime scene technicians or police will go out to a crime scene and very carefully systematically process the crime scene, but they can't establish four-way linkage?
DR. LEE: Yes. Do have cases, either failure of recognition or failure of any of those steps, and sometime maybe just not exist.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it also true that sometimes a less careful processing of the crime scene, less capable processing of the crime scene can, nevertheless, result in four-way linkage?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's get to the issue, Dr. Lee, of the Bronco that you testified to a little bit in your direct testimony. Now, did you ever physically inspect the Bronco yourself?
DR. LEE: No. As I indicate to the jury, I never physically personally look at the Bronco.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were you present--excuse me. Did you know that there was a search of the Bronco that was done on August 26th of 1994?
DR. LEE: I don't remember specific date.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you generally aware of some search of the Bronco that was done in August of `94 at which some Defense people and some--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --Prosecution people were present?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did someone disallow you from coming there?
DR. LEE: Not exactly the situation disallow me. I only can work on my spare time on weekends.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: I cannot come here--I have an official duty also. The world cannot stop just because this case.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So with respect to your analysis in this case, is it true that part of the limitation was your own busy schedule?
DR. LEE: Yes, because the day I wanted was not available to me, and the day they wanted I cannot come here.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to the amount of blood that we are going to expect to find in an item such as the Bronco, do you agree with the idea that we can only interpret the bloodstains that are physically present and that no one should speculate as to why a Defendant was not blood stained except in the most unusual cases?
DR. LEE: Yes, in general.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And do you agree, sir, that in the forensic scientific literature that there is a lot of literature that indicates: "Numerous references state assailant is not always blood stained as a result of their active participation in the blood letting events."
DR. LEE: That again in general depends on type of crime and what condition of the crime, what type of physical force involved.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you also agree that forensic scientists have to interpret what they see as opposed to what they don't see?
DR. LEE: I disagree that. Absence of evidence not necessarily wasn't there. Absence of evidence may be wasn't there; maybe somebody just not experienced enough or incapable or inability to see that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. Have you read Mr. MacDonnell's article on the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
DR. LEE: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
DR. LEE: I'm a Chinese. Take me a while to think about this double-talk. Absence--
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can get that for you and--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I put some lines on my copy. May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Can you show Mr. Scheck?
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: May I?
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, why don't you just take a quick look at that and see if that refreshes your recollection if you have read that article?
DR. LEE: I have read a lot of article. Which part do you want me to read?
MR. GOLDBERG: You don't have to read it. I just want to see if looking at it silently to yourself if you recognize it?
DR. LEE: Okay. (Witness complies.)
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lee, do you recognize the article?
DR. LEE: Sort of. I don't remember every line.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know, there is an enormous amount of forensic science literature out there, isn't there?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you agree generally with the findings of MacDonnell in this particular article?
DR. LEE: In general, yes, but the specific example he give maybe not totally cover the whole situation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But in general do you agree with the proposition that we really can't infer that someone cannot participate in a crime involving a bloody event simply because they don't have blood on them, on their clothing or on their person?
DR. LEE: Again, as I indicate before, depend on situation. One example said beat up a rabbit. Rabbit, human two different scene. You beat up a rabbit, did not get blood spatter on your clothing. Doesn't mean you beat up a human did not get blood on your body, and I guess depends on situation. If you standing a distance, firing a shot, gunshot, thirty feet away, kill somebody, I don't expect to find blood spatter on somebody's clothing. That is correct. However, if you put the gun next to somebody's head, fire a shot, nothing, no clothing, block the back spatter, I expect to find some blood spatter, so it varies. I cannot in certain senses, correct. In other situation maybe not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Isn't there a lot of forensic science literature out there that generally cautions the forensic scientists who are involved in blood spatter that you can't really say that someone didn't participate in a crime just because they are not covered in blood even if it is something like a stabbing?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, perhaps I can mark the article as People's next in order. I guess that would be 592.
THE COURT: All right. People's 592.
(Peo's 592 for id = article)
MR. GOLDBERG: I will put a 592 on it.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you agree with the concept that we can only interpret the bloodstains that are physically present and that no one should speculate as to why a Defendant was not blood stained except in the most unusual cases?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Is he reading from something, your Honor?
MR. GOLDBERG: These are my notes.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Again, generally we only can interpret a certain pattern which we can see. If you did not see it, not necessary wasn't there. You cannot interpret something you did not see. Then you say not there.
MR. GOLDBERG: What I want to know, doctor, is do you agree with that particular quote that I just read?
DR. LEE: In general.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, have you been involved--let me ask a couple other questions first. Is it true generally that stabbings, generally speaking, involve less blood than beatings?
DR. LEE: No. Stabbing depends where you stab. You can have a lot of blood. Beating depends where you beat. If you beat somebody's rear end, when I was young my mother used to discipline me, I don't see blood spatter, so all different.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm talking about beating deaths.
DR. LEE: Beating death?
MR. GOLDBERG: Where someone was--
DR. LEE: Beat the head, beat the body, it is all different.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's say that we have a situation where someone has beaten another person to death in the head with a brick.
THE COURT: This is not particularly relevant, counsel.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it goes to the Bronco and a number of other items that the Defense got into.
THE COURT: The cause of death here is clear.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'll just--
THE COURT: Let's proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, sir, have you had some cases yourself in your own career as a forensic scientist where the crime scene was extremely bloody?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yet--yet the suspect did not have a lot of blood on his clothing?
DR. LEE: Off my head I don't really remember every crime scene I went. In general more blood, I should expect to find some blood on the suspect. Again, depends on situation. You have a shooting at a distance, yes, the victim lying there, have a lot of blood. Suspect with a long gun, you don't expect to find that. Those are correct. If a closed compact situation, maybe different.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to the Rockingham location, Dr. Lee, you saw some spots in the foyer; is that correct, of blood?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you determine the difference, as a forensic scientist, between a one-centimeter cut and a two-centimeter cut based upon those six spots?
DR. LEE: If the cut into a blood vessel, maybe; if not, I cannot tell you.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we are dealing with a cut that did not go into a blood vessel, then we cannot say from the number of dots that you had how big the cut was?
DR. LEE: No, just can say a small cut.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in addition to that, doctor, when you were at the Rockingham location did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of air conditioning near Kato Kaelin's house?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was that something that you believed that--that you thought appeared to be blood?
DR. LEE: I test some doorknobs, some sink traps and air conditioner.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm just asking about the air conditioner.
DR. LEE: I saw in different places.
MR. GOLDBERG: That is all right, your Honor. I will move on. I think he has answered the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, with respect to the Bundy crime scene location, I would like to ask you a little bit about what you did in terms of the reconstruction at that location.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, first of all, let me ask you, were your opinions that you offered regarding the Bundy location based upon what you saw in the photographs or did you also take into consideration the testimony of pathologists in this case?
DR. LEE: What my observation regards to imprint is my direct observation on June 25th on the tile. Also look at some physical evidence. Regards to this closed-in area, basically looking at photograph, the distribution of the pattern, the location of scene. Regard to some other information, they did relate to me some number of cut or stab or injury.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let me just make sure we are clear. So is it your position that as a forensic scientist looking at the Bundy location you have to set aside what the pathologists say and just concentrate on what you see?
DR. LEE: And the majority part. Of course I considered a number of injury. Not only one thing I look at. I did not look at stomach contents, lividity or postmortem change.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So in other words, things that you can see yourself in pictures?
DR. LEE: Right, right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to mark as People's next in order an exhibit that is going to be 593 and it is a board of the Bundy location concentrating on what we've referred to in this case as the caged area and some photographs. Your Honor, one of the photographs is perhaps one that should not be suited for display. All right.
(Peo's 593 for id = posterboard)
THE COURT: Mr. Bancroft acknowledges that.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you set the easel up here.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft, stay off the bottom row.
MR. BANCROFT: Yes, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, directing your attention to the exhibit that we've marked as People's 593 for identification, can you see that?
DR. LEE: May I step down, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you may, Dr. Lee?
DR. LEE: (Witness complies.) Yes, I can see those in general.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, doctor, do those appear to be the same exact photographs that were used on a Defense exhibit that you were using to explain to the jury some of the blood pattern or blood reconstruction analysis in the case?
DR. LEE: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: The nine photographs you used?
DR. LEE: Some appear to be the same; some maybe there are differences.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are there any--which are the ones that you think are different?
DR. LEE: The picture I use, for example, this key, I did see some reddish stain; however, this picture, one look at now, I don't see any reddish stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: Because we are getting a different view of the key?
DR. LEE: I have no idea.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: And this boots, (Indicating), the picture provide to me have more like a bloodstain, compared to this, yes, I do see bloodstain, soil material, trace, but much less. And this one, (Indicating), is a much closer--it is a closer shot, but in general this is the same. And some of those--this, (Indicating), must be a so-called first generation, better picture than what I get is a printout of a print. I would say in general it depicts the scene. I wasn't there. I wasn't the one took those pictures, so I can't really come here misled you, say that is exactly what I see at the crime scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. For the record, the ones that Dr. Lee indicated could be somewhat different than the photos that he saw are on the right-hand side of this exhibit in what would be the extreme right portion as you are facing the exhibit; the bottom photograph depicting Ronald Goldman's boots and the photograph above that depicting the keys and the photograph above that appears to be a close-up of the card that has item no. 108 in it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that correct, doctor?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now--but other than that, we've depicted all of the areas that were the subject of your testimony in terms of the reconstruction of what happened at the Bundy location; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, Dr. Lee, could you use some red tape, if you have any, to show us where these items are on the diagram. I think I have some red tape here.
DR. LEE: I have some. You don't have a pole here. Basically it is around here, (Indicating). I don't have a diagram of body, so I really cannot tell you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Just give us the--
DR. LEE: General location, all right.
MR. GOLDBERG: What are you pointing from? From what to what?
DR. LEE: The pole should be like this area, landmark, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: The--you have put some tape from the sapling?
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Over to the general location.
DR. LEE: I cannot tell you the specific location. This diagram has no what you call, sapling?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sapling, a small tree. Here, let me ask you this--
DR. LEE: Is this a tree? It look like a 2-by-4 to me. In front have a pole.
MR. GOLDBERG: Take a close look. Does that look like a tree that is attached to a stake for support?
DR. LEE: Yeah.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, maybe we could just indicate--you could indicate for us this from the gate, the stain.
DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You are connecting to--let's not cover it up. Let's go like this. Would that be okay?
DR. LEE: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you have connected two photographs; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those are the photographs in the upper right-hand corner of the exhibit. Can you connect this gate that has the photo card 108 in it to where the gate would be, approximately?
DR. LEE: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: At the crime scene?
DR. LEE: If you draw the picture, diagram with the number of pole, I will tell you exactly. I only go tell that is no. 8 (Sic) here in the picture. I would say approximately in this location, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that a little close to the corner?
DR. LEE: You have one--one, two, three, four, five, six--six.
MR. GOLDBERG: Six bars?
DR. LEE: You have eight bar. When you look at this picture, when you look at this picture, give you a round projection. That is called depth of the view. When we take a picture, the closer place looks like bigger. The distance one like a distance shorter. Can you see the gap here? Much bigger, (Indicating). In real sense all those gaps should be identical.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the photo of the keys, can you connect that up to the general location?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. Again just a general location. I don't have a plane here shows me exactly the scene. I would say around here, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: So that is somewhere--understanding this is an approximation of the area of where Mr. Goldman's feet would be?
DR. LEE: Very general. Very general.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I don't know if we should connect up the shoe--let me think. I don't know if we should.
DR. LEE: Because after--
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's not connect that, but can we connect the photograph that has photo card 119 in it?
DR. LEE: Again I have to make some assumption this is here again, (Indicating), because the picture--the diagram did not show me. I would say in this general location, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: So that is kind of like the post that you would expect the gate to swing opened and closed on?
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention, now we are going to move over to the left-hand side of this exhibit.
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't you just describe this for us orally and then we will connect it. The gate portion--excuse me. Gate is the wrong word. The fence portion at the bottom?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Where is that?
DR. LEE: This looks like somebody took a picture from other side, (Indicating), other side of the fence look into the fence. For example, let's say jury box here is the fence, I'm taking a picture from here, not inside of jury box, so has to be other side.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, would it appear to you then that the photo card bearing 109 is the same stain that is contained in the lower photo only it is the--this is from the inside view?
DR. LEE: Definitely different. It is same location but here shows different stain, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: You mean this stain in the bottom photograph is not the same as this--
DR. LEE: This one, (Indicating), is this, (Indicating). This dripping, not showing in this photo.
MR. GOLDBERG: Because we are showing--
DR. LEE: Here have more spatterings along the column that is not showing in this photograph, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But would it be fair to say that at least the 109 stain is showing the stain with the photo card 109 is showing in the lower photograph?
DR. LEE: Barely, partially.
MR. GOLDBERG: And from the other side?
DR. LEE: From the other side.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would it be fair then for us to link these two photographs up?
DR. LEE: I will try, unless we put the tape other side.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's try to block as little of the picture as we can.
DR. LEE: Right, right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you want me to put this over here, (Indicating)?
DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we just trim this a little bit so it is not blocking too much of the stain.
DR. LEE: Actually we should--if for real we have to go other side.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
DR. LEE: Not this side, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us where this--the photograph that we are seeing now also has a stain on the lower portion of the rail. Is that stain the same as the 109 stain?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can we connect those--well, I don't want to block too much of the--without blocking the picture, can we connect those two stains?
DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: So the view that we have with the 109 card in it is simply a closer up view of the view that we have with the 101 card that shows the beeper well; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And then the view above that also shows the beeper, so can we connect the two beeper photos.
DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's not block that. Let's cut this a little bit.
DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you locate for us, using our diagram, the approximate location of the beeper?
DR. LEE: Okay. Now, we know that is pole no. 6; however, again I don't know--no indication of a sort of a measurement. All I can say, it is a round here, general location, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Could this beeper be in the approximate location--if Ronald Goldman's head was up against a tree stump that is depicted in the photo that has the 101 card in it, could the beeper be a little bit further to the Bundy--the Bundy side of the street?
DR. LEE: Just stretch it a little bit.
MR. GOLDBERG: Should we add a little bit--do you want to add a little bit more tape on that?
DR. LEE: This is typical example of a two-dimensional background. We try to visualize a three-dimensional setting, it is almost impossible, but in general probably this location, (Indicating). If this diagram give me number of pole, I can tell you exactly.
MR. GOLDBERG: But at least we are getting a general location?
DR. LEE: Right, right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything else that you feel should be connected up on this--hold on for a second. Let me just give you a photograph first, Dr. Lee. I think it has been marked as People's--I want to show him People's 56-D, but this is a photograph that also should not go out over the elmo. We are going to show you a photograph.
MR. SCHECK: Can I see that first?
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, I just want you to take a look at this photograph for a moment and try to get yourself oriented a little bit.
DR. LEE: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Particularly on the beeper.
DR. LEE: This beeper shows under almost no. 3 pole and here you may less in between here no poles, then you have too big a gap, looks like no. 4 pole.
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, if you take a closer look at this, does it appear that what we've been referring to as the sapling in photograph that bears the 101 card, that is more of a perspective shot that the sapling and the stake are blocking one of our poles?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would the beeper be a little bit further back towards Ron Goldman's buttocks?
DR. LEE: That is two-dimensional. Looks like this picture could be even little further here, (Indicating). It is kind of difficult now. If I go that far, here impossible to have three poles in that little corner area. Something wrong with this area, something wrong with perspective of this picture. You can eat the pie both ways.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it correct to say that when we are interpreting photographs we have some problems with perspective and distortions that occur?
DR. LEE: Exactly.
MR. GOLDBERG: As a result of the photography?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So is there an area where you would be more comfortable with placing this red dot--this red tape than where you have it now?
DR. LEE: If I know exactly how many pole, if you give me a number, I can evenly divide it up and count the number of pole, tell you exactly the location.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would it be safe to say that the beeper appears to be far east or at least east of Ronald Goldman's shoulder?
DR. LEE: That doesn't make too much difference.
MR. GOLDBERG: So Dr. Lee, would it be fair to say that with respect to all of the bloodstains that we referred to or that you referred to on the board that you were shown by the Defense, when you were discussing Bundy, that all of them happened in an area that is west of the--the portion of the fence that is parallel to Bundy, they are west of there?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And all of them are south of the fence that is parallel to the neighbor's yard?
DR. LEE: With this particular set of picture, I don't have an overall shows this part, (Indicating). I did see another picture relate to really, so in other words, there are other patterns which are inability for me to see it. I only can testify on the picture I saw.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. As to the pictures that you saw, all of the bloodstains are to the east of--
DR. LEE: West.
MR. GOLDBERG: Of--
DR. LEE: West. That is the west direction.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, I want to ask you about toward the east.
DR. LEE: Toward the east.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All of the bloodstains are to the east of the area where the stump is located?
DR. LEE: No. The stump is located here, (Indicating). Clearly it is the west side of the stump.
MR. GOLDBERG: When I was saying "Stump" I was referring to what appears to be--
DR. LEE: Oh, okay. A good portion is to the east. There are some, for example, this three--those little spatter drops, it appear to be to the west of the stump.
MR. GOLDBERG: So would it be fair to say, doctor, that with respect to the photographs that you discussed on direct examination--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --that these photographs and the location of the blood spatters indicate that the murder occurred in an area with respect to Ron Goldman about the size of a very small walk-in closet?
DR. LEE: Like my house.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe like my house.
DR. LEE: I don't know a definition of a small walk-in closet. I do know this area is 68 inches total. If we divided it by the pole, then we can get the number.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, could I just--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Could I have a few more minutes or did you want to break for lunch now?
THE COURT: Do you have just a few more minutes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. I just wanted to tie up this last--I just wanted to--
THE COURT: All right. Let's finish the exhibit.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, using the scale on the bottom of this exhibit, can we just get a measurement--let's see if we can do this--as to the approximate area that would contain all of the bloodstains that we have here?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think I have an objection to this on foundational grounds.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: As to what?
THE COURT: Foundation, scale.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I have to be heard on that, your Honor, so perhaps we need to break for the--
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:15. All right. Dr. Lee, you can step down.
(At 12:04 p.m. the noon recess was taken until 1:15 p.m. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1995 1:15 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. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we launch back into it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there was the issue of the use of the scale diagram, your Honor. And the diagram that we brought to court today is a combination basically of three exhibits. It has part of the exhibit that we used with Bill Bodziak of the Bundy walk.
THE COURT: Let me see the diagram.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, is it okay if I put the board here?
THE COURT: Why don't you put it on the jury box rail so I can see the diagram portion.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, basically this is a combination of three diagrams. Part of the diagram is the Bundy walk diagram that was testified to by Bill Bodziak, which is to scale, and the tiles are approximately 11 and a half inches, and also the scale is the same as in the Bodziak diagram. So that's part of it. Then we also combined it with another diagram that just shows the close-in on the caged-in area, which the court will probably recall with the outline of Ron Goldman's body and Nicole's body. And then of course, we combined the Defense diagram on here with all the photographs. So that's all this is, is a compilation.
THE COURT: All right. Any--
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: All right. Any further comment on that, on the scale objection?
MR. GOLDBERG: No. That's the scale.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I take it--Mr. Goldberg, before you take that down--the--the feet then refers to the Bodziak diagram. Is that--I mean, the scale, where did that come from? Is that the Bodziak--
MR. GOLDBERG: The scale is from the Bodziak diagram.
MR. SCHECK: See, I think the problem I have with this is, your Honor--a few of them. No. 1, I don't hear Mr. Goldberg making any representation that those bodies are drawn to scale in relation to the first--as Mr. Goldberg refers to it--the first plain walkway area and the closed-in area, nor is Mr. Goldman's body as depicted in that diagram necessarily in scale in relation to the tree or the rest of the closed-in area. And the problem that I think we've had with Dr. Lee and these photographs is, he was being asked to draw lines, is that in our photographs, he did everything by pole placements, and then we have different photographs of Mr. Goldman's body in relation to these things. They're taken from different angles, and frankly, it seems to me that it's already misleading. Dr. Lee has indicated, as he was drawing the various--extending the tape, what some of these limitations were. But my concern at the end of the morning and frankly my concern now is that I had thought that somehow those bodies were drawn to scale. I wasn't too sure what the purpose of this was initially. But now it's apparent to me that it is misleading in terms of trying to place the beeper in relation to the body over the shoulder and the poles. I think that there's no foundation whatsoever that we can do that through this diagram. In fact, the photographic evidence seems to be in contradiction to the way that this is drawn.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, then this is a different objection than the one he made, which was simply to the scale. Does the court want me to address that?
THE COURT: Well, the objection is to the scale of the bodies.
MR. SCHECK: And the closed-in areas.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the scale of--first of all, the scale of Nicole is irrelevant basically for the purpose for which this is shown. But see, some of these things, your Honor, can be handled through independent evidence that's already been introduced.
THE COURT: No. The simple question is, was there an attempt made to place the depiction of Ron Goldman's body--was that--any attempt to keep that in scale?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And I'm telling--what I'm telling your Honor is that the only way that that can be done, to try to accurately to do that, is by looking at the crime scene photographs to figure out where he was placed, and we already have extensive crime scene photographs showing that. If the court and counsel want me to introduce every crime scene photograph on Ron Goldman with this witness so that we can make sure this is proper, I'll do it, but I don't think that is what Mr. Scheck wants. I don't think that is in anyone's interest here, and the jury can simply look at the crime scene photographs we have and say yeah, that's about right; his foot was about there, his head is up against the stump.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, my point--this--I have a proposal for resolving this, and that is that I think the pictures speak for themselves in terms of what they show. My problem is that now it's clear to us that the closed-in area and the bottom walkway area and the bodies and where they're placed there in are not drawn to scale whereas this diagram with its scale at the bottom seems to give the impression that the entire thing is drawn to scale when in fact all that's drawn to scale are the placement of the footprints and essentially the lifting of the Bodziak diagram. What I would request of the court is that there's an agreement of the parties that that is the only part of this diagram that is drawn to scale.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that's just not true. I mean, the whole thing--
THE COURT: Well, don't interrupt his comment.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, he was finished.
MR. SCHECK: I'm only trying to listen very carefully to the proffer, and the proffer as I understand it is that the walkway diagram which shows the footprints is drawn to scale and the rest of it is not drawn to scale and the depictions of the bodies in relation to those locations is--has not in any scientific way been drawn to scale.
MR. GOLDBERG: Everything is to scale and the only issue is the bodies, your Honor, and the bodies are based on photographs.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's the only way of doing it.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to overrule the objection at this time on foundational grounds. Court has seen all of the photographs that have been involved in this case plus been to the scene itself on numerous occasions, and the depiction on this chart, which is I believe People's exhibit 593, I don't find it to be misleading. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jury please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, do you want us to replace this as the jury is coming in or after?
THE COURT: Why don't you place it--do you have much more with this diagram?
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, no.
(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 we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Dr. Lee, would you resume the witness stand, please.
DR. LEE: Yes.
Henry C. Lee, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
DR. LEE: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Dr. Lee is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. Go ahead and have a seat, doctor. And we have exhibited to the jury People's exhibit 593, which is a combination of crime scene photos and diagram of 875 south Bundy. Also, counsel, I'm going to direct you that during the course of the trial, I don't want anybody in the clerk's well while court's in session. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, just as a reminder, this exhibit does have one photograph.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Good afternoon, Dr. Lee.
DR. LEE: Good afternoon.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now that you've sat down, maybe you could get back up off the witness stand and help us with this exhibit again.
DR. LEE: Your Honor?
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, using the scale that we have down here, can we just get an estimate of the area that contains the various bloodstains and blood spatters that you've now diagrammed on this exhibit. And why don't you watch me do this and see if I'm doing this correctly. Okay. Now, I've put the ruler up indicating that on this diagram, there's about three and a half inches between the corner of the gate and the approximate area of the last stain.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So on our scale, that would be approximately three feet, 10 inches, something in that neighborhood?
DR. LEE: Approximately.
MR. GOLDBERG: A little under four feet.
DR. LEE: Four feet, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Just to keep it simple, say four feet?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I'm going to measure the gate that's parallel with Bundy on this diagram, and I'm measuring that to be about five and a quarter inches.
DR. LEE: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on our diagram, that's about five and a half feet.
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that true? So the area that contains all of the evidence that you've referred to as roughly four feet by five and a half feet?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And, your Honor, if the court knows, how long is--are the panels on the jury box? Are those three feet?
THE COURT: I don't know. I believe they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't we measure out--we said it was five and a have feet, doctor?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So five and a half feet--why don't we do it from the end of the jury box. So five and a half feet is a little bit less than two panels here (Indicating)?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And we said it was a little under four feet, but just to keep it simple, let's say four. So the square that we've kind of delineated here between the end of the jury box where this tape occurred--intersects with the jury box--
DR. LEE: It's a rectangle.
MR. GOLDBERG: --rectangle is right. Where I'm holding it and back, this rectangle is about the area where all of the evidence is that we've referred to on this diagram (Indicating)?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So--you can resume the witness stand.
DR. LEE: (The witness complies.) Returning the tape.
THE COURT: Thank you, doctor.
MR. GOLDBERG: So, doctor, is it fair to say that all of the evidence that we have in this case of a homicide in terms of the confrontation, the physical confrontation is in a very, very tiny geographic area?
DR. LEE: Uh, four feet by five and a half feet, the majority evidence in that area, rectangle.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is all of the evidence consistent with the homicide of Ron Goldman having occurred within that geographic area?
DR. LEE: I can not say anything about walkway because no indication, no information. There are so many footprints, so many bloodstain on the walkway. But the caged area, that area alone is four by five and a feet, that general measurement.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything that you found that is inconsistent with the homicide of Ron Goldman having been committed within that four by five and a half approximate foot area?
DR. LEE: Whether or not that's the location started, I don't know, but I do know that's the--a struggle in that area and end in that area.
MR. GOLDBERG: And there's no evidence that it occurred in any other area that we are able to find or that you are able to find based on photographs; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Based on photograph, I see quite a few footprint on the walkway, lower walkway near the entrance.
MR. GOLDBERG: And many of those were dog prints and the like?
DR. LEE: Many are dog print. Other appear to be shoeprint. However, took at angle. I can not tell you exactly what it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were those some of the Bruno Magli shoes--
DR. LEE: Yes, exactly.
MR. GOLDBERG: --that Mr. Bodziak referred to? And just getting back to the issue of reconstruction very briefly, sir, do you agree that in the area of reconstruction, that there are many, many limitations on ability of a forensic scientist to be able to tell us precisely what happened based on blood splatter analysis?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you agree that we can never reconstruct with certainty what happened and that only one person ever really knows in a homicide?
DR. LEE: I think more than one person should know. Why one person knows.
MR. GOLDBERG: The person that was there at the time?
DR. LEE: Yeah. Any person there should know.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But other than the person that was there at the time, has it been your stated position on previous occasions that no one will ever be able to reconstruct with precision what happened other than the people that were there?
MR. SCHECK: Objection to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Depends on if have a--we have cases I can determine precisely what happened. For example, if I have camera, videotape running, taping the whole scene during the commission of the crime or I have a case a tape recording kick on, subsequently, I can hear and look at the pattern, I can reconstruct. So depends on if no such recording device, the reconstruction only can as good as whatever evidence we make.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But even outside the extraordinary cases where we have a tape recording or a camera or those cases where this is a witness, a surviving witness, there--we have to be very careful in terms of how we try to reconstruct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you all--is it your position, sir, that the correct interpretation of bloodstains depends upon a careful examination and experience in reconstruction and that overinterpretation of bloodstain patterns could be equally dangerous and misleading as underinterpretation?
DR. LEE: Yes. That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, we don't want to say too much about what happened?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, in this particular case, are you able to say anything about what happened based upon the evidence that you had? I'm not talking about pathologists. Setting that aside, based upon your evidence, are you able to say anything about the order or sequence of events?
DR. LEE: The order and sequence event to certain extent, I can say. Precisely, I can not.
MR. GOLDBERG: To what extent can you say?
DR. LEE: Mr. Goldman have to get to the scene. That's the first order of business.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well--
DR. LEE: Someone has to be there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, other than things that are obvious. I'm talking about--
DR. LEE: Well, that's not obvious. A lot of people obviously they don't recognize, still not obvious.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But just based on the blood spatter. For example, are you able to tell us how many times Ron Goldman was stabbed based on blood spatter?
DR. LEE: I can tell base on when I exam the shirt. I see all those cut, all those stab--cut. I can count the numbers. So reconstruction, you can not just base on one piece of evidence. You have to consider the totality.
MR. GOLDBERG: But can you tell us the order in which those--
DR. LEE: A certain order I can tell you. For example, the imprint on the envelope, I can tell you the imprint was deposit first. Subsequently have some bloodstain deposit on top of the imprint. Not order I can tell you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which imprint? The Bruno Magli or the unknown?
DR. LEE: No. The parallel line.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But in terms of the--let's assume that there is a struggle or a--an attack going on. Let's use the word "Attack." Can you tell us the sequence of the attack, what blow was made, what--when they were exchanged and the like?
DR. LEE: I can tell you certain bloodstain, you can see have a contact, smear downwards, floating down. You can tell the sequence event. First have to have a contact before the smear down, downward. Then have the flowing dripping down. You can not go other way around. So in other words, I can give you certain sequence, not as--matter of fact, first day, first time I would testify, say cannot give you complete reconstruction with this case. Only get--give you pieces, partial reconstruction.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, have you tried to give us the pieces that you're able to give us?
DR. LEE: I already give you two, three example.
MR. GOLDBERG: No. But I mean, between the direct and cross-examination, have you given us the pieces that are--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So just--
THE COURT: Just a second. Doctor, if you would, would you allow Mr. Goldberg to finish asking you the question before you start answering and, Mr. Goldberg, let him finish answering before you start asking the next question. Take a breath in-between.
DR. LEE: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: Just to make it a little bit simpler, maybe getting at it more simply, can you tell us blow by blow what happened here?
DR. LEE: No, I can not. That's a good question.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you. And, doctor, would it be fair to say that if we cannot tell blow by blow what happened here, you can not tell blow by blow what happened, then it's difficult to give any kind of a scientific estimation of time?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Okay. Thank you. I'm finished with this board. Your Honor, is it possible, because I may have been blocking the board at times, that we can show the jurors the board before we put it back up?
THE COURT: I think each one of these items is--anybody need to see it any closer? All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: These are composite exhibits that have already been shown to the jury.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, I'd like to switch to another issue, and that's the question of Ronald Goldman's shoes or boots.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: You detected a--some type of a cut on one of the boots; is that true?
DR. LEE: Uh, as a matter of fact, I detect some other damage on the other boots too. However, when I testify, only show you one boot.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That's what I was going to get to. Now, sir, if a person is involved in some type of activity while they're wearing shoes such as sitting at a desk and maybe hooking their feet under part of the desk as they lean back in their chair and kind of using the desk as a fulcrum--know what I'm talking about?
DR. LEE: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: Might you expect to have some type of damage to both shoes from that that a forensic scientist could detect?
DR. LEE: I did not find any damage on my shoes. Sometime I do this given sometime I sit on airplane, I try to stretch the seat in front of me, doing that. Not necessary you going to have a sharp cut, gorge. You may have. I have to look at this person's or his shoes. If all his shoes, every pair shows identical pattern, then I can reach a reasonable conclusion of course. That's more likely he caught--have those kind of damage during the routine work.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or maybe it would happen in a rubber shoe as opposed to a leather shoe?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or there could be some kind of other activity such as riding a bike. If you hook your feet, that might conceivably expose both shoes to the same type of damage; is that correct?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: When I was kid, ride a lot of bikes, but my shoes never got any of those pattern, but can not eliminate somebody else don't get the pattern.
MR. GOLDBERG: At any rate, there are a variety of activity the person could engage in that could cause both of the shoes to get the same type of defect in a corresponding location on each shoe?
DR. LEE: That's kind of unlikely because if you see the shoes, front of shoes have multiple damage. That I will think more likely because every day you ride, you form a gorge. You can't say every day you ride, the same contact, same location, same place day after day. It's kind of make it difficult. I can not rule out a possibility.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there also--have you also become aware of the practice by some people of purchasing goods that have been damaged at a reduced price at a discount location?
DR. LEE: I do that all the time.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And if we saw a manufacturing defect, we might expect a manufacturing defect on a particular series of items--
DR. LEE: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: --to be in the same place on each item?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to mark as People's next in order a board that shows three shoes--excuse me--three photos depicting shoes.
THE COURT: This will be 594.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be 594, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 594 for id = board)
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach, your Honor?
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, I'd like to direct your attention to People's 594 for identification. Does this appear to be pictures of the shoes that were the subject of your examination?
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, you're shadowing juror no. 7 there.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And can you point out for us again the cut that was the subject of your testimony on direct examination?
DR. LEE: This is the cut, correspondent to this one (Indicating).
THE COURT: All right. Juror 7, can you see that?
JUROR NO. 7: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: He's indicating the top left photograph. And there's a cut over what would be the toe next to the big toe; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then he pointed at the photograph below that, pointing to the shoe that appears to have the least blood on it of the two; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you just alluded to another--some other damage that you saw on the other shoe. Can you point that out for the jurors?
DR. LEE: This one, like the straight line, little hook at the end (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: And, doctor, does that also appear to be over the proximal area where the toe next to the big toe would be on the corresponding shoe?
DR. LEE: This shoe, I think that's two different location.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, what is the location of the cut that you just pointed to in the other shoe?
DR. LEE: I just counted here one, two--oh, well, you have a rule--no, a ruler cannot be used. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. You start eight and nine gorges this area. Here you start one, two, three, four, five, six, seven--seven, eight different locations (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: So one's nine and one's eight?
DR. LEE: Well, you can start seven or eight.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, approximately.
DR. LEE: Approximate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, doctor.
DR. LEE: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'll take that down. Now, on a number of occasions, you've mentioned to the jury that the photographs that you examined were second or third generation photographs; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes. That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the forensic importance of that?
DR. LEE: The forensic importance is, every time the photograph, you make a generation. Some can be smaller or portion can be crack out, the color can be distorted little bit. So it's important we look at a--different generations.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I think you also used the phrase "Photo of photo." Would that be a situation where there's a photo on a photo that's maybe lying down and someone actually takes another photograph of that and then hands that to you?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: So each time that's done, there may be some detail lost; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the eyeglass envelope, I'd like to show you a photograph that's previously been marked as People's 54-B for identification.
MR. SCHECK: May I see this?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'd also like the witness to take a look at the envelope itself which has been previously marked as People's 32.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: So while we're waiting for that photograph, may I have him unseal the envelope?
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, you want to approach and observe this?
MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, can you unseal this and describe what you're doing for the record?
DR. LEE: This is an envelope with some yellow evidence tape on one end with a marking 7-11-95, some initial. Right now, I'm unseal it. This envelope probably unsealed before I unsealed. I can see this somebody else unseal it prior to my unseal this. Inside, contains another envelope. This appear to be a plastic bag with multiple color, blue, red, yellow seal on top. Now I try to unseal this one.
THE COURT: All right. Hold on just a second. Mr. Goldberg, do you want Dr. Lee to open up the plastic envelope that's inside?
MR. GOLDBERG: No. I don't think we need to do that.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well--oh, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you hold that up for a second so I can see it? No. Maybe we can see that.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach?
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, can you see the stain that was labeled with Greg Matheson's initials on this?
DR. LEE: I see three area have three label, A, B and C and have some initial on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there was one of these stains that you didn't see in one of the earlier--earliest photographs, is that correct, that typed consistently with being Ron Goldman, nonconventional?
DR. LEE: Right. Right. Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I put this on the elmo?
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can we pull out just to get a context of where that is, please?
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that the Greg Matheson stain--well, the stain with Greg Matheson's initials on it that we were referring to?
DR. LEE: No. That's not the one.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which is the one?
DR. LEE: The B. You're talking A.
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, okay. I see that.
DR. LEE: We're talking on the lower corner, the B.
MR. GOLDBERG: Pull out a little bit so we can see where it is. Maybe with the telestrator we can just mark that, if possible, and then print it out for now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was that just circled in yellow?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we print that out?
THE COURT: How do you want to mark the printout?
MR. GOLDBERG: The printout would be People's 595, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. 595.
(Peo's 595 for id = printout)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, doctor, just for orientation purposes, on the lower right-hand corner of what we're pointing out is what appears to be a stain that seems to have what looks like it was once a bubble in it. Do you see what I'm talking about?
DR. LEE: A bubble.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. Maybe that's not the correct--
DR. LEE: I don't think any bubble still on there.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
DR. LEE: I don't think have a bubble. You mean which one? Here (Indicating)?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
DR. LEE: That probably some trace material adhere on the envelope and some--I have to look at a pattern itself.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now I'd like to show you--so the Greg Matheson stain, as we're looking at this envelope now, is to the left of that major stain?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, let's take a look at the exhibit that's previously been marked as People's 54-B for identification.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, is it possible the witness may examine this before they put it up on the elmo?
THE COURT: Not necessarily.
MR. GOLDBERG: While we're waiting for that to be scanned up onto the screen--oh, here it comes. Can that be--that can't be reoriented. Let's do it on the elmo.
THE COURT: Is that laser disk?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, looking at this same bubble-like stain--oh, excuse me--stain that may have had some trace material adhere to it on the right-hand side--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --if we go left of there--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --there's a series of--
DR. LEE: This area (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. Does it appear that the Greg Matheson stain is one of those three constellation of stains?
DR. LEE: Judge by the size, it cannot be. This is a reference stain still on the envelope. If you look at a previous one, picture, use as a control, that stain is much smaller than those stain (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: And now this stain is much bigger than that three stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, doctor, would you agree that that stain is in the same geographic location as the Greg Matheson stain?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we circle that one with yellow and print it out?
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, while we're doing that, doctor, is it true that with crime scene photography, sometimes we have artifacts that can appear in the photography that make it look like something is there that wasn't there?
DR. LEE: Well, I think that's a crime scene photographer's provision, job, to actually depict the scene not to say something there not to be there or something there not to be there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, what I'm asking you is this. We're talked about some of the problems with photographs.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And there are inherent limitations of photographs; is that true?
DR. LEE: That's true.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is--and some of them have to do with perspective; is that true?
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can--some of the limitations have to do with glare? Not on this photograph, but just in general.
DR. LEE: All right. Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can those sometimes have a distorting effect in terms of what we're looking at in the photograph?
DR. LEE: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, doctor, I'd like you to take a look at the actual photograph and look at the same stain that we've just referred to.
DR. LEE: Uh, may I look at the envelope again?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, should we print that?
(Brief pause.)
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you had an opportunity to look at that? Did that particular stain wash out of the photographs that you were given that were copies of maybe second or third generation photos?
DR. LEE: I doubt it because the rest of--solutrean (Sic) stain pretty defined. You can't selectively say that particular stain washed out. May happen, but if wash out, I should see that general area everything wash out.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But it is possible that that may have washed out; is that true?
DR. LEE: It possible.
MR. GOLDBERG: And by the time we got a third generation photograph to you, you might not see it at all; is that true?
DR. LEE: Uh, with this particular envelope versus this photograph, my opinion would not change. My opinion will not change. I think that stain wasn't present, did not--present in that envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you. Now, doctor, just getting back to the socks very briefly, I wanted to ask you a couple questions that I may have forgotten.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Are we done with the eyeglasses?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: Why don't we have Dr. Lee repackage that for the record.
DR. LEE: Okay. I'm putting the plastic envelope back to the manila envelope, close it and reseal it, put my initial on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
DR. LEE: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, we were talking about how it's not possible to say that the stain, 42 stain is necessarily related to the wall 3 stain. Do you recall that discussion?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is it possible, doctor, in your judgment that in the process of taking off the socks, if one was cut and they deposited some of their blood on the toe of the sock and they turned the upper part of the sock inside out, that the toe could come into contact with wall 3, which is now inside out?
DR. LEE: Any type of transfer has--in this situation has to be wet. Still in liquid stage, only have minute transfer. It's not a large amount of blood or blood drop on it. It's little, tiny bead. So I can not rule out say possibilities.
MR. GOLDBERG: The scenario that I just gave you?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would it be fair to say, as in the case with some of the other photographs, the photographs that you saw of the socks at Rockingham were again second or third generation?
DR. LEE: The picture I--my testimony is first generation, base my own observation, own photograph. The picture provide to me is different picture taken by different peoples.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm talking about the Rockingham picture.
DR. LEE: Rockingham picture is maybe second, maybe third. I don't know how many generation before get to my hand.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. I'd like to mark as People's next in order, that would be 595--6 for identification what would appear to be a board with socks on it, three pictures. I think it has--oh, I'm sorry. I was going to do it as a board. It's just a single photograph of the socks that have been introduced in this case.
(Peo's 596 for id = photograph)
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, doctor, you said that on your photographs, which were either second or third generation, you couldn't see the toes of the socks; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you couldn't tell whether the socks were inside or out?
DR. LEE: Correct. I have a feeling, interpretation. But if I can not positively see that, I don't want to come here to misled you.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if they were inside out partially, then wall 3 would be exposed to the outside, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I'd like to show you what we've just marked as 596.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I put a 596 on the reverse, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I just show this to the witness first before I put it on the elmo?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you please just look at this, just take a look at that yourself?
DR. LEE: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. On the elmo.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. Oh, this is not very good.
DR. LEE: But I can tell you. You don't have to worry about.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'm going to ask you a few questions about this while this is up and then perhaps we can--oh--well, it's a little better. Dr. Lee, this is a higher quality photograph than the photograph you were provided; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Much better--much, much better quality. I was not have privilege to look at this photograph until just minute.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And with respect to the toes of the socks, those now can be seen quite clearly; is that correct?
DR. LEE: One of the socks, the socks, the lower socks is definite can see that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the other one looks like it's pretty clear too; is that correct?
DR. LEE: The other one looks like it's floating in three-dimension setting.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it correct that with respect to both socks, both socks are substantially turned inside out?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. Especially the lower one, it's positively inside out. The top one, it's kind of in the borderline, but the bottom one, definite inside out.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does it appear that the toe of the top sock is coming into contact with what we've been referring to as wall 3?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. If assume that's inside out.
MR. GOLDBERG: And maybe--we can't say this with--positively, but does it appear that it's coming into contact with the ankle area of wall 3?
DR. LEE: I can not come here speculate anything. It's in this area.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. May I show this to the jurors, your Honor, because it is getting a little washed off in the elmo.
THE COURT: All right. Hand it to juror no. 1, please.
(The photograph was examined by each of the jurors.)
THE COURT: All right. Let me see Mr. Scheck and Mr. Goldberg without the reporter while we're waiting.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you collect that from Deputy Bashmakian, please. All right. Let the record reflect that each of the jurors had the opportunity to carefully review People's 596, the sock photograph.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'd like to move on to another topic if we may, and that's to ask you a couple clarifying questions about bindle no. 47. Now, it is your opinion that there was a wet transfer in that bindle; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes. That's no doubt in my mind it's a wet transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, sir, when you were doing your examination in this case, did you find--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let me withdraw that question, your Honor. I'd like to mark another exhibit as People's next in order what appears to be a board of three photographs showing bindle no. 42 in this case.
THE COURT: All right. That will be People's 597.
(Peo's 597 for id = board)
THE COURT: 165, can you see that?
JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. 1386?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'd like to direct your attention to the item that's been marked as People's 596--excuse me--5--
THE COURT: 97.
MR. GOLDBERG: --97 for identification, Dr. Lee. Can you take a look at that?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is this one of the items that you examined?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did this also contain some wet transfers?
DR. LEE: In my notes, I did mention this item have wet transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, if the testimony in this case is that the swatches here came from a pool of the victim's blood, Nicole Simpson, would you expect that to play any material role in terms of whether or not we would get a wet transfer? In other words, would her blood be different from someone else's blood?
DR. LEE: I don't know. I did not group that. I can't really tell you whose blood. The transfer in my note refer a bow tie, like a bow tie transfer. I try to find a piece in here have a bow tie (Indicating). Whether or not can fit this bow tie, I wasn't too successful.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that could be something twisted; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: What I'm asking you--I guess my question wasn't very clear--is, would we expect that perhaps Orenthal Simpson's blood dries at a faster rate or different rate than Nicole Brown's blood?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, would we expect that one person's blood would dry faster or slower than another person's blood?
DR. LEE: This morning, indicates there are other factors. Among them, sample, condition of sample, the drying condition. Here, I don't know how many swatches have whole bundle of it and only few small transfer which indicative there are some wet transfer. That's all I can say.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well--and that's the same as bindle 47?
DR. LEE: 47 have few more transfers, four transfers.
MR. GOLDBERG: So this has a few less transfers?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: But both of them have transfers.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'd like to show the witness very briefly the exhibit that we've marked as "Serology results board," People's 202 for identification. It's out in the hall apparently, if we may get it.
MR. SCHECK: May we approach when he does?
THE COURT: Serology results board?
MR. SCHECK: I have an objection to this. Outside the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. This is People's exhibit?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 202.
THE COURT: Proceed. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Doctor, I want to you assume there's already been testimony to this board and the accuracy of the PGM subtypes and direct your attention to the PGM subtype column.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Showing you item no. 42 for identification, it says, "Blood under Nicole brown"; is that correct?
DR. LEE: The chart say so.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And according to the chart, there is an inconclusive result on that PGM subtype, an inc. B?
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, in terms of bindle 42 containing blood under Nicole brown--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --and bindle 47, do you believe that the same process was responsible--I mean, are the types of transfer stains we're seeing in both of those consistent?
DR. LEE: First, we don't have 47 on the board.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. I'm not asking you--
DR. LEE: Oh, you not asking me the board.
MR. GOLDBERG: --transfer stains, yes.
DR. LEE: I thought you asking me about a board.
MR. GOLDBERG: But the transfer stains are consistent in both cases; is that correct?
DR. LEE: They're wet transfer. That aspect similar, but the transfer pattern being different.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And there were different swatches and different combinations of swatches?
DR. LEE: Yes. Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you. Now, getting to the shoeprints that we left off with on the Bundy location--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --on the walkway itself, there was one photograph from June the 13th--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --that you referred to. And was it your conclusion in your testimony that there was some parallel lines that could be seen in that?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was it your conclusion when you testified on Friday that with regard to those parallel lines and that photograph, it could be anything?
DR. LEE: Yes. Just some parallel line. And I can not say that's a footprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'd like to mark as People's next in order a photograph that is depicting one of the shoeprints. It's P-50.
THE COURT: All right. This will be People's 598. Have you shown that to Mr. Scheck?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry. It's already been marked as People's 45-I.
THE COURT: All right. Withdraw 598.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I just approach the witness very quickly?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'd like to show you quickly what we've already marked in this case as 45-I. Does that appear to be a first generation photograph of the June 13th photograph that appear to have some parallel lines that could be anything?
DR. LEE: Yeah. This is a much better photograph than what I obtained.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now that you see that photograph, does it appear that the parallel lines are in fact trawl marks or scratches in the surface of the pavement?
DR. LEE: Could be.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that appear to be the most reasonable explanation?
DR. LEE: Yes. Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So that leaves us with the parallel line imprints that you saw on June the 25th that we discussed?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, when you took those photographs of parallel line imprints on the Bundy walk itself--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --had you seen those prints on the walk at any time prior to June the 25th?
DR. LEE: I wasn't there. I definite did not see anything like this before.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you examine the photographs in this case that were provided to you by Mr. Shapiro to determine whether or not you could see those particular parallel line prints in the photos?
DR. LEE: Unfortunately, the area I found really don't have a good photograph. Most of the overall view photo is taken at angle. It's lost the perception. Some did. Some are pretty good photograph. Those are selective. Just shows those imprint consistent with Bruno Magli.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Let's take a look at the Defense exhibit 1337, which is the footprint board if we may.
DR. LEE: Yes. Bless you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the photograph on this exhibit that is at the bottom in the middle that says "Walkway, June the 25th, 1994 on it"--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --can you show the ladies and gentlemen of the jury clearly where the parallel line footprint is?
DR. LEE: I say imprint evidence. I think I did not say footprint. I don't think I identify this as footprint. I identify this one as footprint. I see parallel line imprint here (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But does this appear to have a round edge that would seem to be consistent with some sort of a manufactured object like a sole?
DR. LEE: Maybe.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you say that the characteristics of these two items were the same?
DR. LEE: No. This is a parallel line here like Bruno Magli. Here look like a portion on top of each other. You are overlapping them two patterns. That's why I call imprint evidence. I did not call footprint. This one is a clear one. You can see from the toe to the heel. That's why I call this one a footprint. It's no doubt in my mind this made shoe (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Both of these imprint--parallel imprints were in blood from appearances?
DR. LEE: This definite is, and this I tested also consistent with (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: And--well, I make a motion to strike the part about testing because I said appearances.
THE COURT: Appearances. That will be stricken.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, Dr. Lee, was it your opinion that insofar as you could tell, the characteristics of these two are consistent with one another?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, can you tell us from your--now, this parallel imprint is it fair to say sort of transects one of the tiles?
DR. LEE: It's a mixture of imprints, debris overlapping, quite a few stuff in there, quite a few imprint items altogether. This one is clear and define. That's why I call this as an imprint. I don't refer to as a footprint (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: But this particular imprint seems to go across where the tiles meet at a junction; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes. A portion of this appear to be cross.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And can you just double-check your notes, doctor, to see whether you accurately stated what tile you believe the cross footprint to be in?
DR. LEE: Well, actually, this one is tile 10. I have no doubt of this. This I did not bring my note with me. You get a copy. I think it's between tile 5, 6 or 7, 6, something in that neighborhood (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So when you said "This," you're talking about the imprint evidence that's on the bottom in the middle. We don't know what tile it is on for sure.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what tile it was on for sure by looking at your notes?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But the one in the lower part of the diagram on the right you say is on tile no.--
DR. LEE: 10.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time--well, is it conceivable--I don't want to have the courtroom flooded with boards, but is there a way that we can have three boards at one time or is that just an impossibility? All right. Let's just take this one down. Your Honor, I'd like to next mark a blank magnetic board as People's 5--
THE COURT: 98.
MR. GOLDBERG: I thought had a 9--we don't have a 98?
THE COURT: 98.
(Peo's 598 for id = magnetic board)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can we put the easel in the middle, your Honor? Your Honor, actually let's--your Honor, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, it will be--can I mark it as part of this--well, I'll do it as 599-A, B and C, a series of magnetized photographs of the Bundy walk. A appears to be the furthest up the walk, B is the middle photograph in terms of where it's positioned on the walk.
THE COURT: All right. Do we have any remains on this?
MR. GOLDBERG: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. May I see it, Mr. Bancroft?
MR. GOLDBERG: And C is going to be the furthest east. That would be towards where Nicole's body was.
THE COURT: All right. Noted.
(Peo's 598-A, B and C for id = mag. Photos)
MR. GOLDBERG: And, your Honor, with the court's permission, can I put A, B and C tags on that just so we can make the testimony a little easier to follow?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, perhaps you could step down for a moment.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Goldberg--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, put it where it's not covering any of the tiles like on the spout.
THE COURT: 2:45. 2:45.
MR. GOLDBERG: 2:45? Okay. Your Honor, while Dr. Lee is examining that photograph, I'd like to put photograph 45--People's 45-D on the elmo, which is P-46 or on laser, whichever way we can do it. We're going to put it on the elmo instead, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: I believe it has to be arranged the other way so that we can see the whole photo.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Dr. Lee, I want you to look carefully at this, and I'll show you the actual photo off the elmo if you need to see it, but I would like to direct your attention to what would appear to be a detective's left leg, left foot, third tile.
DR. LEE: You have two--
MR. GOLDBERG: Black--
DR. LEE: Set of shoes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Black shoes.
DR. LEE: Black shoes.
MR. GOLDBERG: In the third tile?
DR. LEE: One, two, three. Yeah, third tile.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. I'd like you to look carefully at the shoeprint that is to the right of the third tile.
DR. LEE: To the right. Here. You mean this one (Indicating)?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. To the right of the tile in the third row.
DR. LEE: Third row. Left or right?
MR. GOLDBERG: No, no. Third row back towards what would be the alley.
DR. LEE: That's one, that's two, that's three, right (Indicating)?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
DR. LEE: The third row. Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, taking a look back at--you want to look at it down here?
DR. LEE: Yes. I can't see this one (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the one that we're referring to, that we've just been referring to as the same as on photograph C on our Bundy exhibit; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that would be the third row. Sir, is the arrow in the right place on the telestrator?
DR. LEE: You mean the shoeprint you want to show me?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we print that and mark that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Dr. Lee, I'm going to put a little "3" in an area of the tile that appears to contain no shoeprint evidence. Is this okay?
DR. LEE: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that would be the third row. I'm not going to mark all of these because otherwise, it would take too long. But if this is 3, 4, 5, 6, 7--
DR. LEE: 7.
MR. GOLDBERG: 7. Okay. I want you to attest if I'm putting no. 7 in the right place.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's use the bigger photograph. This is 7, 8, 9, 10. And the parallel line shoeprint is supposed to be where?
DR. LEE: Here (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you see anything that bears--
DR. LEE: I see something on the tile.
MR. GOLDBERG: You see something on that tile?
DR. LEE: Yeah.
MR. GOLDBERG: Where?
DR. LEE: Appear to be a pattern on this tile (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: You're saying you could see a pattern on that tile?
DR. LEE: Some kind of pattern. I can not describe this pattern because this picture taken--again, it's not one to one direct down. The photographer take a picture in my position. So everything lost perspective. You can't--you do see something here. Whether or not those are--you can see quite a few stuff here. This is a set of footprint. But here, you can see they are transfer imprints, but I can not tell you what kind of a pattern (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could the record reflect here that Dr. Lee has indicated first reddish--the darker red ones that were previously referred to as Bruno Magli, and I think it goes from the set of tiles which are the--
THE COURT: No. 7.
MR. SCHECK: Well, there's--I think if you start from the number--
THE COURT: No. 7.
MR. SCHECK: --no. 7, that they go straight back. And then he indicated another set--
DR. LEE: Column.
MR. SCHECK: --another column of imprints--
THE COURT: Third tile over from the left.
MR. SCHECK: --one tile over from the left. And in particular, the discussions started with an examination of where Mr. Goldberg had placed the "10" which, if we go three tiles over to the right, he indicates seeing an imprint there.
THE COURT: So noted. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: So, Dr. Lee, you're saying that the imprint is 10 down the tile--
DR. LEE: You can actual start from here.
MR. GOLDBERG: --but the possible, whatever it is, is 10 down and three over; is that right?
DR. LEE: But here again, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 8 is here with something.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in your notes, did you document any imprint as being 10 down and three over?
DR. LEE: I don't have this photograph. That's the first day I see this photograph.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Dr. Lee, with respect to the parallel line imprint, didn't you say it was 10 down and one over? Is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's still one over from this one, one over. That's not right. That's the planter (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, here, let's compare them. Can you help me with this, doctor?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think we should put this up too.
DR. LEE: No, no. That's the other way around.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And so according to your notes, the print that we're looking for should be 10 down and two over?
DR. LEE: No. My notes says "10th tile." I did not put--make this board.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you're saying--
DR. LEE: Somebody made this board.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you're saying this board is wrong?
DR. LEE: I think if I look at this picture today, this probably one next in this location. I did not make this board (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: Can we have that reflected on the board?
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. SCHECK: Put that up so that we can make a change?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you'll have to do that on redirect I suppose.
THE COURT: You want to at least--wait, wait. Mr. Goldberg, while you're conducting your examination, would you at least describe for the record what the witness is referring to?
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I--he was referring to the Bundy imprint board and saying, "I did not make this board."
DR. LEE: Yes.
THE COURT: Which is Defense exhibit what?
MR. SCHECK: I think it's 1337.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, did you say you were not given photos from June the 13th of this walkway?
DR. LEE: I don't have a picture as clear as this. I have some picture barely see the images, not too good.
THE COURT: All right. Counsel, we've got a logistical problem here because we've got four or five jurors who can't see the witness now. So--
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, did you ask--
THE COURT: Hold on, hold on, hold on. All right. We're going to have to move some of these items. Do you need 1337 up at this point?
MR. GOLDBERG: 1337? I don't necessarily need it up as long as he's came down--well, I think he's already testified where--
MR. SCHECK: May I request, your Honor, that marking be made on the board?
THE COURT: No. You can do that on your part of the redirect, counsel.
MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, did you ever ask the Defense to provide you with higher quality pictures?
DR. LEE: I get the information that's all the picture we get. It's total out of sequence mixed up like a deck of card. I spend lot of time trying to make some sense out.
MR. GOLDBERG: But when you got it from Mr. Shapiro, did you say, "Please send me some examination quality photos"?
DR. LEE: I did ask it. He said that's all he get. He took it back right away. I don't have the photograph.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you don't have them now?
DR. LEE: I don't have it now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I'd like to direct your attention to your notes from 6-25. What does that say in terms of where the 10th tile footprint is?
DR. LEE: By the way, that's Dr. Wolf, Barbara Wolf note. But 10th tile here, first line parallel, you see this line parallel line footprint (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: So it's on 10, but do we know how many over it is from the notes?
DR. LEE: Based on her notes, I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, do you have notes that show how--
DR. LEE: I was so busy taking picture, I only have 20 minutes to work. I only can do one thing at a time. I dictate to her. Whether or not she put it down, I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So at this point, we have no record as to where that is?
DR. LEE: Judge by your photograph, I think it's the second row in front of house. That's the third house, in front of planter. That's the second row.
MR. GOLDBERG: You have no independent recollection?
DR. LEE: No. No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you have no independent recollection of where the other one is; is that correct?
DR. LEE: I only have one shot very short time. I photograph document it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's--are we going to take a recess at 2:45, your Honor, because I wanted to switch to the other print and maybe we can take a recess now.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our mid-afternoon 15-minute recess at this point. Remember all my admonitions to you. Dr. Lee, you can step down. We'll be in recess for 15.
(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. Let's have it quiet in the courtroom. All right. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Goldberg, you got your exhibits all set up?
MR. GOLDBERG: That's what I'm just double-checking right now just to make sure. Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, the court reporter asked me to change the magnetic stickers to exhibit 598.
THE COURT: I think it was actually Mrs. Robertson.
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: The court clerk.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. Correct.
(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. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Henry Lee is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, just--
THE COURT: Hold on just a second. We've got all our equipment?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, for the record, I put the no. 10 sticker on the--on exhibit A, 598-A on the 11th tile, and Dr. Lee then said that he had seen something on 11 down, three across from left to right. I've moved it, I've moved no. 10 in Mr. Scheck's presence now to the 10th tile.
THE COURT: All right. So we're agreed that the marker for the 10th tile is now correctly placed on this exhibit, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: There was other testimony about other tiles, but--
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee--
THE COURT: The appellate courts will just love this record.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: Never mind.
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, directing your attention to photographs 598-A, B and C, do you see some footprints on those photographs that are consistent with what has been identified as a Bruno Magli design?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you see any items on there that can be identified as footprints that are inconsistent with the Bruno Magli design?
DR. LEE: I see some imprint evidence in different locations. I don't know what type of pattern. It's--if we call this column no. 1, column no. 2, we can see column no. 1 and column no. 2, they are vivid pattern which consistent with Bruno Magli. Of course, those other focus, I don't know. Column no. 3, they are some appear to be imprint evidence which I don't know what kind of pattern.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the only imprint evidence on any of these photos that we can say is both--that we can say is a shoe is consistent with the Bruno Magli design; is that correct?
DR. LEE: These two in focus. These two is in focus, I can tell. The rest of them I can not tell.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, did you take a look at Bill Bodziak's diagrams and notes with respect to his investigation of shoeprint evidence in the Bundy location?
DR. LEE: No. This is the first time I see this beautiful chart. And a lot of blue, black--dark blue, all different color which appears to be indicates some footprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can I put that up on another easel, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. All right. And, Mr. Fairtlough, which diagram is this?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: This is People's exhibit 387-B.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: While we're waiting for him to put that up, the other items that you said are imprints that you can see--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --are you saying that those are shoeprints or not shoeprints or "I don't know"?
DR. LEE: I can tell you that imprint, but I can not tell you definitively those are shoeprints.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, doctor, were you aware of any testimony by Mr. Bodziak on cross-examination offering a theory that someone perhaps turned around and went back down the walk as well wearing Bruno Magli shoes?
DR. LEE: When I exam some crime scene photo, although it's a second, third generation, I do see couple footprint out of place in different direction. So I concur with his opinion. That's just interpretation.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But that there seemed to be fewer prints perhaps--well, strike that. Okay. Now, doctor--
MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. Your Honor, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, that would be 598-E and F--
THE COURT: 599? I'm sorry. 598. We're still doing the magnetic--
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And E is what appears to be a--
MR. SCHECK: This would be D I think.
MR. GOLDBERG: No. We already had--
THE COURT: A, B, C, D.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. He's right. I thought we already marked a D. Sorry. So D is going to be--oh, excuse me. There is a D. Okay. Yes, there was a D, your Honor. Okay. As E, what appears to be a further-away view of what appears to be a parallel line imprint that intersects with a tile, and then as F, what appears to be a closer view of the same photograph.
(Peo's 598-E and F for id = mag. Photos)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, before he describes what they are, maybe he could show them to the witness and he'll authenticate them in that fashion.
THE COURT: He gets to do it the way he wants to do it, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: I'm only talking about the description of what it contains.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, for the record, I'm taking C and B down, but I'm going to leave a up.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, doctor, I'm going to put a on its side. And the way that I've arranged this, the dog's bowl is on the left-hand side of the photograph; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So looking at it, it's as if we're sort of looking down the walk towards the alley; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I'd like to show you what has been marked as E, and I'm orienting that so that the tile is parallel with the floor as it's on the board, floor in this courtroom; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I'd like to show you F, and I'm orienting that similarly so that the tile is parallel with this courtroom floor.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are these--do these two photographs depict the same scene?
DR. LEE: Appears to be depict the same scene. Appears to be enhanced photo.
MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me?
DR. LEE: Enhanced photo.
MR. GOLDBERG: You mean enhanced, enlarged or--
DR. LEE: Enlarged or enhanced because the contrast is much better than before, much better than my original photo.
MR. GOLDBERG: Looking at this photograph or these two photographs now, does this item that intersects--the imprint that intersects the walkway appear to be more consistent with the shoeprint than in the photos that you looked at?
DR. LEE: Maybe. I can not--I still call imprint. I can not say that's a foot.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to this photograph, sir, there appear to be a number of dark spots.
DR. LEE: Imprints, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Little dark patches?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were there berries on the walk?
DR. LEE: Yes. There are berries on the walk.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did the berries leave numerous berry stains in the area?
DR. LEE: Well, I guess with berries, somebody step on the berry, going to be some berry stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when we're looking at these little dark splotches on the photograph, those appear to be--
DR. LEE: Those are residue of the berry. Not the berry stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, doctor, I'd like to direct your attention back to Bill Bodziak's diagram.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And let's count over to the 10th tile. One, two--okay. So the 10--the 10th tile is to the--right between J and K and H and I; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the closest photographs we have to that tile would be photographs depicting H, I, J and K, correct?
DR. LEE: This by the way not the 10th tile. This E and F by no means it's not 10th tile. Also going to be 10th tile as I just noticed the chart was upside down and should be here, from here, the side instead of on this side (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, by second one, what are you talking about? The other that's not on--
DR. LEE: Not--you did not show. Not shows the footprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. The one that's a footprint is on what tile?
DR. LEE: 10th tile. One zero.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. One zero. So that should be between H, I, J and K?
DR. LEE: It's here (Indicating). It's not. It's little off H, I and J, K.
MR. GOLDBERG: But do you have any note--you don't have any notes reflecting where that is?
DR. LEE: Only Dr. Barbara Wolf, I dictate to her. She wrote down, "10th tile parallel line footprint."
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the one that's intersecting the tile--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --that's the one where we don't know where it is?
DR. LEE: Probably five or seven, in that neighborhood, but the notes do not reflect.
MR. GOLDBERG: So E and F, we don't know.
DR. LEE: We don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, let's take a look at the--and just so that we're clear, E and F are the photographs that you took on June the 25th?
DR. LEE: No. E--I took some photograph. You use my photograph to enlarge those, enhance. Show additional--as I pointed out, there are numerous imprint evidence on here. This wiggly line, that another imprint evidence. Here is another parallel line imprint evidence, actually better than my own photo (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, doctor, would you agree though that these photographs were taken on June the 25th, E and F?
DR. LEE: My photograph was taken on June 25th. This photograph definite not taken on June 25th.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, isn't this--this comes from your photograph, right?
DR. LEE: So it's not from my--you are taking--retaking my photograph. So you did not take on June 25th, 1995.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, I don't want to get into semantics.
DR. LEE: No, that not semantic. That's really important--
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
DR. LEE: --because I took my picture on June 25th, 1994. This picture, somebody took picture of my picture.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to mark as People's 598-G a photograph of what appears to be the same as E and F except that it's not enlarged.
THE COURT: All right.
(Peo's 598-G for id = photograph)
MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, is this your picture?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. This is my picture.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's just put that on the elmo so we have that. Well, can't we get a little better than that? Your Honor, I'd like to mark as People's 598-H--do we have an H sticker? Unfortunately, I don't have an H sticker. But fortuitously, this happens to be footprint H and it has an H in it.
(Peo's 598-H for id = photograph)
MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to direct your attention, Dr. Lee, to a footprint that is in photograph H.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, does that appear to be one of the photographs that was taken on June the 13th?
DR. LEE: I trust you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And incidentally, when we're taking photographs of shoeprints, is it preferable to have photographs if possible in black and white?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then I'd like to mark as People's 594-I for identification--
MR. SCHECK: 598.
THE COURT: 598.
MR. GOLDBERG: --598-I another imprint.
(Peo's 598-I for id = photograph)
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's take one of these down.
THE COURT: Or you can just move them over.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I'd like to direct your attention to what--a photograph that's actually been previously testified to in this case and this case labeled as H.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that is also depicted on Bill Bodziak's diagram.
THE COURT: 387-B.
MR. GOLDBERG: As H.
DR. LEE: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now I'd like to direct your attention to a photograph that's been marked as I for identification here. Now, I'd like you to compare very carefully E and I for identification.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: First I'd like to direct your attention to the heel print of E and I.
DR. LEE: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does it appear that the same portion--does it appear that the same portion of the heel print is missing in both of those?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I'd like to direct your attention to what would be the toe area of I.
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does it appear that with respect to the toe area of I, that portions of the toe area in relationship to the tile, the grouting in the tile is consistent with its placement on E?
DR. LEE: Could be. I can not see that definitively, but could be.
MR. GOLDBERG: But you agree that that appears to be--
DR. LEE: I don't have the tile here.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, doctor, do you also notice what appear to be in this photograph some possible splatter patterns maybe from a bird?
DR. LEE: It's a bird? If you say that's a bird, that's fine.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you take a look at that spatter?
DR. LEE: How can I look at spatter, tell you that's a bird, squirrel. I can't tell.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, whatever it is, there's some sort of a white spatter pattern in there, correct?
DR. LEE: Could be a--could be anything.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Whatever it is, there appears to be some sort of a white mark that appears to be a spatter; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I'd like to direct your attention to H for identification and see whether you can see that same spatter pattern appears in both photographs.
DR. LEE: Looks like a similar pattern. But again, I can not tell you that's a spatter or not spatter. If you just want to--asking me is this more or less like same location, I will tell you it looks like more or less same if use this ruler. Whether or not on the walkway have other so-called bird or spatter or not--for example, here you have one that's not showing in the photo (Indicating). I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or this could be a photographic--
DR. LEE: This could be a photograph.
MR. GOLDBERG: Except--
DR. LEE: Anything is possible.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. These are some of the problems we get into with photographs.
DR. LEE: Right. Because look at here, you have additional stuff and here I don't see additional stuff.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now--
DR. LEE: It's kind of difficult to just look at the picture. That's difficult.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --if you are photographing footprints on a walkway, you are supposed to use a tripod; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct. Supposed to. Ordinary, if I do my crime scene, I do. If you asking me did I take this with tripod, no. I only have 20 minute, just enough to get there, take couple shot and get out.
MR. GOLDBERG: But if someone does take a picture with a tripod and they're not adjusting--they're trying to keep the tripod at the same height as they go down the walk, photographs should match up much better than one would expect; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Uh, in certain aspect, it's correct. But, for example, this photograph, it's not correct. The ruler got the shoe and it was supposed to have a t-bar shape. This block something, here block something. You are not seeing the whole shoe.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, doctor, also, you used a metal retractor.
DR. LEE: That's all I got.
MR. GOLDBERG: But you're not supposed to use that in shooting photography, correct?
DR. LEE: No. Not saying you not supposed to. You only can use whatever you get that moment. If I bring my whole crime scene lab to Bundy that day, of course I can. Tripod, laser lock, I probably going to use chemical enhancement. I probably can develop minimal, I just look at a photo--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, actually there's no question pending at this point.
THE COURT: All right. The question was regarding the ruler. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Dr. Lee, you didn't use one of the rulers that was marked in evidence, did you?
DR. LEE: That's called a ruler too.
THE COURT: Appears to be a tape measure.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Tape measure. At any rate, let's not get off the subject and deal with another area. Do you notice on H there appears to be a little portion of a heel print on--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's try to match up what appears to be a possible splatter pattern and the heel print on these two photographs. And now, I'm blocking part of your photograph.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that appear to match up reasonably well?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is it reasonable to believe that these two photographs are depicting portions of the same tile?
DR. LEE: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, you--
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm blocking the jurors again.
THE COURT: No. No. It's all right. That's not my concern. I just need--the record needs to reflect which--that you superimposed H over--
MR. GOLDBERG: Over I.
THE COURT: Over I. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's take a look at--back at A. Let's go on to the ninth tile. We have a little bit of a heel imprint that seems to be consistent with H.
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And we have another larger footprint on the--intersecting the eighth and ninth tiles that appears to be consistent with I.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Correct?
DR. LEE: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, directing your attention back to your photograph, the June--excuse me--the June 25th photograph.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's call it that.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you notice what appears to be a similar heel print in the bottom corner of the tile?
DR. LEE: Could be.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does that appear to be consistent with the portion of the heel print in H?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to--now, doctor, is it reasonable to believe that we have now identified photographs that were taken on the 13th of the same area that was photographed on June the 25th?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the wave-like pattern--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --on the June the 25th photograph, is it fair to say that that does not appear in the June 13th photographs?
DR. LEE: It's under the ruler first thing. Second, this problem much lighter compared to this pattern. If it made of blood, this is dark, this going to be much lighter, which if you have a direct lighting, you probably--just like Mr. Goldberg just say, reflection, bleach out, all kind of possibility, you may don't see it. After time, aging, progression, this thing gets darker, darker. That's why the contrast you start can see. Unless you can see it, you can't take picture.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Dr. Lee, with respect to the June the 25th photograph--
DR. LEE: Yes. Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: --and the wave-like pattern, this was not one of the items that you identified as being the parallel line?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this was not something you identified being consistent with blood; is that correct?
DR. LEE: I did not test--I test this area. I test some other area, test couple area (Indicating). I don't recall exactly spot so many--so long ago.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you can't recall?
DR. LEE: I can't recall.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But just so that it's clear, if we look at I and H--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --and we're looking at the intersection of the tile in the area of the heel print on H--
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: --does that appear to be the same as the intersection on E that also contains a partial heel print?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there any photographic--would you agree that there is no indication of the parallel line imprint on the June the 13th photographs?
DR. LEE: Not what we can see.
MR. GOLDBERG: Because here we see a fairly dark impression; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what I'm referring to here, I'm talking about the June the 25th--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --photograph. But we do not see that on the June 13th photograph; is that correct?
DR. LEE: With this particular photo.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, the record should reflect Mr. Goldberg was pointing towards I think it's 598-H at that moment, the black and white.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I'm going to move on to a different, but related area. But before I do that, would it be possible for the jurors to get a close-up view of the photographs that are now on the board?
THE COURT: All right. Let's start with juror no. 1.
(The board with photographs, People's exhibit 598 was examined by each one of the jurors.)
A juror: Can you move it down a little bit?
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, the jurors would like it down a little bit.
(Mr. Fairtlough complies.)
THE COURT: Thank you. Any of the jurors want to use a magnifying glass looking at any of this?
A JUROR: It's fine.
THE COURT: Fine?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. The record will reflect that each of the jurors have had the opportunity to carefully examine 598. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. Sorry, your Honor?
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I wanted to show one of the videos that was previously marked as 101, but Mr. Scheck now wants to approach.
THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, while we are doing that, is it okay if we take these boards down?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: Over at the sidebar. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Mr. Goldberg now indicates to me that he wants to show the jurors the video that previously had been introduced and I don't have a clear recollection of, and not the ones that he previewed earlier, and I just want to see it. I may have a possible relevancy objection.
THE COURT: Which one do you want?
MR. GOLDBERG: He had brought this up before, your Honor, I believe. I'm not 100 percent positive. It's been a long day.
THE COURT: Too long.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it was worth it for us.
MR. COCHRAN: You say that.
MR. GOLDBERG: It was.
THE COURT: What video do you want to show?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this was the video Miss Clark was referring to and that I referred to earlier this morning of showing the police officer going up the walk. It's funny because I indicated to counsel let's forget the other ones, let's just save time. Now he wants me to show all three.
MR. SCHECK: No. Not all three. I just don't recall which one this is.
THE COURT: All right. We can--
MR. GOLDBERG: What does he want me to do? Change my mind and show all three of them?
THE COURT: He's just asking to see it. We can show it to him on the monitor, just on the monitor on counsel table. We can do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: We'll have Mr. Fairtlough do that.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, do you want to show to the jury and to the witness a videotape that has previously been shown?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: And what exhibit is this?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's 101.
THE COURT: I'm going to ask to review the matter first so the court and counsel can see it only.
MR. GOLDBERG: I had a couple questions of Dr. Lee prior to that if I might.
THE COURT: All right. But just so our technical staff can set that up.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, would you agree that if footprints were deposited on the Bundy walk after crime scene photography was done and after the crime scene was shut down, that those footprints would not be of forensic relevance?
DR. LEE: Uh, I can't say that totally. Depends what kind of context you put in. Sometime a criminal go back to the scene and we do take considerations.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, other than something that's completely speculative, would you say that generally if a police officer or a citizen, whoever it was, deposited the shoeprints after the photographs and after the crime scene was shut down, that that's not something of forensic relevance?
DR. LEE: If in blood, that's still significant.
MR. GOLDBERG: If they traipse through blood and then deposit shoeprints, you think that that's significant?
DR. LEE: Yes. Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this. If a police officer or a citizen or a photographer traipses through blood after the crime scene's shut down and deposits shoeprints, is that going to help you identify the suspect?
DR. LEE: If all the evidence already collected, they're bond at the scene, there no significance.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can we now preview the tape on the counsel table monitors?
THE COURT: All right. Just on counsel table, please.
(At 3:38 P.m., People's exhibit 101, a videotape, was played for counsel and the court.)
(At 3:40 P.m., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, do you recollect the videotape? All right. Do you remember the videotape, Mr. Scheck? Mr. Goldberg, do you wish to play this for the jury?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, would you rewind it and play it, please.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
(At 3:40 P.m., People's exhibit 101, a videotape, was played for the jury.)
(At 3:42 P.m., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, did you just view the videotape that we showed to the jurors?
DR. LEE: Uh, that's first time I see this videotape.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if one of these officers that are depicted in the videotape deposited shoeprints after the crime scene was shut down, would that help us determine who committed the murders?
DR. LEE: Uh, I don't think these two officer deposit those shoeprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, what I'm asking you is, if these officers deposited shoeprints, would it help us determine who committed the murders?
DR. LEE: If set belongs to them, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if these officers or some other member of the public or someone else that came in later deposited the shoeprints that were seen on your photographs taken on June the 25th--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Vague as to which photographs.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: The two photographs on the walkway, would that help us determine who the killer was?
DR. LEE: Uh, again, what the photograph I took in June 25th is parallel line design. These two officer, I don't think their shoe sole pattern is similar to the parallel design. It's on the second platform. This footprint has a lot in blood. Not great amount of blood. If great amount of blood, should see much darker color. What I see, it's grayish color. Need a lot of experience to recognize that. If those footprint say in fact left by these two officer, then no significance.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, did you examine the shoes of any of the officers depicted in the photo?
DR. LEE: These two officer, if standard police officer issued, maybe I don't think they are parallel design.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that was the basis of your view; is that--
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if this jury has already heard and seen evidence that Los Angeles police officers wear shoes with a very wide assortment and array of sole designs, would that change your view?
DR. LEE: If you can give me those shoes, I can tell you right away what type of shoes.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's not quite what I asked. If Mr. Bodziak through--in his testimony introduced and talked about numerous pictures of police officers' shoeprints showing a variety of different patterns--
DR. LEE: Well, then you should ask Mr. Bodziak.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. May I just have one moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, hypothetically, if these police officers that we saw in the video walked through the area after the crime scene was broken down, if Nicole Brown's family walked through the crime scene after it was broken down on June the 13th, if an individual by the name of Ron hardy walked through and hosed portions of the crime scene on June the 14th and a number of other people walked down the walkway prior to the time that you got there--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Improper foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: --can you eliminate the possibility that those people deposited prints at the scene?
DR. LEE: I can not eliminate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you very much, doctor.
DR. LEE: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, do you need a brief break to reorganize?
MR. SCHECK: A few minutes.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, you know, we have lots of equipment. We're now going to reshift to redirect examination. I'm going to give counsel a couple minutes just to arrange the exhibits. Let me just ask you to step back in the jury room for a quick comfort break, and we'll call you out in about 10 minutes. All right. Let's take 10. All right. Doctor, you may step down.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, are we all organized?
MR. SCHECK: I think so, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. We'll break at five. Let me see Miss Clark and Mr. Darden.
(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. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And Dr. Henry Lee is again on the witness stand. The Prosecution has completed their cross-examination. And, Mr. Scheck, you may redirect.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, before Mr. Scheck starts, I wanted to mark two printouts, printout of 598-C, I guess this is going to be 598-C-1, and it's a printout of what appear to be the prints that were on the second and third lines, tiles rather and I'd like to mark as 595-A what appears to be the printout of the evidence envelope with the yellow circle around the dot.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. So marked.
(Peo's 595-A for id = printout)
(Peo's 598-C-1 for id = printout)
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, Mr. Goldberg asked you a number of questions today about imprint evidence.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Now, first, let's talk about imprint evidence on the envelope, the piece of paper and Mr. Goldman's jeans. Dr. Lee, is it your understanding that each of those items was recovered on June 13th?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: This is 1339, your Honor, the board entitled, "Imprint evidence at Bundy, imprint evidence on Mr. Goldman's blue jeans."
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, in the sections marked imprint 1, imprint 2, imprint 3, are these imprints?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. It's consistent with imprint.
MR. SCHECK: Is--you made--you have a distinction here between scientific fact and interpretation.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: As far as you are concerned, are these imprints scientific fact?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, you were shown some videotapes of police officers walking out of the crime scene after it was broken down.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: For their shoes to have left imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans, they'd have to step on them, right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: In theory, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, for a detective or a photographer visiting the crime scene on June 13th, to make imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans, they'd have to step on them?
DR. LEE: In theory, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it's argumentative because he didn't say they were shoeprints.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is entitled, "Imprint evidence at Bundy," 1338, consists of four photographs, imprint on paper, close-up of imprint, imprint on envelope, close-up of imprint. I also have 1338-A, which is a photograph of the piece of paper that has blue markings on it entitled "PLP" and 1338-B, which is the envelope that also has blue markings on it entitled "PLP."
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, are these parallel lines, imprints on the piece of paper and the envelope, first of all, are they imprints?
DR. LEE: It's consistent with imprint.
MR. SCHECK: Is that a scientific fact, sir?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could the police officers that were just shown in the videotape by Mr. Goldberg have made the parallel line imprints on the piece of paper on the envelope?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, your Honor. Motion to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, if a photographer or detective that came to the scene were to have made these parallel line imprints on the piece of paper and the envelope, they would have had to come over and step on them?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, show you what is I guess People's 598-A, your Honor--
MR. SCHECK: And this is one of those photographs that have been blown up and magnetized.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And this is the one that's entitled "A" and now has a no. 10 on a tile.
DR. LEE: May I step down?
THE COURT: Yes. Dr. Lee, you may step down.
MR. SCHECK: And, your Honor, do you have a removal stickum arrow so that I can put a mark on it and then remove it?
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, you indicated on cross-examination that you had never seen a photograph of this scene of this quality before.
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And when Mr. Goldberg was asking you questions about imprint impressions, you said that you had observed something on this photograph?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And that was on--counting I guess, using the tiles where the no. 10 is, it would be the one, two, third one over?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Please show the jury by putting a yellow stickum--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to ask that nothing be put on that's going to obliterate part of the exhibit.
THE COURT: All right. This is a removable--
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, this is removable?
THE COURT: --post-it type--
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. I have no problem with that.
THE COURT: --point.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Dr. Lee, could you please indicate what imprint impressions you saw in the area of--withdrawn. Misuse of word. All right. In terms of imprints on that photograph where you've indicated with the yellow line, could you please explain to the jury what's there?
DR. LEE: Here we see, if we use no. 10 as column no. 1., no. 10 is column no. 1. 10. This portion, assume this column no. 1. No. 1. 2, 3, the third column. On the third column, I can see imprint evidence. Column no. 3, 1, 2, 3, I can see imprint evidence. Column no. 1, no. 2, no. 3, I can see imprint evidence along this column (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of the imprints that you described for us before on the envelope, the piece of paper, on the jeans, are those consistent with having been made in blood?
MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: With respect to blood, all right, are the imprints consistent with having been made in blood?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, are there methods that are available to a forensic scientist when examining imprint evidence at a crime scene that had been made in blood to visualize them?
DR. LEE: Yes. So call enhancement technique.
MR. SCHECK: Now, calling your attention again to 583-A and the scene as depicted here, what techniques could have been used on June 13th with respect to enhancing imprint evidence here?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. What--what techniques are you talking about for enhancing imprint evidence made in blood at a crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. Was not in response to a question, that statement. There's also a line--I think we discussed this before, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: What--well, Mr. Goldberg asked you about techniques that can be used in terms of photography for visualizing imprint evidence or potential footprint evidence at the crime scene. Do you recall those?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes, I recall those.
MR. SCHECK: All right. In your opinion--and you were asked questions about what you did on June 25th. Do you recall that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, overbroad and leading, motion to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In terms of what rulers you were able to lay out. Do you remember that?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what were the proper techniques for photographing and visualizing imprints. Remember those questions?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in your opinion, with adequate time, what techniques can be used to enhance and visualize and photograph imprint evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. You can go into the photographic aspects of it.
MR. SCHECK: Well, if--you mentioned something call o-toluidine.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Is that an enhancement technique?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: If an enhancement method such as o-tolidine is used--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: Sustained. No. Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Are there techniques that can be used so that when photographing imprint evidence, there can be better visualization?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: May we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. We're not going into other techniques.
MR. SCHECK: It's not a question of other techniques, your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, you indicated that by the--you were asked questions about the color of imprint evidence you saw on the walkway on pictures you took on June 25th compared to photographs that you saw on June 13th. Do you recall those?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes, I do recall.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, what is the--assume that imprints had been made in blood. What effect does the passage of time have on the color of imprints?
DR. LEE: When start age, it become grayish and bluish, darker color.
MR. SCHECK: And would--would an imprint that was made lightly in blood on one day when examined 14 days later appear darker than it did when first left?
MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation.
THE COURT: Foundation.
MR. SCHECK: When you say that imprint evidence in blood gets darker over time, what is the basis of that opinion?
DR. LEE: Basically the protein heme of the hemoglobin start react. The oxidation process, it become more visible. Initial deposit, it's less contrast, less visible unless you enhance it. If aging, this aging processing will make it more visible.
MR. SCHECK: So in other words, over time, as the proteins degrade, the imprint becomes darker and more visible?
MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: If I understand your testimony correctly--
MR. SCHECK: I can't do that? I'm not allowed?
THE COURT: You understand it. Ask a question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So what is the relationship between the breakdown in protein and the color of imprints made in blood over time?
DR. LEE: In order to see it, to recognize, you have to distinguish from the background color versus the imprint pattern color. If two color very close, sometime human eyes cannot resolve it. You can't see it. You photograph, you can not take an image. However, when the time goes by, the denaturation of protein and the blood break down, also the material reaction, everything, now this area, imprint area if made in blood start have a contrast with the background because background, if no protein, no blood, don't form breakdown. Stay in the same color. Meanwhile, the decomposition of the blood, everything come darker, so now you can see it.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you were asked questions about how you took photographs and visualized imprint evidence on June 25th. Do you recall those?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Now, if you had more time, what techniques could you have used to--with respect to photographing imprint evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Were you limited in any way in what you could have done on June 25th in terms of visualizing and photographing imprint evidence?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In what way?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, same objections.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: There's three limiting factors. The first is the time, amount of time of the level 2. Second is the restriction. I wasn't allowed to edit something, remove something or cut something. The third, of course, I don't travel with my crime scene van with me. So with that limited factor, I only can use a major imitate, a camera, couched-up image, whatever, available.
MR. SCHECK: In terms of--you were asked--now, 1337-A is a photograph of a shoeprint, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any doubt in your mind that that is a shoeprint of a parallel line pattern?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: Is that a scientific fact?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, other imprints that you saw on the walkway were not in the complete pattern of a shoeprint?
DR. LEE: I can not come here to tell you those are definite shoeprint.
MR. SCHECK: Now, enhancement techniques, can they reveal more than just what one sees with the naked eye in terms of imprints made in blood?
MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, you were asked on cross-examination questions about--withdrawn. And finally, on 58--598-A, where you've put the yellow marker, you've indicated that what you see as imprint evidence is something in this roll of tiles that is leading in a trail back to the rear of the Bundy location.
MR. GOLDBERG: Leading and misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: In which direction--just visualizing in this photograph, looking from the yellow arrow towards the step area, between those two markings, the yellow arrow and the step area, do you see a series of images that could be imprint evidence?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Could that be consistent with a trail of imprints heading out the back of the Bundy location?
MR. SCHECK: Calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: It could be consistent. I can not tell you exactly what pattern, what type of--
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, you were asked a series of questions about the absence of evidence in crime scene techniques. Do you recall that?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And--
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, motion to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: You mentioned in your chart before something known as "Recognition."
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, if counsel is not going to ask questions, may we--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: --ask him about the chart, the witness should be allowed to take the witness stand.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: You recall your discussion before on cross-examination about recognition?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And collection, preservation, documentation?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, in terms of the absence of evidence, if imprints are not recognized, documented, preserved and collected by criminalists, does that mean they are not there?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: No. They're not--definite not means not there. Maybe presence. However, lack of documentation, enhancement or collection, nothing I can do about.
MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike the last part of his answer.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper, you were asked some questions on cross-examination about cuffs and fabric. Do you recall that?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you examined Mr. Goldman's boots?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Could Mr. Goldman's boots be the source of the parallel line imprints?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Goldman's shirt, could that be the source of the parallel line imprints?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: It was asked and answered once before, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: We did--we have that question and answer in the record already.
MR. SCHECK: I understand that. But this is redirect examination based on fabrics.
THE COURT: All right. It's already there. It's redundant.
MR. SCHECK: You can say that about--this is redirect. You can say that about everything.
THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You were asked about fabrics making imprints. You recall that on cross-examination?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any fabric that you found at the crime scene that could have made the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: No. I did not observe any similar pattern.
MR. SCHECK: And in answer--and in cross-examination, you were asked about fabrics making such an imprint and you said something about the necessity in these imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper for direct contact and a certain amount of force and no movement. Do you recall that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes, I do recall.
MR. SCHECK: Could you please explain that answer to the jury?
DR. LEE: In order to get this transfer, first thing on the surface, have to have liquid blood, a pattern and the amount has to be just right (Indicating). Something has to be--have similar pattern which have to apply to the surface with certain pressure. I did not see any movement. In other words, it's not the smear. It has to be direct application with certain pressure just like when you stamp something.
MR. SCHECK: I think we're finished with this board. Now, Dr. Lee, you were asked certain questions on cross-examination about DNA testing. Do you recall those?
DR. LEE: DNA?
MR. SCHECK: DNA.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, is there a--are there correct ways to do DNA testing and incorrect ways to do DNA testing?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And if DNA--if DNA testing is done properly in your opinion with RFLP and PCR, can it be reliable evidence?
DR. LEE: That's my position all the time. DNA, if do properly, correctly, should be used as evidence.
MR. SCHECK: All right. If done improperly, can it be unreliable?
DR. LEE: If done--
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: If done improperly, then should not be used.
MR. SCHECK: You were asked questions about forensic scientists, molecular biologists and having a say as to proper DNA methods. Do you recall those questions?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you said that forensic scientists should have a say on the methods that are used for the forensic application of DNA testing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Well, as a forensic scientist, definite any--
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Dr. Lee, the question was, do you recall that testimony.
DR. LEE: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
MR. SCHECK: And you were asked--and you were asked about--well let me ask you, in terms of--is it your opinion--what is your opinion about forensic scientists and whether they should have a say in terms of what are the proper methods for doing DNA testing?
DR. LEE: What I'm saying, as a forensic scientist, we're the one conduct the testing. We're the one look at the sample. We're the one evaluate the sample. So, therefore, as a forensic scientist, we should have some say in a committee, in national meeting, international meeting determine the procedure, the method and the type of analysis we perform. As a forensic scientist, we should have some say in. That shouldn't be just by other view of expert to dictate what we have to do.
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of the role of molecular geneticists and population geneticists who are from clinical testing and academia, do they have a role as well?
DR. LEE: They all have certain role. Even attorneys also have the certain roles in the DNA applications.
MR. SCHECK: And the NRC panel in which you served had representatives from all these groups?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you were shown a picture that's 596 on cross-examination of the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom. Do you recall that?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And you indicated that that was the best quality photograph you had been able to see prior to this occasion.
DR. LEE: Yes. That's an excellent photo.
MR. SCHECK: See any blood on those socks, Dr. Lee?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: I can not determine any bloodstain on there or not.
MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't hear the last part of the answer.
THE COURT: He said he cannot determine any bloodstain on there or not.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, you know Professor Herbert MacDonell?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what is your opinion of his expertise?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: You were asked questions on cross-examination about Professor MacDonell and interpretations of the stains found on the sock.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what is your opinion of Professor MacDonell and his expertise in the area of bloodstain interpretation?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: He have a great amount of experience and did lot of experiment in the past, publish a book involving interpretation of the bloodstain analysis.
MR. SCHECK: And did you examine the socks with Professor MacDonell?
DR. LEE: Uh, yes, we did.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Did you see the red balls depicted in photo micrographs that he testified about?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Did you take those pictures?
DR. LEE: I took those pictures.
MR. SCHECK: Do you agree with the testimony of Professor MacDonell that in terms of the mode of transfer, which I believe was the form of the question on cross-examination, that this--the mode of transfer here with respect to the ankle stain on the sock was side 2 having come into contact with side 3?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. Also calls for speculation, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you were asked some questions on cross-examination about hair and trace evidence in the soil exemplar and other samples. Do you recall those?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you recall some testimony, some questions on cross-examination about hair and trace evidence in the jury box?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, if one were to drop a garment of some sort into the jury box area, would it be likely that hair and trace from some members of the jury panel might adhere to that garment if collected later?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: In theory, if have a transfer, have a contact, if the receiving surface and deposit surface both have hair or fiber, now you have a cross-transfer.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you were asked some questions with respect to linkage. Do you recall those, four-way linkage?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of trace evidence and linkage, does the integrity of the evidence collection have some importance in terms of forming links in that four-way linkage diagram?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to integrity of evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What do you mean by that?
DR. LEE: If those trace evidence was not preserved properly, collect properly, things can missing, things can get cross-contaminated, a false linkage may be result.
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of problems in recognition, preservation, collection and documentation, if there is contamination of evidence or failure to recognize evidence, can that affect that four-way linkage?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And if some links in that four-way linkage--withdrawn. If some evidence is not even genuine, can that affect the four-way linkage?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Can we have the boot?
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, which exhibit is this?
MR. HARRIS: It's not marked.
MR. GOLDBERG: I think it was a People's exhibit.
MR. SCHECK: Did you use this picture, Hank? Your Honor, this is a series of three photographs that I thought was shown to the witness on cross-examination.
THE COURT: Yes, it was.
MR. SCHECK: But apparently--
DR. LEE: May I step down?
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.
MS. CLARK: 594.
MR. SCHECK: We have that as 594.
THE COURT: All right. 594. Dr. Lee.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee, you were asked some questions with respect to these cuts on the boot. Do you recall those?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you were given some hypothetical about riding bicycles or reclining in chairs, things of that nature. Do you recall that?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, first, let me ask you, pointing to the photograph on the upper left-hand side of that cut, was that made with a sharp instrument?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Also asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Is that in your opinion a fresh cut?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: We have gone through this already.
MR. SCHECK: What is the relationship between--if any, that you can see between the damage caused by one we'll call, left-hand photograph, the penetrating cut and the damage on the other boot?
MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: These two damage are different. This one and this one are different type of damage (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: What are the differences?
DR. LEE: This is a definitive and sharp. A piece of a rubber-like material separate, disappear right on surface. This one is much superficial, being a slightly wavy pattern. Debris appears to form into this wiggly pattern. Here no debris can be observed. So the fourth slice, this much greater force sharper instrument (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: And is there any question you were asked on cross-examination that changes your opinion that this is a fresh cut with a sharp instrument?
DR. LEE: No. Will not change my observation.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris.
MR. SCHECK: You were asked some questions about the Bruno Magli--what has been identified as a bruin Magli shoeprint, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Actually it was a--misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Now, and in the course of your answers, you were discussing the need for side-by-side comparisons. Do you remember those answers on cross-examination?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Could you please explain that?
DR. LEE: If we see an imprint at the scene, you will recognize, see the imprint. If we document that, now we have an imprint evidence. That call a quashing evidence. We don't know where it come from. We can identify, say this is a Bruno Magli or Reebok or converse. That's called identification, or after our shoes, that's called identification. Now, you need a known shoes to compare side by side. That's called comparison. When we compare side by side, not only to look at the size, dimension, pattern. Those call general characteristic. Just give you a general thing just like you--at the scene, you see a fingerprint. That's a general characteristic, a fingerprint. To establish individualization, you need a known fingerprint from somebody to make a comparison, either the same or they're different. So for an imprint evidence made of a shoe, we need a shoe to compare side by side. And if we can link that shoe to that imprint, then that called a chief individualization.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, you were asked some questions on cross-examination with respect to the transfer stains on the bindle from item 47. Do you recall those?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you were also asked some questions about some charts that appear in a publication entitled experiments and practical exercise in bloodstain pattern analysis by labor, Epstein--labor and Epstein. Do you recall that?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I don't know if Mr. Goldberg marked these. I know he showed them to the witness. If not, I'll mark them. I don't know what--
THE COURT: I don't recollect they were marked.
MR. GOLDBERG: Wasn't marked.
MR. SCHECK: Was not marked? All right. Then I would like to mark these Defendant's next in order.
THE COURT: 1363.
MR. SCHECK: 1363?
THE COURT: 1363.
DR. LEE: 1363.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. I thought he--it's the hearing that goes first; is that--
(Deft's 1363 for id = documents)
MR. SCHECK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, are you familiar with this study of drying times?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Goldberg asked you about drying times with different kinds of materials under different conditions. Do you recall that?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, on this study are a series of experiments performed for different amounts of blood.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: One being a single drop, one being one milliliter of blood, one being five milliliters of blood, one being a hundred milliliters of blood.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And then there are a series of materials listed on the chart; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And out of the materials listed, which one would be the most comparable to the swatches at issue in this case?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Cotton cloth.
MR. SCHECK: Now, what are the drying times for a single drop of blood under the three different conditions for cotton cloth?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: It says condition 1, 55 minute, condition 2, 50 minute, condition 3, 350 minute.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And 350 minutes would be?
DR. LEE: Approximately six, seven, six some hours.
MR. SCHECK: And--
DR. LEE: Six--little under six hours.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, in terms of this experiment, what is condition 3? What set--in terms of temperature, humidity what is condition 3?
DR. LEE: Condition 3 appear in this handout, laboratory cold with good air movement, temperature 38 degree Fahrenheit plus minus .1 degree, relative humidity, 80 percent plus minus 6 percent.
MR. SCHECK: Well, in plain English, is that a cold, damp room?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Is that something close to precipitation?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Now, what about condition 1 and condition 2?
DR. LEE: Condition 1 says laboratory work table which no more room, air circulation, temperature, 75 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent.
MR. SCHECK: Would that be what would be ordinarily referred to as room temperature in a laboratory?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And what is condition 2?
DR. LEE: Condition 2, it says drying hood with good air movement, temperature, 76 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent.
MR. SCHECK: So for a single drop of blood then under condition 1 which described as normal room temperature, the findings of labor and Epstein is the drying time is 55 minutes?
DR. LEE: Yeah. Under one hour.
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: And under condition 2, it's 50 minutes?
DR. LEE: Yeah. Only 50 minutes. 50, not 15. Five zero.
MR. SCHECK: Five zero. And is it your understanding that each of the Bundy blood drops is a single drop?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Based on photographs that you've seen, the so-called items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, based on the photographs, what do they appear to be?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: How many drops are there in a milliliter?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Can be a lot of drops. And let's say we use a .005 as a norm. Of course, it's variable. It's a wide range from little drop, big drop as I demonstrate to you before. Let's say we assume a norm .05 cc. That's almost 20 drops.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, finally, you were asked some questions about the closed-in area of the Bundy crime scene, the absence of evidence and bloodstain patterns on cross-examination. Do you recall those?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall that chart with the red tape you were asked to connect lines to?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And you recall the four and a half foot by five foot partial rectangle?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, first of all, that is--that description is sort of like part of a baseball diamond insofar as it's just two parts of the rectangle, correct?
DR. LEE: I don't play that much baseball. I don't know baseball diamond.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let me ask you this, Dr. Lee. In a closed environment, closed-in environment with hand-to-hand combat, with multiple stab wounds, with blood stains in different places indicating multiple contact smears with vertical droplets in the areas of the different multiple contact smears, with other blood spatter cast off in different directions, with the key in one area, beeper in another area, in that kind of struggle, do you have an opinion as to whether or not an assailant or assailants would be covered with blood from the struggle?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is that opinion?
DR. LEE: In theory, should have some blood.
MR. SCHECK: Finally, Dr. Lee, in terms of the fact that you found imprint evidence on the envelope, piece of paper, Mr. Goldman's jeans, places on the Bundy walkway, the fact that you found it, does that mean it wasn't there on June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Compound.
MR. SCHECK: Compound?
THE COURT: It's compound.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let's talk about the wet transfer stains on bindle 47. Did you see anything in LAPD records indicating that there was a wet transfer on the item 47 bindle?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: Does the fact that it was not recorded on the LAPD notations mean that it wasn't there?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, there--you made the distinction between scientific fact and interpretation.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Any question in your mind that the existence of that wet transfer is a scientific fact?
DR. LEE: That's correct. It's definitive. That's scientific fact.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any question in your mind that the blood swatches such as we have in this case after three hours should be dry?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Under normal condition, should dry.
MR. SCHECK: If swatches were placed into a bindle something less than three hours, maybe between an hour to three hours, might they leave damp wet transfer stains?
DR. LEE: Could have been.
MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the testimony of Miss Mazzola and Mr. Fung, that the swatches that they took out of test tubes were dry?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, argumentative, misstates the testimony, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, you said at the end of your direct examination that as far as you were concerned, the existence of those wet transfers meant that something was wrong.
DR. LEE: I recall last week I did say that.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Anything that has been asked of you in cross-examination that's changed your opinion about that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object because that's not a forensic opinion. Motion to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: My opinion still remain the same.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, you said that your own experience, personal experience with wet swatches in casework was letting them dry overnight; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then after approximately 12 hours, coming back to the laboratory and seeing that they were dry?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when was it that these personal experiences stopped?
DR. LEE: Personal experience stop? No. I continue gather personal experience even today. Here, that's another personal experience.
MR. GOLDBERG: With wet swatches in test tubes, the personal experiences in casework with wet swatches in test tubes that you referred to on direct.
DR. LEE: Uh, the last experiment I conduct--
MR. GOLDBERG: No. I'm not asking about that. I'm saying casework experience.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think the witness should be allowed to answer.
THE COURT: No. He's talking--it's clearly casework experience. That was the question.
MR. SCHECK: Personal experience, your Honor.
THE COURT: Casework experience.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Doctor--
DR. LEE: Casework experience, every day our--although I don't transfer bloodstain every day, but my serologists, my DNA scientists, they call does that every day.
MR. GOLDBERG: Not responsive. Motion to strike your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, let me ask you this way. You said at some point you have switched from swatches to threads; is that correct?
DR. LEE: No, that's not what I'm saying. I saying if at the scene have a bloodstain, we going to--if something can move, I usual advise take the whole thing back to the laboratory, move that. For example, this box have some blood drops. Just collect this box. If something cannot move, for example, deposit in this bench, then we scrape, scrape the bloodstain. If cannot scrape, we use tape, lift, lifting.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is all nonresponsive. Motion to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled. Ask your next question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, let's just make it very simple. When stains are removed from a crime scene--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --by alluding them on to some cotton object--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --is it true you are now using threads as opposed to swatches?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, when did that change take place?
DR. LEE: I forgot. I don't know exactly day and time. Probably couple years now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, didn't you write in some of your 1986 work for the protocol for Connecticut State Police to use threads instead of swatches?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So is it correct to say that since 1986, you do not have any personal experience in casework with swatches at crime scenes?
DR. LEE: No. That's not true. Every day, we still--if the known samples submit to the laboratory, we transfer to a swatch. Still use swatch in the laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But your personal experience in casework is checking the swatches 12 hours after they were set out to dry; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Usually we dry overnight.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And--and the purpose of the labor and Epstein materials is basically a cautionary statement, as you said, to forensic scientists, be careful, drying times are hard to predict, a lot of variables go into it, right?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And you agree with that personally, don't you?
DR. LEE: I agree with that if a range, have a time of the range.
MR. GOLDBERG: But you agree that there are many, many variables and it's hard to predict as stated in labor and Epstein; is that correct?
DR. LEE: There are some variable, more variable at the criminal scene than more variable in the laboratory. Laboratory should be a control situation.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you have personal knowledge as to how cold--what the temperatures were LAPD--
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: --drying facility overnight?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, let's get to one of your comments about in theory, there should be some blood in response to Mr. Scheck's line of questioning.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Remember that?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Would that also depend upon where the suspect was standing?
DR. LEE: Uh, depends on whether or not a combat situation, hand-to-hand combat situation. You have distance, of course, the chances for getting blood on unless some material spurt or certain force, internal force or external force. You have injury on the hand, have a cast off, have other motion, that going to cast to greater distance. If in close contact, if large amount of blood come out, you going to have more blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. What I'm asking you is, in this particular case, based upon what you know, from your own viewing of the evidence, not from the pathologists, what does some blood mean? Is there any way of quantifying that?
DR. LEE: Yes. If I look at Mr. Goldman's blue jean and his shirt, one side of his blue jean have large amount of blood, covers. If a person in a close combat situation, that should cover with blood. If did not have a close combat situation in a distance, then you have less blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: If someone is standing behind the victim in this case when his throat is cut, would that influence how much blood he had on him, an assailant?
DR. LEE: Yes. That going to be a factor. And again, Ron Goldman's blue jean in the back covered with blood, which, if assume those blood from original scene, a person have a direct contact trying to halt him, then you going to have transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you can't make that assumption, can you?
DR. LEE: No. I wasn't at the scene. I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you can't make the assumption regarding the blood pattern on Ron Goldman's jeans; is that correct?
DR. LEE: I only can see on the blue jean there are patterns. But I know the mechanism, but I really don't know what the main mode transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me ask you this, doctor. Do you recall one of your fairly well known cases back in 1984 by the name of People versus Hoeplinger where a husband beat his wife to death by hitting her numerous times in the head with a brick, drug her body out to a fish pond, drug her back into the house and then claimed that someone else broke into the home and committed the murder?
DR. LEE: 80 percent correct. Not drag to the fish pond. Never got to the fish pond.
MR. GOLDBERG: Only part way?
DR. LEE: Drug, carry to a location end of the driveway and drag into a pack of Sandril (Sic) to--near the neighbor's house and carry the body, half drug, half carry, put back in family room on the sofa.
MR. GOLDBERG: And isn't it true that that kind of an assault with the brick on the head by beating numerous times produces enormous amount of blood and it did so in the Hoeplinger case?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And isn't it true that on the suspect's jeans, there were only two drops of blood?
DR. LEE: Well, we assume that's the original jean. I don't have any record, but I do know he wash his T-shirt. I found a T-shirt washed in the pond.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
DR. LEE: But the blue jean, whether or not that's the original blue jean, I have no or information, record of it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you testified in court and those blue jeans were presented to a jury as being worn by the suspects--suspect, the husband at the time of the murder; is that correct?
DR. LEE: I--that's long time ago. If you say correct, probably correct. I don't recall. There's thousands cases I been working on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that seem to be consistent with your memory?
DR. LEE: Sure. Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: And only two blood drops?
DR. LEE: I don't remember. If you say two drops, it's two drop.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the scene was covered in blood, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you testified, you didn't tell the jury in that case that you had any doubt about whether he was wearing those pants or anything to that effect, did you?
DR. LEE: I wasn't asked. As a scientist, I only can answer the question, whatever the lawyer. Otherwise I will be stopped.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Well, I'm just going to give a copy of the transcript to counsel. At page 397 of the Hoeplinger transcript.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you remember being asked a lot of questions--
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think this is all beyond the scope, no. 1. No. 2, I don't think the passage he's pointing to is in any way inconsistent with his testimony. It certainly does not support the questions that were asked, that he told the jury that these were definitely the jeans.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, you want to cite me to the pertinent portion in the transcript?
MR. GOLDBERG: That's on page 397 where the defense attorney is asking him about a hypothetical, if in fact the assailant of Miss Hoeplinger were standing at the time when she was sitting or lying on the couch and if there had been an impact, would he expect the jeans of the perpetrator to be covered with blood, and the answer, depends on what object in between the perpetrator and the blood source, all depends on how far the person stands, there are a lot of variations.
THE COURT: But that's not the question that you asked though, whether or not he was--whether or not those were the jeans.
MR. GOLDBERG: No. He already admitted to that. I'm not impeaching on that. I'm impeaching on did he expect to find a lot of blood in this type of a case. He seems to have waffled on that.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would point out from the transcript here, pointing to 397, he was asked a series of questions about blood spots and would it be fair to state question on 397, "Answer: I can not tell." It goes on to say depends on a lot of variations. He was asked a hypothetical. I think it's very misleading to question the witness about a hypothetical which he says doesn't contain all the variables in another case that's not this case. I think it's way beyond the purpose of the examination.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: This is a case where the crime scene was much bloodier than ours, much more activity. They were dragging the bodies all over, and the clear import of this man's testimony before a jury, substantially admitted, was that the jeans only had two little drops of blood on this.
THE COURT: Since we have no clothing recovered, it doesn't have a whole lot of relevance, does it?
MR. GOLDBERG: The Defense--if the Defense will stipulate that it's not relevant how much if any blood--well, that's what they're claiming is relevant to the blood in the Bronco and the blood on Rockingham, the amount of blood, but if they'll stipulate that's not a relevant issue--
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, you already got in the record the doctor saying, well, under normal circumstances, you would expect a lot of blood given the kind of activity here, but it all depends on what the contact was, and we don't know. That's what he said. So I'll sustain the objection.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, if a person were to wrap their hand around someone's throat and slit that person's throat--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --and the blood spurted forward, would you expect the assailant to be covered in blood?
DR. LEE: Probably not.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And, sir, if a person were for some reason to get blood on the front part of their body, however it might happen, during a blood-letting event, but not on their back during the assault--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --and their hindquarters during the assault--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And they sat down in a vehicle, would you expect any kinds of transfers in that vehicle necessarily?
DR. LEE: If the blood don't touch the surface, then you don't have transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, sir, you were asked about the imprint evidence a little bit on redirect examination. Did you read Bill Bodziak's report about his examination of the blue jean, specifically the lower portion of the right leg?
DR. LEE: I recall I did, but I don't remember all the detail.
MR. GOLDBERG: But you do have--you do know Bill Bodziak from before this case; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes. He's an excellent scientist. We're friends.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he's a top-notch expert in the area of footprint analysis?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you have no specific recollection of what he said at this time in his report?
DR. LEE: You can read to me. I can agree or disagree.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, didn't you take that into consideration before you got on the witness stand and testified?
DR. LEE: Well, different expert have different opinion. There are some thing called scientific fact. They are fact. Have imprint, imprint in blood. If he don't call that a footprint, I have nothing to argue with that. He entitled his own opinion. Each expert entitle our own opinion. Each of us have to live with our conscience, standard. Different expert can have different opinions.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that in order or something to the effect that in order for an imprint to have transferred to the eyeglass envelope, someone would have had to have stepped on it. But is that true if it's not a footwear impression?
DR. LEE: Some thing--as I say, some thing has to have some pressure, direct apply onto the surface without movement. If this envelope on the ground, the more logic thing is somebody step on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: But are you saying, sir, that that is a footwear impression now or are you saying it could be any kind of impression?
DR. LEE: No. I'm still saying that's an imprint. An imprint, say is this consistent with a footprint. It could be footprint. It could be other imprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, regarding the item that you say that you see in the photograph that's on the 10th tile down and the third tile across--you know what I'm talking about?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you forming the opinion that that is in fact an imprint or are you forming the opinion that it is a possible imprint?
DR. LEE: It consistent with an imprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And consistent with means that it might not be an imprint, right?
DR. LEE: It might--in our standard, consistent means consistent pattern similar to imprint. If not imprint, I don't call imprint. If definite it's not an imprint, I will come here tell you that's not an imprint. It's an imprint. An imprint, which means something have pattern deposit on the surface and cause a transfer. That's called imprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that imprint if it is an imprint and if it's there could be the Bruno Magli shoe; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Uh, if parallel line, cannot be. If not parallel line, have a Bruno Magli configuration and design, I mean it's Bruno Magli.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But in the photograph that you were shown of the Bundy walk, you don't know from that photograph?
DR. LEE: Oh, you mean the column 3, all those imprints. I thought you talking about specific parallel line, I show you tile 10. Then you're correct. I don't know what kind of a pattern it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So those all could be consistent with Bruno Magli shoes; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Maybe. I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And you were asked a question as to whether or not there could be a series of imprints to the--I'm going to say as we're looking down the walk towards Bundy to the right of the center line; is that correct?
THE COURT: I'm sorry. You say we're looking down the walk towards Bundy?
MR. GOLDBERG: We're looking down the walk towards the alley. Sorry.
MR. SCHECK: May the record reflect 598-A I believe?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: To the right?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know if there is in fact a series of prints in that location, do you know whether it's coming down towards Bundy or heading away towards the alley?
DR. LEE: I'm not that good yet.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
DR. LEE: I said, I'm not that good yet, can tell you from a distance.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to the impression on the envelope, the piece of paper--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --those could be a fabric imprint; is that correct?
DR. LEE: It's consistent with an imprint.
MR. GOLDBERG: And it could be fabric; is that correct?
DR. LEE: It could be a fabric.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you make test impressions from any of the fabric that was at the crime scene?
DR. LEE: I don't have a fabric impression.
MR. GOLDBERG: And usually when one is trying to make a comparison, don't you try to take an impression?
DR. LEE: If I have to make a comparison. I did not do such comparison. I did some measurement between the blue jean, the shirt, the boots and inconsistent with that design.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, is it true that there is no way to reconstruct whether or not the murderer's clothing is consistent with those imprints?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Calls for speculation, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Unless I get the clothing.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And when I was talking about these impressions, I'm talking about--you understood me to be talking about the envelope and the piece of paper, correct?
DR. LEE: Again. Those are imprint, not impression.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But whatever, we can't at this point determine whether or not they were left by suspect's clothing, can we?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. I have nothing further.
MR. SCHECK: One second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, just one or two questions that I think will get us home. You're giving me that look.
THE COURT: I didn't say a word, Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: I know. You don't have to. I've been here awhile.
THE COURT: If I were you--
MR. SCHECK: I know. I know. I know.
THE COURT: You want to let me ask my one question? Go ahead.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: All right. You were asked some questions just now by Mr. Goldberg about trace evidence and blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Now, would you expect in a struggle where shoes were in blood, in soil and crossed a path where there were berries to find evidence of soil and berries and even hairs and fibers from victims in a car if the perpetrator had engaged in a struggle and walked into that car?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, beyond the scope, calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: If the shoes have contact the berry, contact the soil or fiber debris, in theory, we should see the transfer.
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: And you might not; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thanks.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Dr. Lee, thank you very much. You are excused, sir.
DR. LEE: Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the 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. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess. Let me see counsel as far as scheduling is concerned.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(At 5:20 P.m., an adjournment was taken until, Tuesday, August 29, 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 Monday, August 28, 1995 volume 213
Pages 43084 through 43372, inclusive
APPEARANCES: (See page 2)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 213 pages 43084 - 43372
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Monday August 28, 1995 a.m. 43084 213 p.m. 43218 213
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 213 43111gb (Resumed) 43227gb 43314bs 43350gb (Further) 43370bs 43371gb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Lee, Henry C. 213 43111gb (Resumed) 43227gb 43314bs 43350gb (Further) 43370bs 43371gb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
591 - Document 43185 213 entitled "Henry Lee's four-way linkage theory"
592 - Article 43197 213 entitled "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" by Herbert MacDonnell
593 - Posterboard 43202 213 entitled "875 south Bundy"
594 - Posterboard 43239 213 with 3 photographs of shoe imprints
595 - Photograph 43245 213 of an envelope with eyeglasses, a yellow circle and the initials "H.L." (Computer printout)
595-A - photograph 43312 213 of a close-up view of an envelope with yellow circle and the initials "H.L." (Computer printout)
596 - Photograph 43252 213 of two dark-colored socks
597 - Posterboard 43257 213 with 4 photographs depicting item 43 bindles and transfers
598 - Magnetic board 43268 213
598-A - magnetic 43269 213 transfer depicting the walkway at the Bundy crime scene
598-B - magnetic 43269 213 transfer depicting the foliage and middle portion of the walkway at the Bundy crime scene
598-C - magnetic 43269 213 transfer depicting the rear walkway at the Bundy crime scene
598-D - photograph (Not marked on the record) of the feet of a standing individual, the ground at the Bundy crime scene with shoe prints
598-E - magnetic 43284 213 transfer depicting a wide view of the tile at the Bundy crime scene
598-F - magnetic 43284 213 transfer depicting a close-up view of the tile at the Bundy crime scene with a measuring tape
598-G - photograph 43289 213 of a close-up view of the ground at the Bundy crime scene with a shoe print
598-H - magnetic 43290 213 transfer depicting a footprint with two rulers on the ground at the Bundy crime scene
598-I - magnetic 43291 213 transfer depicting the ground at the Bundy crime scene with two rulers
598-C(1) - photograph 43312 213 of the ground at the Bundy crime scene with a yellow arrow and heel print
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1363 - Article 43341 213 relating to drying times