JANUARY 9, 1997

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Okay. We're here and somebody wants to do something.
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, on the Siglar deposition -- oh, I
don't know if Your Honor has a copy in front of you. If not we have
an extra copy or possibly Mr. Leonard does. If you want, we can give
our extra copy to the Court. However you'd like to proceed.
THE COURT: I think somebody left one yesterday.
MR. MEDVENE: All right, sir. I wanted to briefly, if I might, go
through our objections, which will make much quicker the reading,
and they come basically in several groups, your Honor. The first
deals with page 59, line 22, through 67, line 12, and those pages
deal with a letter to William Hodgman of the District Attorney's
office, from Mr. Siglar, outlining certain of Mr. Siglar's thoughts
or comments with respect to the autopsy of Ms. Brown and Mr.
Goldman. That's Civil Exhibit 1869, and possibly Your Honor has that
in front of you. The nature of those questions goes to identifying
the memorandum. There will be more questions about it later and the
uniqueness or unusualness of writing such a memo. We feel none of
that is relevant or material to the issues at hand, and this theme
will run through our objections, that any testimony of Mr. Siglar is
not relevant unless it deals with theories that have been presented
in this case and things that go to the cause of death or other
issues in the case, but things such as whether more security of the
decedents or whether onlookers saw the decedents at the coroner's
office, that sort of thing that's mentioned in Mr. Siglar's letter,
are not really relevant or material unless there can be some showing
of some tie-in upon and on looky-loo looking at the body and some
claim that the defense is making. That's the nature of the objection
to 59, line 22, through 67, line 12. And that, as I say, deals with
their exhibit -- Civil Exhibit 1869. Should I go on, Your Honor?
MR. MEDVENE: The next, if we go to what's been marked 1870, that's
Civil Exhibit 1870, that's a written list by Mr. Siglar of certain
of his observations. This is the written list that becomes the
letter to Mr. Hodgman in large part. Again, it talks about things
like unmarked urine or looky-loos or things such as that, that are
referenced in the letter to Mr. Hodgman, and we think that's not
material or relevant to this case, and on that basis we're objecting
to page 84, line 8 through 14, which discusses that handwritten
list, and page 85, lines 9 through 25, which again makes specific
reference to the document that is now marked as Civil 1870, and also
page 86, lines 19 through 22. Our next objection is -- covers pages
122 through 129, and those are questions that deal with whether
there was a coroner's office criminalist response team that was
called to the case -- was called to the crime scene at Bundy. It
deals with a few other areas such as who actually went, and we're
not objecting to those questions. But the questions between 122 and
129 which deal with whether a coroner criminalist response team
should have been called, we think are not relevant as we understand
Your Honor's previous rulings. And Mr. Leonard and I know the
designation and the areas that he wants in on those pages.
MR. LEONARD: Mr. Medvene, which pages were you just dealing with did
you say?
MR. MEDVENE: 122 through 129, and those are within those pages.
MR. LEONARD: Okay, I got it.
MR. MEDVENE: Okay. We're not seeking to exclude the fact that Mr.
Jacoby or Ms. Ratcliffe were there and what their qualifications
are. We're not moving to exclude that. We're moving to exclude any
and all questions of whether should something else have happened
that didn't happen, i.e., the criminalist coroner's response team.
Next, Your Honor, goes back basically to the letter to Mr. Hodgman
and/or the handwritten list, 1869, 1870, and starting at page 130,
going to -- going to 131 and 132, 138, the questions there deal with
particular items on the list that we don't think are relevant, i.e.,
did people look in and see the bodies of the decedents, and the
questioner went through the various items on the list, and we object
to those questions unless the defense makes some showing that some
are relevant to any claim they have in this case. In other words,
the fact that somebody looked at the bodies, that they're making
any claim that that changed the evidence or who the murderer is, we
would withdraw our objection. As I understand it, that's not their
claim. They're just trying to show that procedures were sloppy.
MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn, withdrawn that part, then. Anything that has
to do with the looky-loos, I withdraw.
MR. MEDVENE: Not only looky-loos, but anything that has been
designated that deals with any of the alleged deficiencies in what
the coroner's office did, unless there's some tie.
MR. LEONARD: No, Your Honor, I'm not offering to withdraw
everything, obviously. I just -- I think I see the validity of Mr.
Medvene's argument with regard to that one point. I'm willing to
withdraw that one part.
MR. MEDVENE: That objection would generally be made with 130, line
25, through 131, line 6, with 132, line 6, through 133, line 18 be
138, line 5, through 138, line 14, 139, line 2, through 139, line 3.
Those all go to that point. Next, Your Honor, there's -- counsel
asked a series of questions about security and I believe the press
staying in the lunch room or whatever, which we don't think are
relevant, and that's page 185, line 4, basically runs through 190,
line 14. And then the last thing on the first volume, Your Honor,
is, there's a discussion about a draft letter that -- unless there's
some significance shown to a draft letter or a letter that was never
sent, we'd object on relevancy grounds. That's 191, line 14, through
192, line 13. That's the end of the first volume.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just to make it a little bit easier, I will
also withdraw the portions that have been designated which deal with
the issue of the press in the lunch room. And that would be 185, 4,
to 190, 14. Am I correct in that, Mr. Medvene? Or whatever portions
they are, I won't read.
MR. MEDVENE: Yeah, okay. Volume 2, fewer. Page 219, line 25, through
220, line 3, again discussion about an item in the Bill Hodgman
letter about a media representative, we don't believe is relevant.
Next, page 220, line 22 -- excuse me -- line 25.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, that's the same point. I would withdraw
that. When he said the media representative, I withdraw all those
MR. MEDVENE: Line 22, through 221, line 8, that goes to -- 1869,
which is Hodgman's letter and the letter Mr. Hodgman -- we don't
think that's relevant unless they can tie it in. Next, 246, line 20,
through 249, line 25, general discussion about coroner procedure
discussions he may or may not have had with Ms. Ratcliffe, unless
it's in some way tied in. Lastly, on this volume, page 358, line 9,
through 360, line 12, that pertains to 1870, which is the
handwritten list of things Mr. Siglar thought in the coroner's
office maybe could have been done better, and that in particular is
-- dwells with when the liver temperature was taken or things such
as that. I don't think there's any question about the case. That
takes us through the second volume. Now the third volume.
THE COURT: How much of this are you going to be reading?
MR. LEONARD: How much?
MR. LEONARD: It's probably about an hour and 15 minutes.
THE COURT: Hour and 15 minutes?
MR. LEONARD: Something like that, yeah. Depends on you.
(Indicating to the Court.)
MR. MEDVENE: The third volume, page 436, line 19, through 437, line
11, deals with a letter from Mr. Siglar, Civil Exhibit 1877 or
what's been proposed as Civil 1877, it's a letter from Mr.
Lakshmanan and Mr. Hernandez to Sheriff Block, and we don't think
that has any relevance. It talks about photography. Whatever it
talks about, unless there's some tie-in, we don't think it's
relevant. Next -- just one more. This is the last one, Your Honor.
Page 487, line 19, through 492, line 18. This deals with Civil
Exhibit 1885, which includes two things: One, a chronology, like
two, three lines, a date of things of -- that Mr. Siglar did. Unless
they're some way tied in -- and a separate document that's attached
to it has also separately been marked 1870, which we talked about
before, and that's the handwritten list of Mr. Siglar with things
like looky-loos and physical security, and we don't think that
should come in. In essence -- last comment. What in essence we did
not object to is what we think the only relevant portion basically
of the Siglar testimony is, is the turnover of the blood vial of Ms.
Brown's blood and Mr. Goldman's blood to Mr. Vannatter, and whatever
Mr. Siglar has to say about that, we don't -- do not object to that.
But the other, in substance, Your Honor, we've objected to for the
reasons that we've said. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, very briefly. First of all, we're not going
to play -- it turns out we have another issue involving this
deposition. We're not going to read it till this afternoon after Dr.
Lee's videotape is played. And as I sit here and watch to some
extent your reaction and -- your reaction to my --
THE COURT: Well, you know what my reaction is. Yesterday, you guys
told me it's going to be like that
(clicking fingers.)
MR. LEONARD: This hearing --
THE COURT: You could have given me all this stuff yesterday so I
could spend the rest of the afternoon and the evening to go through
this. Now you're throwing it up to me in the morning even before we
get the jury.
MR. LEONARD: I apologize.
THE COURT: That's why I have this look of unhappiness.
MR. LEONARD: I don't blame you. Let me cut to the quick. I am going
to go back to the drawing board over lunch, before we read this, and
pick out what I think are the four or five best points that go to
the following issue: Number one, the failure of the LAPD to call for
the autopsy -- excuse me -- the coroner criminalist response team.
That was an issue that was -- that was something that the coroner's
office had a problem with. A big problem. And I would suggest,
Your Honor, that that is relevant for two reasons. Number one, it
goes to the efficacy of this investigation in general, number one,
and of course the investigation that was done was -- was targeted to
Mr. Simpson. The evidence that's presented -- been presented here,
including the bases for the plaintiffs' expert witness testimony,
relies in great part on the investigation which was done and
particularly gathering of physical evidence at the Bundy scene and
the Rockingham scene. So the -- the question of whether or not there
should have been assistance, I think, is a valid one, and whether or
not the efficacy of the investigation was -- was jeopardized by the
fact that the -- that the criminalist response team from the
coroner's office was not called. More importantly, I think, I think
we have at this point a very live issue about the -- about the issue
-- question of framing in this case. We saw yesterday a glove that
has a hole in it and then the hole disappears somehow. And I would
suggest when you want -- when you talk about a circumstantial case,
I think we're building a very strong circumstantial case for
framing. One of the circumstances I would suggest is that the LAPD
purposely failed to call the coroner's office because they wanted to
hold the scene tight. They didn't want to have interlopers from the
coroner's office there who might interfere with whatever they were
planning to do. So I would suggest that the fact that they failed to
call the coroner's office is a circumstance that we should be able
to elicit for this jury, pointing towards framing. Also, with regard
to some of these specific points -- and again, I'll fine-tune this,
I'm only going to bring up five or six of them or maybe four or
five. The ones I can tell you right now that I think are
particularly important are the -- and this also goes to the delay,
is the failure for an extended period of time to get the liver
temperature. That's very important in discerning the time of death,
which obviously is a live issue in this case, and I -- so I would
suggest that that is important, too. As far as the -- I've told you
that I'm willing to withdraw a great deal of this, especially the
criticisms about security and looky-loos, although I would suggest
again that would have some relevance, but I'm willing to withdraw
that. So what I'm suggesting, Your Honor, is that over the luncheon
period or perhaps before, I'd be willing to cut this down a little
bit. But basically the argument is that these criticisms -- all of
these criticisms are relevant, and in particular, the failure of the
coroner's office to be notified to have a criminalist response team
sent out is highly relevant. And there's one other -- one of the
things that Mr. Medvene was talking about was a draft letter that
was signed the next day, or at least it was distributed by Mr.
Siglar the next day, saying this has got to stop, we have to be able
to send out these response teams. That was supposed to be sent to
LAPD and the sheriff's department and so on and so forth -- excuse
me -- and it was suppressed. It hasn't been sent out to this day.
And I think that's relevant as well. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. MEDVENE: We would say briefly, Your Honor, that the failure to
call a criminalist response team, you've ruled on similar issues,
what wasn't done isn't critical. What's relevant is what was done
and what does the evidence show to -- there's no evidence of
framing. We think that issue is very clear. There's no hole in any
glove. There was a misstatement, however unintentional, about what
Detective Fuhrman said. That's a red herring that's been thrown into
this case. There's absolutely no evidence of any kind of any
planting, as Your Honor will see from the -- from the Lee video
that's going to be played. Dr. Lee, I think the testimony will be,
examined the glove and whatever, says no scientific fact indicates
any planting of any evidence by any law enforcement official. In
terms of liver temperature, there's no issue that liver temperature
wasn't taken. There's no dispute about that on either side. So we
don't think these things are at all relevant, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, how Mr. Medvene can stand up and say
there's not an issue about planting. We've got blood on the back
gate that's there and not there. We've got blood on the console
that's there and not there. We've got Mr. Fung testifying yesterday
that the glove that he identified and picked up at Bundy had a hole
in it. The hole's not there now. How can you say that's not a live
issue? I don't understand that. We've got EDTA in the -- in the
socks. We've got people saying they didn't see blood in the socks at
first. I don't understand -- I think it's definitely an issue, and
if -- and if Your Honor were to rule at this point that we can't
present that and we can't have a full explication of that issue, our
defense is highly prejudiced, Your Honor.
MR. MEDVENE: One last comment, Your Honor. I mean, it makes
absolutely no sense. There was no -- they're not talking about the
Rockingham glove, where blood was found. Why in the world would
anyone switch --
MR. LEONARD: Exactly.
MR. MEDVENE: -- a Bundy glove? That makes no sense. There was no
blood taken from the Bundy glove. There was no examination of the
blood from the Bundy glove. It makes no sense. There was no hole in
the Bundy glove. That will be demonstrated. There's no planting of
evidence of any kind. Their criminologist says there's -- gives
nothing to any planting.
THE COURT: Well, the only thing that was pointed out to me last
evening before we adjourned were the Hodgman letter and -- letter to
Mr. Hodgman and the list that was the basis on which the Hodgman
letter was constructed. And I looked at those two items. I don't see
the relevance of that. I'll exclude those. With regards to the
remainder of Siglar's testimony, I don't quite understand the
objections to the rest of the testimony.
MR. MEDVENE: Well, you basically covered 80 percent of what the
objections were, because they dealt with that. The only other two
objections, Your Honor, other than whatever's already dealt with,
were the relevance of the coroner response team being called out and
MR. LEONARD: You mean not being called out.
MR. MEDVENE: Not being called out. That's about the only objection
you really haven't dealt with, because 80-plus percent of our
objections dealt with the two letters you ruled weren't relevant. I
take it any testimony offered, those aren't relevant. Why is it
relevant they weren't called out? Unless there can be some tie-in to
this case, we know what the evidence is, is it enough to show
liability or not. If --
THE COURT: Well, isn't the evidence that they were not called out?
MR. MEDVENE: The evidence -- whoever was called out was called out.
There was not a coroner --
THE COURT: That's it?
MR. MEDVENE: -- a coroner response time called out.
THE COURT: What did you need that for?
MR. LEONARD: This is somebody from the coroner's office saying they
should be called out.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to that.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I don't think their opinion about who should be called
out is relevant to what the evidence is.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, it's relevant -- let me make one more
pitch. It's relevant because that would have been the normal
procedure. LAPD didn't follow it. Why? Answer: Because they didn't
want anyone from the coroner's office there. That's the answer. We
should be able to -- to elicit the fact that leaves that inference
for the jury. That's why it's relevant.
THE COURT: Let me see what the letter says.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I can point you to the testimony.
THE COURT: What is your argument? That the fact that a coroner's
office response team did not have access to the decedent's body for
approximately 10 hours -- how did that affect the coroner's
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, first of all, they couldn't -- there may
have been valuable evidence, trace evidence and so forth, that was
on the bodies that wasn't obtained. The taking of the liver
temperature --
THE COURT: Such as?
MR. LEONARD: -- temperature was compromised by virtue of the delay.
There were -- for instance, there were drops on Nicole Brown --
blood drops on Nicole Brown Simpson's back, such as -- you asked me
such as -- they were never tested.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Leonard, I will not permit it on your
theory of conspiracy. I don't see any basis on that -- for that. I
will permit it on the basis of the fact that the liver temperature
was not taken and the time of death was made more difficult because
of that. That's the only reason I would do that.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't see any other relevance.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, in view of the statements of counsel,
pointing out how they intend to argue yesterday's testimony, I renew
my request for an admonition to the jury based on questions that had
absolutely no good-faith basis. I will remind the Court that Your
Honor issued a written or an oral instruction to the jury regarding
my questions concerning the polygraph examinations, some of which
were --
THE COURT: That's quite different, Mr. Petrocelli.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- and told the jury that my questions were not
evidence. Mr. Baker's questions, which had no good-faith basis, were
not evidence. I had a good-faith basis; he had none.
THE COURT: I'm not going to make any further admonitions to the jury
at this point.
MR. BAKER: Quit whining.
THE COURT: Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: I could not help myself.
THE COURT: Would you not do that. It makes my job a lot more
difficult. Bring the jury in, please.
JURORs resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we'll move into evidence the photographs of
yesterday: 2309, 2310, 2311, and both gloves, 2312 and 2313.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2309 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2310 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2311 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2312 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2313 was
received in evidence.)
MR. BAKER: And we'll be playing the tape of criminalist Henry Lee.
And that tape has some scenes that are a little disjointed because
of objections that have been ruled on and had to be edited out of
the -- of the videotape of Dr. Lee. With the Court's permission, may
we proceed?
(Whereupon, a videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee was played.)
Q. Dr. Lee, where were you born?
A. I was born in China.
Q. And did you subsequently go to Taiwan?
A. Yes.
Q. And in 1960, Dr. Lee, what did you do?
A. In 1960, I was a police captain in Taiwan Police Department.
Q. Did you graduate from Taiwan police college?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long did you remain a captain in the Taiwan police
A. Approximately five years.
Q. Were you the youngest Chinese ever to be made a captain in the
Taiwan Police Department?
A. Exactly.
Q. When did you develop an interest in science, Dr. Lee?
A. During my career as a police captain, involving investigation of
a crime, crime-scene investigation, I start developing an interest
in crime-scene investigation of physical evidence. I tried to find a
better way to solving cases.
Q. All right. And when you're working in a police department, you
did cases where you investigated the crime scene?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you also do evidence comparison and interview --
interrogation of witnesses?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, how long did you remain in Taiwan as a police
captain, sir?
A. Approximately five years.
Q. And in 1964, did you leave Taiwan?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you go then, sir?
A. I went to Maylasia first.
Q. And did you then leave the Taiwan Police Department?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long did you stay in Maylasia?
A. Approximately a year.
Q. Okay. And then in 1965, what did you next do, Dr. Lee?
A. I decided to come to United States to further my study.
Q. Okay. And where did you come to the United States?
A. New York, to John Jay College of Criminal Justice. That's part of
a city university.
Q. And did you go there on a scholarship, sir?
A. Yes, I got some financial assistance.
Q. In what -- what is or was at the time John Jay College?
A. John Jay College, at that time, probably has the best reputation
in the country of the best forensic program. Also have excellent
faculties that encourage me to go to school, to further my study.
Q. And what, sir, caused your interest in forensic science to lead
you to John Jay University?
A. I was a police officer/detective, and I always have a curiosity,
interest in forensic science. However, my degree in Taiwan as police
science -- I don't have a degree in nature science. At the time I
work at the NYU Medical Center -- that's a graduate school, medical
school level. I need the bachelor's degree to continue my graduate
study. John Jay College is geographically very close to NYU Medical
Center, also have a good reputation, and they gave me some
financial assistance.
Q. Okay. Now, was John Jay College the first college to offer a
degree in forensic science?
A. I think that time Berkeley also offers the degree.
Q. Okay. At that time, did you meet Peter DeForest, the gentleman
sitting in the room?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was a professor at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And at -- that was at John Jay College?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when did you ultimately get your degree from John Jay
A. I forgot the exact date. 1970 or something like that.
Q. All right. Now, in terms of while you went to John Jay College,
were you working full-time at NYU?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you to go night school at John Jay College?
A. Yes. Most of the courses is nighttime.
Q. How long did it take you to get your Bachelor of Science degree
at John Jay College, going at night?
A. Year and a half, two years.
Q. And then, two years later, did you get your master's degree in
biochemistry from NYU in 1974?
A. Yes; two years later, I get my master degree of science from NYU.

Q. And your principal tutor at NYU is Serrio Ochia, the Nobel
laureate in medical genetics; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you then, in a single year, received your Ph.D.; is that
A. Yes, correct.
Q. What was your Ph.D. in?
A. Ph.D. in molecular biology/biochemistry.
Q. And that was when, approximately 1975?
A. 1975.
Q. Okay. Now, after you had your Ph.D., what did you then do, Dr.
A. I started looking for jobs.
Q. Okay. And where did you find the job?
A. I tried different places. As a matter of fact, I had Dr. DeForest
also assist me looking for positions and I got couple offers, some
to stay in a research area, continue my biochemistry study. In
addition to that, I received a couple offers to teach forensic
science. One of the offer for University of New Haven, I took that
Q. And, Doctor, that was 21 years ago, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you still teach at the University of New Haven?
A. Yes, I still teach at University of New Haven.
Q. Now, in 1976, were you promoted to run the program at the
University of New Haven?
A. Yes. I've become the program chairman, and I first associate
professor. One year later, I become a full professor.
Q. As a full professor, were you tenured?
A. Yes.
Q. What does tenure mean?
A. Tenure, basically, the school recognize your acomplishments and
your contribution to teaching and in the community affair and to
your profession, which means if you -- you have a job for your life.

Q. And then there's no termination once you're tenured; is that
A. Unless you have some criminal activity or other illegal activity,
no termination.
Q. You were tenured within three years of getting your Ph.D.; is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, Doctor, back in 1975, when you went to the
University of New Haven, did you start investigating criminal cases
at this time?
A. Even before that time, yes.
Q. Okay. And what type of agencies or governmental agencies did you
work for?
A. Start with most. The majority of agencies agency are public
defenders' office, private attorneys, with a small fraction of
law-enforcement agencies or prosecutors' office.
Q. All right. Now, over the years, did you work, then, for
additional law-enforcement agencies?
A. Yes. At that time, University New Haven, we start to develop a
laboratory, testing laboratory, which I'm also the director of that
laboratory -- provide forensic services to the community. Gradually,
more and more police department, fire department, District
Attorney's office around the country utilize our services.
Q. And do you -- did you, in the '70s, do work for the New York
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The Greenburg police?
A. Work with Dr. DeForest on cases.
Q. And did you, over the years, become well-known, both nationally
and internationally, as a criminalist?
A. Yes. Gradually, I got recognized by our peers and law-enforcement
Q. When you started the forensic lab at -- at the University of New
Haven, could you tell me how many people were full-time, how many
people were part-time?
A. Start with university in 1975. I'm the only faculty, only have
two full-time student and few part-time students, without a
laboratory, only a few simple pieces of equipment. By 1978, we have
four full-time faculties. We probably have approximately 100
students, and we'll have a more well-equipped laboratory.
Q. Doctor, let's fast-forward to 1996. Can you tell us how many
employees, students and faculty, you had in the program at the
University of New Haven?
A. In 1996, we further added couple other faculty, including one of
my former professor, Dr. Gaensalen. He also a colleague of mine. And
there many other faculties join the university. We start our
graduate program now. There was only undergraduate. Graduate program
only take about 15 graduate students each year, try to maintain a
good, high-quality program.
Q. And how many undergraduate students do have you presently?
A. We develop a program call Law Enforcement Science. By that time,
possibly 200 students in that program.
Q. And how many faculty members do you have roughly in the
undergraduate program?
A. In total program, law enforcement and criminal justice,
approximately 13, 14 faculties.
Q. Now, Doctor, is it -- did you hire one of your former professors
at John Jay College to work in your program?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And that's Dr. --
A. Gaensalen. He's a very highly respected forensic scientist in the
Q. Now, I want to go back into the chronology, if I may. In 1979,
you officially joined the Connecticut State Police; is that correct,
A. Before 1979, I -- I guess, advisor for Connecticut State Police
Laboratory, in 1979 officially. May 1970, Governor Grasso offered me
a job of director, chief criminalist, the first chief criminalist
for the State of Connecticut.
Q. And in 1980, Doctor, then -- Governor Grasso then gave you
another job, did he not?
A. Yes. The State offered me as the director of the laboratory.
Q. And you have been the director of the forensic laboratory from
1982, and including the present time, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And right now, you are now building a new, modern facility as a
forensic laboratory, are you not?
A. Half of the laboratory already accomplished; the other half,
hopefully by next year, we will be finished.
Q. And give us just a general description of the laboratory you were
in till you got the new laboratory and the change from the size of
the laboratory.
A. It's a long history. And I started in the men's room, literally
convert a men's room about one-tenth of this room, with one
microscope. I have 27 state troopers work for me, sergeants and
lieutenant troopers. Now, we have about 43 civilian-type scientists.
Eleven have their Ph.D.s, M.D. terminal degree. The majority
finished a master degree. The equipment in the laboratory now
possibly over 40 million dollars through the grants foundation,
contribution, and bonded money. The laboratory now have 14 sections.
Early days, we just worked together. Very little type of services we
can provide to the community. The majority of my activity at that
time involving crime scene, actual crime-scene investigation and
bring to the lab for microscopic comparison and analysis. Nowadays,
we have immunology section, biology section, DNA section, chemistry
section, trace section, firearm, document, fingerprint, imprint,
reconstruction, all variety of sections. I'm very lucky. Have many
good people work with me.
Q. Doctor, in terms of the -- your history from 1975, the last 21
years, you went from the men's room to a thoroughly modern forensic
science lab; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you have worked on the case that we're here on as an
independent consultant previously, have you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And does that indicate your -- is that on your own time, as
contrasted to the time for the -- that you put in for the State of
A. Yes. This is not my official capacity. I work on this case as a
total independent consultant, use my own time.
Q. Now, in terms of what your lab handles in Connecticut, how many
police departments do you handle the forensic or crime-scene
evidence for?
A. Our laboratory currently serve 174 police department, 189 fire
departments, 14 judicial district, plus about 30 other state, local,
federal law-enforcement agencies in state.
Q. And do you also receive cases submitted to you from states other
than Connecticut?
A. Yes. Many, many cases fall from other state.
Q. Do you have other states, for example -- for example, up here in
New England?
A. Yes. All of the New England cases, including Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, constantly we're
working with them on cases. At this moment, all those five states,
this moment, I'm working cases with them. Those are major cases.
Q. All right. And do you work on cases from states other than New
A. Yes.
Q. California, for example?
A. Yes.
Q. The L.
A. County Sheriff's Department?
A. Yes.
Q. Hawaii?
A. Yes. Many cases in Hawaii.
Q. Alaska?
A. Alaska. Montana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Virginia, New York,
Q. Almost every state in the country?
A. Almost every sate.
Q. Now, you get your cases, Dr. Lee, in three different ways, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And how is it that the cases are referred to you as the director
of the forensics lab?
A. The first type of cases, official submission, case submitted
through the law enforcement agency to our laboratory. By official
capacity, we examine those cases. The second type of cases, if one
state request the other state for assistance, for example, right in
moment, Pennsylvania's State Commissioner asked our commissioner for
assistance. A potential homicide investigation. West Virginia
commissioner asked our state police state commissioner, so that kind
of through one state to another, to another state, request of the
third, basically, in the individual contact referee, people would
refer back and forth. Also some through University. That's an
independent consultants' cases, nothing to do with the laboratory.
Q. Now, at the federal level, that is for the United States
Government, as contrasted to the state government, do you do work
for the federal government?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us about your relationship with the FBI.
A. Very close. And FBI have excellent laboratory. They always give
state local laboratories support. Over the years, I've been as their
chairman of research training committee for many years and -- until
I resigned about six years ago. I still have very close contact with
many laboratory examiners and FBI laboratory people.
Q. Have you ever lectured at the FBI Academy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what have you lectured upon?
A. Quite a few different subjects area.
Q. For example, crime reconstruction?
A. Yes.
Q. Sexual assault?
A. Yes.
Q. How about trace evidence?
A. Participate in some lecture in trace evidence, too.
Q. Now, ASCLAD is a group that you're a member of; is that not
A. Yes.
Q. And what does ASCLAD stand for?
A. That stand for American Crime Laboratory Directors Association.

Q. And does the ASCLAD and the FBI Shave a close relationship?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you ever been, for example, an editor, or had anything
to do with any journals that the FBI has published?
A. I was the editor for FBI Crime Laboratory Digest for many years.
Q. I want to go back a little bit we're still on the federal. Have
you done any work for the United States, such as the Defense
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do for the defense department?
A. Involving examination of physical evidence, involving testing,
the procedure -- technique I developed, which is used by their
Q. Okay. Did you assist the Defense Department in a homicide case in
A. Yes.
Q. And how about with the Justice Department? Have you ever done any
work for the United States Department of Justice?
A. Yes.
Q. What have you done in that regard, sir?
A. The most recent one is for an independent counsel Vincent Foster
untimely death case.
Q. Now, Doctor, we've on international investigations have you been
asked by other heads of other countries or administrations of the
countries outside the United States to investigate?
A. Yes.
Q. And how about -- can you give us an example?
A. Two days ago I was in Taiwan to assist the serial rapist, serial
arson investigation. Also, some kidnap and legislator was kidnapped.
I was -- I was asked to review the case and asked to reinvestigate
the case.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of working with the defense or the
prosecution in a criminal case, what would you say is the percent of
times that you work for the prosecution as contrasted to the times
that you had worked for the defense?
A. Currently -- in the past in 20 years, I was in, 99 percent is
for the prosecution, maybe 1 percent for the defense.
Q. Okay. When you are working for the prosecution, and the defense
experts want to observe experiments or look at evidence in your lab,
do you allow them to do that?
A. Yes, I allow them, and I think that's healthy and have an
independent expert come to exam. We'll have nothing to hide. I will
welcome with open arms, especially defense expert have credential,
have recognized as an expert. I have nothing to hide about it.
Q. Do you let defense experts, for example, in cases you're
assisting the prosecution, join in the experiment that you do?
A. Yes. I will let them observe or join, even have coffee with me
together, have tea, and work together as a team.
Q. All right. And do you have to close down the lab anything of that
sort to let the defense expert in to look at evidence or assist you
in an experiment?
A. No. That activity goes on. Laboratory just have so many cases.
The defense expert allowed to walk around. In other words, have all
the freedom. I'm not restrict them, say have to stay in one spot.
Q. Now, Doctor, is it your practice and procedure to let defense
experts roam freely in the laboratory?
A. Depends on the defense expert. They want to work in conference
room, we'll set up in the conference room. Defense expert say I want
to work in the lab bench, I let them work in the lab bench. If
defense say I want to use men's room, I let them use men's room
Q. Very kind of you. If they want to use the ladies room, if they're
ladies, you let them use the ladies room?
A. Let them use the ladies room, sometimes buy them lunch if they're
people I respect.
Q. Thank you very much. Doctor, have you published any papers?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how many?
A. I lost track. Maybe 200, 300, something in that neighborhood.
Q. And what are the different areas that you have published papers
A. Early days, Dr. DeForest basically my principal co-author on many
papers. Subsequently, Dr. Gaensalen, we'll work on a lot of paper
together, and most recently basically myself and the my co-workers
work together. Area covers serological evidence, typing, ABO
grouping isoenzyme, DNA, trace evidence, a sell ran, crime scene,
enhancements of shoe print, impression, marks at the scene. Most
recently I'm very interested in writing about reconstruction, how to
put the case together. Of course, other areas such as blood-stain
pattern interpretation, hair examinations -- right at this moment
I'm working on five different subject area: One is involving trace
evidence in traffic accident reconstruction; one deals in DNA;
another area in the ethics in forensic area, forensic scientist
ruled in the trial should not be bias, should not be -- say, if
you're a prosecution witness, you're okay, once you become a defense
witness, you're -- you become a hired gun or a whore. That should
be a court appointed witness, so area like that.
Q. Doctor, how many books or monographs have you written major
chapters in?
A. Approximately 20.
Q. What's a monograph?
A. Monograph is a booklet that deals with a specific area. For
example, recently my co-worker and myself, Dr. Gaensalen, we receive
a grant for a National Institute of Justice to study the rape -- the
crime of rape. We publish it or publish a monograph in regards to
the rape investigation; how to collect evidence, how to preserve
evidence, what that type of genetic marker can use for identifying
somebody or also the limitation of such tests.
Q. Doctor, some of the books used as textbooks in forensic science
A. Yes.
Q. -- that you've written? And give me an example, if you can, of a
book that's used as a textbook in forensic science?
A. One of the best books is co-author with Dr. DeForest and Dr.
Gaensalen called Forensic Science Introduction to Criminalistics.
That's probably one of the best textbook on the market now.
Q. And how long has that textbook been out?
A. That book been published for quite a few years. Currently it's
under -- we're under revision for second edition.
MR. BAKER: I'm getting rewired. That's okay. Let me get to -- got to
redress. We okay? Pardon me for the interruption, Doctor. I had to
get rewired here with a different mike.
Q. Doctor, have you written in Physical Evidence in Forensic
A. We.
Q. And what have you written in that regard, sir?
A. Physical Evidence for -- over the years I work with the
detectives and police officer, fire marshals, I found an urgent need
to provide them some guideline, how to recognize potential evidence,
how to collect the evidence, document the evidence and preserve the
evidence, and properly submit to the laboratory. I'm also -- they
should know what's the laboratory capability, what the test means,
the positive, negative, inconclusive. So physical evidence in
Forensic Science basically is a -- not the technical manual, but the
book provide the law enforcement community, sometime attorneys,
prosecutor, defense attorney, a quick reference guide on different
category of physical evidence, and understand the underlying
principle and the current status of analytic and procedure.
Q. That monograph on physical evidence of physical forensic,
physical evidence has been widely distributed?
A. Yes.
Q. What languages has that monograph been published in?
A. It's been published in English, but been translated by many
countries now; in Chinese, both from Taiwan and China, Korea and
Spanish and Arabic.
Q. And Crime-Scene Investigation, is that a book that you've written
as well?
A. Yes. Recently I finish a book called Crime-Scene Investigation.
Q. And is that a textbook monograph? What is it?
A. A textbook on -- basically dealing with the crime-scene
procedures specifically. This book is co-authored with some
laboratory people.
Q. All right. Doctor, let's move to DNA for a minute. Have you ever
written a monograph on how to collect DNA evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that kind of the gold standard in criminalistic writings
about the collection of DNA evidence?
A. Up to today that's the only reference guide that was written with
FBI scientists about collection, preservation of DNA evidence.
Q. All right. TWGDAM, what's that?
A. TWGDAM, that's the technical working group of DN
Q. That's T-W-G-D-A-M, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you a founding member of that organization?
A. I was one of the early member at the beginning.
Q. Okay. What's OTA stand for, Doctor?
A. Office Technology Assessment.
Q. What is your involvement with that?
A. OTA set up a DNA committee called Forensic Application of DN
A. I was one of the committee members to study the forensic
application of DN
Q. And relative to the NRC report, what did you do, if anything,
concerning the NRC report on DNA?
A. I only have some input of the first -- only in the first
committee -- I was a committee member of National Research Council.
Council set up a committee to study the DNA application for forensic
science; we issue a report. I'm part of -- a committee member.
Q. All right. Now, you have been an editor of various publications,
have you not, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us, have you been the editor, for example, of the
Journal of Forensic Science?
A. Yes, I'm editor of Journal of Forensic Science. I'm an editor of
Forensic Identification, editor of American Journal of Forensic
Pathology, and I'm editor of some other journal which I don't
remember. About seven of them.
Q. Forensic Science Review; how about that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the Journal of Forensic Science, they're the official
publication of what?
A. Academy of Forensic Science.
Q. It's American Academy, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And the Journal of Forensic Identification is the official
publication of what?
A. For international identification of association.
Q. All right. And so you do serve as editor on both the American
Journal and the International Journal?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And the American Forensic Pathology Journal that you
serve on as the editor, is that Forensic Medicine and Pathology?
A. Yes. Basically 99 percent of the paper related to forensic
pathology and not forensic medicine.
Q. Doctor, going to your -- into your teaching for a moment, moving
to a new area, I think we've already established you continue to
teach at the University of New Haven?
A. Yes.
Q. You also teach where else?
A. I also currently this semester am teaching at UCONN Law School,
teach with a judge. Also, I'm teaching at Central Connecticut
University, Connecticut. Also was Wcsleyan University in Connecticut
where we have a molecular biology course. Also, I'm teaching with
some other people in Western Connecticut. Bridgeport University have
approached me. However, we haven't set up a day yet. Also, I give
guest lecture Northeastern and many other university before. I also
lecture at John Jay College of Criminal Justice before, People's
University Central Police College and mainly --
Q. People's University, is that Beijing?
A. Beijing.
Q. Go ahead. I apologize for interrupting?
A. And three weeks ago I was in China, lecture -- I give a series
lecture in different agencies and university.
Q. Now, do you teach law enforcement agencies across the world?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you been a lecturer for the FBI Justice Department?
A. Yes, the FBI, ATF, Justice Department, DE
A. I taught six courses of crime-scene investigation reconstruction
for DEA, Drug Enforcement Agency, last year. Many federal, Air
Force, Naval investigation, federal level -- as a matter of fact,
next week or next two weeks I have to give a lecture for the U.S.
Justice Department for the U.S. Attorney on crime scene.
Q. ATF is?
A. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm.
Q. An agency of the federal government?
A. Yes, sir. I teach advanced arson classes for them.
Q. Now, in terms of evidence, you've taught police academies?
A. Yes.
Q. National Association District Attorney?
A. Many, many. Next week I have to teach for the New England Fire
Marshal annual meeting next Monday. Tuesday, I have to be in
Oklahoma to teach an advance crime scene class. Friday I have to be
in Pennsylvania to teach a course for Pennsylvania Medical Examiners
Coroners annual meeting. Pretty busy.
Q. I'll say. Doctor, you're also a member of various professional
organizations, are you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you tell us what the IAI is?
A. IAI stands for International Identification of Association.
Q. And are you a distinguished member of that organization?
A. Yes. I'm one of the few distinguished member in that
Q. Actually, there are less than 10 distinguished members in that
A. Yes. Much less.
Q. And in that organization you seek to identify, by various means,
evidence, do you not, or -- strike that. Do you seek to identify the
perpetrator of a crime?
A. It's -- basically it's an organization involving identification
Q. All right.
A. Which include fingerprint, footprint, document, pattern evidence,
and other periphery -- other physical evidence such as voice
analysis and other type of scientific technique using criminal
Q. Now, does the IAI have a certification program for criminalists?
A. No. They have a certification program for latent print and a
certification program for crime scene. Now, right at this moment,
they develop a certification program for blood pattern
Q. Okay. And have they honored you with any type of an award, sir?
A. Yes. They have the highest award in their organization called
Donnero award.
Q. Donnero?
A. Yes.
Q. And when were you given that award, sir?
A. I forgot. 1970 or '80 something, 1980 something.
Q. Fair enough. Let's move on to the American Academy of Forensic
Science. Are you a member of that?
A. Yes, I'm a member.
Q. And are -- have you been given the distinguished fellow medallion
in that organization?
A. Yes. I received the highest membership category couple years ago.

Q. You've also been given the highest award of that organization
that that organization awards, have you not?
A. Yes, the criminalistics actually received one of the
Distinguished Criminalist Award.
Q. And Doctor, to your knowledge, has anyone ever -- else in the
world ever received the Donnero and the Distinguished Criminalist
A. No.
Q. Other than yourself?
A. Right. In moment I'm the only one.
Q. All right. Now, are you a member of the International Association
of Blood-Stain Analysts?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're regional vice-president of that organization?
A. I was.
Q. Okay. International Homicide Investigators Association?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a member and advisor of that group?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you a fellow of the English Fingerprint Society?
A. Yes.
Q. How about ASCLAD?
A. I was a board member. I was chairman of research academy. I was
chairman of scholarship committee and many other committees.
Q. And were you inspector for a --
A. Yes, I was an inspector for American Crime Laboratory Inspection
Q. And by the way, Doctor, is the LA Crime Lab accredited by ASCLAD?

A. Probably not.
Q. Okay.
A. It's not.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Doctor, are you also a member of the American
Board of Criminalists?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you certified by the American Board of Criminalists?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I was the board member, and also I was the peer group, also
review some tests. I feel not fair to other people if I know what's
on the questions, test question and take the test.
Q. So you devised the test question. You think you ought to be able
to pass it?
A. I only devise certain portion of question. Other people devise
the rest of question. However, I was the guinea pig, take the
question, that review the question.
Q. I see. So you think you could pass that one, Doctor?
A. Maybe.
Q. Doctor, have you received from various police department and
crime labs around the world hundreds, literally hundreds of
certificates and awards of appreciation?
A. Yes, plaques. medals -- last week alone I receive two medals: One
is the highest honor for Taiwan government for overseas Chinese for
my accomplishment in science. And next one is given to me by
Minister of interior for my contribution in arson fire investigation
and the knowledge -- contribution of literature to fire arson
Q. Congratulations. Now, Doctor, putting modesty aside, have
people indicated in your presence that they believe that you are the
number one criminalist in the world?
A. Oh, I don't consider that.
Q. All right. Doctor, how did you get involved in the murders of
June 12, 1994, of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson? Dr. Lee, I
want to -- Dr. Lee, I want to go back over one thing before you --
we get into how you got involved in this --
THE COURT: 10-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case. Don't form or express any opinion.
JURORs resume their respective seats.)
(Whereupon a videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee was played.)
Q. Let's go back over one thing before we get into how you got
involved in this case. Dr. Lee, in the criminal case, were you --
you personally, as contrasted to any organization, paid for your
A. Personally, I did not receive any compensation except my
expenses. I did send a bill for consultation which half donated to
University New Haven scholarship fund. Other sent to Connecticut
State Police Department of Public Safety for forensic services.
Q. All right. And you're not being compensated here today?
A. No.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, how did you get involved in the case of the murders
of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman which occurred on June 12,
A. The first contact through attorney Robert Shapiro. I receive a
phone call on June 14, I think, request my assistance in review some
Q. Now, did you make any contact with the LAPD relative to this
case after you had been contacted by Bob Shapiro on June 14, 1994?
A. Afterwards, not the same day, I did make some contact with LAPD
Q. And who did you contact at LAPD laboratory?
A. I first called Michelle Kestler, the lab director.
Q. All right. Doctor, could you explain to us what forensic science
A. Forensic science is application of nature science to the matters
of the law, utilize -- the principal technique using chemistry,
biology, physics, try to solve some legal issue, both civil or
Q. And would you give us, please -- well, just tell us what is
A. Forensic science is a much broader field, encompasses disciplines
such as forensic medicine, forensic pathology, forensic odontology,
forensic anthropology, also an area called criminalistics.
Criminalistics involve physical evidence, crime-scene, exam variety
of physical evidence through recognition, documentation,
preservation, collection, identification, individualization.
Finally, try to reconstruct the sequence of events, try to answer
the so-called 6 W's; what happened, how it happened, when it
happened, where it happen. All those relevant facts relate to a
Q. In terms of crime-scene reconstruction, are there degrees of
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain that to us?
A. Crime-scene reconstruction solely depend on the amount of
information available. If you have a complete picture just like in
putting a puzzle -- if you have all the pieces, you can put the
puzzle together. If you have a half of the puzzle, you can put the
puzzle together -- half of the puzzle. We use the interpretation,
the original pattern, what kind of figure it is. If you only have
limited information, few pieces, you only can make an intelligent
interpretation based on your experience and knowledge, say more
consistent with certain pattern. If you have very few pieces nobody
can put this puzzle together anymore with degree of certainty. So
reconstruction -- sometimes we classify a complete reconstruction,
usually have to get to the crime-scene from day one. Usually have
documentation. First, investigating officer, all the physical
evidence did not pick up improper location, position, did not change
body position did not change, nothing destroyed, medical examiners
result, the clothing on the victim did not contaminate it. Then a
qualified forensic scientist of criminalist put pieces together.
There is something called partial reconstruction. Physically we
cannot go to every crime-scene. Sometime the department photograph
the crime-scene or videotape the crime-scene, collect the physical
evidence, send to the laboratory. We can base on the investigative
information, crime-scene documentation, diagrams, photograph,
videotaping, plus the physical evidence, plus medical examiners
result, try to insert partial question. The limitation of the
partial reconstruction is we view crime-scene through somebody
else camera. The person took the picture, they're usually selective;
usually, only partial representation, two dimensional
representation. Whereas with assistance of a videotape, sometimes we
can see more. Without a videotape we only can do that very partial
reconstruction. The third type we call limited reconstruction; just
to answer one or two questions. For example, some blood stain found
in somebody's T-shirt, can we make an interpretation just limited on
this blood stain, or of a gunshot wound based on the powder residue
distribution, whether or not we can reach a conclusion, the possible
distance between the barrel to the target. For example, if we find a
bullet hole through -- we have two entrance, and one exit. Now we
can establish the possible trajectory, so those called partial
Q. Now, Doctor, let me go to the boards and let's take and put up
1350 and I ask you -- this is a larger board. I don't know if we're
going to -- if it's going to fit in the area directly behind you.
A. Yes, I think probably will fit.
Q. Well, it's a little too tall I think. Well, you're right again.
Now, Dr. Lee, would you explain -- this board is entitled "Steps in
Forensic Examination." Could you explain that for us, please, sir?
A. The steps are the essential dogma of any forensic examination;
not only limited to the crime-scene, even in the laboratory. As
forensic scientist, when we examine piece of physical evidence, we
should follow this procedure. Of course, at the crime-scene we'll
have to follow faithfully. Recognition probably the most crucial
step. Unless the potential evidence recognized, otherwise that piece
of evidence won't ever become in evidence. For example, if a shoe
print present at the scene, the investigator did not see it, he or
she assumes no shoe print exists. In reality, there are shoe prints,
just did not recognize. Another typical example, people often miss
blood spatter pattern, pattern in the ceiling, sometime pattern on
the tree, the investigator did not pay attention on that, often
miss those patterns, assume no blood spatter pattern exists. So
recognition is so important for the crime-scene. At the same time,
recognition is so important at the laboratory. You have a piece of
evidence, submit to the laboratory, if you only look something
visible and did not pay attention on something minor or not so
visible, many times you missed. In my career I reexam numerous
physical evidence being examined by other laboratories and found so
many time crucial evidence missed because they omitted the
recognition step.
Q. Go ahead, Doctor. Please explain the second step of preservation,
documentation and collection, and give us examples, if you can.
A. Recognition -- after you recognize it, the investigator or
laboratory scientist sees it, however, it's our responsibility to
document so other scientist can also see what you see. Subsequently,
if those evidence consumed during the examination, other
scientists or defense expert can go back and check those
documentation to verify. Those evidence has to be preserved to
guarantee the scientific integrity, also to guarantee the legal
integrity, to document, besides photographic document, many type of
evidence because it's nature of the human eyes only can see a narrow
spectrum of a visible spectrum, so we'll have to use chemical method
use -- or special lighting method to enhance -- to develop, to make
it visible and to document that. The documentation, besides
photograph, should include diagrams, detailed diagrams, notes,
detailed descriptions, also videotaping and audiotaping, if
necessary. After that, then start collect. The collection is also
crucial, it's in between forensic scene to the laboratory. Unless
you collect properly, then those evidence -- the integrity can be
sacrificed. So preservation, documentation, collection. The
collection has to use proper procedure; avoid contamination, avoid
loss of a sample of evidence, also avoid mixing the sample. Once
they collect, should submit to the laboratory as soon as possible.
Any biological evidence should be treated with special attention.
Any pattern evidence should treat with care. Subsequent folding can
distort a pattern. Subsequent contamination with a wet garment also
can add an additional pattern, make later the interpretation,
reconstruction, become more difficult. Once received to the
laboratory, laboratory's first step is identification. Proper
documentation, accurate counting of the specimens submitted, the
size, the weight, all the physical measurements, before we do any
biological chemical, instrumental study. No other should be
collected for the comparison purpose. Through the laboratory
analysis with biological technique, chemical technique, physical
methods, a good criminalist will be able to start individualizing
this particular sample such as glass chips, through the analysis
we may be able to trace to particular lens, a blood sample, DNA
analysis may be traced back to consistent with a certain individual,
hair fibers, soil, variety of physical evidence, we can start trace
back. Finally, reconstruction even if we identify those evidence we
find, it's origin, what does it mean in the total, whole picture. If
you find somebody's hair in a chair, not necessarily this person
commit a crime, may be due to a secondary transfer. If you find a
shoe print at the scene, not necessarily that shoe print was the
deposit by the perpetrator. So this reconstruction is important.
Unless step one, documentation, recognition, everybody does their
job, later this reconstruction can be fruitless. And if somebody
tried to -- overdoes it, reconstruct, can be biased, can be
misleading, can be totally wrong.
Q. Doctor, in hairs, they are not as -- as fingerprints, they do not
individualize; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Relative to hair, they'll tend to determine whether there's
class characteristics?
A. Hair is no problem. We can tell the racial origin. Now, today,
you have more difficult now, the intermarriage, we can tell somatic
origin, we can tell the hair was cut, pulled, what kind of damage,
whether or not have certain chemical treatment. We only can say
microscopically this questioned hair and known hair are similar, we
cannot say this hair definitely from that hair.
Q. Doctor, I would like to talk a little bit about blood spatter
evidence for a few minutes. Doctor, could we ask you to explain what
information that you obtained from blood pattern evidence, spatter
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm going to ask to you do a demonstration. Let's
demonstrate, if you can, are there various different kinds of blood
A. Yes. Blood-stain evidence is a pattern evidence, blood
circulating in body, human system, once the system interrupt, blood
shed onto a surface, can be carpet, carpet, table, chair, floor,
or piece of paper or envelope, depends on the type of surface,
depends on the condition, environment, and mechanism, a certain
pattern will produce.
Q. Okay.
A. For the purpose of demonstration I'm using typing paper. I'm not
trying to mislead everybody all the blood stain in this world going
to look like the typing paper, just a demonstration, by no way say
the blood drop on the carpet going to look identical as the typing
Q. Okay. I want to go back for a moment. I apologize, I should have
asked you this question. In the blood system of the human being --
A. Yes.
Q. That's a closed fluid system, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's a closed -- closed -- is it a closed fluid system under
A. Yes.
Q. So we have blood pressure, and -- and to sustain life as a human
being, we have to have oxygenated blood to flow through our
arterial system through virtually every place in our body, right?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Flowing through all the blood vessel, not only artery -- we say
artery move faster.
Q. Even then it's returned -- after the oxygenation is used from the
oxygenated blood, it's returned by the venous or the veins, is it
A. Yes.
Q. And it filters to get to some of our extremities through little
minor veins or arterial systems called capillaries true?
A. Yes, first vein to the capillary, then capillary back to the
Q. And the blood pressure in the arterial system, that is when the
blood coming -- comes from the lungs there to the heart and then is
pumped to the various portions of the body, is called systolic, is
it not?
A. Appears to be.
Q. The blood pressure in the arterial system is higher than the
blood pressure in the venous system?
A. Yes, much higher; it's about 500 to 600 millimeter per second.
Q. So we have -- when we have the upper and lower blood pressures,
the diastolic being the higher blood pressure than systolic being
the lower one is arterial one is venous, is that not right?
A. It's a contrast, the venous the flow rate is much lower; it's
about 160 millimeter per second.
Q. All right. Now, when we are looking at blood pattern and blood
spatter demonstrations, we're looking at blood after it has got out
of the closed fluid system of the body, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, could you show us, for example, what a low
velocity drop would look like?
A. Yes. What we're using for demonstration just ink, not real blood.
If an individual cut their finger or a small injury, the blood start
dripping out from the wound without any external or internal force
going to produce a vertical drop. Those are --
Q. Go to this camera, Doctor.
A. I say low velocity blood drop.
Q. Put it down. 'Cause I don't want it to run. Let me just write
"low velocity blood drop" on there, please. Okay.
A. This low velocity drop, sometimes we see bigger drop, smaller
drop, depends on amount of blood. Also, sometime depends on the
source between -- a source to the target, the distance, if the
source is close to the target, let's say at half an inch, an inch,
two inches
(witness displays drops of ink). If I keep increase the distance,
you can see this diameter increase with the distance.
Q. So, Doctor, as a general rule, in a low velocity blood drop, the
larger the drop the higher the source of the bleeding is?
A. In general. And also when it reach a constant it will not
increase anymore.
Q. Talking about terminal velocity, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you explain what terminal velocity would do to a blood
drop, what you're talking about?
A. Once it reach that terminal velocity, the diameter will stay as a
Q. And what you're talking about is that because of gravity, the
blood drop will reach a velocity at a certain height above which it
will not exceed that velocity, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And so, for example, if we went on the top of the Empire State
Building, we wouldn't have a block worth of blood drops?
A. You drop a drop of blood will not cover all Manhattan.
Q. It's going to have a terminal velocity that will reach somewhere
lower than 1400 feet?
A. No, terminal velocity is 32 feet per second.
Q. I had a poor question. Now, Doctor, when you have this low
velocity blood drop, it looks like there are -- after you get up to
a certain height, it starts to spatter?
A. Yes.
Q. And has jagged edges around it, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a satellite pattern?
A. Those called satellite pattern and those are little spine from
the major group.
Q. All right. And what is an angular deposit, a low velocity angular
A. Some of the blood hit the surface, for example, hit this side of
the board or side of the window or an incline or decline, angle will
not produce a perfect round circle. So you're going to have a
so-called angular deposit. Let's say the blood source parallel to
the sheet of paper, we have a pattern, if I gradually change the
angle, we can observe a pattern shift, the length and the width of
this pattern correlate to the impact angle.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of using blood spatter evidence -- or
blood pattern evidence, rather, to assist in reconstruction, do you
need to measure the -- the blood drops at the crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. And can that be done in two ways; an actual measurement or
placing a ruler beside the blood drop when a photograph is taken?
A. Ideally we do a measurement and when document we should then --
we should photograph without the ruler, second one with a ruler.
Q. Now, Doctor, in this case, in the photographs you saw of the
crime scene, did you see a ruler next to a blood drop?
A. No.
Q. Now, Doctor, let me direct your attention to the upper left-hand
corner photo, where we --
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, we'll put that
board up so the jury can see it better.
(Tape is paused.)
(Counsel displayed board.)
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal 1341. Civil 1342.
(Exhibit 1342 displayed.)
(Tape resumes.)
A. Yes.
Q. That's consistent with item 54, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us what is depicted in that photo on the upper left-hand
corner of 1341?
A. This appears to depict a group of blood spatter. I can see in
this, one, two, three, four, five, six of them. Four are relative
clear. The other two consist of a lighter color. Could be a smear.
Q. And the height of those was approximately what?
A. 3 feet, 2 inches, the top one.
Q. And there was no picture showing you whether or not there were
blood smears above that level; is that correct?
A. No picture indicates to me, no record shows me whether or not
anything above. However, this same picture I can see two smaller
spatters is above this big one in the middle fence
(indicating to upper left-hand photo).
Q. What is the blood type pattern that we have in the photo in the
upper corner of 1341?
A. This one, because of no ruler, no measurement, and just a
interpretation, consistent with the medium velocity pattern,
however, since lack of a measurement also, the surface is alike, a
flat surface, very difficult to determine the direction up and down
or forwards or backwards unless we have the actual blood stain.
Q. Is the pattern depicted in photo 119, is that consistent with a
blood source being upright?
A. The blood source has to be either up or around this area. As I
indicate, they are two additional stain above this which creates
some problem for further interpretation.
Q. Okay. Doctor, I want to ask you to look at the middle photo.
A. Yes.
Q. On -- and then move to the left middle photo, and ask you what's
depicted in that photo that's of significance to you as a
A. This photo have great significance because a large amount of
smaller spatter was found between the corner fence area on those
metal bars. In addition, heavy contact pattern on the post and the
tree. A large depression on the ground was seen. Adjacent to the
left of the large depression, an elongated depression also can be
seen. That indicative it's a tenuous disturbance of the soil. The
facts of this depression I can't tell you, I wasn't at the scene. In
theory, should measure -- in theory, should measure diameter, and
the depth also should observe whether or not had blood drops inside
or not. But I did -- did see quite a few fresh leaves, green leaves
randomly distribute on the ground. Also see the soil disturbance.
Q. What's the significance of that?
A. Which suggests some form of struggle occurred in that -- this
Q. Now, Doctor, in addition to the leaves, in addition to the
depression, is there also a beeper in that area?
A. Yes, also beeper was deposit under -- almost under or over this
Q. In fact, the beeper may be on the other side of the fence; is
that not correct, sir?
A. Could be, because difficult to -- this is a two-dimensional
picture; very difficult to tell.
Q. There certainly was no, at least, picture taken from the outside,
that is the neighbor's yard, as is indicated in the upper right-hand
corner, depicting the beeper, is that true or untrue, that you see?
A. That's true.
Q. All right. So that the picture in the upper right-hand corner of
1341 which shows blood and goes over to the tree, that does not show
the beeper, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Now, the significance of the -- well, strike that,
Doctor. Were there keys also found I noticed I pointed to one that's
the number next to the beeper?
A. Yeah, the beeper, and also blood drops consistent with a low
velocity drop on the leaves on the ground. And approximately 20, 30,
just in that region.
Q. All right. Now, Doctor, to your knowledge, were any of those
blood drops ever recorded or measured?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, on the pole or the -- the bottom portion of the fence,
there appears to be additional blood drops next to the beeper in the
lower left-hand photo.
A. Yes.
Q. And was there any documentation or measurements made of that?
A. I did not see any.
Q. Now, Doctor, there were also in the closed-in area found the keys
of Mr. Goldman, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the keys and the beeper, were they adjacent to each other?
A. No.
Q. How far apart, approximately?
A. Approximately 4 to 5 feet.
Q. Does that indicate to you as an expert in crime scene
reconstruction, anything?
A. Yes.
Q. What's it indicate?
A. It indicates this has to be dropped, a key dropped in one
location, subsequently beeper dropped in a second different
Q. All right. Now, Doctor, we have a -- so presumably Mr. Goldman
was in both locations or one or the beeper or the keys were thrown?
A. If the key belongs to Mr. Goldman, which indicative, more likely
he either dropped the key first, then the beeper, or dropped the
beeper first or the key, and unlikely dropped together.
Q. Now, in terms of the indentation, that is around the tree and
over towards the fence?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, there is a difference between an impression and an
imprint, is there not?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you explain that to us?
A. Impression generally would refer to a three-dimensional
indentation; you have the width, length, and depth. For example,
this impression is a three-dimensional. We have the width of this
area, the length, and the depth. If the pattern is left on a hard
surface, a wooden board or certain -- for example, marble surface,
you only have the width and the length, generally, we call
two-dimensional imprints. Different people may call different way.
That's the nomenclature we generally use to distinguish a
two-dimensional pattern versus a three-dimensional pattern.
Q. Now, Doctor, relative to that, that's an impression back there in
the middle photo on the left side, is there ways of trying to
determine not only the depth, but to see if there were any marks in
that depression that would be consistent with, for example, Mr.
Goldman's shoe, as depicted in the lower right-hand photo?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what -- what kind of methodology can you use to determine the
-- for example, the depth of the hole, to see whether there are any
impressions or imprints left within the soil therein?
A. This impression, impression indentation area covers a pretty good
size area. It's not this small dip, it's a pretty good size. Exact
size, I don't know. But you could just use the fence as a reference.
We can see 1, 2, 3. In this 3 fence area, bar area shows the major
impression, and another 1, 2, 3, almost 4, this elongated pattern.
Those patterns basically, physical measurements, you can use a ruler
to measure the length, width, and the depth. Also, you can use
photographic technique to document that. So far, the crime-scene
photograph provided to me, we don't have a single one show us the
close-up, direct imprint picture, direct above this area. If a
pattern observe, recognized and you can cast it, using casting
method to preserve those patterns.
Q. And that's basically what, plaster of Paris?
A. Yes.
Q. A hybrid?
A. Again, dental stone, plaster of Paris, any of those can be used
for casting.
Q. All right. Now, Doctor, the lower right-hand photograph, that is
a photograph of what, to your knowledge?
A. To my knowledge, is the boots, the sole of the boots of Ron
Q. And that is also depicted, is it not, in the lower center
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And what is the significance of the photograph, from a
criminalist standpoint, in the lower right-hand photograph?
A. These two photograph basically related to each other. We can see
the boots. We can see the vegetated material, bent, deformed. We see
a key. Also, we see soil, material on top of the blood stain, which
is indicative the blood have to be deposit soil subsequently on top
of this blood area, so caked up on it. At the same time, we can see
soil caked into the grove area. Meanwhile, the blood on top of the
soil surface, soil surface, which is indicative around Mr. Goldman
was in an upright position at one point in time, step into the
Q. And so there would have to have been blood on the surface either
probably of the dirt; is that right, that he steps into, to give the
impressions, and the dirt and the blood on the bottom of the
photograph in the lower right-hand corner of 1341?
A. No. Has to be stepped in dirt. That's correct. The soil, the
blood part is relatively clean, blood that does -- did not appear
to be mixed with any large amount of soil. So more likely, stepping
on the surface, have more blood than soil. In addition, they are
blood drops under the soil, which indicative that has to be deposit
after the shoe form in certain position. Cannot be somebody standing
up. That blood drop will not be able to deposit.
Q. All right. So if the blood drop that's about at the end of the
red tape had to be deposited after the shoe was in a vertical
position, can you tell?
A. Certain position, they -- these are up in the air or down on the
ground -- expose that surface.
Q. Can you put your magnifying glass on that blood drop that's in
the center of the right-hand photo and tell us, if you can, what
angle the boot would have to have been to have accepted that blood
drop, would have to have been upright, as it exists in the photo,
would it have been. In other words, it would have been laying
sideways as it is in this photograph?
A. No. It has to be a very upright position, because the direction
appears to be the whole heel goes upwards. Again, we're looking at
two-dimensional picture. The time when we examine the shoes, some of
those blood stain already removed. So all -- I can reach a
conclusion: This has to be exposed. The exact position, I cannot
tell you.
Q. Okay. But we can at least determine that, more likely than not,
the boot was not in the position it's in, in the middle lower
photograph; is that correct?
A. Very difficult to have this position, because a lot of vegetation
covers, so that drop to get there, more likely higher to that.
Q. Or if blood was moved at the scene, subsequent, after that?
A. It's possible.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to go back just a for a moment, because I
missed it in the middle picture on the upper.
(Witness indicates to photo.)
Q. Yes. Does the tag inhibit you from determining what kind of blood
pattern exists in that photograph?
(Indicating to center top row.)
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, that tag, or criminalist, whoever, detective
placed that tag there, had moved it, would you be able to interpret
the blood pattern between those two poles in the fence?
A. I have another picture without a tag, although it's not as close
as this one, but I can give us some preliminary indication.
Q. Would you, please?
A. Yeah. This photograph actually is a closer-up photograph for this
one. Central left, you have some smear pattern and multiple deposit
Q. Okay. Now, does the pattern of the leaves, the dirt on the shoes,
the keys, the beeper, the blood drops, the blood smears, the contact
-- blood contact patterns, as well as the blood that's in the upper
left or right-hand photograph of 1341, does that indicate to you
that there was a struggle that occurred in the area that the blood
has been depicted in these photos?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have an idea, was it a short struggle, a long
struggle, a prolonged struggle. Can you determine that from the
photographs that you've seen and we've just gone through, Dr. Lee?
A. I cannot determine exact time of the struggle, but not a very
short one. Mr. Goldman did fight, put a big fight.
Q. Now, Doctor, I have marked the blood-spatter demonstration
exhibits 4 through 14; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Thank you, sir. Now, I just have a couple other
follow-up questions on the board, Doctor. Referring to the upper
middle picture of the board and those six drops over towards the
left, can you determine whether or not those are the perpetrators --
that's the perpetrators's blood, perpetrator or perpetrators' blood,
or Mr. Goldman's blood?
A. No, I cannot.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, what's the significance, if any, to any of the
photographs on this board?
A. The significance --
(Pause in videotape.)
MR. P. BAKER: Want to take a break now or just go get a board?
THE COURT: Need a break?
THE COURT: Take five minutes. Don't talk about the case, ladies and
gentlemen. Don't form or express any opinion.
JURORs resume their respective seats.)
MR. BAKER: The board on this one is missing from the back. I don't
know where.
(Videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee continues.)
Q. There's blood, or Mr. Goldman's blood?
A. No, I cannot.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, what's the significance, if any, to any of the
photographs on this board?
A. The significance of this board in the middle shows a diagram,
and the periphery area, a variety of photographs. Those photographs
appear to be first generation of photograph, in much better quality
than the photograph provided to me. The first photograph I can see
more blood-stain pattern in the back fence, also besides the area, a
pointed -- the wooden post, direct on top of the post in between the
leaves, have an exposed area, reddish, blood-like stain, also
observed on this post. So as far as the height of those blood-stain
pattern never established. So exactly how high those blood-stain
deposit, I have no knowledge and cannot reconstruct at this point of
time. In addition, I see more green, fresh, look like leaves of
vegetation on the ground.
Q. Is that indicative of a struggle?
A. Which it's sign indicative some force has to be applied, the
leaves start falling down. As for those keys and the second, third,
basically shows the same thing as it depicts in the previous
photograph I testified here, consists of multiple deposit contact is
here and with one drop. The next frame, a set of key was noticed.
And I can see some vegetative material was in the form of -- bended,
especially this piece.
Q. Is that consistent with a force hitting that leaf and bending it?

A. It could be.
Q. Okay. Go ahead, now.
A. The next one depicts Ron Goldman's shoes and -- however, with
this photo, I can see the blood spatter under his sole is much
clearer. In addition, there is additional blood spatter moving from
the left to right, horizontal direction. It's inconsistent with this
major spatter.
Q. Can you tell, based on that blood-spatter pattern, which occurred
A. I cannot tell at this moment.
Q. All right. Thank you, sir.
A. On the left-hand side, we can see the beeper and a dry leaf with
vertical drop of a blood on top of a leaf. In addition, there are
blood stains consistent with blood drops in this periphery area.
Q. Dr. Lee, do you have any knowledge that any of that blood was
A. No.
Q. Thank you. Go ahead.
A. The next frame shows this depression area and this elongated
depression area, with some blood-like stain in the foreground. This
photograph --
Q. Let me ask you to back up. Have we seen the blood stains in the
foreground of picture -- the second one from the top, before?
A. No.
Q. That's a new blood stain that heretofore we have not seen in any
of the photographs displayed?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And to your knowledge, was any of that blood
A. I don't know.
Q. All right.
A. The next one, we see a distance, small distance away from post
number 5, additional blood stain, medium velocity type of spatter on
that post, which we never see before. So basically, I'll summarize
what this board depicts.
Q. On the bottom photo on the left -- on the left, right here, sir
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is the area -- that again is taken from the other yard, is
it not?
A. Yes. This is a photograph taken from opposite neighbor's yard and
appears to be Ron Goldman's body still in the foreground, and shows
large amount of blood stain, like a spatter-like material on the
fence and on the cement.
Q. Is there also on the inside, that is, in the closed-in area,
blood, and blood on the outside of the closed-in area?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Sir, if you could go to the next photograph.
A. And the next one shows the same post again, next the door. It
shows this post. That's not a flat surface.
Q. Okay. And again, you don't have any knowledge of any of that --
A. No.
Q. -- blood being collected correct?
A. No knowledge.
Q. Now, Doctor, I just want to direct your attention and have you
look into the area of where there is different colored footprints.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you keep that in mind, or I'll bring it back to you. And I'm
going to ask you subsequently if that depicts all of the footprints,
especially in the closed-in area and the area just below the steps
where the body of Nicole Brown Simpson was found?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
A. Okay.
Q. Thank you.
A. I see label 2, shoe prints here.
Q. Now, let me put another board here in this board as numbers, 47A
through I on it, and it is labeled 47. We're on top of each other
(Indicating to wires of microphones.)
A. Um-hum.
Q. Thank you, sir. This is 47?
A. 47.
(Indicating to board number.)
Q. Dr. Lee, based upon your background, training, and experience as
a criminalist, can you tell me what is of significance in the nine
pictures. And if you will, please go one by one in 47 that you have
in front of you, sir.
A. Start from the top left-hand corner, which basically is the same
photo shows in the previous board, a variety of blood-stain deposit
in different post, it is disturbance on the ground. Some green
vegetated material on the ground. The photo next to -- underneath
that previous one shows a close-up view, shows the blood pattern on
the ground, both inside the fence and outside the fence. Also
showing the dripping pattern found from up and downwards onto the
Q. All right. Doctor, Let me stop you there for a moment. Does
that indicate to you, sir, that the source of the blood is from
above the area that's photographed?
A. How high, I don't know. Has to be slightly above that.
Q. All right. And, Doctor, that is certainly more than a drop of
blood, is it not?
A. It's more than a drop; it's an accumulation of blood. How much
blood in there, if we at the scene dig this area out, we can
estimate and calculate exact amount.
Q. And to your knowledge, that didn't -- certainly didn't occur at
this crime scene, did it?
A. No. The bottom right column appeared to be -- show a tree stump
and a major pool adjacent to the left of this area, some green
vegetation, soil disturbance can be seen in that photo.
Q. All right. And, Doctor, to your knowledge, was any effort ever
made to determine if that was Mr. Goldman's blood, Ms. Simpson's
blood, or a perpetrator or perpetrators' blood?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Go ahead, sir.
A. The middle portion shows a view after Mr. Goldman's body has been
moved. The middle column -- the middle photo again shows the fenced
area exterior. Neighbor's view shows the same area with some green
leaves, some blood drops, blood spatters, and blood patterns.
Q. All right. Anything else of significance on the lower photo in
that board?
A. There are some reddish blood-like spatter on the middle portion
of the first column, second column, which I never see before, and
if, in fact, those are blood spatter, it's consistent with a medium
velocity blood spatter.
Q. All right. Sir, yes?
A. The middle column, lower photo, basically is the same photo; they
probably print twice. This is a closer area, depicts the view after
Mr. Goldman's body being moved out.
Q. All right. Now, in the upper left-hand photo, that's Mr.
Goldman, and his body is still there, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you find any imprint evidence on any part of the clothing
that you can see there, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. This, particular photo appear to be taking one of the early,
early time which Mr. Goldman's body still at the scene. On here --
on his right cuff region, it clearly a pattern, the imprint type of
pattern on the surface. However, this photo was taken at a distance.
It's not imprint, not the direct view. The exact pattern, I cannot
report to you.
Q. And it would be impossible for you to tell, based upon the
investigation that was done at the crime scene, as to whether or not
those are shoe prints, true?
A. True.
Q. Thank you. Go ahead.
A. In addition, in the dynamic contact pattern directly in front of
his sneaker, this area with a movement, and again the size and the
nature of the pattern I cannot give it -- give a more detailed
description, but I do know in this region, have a clear pattern.
Q. Okay.
A. Besides that, I notice the disturbance of his shirt, push
upwards, portion of a shirt almost cover half of his face. Large
quantity of the blood on the left-hand side of his blue jean, that
amount, and subsequent I want to exam the blue jean, indicates the
blood source is from the up and downwards. If Mr. Goldman was lying
in this position, this blood stain very difficult to produce such a
pattern. More likely at one point in time he's in an upright
position among a large amount of blood gushing out from the wound
deposit on the side. Besides that, also I noticed quite a few green
leaves on the ground.
Q. The green leaves on the ground indicate that perhaps force was
used to --
A. If those leaves was not there before which suggests could have
due to the struggle.
Q. Okay. Thank you, sir. Anything else in that Board 47 that we
should --
A. The only thing is the bottom board, also see additional green
leaves which did not show the other photos.
Q. Thank you, sir.
(Counsel displayed board.)
Q. Doctor, we're going to put this board up and label it Defendant's
15 for this deposition. Yes, and this is a board that from pictures
that I showed to you; is that not correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, again, these are all pictures taken by the LAPD;
is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Now, would you please start at the top upper right, or
start wherever you like, and tell us what, if any, each photo -- the
significance of each photo.
A. The top middle depicts a top view. The photographer -- this must
be the photographer's shoes, was taken from up and downwards, a
top view of Ms. Nicole Simpson's body. On the step one, show a large
amount of blood stain, large quantity of blood stain, which suggests
this blood stain has to come from her wound, a major wound, which
indicative her upper body has to be in this position before get to
(Indicating to step and then to body.)
A. In addition, some blood pattern like a swipe pattern on the
second step, that also relative heavy saturated blood swipe which
indicative that at one point in time a surface, could be a hand or
other object, with large amount of blood, touch this area, and the
moving from up, from inside and outward. Over hundreds of medium
velocity spatter, some are impact spatter, in this area further
apart, her throat more likely was cut in this area.
(Indicating to middle step.)
A. A piece of paper in the middle of the crime scene and an
envelope adjacent to the top right of this piece of paper, numerous
shoe print can be seen in this area. Just with the head of a
magnifying glass I can see at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11 partial shoe print-like pattern, at least 11. Some of those shoe
print appear to be under the pool of blood, partially covered. Other
appear to be embedded in blood which indicative those shoe prints
probably more likely deposit in different point of time. Blood drop
also found on her back. Blood like smear also noticed on her
shoulder which indicative a motion contact exist, a surface touch
her right shoulder with a motion. In addition, those blood droplets
as relative interest which -- it's more likely from top downwards.
Those blood stain should be collected and grouped.
Q. Now, would the blood droplets that are on the body of Nicole
Brown Simpson's back, would those -- can you tell from the
photograph, were those low velocity blood drops, Doctor?
A. It could be. Those blood drops could be consistent with low
velocity. Some are consistent with drop and subsequent floating down
along her thigh other are smears and a contact patterns.
Q. All right. Now, if those were low velocity blood drops, then
somebody is above her after she is in the position that is shown in
the upper right-hand photo, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And bleeding down upon her?
A. Either bleeding or an instrument with blood.
Q. All right. And in --
A. Or other source.
Q. So we don't know whether that blood on her back is a perpetrator
or perpetrators' blood, Mr. Goldman's blood or Ms. Simpson -- Nicole
Brown Simpson's blood?
A. We don't know.
Q. All right. Go ahead, sir.
A. In addition, this photograph show me a clear shoe print on the
soil surface which is a direct indication somebody have some blood
on the sole and stepped into the soil leave this shoe print and
also some green leaves adjacent to the envelope.
Q. And the green leaves adjacent to the envelopes; is that
consistent with struggle?
A. If this green leaves was deposit due to this incident, it could
suggest a struggle.
Q. Okay. Go ahead, Doctor, is there anything significant in any of
the photographs that you see?
A. That shoe print pointed out the direction from outside, inward,
the lower portion, first picture, appear to be Detective Fuhrman
pointing to something. In addition, I can see additional shoe print
which we did not see on previous photograph, more blood, floating
pattern, and other pattern. The middle one shows that one piece of
paper, the piece of paper, a shoe next to it, that's more likely the
photographer's shoes on the paper itself, saturated blood stain,
blood spatter, blood drops, also pattern, blood imprint pattern.
Q. Is a parallel line pattern also on that piece of paper?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you point that piece of paper out, sir, in the photograph
directly above.
(Witness complies.)
Q. Okay. And we've got the envelope in the lower photo, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And we also can see a pattern on the right leg, or can we?
A. Yes. Yes, we can see this pattern on the right leg. Also, we can
see the sole -- portion on the sole of -- some blood like stain.
(Indicating to shoe of Mr. Goldman.)
Q. Sir, is there anything else in that photo we should be made aware
of in the up lower right? In the upper left you have seen a
photograph like that previously, had you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it the same photograph?
A. Same photograph with less, cut off certain portion.
Q. So it was a cropped photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, Doctor, tell us what significance there is in the
photograph that you see in the upper left-hand corner?
A. Upper left-hand, the most important thing I see is a blood trail
consist of seven drops, major drops, with some other minor drops,
not formal trail, which I did not notice before.
Q. All right. And if, in fact, that blood had been collected, could
you then determine if that was one of the perpetrators or even the
A. It's a vertical low velocity drop because the photograph provided
to me cropped out, so you don't see that. Here again, where it come
from, I have no idea.
MR. BAKER: Judge, it's going to take about three or four minutes to
spool up the other one.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. P. BAKER: Back on.
(Whereupon a videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumed.) DIRECT
Q. Doctor, in terms of blood flow from the area of Nicole Brown
Simpson's body.
A. Yes.
Q. The blood flowed down the walk to the sidewalk, does it not?
A. Yes. I'll have to look at the topograph of the surface. It's a
down hill, slight incline, and from the top is higher and the
gravity just --
THE COURT: I think we'll take a noon recess. Let's not talk about
the case, form or express any opinions about the case.
(At 11:50
A.M. a recess was taken Until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA
JURORs resume their respective seats.)
(Whereupon, the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumed
playing, Mr. Baker doing the direct examination of Dr. Lee.)
THE WITNESS: Downwards.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right. And in terms of the blood that would
appear on the sidewalk, on the left side of that sidewalk, I'm
talking about this line right there,
(indicating) is that blood flow and interrupted blood flow?
A. Yes, this blood flow being interrupted in three different
Q. In other words, before someone went through there -- someone or
some thing -- is it your best judgment that that blood flow would
have been there interconnected?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any idea what that was that went through there?
A. No. Some clearly sees the dog paw. I know it lists the -- at
least the dog has to be around this area. Other patterns I cannot
see clearly. I don't want to make any interpretation.
Q. All right. Would you take your magnifying glass and look at the
sidewalk, see if there are any shoe prints that you can discern in
that area, sir?
A. There appear to be some patterns, but again, you know, this photo
taken at angle from the front, and the lighting, it's not ideal;
it's not direct on. I really cannot tell you exactly what kind of a
shoe or what kind of shoe print.
Q. Doctor, there is in terms of photography, a term called
"parallax," is there not?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you explain to us what that is.
A. In other words, when you take -- your photographs have to
parallel to the -- in a direct up to the plane, so you can catch the
whole image.
Q. When you take them from an angle such as the upper photograph to
the left and --
A. You distort the pattern.
Q. Is that called parallax?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you have any knowledge about any attempt to collect any
of the blood drops that you --
(Videotape stops playing.)
(Videotape resumes playing.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Walk area of --
(Videotape is halted.)
(Videotape resumes playing.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Go to another board, if we may. That's Defendant's
15. Now, Doctor, this board is entitled Evidence from the Closed-in
Area from Bundy. That's the evidence we've been looking at where
Mr. Goldman's body was found in those pictures, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, in the upper left-hand corner, we have Mr.
Goldman's boot. Would you tell us what -- from your background, what
significance -- is significant in that photo?
A. This shows the boot and have soil, mineral-like material caked
into the blood.
Q. So the darker portions of that photograph are blood, sir?
A. Dark portion, the reddish portion, those are blood. The dark
portion, those are soil-like material.
Q. Okay. And is there the anything else of significance in that
first photograph?
A. Also see the soil debris with certain motions, patterns on the
groove area, on side of the shoes, which is consistent with kicking
Q. And that would be consistent, would it not, with the indentation
area we saw earlier?
A. It could be --
Q. All right.
A. -- related to that.
Q. Now, in the soil trace evidence, the middle picture, tell us what
that depicts.
A. That depicts the heel area of the soil, still have a large amount
of soil, hair, fiber, debris, caked onto the boot.
Q. Doctor, we talked about trace evidence. What is trace evidence?
A. Trace evidence encompasses a large amount of type of transfer
evidence. Usually, trace evidence means very small, which could be
transferred from one surface to another surface when two surfaces
have a contact.
Q. Okay. And was any of that trace evidence that is depicted in the
upper photograph, upper middle photograph on the sheet we have on up
there -- was that analyzed, do you know?
A. As to my knowledge, wasn't -- I examined the shoe after they been
-- after they complete the analysis.
Q. Was there any analysis that you saw from the LAPD crime lab
indicating they analyzed the trace evidence that's depicted in the
photograph in the upper middle of the sheet in front of us?
A. They did examine some trace evidence. But whether or not the same
trace evidence they examined, I have no knowledge.
Q. Okay. Now, Doctor, in the upper right-hand photograph, we have a
cut on the boot; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that a cut that -- Well, describe it for us.
A. This is -- when I examined this cut, I look at first,
microscopically -- subsequently, microscopically, I found it's a
sharp cut, it's a relative fresh cut, which indicative was produced
very recently.
Q. How can you tell that?
A. Because the cutting area, the rubber exposed a relative rush.
Q. Is there debris or dirt or whatever you want to call it on the
rest of that toe cap on that canvas shoe?
A. Yes, there's debris, and only small amount in this area, a
cutting area, relative free of debris.
Q. And is the cut that is on that boot consistent with a cut being
made with a knife?
A. Yes.
Q. Is -- which boot is that? Do you recall?
A. This appear to be the Ron Goldman's boot.
Q. Do we know if it's the right or the left?
A. It appear to be the right.
Q. Okay. And that was -- the right side was the same area that we
saw in his Levis, or his jeans, rather; that that's the back of
them, his jeans, that had a pattern that you couldn't determine
whether it was a shoe print or not, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, Doctor, in terms of the -- well, let me ask you -- let
me go back to the cut on the boot. Can you tell us whether that
would that be consistent with Mr. Goldman trying to kick his
A. This cut appeared to be motion, in motion. Whether or not kicked
or not kicked, as long as in motion, it's not a stationary. So if a
kick is a motion, may be consistent.
Q. Okay. Just hypothetically, if we assume an assailant has a knife
in his hand and Mr. Goldman is kicking him with his right foot, or
attempting to kick him with his right foot, and the knife of the
assailant comes in contact with his right boot, would the cut that
you see in the photograph in the upper right-hand side be consistent
with that?
A. Yes.
Q. The photograph on the lower right, left-hand side is from Mr.

A. Yes.
Q. What's the significance of that photograph?
A. The significance of the photograph, a large amount of blood on
the back portion of his jeans. And again, if those blood stain was
originally on there, because we don't have a photograph to show me
the back portion of Mr. Goldman, no photograph of scene photograph
-- I really cannot say that's original, have those blood or
subsequently when the body shipped to the medical examiner's
office caused the deposit. But we do know the right leg of Mr.
Goldman have sufficient amount of large quantity of blood when we
look at the scene picture. If this blood were from original scene,
which further suggests he has to be upright for amount of -- quite
amount of time to get that much blood from the top downwards.
Q. Okay. Now, Doctor, Dr. Lee, if you have a large volume of blood,
like we do on the left leg of Mr. Simpson in the --
A. Mr. Goldman.
Q. Mr. Simpson. I apologize Mr. Goldman at the crime scene --
A. Yes.
Q. -- then it is much more difficult, is it not, to get any imprint
evidence off of that?
A. Yes, sir, much more difficult if such amount of blood covers --
covered the majority of the imprint evidence.
Q. So you have to have a -- less than a copious amount of blood to
get -- to get a pattern. And we do have less than that on the
right leg; is that correct?
A. That's correct. Just as I demonstrate this morning, you have a
small amount of blood touch the surface, you see an imprint. You
have a large amount, you see a blood. If you cover with blood, you
don't see any.
Q. Okay. Now, Doctor, if we go to the middle photograph on -- lower
middle photograph, can you tell us what that depicts?
A. That depict the front portion of the -- Mr. Goldman shirt. I
notice on the shirt, this just shows a portion, have numerous stab
wound, cut. In addition, I have smaller pattern, damage pattern. In
addition, I found three buttons missing number 3 position, number 5,
number 6.
Q. How come you only have a picture in the next photograph of two
buttons if three of them were missing?
A. I only found two buttons. The third one never recovered.
Q. Okay. Now, what is significant, if anything, about those broken
buttons? Go ahead. I'm sorry.
A. They're microscopic. Examination of those number 3, number 5,
number 6 position have found thread still on the fabric. I found
portion of plastic from the button hole, the center, the eye portion
still here in the area, which indicative those buttons was recently
removed with a force.
Q. And in all three of the button holes, 3, 5 and 6, were they all
forced off?
A. They have this pattern.
Q. Okay. And by the way, is the photograph over there in the lower
right-hand side where you have the buttons and the center portion
where the thread, if they were in tact gone through, is that what
would remain in the shirt?
A. No, the bridge --
Q. Right?
A. -- between the bottom hole disappear. That indicative has to have
a force to rip off those button separate.
Q. Now, let's go -- is there anything else of significance in the --
that board, sir?
A. No.
Q. 1343. Now, Doctor, we have seen pictures of the envelope. This
was the envelope that contains some eyeglasses. We'll get into that
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, on the upper left-hand corner, it appears Detective Fuhrman
is pointing, and the envelope is underneath what would appear to be
his right hand. Would you agree with that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you also agree that the envelope would appear to have some
leaves and perhaps some debris of trace evidence on it?
A. Yes.
Q. And is the picture to the right in -- wherein it indicates
position 1?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that -- is that a blow-up picture indicating that envelope?
A. Yes, it's a close-up view, shows the identical position, shows
depicting the left -- upper left corner.
Q. Now, --
(Videotape halted.)
MR. BAKER: This is not the same one.
(Videotape resumes.)
Q. Doctor, the normal business envelope is about eight inches?
A. Yes.
Q. And I want you to assume for a minute that the tiles are eleven
and a half inches across.
A. Yes.
Q. And the envelope was moved, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, in your understanding of crime-scene integrity, should a
piece of evidence such as an envelope be moved and replaced by
detectives and/or criminalists?
A. Of course, when you moved for the purpose of a collection,
preservation, I agree has to be moved eventually. Collect and
preserve properly. Just by moving one position to another position
should not do that.
Q. Well, in fact, we can see from the photograph in item number --
strike that -- in position number 1 and position number 2, evidence
was lost when it was moved; isn't that true?
A. That's correct.
Q. There was trace evidence on the envelope in position 1 that is no
longer on the envelope in position 2; is that true?
A. That is true.
Q. There's also something else that's on the envelope in position 2
that wasn't on the envelope in position 1; isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. It's a blood spot.
(Videotape halted.)
(Exhibit 1350 displayed by Mr. Baker.)
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal Exhibit 1343, Civil 1350.
(Videotape resumes playing.)
Q. Kind of the lower right-hand corner, would you put your pointer
on it. And, Dr. Lee, in the original position, that blood spot is
not on the envelope, is it?
A. Of course, I don't have the advantage at the scene myself, to
observe this envelope directly. Just based on the photograph they
provide to me, I cannot explain this large drop which wasn't present
at the previous one. And other debris been changed, leaf been
changed. So, it's inconsistent with just a photographic imperfection
or so-called bouncing light effect. It cannot be explained because
if bouncing light, we should see everything bleached out, not just
one type, little, tiny drop.
Q. You're talking about the rebound phenomenon in photography?
A. Yes.
Q. And if we had a rebounding phenomenon in photography, we should
have the whole area of blood drops eliminated, not just one,
A. Especially that two smaller one in -- actually, that's three
smaller one in that area should disappear first.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, the photograph in the upper left-hand corner is
taken before there was any blanket put in that area. Would it so
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the blanket appears in the photograph in position 2,
A. Correct.
Q. Now, can a crime scene be contaminated by the use of a blanket?
A. If all the major physical evidence been collected, are really
collected, secured, then this blanket issue would not be a major
issue. If the evidence wasn't collected, having finished the
documentation, preservation, then the blanket could contaminate the
Q. Now, if there had been collection and documentation and
preservation of the evidence -- one of the pieces of evidence that
has been noted in this case is in fact the envelope, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that envelope has not been collected, it has been moved but
not collected, isn't it true when the blanket's placed down, that
blanket can contaminate the scene with all sorts of trace evidence,
can it not?
A. Maybe.
Q. All right. And it may -- what type of trace evidence is generally
found on a blanket?
A. Hard to say. Depends. A new blanket, old blanket, how many times
used, general hair, fabric, trace material.
Q. Okay. Now, do you have any knowledge of who moved that envelope?
A. No.
Q. So you were not able to use any chemicals to enhance the lens to
determine whether or not there were any fingerprints on that
particular --
A. Latent fingerprint. I did not see any visible fingerprint.
Q. I'm sorry, I meant latent fingerprints. Thank you. You don't know
if there were any latent prints on it at all, correct?
A. No.
Q. You did not have permission to use any chemical to enhance, true?

A. I have three days -- actually two days to finish all 90 some
items physical evidence.
Q. Do you know whether or not the LAPD crime lab ever took --
attempted to take any?
(Tape halted.)
(Tape played.)
(Board entitled evidence found eyeglasses/envelope evidence found at
Albany Medical Center, is displayed for jury)
A. When I examined the envelope, eyeglasses, obviously somebody
already got into the envelope.
Q. Was there blood in the envelope?
A. Some blood crust was noticed inside the envelope.
Q. Would that be indicative or -- strike that. Would that be
consistent with blood in the envelope and somebody attempting to get
inside the envelope at the crime scene?
A. I don't know. It could be people in the laboratory examine glass
and those blood crusts fall into. Could be somebody handled this
envelope, still had -- the blood still wet, got some transfer. Any
possible reason.
Q. Dr. Lee, in terms of good laboratory practices, it wouldn't be a
good laboratory practice to handle the envelope when the blood was
still wet on the envelope itself, would it?
A. That's correct.
Q. It wouldn't be a good laboratory practice to handle any wet blood
and then go into the envelope to examine the glasses, would it?
A. That's correct.
Q. Doctor, if in fact good laboratory practices were being practiced
by the LAPD and they observed good laboratory practices, there
should be no blood crust inside that envelope unless there was blood
on the lens or the glasses, correct?
A. Good crime scene procedure.
Q. Okay.
A. Not to touch that at the scene. Cause some transfer. If in fact
those are transfer.
Q. All right. Because -- strike that. Did you ever see any
documentation that the LAPD or FBI or anyone attempted to determine
if there were any latent prints on the lens that was remaining?
A. No.
Q. It would certainly be significant, Doctor, if one -- a
perpetrator of this crime attempted to get into that envelope during
the commission of the murders, would it not?
(Counsel displayed board, Exhibit 1346, on the video.)
A. Yes, if one touched that envelope, if did not wear the glove,
should have transfer of fingerprint. Should process for print, not
only the glass, but also the envelope.
Q. You have no knowledge of either being processed for fingerprints?

A. No.
Q. All right. Now, Doctor, we have up there 1346. That's "Evidence
Found, Eyeglasses/Envelope," correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you explain what, if anything, is of significance in those
A. This just illustrate a portion of the envelope, not the whole
envelope, just a small portion of the envelope. I see variety of
blood-stain patterns. The two area I used to illustrate, pattern
area one, pattern area two, pattern area one I can see the imprint
pattern which consists of portion of the Bruno Magli sole design. In
addition, I see spatters, blood drops, smear. Also, I see some --
like a finger mark. Also, I see a pattern area appears to be like a
mirror image.
Q. Okay. Let me stop you there. And I apologize. The close-up view,
1B, in the upper right-hand, right, that corner, is the mirror
A. Appears to be a mirror image.
Q. This was a mirror image that was created at the scene the
envelope would be folded over, correct?
A. Has to have a contact.
Q. And if in fact the envelope is folded over, would that indicate
that the eyeglasses were in or not in the envelope?
A. When I examined this envelope, I see a very deep creased area,
which shows for certain time this was folded over. Otherwise --
would not create this crease. If it fold over, if the glass in that
location, very difficult to form. So my opinion is when that crease
area produced, the glass was not in that position.
Q. To get a mirror image we have to have the blood being wet, do we
A. If I assume that's a mirror image.
Q. Okay.
A. Assume that's a crease produced where the blood already deposit
on the surface and somebody have to touch it and create such a
Q. Okay. Now, in terms of the blood patterns that you see in the
photographs on 1346, please explain those to us?
A. The blood pattern area A, which already explain, the close-up
view, 1B. The close-up view, 1A, shows a multiple deposit which
indicative this blood has to be deposit on the surface as three
separate pattern. We'll have a smear. A smear. We have spatters, the
spatter on top of smear, which means to smear don't have to be
deposit first. We have this long pattern on top of the smear, so
this long pattern has to deposit after the smear deposit. Then a
spatter on top of this long pattern, which indicative this -- that
particular spot -- spatter has to be deposit after this long
elongated pattern deposit. Here shows the same thing, illustrate the
same principle, which means this envelope has to be of a -- have
three separate deposit.
Q. At least three separate times that blood hit that envelope during
the --
A. Envelope at the scene.
Q. During committing of the murders, correct?
A. Yes, after bleeding start.
Q. Right. Obviously. Okay. Now, Doctor, what are -- the lower
blood-stain pattern, to -- what is that indicative of?
A. The lower blood-stain pattern two, that's the area adjacent to
pattern one, again, we see multiple deposit pattern, deposit on
top of pattern. One area we see like a -- could be a finger mark
with a heavy blood pattern. That area is a lighter pattern. Those
should be enhanced. There are chemical reagent forensic sources
could use to develop such pattern, which wasn't developed. Maybe
it's not a fingerprint, but unless -- we should develop it, maybe
this print not enough character to make a comparison, but if we
don't develop, we never will learn. This heavy area shows hair,
fiber, debris and soil caked onto the blood. As a matter of fact, a
lot of hair and fibers in this region, this portion of photo. I can
count at least 20 or more those hair, fiber-like material, which
indicative has to be blood onto the surface still wet and tacky that
those trace material was able to adhere onto the surface.
Q. So that would mean that while the -- while the envelope was still
wet with blood, that the trace material and the soil had to be in
some way deposited on there, whether it's kicked or dropped or
something else?
A. Yeah, could be any action; kicking, pushing and drop and if the
wind blowing, any action caused such a deposit.
Q. All right. Now, in terms of wind blowing, that's not an area,
where the envelope was when we saw it next to the walk, where you
anticipate a lot of wind, would you?
A. No.
Q. All right. Now, Dr. Lee, these pictures were taken approximately
18 months after the murders, correct?
A. Yes, after that's the day June 1994 sometime, I think 18 -- 17 or
18, when I examine those.
Q. Okay.
A. I -- I haven't explained that.
Q. I apologize. 2-
A. I was just looking at my notes.
A. 2-A is a close-up area for this area. Shows different blood
pattern. Some are like an angular deposit, some like a vertical
drop, some like a contact, some like a contact smear again. Shows
may have different direction, different sources.
Q. And different times that they were put on there?
A. Yes, different sequence.
Q. So we know at least -- there were at least three different times
that blood was deposited on that envelope, correct?
A. Yes, we know at least three different times, we know at least
from different directions.
Q. Now -- okay. Three different times, three different directions?
A. I don't know how many directions and -- this different -- many
different directions.
Q. Okay. More than three?
A. Again, I have to go to the scene, look at the envelope, the
three-dimensional setting. Once envelope is flat or raised or in a
slant angle because just look at the pattern, you can see some goes
this way, some come this way, some direct deposit, here shows
variety of different directions.
Q. Okay. Let's go to a different board. Now, Doctor, you were at the
crime scene on June 25, 1994, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, were you allowed to spend as much time as you wanted at the
crime scene?
A. I was informed we have to get out at scene at 7 p.m. We arrived
at the scene 6:40.
Q. Doctor, you were of the opinion you had 20 minutes to look at the
crime scene?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And tell us, Dr. Lee, normally when you view a crime scene, even
if it's as much as two weeks after the event that you're
investigating, how long do you spend at a crime scene?
A. The crime scene, like last night, we -- myself at least spend
three, four hours, in a small scene, confined scene. If a large
scene, sometimes two, three days, and we have scene we stay at the
scene almost a week.
Q. Okay. In any event, Doctor, did you see a footprint on the
walkway during your inspection of 6/25 -- however brief it was,
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you take a picture of it?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that the footprint that you observed?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it presumptive for blood?
A. Yes.
Q. What's that mean?
A. This could have been made of blood by the appearance and the
reaction the time I reach a conclusion more consistent with blood.
Q. Okay. And, Doctor, is that footprint consistent with the Bruno
A. No.
Q. Is that a parallel line pattern?
A. This has a very clear, defined, parallel-line pattern, start from
the toe to the heel area.
Q. Now, in the -- the outline that is placed on that exhibit, which
is 1337A, was that placed on there by you at the criminal trial?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that footprint, to your knowledge, ever noted by any of the
investigators from Los Angeles County?
A. No, the shoe print wasn't in any report.
Q. Okay. And that's an imprint, is it not?
A. This is an imprint. It's on the surface of this tile. It's not
embedded in the tile. It's not an indentation. It's not a tile mark
or mason mark or any other mark. It's a shoe made of a shoe rim.
Q. Now, Doctor, let's go to number 11 of our boards today. This is
1338. This is -- "Imprint Evidence at Bundy" is the label, 1338,
A. Correct.
(The board entitled "Imprints Evidence at Bundy" is displayed for
the jury.)
Q. Now, the upper left-hand photo shows the -- okay, upper left is
the paper that was never collected, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that would appear to be Mr. Rokahr, the photographer's, shoe
in the left foreground?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, are there any -- are there any patterns on that
particular piece of paper --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that you can make out?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us what they are?
A. This piece of paper, we have some blood spatter, and some blood
swipe pattern, subsequently, and a soak up pattern on the periphery
area in the middle. It's kind of obscured by -- some of those blood
patterns have a parallel line kind of a design.
Q. All right. Now, the pattern that goes around the paper that I've
just showed, was that a soaking type of --
A. Yes.
Q. Blood soak, is that a fair amount of blood that went around?
A. It's a fair amount of blood soak around the periphery area just
like a capillary action soak inward and sideward.
Q. When you talk about a capillary action, Doctor, these same
actions we have, for example, with a paper towel?
A. Paper towel, tissue paper, you soak some water or coffee and
starts soak inward.
Q. All right. What came next that you can tell?
A. I think first has an imprint pattern first.
Q. Okay.
A. Then have some blood smear on top. Then subsequently have this
soak in pattern. As far those blood spatter, I -- during that period
of time somehow deposit in there.
Q. Or could have been afterwards, too?
A. Could be. More likely before. Someone maybe after -- some can be
Q. There's at least three separate periods of time when that piece
of paper was introduced to blood, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, what is the imprint that we have blown up in?
A. Imprint is a pattern, any type of pattern, if a two-dimensional
pattern, would call imprint. I cannot come here and tell you what
type of an object makes such an imprint. That's why I call it
imprint. If it's made of shoe, I will come here to tell you that's a
shoe print, if made of a ear I will tell you that's an ear print, if
made up of a potato masher, I will tell you that's potato masher
prints. I call it an imprint when I have no idea what kind of an
object produced such a pattern, but it's definitively -- they are a
Q. Do you believe that that pattern that is on that piece of paper
is consistent with Mr. Goldman's jeans?
A. This particular pattern, of course, to have a correct comparison
have to collect that piece of paper to compare, which we don't have
the original pattern, just look at this clear defined pattern,
compare with the blue jean fabric design, and based on my own test
on the blue jean with blood, it's inconsistent.
Q. All right. How about with Mr. Goldman's shirt?
A. Again, with Mr. Goldman's shirt, it have a fabric design, the
distance of the fabric is larger than this, the blue jean is
smaller than this, it fall in between.
Q. All right. So to your knowledge, that didn't come from Mr.
Goldman's apparel, correct?
A. More likely of course, there are so many seen which -- so many
things which I cannot predict. I did not test the blue jean itself,
I just observed the blue jean. I wasn't allowed to cut the piece to
do some testing or add some material on the blue jean such as blood
on the blue jean to do the testing, so my testing just limit to
microscopic and physical measurements. I cannot say every inch of
his blue jean, every inch of his shirt will not produce such a
pattern, only the area I observed I think inconsistent with the
Q. All right. And Doctor, moving over to the imprints on the
envelope, that's when the -- that's the second picture -- that's
after the envelope has been moved, right?
A. Yes.
Q. The blanket we can see in the foreground of the picture?
A. Right.
Q. And the pattern that is on the envelope, is that consistent with
-- well, let's say is it consistent with a Bruno Magli shoe?
A. No.
Q. Is it consistent -- well, what's it consistent with, if anything?

A. It's a parallel line, slightly waved, pattern which -- an imprint
-- again, I refer -- that's an imprint. I cannot call that a shoe
print or ear print or fingerprint. It's an imprint. Something, an
object have to have this type of design, have amount of blood --
sufficient amount of blood touch this surface and that surface with
a certain pressure and force to produce such a pattern. The pattern
cannot just by accidental deposit or some unknown reason create such
a pattern.
Q. Is any pattern on the envelope consistent with a fingerprint?
A. There are pattern, as I pointed out before in the previous board,
consistent with a finger mark.
Q. Okay. And a finger mark is the finger -- show us what a finger
mark is?
A. A mark with a finger means with a finger, but no clear
characteristics can be delineated to make a conclusive
Q. All right. Now, in terms of the analysis -- I had another sheet.
There it is. Let me put this in the middle here. Now, these are test
imprints that were done I believe by the FBI, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, Doctor, now, if you would direct your attention, please, to
620 on the left and 621 on the right.
A. 620 on the left and 621. Okay.
Q. Right. Correct. Now, Doctor, did you review these particular
photographs and test imprints?
A. Yes, I reviewed it.
Q. Now, Doctor, let's look at the next board which is 1351. Were
you, subsequent to the murders, provided with a soil sample?
A. February. I think February sometime, 1994, when I was in Albany
Medical Center, it provide this evidence to me to examine.
Q. Now, it came in the bag that is on the left, sir?
A. Yes. It come in the bag, Los Angeles Police Department fire and
explosive evidence bag.
Q. What time was that collected as you can indicate from the bag?
A. It indicates June 23, '94, 11 a.m., soil sample No. 114.
Initially, and some other number was crossed out.
Q. Does it indicate to you where the soil sample was taken from?
A. It's from something north west of gate.
Q. All right. Now, what -- the soil sample that you examined is in
the center picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And the other two show trace evidence; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is in that trace evidence?
A. Soil sample. Subsequently, under microscopic examination I see
large amount of hair fiber, variety of hair fiber like material,
paint chip like material, all different kind of trace evidence.
Q. And what is the significance of the trace evidence from the soil,
if any?
A. If this is a representative soil sample in that area which
indicative that area going to have a lot of hair and fibers present
in that location.
Q. All right. And hair and fibers in an area where there are
children and dogs, is trace evidence from the soil relatively
A. It's relatively common. If you have a gardener and other people,
service people, neighbors, you are going to have hair and fibers all
over the place.
Q. And, Doctor, can -- is hair and fibers, are they readily
A. Hair and fiber can have a primary transfer. Also can equal a
problem, possible have a secondary transfer. For example, I picked
up some fabric, a carpet fiber, on my shoes. Next thing, I ride in
your car, this fabric going to transfer into your car.
Subsequently, if your wife riding in your car, the fiber from this
room going to transfer onto her clothes or shoes. If she visit
another friend, that fiber will deposit in friend's house, which
doesn't mean her friend was in this conference room today.
Q. All right. And likewise, if we're talking about a Bronco, and
we're talking about fibers from a Bronco, and O.J. Simpson's
children riding in the Bronco, there could be Bronco fibers yeah
that would be transferred from them riding in the Bronco?
A. To the yard, to the walkway, to any other place.
Q. This is No. 1357. It's entitled "Blood Stains on Evidence Bag."
Now, what did you receive evidence in, an evidence bag?
A. Yes.
Q. What evidence did you receive?
A. A boot.
Q. Okay. And what did you find when you received the boot?
A. I found this evidence bag in No. -- Item 78, with a set of --
two set of initials, some with a marker, other with a CY and a
serial number, an initial CY, and on the back at the opening of the
bag. As I depict in the top picture and the close-up picture, I see
large amount of blood transfer. Those are blood stain consistent
with contact -- contact smear, swipe kind of pattern.
Q. Now, the boots of Ron Goldman had blood on them when we saw them
in the pictures earlier, did they not?
A. Yes.
Q. It would not be in accordance with proper crime lab procedures to
put a wet bloody glove -- or boots into a bag, would it?
A. Assume this is transferred from Ron Goldman's boots.
Q. Okay.
A. Assume, which means if when boots put in the bag still wet, wet
blood causes that smear transfer. In theory, any bloody object, we
should let it dry on the surface. After it dry, then package it.
Q. Okay. And were there blood stains inside the bag as well?
A. Yes.
Q. And what does that indicate to you?
A. This indicates this blood evidence have soaked through the bag,
the bottom of the bag, from inside and to outer.
Q. Does that indicate to you that appropriate lab procedures were
used relative to the boots by the Los Angeles Police Department?
A. It's not necessarily the laboratory's people fault. The
collection of the physical evidence at the scene -- there should be
observed once they put it in there, it should be isolated. In other
words, this bag because the blood soaks through the bag, if this bag
touch another object or object of physical evidence, you're going to
have a transfer.
Q. So you can have a transfer of blood from the exterior of that bag
to anything else that's in the crime lab if it touches it?
A. If touches.
Q. And that is contamination, is it not?
A. If have a secondary transfer, you're going to have
Q. Now, is there anything else of significance in that particular
A. No. Basically it's the blood transfer, and we saw those initial
people examine those evidence, at least they should record it in
their note so when we examine we know where they come from, how that
get transferred, try to trace the history of such a transfer.
Q. Did you see any notes that indicated Collin Yamauchi had
documented the blood transfer on the paper bag that we have depicted
on the board?
A. None of the document provided to me contains such information and
description of measurement. None of the -- no photographs submit to
me with such documentation.
Q. So we can't tell when that blood transfer took place and we can't
tell if there was secondary contamination of any item in the lab,
A. We cannot tell this sample was transfer at the scene or during
the collection or after collection or at the medical examiner's
office or in the laboratory. Nobody can trace back anymore.
Q. So there's no way of knowing whether or not the blood that was --
the wet transfer in Item 78, Mr. Goldman's boots, contaminated any
item in the lab, correct?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Now, this is -- this is 1353. Now, you examined socks on February
16, 1995, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you examined them at the LAPD lab, true?
A. True.
Q. And did you fly into Los Angeles specifically to examine those
A. Yes.
Q. And were you told that you had a limited period of --
(Videotape of Dr. Henry Lee stopped.)
MR. P. BAKER: We have an editing problem. Would it be time for a
THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Excuse me. What page are you on now?
MR. P. BAKER: I believe it's --
MR. MEDVENE: You're at 192, line 25.
MR. P. BAKER: About 38 more minutes on our side. Then there's an
hour and 15 on theirs.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, in view of you sustaining the objection to
his 387, right at the end, the very, very end --
MR. BAKER: -- I would, as I did in the deposition, object to 386,
lines 11 through 19, and I would also just, for the record --
THE COURT: Excuse me for a minute. 386?
MR. BAKER: 386, lines 11 through 19.
THE COURT: Well, give me the transcript.
MR. BAKER: I'm sorry. I thought you had one.
(Pause for Court to review transcript.)
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, just for --
MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Your Honor, may I be heard on that?
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. MEDVENE: Dr. Lee spoke about his association theory, how if one
item is found on one thing and if it's found on another, it raises
significant questions. And our question was very straightforward,
that if a cap that Mr. -- if a cap found at the murder scene
basically had what had been identified as Mr. Simpson's hair on it,
isn't that an area that would have to be explained. And Dr. Lee said
it would. And Mr. Baker, on his direct examination, went into some
length talking about his association and the transference theory,
and the portion that was just played, Your Honor, he talked about
head hair. I mean he can't have it both ways. He talked about -- he
talked about Bronco hair and things being tracked around.
THE COURT: You can't have it both ways either, Mr. Medvene. I'm
going to sustain the objection.
MR. MEDVENE: What does that comment mean, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Just what I said.
MR. MEDVENE: Well --
THE COURT: I've sustained your objections on the basis that that
witness had no knowledge of the subject matter of which he was
testifying because he didn't examine it and he had no basis on which
he --
THE COURT: -- to make those statements.
MR. MEDVENE: We're asking him theoretically.
THE COURT: I'm not going to allow it.
MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, before the jury comes back in I just
want to know in order to prepare for tomorrow, what the order of
events is. I'm told after this deposition they have about an hour to
two hours of Gary Siglar. There is a 402 hearing involving that
witness. And then there is Simpson. So what is the order, if I could
ask, Mr. Baker, for tomorrow morning?
MR. BAKER: Well, there's only about 15, 20 minutes, I think, of
Siglar, No. 1. No. 2, I'd like to put the 402 hearing to Monday, if
we may.
THE COURT: Which 402?
MR. BAKER: On the witness, Rosie Wilson.
MR. KELLY: Acoustic.
MR. P. BAKER: Counsel
MR. KELLY: We went through the --
MR. LEONARD: We lent you the list of witnesses. There was a Rosie
Wilson we said is analogous to the Petee, and you said they could
have a 402 hearing.
MR. BAKER: I'd like to put that to Monday, if possible. And I think
we probably do need to have a hearing relative to the motions filed
on Mark Fuhrman and Laura Hart McKinney in the morning, if that
suits the Court's agenda? And then we plan to put Mr. Simpson on.
THE COURT: Why do we have to do -- are you talking about the motions
that you filed today?
MR. BAKER: Yes. If you want to put those off to Monday or whatever,
that's fine.
THE COURT: I've read only one --
MR. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: -- while we were on break. I haven't had a chance to read
the other.
MR. LEONARD: Whatever the Court's preference is. They obviously need
a chance to respond so possibly tomorrow is not a good time for
MR. PETROCELLI: Probably do it on Monday. We just got them.
THE COURT: I see. We're slipping.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, that's why I'm asking, Your Honor, this is the
third time they filed a motion on Mark Fuhrman.
MR. BAKER: Third time's a charm, Petrocelli.
MR. PETROCELLI: So the schedule is 20 minutes of Siglar and then
Simpson; is that right, Mr. Baker?
THE COURT: So who are you going to have? Are you going to do Siglar
and Simpson tomorrow?
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thanks, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, how much more on this video?
MR. P. BAKER: What did I say? 40 minutes on my side?
THE COURT: 40 minutes.
MR. P. BAKER: 40 minutes. It's going to get good.
THE COURT: I should sustain -- I should have sustained more
MR. BAKER: We can fast forward theirs.
THE COURT: You're at 19 --
MR. MEDVENE: He's at page --
MR. FOSTER: He's at page 192, line 25.
THE COURT: Doesn't look like 40 minutes.
MR. PETROCELLI: I haven't been paying attention. Are we past
qualifications yet?
THE COURT: That was 45 minutes.
THE COURT: All right. Get the jury back in and go.
JURORs resume their respective seats.)
(Videotape deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumed.) DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. When you Went to the LAPD crime lab, you weren't allowed into
their laboratory?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, you -- it was a poor question. Were you allowed
in their laboratory?
A. Yes, I was allowed into the lab into the conference room. No
other location but the conference room.
Q. Did they bring in a microscope for you?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Was it a good one?
A. No.
Q. Was it totally inadequate?
A. It's a totally inadequate, and I put bluntly, piece of junk.
Q. Could you bring the socks into focus with that microscope that
was provided you by the LAPD?
A. The microscope, the objective is shaking, you can't even stable
that. The ocular, it's all stuck. The adjusting, cross adjusting,
fine adjusting knob, it's all corroded, you can't even move up and
down. Basically you can't see anything. You see barely some image if
you move the socks up and down.
Q. Now, as I understand it, then, you got an instrument that was a
piece of junk, and you got 20 minutes to look at the socks, or
A. And the external lighting source, I don't even have a good light
source to illuminate, to see anything.
Q. How many holes were in the socks when you ultimately were able to
at least see them with the naked eye?
A. Seven holes in one socks. I cannot tell you that's the left or
right because both socks was put in one envelope. That's again, it's
a terrible violation of the principle of collection of physical
evidence. Start minute one two socks put together in one envelope.
If anything, trace evidence, already start a contamination,
cross-contamination, transfer. So when I opened the bag, I see two
socks. I start inquire about a procedure. And I don't want to
discuss that anymore. I was treat very unfairly, and no courtesy was
extended. But I did notice one socks have seven holes. The second
socks have three holes.
Q. And, Doctor, in terms of blood on the socks -- well, strike that.
What is backlighting?
A. Backlighting is the light source from the back and the object in
Q. Kind of like an x-ray view box?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And is backlighting kind of one of the things you do
with your naked eye to see if, for example, there would be socks in
an item of fabric?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on February 16, 1995, could you take the socks and hold them
up to the inadequate lighting that you had in the conference room of
the LAPD crime lab and determine whether or not they had any object
on them that could be blood?
A. Yes.
Q. And was it easy to do?
A. Yes. I picked up the socks with the overhead light, and look, put
the socks directly in front of light source; from the backlighting I
can see clearly which area have stain, which area had no stain.
That's very simple examination technique. I teaching my
undergraduate class, the first thing I tell them, use the front
lighting, backlighting, look at the inside, outside of a piece of
physical evidence.
Q. And the LAPD crime lab conference room is not well lit in terms
of doing any type of experiments of a forensic science nature, is
A. No.
Q. And still you had no problem finding areas of stain that could
have been blood?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Anything else on that board that is significant?
A. The board only shows the regular photograph documentation because
they provide me a camera. I cannot take photomicrograph. I try to
put the camera lens directly in front of the ocular, hoping to catch
some image, but did not -- nothing come out. So that's all I got.
You only see the socks without seeing actual patterns.
Q. Okay. And the actual patterns of the socks, did you --
A. Actual pattern of the blood stain.
Q. I'm sorry. The actual pattern of the blood stains you
subsequently saw, did you?
A. I made a request. I said, "These socks has to be examined under
ideal lighting condition with a proper instrument."
Q. And did you examine the socks with Herb MacDonell under proper
A. Subsequently, yes, we did.
Q. Okay. And you found evidence that was indicative that the blood
was not spattered onto the socks as it would have been at a crime
scene, correct?
A. My conclusion, I saw a blood pattern which inconsistent with
Q. Okay. Now, 1358, Dr. Lee, is the history of Item 47. This is the
blood drop on the walkway.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this particular piece of evidence is also known as Item No.
112, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the items are determined at the crime scene by the detectives
or criminologists as they gather evidence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. In the overall view we have in the upper-hand corner
is where Item No. 47, also known as No. 112 --
A. The location.
Q. -- was taken from?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And we have a close-up photo. It's a blood drop, is it not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what type of blood pattern is that, sir?
A. That's consistent with a low velocity vertical drop.
Q. All right. And then there was a recording, a collection note of
June 13, 1994, correct?
A. It indicates 06/13/94.
Q. All right. What does that indicate to you?
A. This appeared to be like an evidence log. The document, item No.
112, appeared to be a 14 feet, 3 inches west, say red stain, 47.
Q. Okay. And the red stain that is consistent with the photograph in
the upper right-hand corner, which is consistent with a low velocity
vertical drop.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, the serology note, serology item description note
on the lower right-hand corner indicates what, sir?
(Referring to board called History of Item 47.)
A. This appeared to be made after this sheet. This sheet appeared to
be made on that date, June 13, '94, and only indicated blood
stain, no measurement, no description. This appeared to be made June
14, 94. This more likely did that in the laboratory. Serology notes.
It says "112, 47, evidence, envelope, 112."
Q. Okay.
A. Made some little, drew it. I counted, those drawing consisted of
eight little diagrams, picturegram, eight.
Q. Are those consistent with swatches, the diagrams that are on
A. Appear to be the swatches and I tried to sketch those scratches.
Whether or not those diagram and those sketch are -- represent
original shape of those swatches, I have no idea. But when I look at
the records, some are bigger, some are small, some are triangle,
some are rectangle, which means the criminalists maybe tried to do
an actual diagram of such swatches.
Q. All right. I want you to assume that those little diagrams,
triangles and rectangles, are in fact a picture depiction of
A. Yes.
Q. How many are there?
A. I have eight pictures.
Q. All right.
A. However, in the back sampling remain, say seven swatches.
Q. All right. Now, if we go back to the recordation on the 13th --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- of the Item 1112 -- strike that. Item 47 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- which is 112. Tell me how many swatches were collected on the
A. No record indicates how many swatches and what the size of
swatch, what the measurement of the swatch is. Lack of information.
I cannot give you an answer.
Q. So that is not recorded and documented in an appropriate manner,
that is, Item 112 on -- strike that -- No. 112, Item 47, on the
13th, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So -- and then from the next record, the serology note the
following day on the 14th, we have pictures of eight swatches and a
notation of seven, correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And if those were in fact pictures of swatches, you would expect
that the pictures would indicate the same number as is documented
in the column next to it, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But that doesn't occur, does it?
A. Did not.
Q. Now, Board No. 1359 is a worksheet, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what is contained in that worksheet?
A. This worksheet contains a DNA evaluation sheet which tell the
history of this Item 47. It indicates red stain -- now the date
become June 19.
Q. June or July, sir?
A. July 19. And have five picturegrams, little diagrams. Next column
says July, initially 20, then have a 1 over that zero, so more
likely July 21, have two picturegrams.
Q. Okay. Now, I want you to assume that on July 27, 1994, Cellmark
received five swatches, and those are indicated in the photograph up
in upper right-hand corner.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay? Now -- and two swatches remained at LAPD and were
subsequently mailed to the Department of Justice, the State of
California. Will you so assume?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I want you to also assume that after criminalists Mazzola
and Fung prepared the swatches and put them in a test tube for
drying, the next morning on the 14th they have testified that those
swatches were in fact dry. Will you assume that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Doctor, on August 12, 1994, the swatches were received at
the Department of Justice State of California Laboratory, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And did they have -- was there anything that was inappropriate
about those?
A. Before that July 27, 1994, I went to Cellmark --
Q. Right.
A. -- to observe. This is the picture I took, have five swatches.
Q. Okay. You were actually at Cellmark, were you not?
A. Yes. Actually at Cellmark, took that picture.
Q. Okay.
A. Also we measured each swatch, the size, and weighed it, the
weight of each swatch. I tried to match the swatches with the
diagram. I have some difficulty. But I assumed they did not really
do a correct diagram, just in a hurry, did some -- casually drew it.
So not really showing that's the actual size or pattern or
dimension. Subsequently, August 12, 1994, Dr. Ed Blake and Gary
Simpson --
Q. Sims, I think, isn't it?
A. Gary Sims, Sims -- from DOJ examine this, they took this
photograph. They give me this picture. When I examine this picture,
I noticed there appear some pattern on the paper. The paper they
call bindle. Bindle is just a piece of white paper which generally
we call in the East Coast a druggist fold, folding. Open up like
this packet, have two swatches; in addition, we see some faint, very
faint pattern of -- four patterns of transfer.
Q. What does the four patterns of transfer indicate to you, Doctor?
A. At that time I tried to discuss with them, I said, "This pattern
could be a wet transfer."
Q. Well, what's the significance of a wet transfer?
A. A wet transfer, the simplest explanation is which when a swatch
put in this packet, the bindle was not dry, still wet, and caused
such a transfer. Subsequently, I was informed the swatches was dry
over night and definite drying.
Q. Okay. And, Doctor, did you ever review Item No. 360A where in the
Department of -- Mr. Sims notes that there was wet transfer on Item
A. Much later I was given the privilege to see that piece of note
because they are initially whether or not I introduced those
Q. Now, the note of Gary Sims indicates the -- this is 1361 --
indicates that when they open the bindles, they noted the wet
transfer, does it not?
A. Yes. In his own note, he said he did notice some wet transfer.
Q. Now, Doctor, tell us the significance of the photos that you've
got in Item -- I think it's 1361.
A. Because the original photograph was taken -- it's an excellent
photograph. However, you don't see the pattern. You vaguely see
little transfer. So I request the original package should submit to
me to exam. Subsequently, this packet on March 9, '95, was sent to
me through University of New Haven by Larry Regal. At that point in
time, only a portion of blood stain left, and the piece of paper
already severely mutilated.
Q. All right. And what -- did you take a close-up of the wet
A. Yes. Subsequently, I took a close-up of this wet transfer.
Q. And how many wet transfers are there?
A. I can see four.
Q. Okay. And subsequently did you assist in the production of this
board which is 1362, I believe? This is large. It's not going to
fall down, I can tell you that.
(Pause in tape playing.)
(Board entitled Item 47 Blood Swatches versus Wet Transfers
MR. LEONARD: That's not the right one. That's not the right board.
(Videotape deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumes.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now -- can you see that?
MR. BAKER: We can't get our hands behind the lights to turn it off.
Q. Now, Doctor, point out, if you will, the four areas of wet
A. We see area 1, 2, 3, 4.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
(Mr. P. Baker displays items.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, the areas that are in Item 1362 are, I
assume, the swatches, correct?
A. Those are swatches enlarged proportionally according to the
Q. So, Doctor, are those swatches then, in scale with the wet
transfer areas that are depicted in 1, 2, 3 and 4 on item -- on
Exhibit 1362?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Did you at any time attempt to line up the swatches,
the seven swatches, with the wet transfer areas?
A. Yes, sir. I have numerous attempts tried to explain the
phenomenon of this wet transfer.
Q. And do the seven swatches match up with the four areas of wet
transfer in the bindle of Item 47?
A. The number did not fit. We have seven swatches, only four wet
transfers. Some of the swatches could have produced such a transfer.
For example, 1 and 4, the transfer, that's a mirror image,
consistent with a mirror image. The pattern shows me it's deformed
rectangle like a letter type of thing.
Q. Is that -- the second one from the right, is that the consistent
with the mirror image of 1 and 4?
A. The second one could have produced this 1 and 4, although the
measurement slightly off.
Q. All right.
A. However, the general shape is set. It's not identical. However,
if certain pressure applied to the fabric, the fabric may expand a
little bit; therefore, my conclusion, this could have produced 1 and
Q. Okay.
A. Has to be folding in certain way. One side of paper folding to
other side of paper. So both side have a transfer.
Q. Now, was it your understanding that all seven swatches went into
the test tube at the same time on June 13, 1994, and were taken out
dry on June 14, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in terms of the other two areas of wet transfer, which of
the swatches, if any, would produce those particular wet transfer
A. This number 3, the only one have little bit resemble to a
triangle, except the size is much smaller than number 3. The actual
measurement of the swatches, obviously, if you try to fold both
end, but still have a little problem to fit, unless you have to
sling somewhat of this and could have produced this pattern. In
other words, the only thing I can say is more like a triangle and a
-- smaller than the swatches has to be folded in certain way, or the
angle folded away and the side have to be shrinked a little.
Q. Any other of the swatches fit the wet transfer areas?
A. The only thing, the smallest one, again, the size is much bigger
than number 2. It looks like a square. That's the only smaller
square, obviously, cannot be this, and that so it's kind of a --
again has to be shrink a little bit to fit to this pattern.
Q. Now, if, in fact, the swatches were dry on June 14, 1994 when
they were removed from the test tube, after drying overnight --
A. Yes.
Q. -- somebody would have had to introduce blood into those swatches
in order for there to be a wet transfer, correct?
A. If, in fact, was dried, complete drying in swatch has to be
somehow rewetted. Also, the swatch, the center have a dark spot
that's relatively strange and interesting. However, I wasn't give
the privilege to exam, study the original swatch besides photograph
and measurement.
Q. Now, is it common, Dr. Lee, to have the spot that we see over by
the swatch on number 4 over by the swatch on number 2, and it would
appear, at least to me, to be on the bottom 3 swatches down here. Is
that common?
A. When we in the laboratory, have a swatch, we drop the number onto
swatch when he give somebody start from the center, then gradually
diffuse out center usually darker than the side.
Q. Is that from the pipette or whatever?
A. Pipette, whatever.
Q. Eye drop?
A. Syringe or any other transfer mechanism.
Q. Now, if -- what did -- does the fact that there was wet transfer
in, at a minimum, three of the seven swatches indicate to you?
A. I really cannot give you a conclusion. I only can tell you that's
a wet transfer. And if, in fact, the reports a complete drawing
then something's wrong. That's all my conclusion with this regards
to this evidence.
Q. Something's wrong at the LAPD Crime Lab, right?
MR. MEDVENE: Do you recall any other new things that you could --
(Videotape halted.)
MR. P. BAKER: The last question by Mr. Baker was withdrawn.
MR. MEDVENE: The question is, is there anything wrong with the crime
lab is withdrawn. Because there's no answer to it.
THE COURT: I thought I struck it.
MR. BAKER: I liked it.
THE COURT: Jury, you're to disregard. You know, I went through this
effort of editing out and apparently some of the editing wasn't done
in conformity of my orders, so you're to disregard that portion, all
THE CLERK: Are we going to --
(Videotape resumes playing.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me go back to this drying for a minute. I
want to read what was said in your transcript on August 28, 1995,
because maybe it was misread to you. Question at page 43142.
MR. P. BAKER: This is our redirect. We will play Mr. Medvene's
original --
THE COURT: Before we do that, I'd like for the record just to make
the exhibit numbers clear. The very first exhibit that was referred
to was erroneously referred to as Exhibit 1342; it should have been
Criminal Exhibit number 1350, Civil Exhibit number 1359.
MR. BAKER: Sorry.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay. And we have further exhibits mentioned, which
were: Criminal Trial Exhibit 1341, which is Civil 1342; Deposition
Exhibit 4, which is which is Civil Exhibit 2314; Deposition Exhibit
5, which is Civil Exhibit 2315; Deposition Exhibit number 7, which
is Civil Exhibit 2316; Criminal Exhibit 1342, which is Civil 1349.
Criminal 13 --
THE CLERK: Actually, that's the one that was erroneous to skip
MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Criminal 1343, which is Civil 1350; Criminal
1345, which is Civil 1352; Criminal 1346, which is Civil 1353;
Criminal 1362, which is Civil 1376. Criminal 1338, Civil 1324;
Criminal 1341, Civil 1342. Criminal 1357, Civil 1366.
THE CLERK: Hold on. Criminal 1341 -- can you go back there, please.
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal 1341.
THE CLERK: Yes, Phil. I have Civil 1342. Okay. Thank you.
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal 1357, Civil 1366; Criminal 1351, Civil 1360.
MR. P. BAKER: There were a few more mentioned. I'll add the rest
following the conclusion.
THE CLERK: Well, can you do it now, while we have it? Criminal 1353,
Civil 1362; Criminal 1358, Civil 1367; Criminal 1359, Civil 1368;
And then Criminal Exhibit 1361 was erroneously referred to as 1362
on videotape. Civil Exhibit is 1375.
MR. FOSTER: 1375?
THE CLERK: It's 1375.
THE COURT REPORTER: Are those newly marked?
THE CLERK: They're all newly marked.
(The instrument herein referred to as document entitled "Steps in
Forensic Examination" was marked for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1359.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Dr. Lee's Deposition Exhibit 4
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2314.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Dr. Lee's deposition exhibit 5
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2315.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Dr. Lee's Deposition Exhibit 6
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2316.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "Imprint
evidence at Bundy" was marked for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1350.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitle "Evidence
Found: Eyeglasses/Envelope at Bundy Scene" was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1352.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "Evidence
Found: Eyeglasses/Envelope bloodstain evidence on envelope" was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1353.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "Item 47:
Blood Swatches vs. Wet Transfers" was marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1376.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "Imprint
Evidence of Bundy" was marked for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1324.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document Entitled "Bloodstains
on Evidence Bag" was marked for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1366.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "Trace
material found on physical Evidence at Bundy" was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1360.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "History of
Socks: Item 13" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit
No. 1362.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "History of
Item 47: Blood drop on Bundy walkway" was marked for identification
as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1367.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "History of
Item 47: Blood drop on Bundy walkway" was marked for identification
as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1368.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled "History of
Item 47: Blood drop on Bundy walkway" was marked for identification
as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1375.)
MR. MEDVENE: We'd ask at this time if we might play a portion of our
Q. Dr. Lee, when you were called into the crime scene, the crime
scene was almost nonexistent; isn't that true?
A. That's true.
Q. What is a complete crime-scene reconstruction?
A. Crime-scene reconstruction, explain yesterday, have to base on
crime-scene pattern evidence, physical evidence, the facts, all the
information available, and would determine the sequence of each
event: What happened, how it happened, when, where. On that day, my
mission, it's not conduct a crime-scene reconstruction, just a
so-called crime-scene inspection. It's a great differences between a
crime-scene search, crime-scene study, crime-scene reconstruction,
or merely an inspection.
Q. Well, not only that day, Dr. Lee, but in this case, you did not
perform a crime-scene reconstruction; isn't that true?
A. You mean a whole case?
Q. Yes.
A. I only did the limit reconstruction.
Q. Okay. So the answer would be, you did not perform the
crime-scene total reconstruction; is that correct?
A. Your question say on July 25, did I do a crime scene --
Q. On June --
A. -- June 25, did I do a crime-scene reconstruction? My answer is
no, that day, just conduct a crime-scene inspection, only 20 minutes
available for me.
Q. Now, from that day forward to this day, you have not done a
complete crime-scene reconstruction, have you?
A. I did not.
Q. Now, there's also a term that is used in your profession, a
complete investigation; is that true?
A. That's true.
Q. And you did not perform a complete investigation, through this
date; is that correct, also?
A. Correct; I did not.
Q. But by the nature of your work in this case, since you didn't do
a complete investigation, you did not do all the work, in your view,
that would be necessary for you to make a determination who was or
who wasn't the assailant; isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Dr. Lee, you didn't, in this case, for example, examine the
accuracy of any of the DNA testing; is that correct?
A. Yes. DNA examination, I did review some of the result. I did not
go there watching what the DNA test --
Q. Well, you're not here to testify that any of the test results of
the Cellmark Laboratory, when they gave certain opinions as to whose
blood was found at certain locations, was inaccurate, are you?
A. No.
Q. And likewise, Dr. Lee, you're not here to contest that you don't
challenge the blood findings, the DNA blood findings of the
California Department of Justice, when they purport to identify
certain blood as being consistent with certain people's blood?
A. You're correct; I'm not challenging those.
Q. You're also not challenging the blood findings of the Los Angeles
Police Department Scientific Investigative Division, when they
likewise make certain conclusions as to the findings of certain
blood found at the crime scene?
A. I -- yesterday, I did not testify any of those.
(Videotape halted.)
MR. BAKER: Again, that --
MR. MEDVENE: I understand.
(Videotape resumes playing.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And, Dr. Lee, in like fashion -- and by the way,
you consider yourself an expert in DNA analysis; is that correct?
A. People in the field consider me as an expert.
Q. Do you?
A. I still have a lot to learn.
Q. But, you, in your work at Connecticut Laboratory, often use DNA
analysis in attempting to include or exclude an alleged assailant as
being perpetrators of offenses; isn't that true?
A. Yes. We exclude somebody or include somebody.
Q. Right. And you regularly rely on this DNA evidence; isn't that
A. We rely on all categorical evidence.
Q. Including the DNA evidence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know from your past experience, reading of the Cellmark
Laboratory --
A. Yes.
Q. -- do you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And their work with DNA?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know them to be a reputable laboratory?
A. I will reserve my judgments because that's too big an area to
cover and some of the area I in the past do have a different
Q. But you have no different opinions than you're expressing in this
case about any of the DNA analysis that Cellmark did in connection
with the blood of O.J. Simpson and whether or not it was found?
A. I did not testify.
Q. And you have -- and you did not challenge any of the findings of
the Cellmark Laboratory in terms of whatever they found in
connection with Ronald Goldman's blood, whether or not Ronald
Goldman's blood was found at a particular location, do you?
A. I did not review all those material.
Q. And in like fashion, you have no challenge, or make no challenge
in your testimony to the blood findings of the Los Angeles Police
Department Scientific Investigation Division in connection with the
blood work they did in this case, do you?
A. I did not testify any of those issue.
Q. So that your testimony -- and we want to get some sense of what
it is, how broad it is or how limited it is -- isn't in any way
challenging the DNA findings of Cellmark, California Department of
Justice, or the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division; is that
A. That's 99 percent true. I do have some question relate to their
result, but I never testify on those issues.
Q. Well, is there -- you say it's 99 percent true, what I said.
What's the other one percent that's not true?
A. Some of the note I see are conflicting result, which -- for
example, some otherwise result some inconsistent result which I did
not challenge it, I did not -- I did not study that in full detail.
Q. Now, in terms, Dr. Lee, of trace evidence, by trace evidence you
referred yesterday to things often that are small, minute particles?

A. Right.
Q. And what we call trace evidence, would that include both fibers
and hair evidence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is this the kind of evidence, the kind of material that, as a
forensic scientist, you often utilize in attempting to determine
whether or not an individual should be included or excluded as a
suspect of a particular event?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've lectured on this topic and talked about, I think what
you've coined, a four-way linkage theory?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is the four-way linkage theory? What does that mean,
Dr. Lee?
A. The early belief, trace transfer only, say, between victim and
the suspect. And what the -- what I try to do is educate
law-enforcement officers to have broad aspects a little bit. The
crime scene, the physical evidence, victim, suspect, these four
entities, you have chances to cross-transfer. You can transfer
evidence, trace evidence from crime scene through physical evidence
or through an individual, get to the suspect, or tie a suspect to
the victim. In other words, this mutual transfer series should have
spend a little bit more.
Q. So that I'm clear, are we saying, then, Dr. Lee, that your
analysis, what you have taught is, you look at the crime scene as
what -- what is found at the crime scene, including what physical
evidence --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and see what of that physical evidence at the crime scene is
traceable either to the victim or to the alleged suspect?
A. It's excellent, but not totally correct, which means that, let's
say, crime scene have some trace-evidence fabric --
Q. The suspect can pick up those fabric --
A. -- by walking through. Meanwhile, maybe suspect wear certain
shoes, did not pick up the trace evidence; however, he brought with
him some physical evidence, a gym bag or a knife. That item, equally
possible, can pick up some evidence. At the same time, the victim --
let's say this is a secondary crime -- crime-scene victim can pick
up the evidence from the primary crime scene. Or some physical
evidence, trace evidence, can transmit through an intermediate
target, so-called secondary transfer. In other words, trace evidence
transfer not as simple as original scene if you find the fiber on
somebody else clothing definitely, this person guilty. Not
necessarily from a possible reason secondary transfer. For example,
Mr. Baker sitting here, and yesterday a lady sitting on his chair,
so he pick up a -- picked up a long, blond hair, and hair on his
shirt. When he got back home, Mrs. Baker found this long, blond hair
Q. Problems?
A. Problems.
(Continuing.) This hair maybe get on him through secondary transfer.
Mrs. Baker may accuse Mr. Baker of extracurricular activity when he
is visiting Connecticut. Mrs. Baker may ask Mr. Baker what did you
do all day. He say, take deposition from Dr. Lee. And Mrs. Baker may
encounter him, saying, Dr. Lee have long, blond hair? So this kind
of secondary transfer equally occur in a four-way linkage transfer,
theory. Basically, this four-way linkage theory is to teach the
police officers should think -- think every possibility. And this
mutual transfer theory is so important.
Q. Well, why is it important, Dr. Lee? Because in the example you
just gave with Mr. Baker --
(Pause in videotape.)
(Continuing.) We're going to be able to defend him and explain to
his wife that he didn't have blond hair and whatever; yet, we have
collected this evidence. Why -- why do you feel, and why do you
teach that this mutual transfer theory is helpful in helping to
identify who might be an assailant?
A. Yes, this is really important. Let's say, just happen outside
parking lot, have long-haired blond lady's body was found. Now, is
Mr. Baker involved in the homicide? That hair alone, he's included.
But that hair, equally possible he pick it up through the secondary
transfer by sitting in the chair. That's why so important.
Q. So we would look at Mr. Baker had that hair alone, and might want
to look at what other physical --
A. Evidence or whether or not in this room have abundant long, blond
hair, each of us all have long, blond hair.
Q. So you might want to see if there's any other explanation that's
A. Yes.
Q. If you have enough transfers from the victim to the potential
assailant, that might lead you to the conclusion that this is the
proper assailant?
A. Excellent. Except you know if this individual have a legitimate
reason -- let's say you found a lot of my wife's hair on my body.
Q. Right.
A. Yes. That's a lot of hair. But it's not unusual, because we been
married 30 years now, have a lot of hair transfer over those years.
Q. That's an excellent point, Dr. Lee. So that if the alleged
assailant has a good reason --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for having a victim's hair or other items --
A. Material.
Q. -- or other materials, that's one situation?
A. Yes.
Q. If he can't adequately explain it that, it's a totally -- another
which makes you suspicious of the alleged assailant?
A. Yes. Excellent.
Q. Now, in terms of the material that you look at to make this
analysis, I think we mentioned -- we mentioned hairs, we mentioned
A. Fibers.
Q. Why are hairs and fibers helpful to someone experienced, such as
yourself, in telling whether or not one might be implicated in an
A. Hair fibers, it's important, very important. However, if you
found a bloody fingerprint, then you don't need hair and fiber; you
right away have you a major evidence.
Q. Um-hum.
A. For example, a lot of cases, somebody drop a wallet at the crime
scene. I'm not going to spend time looking at hair and fiber; I
already have driver's license, Social Security numbers. Or you have
a video camera, catch somebody in act. So compare hair, fiber,
compare other evidence for link, and value it less. However, in a
case you don't have those major evidence, hair, fibers become
important. Important because hair and fiber easy to get transfer,
easy to get transfer and easy to get deposited in different
locations. Also, hair, fiber they are microscopic, not easy to get
rid of it. So that's why I have forensic value for analysis.
Q. Now, would you agree with this statement that, with respect to
trace analysis, it would be your position that in some cases,
regarding hair comparisons, that identification can be made with a
high degree of certainty and can often establish partial
individuality of a specimen with confidence?
A. Yes, to certain degree, I agree with that. Depends on number of
hair I get of the -- let's say I have a case, the victim have a
chunk of a hair grabbed from somebody's head. Of course, that's a
very -- a higher degree certainty. Let's say you only have a
fragment of hair. Doesn't matter how you do it; that's got much less
degree of certainty.
Q. Now, you -- strike that. So that, Dr. Lee, when you teach and
when you lecture, do you talk to the officers and various students,
then, about trying to develop as much information as they can
about what transfers there were at the crime scene, between the
scene itself and the victim and the alleged assailant, in order to
help you make a determination, whether the one accused is actually
the assailant?
A. Yes. It's extremely important. The more information we can
receive, the more fact we can develop. As an investigator point of
view, if you can establish this individual never present at this
scene before, if you establish that fact, then you can -- and you
found hair, fiber, or soil on this individual, that body, the value
of that trace evidence is tremendous.
Q. Why is that?
A. If we establish the fact you never come to this room; meanwhile,
we find your hairs, your fibers, and the soil sample from your yard
in this room, that's a tremendous value. Unless somebody
intentionally to frame you took your hair, took your fabric, took
your soil, deposit here, which, if we can establish through other
fact nobody tried to frame you, then in other words, your presence
of those trace evidence become valuable.
Q. Does that trace evidence, I guess be fair to say, Dr. Lee, not
another way of looking at it, that's kind of an invisible spectator
at the scene. It's the material that shows or helps lead you to the
conclusion that someone was at a particular scene at a particular
A. In view, if you place on the whole theory, that's correct, 100
percent correct. However, if you consider the possibility of
secondary transfer, then it's no longer 100 percent correct anymore,
today. It's different in early times, early days, because each city
or district very isolated to be so mobile. Like two days ago, I was
in Taiwan. Two days later, I'm here. This cross-transfer, the
chances increase tremendously compared to 17th century. For example,
the soil, the value decrease tremendously over the cut
(phonetic) because of the construction. It move the location from
one location to another location to third location, landfill, to
trace that soil to origin becomes so difficult and today because
this commercial activity, we really don't know how many yards of a
carpet they make, whether or not made by same manufacturer or other
manufacturer, by the same material. It's just too complicated for
forensic scientists try to trace every possibility. Yes, you can
call the manufacturer, get some information. But deep in our heart,
at the pure scientific point of view, how do we know some other
company did not make the same material?
Q. But if you're able to -- but the reason you collect for sample
fibers --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and try to tie a particular fiber of one find kind or another
A. Yes.
Q. -- of the alleged assailant --
A. Yes.
Q. -- because you found that fiber at the crime scene?
A. Right.
Q. That would be a powerful piece of information that you would have
to deal with, and would you want to hear some good explanation from
the alleged assailant how that fiber got there?
MR. BAKER: I'd object.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that true?
A. That's true. It's a piece of evidence. I --
Q. Right.
A. You can't really say powerful. Any piece of evidence of course
you have to explain.
Q. And the more -- and the reason you talk about your four-way
linkage is the more pieces, for example, hair, fiber evidence, you
have tying an assailant to a particular crime scene, the more likely
it is that the assailant was at the crime scene?
A. If this individual have no explanation.
Q. For the material getting there?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you have a bloody print -- how about if you had -- say
you were fortunate enough to get out to the crime scene immediately
thereafter. With your expertise, you're able to pick up some blood
samples, you did some DNA testing, some RFLP testing, and it turned
out that the blood that was found was consistent with the blood of
Mr. Jones.
A. Yes.
Q. That would be a powerful piece of evidence, would it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Why? I mean why would it be powerful if you found Mr. Jones's
blood in a DNA analysis and RFLP analysis at the scene immediately
after the murders? Why would that be important?
A. It's really important -- externally important as -- first of all,
you have to know the location. Let's say you found a victim's body,
found Mr. Jones's blood, DN
A. The degree of the importance, the scale, it may be 9 to 10. Let's
say you found outside, a yard, okay, have a single drop --
Q. You say outside the yard. You mean by the body or in another
A. Another location.
Q. Different location?
A. Different location. Mr. Jones say, yesterday I was here fixing a
motor. Then in my point of view, scale 1 to 10, maybe just 1 to 2,
still have some significance, but not as important as say the DNA
found on Mrs. Jones's body.
Q. Now -- now, if that fella said he was fixing a motor, and you
as an expert researcher question him or have him questioned, and it
turned out he wasn't fixing the motor and had never been at that
A. That's an important fact now.
Q. So that piece of blood would get up to 9 or 10 category?
A. Exactly.
Q. Now, say what we had was -- say we thought that the assailant
left a particular crime scene.
A. Um-hum.
Q. And say we had some indication the assailant left the particular
crime scene in a particular direction and we found drops of blood
next to where he was walking that was identified as blood consistent
with the assailant. That -- that would be important evidence, would
it not?
A. Not -- if in fact -- you have to -- to know the type of injuries,
if this injury can cause such drops. We all have experience cut
Q. Right.
A. When you cut yourself, the blood usually rush out when you first
cut yourself. Usually you see multiple drops. So multiple drop or
single drop, that going to have two different value. Just like
before, I give you scale 10 -- 1 to 10 give you. If you found
multiple drop, in my forensic scale that's 10. Very important. You
-- if you find a single drop, you start questioning yourself, if
somebody cut yourself, how can just one drop, drop out.
Q. But it -- would it be fair to say, Dr. Lee, that it would be an
extremely probative piece of information that you would want to look
at if you found someone's blood by what might be termed a get-away
path, you would want to know how did it get there?
A. Definitely.
Q. Because there's not an adequate explanation, it tends to look
like that person is the assailant?
A. True.
Q. Isn't that true? Isn't it a correct statement that when FBI
representatives, in particular Douglas Deedrick, has reported
examining certain hairs allegedly found at certain places that were
microscopically consistent with the known head hairs of Nicole
Brown, with the known head hairs of Ronald Goldman or with the
known head hairs of Mr. Simpson, you're not challenging the accuracy
of any of those findings, are you?
A. No, I'm not. Mr. Deedrick is an excellent hair examiner. Of
course, Dr. DeForest even better. We all examine hair. I did not
verify Mr. Deedrick's hair examination. I'm not challenging him. I
think he always do good work. No reason for me to challenge, as I
only indicate to you I did look at the worksheet and the report
linking inconsistency.
Q. And based on that one inconsistency that you've pointed out that
was correct, your testimony, as I understand it, is, you are not
saying that any of the hairs that Mr. Deedrick or Agent Deedrick or
the FBI found were microscopically consistent with the known head
hairs of Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson were
properly identified?
A. I'm not -- I'm not in the position to say any statement beyond
that I believe him. I'm not saying for me to either say he's wrong
or he's right.
MR. BAKER: May we approach on this, Your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
MR. BAKER: I should have objected to these. I object to 257 and 286.
These are outside the scope. They have no probative value to
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, I think the rules were that the
time to object has passed. It's unfair. He did not object. We had
other objections to many more -- I think it's inappropriate to break
the flow of our examination. We did not do that with the other side.
There was a time to object.
MR. PETROCELLI: The designations were given way back in December.
MR. MEDVENE: I think it's very unfair.
THE COURT: What are you objecting to?
MR. BAKER: 257 to 286. These questions don't have any relevance to
anything -- any examination. He didn't --
THE COURT: Just a minute. Let me look at it.
MR. BAKER: 257, 259.
(Pause for the Court to review transcript.)
THE COURT: I'll sustain it. Not probative.
MR. MEDVENE: Wait, if Your Honor please, Your Honor, it's -- I'd
suggest that it's -- it's relevant if the hairs were from the --
THE COURT: He didn't do anything with it.
MR. BAKER: Never touched --
MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: He didn't do anything with it. If the question is did --
MR. MEDVENE: He made one comment about the -- Mr. Deedrick's report.
He then --
THE COURT: Fine. That will remain, what they've already heard,
that's fine. The rest of the question, "Did the defense ask you to
look at the hair," that's irrelevant.
MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, the fact that the hairs were available to
him to examine --
THE COURT: Well, he didn't do it.
MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: He didn't examine it.
MR. MEDVENE: No. But they were available to him to examine them,
Your Honor, and he's a hair examiner. He told --
THE COURT: Fine, but he did not examine it.
MR. MEDVENE: But Mr. Baker brought out in direct examination he's an
expert on hair.
THE COURT: But he did not examine it.
MR. MEDVENE: That's our point.
THE COURT: My ruling is sustained. Let's get on with this and finish
this. I sustain the objection to 25718 to 259 to 259:5. Resume at
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. MEDVENE: A few minutes to cue it up, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Starts with an answer.
MR. BAKER: Ends in the middle of an answer. He --
(Tape resumes.) (BY MR. MEDVENE) So really all you can say as a
matter of scientific fact is that you observed from the pictures and
what you were able to see one set of bloody footprints leading from
the scene to the back gate?
A. Yes, sir. There are some other I cannot determine.
Q. Right. Do you know if they're footprints or not?
A. No.
Q. And you may have told us this already, but you don't know how
many actions anyone took to cause those particular drops or spatters
or pattern; isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you made no scientific study of any kind to estimate how long
it would take for one by a particular action to cause the blood
drops, spatters or pattern you talked to us about yesterday; is that
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. So it's obvious, then, is it not, Doctor, that you're not able to
tell us with any scientific certainty based on your examination how
long it took for the encounter between the assailant and Mr. Goldman
and Ms. Brown?
A. Based on my experience, cannot be one second.
Q. Let me talk to you about that. Is it true that the -- that
because you did not perform any scientific analysis or test to show
how long it would take for various spatters or patterns to be
created or one drop, that you don't know if it's 45 seconds or 60
seconds or 75 seconds or what, you're just not able to determine
that with any scientific accuracy?
A. Nobody can reproduce that kind of an experiment. Nobody can. Each
crime scene is different.
Q. Right.
A. Each type of an action is different.
Q. I understand.
A. And I know definitely not going to be one second --
Q. But past there, you --
MR. BAKER: Let him finish his answer, counsel.
A. All right, and to drop the glass, you can drop the glass, you
want more than one second, can be one second, can be one minute,
depends how long you falling, how you're holding your glass, depends
how long you're holding your key.
Q. So -- so would it be fair to say, Doctor, that because one is not
able as a scientist, as you are, with any scientific precision --
you know it wasn't one second, but whether it was 60 seconds, give
or take 15 seconds one way or another, you really don't have a
scientific opinion?
A. I cannot come here to tell you exactly how many seconds. I
don't think anybody can tell you how many seconds. However, the
indentation, to dig, if they document correctly how deep, that can
give you a set parameter. You can't dig a hole in one second. You --
probably difficult to dig in one minute, too, because that's pretty
solid ground. So just in that area, at least the time I went there,
the soil pretty -- really hard and compact. So to dig that hole, the
indentation, not going to be in short time.
Q. Well, when you say not a short time --
A. Unless somebody have a digger.
Q. Unless the hole in some way was there before?
A. Yes.
Q. Or was dug after by the dog that was on the scene?
A. Could be.
Q. So you really don't know?
A. Nobody knows.
Q. Nobody knows. So whether the murders took 60 seconds or 30
seconds or two minutes, there's really no way you can say with any
scientific certainty from the scene that you were presented, isn't
that fair?
A. Maybe ten minutes, maybe 20 minutes, okay. Anything is possible.
I cannot come here to tell you exactly the time. I do know of a
struggle. That's scientific fact. I do know there are different
locations have contact smear. I do know -- assume those hole was
digged that night. I assume all those injury in different body
position, assume on the right-hand side of Mr. Goldman's blue jean
have that mass amount of blood, which means he has to be put a big
fight, struggle. He did not, as described, have throat cut in one
second. I disagree that one-second theory. Anything above minute, I
don't know.
Q. So whether it was a minute more or less to do the killings, you
really don't know with any scientific certainty; is that a fair
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Lee, while we're -- or in terms of there was a spot on the
envelope, and possibly because you were using, as I understand, a
second- or third-generation envelope to look at -- a second- or
third-generation photograph --
A. Yes.
Q. -- to look at the blood stain.
A. Yes.
Q. So in terms of fairness to you, do you see that particular blood
stain now in, for example, 109? That was the original photograph.
Can you see that clearly? And I'm not saying anything about before
because you didn't have a good enough photo.
A. Yes.
Q. But can you see the blood spot on the envelope clearly? We can
put -- will you be good enough to put a circle --
A. You want to mark your evidence?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay. You want blue or red?
Q. Whichever color -- blue is a fine color.
A. I can see this clearly. Also, I can see this clearly.
Q. What I'm pointing to?
A. Well, you have to -- if you asking me look at a photograph, I
have to look everything. I cannot just say see one thing.
Q. Oh, I'm sorry, Dr. Lee, what I meant was the spot that you said
you couldn't see before, maybe because of the generation of your
A. Right.
Q. And right next to where you marked --
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we're going to put up a photo,
with the Court's permission, that they're talking about. It might
make it a little easier for the jury.
MR. MEDVENE: It is 718.
MR. BAKER: You going to put it and then come back to it?
(indicating to Elmo screen).
THE COURT REPORTER: Does this have an exhibit number?
MR. FOSTER: 718.
(Exhibit 718 displayed on Elmo.)
MR. MEDVENE: 718, Your Honor, was a photo before the envelope moved
its place. This is what?
MR. FOSTER: 718.
MR. BAKER: I object to your testifying, Mr. Medvene.
THE CLERK: Exhibit 718.
MR. MEDVENE: Clearly another blood spot if you mark in blue I would
appreciate it?
MR. BAKER: Yes, and you're representing that original photo is 109
that you're showing him presently?
(Tape resumes.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) So would it be -- now, if we -- that's on photo
A. 109.
Q. Now, if we were to look, Dr. Lee --
A. Um-hum.
Q. You just put a question mark. What does that mean?
A. Yeah, here have something.
Q. All right.
A. Which is not in here.
Q. All right.
A. And it's kind of curious how come that thing disappeared.
Q. What you mean, this flower, whether it blew off or not between
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Where?
Q. So you don't know whether that flower blew off or not, but you
want to point it out. That's fine.
A. Yes, it's not in here.
Q. Thank you. But let's look at 104, then. In terms of what is in
104, Dr. Lee -- well, we don't have a flower. The spot, that may be
because of the second- or third-generation photo, you said you
couldn't see. Doesn't it clearly appear in this particular photo
that has a 104 on it?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you circle the two spots that we were talking about. And left
-- to the left is the smaller one you weren't able to see before,
and to the right is the larger one?
A. Yes.
Q. And -- and if we were to look at 103 --
A. Um-hum.
Q. Again, does that show the two spots on the left-hand side of the
envelope that we've been talking about?
A. Yes.
Q. The one spot, that's clearly seen. The other spot, maybe because
of the magnification, wasn't able to be seen before it was blown up.
Now, Dr. Lee, there was one other area I believe that you talked
about when we discussed the envelope, and that was the crease.
(Tape paused.)
(Tape resumes.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And I'm looking at what's been marked 209. Is
the crease we're talking about the small indentation up on what I'll
call the right corner portion of the photo?
A. No. What I testify is when I examine the envelope in Albany
Medical Center, I have ideal lighting condition, photographic
equipment. I examine it myself. I see a crease area. This is a
two-dimensional picture, let me remind you.
Q. Would this be a better one, Dr. Lee? I'm going to put up what we
marked 209. Let me put it in front of a camera and then --
A. This could be the area which I can not really tell you exactly.
Q. Now, what we're looking at on what we have marked here, I have a
yellow tag that says "209."
A. Yes.
Q. It says "Rokahr" on it and number "209." When you say this could
be the area, could you circle in blue, if that's convenient, the
small area that we're talking about that maybe was the crease that
you were talking about?
(Witness marks photo.)
Q. Would it be a fair statement, Dr. Lee, in looking at it now --
A. Yes.
Q. -- it does appear that a pair of glasses could certainly fit
within an envelope even if that crease was there?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, stop it there.
THE CLERK: For the record, earlier referred to Civil Exhibit 1337
A. That's Civil Exhibit 1321.
THE COURT REPORTER: Did we just mark these two envelopes?
MR. FOSTER: 718.
THE CLERK: 718, collectively.
(The instruments herein described as two photographs of envelope and
blood drops were marked for identification as Exhibit No. 718.)
THE COURT: 9 o'clock tomorrow. Don't talk about the case; don't form
or express any opinions.
(At 4:30 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Friday, January 10, 1997, at 9:00 A.M.)