-- about the envelope, and we went rather quickly, in fairness, I wanted to quickly go over for you again so you could see—see the exhibits.
In the confusion caused by me, and I apologize, Dr. Lee, this morning I believe you looked at those two photos and thought that there were two 209's and you wondered how could there be two 209's. In looking—
The second point that we just to make specifically, if we look at Exhibit 17, which is 109, you have circled for us— there are three blue circles, and the middle circle is—and the middle circle is the second blood drop that we were talking about?
And this—this is a—if we were to look at 103, you can also see, though it's not circled, the second blood drop on the right-hand side, and maybe you could put a blue mark around it. It's fainter.
Is the first drop which I only have privilege this morning just now before lunch seeing this picture, the first blood drop when the picture provide to me.
The photograph provided to me may be a second or third generation. This area did not show a red blood stain. The area do show a bunch of leaves—leaves, a series leave, trace material. And in this photo now you don't see him anymore.
The photography received through the discovery did not show the second drop, did show the first drop. Subsequently, this morning before noon, you show me this new photograph, No. 109.
17, which clearly shows a second drop here. So this could be an artifact, maybe not, a bouncing light effect maybe during the reproduction, the sequence of reproduction, just like I described yesterday, somehow the image lost during reprint.
Yes. It clearly shows the second drop which is not in here, again, because in the printing and reproduction, image disappears.
Would you mind putting a blue circle around the second drop on what's been marked on Exhibit 16?
Yes. And in each of those—in Exhibit 18 you've been good enough to circle the second blood drop?
And these are the blood drops that, as you pointed out, because of the second or third generation photo you received you were not able to see in the defense exhibit that was previously talked about?
That's exactly my point. When I compare these two photographs, one photograph, previous one, has an image in the second one, not in the first one. Today after providing me with new photography, can see it's here. In fact, was here. It's not a bouncing light effect. Again, it's during the reproduction.
Now, the next area I think we can do relatively quickly, Dr. Lee, is the—the imprint area—
-- of the testimony. And is it—Is it correct that you've told us that an imprint is something that could be caused by a large variety of objects having a similar design to what is imprinted on whatever surface we're talking about when we say there is an imprint?
And cutting through everything, is it a fair statement that as far as the Bundy walkway is concerned—
-- The only—strike that. As far as the Bundy walkway is concerned, other than the Bruno Magli footprints that have been previously identified by agent Bodziak and yourself—
-- the only other imprint on the walkway that you're able to say with any scientific certainty is a shoe print has been marked by you and identified by you in what's been marked 1337A?
Is it correct—strike that. Do you remember, as you sit here, what tile you saw that parallel line imprint on?
Would it be fair to say though, in terms of cutting through, that you— your first time at the scene I believe you told us was June 25?
And as you're sitting here, you don't know if that particular imprint that you've identified was put on the scene after the murders or not?
Now, so that I'm clear, in terms of the other imprint testimony which dealt with the piece of paper, the envelope and the jeans, am I correct in understanding your testimony that you're not able to state with any scientific certainty that any imprint you might see on any of those objects are shoe prints other than a Bruno Magli shoe print?
My conclusion with all those evidence I observed, those are consistent with bloody imprint evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
KEY QUOTENow, you don't—is it—Have you seen—let me show you what we'll mark as next in order. I don't know if you've ever seen this before, it's Exhibit 21, which is a blow-up of the sock?
This purports to be a picture of the socks as they were found by an LAPD officer in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
One of the socks definite inside out. The second one consistent with inside out. Of course, if they have a proper documentation that day of notes and description and a better photograph... Again, this issue, inside out, outside in, it's not an issue if you do crime scene procedure correctly.
Now, if the socks were inside out, as a possible explanation for whatever was on side 3, that it was a transference from an individual's finger who might have been bleeding, who took the sock off, and when he was pulling the sock off, and the bottom portion ... as shown?
Anything is possible, I did not study—I didn't study the mechanism. All I report is scientific fact. I observe a half dozen or more red little tiny ball anchor on the fabric.
But you're not expressing any scientific opinion on whether those balls appeared there as a result of someone who had the socks on, taking them off, or whether they appeared there because of some other reason?
No. I'm not offering any opinion. Only opinion I can offer is somehow the wet blood has to get transfer, that, and also very limited amount.
Now, how big is the spot you were talking about seeing on side 3? Let me step back for a minute. Whatever you saw, you don't know whether or not it was even blood because it was never tested to see if it was blood; is that correct?
And so it's also correct that—Strike that. On side 1 of the sock at the ankle there was a test of certain of the blood that was there, and that was found by Mr. Sims to be Nicole Brown's blood?
Would it be fair to say that on side 3 we not only don't know if it was blood, but even if it was, who's it is?
Definite we don't know. Of course, you can always go back and test it and see whether or not that's blood, whose blood it is.
What I was asking, maybe not too well, on that particular sock you looked at, was there what a criminalist would call a transfer of blood on the upper portion of the sock?
Right. Okay. Was there also—was there not in addition through a transfer—what appeared to be a transfer smear on the top portion of the sock with Mr. Simpson's blood, also some of Mr. Simpson's blood found around the toe area of the sock?
Because all those areas been cut, I cannot independently verify. I have no reason to doubt DOJ—Simpson— Mr. Sims' result they found DNA match O.J. Simpson. So the DNA was found on socks.
It's page 333. (Mr. Leonard is reading from a portion of Dr. Henry Lee's videotaped deposition transcript.)
Bottom of the page. (Mr. Leonard is reading from a portion of Dr. Henry Lee's videotaped deposition transcript.)
The remainder of the answer is not responsive. But the question—excuse me, Mr. Leonard. The question was with respect to Gary Sims, do you know him to be competent, reputable scientist. His answer oh, yes, excellent scientist. His answer is not responsive to the question we asked and it wasn't previously designated.
But it's the answer and they can't just cut out an answer—part of an answer. That's not a proper way to designate.
THE COURT: Overruled. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) (Videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumed.)
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Let's talk for a moment if we could about these swatches. Would you agree with the proposition that the threshold between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy. Most importantly dry material does in fact contain some water. Proteins, for example, bind water very tenaciously. Would you agree with that same statement?
-- the following question by Mr. Goldberg. And let me—let me step back, if I might, for a minute. You participated in a book called Forensic Science Handbook with Richard Sapperstein?
And did Mr. Goldberg in a court proceeding ask you—I can repeat the question, if you want?
I think if I search my memory correctly, he misquote me. That's not my chapter. He quote somebody else's chapter.
(BY MR. GOLDBERG) Sir, do you agree with the proposition that the threshold between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy? Most importantly, dry material does in fact contain some water. Proteins, for example, bind water very tenaciously?
Yes, agree. (In the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Medvene ceased reading from the criminal trial transcript of Dr. Henry Lee.)
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Were you asked that question, sir, and did you give that answer to the best of your knowledge on Monday, August 28, 1995?
I vaguely remember the question. However, if you—I did not review the transcript, but read— continues. The following—more questions, I think I said that's not my chapter also. I agree, as I just indicated, with the majority.
Would you agree, sir—and again, I quote: (During the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Medvene read a portion of the criminal trial transcript, with examination by Mr. Goldberg.)
(BY MR. GOLDBERG) The water content of dried material is in equilibrium with the fractional saturation of water vapor in the surrounding atmosphere, that is the relative humidity. Thus, for example, blood drying on equilibrium in air at 25 percent relative humidity may contain about 5 percent of its total weight in water.
May, yes. (In the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Medvene ceased reading from the criminal trial transcript of Dr. Henry Lee.)
All right. Would you agree, sir, that if the swatches were dried at 75 percent relative humidity, that the percentage of water that might remain in the swatches, a reasonable estimate would be about 20 percent?
Just a few more, sir. Is it true that the bottom line, so to speak, is that after something is drying it still has to have water in it?
And would you also agree, Dr. Lee, that there are a lot of variables in determining how long it would take something to dry?
And that the amount of time it would require for a blood stain to dry is dependent upon various factors such as weather conditions, temperature, air movement, humidity, size, depth of stain or blood pool, and the nature of the surface upon which the blood is shed?
And lastly, Doctor, is it true the reason material such as this was put in a treatise that you were involved with was to get across to the forensic science students to be careful because it's hard to figure out how long something's going to take to dry even in the laboratory?
That's one point. Another point is to let the student know when they collect the evidence, preserve the evidence, to be very careful, make sure it's dry. If it's wet, you should document it's wet.
Well, in terms of what was wrong, what you're saying is that there were—if they were completely dry, there was a wet transfer?
Isn't it true, initially, that Gary Sims reported this in his notes, I believe, prior to the time you made your observations?
I'm not saying that you saw his observations. But at a point in time prior to the time that you saw the bindles, he reported in his notes that there were these wet transfers, both on this bindle and on a few other bindles?
But isn't it true that you're knowledgeable that he did put that in his notes of his observations?
I see. But I guess where we are, to your knowledge, to give him credit, if that's the appropriate word, he did report the transfer prior to the time that you reported it; isn't that true?
You're aware, are you not, that Mr. Sims also found the transfer and reported it in writing?
No. He documented in his note. That's one thing. You report it in your writing, like my report—laboratory report. I noticed wet transfer, that's in report. Report it in writing.
He did not report. He document in his notes. I don't—I did not watch his testimony. If he testifies, say I observe this wet transfer, then he report in his testimony. I did not read his laboratory report. In other words—I assume he issued a lab report. If he said, Item 47, I found wet transfer, that's called report in writing.
Somebody can say, well, I observed, but I kept in my mind. You still say somebody observed. Do you see what I mean?
I know that. Of course I know that. I read the notes. This morning, you show me the note again. Yesterday, Mr. Baker showed me the note. Of course I know the note.
All right. Isn't it true also, to your knowledge, that there were—there was another bindle, I believe, bindle 42 --
-- this is something that, and I—right, it should not have occurred if the swatches were completely dried when they were taken from the test tube and put in the bindle?
But—and the way—strike that. The ordinary procedure is to transfer the swatches once they're dry?
So here, once again, there's someone apparently thinking the swatches are dry when they weren't because they have the transfer in bindle 42?
And bindle 42, to the best of your knowledge, when it was analyzed, was Nicole Brown's blood?
And there is no question that—strike that. There is no reason that you would know of why somebody would try to plant Nicole Brown's blood on a particular swatch since she was the victim of this murder; isn't that right?
How do I know. There are so many people, so many things happen. This is not a fair question to ask me.
In the past we have had some law enforcement officers plant evidence for no reason.
KEY QUOTEBut you have no scientific evidence to support any statement that in this case a law enforcement officer—
I see the wet transfer and didn't matter whatever way you cut it, something wrong, either in that document or that drawing, they just did not meet the standard.
KEY QUOTE-- is that, by all means, you're not saying you have any scientific fact to show that any LA police officer planted or did anything, cheating, with any evidence?
Now, in connection with your testimony here the last couple days, what did you do to prepare yourself for the testimony?
When you say—When you say not much, did you have any meetings with any of the attorneys for Mr. Simpson or with Mr. Sheck?
I just got back from China, Taiwan and Japan, as you probably know, so unless they show up in other country, not much. The day before the testimony I met previously with Mr. Baker—attorney Baker and Mr. Sheck, told about what time to start.
When you say you met briefly, when was it that you met with them, was that—your testimony was on—starting on Saturday?
By all means, no, I have no independent knowledge. I only report scientific fact.
In the past we have had some law enforcement officers plant evidence for no reason.
I see the wet transfer and didn't matter whatever way you cut it, something wrong, either in that document or that drawing, they just did not meet the standard.
My conclusion with all those evidence I observed, those are consistent with bloody imprint evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
He has so many. But to one of them? One of them. Too many of them.