I graduated University of Pittsburgh with a baccalaureate degree in biology. I took education courses at night but I do not have my teaching certificate.
After leaving the university, I was a research assistant at two medical centers; at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and then Emery University School of Medicine. Neither of these jobs had anything to do with forensics or criminalistics. They were scientific in nature. In 1965, I became a criminalist in the Pittsburgh and Allegheny crime laboratory. While at that laboratory, I worked in the trace evidence and serology sections; serology having to do with body fluids such as blood, semen, et cetera. And was on the crime lab mobile unit which processed major crime scenes in the County of Allegheny. In 1971 I became the founding director of the regional crime laboratory for northwest Missouri and eastern Kansas. This laboratory was funded in great part by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and I served under then Chief Clarence M. Kelly prior to him becoming director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1976 I moved to California and became the chief of the Ventura sheriff's crime laboratory. In 1980 I left government service and became a private consultant.
Yes. I've taught at the University of Pittsburgh graduate school of chemistry, I taught forensic chemistry, which was a graduate program that led to a Master's Degree in forensic chemistry. I've also taught at Southern Police Institute as a visiting instructor for their homicide and sex crimes schools. I lectured at police academies in the jurisdictions where I worked; Pennsylvania, Missouri, Kansas and California. I taught criminalistics, one course at Central Missouri State University in Missouri while I was there. And I guest lectured at California State L.
Well, I'm the co-author of the Crime Scene Search Physical Evidence Handbook which was published by the University -- Department of Justice. I have written the chapter on criminalistics for local government police administration textbook. I've co-authored chapters in the Legal Medicine Annual, which was a hardcopy put out back in the 70's. I've published papers in the Journal of Forensic Science the Association of an Official Analytical Chemist Journal and several monographs with my lectures have been put out for seminars.
Have you qualified as an expert and testified in various jurisdictions throughout the United States?
Well, in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Utah, Idaho, California, Kansas -- or Kansas, Missouri, Utah, Oregon, Washington State. Basically in some of those instances numerous times and sometimes only once.
Were you, with respect to this matter, requested to look at a particular ankle stain on a sock that had been identified as a sock of Mr. O.J. Simpson's that was found at the foot of his bed on June 13, 1994?
Could you briefly tell us with respect to your assignment, what of your past history and experience deals with the kind of assignment that you undertook?
Well, the assignment had to do with a blood stain and some observations made by Herbert MacDonell and Henry Lee. From the time I started in the laboratory in 1965, I was running blood tests, which just by their nature I had to look at blood samples, thousands of blood samples, both macroscopically, that's with the naked eye, or through a microscope. I also, in our crime scene processing -- as a matter of normal processing, we would document the scene, which would include any blood that was found at the scene. Whether it be pooled blood, blood spattered blood, it moved through the air and struck an object, or blood that was on an object due to contact. For example, a bloody palm print or hand print, if someone touched an object. So all of these areas were actually part of routine testing and examination back in 1965, when I started. In subsequent times, I have actually tried to reproduce blood flight and blood stains when there was a particular question. I've shot guns into makeshift objects with blood in them; I've kicked blood, stepped in blood, and objects -- hit objects with baseball bats, not just capriciously, but to try to reproduce a pattern to see whether it fit the reasoning that I had given to how something happened. Then I try to make it happen to show whether I was correct or not.
Well, I was given testimony by Dr. Lee and Herbert MacDonell, which talked about some little balls of blood that was found on the subject's sock, specifically in what was called wall 3 of the sock. And this would have to do with, if you look at the sock, one outside layer of the sock would be wall 1.
Would it be possible to stand up, because it's confusing sometimes, with 1, 2, and 3, and just show with your hand?
If we just designate either outside of my sock as wall 1, we can then discuss the inside of that same fabric as Wall 2 of the sock. And then we can move to the next inner layer opposite that, and call it wall 3, and the outer layer and call it wall 4. I know you've had that testimony already, so that I'm going to be using the same designations, hopefully, so I don't have to dance again when we discuss the sock. So that -- I understood what they said they observed on wall 3. I also understood that one of the mechanisms that was suggested was that the blood could have been planted on the sock, that it was added to the sock at some time when no one was wearing the sock, and the sock may be laying, for example, flat someplace, and a drop of blood added to wall 1, which would have subsequently soaked through to Wall 2 and caused these little balls -- these microscopic balls to appear on wall -- to appear on wall 3. So my assignment was to look at this and see whether there were other mechanisms that I was able to ascertain could have done the same thing. In other words, are we stuck with one explanation, or are there others?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, before we get into what you did, sir, was any portion of your assignment to examine what has been identified in this trial as Mr. Simpson's blood, that's on the same sock, was found on the upper part of the sock and in the toe area?
No. I was basically -- I was specifically looking at this one problem that had arisen, for the purposes that I've explained.
While I believe you've answered it, but just for the record, was any part of your assignment to look at the other sock with respect to what's previously been identified as Ms. Nicole Brown's blood found on the ankle area of the other side?
Now, in terms of the alternative explanations, before we get to your experiment, do you agree with Mr. MacDonell, when he talked about presumptive testing, and that is a possible explanation of how blood innocently could have gotten onto wall 3?
If after the sock was in the laboratory environment, a criminalist were to be testing wall 1 or Wall 2 area, for example, with a swab or a Q-Tip that had liquid on it, mostly distilled water, and if any of that distilled water was in sufficient amount to go through the layer of sock, it could cause the blood already dried on the sock to hydrate, to get wet, to get gummy, and then a microscopic -- we're talking about a very, very small amount -- could transfer while in a wet condition, or at least in a gummy, damp condition, to wall 3. In my opinion, this is a mechanism which, you know, could explain what I understand they observed.
Mr. MacDonell was also questioned about the possibility of one perspiring in the course of an act, or even possibly a violent act, and the effect of perspiration on the blood being a possible source of what was seen on wall 3. Is that a possibility, in your opinion?
If there was a combination of blood on wall 1 and 2 of the sock, over some period of time, one would expect it to dry. However, if at the same time it was being mixed with perspiration, then, as long as the perspiration and the blood were wet, and if the perspiration were to continue, preventing the blood from drying, then when the socks were taken off, there could be a transfer of wet blood from the Wall 2 area to the wall 3 area, simply because it was kept hydrated. From the idea of presumptive testing, adding water is a reasonable mechanism, then perspiring, adding water, would be another possible mechanism to discuss.
Now, in addition to those mechanisms, are there other mechanisms, based on your experience and training, that may well have occurred in this case?
I object, Your Honor. I'd like to lay a foundation of his dealing with socks and blood on sides 1, 2, and 3.
If anyone had blood on their hands -- for example, if they were cut and were bleeding -- then if they touched wall 3, they could transfer blood to wall 3. This would be coincidental with blood on wall 1 and 2.
Taking it off, handling it in any way. If an individual had blood, not necessarily their own on their hands, and this blood was tacky -- it doesn't have to be wet, like it's running -- and they touched the sock while they had this wet or tacky blood on their hands, it could account for the blood on wall 3. If an individual had other clothing that was soaked with blood or had blood in it that hadn't dried yet, they could handle that clothing, then handle the sock, and in the same manner, transfer blood to wall 3. And if an individual had wet blood on some other object of clothing, and the sock was taken off and then just touched incidentally to a part of the clothing that had blood, that could cause the transfer of blood to wall 3.
In your opinion, can you tell us whether or not a possible mechanism would have anything to do with a criminalist cutting a hole in wall 1 and 2?
I'm going to object, Your Honor. I'm going to object. This was not in his deposition, Your Honor.
If the sock had a blood stain that was on wall 1, soaked through to Wall 2, and no blood whatsoever on wall 3, if someone were to cut -- and this is now dry; this is in a laboratory environment -- when someone would cut segments of the blood stain out, that would mean wall 1 and 2, that the mere physical cutting could easily -- and I would -- what I would expect to have dislodged the crust of blood from Wall 2 while the cutting procedure is going on, falling by gravity from the laying on a bench, and wall 3 is under Wall 2, just by gravity, falling to wall 3. So in cutting out a blood stain, this is a mechanism that might explain how blood would and could get onto wall 3.
We'll place on the TV monitor 716, what's been marked number 11 from roll 609. Do you have a blow-up? Let me show you first on the TV monitor what that is. And do you have a blow-up of that? (The instrument herein referred to as 10 page document with one photograph per page was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 716.)
Yes. I actually, with the exception of one photograph, have blow-ups that matches the photos I gave you. And I do have a blow-up of that particular photograph.
Correct. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 1 of plaintiff's exhibit 716 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2393.)
(BY MR. MEDVENE) All right. Sir, I had asked you if you had performed any experiment of any kind. And do you recognize that photo?
The evidence that was brought to my laboratory, namely, these socks. The photograph shows some of the packaging material that came with it. And then I just laid the socks on some clean, white paper, and took a photograph, to just show those are the socks.
Is it your understanding those were Mr. Simpson's socks found at the foot of his bed on June 13, 1994?
Two people were present at the beginning: A criminalist by the name of Mary Pierce, and a criminalist by the name of John Riegal.
Mary Pierce was the woman in charge of bringing the evidence to my laboratory, maintaining the custody of the evidence, and also observing my handling of the evidence. And she had the right, if she thought I was doing anything that wasn't correct, to stop me at any time.
Mr. Riegal was working for the defense in this case, and he's the former director of the Orange County Crime Laboratory.
All right, sir. Let me place on the TV, 716 number 12, if I might, which comes from roll 609.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) And if you would be good enough -- do you have a blow-up of that? Could we put that on the board, please -- on the TV screen. (Exhibit is displayed. Do you have a blow-up of that?
Can you mark that 2394. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 2 of plaintiff's exhibit 716 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2394.) (Witness places exhibit number on back of Exhibit 2394.)
Is this one of the socks that we just looked at, and the ankle stain on that particular sock?
Yes. You can see the sock; you can see a marking with the white arrow that would be written on what would be side 1, wall 1, as you look through the hole with the cut-out.
You're not going to see it with the naked eye; you have to see it microscopically. But it's a -- you know, it's very difficult to see, even with the photograph and the light.
The area would be around the outside of the sock. And you'll see in a minute that I removed a piece.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Okay. Now, what did you -- what experiment did you have in mind? And then tell us what you did.
Well, I wanted to be able to see or demonstrate that if you have -- if you had a wall 1 area with blood on it --
And we're talking about the wall 1 area with blood on it. You told us a moment ago this wall 1 and 2 was cut out, so we're talking about some -- this so-called halo, or peripheral area?
If I cut a piece of that stain out, I want to be able to demonstrate, just by cutting a piece out, where the blood, in a form of both flakes and ball-like blood, would fall to wall 3. And so I did so.
I'm going to ask it to -- we put on the board 716, what's marked C, or -- excuse me. 716, number 17. And if you have a blow-up of that, I'd ask if you would mark that 2395.
I've done so. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 3 of plaintiff's exhibit 716, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2395.) (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2395 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
I took my scissors and I cut a rectangle out of wall 1 and removed it from the sock. And that just shows a photograph of the piece that I cut out.
It was part of 716 Your Honor, 716, or a series of photos. And we're marking certain of them. And the ones we're marking, we also have blow-ups that we're giving alternative markings.
For example, then, on the first one of the two socks, the number is 11 on the back. And I could do it at the recess, if you want, and it's from roll 609.
The second one, 2394, which is the photo of the cut-out portion of the sock, on the back, there's a number 12.
The third one -- the third one, which we're marking 2395, is number 17 on the back. And that's from roll 604.
Oh I see. Okay. I see what confused you. I apologize. There's certain ones we've taken out. The third exhibit, that we're going to call 2395, is number 15.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you show us, sir -- I've put back up 2394, which was the sock that you originally given with the cut-out that was already there, and the cut-out that you just identified, that we marked as 2395, that he had that little picture of -- could you point out where on that sock you cut that out from?
Yes. In fact, I cut it out in the area I'm pointing to (indicating), and I laid it up on the sock so you could see the cut-out adjacent to the area that it was cut out of. So if you look close, you may not have noticed earlier, but that rectangular piece is sitting on top of the sock, and it came from that area that I've just circled with my pen. (Indicating.)
Now, after the -- after you cut out that piece, what did you next do as part of the experiment you were trying to do to see if there was an alternative mechanism to explain, in effect, what Mr. MacDonell saw on wall 3?
I microscopically examined wall 3. I had looked at wall 3 earlier and found some blood present on wall 3 at the time I examined it.
When you say you found some blood, in other words, in the place where Mr. MacDonell testified he saw these blood drops -- Dr. Lee, you saw no blood?
I object, Your Honor. They said they saw them right in the center of the cut-out area, not over in the halo area. That question --
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you describe for us where you looked and what you saw before you did your experiment?
Yes. I examined the entire area of wall 3 that would be circumscribed by the cut-out, and found no evidence at that time of any blood on wall 3.
KEY QUOTENow, what possible explanation is there, in terms of your background and expertise, in terms of why you did not see it?
Well, I'm assuming it was there; therefore, it's been removed. It might have fallen off. I really don't know. I mean, it's not there when I look, and I can't attest to some prior handling of this garment.
Now, can you then tell us what you did as part of your experiment -- you told us you cut off that piece -- and then what did you do?
I then reexamined wall 3, the area that would have been opened, and under where I did my cutting, and I found that there were numerous flakes, or what we call crusts of blood present. Some of them were spherical; some of them were crusts -- crusty, as opposed to being round, polished looking. They were more like the -- like corn flakes. That is not uncommon when blood gets broken up and dries. You have spheres; you also have flakes, if you will. And I also found that there were bits of fiber with blood on them that had also fallen when I cut, that were present on wall 3. So I took some photographs to illustrate what I was looking at through the microscope.
KEY QUOTEI would ask to put up on the TV monitor next, three photos. One, that 716 on the back, you'll see 1-A, and that's from roll 608. And would you mark that, please, 2396. Would you mark your blow-up.
I've done so. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 4 of plaintiff's exhibit 716, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2396.)
Next, 716 on the back is 11-A; that's from roll 608. And would you mark that, please, 2397. That's your blow-up. And the third is 16-A from 716. Would you mark that 2398.
2397 and 98. I've done so. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 5 of plaintiff's exhibit 716, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2397.) (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of page 6 of plaintiff's exhibit 716, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2398.)
Right. Would you put up on the TV screen, please, the 716 1-A, which is also 2396.
The photograph is specifically focusing in on several flakes of blood, but one in particular, which is rounded and is sitting in an area of some fibers. It almost has an arch at some point in time. It was on a thread. And then when it was cut, it broke off and fell to wall 3. There also are some little blood flakes, but flakes -- but this is, in particular the larger one, that was focusing in on, this was taken through a microscope with a camera, to show -- try to show the type of rounded, spherical, polished blood flake that fell to -- to wall 3.
Now, while that's happening, could you put up, please, the next photo. (Exhibit 2397 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Once again, looking at wall 3, there are rounded blood particles that can be seen in various locations, and there's a fiber, not a thread, but a fiber, that has blood on it, that appears to be part of -- a lengthy part of the wall of the sock. But, in fact, upon manipulation, you could find that it was just a small segment that was not part of wall 3. But I had to manipulate it to see that it wasn't. Under the microscope, it looks like it's part of wall 3. It's kind of intertwined with some of the other fibrils basically showing once again, that blood that, at least in my opinion, can be described as spherical, rounded and some flakes on wall 3 after the cutting.
Let's go, if we could to the third photo of this series, which we've marked 16-A -- it's 16-A on the back of 716. And we've also marked the enlargement 2398. We now have 16-A on the monitor. You have 2398?
It's the same photograph that we've seen before, except where -- or it's the same area, except it's under higher magnification. What happens under higher magnification, it's less distinct, but it's an attempt to show the threads or fiber that bridges across, and to show that by photograph. And then I have to tell you, by looking into the microscope, unless I manipulated it, I wouldn't be able to be certain whether it was a loose fiber or a part of wall 3. And the blow-up is the same. It's really not as good visually.
With the Court's permission . . . (Mr. Medvene hands Exhibit 2398 to the jury for their review.)
Now, we're about to go to a new area. If this is a convenient time, or we can keep going --
Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
Quiet in the audience, please; the Judge is still on the bench. Quiet. Or you can go out to your break.
Okay. The Court has received fax notification from the Court of Appeals that the defendant's issue for Writ of Mandate or Prohibition with regard to testimony of Richards and Bodziak regarding Flammer's photographs has been denied.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) On August 14, you told us, in your lab, under the eyes of the monitor and the defense criminologist, you did certain things. Did you make another cutting on August 14th for purposes of doing another experiment?
Take off my sock?
I've shot guns into makeshift objects with blood in them; I've kicked blood, stepped in blood, and objects -- hit objects with baseball bats, not just capriciously, but to try to reproduce a pattern to see whether it fit the reasoning that I had given to how something happened.
I examined the entire area of wall 3 that would be circumscribed by the cut-out, and found no evidence at that time of any blood on wall 3.
I then reexamined wall 3, the area that would have been opened, and under where I did my cutting, and I found that there were numerous flakes, or what we call crusts of blood present. Some of them were spherical; some of them were crusts -- crusty, as opposed to being round, polished looking. They were more like the -- like corn flakes.