Yes, I was allowed into the lab into the conference room. No other location but the conference room.
Could you bring the socks into focus with that microscope that was provided you by the LAPD?
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.
KEY QUOTENow, 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 thereabouts?
And the external lighting source, I don't even have a good light source to illuminate, to see anything.
How many holes were in the socks when you ultimately were able to at least see them with the naked eye?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 it?
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.
I made a request. I said, "These socks has to be examined under ideal lighting condition with a proper instrument."
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?
And the items are determined at the crime scene by the detectives or criminologists as they gather evidence?
All right. In the overall view we have in the upper-hand corner is where Item No. 47, also known as No. 112 --
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.
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.
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.)
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."
Made some little, drew it. I counted, those drawing consisted of eight little diagrams, picturegram, eight.
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.
All right. I want you to assume that those little diagrams, triangles and rectangles, are in fact a picture depiction of swatches.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Now, Doctor, on August 12, 1994, the swatches were received at the Department of Justice State of California Laboratory, correct?
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 --
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.
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.
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 47?
Much later I was given the privilege to see that piece of note because they are initially whether or not I introduced those transfer.
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?
Now, Doctor, tell us the significance of the photos that you've got in Item -- I think it's 1361.
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.
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 displayed..)
That's not the right one. That's not the right board. (Videotape deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumes.)
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?
All right. Did you at any time attempt to line up the swatches, the seven swatches, with the wet transfer areas?
And do the seven swatches match up with the four areas of wet transfer in the bindle of Item 47?
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.
Is that -- the second one from the right, is that the consistent with the mirror image of 1 and 4?
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 4.
Has to be folding in certain way. One side of paper folding to other side of paper. So both side have a transfer.
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?
Now, in terms of the other two areas of wet transfer, which of the swatches, if any, would produce those particular wet transfer areas?
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.
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.
Now, if, in fact, the swatches were dry on June 14, 1994 when they were removed from the test tube, after drying overnight --
-- somebody would have had to introduce blood into those swatches in order for there to be a wet transfer, correct?
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.
KEY QUOTENow, 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?
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.
Now, if -- what did -- does the fact that there was wet transfer in, at a minimum, three of the seven swatches indicate to you?
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.
Do you recall any other new things that you could -- (Videotape halted.)
MR. P. BAKER: The last question by Mr. Baker was withdrawn.
The question is, is there anything wrong with the crime lab is withdrawn. Because there's no answer to it.
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 right?
(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 --
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.
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 --
Actually, that's the one that was erroneous to skip that.
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.
Hold on. Criminal 1341 -- can you go back there, please.
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal 1341.
Yes, Phil. I have Civil 1342. Okay. Thank you.
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal 1357, Civil 1366; Criminal 1351, Civil 1360.
Okay.
MR. P. BAKER: There were a few more mentioned. I'll add the rest following the conclusion.
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.
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.)
Dr. Lee, when you were called into the crime scene, the crime scene was almost nonexistent; isn't that true?
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.
Well, not only that day, Dr. Lee, but in this case, you did not perform a crime-scene reconstruction; isn't that true?
Okay. So the answer would be, you did not perform the crime-scene total reconstruction; is that correct?
-- 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.
Now, from that day forward to this day, you have not done a complete crime-scene reconstruction, have you?
Now, there's also a term that is used in your profession, a complete investigation; is that true?
And you did not perform a complete investigation, through this date; is that correct, also?
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?
Dr. Lee, you didn't, in this case, for example, examine the accuracy of any of the DNA testing; is that correct?
Yes. DNA examination, I did review some of the result. I did not go there watching what the DNA test --
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?
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?
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?
(BY MR. MEDVENE) And, Dr. Lee, in like fashion -- and by the way, you consider yourself an expert in DNA analysis; is that correct?
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?
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 opinion.
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?
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?
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?
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 true?
That's 99 percent true. I do have some question relate to their result, but I never testify on those issues.
KEY QUOTEWell, is there -- you say it's 99 percent true, what I said. What's the other one percent that's not true?
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.
Now, in terms, Dr. Lee, of trace evidence, by trace evidence you referred yesterday to things often that are small, minute particles?
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?
And you've lectured on this topic and talked about, I think what you've coined, a four-way linkage theory?
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.
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 --
-- and see what of that physical evidence at the crime scene is traceable either to the victim or to the alleged suspect?
It's excellent, but not totally correct, which means that, let's say, crime scene have some trace-evidence fabric --
-- 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 --
(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.
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?
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.
So we would look at Mr. Baker had that hair alone, and might want to look at what other physical --
Evidence or whether or not in this room have abundant long, blond hair, each of us all have long, blond hair.
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?
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.
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.
If he can't adequately explain it that, it's a totally -- another which makes you suspicious of the alleged assailant?
Now, in terms of the material that you look at to make this analysis, I think we mentioned -- we mentioned hairs, we mentioned fibers?
Why are hairs and fibers helpful to someone experienced, such as yourself, in telling whether or not one might be implicated in an event?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 time?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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
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 --
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.
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 house?
Now, say what we had was -- say we thought that the assailant left a particular crime scene.
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?
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 ourself.
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.
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?
Because there's not an adequate explanation, it tends to look like that person is the assailant?
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?
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.
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?
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.
I should have objected to these. I object to 257 and 286. These are outside the scope. They have no probative value to anything.
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.
257 to 286. These questions don't have any relevance to anything -- any examination. He didn't --
Wait, if Your Honor please, Your Honor, it's -- I'd suggest that it's -- it's relevant if the hairs were from the --
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.
No. But they were available to him to examine them, Your Honor, and he's a hair examiner. He told --
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 286. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)
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?
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?
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 correct?
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?
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?
Nobody can reproduce that kind of an experiment. Nobody can. Each crime scene is different.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
KEY QUOTESo 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 statement?
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 --
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.
But can you see the blood spot on the envelope clearly? We can put -- will you be good enough to put a circle --
Well, you have to -- if you asking me look at a photograph, I have to look everything. I cannot just say see one thing.
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 photo.
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. (Pause.)
Yes (indicating to Elmo screen).
THE COURT REPORTER: Does this have an exhibit number?
Yes, and you're representing that original photo is 109 that you're showing him presently?
So you don't know whether that flower blew off or not, but you want to point it out. That's fine.
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?
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?
Again, does that show the two spots on the left-hand side of the envelope that we've been talking about?
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.)
(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?
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.
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 --
Now, what we're looking at on what we have marked here, I have a yellow tag that says "209."
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.)
-- it does appear that a pair of glasses could certainly fit within an envelope even if that crease was there?
Yes. (The instruments herein described as two photographs of envelope and blood drops were marked for identification as Exhibit No. 718.)
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.)
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.
That's 99 percent true. I do have some question relate to their result, but I never testify on those issues.
If, in fact, was dried, complete drying in swatch has to be somehow rewetted.
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.
Mrs. Baker may accuse Mr. Baker of extracurricular activity when he is visiting Connecticut.