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.
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, 1994?
The first contact through attorney Robert Shapiro. I receive a phone call on June 14, I think, request my assistance in review some documents.
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?
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 criminal.
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 crime.
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 reconstruct.
KEY QUOTENow, 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.
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?
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.
Go ahead, Doctor. Please explain the second step of preservation, documentation and collection, and give us examples, if you can.
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.
Doctor, in hairs, they are not as -- as fingerprints, they do not individualize; is that correct?
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.
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 evidence?
And I'm going to ask to you do a demonstration. Let's demonstrate, if you can, are there various different kinds of blood stains?
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.
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 paper.
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 --
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?
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 not?
And it filters to get to some of our extremities through little minor veins or arterial systems called capillaries true?
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?
The blood pressure in the arterial system is higher than the blood pressure in the venous system?
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?
It's a contrast, the venous the flow rate is much lower; it's about 160 millimeter per second.
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?
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 --
Put it down. 'Cause I don't want it to run. Let me just write "low velocity blood drop" on there, please. Okay.
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.
So, Doctor, as a general rule, in a low velocity blood drop, the larger the drop the higher the source of the bleeding is?
Would you explain what terminal velocity would do to a blood drop, what you're talking about?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
And can that be done in two ways; an actual measurement or placing a ruler beside the blood drop when a photograph is taken?
Ideally we do a measurement and when document we should then -- we should photograph without the ruler, second one with a ruler.
Now, Doctor, in this case, in the photographs you saw of the crime scene, did you see a ruler next to a blood drop?
Your Honor, with the Court's permission, we'll put that board up so the jury can see it better.
Okay. (Tape is paused.) (Counsel displayed board.)
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal 1341. Civil 1342. (Exhibit 1342 displayed.) (Tape resumes.)
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.
And there was no picture showing you whether or not there were blood smears above that level; is that correct?
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).
KEY QUOTEThis 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.
Is the pattern depicted in photo 119, is that consistent with a blood source being upright?
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.
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 criminalist?
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.
KEY QUOTENow, Doctor, in addition to the leaves, in addition to the depression, is there also a beeper in that area?
Could be, because difficult to -- this is a two-dimensional picture; very difficult to tell.
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?
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?
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?
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.
All right. Now, Doctor, to your knowledge, were any of those blood drops ever recorded or measured?
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.
It indicates this has to be dropped, a key dropped in one location, subsequently beeper dropped in a second different location.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
All right. Now, Doctor, the lower right-hand photograph, that is a photograph of what, to your knowledge?
All right. And what is the significance of the photograph, from a criminalist standpoint, in the lower right-hand photograph?
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 blood.
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?
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.
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?
Certain position, they -- these are up in the air or down on the ground -- expose that surface.
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?
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.
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?
Very difficult to have this position, because a lot of vegetation covers, so that drop to get there, more likely higher to that.
Okay. Now, I want to go back just a for a moment, because I missed it in the middle picture on the upper.
Yes. Does the tag inhibit you from determining what kind of blood pattern exists in that photograph? (Indicating to center top row.)
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?
I have another picture without a tag, although it's not as close as this one, but I can give us some preliminary indication.
Yeah. This photograph actually is a closer-up photograph for this one. Central left, you have some smear pattern and multiple deposit pattern.
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?
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?
I cannot determine exact time of the struggle, but not a very short one. Mr. Goldman did fight, put a big fight.
KEY QUOTENow, Doctor, I have marked the blood-spatter demonstration exhibits 4 through 14; is that correct?
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?
I cannot determine exact time of the struggle, but not a very short one. Mr. Goldman did fight, put a big fight.
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.
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.
In 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.
No picture indicates to me, no record shows me whether or not anything above.