The significance -- (Pause in videotape.)
MR. P. BAKER: Want to take a break now or just go get a board?
THE COURT: Take five minutes. Don't talk about the case, ladies and gentlemen. Don't form or express any opinion. (Recess.) ( JURORs resume their respective seats.)
The board on this one is missing from the back. I don't know where. (Videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee continues.)
The significance of this board in the middle shows a diagram, and the periphery area, a variety of photographs. Those photographs appear to be first generation of photograph, in much better quality than the photograph provided to me. The first photograph I can see more blood-stain pattern in the back fence, also besides the area, a pointed -- the wooden post, direct on top of the post in between the leaves, have an exposed area, reddish, blood-like stain, also observed on this post. So as far as the height of those blood-stain pattern never established. So exactly how high those blood-stain deposit, I have no knowledge and cannot reconstruct at this point of time. In addition, I see more green, fresh, look like leaves of vegetation on the ground.
Which it's sign indicative some force has to be applied, the leaves start falling down. As for those keys and the second, third, basically shows the same thing as it depicts in the previous photograph I testified here, consists of multiple deposit contact is here and with one drop. The next frame, a set of key was noticed. And I can see some vegetative material was in the form of -- bended, especially this piece.
The next one depicts Ron Goldman's shoes and -- however, with this photo, I can see the blood spatter under his sole is much clearer. In addition, there is additional blood spatter moving from the left to right, horizontal direction. It's inconsistent with this major spatter.
On the left-hand side, we can see the beeper and a dry leaf with vertical drop of a blood on top of a leaf. In addition, there are blood stains consistent with blood drops in this periphery area.
The next frame shows this depression area and this elongated depression area, with some blood-like stain in the foreground. This photograph --
Let me ask you to back up. Have we seen the blood stains in the foreground of picture -- the second one from the top, before?
That's a new blood stain that heretofore we have not seen in any of the photographs displayed?
The next one, we see a distance, small distance away from post number 5, additional blood stain, medium velocity type of spatter on that post, which we never see before. So basically, I'll summarize what this board depicts.
Yes. This is a photograph taken from opposite neighbor's yard and appears to be Ron Goldman's body still in the foreground, and shows large amount of blood stain, like a spatter-like material on the fence and on the cement.
Is there also on the inside, that is, in the closed-in area, blood, and blood on the outside of the closed-in area?
And the next one shows the same post again, next the door. It shows this post. That's not a flat surface.
Now, Doctor, I just want to direct your attention and have you look into the area of where there is different colored footprints.
Will you keep that in mind, or I'll bring it back to you. And I'm going to ask you subsequently if that depicts all of the footprints, especially in the closed-in area and the area just below the steps where the body of Nicole Brown Simpson was found?
Now, let me put another board here in this board as numbers, 47A through I on it, and it is labeled 47. We're on top of each other here. (Indicating to wires of microphones.)
Dr. Lee, based upon your background, training, and experience as a criminalist, can you tell me what is of significance in the nine pictures. And if you will, please go one by one in 47 that you have in front of you, sir.
Start from the top left-hand corner, which basically is the same photo shows in the previous board, a variety of blood-stain deposit in different post, it is disturbance on the ground. Some green vegetated material on the ground. The photo next to -- underneath that previous one shows a close-up view, shows the blood pattern on the ground, both inside the fence and outside the fence. Also showing the dripping pattern found from up and downwards onto the ground.
All right. Doctor, Let me stop you there for a moment. Does that indicate to you, sir, that the source of the blood is from above the area that's photographed?
It's more than a drop; it's an accumulation of blood. How much blood in there, if we at the scene dig this area out, we can estimate and calculate exact amount.
No. The bottom right column appeared to be -- show a tree stump and a major pool adjacent to the left of this area, some green vegetation, soil disturbance can be seen in that photo.
All right. And, Doctor, to your knowledge, was any effort ever made to determine if that was Mr. Goldman's blood, Ms. Simpson's blood, or a perpetrator or perpetrators' blood?
The middle portion shows a view after Mr. Goldman's body has been moved. The middle column -- the middle photo again shows the fenced area exterior. Neighbor's view shows the same area with some green leaves, some blood drops, blood spatters, and blood patterns.
There are some reddish blood-like spatter on the middle portion of the first column, second column, which I never see before, and if, in fact, those are blood spatter, it's consistent with a medium velocity blood spatter.
The middle column, lower photo, basically is the same photo; they probably print twice. This is a closer area, depicts the view after Mr. Goldman's body being moved out.
All right. Now, in the upper left-hand photo, that's Mr. Goldman, and his body is still there, correct?
And can you find any imprint evidence on any part of the clothing that you can see there, sir?
This, particular photo appear to be taking one of the early, early time which Mr. Goldman's body still at the scene. On here -- on his right cuff region, it clearly a pattern, the imprint type of pattern on the surface. However, this photo was taken at a distance. It's not imprint, not the direct view. The exact pattern, I cannot report to you.
And it would be impossible for you to tell, based upon the investigation that was done at the crime scene, as to whether or not those are shoe prints, true?
In addition, in the dynamic contact pattern directly in front of his sneaker, this area with a movement, and again the size and the nature of the pattern I cannot give it -- give a more detailed description, but I do know in this region, have a clear pattern.
Besides that, I notice the disturbance of his shirt, push upwards, portion of a shirt almost cover half of his face. Large quantity of the blood on the left-hand side of his blue jean, that amount, and subsequent I want to exam the blue jean, indicates the blood source is from the up and downwards. If Mr. Goldman was lying in this position, this blood stain very difficult to produce such a pattern. More likely at one point in time he's in an upright position among a large amount of blood gushing out from the wound deposit on the side. Besides that, also I noticed quite a few green leaves on the ground.
The only thing is the bottom board, also see additional green leaves which did not show the other photos.
Doctor, we're going to put this board up and label it Defendant's 15 for this deposition. Yes, and this is a board that from pictures that I showed to you; is that not correct, sir?
All right. Now, would you please start at the top upper right, or start wherever you like, and tell us what, if any, each photo -- the significance of each photo.
The top middle depicts a top view. The photographer -- this must be the photographer's shoes, was taken from up and downwards, a top view of Ms. Nicole Simpson's body. On the step one, show a large amount of blood stain, large quantity of blood stain, which suggests this blood stain has to come from her wound, a major wound, which indicative her upper body has to be in this position before get to here. (Indicating to step and then to body.)
In addition, some blood pattern like a swipe pattern on the second step, that also relative heavy saturated blood swipe which indicative that at one point in time a surface, could be a hand or other object, with large amount of blood, touch this area, and the moving from up, from inside and outward. Over hundreds of medium velocity spatter, some are impact spatter, in this area further apart, her throat more likely was cut in this area. (Indicating to middle step.)
A piece of paper in the middle of the crime scene and an envelope adjacent to the top right of this piece of paper, numerous shoe print can be seen in this area. Just with the head of a magnifying glass I can see at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 partial shoe print-like pattern, at least 11. Some of those shoe print appear to be under the pool of blood, partially covered. Other appear to be embedded in blood which indicative those shoe prints probably more likely deposit in different point of time. Blood drop also found on her back. Blood like smear also noticed on her shoulder which indicative a motion contact exist, a surface touch her right shoulder with a motion. In addition, those blood droplets as relative interest which -- it's more likely from top downwards. Those blood stain should be collected and grouped.
Now, would the blood droplets that are on the body of Nicole Brown Simpson's back, would those -- can you tell from the photograph, were those low velocity blood drops, Doctor?
It could be. Those blood drops could be consistent with low velocity. Some are consistent with drop and subsequent floating down along her thigh other are smears and a contact patterns.
All right. Now, if those were low velocity blood drops, then somebody is above her after she is in the position that is shown in the upper right-hand photo, correct?
So we don't know whether that blood on her back is a perpetrator or perpetrators' blood, Mr. Goldman's blood or Ms. Simpson -- Nicole Brown Simpson's blood?
In addition, this photograph show me a clear shoe print on the soil surface which is a direct indication somebody have some blood on the sole and stepped into the soil leave this shoe print and also some green leaves adjacent to the envelope.
Okay. Go ahead, Doctor, is there anything significant in any of the photographs that you see?
That shoe print pointed out the direction from outside, inward, the lower portion, first picture, appear to be Detective Fuhrman pointing to something. In addition, I can see additional shoe print which we did not see on previous photograph, more blood, floating pattern, and other pattern. The middle one shows that one piece of paper, the piece of paper, a shoe next to it, that's more likely the photographer's shoes on the paper itself, saturated blood stain, blood spatter, blood drops, also pattern, blood imprint pattern.
Would you point that piece of paper out, sir, in the photograph directly above. (Witness complies.)
Yes. Yes, we can see this pattern on the right leg. Also, we can see the sole -- portion on the sole of -- some blood like stain. (Indicating to shoe of Mr. Goldman.)
Sir, is there anything else in that photo we should be made aware of in the up lower right? In the upper left you have seen a photograph like that previously, had you not?
Okay. Now, Doctor, tell us what significance there is in the photograph that you see in the upper left-hand corner?
Upper left-hand, the most important thing I see is a blood trail consist of seven drops, major drops, with some other minor drops, not formal trail, which I did not notice before.
All right. And if, in fact, that blood had been collected, could you then determine if that was one of the perpetrators or even the dog?
It's a vertical low velocity drop because the photograph provided to me cropped out, so you don't see that. Here again, where it come from, I have no idea.
Okay. (Pause in proceedings.)
MR. P. BAKER: Back on. (Whereupon a videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumed.) DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINED) BY
Yes. I'll have to look at the topograph of the surface. It's a down hill, slight incline, and from the top is higher and the gravity just --
I think we'll take a noon recess. Let's not talk about the case, form or express any opinions about the case. (At 11:50
A.M. a recess was taken Until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1997 1:41 PM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.) (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) ( JURORs resume their respective seats.)
Okay. (Whereupon, the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumed playing, Mr. Baker doing the direct examination of Dr. Lee.)
(BY MR. BAKER) All right. And in terms of the blood that would appear on the sidewalk, on the left side of that sidewalk, I'm talking about this line right there, (indicating) is that blood flow and interrupted blood flow?
In other words, before someone went through there -- someone or some thing -- is it your best judgment that that blood flow would have been there interconnected?
No. Some clearly sees the dog paw. I know it lists the -- at least the dog has to be around this area. Other patterns I cannot see clearly. I don't want to make any interpretation.
All right. Would you take your magnifying glass and look at the sidewalk, see if there are any shoe prints that you can discern in that area, sir?
There appear to be some patterns, but again, you know, this photo taken at angle from the front, and the lighting, it's not ideal; it's not direct on. I really cannot tell you exactly what kind of a shoe or what kind of shoe print.
In other words, when you take -- your photographs have to parallel to the -- in a direct up to the plane, so you can catch the whole image.
Now, do you have any knowledge about any attempt to collect any of the blood drops that you -- (Videotape stops playing.) (Pause.) (Videotape resumes playing.)
(BY MR. BAKER) Go to another board, if we may. That's Defendant's 15. Now, Doctor, this board is entitled Evidence from the Closed-in Area from Bundy. That's the evidence we've been looking at where Mr. Goldman's body was found in those pictures, correct?
All right. Now, in the upper left-hand corner, we have Mr. Goldman's boot. Would you tell us what -- from your background, what significance -- is significant in that photo?
Dark portion, the reddish portion, those are blood. The dark portion, those are soil-like material.
Also see the soil debris with certain motions, patterns on the groove area, on side of the shoes, which is consistent with kicking soil.
That depicts the heel area of the soil, still have a large amount of soil, hair, fiber, debris, caked onto the boot.
Trace evidence encompasses a large amount of type of transfer evidence. Usually, trace evidence means very small, which could be transferred from one surface to another surface when two surfaces have a contact.
Okay. And was any of that trace evidence that is depicted in the upper photograph, upper middle photograph on the sheet we have on up there -- was that analyzed, do you know?
As to my knowledge, wasn't -- I examined the shoe after they been -- after they complete the analysis.
Was there any analysis that you saw from the LAPD crime lab indicating they analyzed the trace evidence that's depicted in the photograph in the upper middle of the sheet in front of us?
They did examine some trace evidence. But whether or not the same trace evidence they examined, I have no knowledge.
Okay. Now, Doctor, in the upper right-hand photograph, we have a cut on the boot; is that correct?
This is -- when I examined this cut, I look at first, microscopically -- subsequently, microscopically, I found it's a sharp cut, it's a relative fresh cut, which indicative was produced very recently.
Is there debris or dirt or whatever you want to call it on the rest of that toe cap on that canvas shoe?
Yes, there's debris, and only small amount in this area, a cutting area, relative free of debris.
Okay. And that was -- the right side was the same area that we saw in his Levis, or his jeans, rather; that that's the back of them, his jeans, that had a pattern that you couldn't determine whether it was a shoe print or not, correct?
Okay. Now, Doctor, in terms of the -- well, let me ask you -- let me go back to the cut on the boot. Can you tell us whether that would that be consistent with Mr. Goldman trying to kick his assailant?
This cut appeared to be motion, in motion. Whether or not kicked or not kicked, as long as in motion, it's not a stationary. So if a kick is a motion, may be consistent.
Okay. Just hypothetically, if we assume an assailant has a knife in his hand and Mr. Goldman is kicking him with his right foot, or attempting to kick him with his right foot, and the knife of the assailant comes in contact with his right boot, would the cut that you see in the photograph in the upper right-hand side be consistent with that?
The significance of the photograph, a large amount of blood on the back portion of his jeans. And again, if those blood stain was originally on there, because we don't have a photograph to show me the back portion of Mr. Goldman, no photograph of scene photograph -- I really cannot say that's original, have those blood or subsequently when the body shipped to the medical examiner's office caused the deposit. But we do know the right leg of Mr. Goldman have sufficient amount of large quantity of blood when we look at the scene picture. If this blood were from original scene, which further suggests he has to be upright for amount of -- quite amount of time to get that much blood from the top downwards.
Okay. Now, Doctor, Dr. Lee, if you have a large volume of blood, like we do on the left leg of Mr. Simpson in the --
Yes, sir, much more difficult if such amount of blood covers -- covered the majority of the imprint evidence.
So you have to have a -- less than a copious amount of blood to get -- to get a pattern. And we do have less than that on the right leg; is that correct?
That's correct. Just as I demonstrate this morning, you have a small amount of blood touch the surface, you see an imprint. You have a large amount, you see a blood. If you cover with blood, you don't see any.
Okay. Now, Doctor, if we go to the middle photograph on -- lower middle photograph, can you tell us what that depicts?
That depict the front portion of the -- Mr. Goldman shirt. I notice on the shirt, this just shows a portion, have numerous stab wound, cut. In addition, I have smaller pattern, damage pattern. In addition, I found three buttons missing number 3 position, number 5, number 6.
How come you only have a picture in the next photograph of two buttons if three of them were missing?
Okay. Now, what is significant, if anything, about those broken buttons? Go ahead. I'm sorry.
They're microscopic. Examination of those number 3, number 5, number 6 position have found thread still on the fabric. I found portion of plastic from the button hole, the center, the eye portion still here in the area, which indicative those buttons was recently removed with a force.
Okay. And by the way, is the photograph over there in the lower right-hand side where you have the buttons and the center portion where the thread, if they were in tact gone through, is that what would remain in the shirt?
-- between the bottom hole disappear. That indicative has to have a force to rip off those button separate.
1343. Now, Doctor, we have seen pictures of the envelope. This was the envelope that contains some eyeglasses. We'll get into that later.
Now, on the upper left-hand corner, it appears Detective Fuhrman is pointing, and the envelope is underneath what would appear to be his right hand. Would you agree with that?
Would you also agree that the envelope would appear to have some leaves and perhaps some debris of trace evidence on it?
Yes, it's a close-up view, shows the identical position, shows depicting the left -- upper left corner.
Doctor, in your understanding of crime-scene integrity, should a piece of evidence such as an envelope be moved and replaced by detectives and/or criminalists?
Of course, when you moved for the purpose of a collection, preservation, I agree has to be moved eventually. Collect and preserve properly. Just by moving one position to another position should not do that.
Well, in fact, we can see from the photograph in item number -- strike that -- in position number 1 and position number 2, evidence was lost when it was moved; isn't that true?
There was trace evidence on the envelope in position 1 that is no longer on the envelope in position 2; is that true?
There's also something else that's on the envelope in position 2 that wasn't on the envelope in position 1; isn't that correct?
It's a blood spot. (Videotape halted.) (Exhibit 1350 displayed by Mr. Baker.)
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal Exhibit 1343, Civil 1350. (Videotape resumes playing.)
Kind of the lower right-hand corner, would you put your pointer on it. And, Dr. Lee, in the original position, that blood spot is not on the envelope, is it?
Of course, I don't have the advantage at the scene myself, to observe this envelope directly. Just based on the photograph they provide to me, I cannot explain this large drop which wasn't present at the previous one. And other debris been changed, leaf been changed. So, it's inconsistent with just a photographic imperfection or so-called bouncing light effect. It cannot be explained because if bouncing light, we should see everything bleached out, not just one type, little, tiny drop.
And if we had a rebounding phenomenon in photography, we should have the whole area of blood drops eliminated, not just one, correct?
Especially that two smaller one in -- actually, that's three smaller one in that area should disappear first.
Now, Dr. Lee, the photograph in the upper left-hand corner is taken before there was any blanket put in that area. Would it so appear?
If all the major physical evidence been collected, are really collected, secured, then this blanket issue would not be a major issue. If the evidence wasn't collected, having finished the documentation, preservation, then the blanket could contaminate the scene.
Now, if there had been collection and documentation and preservation of the evidence -- one of the pieces of evidence that has been noted in this case is in fact the envelope, correct?
And that envelope has not been collected, it has been moved but not collected, isn't it true when the blanket's placed down, that blanket can contaminate the scene with all sorts of trace evidence, can it not?
Hard to say. Depends. A new blanket, old blanket, how many times used, general hair, fabric, trace material.
So you were not able to use any chemicals to enhance the lens to determine whether or not there were any fingerprints on that particular --
I'm sorry, I meant latent fingerprints. Thank you. You don't know if there were any latent prints on it at all, correct?
Do you know whether or not the LAPD crime lab ever took -- attempted to take any? (Tape halted.) (Tape played.) (Board entitled evidence found eyeglasses/envelope evidence found at Albany Medical Center, is displayed for jury)
When I examined the envelope, eyeglasses, obviously somebody already got into the envelope.
Would that be indicative or -- strike that. Would that be consistent with blood in the envelope and somebody attempting to get inside the envelope at the crime scene?
I don't know. It could be people in the laboratory examine glass and those blood crusts fall into. Could be somebody handled this envelope, still had -- the blood still wet, got some transfer. Any possible reason.
Dr. Lee, in terms of good laboratory practices, it wouldn't be a good laboratory practice to handle the envelope when the blood was still wet on the envelope itself, would it?
It wouldn't be a good laboratory practice to handle any wet blood and then go into the envelope to examine the glasses, would it?
Doctor, if in fact good laboratory practices were being practiced by the LAPD and they observed good laboratory practices, there should be no blood crust inside that envelope unless there was blood on the lens or the glasses, correct?
All right. Because -- strike that. Did you ever see any documentation that the LAPD or FBI or anyone attempted to determine if there were any latent prints on the lens that was remaining?
It would certainly be significant, Doctor, if one -- a perpetrator of this crime attempted to get into that envelope during the commission of the murders, would it not? (Counsel displayed board, Exhibit 1346, on the video.)
Yes, if one touched that envelope, if did not wear the glove, should have transfer of fingerprint. Should process for print, not only the glass, but also the envelope.
All right. Now, Doctor, we have up there 1346. That's "Evidence Found, Eyeglasses/Envelope," correct?
This just illustrate a portion of the envelope, not the whole envelope, just a small portion of the envelope. I see variety of blood-stain patterns. The two area I used to illustrate, pattern area one, pattern area two, pattern area one I can see the imprint pattern which consists of portion of the Bruno Magli sole design. In addition, I see spatters, blood drops, smear. Also, I see some -- like a finger mark. Also, I see a pattern area appears to be like a mirror image.
Okay. Let me stop you there. And I apologize. The close-up view, 1B, in the upper right-hand, right, that corner, is the mirror image?
This was a mirror image that was created at the scene the envelope would be folded over, correct?
And if in fact the envelope is folded over, would that indicate that the eyeglasses were in or not in the envelope?
When I examined this envelope, I see a very deep creased area, which shows for certain time this was folded over. Otherwise -- would not create this crease. If it fold over, if the glass in that location, very difficult to form. So my opinion is when that crease area produced, the glass was not in that position.
Assume that's a crease produced where the blood already deposit on the surface and somebody have to touch it and create such a pattern.
Okay. Now, in terms of the blood patterns that you see in the photographs on 1346, please explain those to us?
The blood pattern area A, which already explain, the close-up view, 1B. The close-up view, 1A, shows a multiple deposit which indicative this blood has to be deposit on the surface as three separate pattern. We'll have a smear. A smear. We have spatters, the spatter on top of smear, which means to smear don't have to be deposit first. We have this long pattern on top of the smear, so this long pattern has to deposit after the smear deposit. Then a spatter on top of this long pattern, which indicative this -- that particular spot -- spatter has to be deposit after this long elongated pattern deposit. Here shows the same thing, illustrate the same principle, which means this envelope has to be of a -- have three separate deposit.
Right. Obviously. Okay. Now, Doctor, what are -- the lower blood-stain pattern, to -- what is that indicative of?
The lower blood-stain pattern two, that's the area adjacent to pattern one, again, we see multiple deposit pattern, deposit on top of pattern. One area we see like a -- could be a finger mark with a heavy blood pattern. That area is a lighter pattern. Those should be enhanced. There are chemical reagent forensic sources could use to develop such pattern, which wasn't developed. Maybe it's not a fingerprint, but unless -- we should develop it, maybe this print not enough character to make a comparison, but if we don't develop, we never will learn. This heavy area shows hair, fiber, debris and soil caked onto the blood. As a matter of fact, a lot of hair and fibers in this region, this portion of photo. I can count at least 20 or more those hair, fiber-like material, which indicative has to be blood onto the surface still wet and tacky that those trace material was able to adhere onto the surface.
So that would mean that while the -- while the envelope was still wet with blood, that the trace material and the soil had to be in some way deposited on there, whether it's kicked or dropped or something else?
Yeah, could be any action; kicking, pushing and drop and if the wind blowing, any action caused such a deposit.
All right. Now, in terms of wind blowing, that's not an area, where the envelope was when we saw it next to the walk, where you anticipate a lot of wind, would you?
All right. Now, Dr. Lee, these pictures were taken approximately 18 months after the murders, correct?
Yes, after that's the day June 1994 sometime, I think 18 -- 17 or 18, when I examine those.
2-A is a close-up area for this area. Shows different blood pattern. Some are like an angular deposit, some like a vertical drop, some like a contact, some like a contact smear again. Shows may have different direction, different sources.
So we know at least -- there were at least three different times that blood was deposited on that envelope, correct?
Again, I have to go to the scene, look at the envelope, the three-dimensional setting. Once envelope is flat or raised or in a slant angle because just look at the pattern, you can see some goes this way, some come this way, some direct deposit, here shows variety of different directions.
Okay. Let's go to a different board. Now, Doctor, you were at the crime scene on June 25, 1994, were you not?
I was informed we have to get out at scene at 7 p.m. We arrived at the scene 6:40.
KEY QUOTEAnd tell us, Dr. Lee, normally when you view a crime scene, even if it's as much as two weeks after the event that you're investigating, how long do you spend at a crime scene?
The crime scene, like last night, we -- myself at least spend three, four hours, in a small scene, confined scene. If a large scene, sometimes two, three days, and we have scene we stay at the scene almost a week.
Okay. In any event, Doctor, did you see a footprint on the walkway during your inspection of 6/25 -- however brief it was, 6/25/1994?
This could have been made of blood by the appearance and the reaction the time I reach a conclusion more consistent with blood.
This has a very clear, defined, parallel-line pattern, start from the toe to the heel area.
Now, in the -- the outline that is placed on that exhibit, which is 1337A, was that placed on there by you at the criminal trial?
Was that footprint, to your knowledge, ever noted by any of the investigators from Los Angeles County?
This is an imprint. It's on the surface of this tile. It's not embedded in the tile. It's not an indentation. It's not a tile mark or mason mark or any other mark. It's a shoe made of a shoe rim.
Now, Doctor, let's go to number 11 of our boards today. This is 1338. This is -- "Imprint Evidence at Bundy" is the label, 1338, correct?
Now, the upper left-hand photo shows the -- okay, upper left is the paper that was never collected, correct?
All right. Now, are there any -- are there any patterns on that particular piece of paper --
This piece of paper, we have some blood spatter, and some blood swipe pattern, subsequently, and a soak up pattern on the periphery area in the middle. It's kind of obscured by -- some of those blood patterns have a parallel line kind of a design.
All right. Now, the pattern that goes around the paper that I've just showed, was that a soaking type of --
It's a fair amount of blood soak around the periphery area just like a capillary action soak inward and sideward.
When you talk about a capillary action, Doctor, these same actions we have, for example, with a paper towel?
Then have some blood smear on top. Then subsequently have this soak in pattern. As far those blood spatter, I -- during that period of time somehow deposit in there.
There's at least three separate periods of time when that piece of paper was introduced to blood, correct?
Imprint is a pattern, any type of pattern, if a two-dimensional pattern, would call imprint. I cannot come here and tell you what type of an object makes such an imprint. That's why I call it imprint. If it's made of shoe, I will come here to tell you that's a shoe print, if made of a ear I will tell you that's an ear print, if made up of a potato masher, I will tell you that's potato masher prints. I call it an imprint when I have no idea what kind of an object produced such a pattern, but it's definitively -- they are a pattern.
Do you believe that that pattern that is on that piece of paper is consistent with Mr. Goldman's jeans?
This particular pattern, of course, to have a correct comparison have to collect that piece of paper to compare, which we don't have the original pattern, just look at this clear defined pattern, compare with the blue jean fabric design, and based on my own test on the blue jean with blood, it's inconsistent.
Again, with Mr. Goldman's shirt, it have a fabric design, the distance of the fabric is larger than this, the blue jean is smaller than this, it fall in between.
More likely of course, there are so many seen which -- so many things which I cannot predict. I did not test the blue jean itself, I just observed the blue jean. I wasn't allowed to cut the piece to do some testing or add some material on the blue jean such as blood on the blue jean to do the testing, so my testing just limit to microscopic and physical measurements. I cannot say every inch of his blue jean, every inch of his shirt will not produce such a pattern, only the area I observed I think inconsistent with the pattern.
All right. And Doctor, moving over to the imprints on the envelope, that's when the -- that's the second picture -- that's after the envelope has been moved, right?
And the pattern that is on the envelope, is that consistent with -- well, let's say is it consistent with a Bruno Magli shoe?
It's a parallel line, slightly waved, pattern which -- an imprint -- again, I refer -- that's an imprint. I cannot call that a shoe print or ear print or fingerprint. It's an imprint. Something, an object have to have this type of design, have amount of blood -- sufficient amount of blood touch this surface and that surface with a certain pressure and force to produce such a pattern. The pattern cannot just by accidental deposit or some unknown reason create such a pattern.
There are pattern, as I pointed out before in the previous board, consistent with a finger mark.
A mark with a finger means with a finger, but no clear characteristics can be delineated to make a conclusive determination.
All right. Now, in terms of the analysis -- I had another sheet. There it is. Let me put this in the middle here. Now, these are test imprints that were done I believe by the FBI, correct?
Okay, Doctor, now, if you would direct your attention, please, to 620 on the left and 621 on the right.
Right. Correct. Now, Doctor, did you review these particular photographs and test imprints?
Now, Doctor, let's look at the next board which is 1351. Were you, subsequent to the murders, provided with a soil sample?
February. I think February sometime, 1994, when I was in Albany Medical Center, it provide this evidence to me to examine.
It indicates June 23, '94, 11 a.m., soil sample No. 114. Initially, and some other number was crossed out.
Soil sample. Subsequently, under microscopic examination I see large amount of hair fiber, variety of hair fiber like material, paint chip like material, all different kind of trace evidence.
If this is a representative soil sample in that area which indicative that area going to have a lot of hair and fibers present in that location.
All right. And hair and fibers in an area where there are children and dogs, is trace evidence from the soil relatively common?
It's relatively common. If you have a gardener and other people, service people, neighbors, you are going to have hair and fibers all over the place.
Hair and fiber can have a primary transfer. Also can equal a problem, possible have a secondary transfer. For example, I picked up some fabric, a carpet fiber, on my shoes. Next thing, I ride in your car, this fabric going to transfer into your car. Subsequently, if your wife riding in your car, the fiber from this room going to transfer onto her clothes or shoes. If she visit another friend, that fiber will deposit in friend's house, which doesn't mean her friend was in this conference room today.
All right. And likewise, if we're talking about a Bronco, and we're talking about fibers from a Bronco, and O.J. Simpson's children riding in the Bronco, there could be Bronco fibers yeah that would be transferred from them riding in the Bronco?
This is No. 1357. It's entitled "Blood Stains on Evidence Bag." Now, what did you receive evidence in, an evidence bag?
I found this evidence bag in No. -- Item 78, with a set of -- two set of initials, some with a marker, other with a CY and a serial number, an initial CY, and on the back at the opening of the bag. As I depict in the top picture and the close-up picture, I see large amount of blood transfer. Those are blood stain consistent with contact -- contact smear, swipe kind of pattern.
Now, the boots of Ron Goldman had blood on them when we saw them in the pictures earlier, did they not?
It would not be in accordance with proper crime lab procedures to put a wet bloody glove -- or boots into a bag, would it?
Assume, which means if when boots put in the bag still wet, wet blood causes that smear transfer. In theory, any bloody object, we should let it dry on the surface. After it dry, then package it.
This indicates this blood evidence have soaked through the bag, the bottom of the bag, from inside and to outer.
Does that indicate to you that appropriate lab procedures were used relative to the boots by the Los Angeles Police Department?
It's not necessarily the laboratory's people fault. The collection of the physical evidence at the scene -- there should be observed once they put it in there, it should be isolated. In other words, this bag because the blood soaks through the bag, if this bag touch another object or object of physical evidence, you're going to have a transfer.
So you can have a transfer of blood from the exterior of that bag to anything else that's in the crime lab if it touches it?
No. Basically it's the blood transfer, and we saw those initial people examine those evidence, at least they should record it in their note so when we examine we know where they come from, how that get transferred, try to trace the history of such a transfer.
Did you see any notes that indicated Collin Yamauchi had documented the blood transfer on the paper bag that we have depicted on the board?
None of the document provided to me contains such information and description of measurement. None of the -- no photographs submit to me with such documentation.
So we can't tell when that blood transfer took place and we can't tell if there was secondary contamination of any item in the lab, correct?
We cannot tell this sample was transfer at the scene or during the collection or after collection or at the medical examiner's office or in the laboratory. Nobody can trace back anymore.
So there's no way of knowing whether or not the blood that was -- the wet transfer in Item 78, Mr. Goldman's boots, contaminated any item in the lab, correct?
And were you told that you had a limited period of -- (Videotape of Dr. Henry Lee stopped.)
MR. P. BAKER: We have an editing problem. Would it be time for a break?
THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.)
You're at 192, line 25.
MR. P. BAKER: About 38 more minutes on our side. Then there's an hour and 15 on theirs.
Your Honor, in view of you sustaining the objection to his 387, right at the end, the very, very end --
-- I would, as I did in the deposition, object to 386, lines 11 through 19, and I would also just, for the record --
Dr. Lee spoke about his association theory, how if one item is found on one thing and if it's found on another, it raises significant questions. And our question was very straightforward, that if a cap that Mr. -- if a cap found at the murder scene basically had what had been identified as Mr. Simpson's hair on it, isn't that an area that would have to be explained. And Dr. Lee said it would. And Mr. Baker, on his direct examination, went into some length talking about his association and the transference theory, and the portion that was just played, Your Honor, he talked about head hair. I mean he can't have it both ways. He talked about -- he talked about Bronco hair and things being tracked around.
You can't have it both ways either, Mr. Medvene. I'm going to sustain the objection.
I've sustained your objections on the basis that that witness had no knowledge of the subject matter of which he was testifying because he didn't examine it and he had no basis on which he --
Your Honor, before the jury comes back in I just want to know in order to prepare for tomorrow, what the order of events is. I'm told after this deposition they have about an hour to two hours of Gary Siglar. There is a 402 hearing involving that witness. And then there is Simpson. So what is the order, if I could ask, Mr. Baker, for tomorrow morning?
Well, there's only about 15, 20 minutes, I think, of Siglar, No. 1. No. 2, I'd like to put the 402 hearing to Monday, if we may.
We lent you the list of witnesses. There was a Rosie Wilson we said is analogous to the Petee, and you said they could have a 402 hearing.
I'd like to put that to Monday, if possible. And I think we probably do need to have a hearing relative to the motions filed on Mark Fuhrman and Laura Hart McKinney in the morning, if that suits the Court's agenda? And then we plan to put Mr. Simpson on.
Whatever the Court's preference is. They obviously need a chance to respond so possibly tomorrow is not a good time for those.
Well, that's why I'm asking, Your Honor, this is the third time they filed a motion on Mark Fuhrman.
So the schedule is 20 minutes of Siglar and then Simpson; is that right, Mr. Baker?
Okay. Now, how much more on this video?
MR. P. BAKER: What did I say? 40 minutes on my side?
All right. Get the jury back in and go. ( JURORs resume their respective seats.) (Videotape deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumed.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
I was informed we have to get out at scene at 7 p.m. We arrived at the scene 6:40.
I cannot explain this large drop which wasn't present at the previous one. And other debris been changed, leaf been changed. So, it's inconsistent with just a photographic imperfection or so-called bouncing light effect.
If I assume that's a mirror image. Assume that's a crease produced where the blood already deposit on the surface and somebody have to touch it and create such a pattern.
I call it an imprint when I have no idea what kind of an object produced such a pattern, but it's definitively — they are a pattern. If it's made of shoe, I will come here to tell you that's a shoe print, if made of a ear I will tell you that's an ear print, if made up of a potato masher, I will tell you that's potato masher prints.
No, the shoe print wasn't in any report.