📄 Direct examination of Dr. Henry Lee (part 2) — Tuesday, August 22, 1995
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\22\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-HENRY.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 140 of 167

Direct examination of Dr. Henry Lee (part 2)

Witness: Dr. Henry Lee
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Defense • Date: Tuesday, August 22, 1995 • Utterances: 192
Dr. Henry Lee describes imprint evidence he found during a 20-minute inspection of the Bundy crime scene on June 25, 1994. He identified a series of parallel line imprints on the walkway tiles that were distinct from the Bruno Magli shoe pattern, and found similar imprints made in blood on a piece of paper and an envelope at the scene. A key moment: that piece of paper — potentially bearing fingerprints and shoe imprints — was never collected by the LAPD.
1 THE COURT:

All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Henry Lee is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Mr. Scheck. We will continue for another half hour.

2 MR. SCHECK:

Thank you, your Honor.

3 MR. SCHECK:

Dr. Lee, did you have an opportunity to visit the Bundy scene on June 25th?

4 DR. LEE:

1994, yes.

5 MR. SCHECK:

And before you went there were you able to look at some pictures that had been taken of the crime scene?

6 DR. LEE:

Yes, sir.

7 MR. SCHECK:

And what is the difference between a crime scene investigation and a crime scene inspection?

8 DR. LEE:

A crime scene investigation involve more library type investigative procedure start from the beginning step-by-step to the end, usually involving an original scene or well-protected scene. A crime scene inspection usually for a limit purpose for certain specific reason usually not involve a lengthy process.

9 MR. SCHECK:

Were you able to do a crime scene investigation at Bundy?

10 DR. LEE:

No.

11 MR. SCHECK:

Why not?

12 DR. LEE:

I arrive Bundy scene at 6:40 June 25th, 1994. My instruction is have to be complete before seven o'clock, so you only have 20 minute. In addition, that is not an original crime scene any more, already processed evidence, evidence already picked up, so I only can do a limit inspection, which is limit amount of specific purpose, not to do a complete reconstruction or a complete investigation.

KEY QUOTE
13 MR. SCHECK:

Was one of your purposes in going to Bundy to look for imprint evidence?

14 DR. LEE:

Yes, sir.

15 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Your Honor, I would like to bring out a board.

16 (Brief pause.)
17 MR. SCHECK:

Ask that this be board be marked next in order.

18 THE COURT:

1337.

19 (Deft's 1337 for id = posterboard)
20 MR. SCHECK:

Dr. Lee, could you describe for us, please, what an impression is and what an imprint is.

21 DR. LEE:

An impression is a three-dimensional representation, an object, leave an indentation, have the width, length and depth. For example, a footprint in snow, a tire track on the beach sand or a soft soil surface. Another good example, a bullet fires through a gun, the land and groove left an impression on the bullet, those call impression. Imprint is a two-dimensional representation only of the length and width, but no depth. For example, footprint left on a hard surface, such as walkway, hardwood floor, piece of paper; we don't have the depth, only have the length and width. A fingerprint left on a surface, a wood surface, that is another imprint; however, if a fingerprint left in soft material, putty or fresh paint, now you have an indentation. An imprint not limit to shoes, foot; can be fingerprint, can be ear print, can be lip, sometime people have big nose, can have a nose print, so variety of imprints evidence which a criminalist can find at the crime scene. We generally look at width, length and depth, determine that is an impression or an imprint.

22 MR. SCHECK:

Now, were you able at your trip to Bundy on June 25th to identify certain imprint evidence in the walkway?

23 DR. LEE:

Yes, sir.

24 MR. SCHECK:

And could you please come down and point out to the jury where those were, and as you do that, I would like to mark two other--

25 MR. HARRIS:

38 and 39.

26 MR. SCHECK:

Board or mini board we will call them, photographs, and I would like to make them a and B.

27 THE COURT:

All right.

28 DR. LEE:

Your Honor, may I step down.

29 THE COURT:

Yes, you may. Mr. Scheck, which board do you have up there?

30 MR. SCHECK:

We have 1557 up there.

31 MR. HARRIS:

1337.

32 THE COURT:

What is the title of the board and what number?

33 MR. SCHECK:

It is 1337. It is entitled "Imprint evidence at Bundy,".

34 THE COURT:

What number? 1 of 3?

35 MR. SCHECK:

It is marked 1 of 3.

36 THE COURT:

1 of 3.

37 MR. SCHECK:

And I would like to mark as 1337-A a blown-up photograph of the photograph that is in the bottom right-hand corner of this exhibit, and I would like to mark as 1337-B another blow-up of the middle photograph at the bottom of the board entitled "Walkway, 6/24--6/25/94."

38 THE COURT:

Mr. Scheck, there are no victim's remains on this board, correct?

39 MR. SCHECK:

There are none.

40 THE COURT:

Mr. Bancroft, may I see this, please.

41 (Brief pause.)
42 (Deft's 1337-A for id = blow-up photo)
43 (Deft's 1337-B for id = blow-up photo)
44 THE COURT:

All right. Counsel, I don't--I thought we were going to do another one.

45 MR. SCHECK:

Now, Dr. Lee, could you please describe what it is you found on the walkway on June 25th.

46 DR. LEE:

On June 25th, 1994, I arrive at Bundy. I found quite a few imprint evidence which consistent with footwear imprint. The majority have a specific pattern. Later was identify to be consistent with Bruno Magli type of shoe wear. In addition to those shoe wear evidence, I notice some--a different design, a parallel line design type of pattern, (Indicating). Subsequently I photographically document those and with a scale to demonstrate the existence of such imprint evidence.

47 MR. SCHECK:

Are the photographs of 1337-A and 1337-B blow-ups of the photographs that are on the board 1337?

48 DR. LEE:

Yes, sir.

49 MR. SCHECK:

Could you, I guess starting with 1337-A and then moving to B and then moving to 1337-A, identify this parallel line imprint pattern you've described and indicate where it is on the board diagram and on the larger diagram? Photographs, I'm sorry

50 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
51 DR. LEE:

In this small picture, (Indicating), labeled "Walkway June 25th, `94." The center photograph of lower set of picture, this one consistent with a heel print, consistent with A, subsequently agent Bodziak identify that is a Bruno Magli. Adjacent to that have a series of parallel line, (Indicating), of another imprint, have same type of appearance, (Indicating). This large photograph which shows this parallel line design, this Bruno Magli, in addition have some wiggly line pattern, but this parallel line shows a series linear design that is consistent with an imprint.

52 MR. SCHECK:

Dr. Lee, could you draw a circle around using a blue pen, the imprint--parallel line imprint that you are talking about?

53 (Witness complies.)
54 MR. SCHECK:

Now, moving to the photograph on the bottom right of the board and the larger blow-up, 1337-A, could you describe what is on those photographs and their relationship to the one you've just discussed.

55 DR. LEE:

This imprint was found in the middle row of no. 10 tile on the walkway, start from the first staircase, you counting the no. 10 tiles, have consistent with again parallel line design and this one is more complete, its pattern resembling on a shoe, (Indicating).

56 MR. SCHECK:

Could you--possible to identify here on 1337-A the design that you say is a parallel line imprint pattern that is--resembles a shoe?

57 DR. LEE:

Yes.

58 MR. SCHECK:

Now, turning to the bottom left-hand photograph here, what is this?

59 DR. LEE:

This is a photograph submit to me by attorney Shapiro, is a photograph took by LAPD photographer. I did not receive a photo log tell me which picture from where.

60 MR. GOLDBERG:

Nonresponsive.

61 THE COURT:

Sustained. Next question.

62 MR. SCHECK:

All right. What is the significance--did you receive a photo log?

63 DR. LEE:

No, I did not.

64 MR. SCHECK:

Were you able to tell which pictures were taken in which order?

65 DR. LEE:

I cannot make such determination.

66 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Are you able to place where this photograph comes from in terms of the tiles on the walkway?

67 DR. LEE:

Somewhere along the tile, (Indicating).

68 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Would it assist you if I put this picture on the elmo in terms of being able to identify where the parallel line imprint is on this picture?

69 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, assumes facts not in evidence.

70 THE COURT:

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

71 MR. SCHECK:

There is a parallel line imprint on the picture taken on June 13th by the Los Angeles Police Department that is consistent with the other parallel line imprints you found on June 25th?

72 DR. LEE:

Yes.

73 MR. SCHECK:

Mr. Harris, please.

74 (Brief pause.)
75 MR. SCHECK:

Oh, could we mark this print 1337-C?

76 THE COURT:

So marked.

77 (Deft's 1137-C for id = photograph)
78 THE COURT:

This is the lower left-hand photograph.

79 MR. SCHECK:

That's correct, your Honor. Thank you.

80 DR. LEE:

Lower left.

81 MR. SCHECK:

Now, Dr. Lee, I know that we worked a little bit with the point maker. Could you please direct Mr. Harris and show the jury.

82 DR. LEE:

This only a small portion area.

83 THE COURT:

Mrs. Robertson, Deirdra.

84 MR. SCHECK:

I will do it.

85 (Brief pause.)
86 THE COURT:

Proceed.

87 DR. LEE:

Along this area, (Indicating). I'm not too good in drawing this. Is consistent a series of linear formation. It is a very small portion of imprint evidence.

88 MR. SCHECK:

Could we--could you put "HLC" in the upper left-hand corner and we will print that out. Mr. Harris will do that, actually.

89 (Witness complies.)
90 MR. SCHECK:

That is good.

91 DR. LEE:

Okay. You do it again.

92 (Brief pause.)
93 DR. LEE:

That is not my initial, HLC.

94 MR. HARRIS:

I thought you said "HLC."

95 MR. SCHECK:

Did I say "HLC"? My apologies.

96 (Brief pause.)
97 MR. SCHECK:

Now, Dr. Lee, you mentioned before impressions.

98 DR. LEE:

Yes.

99 MR. SCHECK:

Are there techniques available for recognizing, preserving and documenting shoe impressions in soil?

100 DR. LEE:

Yes.

101 MR. SCHECK:

Is the area depicted in the middle of this diagram that represents the closed-in area--you are familiar with that?

102 DR. LEE:

Yes.

103 MR. SCHECK:

Is the soil in that area the kind of surface where one could--a forensic scientist could recognize, and if it were present, do something to preserve a shoe impression?

104 DR. LEE:

Yes.

105 MR. SCHECK:

What would one do?

106 DR. LEE:

Generally we rely two technique: One photographic technique with a scale. Second called casting. Generally we rely on plaster of Paris, which is the stuff we put on the wall; however, we use much better quality. Generally prefer the dental stuff to make a cast, and that is a method commonly used for preserve a three-dimensional impression evidence.

107 MR. SCHECK:

Now, are there techniques that you could have used on June 25th, 1994, to enhance the lines that you saw on the ground?

108 DR. LEE:

Yes.

109 MR. SCHECK:

What techniques are those?

110 DR. LEE:

We can use chemical technique or instrument, two methods: The chemical technique more effective. We could tetramethyl benzedine spray or orthrotolidine spray which will make a contrast react with the surface, especially contents blood or heat and reaction which shows up vividly in blue color.

111 MR. SCHECK:

Were you--are those kinds of enhancement procedures essentially destructive of the imprints?

112 DR. LEE:

No. It--you enhance the imprint evidence.

113 MR. SCHECK:

But did you perform those on that day?

114 DR. LEE:

No, I did not.

115 MR. SCHECK:

And why not?

116 DR. LEE:

The order is very strict. I only can photograph, measure and do simple tests, cannot add too many chemical or remove the whole walkway.

117 MR. SCHECK:

I would like to move now to a--what would be called 1338.

118 (Brief pause.)
119 THE COURT:

And this is which number on the top right?

120 MR. SCHECK:

It is marked "Imprint evidence at Bundy."

121 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
122 MR. SCHECK:

"Imprint evidence at Bundy," 3 of 3.

123 THE COURT:

3 of 3.

124 (Deft's 1338 for id = posterboard)
125 MR. SCHECK:

And then we are going to do 2 of 3 eventually.

126 MR. SCHECK:

Now, Dr. Lee, what are the photographs on this particular board?

127 DR. LEE:

This board consists of four photographs, four pictures.

128 THE COURT:

All right. Hold on, Mr. Scheck. Are there any victims' remains on this matter?

129 MR. SCHECK:

No.

130 THE COURT:

All right. Mr. Bancroft, may I see this, please.

131 (Brief pause.)
132 THE COURT:

Thank you.

133 DR. LEE:

Consist of four pictures. The top two is original crime scene photograph provide to me by attorney Shapiro. The lower two photographs is a close-up to demonstrate certain area on those material present at the scene, which namely on the left-hand side one is a piece of paper. We say irregular shape, some bloodstain was observed on it. On the right-hand side is an envelope approximately four-inch by nine-inch in size with a number plate 104. That is again have some bloodstain material on the envelope. In a close inspection of this envelope and this piece of paper, I discover this imprint like pattern exist on the paper. Those imprint have similar linear design and those imprint make in blood. Some of the bloodstain covers portion of the imprint which indicative, this imprint has to be placed on this envelope, this corner before, prior to the blood apply to it, (Indicating).

134 MR. SCHECK:

Now, Dr. Lee, I would like to show you--how much more--how many more minutes? I would like to mark what would be 1338-A and is this A.

135 (Deft's 1338-A for id = photograph)
136 MR. SCHECK:

What do you recognize that to be?

137 DR. LEE:

This is an enlarged photo depict this piece of paper.

138 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And 1338-B.

139 (Deft's 1338-B for id = photograph)
140 MR. SCHECK:

What is that?

141 DR. LEE:

This is a photograph shows a corner of this envelope, (Indicating).

142 THE COURT:

I think Mr. Harris has them both upside down.

143 MR. SCHECK:

In the interests of time can I just display these quickly to the jury?

144 (The exhibits were displayed to the jury.)
145 MR. SCHECK:

Now, Dr. Lee, are the parallel line imprint impressions that you have identified on the envelope and the piece of paper, could those have come from a Bruno Magli shoe?

146 DR. LEE:

Well, it is an imprint; it is not an impression.

147 MR. SCHECK:

My apologies.

148 DR. LEE:

Two-dimensional pattern. This two-dimensional pattern cannot be come from a Bruno Magli shoe.

149 MR. SCHECK:

Could the imprint impression--imprint--my apologies. The imprints on the envelope, could that have come from Mr. Goldman's boot?

150 DR. LEE:

No.

151 MR. SCHECK:

How do you know that?

152 DR. LEE:

I study the boot, did some measurement, and sole pattern is complete different than this imprint.

153 MR. SCHECK:

Are the imprints that you found on the piece of paper and the envelope consistent with the parallel line imprints you found on the Bundy walkway on June 25th?

154 DR. LEE:

I only can give you a very limit conclusion with this--with regards to this issue, which the paper--I don't have physically the paper to study.

155 MR. SCHECK:

And why not?

156 DR. LEE:

This paper--

157 MR. GOLDBERG:

Calls for speculation.

158 THE COURT:

Sustained. Foundation.

159 MR. SCHECK:

Was this paper ever collected by criminalists or police officers at the Los Angeles Police Department?

160 MR. GOLDBERG:

No personal knowledge, your Honor.

161 THE COURT:

Sustained. You can ask him if he ever personally observed that piece of evidence in the custody of the LAPD.

162 MR. SCHECK:

Did you ever personally observe that piece of paper in the custody of the Los Angeles Police Department?

163 DR. LEE:

No, I did not.

164 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
165 MR. SCHECK:

There is a photograph that you have seen where this piece of paper is depicted?

166 DR. LEE:

Yes.

167 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Your Honor, I would--

168 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
169 MR. SCHECK:

It is already in evidence, 1080--is this one--

170 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
171 MR. SCHECK:

And I believe this is cropped, so that--

172 THE COURT:

Which photograph are we talking about?

173 MR. SCHECK:

This is the photograph of Detective Fuhrman pointing to the envelope with the piece of paper in it, but the body is cropped. This is Defense 1080. We have done--used this when Mr. Fung was on the stand.

174 (Brief pause.)
175 MR. SCHECK:

I direct your attention to the screen. Do you see the piece of paper here, (Indicating)?

176 DR. LEE:

Yes.

177 MR. SCHECK:

All right.

178 DR. LEE:

I can see in the middle of the photo this tile and piece of paper have similar shape in this location near the corner. Also I can see this envelope.

179 MR. SCHECK:

Is 1338-A a blow-up of that piece of paper?

180 DR. LEE:

Yes.

181 MR. SCHECK:

Was this piece of paper with the parallel line imprint impression present, based on this photograph, at the Bundy crime scene on June 13th?

182 DR. LEE:

I did observe on this photograph there parallel line exist in this location. Again there bloodstain on top of the parallel line make it difficult to see, but do exist. Subsequently a close-up shows this clearly, they are parallel line in this area, (Indicating).

183 MR. SCHECK:

Dr. Lee, in your opinion would this piece of paper be an important item to collect in doing a processing this crime scene?

184 DR. LEE:

Umm, I wasn't at the crime scene, so I cannot make an assessment, but if my crime scene I would collect it.

KEY QUOTE
185 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Is a piece of paper such as this, besides the imprint impressions you are talking about, is it possible to examine both the front and the back of this paper for fingerprints?

186 DR. LEE:

Yes.

187 MR. SCHECK:

What about fingerprints in blood? Is that something in your experience that you can detect at a crime scene from a piece of paper such as this?

188 DR. LEE:

Yes.

189 MR. SCHECK:

How do you do that?

190 DR. LEE:

Because blood is red, is visible. You have an imprint, a fingerprint, which commonly we can recognize. If a bloody fingerprint, it is not vivid enough, we can use an enhancement procedure. Those procedure been published, including my own paper, can enhance bloody fingerprint or footprint.

191 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, I think that is the time.

192 THE COURT:

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the afternoon. And Mr. Harris, can you take that down for me, please.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Dr. Henry Lee
I arrive Bundy scene at 6:40 June 25th, 1994. My instruction is have to be complete before seven o'clock, so you only have 20 minute.
Establishes that the defense's own forensic expert was given severely constrained access — only 20 minutes at a scene that had already been processed.
Dr. Henry Lee
This two-dimensional pattern cannot be come from a Bruno Magli shoe.
The parallel line imprints are definitively distinguished from the Bruno Magli pattern associated with Simpson, raising the question of who made them.
Dr. Henry Lee
Some of the bloodstain covers portion of the imprint which indicative, this imprint has to be placed on this envelope, this corner before, prior to the blood apply to it.
Lee establishes the imprint predated the blood — meaning someone with a different shoe pattern was present before or during the crime.
Dr. Henry Lee
I wasn't at the crime scene, so I cannot make an assessment, but if my crime scene I would collect it.
Careful but pointed: Lee implicitly criticizes LAPD for not collecting the paper without overstepping his evidentiary knowledge.

Evidence (10)

Defense 1337
Posterboard titled 'Imprint evidence at Bundy,' 1 of 3, showing photographs of walkway imprints
introduced and discussed
Defense 1337-A
Blow-up photograph of walkway tile showing parallel line imprint pattern
introduced and marked by Lee
Defense 1337-B
Blow-up photograph of walkway labeled 'Walkway 6/25/94'
introduced
Defense 1337-C
LAPD crime scene photograph from June 13th showing parallel line imprint
introduced and discussed
Defense 1338
Posterboard titled 'Imprint evidence at Bundy,' 3 of 3, showing original crime scene photos and close-ups of paper and envelope
introduced and discussed
Defense 1338-A
Enlarged photo of piece of paper with parallel line imprints in blood
introduced and displayed to jury
+ 4 more

Notable Exchanges (3)

Barry ScheckDr. Henry Lee
Lee corrects Scheck's repeated misuse of 'impression' when he should say 'imprint,' and uses the correction to emphasize that the Bruno Magli pattern could not be the source.
precise/technical
Barry ScheckDr. Henry LeeHank Goldberg
Scheck attempts to establish through Lee that the piece of paper was never collected by LAPD; Goldberg blocks multiple angles of the question (speculation, no personal knowledge), and Ito sustains all, forcing Scheck to narrow the question to Lee's personal observation only.
strategic
Barry ScheckMr. Harris
Confusion over Lee's initials — Scheck says 'HLC,' Lee corrects that his initials are not HLC, causing a brief fumble in front of the jury.
light

Light Moments (2)

Dr. Henry Lee
Scheck tells Harris to write 'HLC' on the exhibit; Lee deadpans 'That is not my initial, HLC.' Scheck apologizes.
Dr. Henry Lee
Lee says of the ELMO drawing: 'I'm not too good in drawing this.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ LAPD crime scene investigators
omission / failure to collect evidence
Lee testifies that a piece of paper bearing parallel line imprints in blood — and potentially fingerprints — was never collected by LAPD. He confirms he never saw it in LAPD custody, and states he would have collected it if it were his scene.

Witness Demeanor

(Indicating) — used repeatedly as Lee points to exhibits during testimony
(Witness complies.) — Lee draws circles on photographs as directed
Methodical and precise; self-corrects Scheck on terminology without embarrassing him

Objections

4 objections (4 sustained, 0 overruled)
Proceeding 7381 • 192 utterances • Defense witness
Criminal Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 AUG 22, 1995 📄 Direct examination of Dr. Henr
AUG 22, 1995 KRT DvH TD