All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. Henry Lee is again on the witness stand, still undergoing direct examination by Mr. Scheck. And Mr. Scheck, you have placed another board on the--
--on the easel. And this does reflect--has one photograph that reflects remains, so I'm going to direct Mr. Bancroft to avoid this board.
It does. All right. Avoid that, Mr. Bancroft. All right. Proceed. Do you want to mark this next in order?
Dr. Lee, I call your attention now to the board that we've marked 1341 entitled "Bloodstain from closed-in area of Bundy." With the court's permission may Dr. Lee--
--get off the witness stand and with the aid of a pointer or whatever else you want to use, Dr. Lee.
If you can catch the top two rows, you can do those. Do not go to the bottom row. Do you understand, sir?
The center picture second row second line--second column, second row, this depicts an overall view of a corner of a fenced in area at the Bundy scene.
And Dr. Lee, are there recognizable blood spatter patterns that are highlighted in the peripheral pictures on this board?
And with respect to these bloodstain patterns, there are no rulers in this--these pictures so that we can measure any of these deposits?
So 1341-A is the original from which a print was made that is the center picture on the board 1341?
Okay. Now, let me call your attention first to the upper left-hand corner. Could you--do you recognize--that is the one that has the photo card no. 119?
And what, if anything, can you determine from that pattern with respect to the blood source?
In this location it depicts a group of bloodstains; however, this picture is slightly out of focus because this is a cylindrical surface. It is not the photographer's fault, because a surface have a coverage, so certain area in focus, certain area out of focus. However, this group of stains shows a direction consistent with fronts--if I face the picture, left to right. This appear to be--indicate the location of about approximately three feet two inches high from the ground, which means the blood source has to be at least that high, (Indicating), which again indicates this source has to be in a vertical position.
Uh-huh. Now, photo no. 119, that would be item no. 54 on LAPD item numbers as recorded in this case?
Well, when you say three foot two inches up, you are referring to the measurements recorded by Mr. Fung?
So in other words, he recorded these bloodstain items as being three feet two inches above--up on this pole?
I assume. I don't know which drop. I assume in general location. That is why I say approximate.
Now, what does this indicate, this--would you characterize this as horizontal cast off pattern?
And what would that indicate about the blood--in this--if the source of this blood were a person, would that be consistent with somebody being--standing upright?
Do you know whose blood that is or is there any typing indicating whose blood that is, to your knowledge?
Now, which picture would you like to move to next in terms of indicating bloodstain patterns?
--column no. 1. The next photograph going to be the second picture of column 1. This picture depicts a variety of bloodstain pattern. The first group I notice is in the center post, which correlate to this location, (Indicating). The center post I can see a contact transfer pattern, smear pattern, additional contact transfer pattern and some dripping pattern on this one area.
Now, is--what does that indicate with respect to--what determinations can you make as to the blood source from that?
Which indicative either somebody close in of body or surface have a direct contact of this location cause a transfer. Then subsequently have another contact at the same time I see some blood dripping, which means have liquid blood flow downwards.
This area, (Indicating), depicts the back portion of this metal gate. If we start counting this as column 1, 2, 3, 4, I can see starting no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 have a variety of pattern. We see a contact, we see a smear, we see some swiping pattern, wiping pattern, we see angular deposit, we see vertical drip blood. A variety of different pattern appear on this location.
Those angular deposit, those drop has to be above the surface, have a vertical direction. How high I cannot tell you, but has to be above this contact, which means have a direct transfer, and smear on different location means movement.
If we could have done measurements or if measurements had been taken of these bloodstain patterns, would that be more useful information in doing a more complete reconstruction of what occurred and when?
If measurements had been made at the scene could, that give additional information that could assist in making further determinations as to the source of the blood?
If was measurement and clear documentation maybe we can do some further limit reconstruction.
You indicated you were going to move now to the--and this was--the bottom left-hand photograph on this board.
Yes, yes. This is a close-up view depict the color, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5--4th and 5th, this location with a number plate 101, which depicts a beeper like object. In addition, on the surface we see transfer pattern wiping, swiping and dripping on the ground. I see patterns consistent with a vertical dripping.
Now, that beeper, would that be consistent with the beeper being kicked under that pole?
Well, in terms of the soil surface there, would you expect that if the beeper, if dropped from a height, to bounce?
I only visit the scene, as I indicate yesterday, a brief inspection on June 25. I did not visit the whole regional scene.
And in what you see would you expect a beeper dropped from some height to bounce on that soil?
On the ground, on the leaves and soil I see multiple drops. Those are consistent with a low velocity blood drops, which indicative the blood source has to be above this area and dripping onto the soil surface.
The middle of the top row have a number plate 109 which depicts a close-up view showing the back metal fence between the fifth, sixth and seventh, this area, (Indicating), and this photograph is a much better picture which we can look at a pattern and shows much more detail compared to previous one. Have a contact--direct contact transfer, have a transfer smear, another dynamic transfer and dripping pattern, further con--contact pattern, angular deposit and a row of three here have more drops. And in addition, on the ground and the leaf material we see multiple drops.
Is there anyway, from looking at that photograph, of determining how many individuals contributed to those bloodstain patterns?
But can you say something with respect to whether or not a source of those blood drops was upright in that area?
Assume those are vertical droplet, which is consistent with vertical droplet, has to be from certain high, from one location to another location.
Would measurements assist, if they existed, in being able to determine the height from which--of the blood source?
Would you--would the next picture you would discuss be the one on the upper far right-hand corner of this board?
The third column, third picture--first picture of the third column. This picture depicts the reverse side of this same metal fence, other side.
Here, beside this long contact pattern shows the other side. Also this contact pattern start dripping, which indicative the quantities of blood deposit on the surface still wet, running along this curvature surface and come downwards. Large amount of blood pool, it is underneath here, (Indicating), form a trail in this location. Here is another good example of an angular deposit, shows in that column, which indicative that drop of blood hit this column in a very acute angle.
Moving down to the middle--the right-hand picture, far right-hand side of the middle row.
This picture depicts a close-up view showing the column on the front, the no. 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, no. 8 column, not consistent swipe contact movement which indicative in this column area have some direct contact and cause those transfer.
Incidentally, on the photograph in the middle of the top row, the picture has an evidence card indicating 109?
Does that--is the positioning of that card blocking a view of the bloodstain pattern?
With respect to the--well, all right. The card number labeled 108, does that obscure a pole?
The column next to it appear to be some blood-like stain which I cannot report to you exactly pattern what it is. Here also have some reddish color stain and again I cannot really report to you what kind of pattern. However, this stain, (Indicating), on the lower portion, shows an angular deposit, vertical downwards hit this location in an angle.
Now, Dr. Lee, this photograph that has been labeled photo i.d. number by LAPD 108, that is in a different section of the close-in area?
And you were discussing previously with the other pictures a different part of the closed-in area?
So would this mean that there is contact in one part of the closed-in area and then other contact in the other parts of the closed-in area?
And would the bloodstain pattern reflected in the photograph 108, would that be consistent with the source or sources being upright?
This particular column which means a blood source have to have a direct contact with a movement because we see smear, not a definitive pattern with movement, so this high, we say the course of blood contact this high of the column.
Now, I would like to turn your attention to the photograph in the middle of the bottom row.
This appears to be a close-up photo showing this plant, (Indicating), and which is focusing some key-like material.
Now, when you say "This plant," you are indicating a plant that is close to the walkway and the front gate area?
Here, this location, (Indicating), appear to be--have a set of key. This depicts one of the boots of Mr. Goldman.
Your Honor, I would like to mark a photograph as 1341-B, which is a photograph of the key, and I would like to put that on the elmo and display it to the jury.
It appear to be exposed a set of key with one key--the majority of the key sticking out can be visible, that key. On the key we see some reddish stain, another reddish stain, this area more stain, (Indicating). There are multiple area appear to be reddish color stain.
Your Honor, this is objectionable because there is no evidence that he saw the keys themselves.
All right. I would ask that we print this photograph and we would make that 1341-C, I believe.
Dr. Lee, is there anything else about bloodstain patterns or your observations of this key photograph?
Direct above the key some white colored object will have multiple area of some reddish stain.
All right. Your Honor, maybe what I ought to do is have this--instead--instead of the last printout being 1341-C, we should make the one printout here of 1341-C that--
Now, before we leave the elmo, I would like to show you a photograph that I ask be marked as 1341-D.
That I believe is the same photograph as the one on the left-hand side showing the beeper in the middle row of the board entitled "Bloodstains from closed-in area at Bundy."
Okay. Could you please with the use of the telestrator illustrate what you mean by the impressions.
All right. This is the photograph that is the middle photograph first column on 1341.
In this area appear to be a depression on the ground, appear to be a large indentation in this area with some loose soil.
Detective Lange testified that the--this dug-out area of dirt was consistent with Mr. Goldman struggling with someone and in that struggle the dirt being dug out.
Now, turning to--is there anything else of interest in this photograph with respect to impressions or bloodstains that we should notice?
In this area, (Indicating), I see an impression. That impression is in this area, (Indicating), this area, (Indicating).
All right. Is that the kind of impression that can be preserved, documented and cast?
Now, your Honor, I would like to also put up the photograph that has been marked 1341-A.
And directly underneath to this hole, this area, (Indicating), another possible imprint indentation--not imprint, I'm sorry, impression.
Umm, could you--should we ask Mr. Harris to label the arrows, the hole and the circle--why don't we call it imp for impression--that won't do it.
Now, Dr. Lee, looking at all the photographs on this board, "Bloodstains from closed-in area at Bundy," would it be fair to say at this point that at different areas of this closed-in area we have contact smears?
Is there indication of--through the bloodstain patterns, of multiple contacts in this closed-in area?
Your Honor, the last photo that we want to deal with--I think we can turn up the lights. The last one is the far right-hand corner that contains remains.
Dr. Lee, I call your attention to the photograph in the bottom right-hand area. What is that?
And what is it about--could you describe for us the bloodstain pattern, its relationship to the soil on this boot?
Appear to be contact pattern on various location of this boot, (Indicating), which indicative at one point in time, this portion of the boots have to step into the blood with movement. That cause those smear, (Indicating).
So in other words, the boot would have to move onto the surface and then the soil would become caked on the blood?
Sustained. But counsel, we have to trust the common sense of our jurors, don't we?
KEY QUOTEIn terms of doing a reconstruction--well, withdrawn. Is there any other point of interest with respect to the bloodstain pattern on the boot?
In this area, (Indicating), we see some blood drops. The direction of this drop, it appear to be strange. It is inconsistent with somebody stepping into it. This drop has to be deposit on this surface at an angle.
Now, Dr. Lee, looking at the bloodstain patterns and the impression evidence in this closed-in area, is it consistent with a prolonged struggle between Mr. Goldman and assailant or assailants?
The bloodstain pattern, the deposit of the key, beeper in different location, the bloodstain smears, contact pattern under the boots, and vertical droplet in different location which shows a movement.
KEY QUOTEIs there anything else that we have not mentioned with respect to the bloodstain patterns that is of importance on this board, before we move to the next one?
Dr. Lee, I call your attention to the photographs in the top row depicting first Mr. Goldman's boot, and secondly, the sole, trace evidence. What are these photos?
This board consist of composite of six. The top row, the three, is--relate to Mr. Goldman's boot. The bottom three, one depicts an overall view of the blue jean. Second, the middle one, depicts a portion of Mr. Goldman's shirt. The third one depicts two buttons which recover when I examine this particular garment.
And that was the first time you had an opportunity to actually physically examine it?
I would ask you to discuss the significance of the first picture showing Mr. Goldman's boot.
The bloodstain pattern basically is a saturated pattern which indicative in large amount of blood that deposit onto the surface. Large amount of soil, debris-like material was noticed caked on the bloodstain surface which indicative soil deposit. Meanwhile, the blood still wet which is a further indication consistent with the hole, the loose soil on the previous board I show you in a closed-in area.
So in other words, that--the bloodstain pattern with the soil caked on the blood in this boot is consistent with digging in that hole that you described previously by the fence in the closed-in pattern?
Now, could you describe for us the pattern of trace evidence pattern in the middle picture?
Yes. This picture was provided to me by the Defense counsel, appears to be taken at the Coroner's office. Soil, debris, hair, fiber-like material was noticed on the middle of this gouged pattern area. Loose soil when noticed on this piece of white paper.
What does this indicate again in terms of bloodstain patterns and trace evidence with respect to Mr. Goldman's boot?
When I examine the boots I did not see those material any more. Assume those are hair and fibers, which indicative this portion of the boot near the heel has to stack onto surface. Soil have hairs and fibers and imbed into this area and cause the transfer.
So in other words, the soil on the ground--if the soil on the ground had hair and fiber in it and a boot with blood on it stepped in it, that would be consistent with the pattern you see in this photograph?
Would it be consistent with the pattern you see in this photograph that a boot stepping into soil with trace evidence on it and either the boot or the soil had blood, you would see this kind of trace evidence pattern?
Yes, but you don't need necessarily have blood, just a certain force can force the soil, fiber imbed into the pattern.
Now, I call your attention to the photograph on the far right-hand side. What is that?
This is a close-up view shows the top of the plastic rubber area of this boot, the front part.
February between 18, 19, `95 sometime. I don't remember exactly hour and minute I took this photograph.
All right. Do you have experience, Dr. Lee, in examining items of clothing and shoes with respect to punctures and other damage to them?
I cannot measure that experience. I have been in my present job for approximately 17 years. During the course I have examined a lot of the clothing, shoes, object with puncture, cut, damage and other material--other damage of the surface. I do study those materials.
And can you tell us something about whether or not that cut is fresh or represents recent damage?
The surface of this sneaker you can see it is pretty dirt--a lot of dirt, a lot of weathering. This cutting area exposed is white, fresh in this groove area, (Indicating). That indicates has to be recent.
We see parallel line on this portion of the shoes. This cut is against this line. The cut appear to be from the left moving to the right with a slight curvature. This approximately 1.5 centimeter long. The tail end I can see it start lifting. In other words, the depth in the front end is much deeper than the tail end, which indicative of movement.
Would this be consistent with the sneaker not being on the ground when the cut occurred?
And did the sneaker meet the sharp instrument in the same direction or plane or can you describe that--how this contact would occur?
This cut, (Indicating), which is different than the staff, it is a surface. It indicate a movement. Either the sharp instrument was moved or this receiving surface was moved or both surface moving at the same time.
Let's say my left hand is the sneaker. If my right hand the cutting instrument can be moving the direction, (Indicating). Can be both move in the same opposite direction, (Indicating). Or this cutting instrument is stationary and however the receiving surface is moving, (Indicating).
Would this cut be consistent with Mr. Goldman kicking towards someone with a sharp instrument and the sharp instrument striking the boot?
If that sneaker were--you say it is more likely that the sneaker was not on the ground at the time that cut was made?
Would that be consistent with a kicking movement and the sneaker then being struck by a sharp instrument?
Okay. Could you turn then to the jeans. Could you describe for us the bloodstain pattern here and what it represents?
This photo was taken again in February 18 and 19, 1995, at Albany Medical Center, depicts the rear view of the blue jean.
The back of the blue jean. The back of the blue jean shows large amount of bloodstain. In the top portion not consistent with a direct contact transfer and blood soak into the surface. In the middle portion we see this brush tail fashion end which indicative contact smear movement. The lower portion we see some drops and individual pattern, some contact transfer pattern, and here we see a multiple deposit pattern, (Indicating), of blood on top of the blood.
Now, is it important to have photographic documentation, if possible, of a victim's clothing as it is found at the scene?
Because this pattern can cause by secondary changes when bodies start moving or carry out or drag out only put in a body bag or move from the body bag to autopsy table. Each time the movement can create new patterns. Once those new pattern created, very difficult for us to tell which one is which by which transfer.
This photograph also taken February 18, 19, 1995, when I examine this shirt of Mr. Goldman. The shirt, when I exam, as you can see, have greenish whiteish mold-like material start growing. Make an interpretation of the pattern almost impossible. What I did notice is some button missing. A total three button appear to be separate from his shirt; the no. 3 position, no. 5 position, no. 6 position. A portion of the plastic-like material and thread still attached on those location. Subsequently exam this shirt. On the left breast pocket I recover an envelope. Inside an envelope have two buttons. Each of this button, the center portion of the plastic missing. The button itself is about one centimeter in diameter. In other words, we have--
What does the fact that the buttons--pattern on the inside of the buttons indicate in terms of issues of force?
Since the thread still intact in the location, since have appear to be plastic-like material, which indicative could be suggest those button was separate with certain force.
Now, if a criminalist were to remove buttons from a shirt for purposes of some analysis, how would--what is the proper procedure for doing so?
Well, are buttons potentially important evidence in assessing a crime scene, buttons on a victim's shirt?
Yes. Button often indicates to us the location. If the button drop in a certain location which may indicate at that particular location a force apply, one of the button fall onto the surface. By study the pattern, we can look at whether or not center still intact or not. If the center broken, which you have to have certain force to separate.
Would it be proper in analysis for a criminalist to pull a button off a shirt and remove the center?
No? Okay. So assuming that a criminalist had not forcibly removed the buttons from the shirt, what does the pattern that you see in the photograph labeled "Broken buttons" indicate with respect to the issue of force?
Assume this button was separate at the time of incident, which could indicative a struggle and force was applied.
Now, Dr. Lee, looking at this evidence from the closed-in area depicted on this board, is the patterns you find on Mr. Goldman's shoes, boots, and the buttons consistent with a struggle?
Is it consistent with a struggle where a sharp instrument made contact with Mr. Goldman's sneaker while it was not on the ground?
Your Honor, we are finished with this section, and I'm moving to a new board. I have six minutes, but it is your pleasure.
Your Honor, this is a board entitled "Evidence found, eyeglasses envelope, envelope at Bundy scene" and we have marked that 1342 (Sic).
Dr. Lee, could you describe for us these photographs and the meaning of the two indications of position 1 and position 2?
Yes. This photograph, this board actually a composite of four different pictures. There is four different pictures being divided in two groups. The top row represent one group; the bottom row represent the second group. The first group, first column first picture, which indicative at the time this photo was taken, the blanket was not used to cover this area, depicts in this photo a certain position of this envelope.
The record should reflect Dr. Lee is pointing to the photograph on the upper left-hand column which we have evidence is Detective Fuhrman pointing downwards and has pointed to what is known as the envelope and the piece of paper.
The second photograph first row--first column second one indicates this photo was taken after the previous one. A blanket was used and this is the position of this envelope, (Indicating). The next--
Moving to the envelope on the upper right-hand corner and comparing it to the envelope in what is indicated as position 1 and the envelope in position 2, are there differences?
Well, yeah. This is an introductory to a whole series of boards, your Honor, about the differences.
Okay. This shows this envelope that is in two different positions. The envelope has been moved since the first picture taken to the second picture, (Indicating).
Let the record reflect Dr. Lee has taken a piece of red tape and drawn it from grout to grout.
Okay. And are we going to move on in other boards and pictures you have shown us to show changes--differences between the envelopes and the two positions?
All right. Let's--let's take our break at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the noon hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss this case amongst yourselves. Most importantly, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess for one hour. Dr. Lee, you may step down. You are ordered to come back at one o'clock. Thank you.
I cannot tell you exactly how long. It is not a short struggle.
The bloodstain pattern, the deposit of the key, beeper in different location, the bloodstain smears, contact pattern under the boots, and vertical droplet in different location which shows a movement.
More likely it is not on the ground.
The shirt, when I exam, as you can see, have greenish whiteish mold-like material start growing. Make an interpretation of the pattern almost impossible.
But counsel, we have to trust the common sense of our jurors, don't we?