These three picture depicts the same envelope, show the three pictures were taken different point of time. The first picture, second picture were provide to me by attorney Shapiro. Those picture depicts here appear to be taken by LAPD photographer. The third one is a picture which I took February 18, 1995 at Albany Medical Center (Indicating).
Now, Dr. Lee, would the picture in the middle represent the envelope as shown in the photograph in what we have been calling position no. 1?
So that is the photograph, the first photograph in time that we know of of that envelope?
And the one to the right are the pictures taken--picture taken at Albany Medical Center?
Okay. Now, could you describe to us some of the differences on these pictures between these envelopes?
The center envelope is this envelope which the first record, the first documentation which I can see. On the envelope near the top region, large amount of trace material. Hair and fiber-like trace appear to be in this area. The one I just show you previously, here some soil trace material already caked in this area. The photograph which I received subsequently, those trace material was found to be absent. It's gone. It's no longer on this surface. The leaf, for example, here, it's absent from this location. The leaves underneath this envelope are absent from this location. This piece of material appear to be absent from this location (Indicating). In addition, I notice some other changes. The most clear one is here. I see a blood drop in this location absent. No blood drop.
Could you circle that blood drop, please, that you have indicated is in the envelope on position no. 2 that is not in position no. 1?
Are the imprint patterns that were consistent with fingers visible on the original photographs?
It's appear in this location and this location still remain on the surface (Indicating).
So in other words, those patterns which you indicated before had to be made when blood was wet or in the original photograph of position no. 1?
And to your understanding, is that before anybody came and touched that envelope and processed that scene?
Well, have you kept track of the testimony to some degree of the various witnesses in this case?
Is it your understanding from the testimony in this case, Dr. Lee, that the crime scene had been processed--
All right. We'll leave that. In terms of the bloodstain that you've circled, are there any other stains on the envelope in position no. 1 that weren't there in position--position no. 2 that weren't there in position no. 1?
There are some stains. However, very difficult to make a comparison due to this again is three-dimensional setting, we look at two-dimensional picture. I can tell this clearly, this one wasn't there. There are some subtle one, minor one which I'm not going to testify.
Now, in conclusion, Dr. Lee, from this envelope, can you determine from bloodstain pattern that imprint impressions that you've described were made on it in wet blood in the course of the struggle?
Assume those are footwear, part of footwear imprint, which indicative these two have to be deposit when envelope was on the ground. Assume those material--
Based on the assumption that the trace evidence and bloodstains as reflected in the envelope on position no. 1 were deposited there during the course of the homicides in this case, what does the pattern indicate?
The imprints you've described as being consistent with fingers making contact with the envelope?
This particular drop (Indicating) which appeared to be grouped when I examine this envelope at February 18, 19, which correlate to this drop which was original absent from.
Now, Dr. Lee, does this board reflect something that appears in one of the books you've written?
This is steps for forensic examination, the logic sequence when we get to crime scene or examine piece of physical evidence. That's the required step of process.
And I ask you to review these steps very briefly and connect it to what was available to you in the course of your investigation in this case and what wasn't.
All right. Mr. Scheck, let me ask you a question just logistically. Given the nature of this chart, is there any reason we can't have Dr. Lee back on the witness stand and with the chart turned the other way?
All right. Dr. Lee, why don't you pull the microphone close to you, please. Thank you. Mr. Scheck.
First step of any forensic examination of the crime scene of physical evidence have to go through a step called recognition. You have to see it, recognize it before we can do anything. If any potential evidence you did not see it or imprint evidence on certain object, you did not recognize, subsequent step become obsolete since did not recognize, then we did not go through identification examination. So recognition is very crucial for any crime scene investigation, for any examination of physical evidence. Once we recognize the particular item, have particular importance or potential of value relate to a case, then we go through the next step. The next step is a composition of a lot of sub steps.
Yes. First, with respect to recognition, when you're saying that's the most important step, for example, you discussed briefly yesterday how one can go about identifying latent footprints. Do you recall that?
All right. Now, just as an example, if one does not carefully examine a scene to find latent footprints, would that be what you would call a failure of recognition?
And are failures of recognition--withdrawn. And evidence that is not recognized--all right. Let's--I'm mindful of the time. Let's move on to the next step, preservation, documentation and collection. What do you mean by that?
This is a group activity. Have to be performed right after recognition to document the original shape by variety of methods, notes, diagram, photograph, videotaping, description prior to the collection. Also have to at the same time preserve the scientific integrity and the legal integrity of this potential evidence after it recognized.
So would videotaping a crime scene be a method in terms of preservation and documentation?
And would keeping accurate notes with respect to what was collected, when it was collected and who collected it be the kind of thing that you mean by documentation and collection?
To a scientist, a forensic scientist, chain of custody means start of initial step. We have to keep a record of this, any transaction of this piece of evidence.
All right. Would, for example, counting the number of swatches used to collect the bloodstain be an example of activities in this preservation, documentation and collection area?
Once the sample collected, submit to the laboratory, first we go through identification step, try to use methodological pattern, physical characters and simple chemical tests to identify a certain piece of material and the nature of such piece of evidence.
And if the preservation, documentation and collection is not done correctly, does that undermine your ability to do identification?
And if the preservation, documentation, collection stage evidence is contaminated, does that undermine you to do identification?
Comparison, once you identify a particular object, for example, a hair, and we'll have known and questioned hair to compare. With a blood sample, known and questioned, soil sample, any type of sample, you need the known and question to make a comparison. Can compare biological property, physical property, microscopic characteristics and physical characteristic, try to see can we make a match.
Whether or not you can trace to the source origin. For example, simple example, a fingerprint. If you match all the ridge characteristics from a known fingerprint card to a latent fingerprint from a scene, then you say you individualize it now.
A large group of physical evidence at the current stage, there are limitation. We cannot reach a stage called individualization. We can only compare class characteristics, but not individual characteristics.
Hair if just microscopic comparison, that's consistent. Not as an individualization. Cannot use as a positive identification of an individual.
Reconstruction is, after we go through all the step, now we start putting together what the significance of this piece of physical evidence fitting in the case like putting the puzzles together. Can we put the puzzle together and make some sense or we cannot put the puzzle together, make any sense.
Now, Dr. Lee, if the recognition stage and the preservation of documentation and collection stage is not performed correctly, what does that do to the ability to do reconstruction?
This is the foundation. If you turn this chart upside down, if the foundation--we don't have a foundation, you take the building block away, whatever reconstruction becomes speculation.
So if evidence is contaminated or compromised in the recognition, preservation, documentation and collection phase, that makes it--undermines ability to do reconstruction?
It's entitled, "Trace material found on--physical evidence at Bundy, soil sample from item--from Bundy item 114."
Dr. Lee, could you please describe to us what is depicted by the photographs on this board?
This board consists of four pictures. Shows a sample numbered 114, soil sample front, northwest of gate.
And when you say "A control sample of the soil," what would that mean in forensics?
All right. What is depicted in the central photograph indicating "Soil sample examined"?
On March 4th, 1995, while exam this sample, I put a piece of paper, clean paper, remove the soil debris from this envelope. That shows an overall view of those soil samples in this plastic bag.
This two photograph are photomicrograph, taking the pictures through a microscope, which shows besides the soil, there are large amount of a trace material present in the soil, the soil sample.
I see dry vegetation, wood fragment, hairs, paint chip-like material, more hairs, fibers, a large amount of material in this envelope.
And when a soil exemplar is taken, is the purpose of that to take it from an area where there is no activity to get a sense of what is generally in the soil? Is that the idea behind it?
Generally, soil exemplar, we're taking at the location which we think has activities.
For example, subsequently, you found the shoes, suspect's shoes, you can compare the soil, or you have hairs, you can compare the hair was original present in the soil or subsequently deposit on the surface.
I would like to now turn to a discussion of the socks, and I'd ask that this board be marked Defendant's next in order.
This first board marked 1352 entitled, "History of socks, item 13, June 13th, 1994 at Rockingham," briefly, Dr. Lee, what is this?
This board consists three picture. This three picture was supplied to me by attorney Shapiro.
Depicts an overall view, shows this corner of the bedroom and a rug on the carpet, the bed and appear to be--in the center of this picture appear to be pair of socks (Indicating).
This picture is taken appear to be a different point of time. We see some changes in the picture. However, this pair of socks appear to be in the middle of this rug (Indicating).
Uh-huh. Now, is there anything about the way those socks are lying on the carpet that is of interest in terms of subsequent analysis?
This two socks is clearly in two different location, not on top each other. This two socks both have a similarity. The top appear to be folding downward. These two socks, both side, the tip, the toe area cannot be seen whether or not due to this photograph, two-dimensional representation or in reality was tucked in, which I don't know. One sock appear to be crunched in a three-dimensional setting. The other one also, it's not flat. It's also crunched in certain fashion. These two socks, I can not determine just by looking at them inside out or outside in (Indicating).
In terms of the proper practices for collection of these socks, what should be done?
These two socks should be put in two separate bags. However, before I even pick it up, should noted the condition, dry, wet, moist or damp. In addition, should definite indicates inside out or outside in, the toe stuck inside or not or exposed, the top, whether or not in fact fall down works or not. A physical description and any obvious trace material or stain should be noted.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, we have two minutes and I have another board that will take longer. So I would suggest this would be a time.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let's take our mid-afternoon break at this point. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll stand in recess for 15 minutes. All right. Dr. Lee, you can step down.
I see a blood drop in this location absent. No blood drop.
If you turn this chart upside down, if the foundation--we don't have a foundation, you take the building block away, whatever reconstruction becomes speculation.
Those trace material was found to be absent. It's gone. It's no longer on this surface.
These two socks should be put in two separate bags. However, before I even pick it up, should noted the condition, dry, wet, moist or damp. In addition, should definite indicates inside out or outside in.