All right. The record should reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel, that Dr. Henry C. Lee is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Scheck. And, Mr. Scheck, you may continue until a quarter to 4:00.
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Harris, could we have the next board, which would be Defendant's 13--
All right. Now, Dr. Lee, you mentioned before that arrangements were made so that Defense experts for the first time could actually examine items of evidence in this case at Albany Medical Center on February 17th and 18th and 19th, correct?
All right. Were you able to--you or other Defense experts, to your knowledge, were you given an opportunity to actually examine physical evidence by touching it, microscopic examination prior to the shipment of that evidence to Albany on February 17th, 1995?
Now, in terms of the arrangements being made with respect to this evidence, what was your understanding about whether or not the socks were going to be sent to Albany?
Uh-huh. And was it your understanding that the socks were not going to be sent to Albany--
Dr. Lee, do you have knowledge as to whether or not testing was scheduled on the socks for purposes of detecting EDTA by the FBI?
That is hearsay. That's not a relevant issue. Counsel, we've had that testimony about EDTA. Let's proceed with what this witness did.
That day, I was in Seattle, Washington, attend academy of forensic science annual meeting which held in Seattle, other forensic scientists--
Did you have plans to go to the Albany Medical Center on February 17th after your--after the convention?
Sustained. Counsel, the jury understands he's from Connecticut, he works in Connecticut--
At the 16th, February 16th, early morning, I left hotel probably 3:30, 4:00 o'clock to Seattle airport to catch a flight, 6:00 o'clock flight to L.A.
Was it your understanding, Dr. Lee, that this would be your only opportunity to examine the socks before EDTA testing was performed on them by Agent Martz?
Yes. That's what my understanding. Before any additional tests were done, that's the only opportunity to look at socks in the original condition.
At that point, what I understand, the socks still intact or original condition when they're collected.
Did there come a time when you were allowed to go to the piper tech laboratory, Los Angeles Police Department?
Thank you. And from around 10:00 o'clock, 9:30, 10:00 o'clock, when you arrived there, were we joined by anyone else from the District Attorney's office?
All right. About how long did we wait before you were given an opportunity to get into a room and begin examining the socks?
Did you have an understanding as to whether or not there was a deadline that you had in terms of your ability to examine these socks, when they would be taken away?
I was informed in the afternoon, approximately 1:30, these socks going to fly to Washington.
All right. Now, before we get to this board entitled, "History of the socks, item 13, February 16, 1995 examination at LAPD lab," I would like to put on the board a Prosecution exhibit which is 285 entitled, "Henry lee's sock examination."
Before I left Seattle, I made a request because I can not bring my own laboratory to L.A. I was in a conference give speech. I have no equipment, no camera, no gears. I said have to provide me with all those equipment, all the gears, glove, anything I need. I was informed, yes, everything you need will be there.
This microscope appears to be similar to a stereoscope. Have two oculars, so-called binocular. Will view from the top. The object is putting underneath, and the external light source was also provided.
The ocular is moving. The objective shaky. I can't even focus. Looks like need a lot of w--DW--WD 40, something.
Some kind of solution. WD 40, degrease type of solution. I can't even focus. I wasn't provide any microphotographer attachment. In other words, I have yeen ability to take pictures through the microscope.
Because the adjustment almost impossible to make a true assessment. So impossible for me to make a--such determination.
There are seven lawyers in the room, including my good friend here, Mr. Goldberg, yourself, Bob Blasier, Hodgman, he's another excellent attorney, and attorney Clark, another excellent attorney, good friend, and another attorney.
Mr. Harmon. Used to be a friend. Also, there are laboratory people. When I walk in, I can see this feeling, I'm not welcome.
I ask what procedure for this examination, what's the rule or regulation, what can I do, what can I not do.
An individual that's not the attorney, it's laboratory scientist, say, "You're the expert. You should know it," in a very mean manner and unprofessional.
KEY QUOTECould you please go back to the board, describe what happened next in terms of what's depicted here, the course of the examination.
The next question I ask, is there any better equipment I can use. The same manner, "That's the best we can give you." I feel little bit upset for this, uncalled for, unprofessional.
Now, this picture over here, there's an indication--you're putting your arm into the bag up to the elbow. Why were you doing that?
The second picture shows you with a piece of paper in the bag. What are you doing there?
I notice some trace material. However, I was instruct cannot be collected. So I put hand into the paper bag.
I notice the socks already cut, seven holes from the one sock, three holes from the other sock. It's not in original condition which I understand.
Now, it's not depicted on this board, but another photograph has been shown in this courtroom of you holding socks up to a light for examination.
This is simple basic technique which we use which we call back lighting. You have fabric material, any stain on it, if you lift it up, look, the light shine from the back, it's easily--quickly you can identify potential stain. That's the first, you know, basic technique we instruct student to do.
And incidentally, given the bloodstains that were eventually identified in the sock, if in earlier examination, the criminalist had picked up one of these socks and looked up into the light, would they have been able to visualize a bloodstain if it were there?
In theory, should be able to see that. When I pick up the socks, I can see all the stain.
Now, Dr. Lee, there's an indication here of moving from one sock to the other sock.
Now, can you tell us what you were able to observe--I think we're--is there anything else of note on this board?
I notice that both socks in one bag, in one envelope. I made a comment, I said why those two socks in one envelope.
And what is the significance of putting both socks in one envelope for--in terms of forensic procedure?
Start that initial moment, you pick up the socks, put in one envelope, you already contaminate both socks. You have a cross-contamination. It's no longer its virgin state.
Is there any significance in terms of this examination that you are not wearing a lab coat or a hair net?
I wasn't provide with a lab coat nor a hair net. After I look, these both socks already put in one envelope. Doesn't matter what I wear, space suit, body armor. Still contaminated.
Now, Dr. Lee, is there anything else of interest depicted on this board with respect to your examination on February 16th before we move to the Defense board?
Yes. Because the difficulty of this microscope, I start using magnifying lens to exam. A magnifying lens can only go to four times. Not really great magnification. I look at the microscope. Yes, I can see some reddish stain which resemble to blood. However, if I can not focus onto the surface, I'm not sure. As I scientist, if anything I'm not sure, I don't want to come to this courtroom to testify.
Now, Dr. Lee, as you were conducting this examination, what was your--and you indicated that began around 12:40?
Dr. Lee, call your attention to the picture in the bottom right-hand column, "Turns inside out." Can you explain the significance of that?
The out--exterior surface and interior surface, when you made transfer, you should see both side, try to understand the nature or mechanism of any of those transfer.
With respect to the bottom left-hand photograph, could you describe what's going on there?
I'm taking pictures. However, only this not a photomicrograph, just a regular picture. In addition, I put a ruler on top of the socks.
Any other pictures that would assist you in describing the next board that's on the Prosecution's board?
The ruler--I carry a lot of rulers. As matter of fact, like a business card. A lot of people collect my rulers or usual, after I exam, just pass away, give it to someone. In this day, I give quite a few ruler to people in the room.
This board consist of nine pictures, three columns. Column 1, picture no. 1 depicts a portion of view of this brown paper bag, numerous writing on this brown paper bag, initials, numbers, tape, which indicative numerous examination already performed. Second photograph depicts an envelope appear to be from Department of Justice. This envelope also have initials and writings and different date, which again consistent with this envelope being open, socks being exam. The last picture of this first column is an overall view when I took the content out. Consists of two socks, two little subterfuge tubes. Inside of subterfuge tube appear to be little fabric material remain in those tubes (Indicating). Column no. 2 depicts the socks--
Depicts socks 13-A, an overall view, shows the socks with my ruler. On the socks, I notice some trace material adhere on the socks. I did not remove it. Also, I notice there cutting. One of the cutting have blood-like stain on the periphery area. There are some reddish smear on the other side of the socks.
Now, Dr. Lee, let me stop you right there. Would you say that this photograph is what is 13-A, right?
And this is--the cut-out section was the material that was used to do RFLP typing by the Department of Justice and cellmark that got RFLP results consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?
Now, you've indicated that on what has been characterized in previous testimony as surface no. 3--
I can not document. I can not prove the existence of it. Therefore, I did not put down.
Because I don't have a--equipment capable to do a close-up photomicrograph documentation.
Column 13-B shows the other socks, overall view picture. It's the first frame. Next picture shows the three cutting on the socks, some marking on the socks. The last frame of the socks again shows they are different stain and trace material adhere on the socks.
54? 1354, your Honor, is entitled, "History of socks, item 13, April 2nd, 1995, examination at Taylor's laboratory."
Now, Dr. Lee, did you have an opportunity to examine the socks again on April 2nd, 1995?
All right. Now, could you please describe for us through these photographs the examination.
The overall picture shows the package April the 2nd when this been transferred to me to exam. Before any cutting, I photograph document, now have more bags, envelopes.
Is it your understanding that between the time that you examined the sock on February 16th and this examination, that Agent Martz performed the EDTA testing at the FBI?
Do you have an understanding an examination was performed at the FBI prior to your receiving this on April 2nd?
In terms of your examination in the photographs, can you describe what was done next?
Next one, after this envelope was cut open, inside contents of envelope, I photograph this envelope again to document the condition. Now have more signatures and initials.
13-A, because this have different numbering system, I see some locations say 42. So that's why we say parenthesis 42-A. That's one socks, the ankle stain depicts in this photo.
Now, to your knowledge, is 42-A the Department of Justice reference to the sock and 13 would be the LAPD item number?
Were there any differences between the cutting as you saw it on April 2nd and the one on February 16th?
I saw this hole being enlarged, additional piece being cut away. Initially, it's a rectangle shape. Now, become irregular jagged edge shape.
13-B, 42-B depicts a close-up view, shows that's three holes which been cut from this particular socks.
All right. Call your attention now to a photograph that is called close-up 42-A-1. What is that?
This because the quashing, which we want to constantly reexam, is relate to this particular stain. This particular stain, which shows a close-up view, shows the surface 1 and surface 3 (Indicating).
Now, incidentally, what kind of equipment were you using at the time of this examination?
I use my own microscope with photographic attachment. Also use a light source, which my own light source.
And--why does the color change incidentally between the photographs in the middle that are dark and the close-up of 42-A-1 that appears--
You have an external light source and start reflecting and photograph the document, going to have artificial light source for color.
What is the next photograph in the upper right-hand side labeled, "Close-up exterior surface left side 42-A-1"?
This one depicts an area here, the periphery surface, one in the photomicrograph, approximately 25 times. Shows where bloodstain on the surface still remain on the surface.
The bottom right hand, it's approximately the same magnification. However, shows surface 3, one area of surface 3.
Surface 3, if we look at this picture around 5:00 o'clock, this location, I see numerous little dot, reddish color blood-like substances.
Before we turn to the next--the next board has further close-ups; is that correct?
Yes. With this magnification, I can see a different population as a blood-like material. Some appear in a ball shape. Other appear in a crust, flaked type of shape. Some of those flecks, flake appear adhere on the fiber. Other appear to be loosely on the surface.
1355 entitled, "History of socks, item 13, close-up view of bloodstain on item 13-A, (42-A)."
The six photograph, the top row, three, represent exterior surface with magnification. The bottom row, three frame of picture, represent the interior surface with magnification.
Now, we previously had, when Professor MacDonell was testifying, two photographs put into evidence, one exhibit no. 1277, and the other one, 1278. Ask you to examine these and tell us if either of these photographs are also on this board.
Yes. Exhibit no. 1277 represent a view of the 3rd column, top. The landmark is a 2 curvature of fabric showing in the middle portion of this photograph. The second one, which representing this board, the second column, bottom frame, a ball-like reddish stain showing in this location.
Okay. And so this photograph, Defendant's 1278, with the circle, the blue circle, that is what Professor MacDonell was referring to as a little red ball?
All right. Dr. Lee, would you please proceed with your description of the examination you performed in terms of these six photographs.
First row, exterior surface, on the surface, fabric surface, have blood-like stain. Those bloodstain basically distribute on the fabric itself. So these two view represent two different locations. When you enlarge it, you see the socks have gaps, little holes. When you look at the fabric itself, the wave pattern looks very tight. The fabric itself very smooth. It's a non-absorbent type of a fabric. The bloodstain basically sitting on the surface, did not absorb into the fabric itself. These little holes, if you focus through the hole, you can see some reddish stain, blood-like stain went through the hole. Next row of picture depicts the surface 3. Again, we can see those little ball-like, bead-like material. However, it's become very difficult to photograph to--into 70 time. The distance, room for focus getting less and less. So you only can focus and photograph one stain at a time. You can not say take a picture, shows a row of balls. You only can show one. The rest going to be out of focus. This picture shows one of the better representation. Subsequently, I took some other picture, and I see some little ball material in here. In addition, there piece of unknown substances was also found on these socks (Indicating).
Could you please circle on the photograph to the far--far right-hand corner some of the other little balls that you saw.
If--and you say that this observation was made by changing the focus of the microscope?
This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis.
Now, Dr. Lee, in order for these red balls to have come to be as they appear on surface no. 3, does this require a transfer between surface 2 and surface 3?
It not necessary to have a surface 2, surface 3, but surface 1--surface 2 have to be contact surface 3.
And in terms of the significance of these balls, what does--what does that indicate, the form of those red balls?
And how does that distinguished from the--you said there were flakings that you had seen in other photographs. What's the difference?
Those transfer, some could be in liquid stage, did not form a ball, prior to the forming of ball, collect, or due to a secondary transfer from another surface during examination and get transfer.
Now, Professor MacDonell testified that the stain on surface 1 and surface 2 and surface 3 was consistent with a transfer stain starting when the socks were laying on a flat surface and no leg was in the sock. Are you aware of that.
Now, let me ask you--well, I take it, if a leg is in the sock, you can't have contact between those two surfaces?
All right. Let me ask you about some suggestions that have been made about mechanisms of transfer. Let me ask you to assume that this sock were--was at the crime scene and one of the victims, perhaps Miss Simpson, grabbed the sock. Could that have caused the transfer, assuming there was a leg in the sock?
Before I answer this, the mechanism, manner of transfer, that's two separate thing. Mechanism and manner is different.
A mechanism, for example, if the blood goes through this little hole, did not touch the foot surface too, that's a mechanism. Just like a screen window have little holes. When the screen window wet, the stain going to be on top of the screen window. Unless certain force, certain condition, that little drop of a liquid may go through the hole, and subsequently, you have a contact, can soak through and get the formation. That's called mechanism. Manner can be touching with hand, touch with pointer, touch with an ear, touch with a nose. Those manner can be different, can subject to a lot of interpretation and possibilities.
Assume that these socks were at the crime scene on an individual. If they had been grabbed by one of the victims whose hands were bloody, could that manner of transfer have caused what you see?
If a grabbing, if both--other side of forefinger touch, I should see both sock have a contact or contact smear. In addition, if somebody's leg is inside of the socks, still, when that cause this manner of mechanism of transfer.
If--ask you--a suggestion has been made that--you're aware that a phenolphtalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994?
Well, ask you to assume that a phenolphthalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994. Could the application of a swab in a phenolphthalein test to this stain be the mechanism of transfer?
If a phenolphthalein test, the technique used properly, in other words, not soaking the swab wet to wet, usually just moist the swab, it's not sufficient liquid to redissolve because the contact of the swab to surface should be brief. Shouldn't have that, but I can not rule out all the possibilities. As a scientist, I only can tell you some may be consistent with, some may be high unlikely.
Now, in terms of the blood crust and the issue of diffusion, does that have some relationship to your opinion that this is an unlikely mechanism of transfer?
Because here have sufficient amount of blood crust on a surface, in general, we use a dry swab or dry filter paper, which will avoid this potential problem since all those crusts, you probably don't need to rub back and forth hard to cause a transfer.
It has been suggested that if a bloodstain occurred on this sock and then someone was sweating in the socks, that this would cause the stain to dry more slowly and could be the mechanism of transfer.
Dr. Lee, let's assume that a bloodstain was deposited on the sock and then 10, 15 minutes later, some--during that 10-, 15-minute period, someone was sweating in the socks and then the socks were taken off. Could that result--could that be a mechanism or manner of transfer that would be consistent with your observations here?
The bloodstain on the surface still in an intact shape, if a bloodstain dissolves, say, the socks with a lot of sweat should become a diffused pattern. But again, I can not rule out any possibility. May be possible, but unlikely.
Last question. Assume, Dr. Lee, that the socks--a cutout was made of the socks, there was some patterning of blood, the sock was put into a freezer, taken out and then condensation occurred. Could that form the little balls that you observed?
Assume that the socks were cut, that after the cutting of the socks, there was patterning of blood, that the socks were then put into a freezer. Assume further they were taken out of a freezer. Assume further that there was condensation. Could that form the little balls that you observed?
Do you have foundation--do you have experience, Dr. Lee, with putting biological evidence in and out of freezers?
We store our biological specimen in the freezer. We have to take in and out once a while, but not every minute. So I really cannot say take out every minute, what kind of effect going to cause.
But do you take--when you say "Every minute," what do you mean by every minute? If biological evidence is stored--ask you to assume biological evidence is stored for a matter of days and then taken out. Cutout is made. Could patterning from that cutout--let me start it this way.
I'm running--maybe I should--rather than struggle with this hypothetical, my last hypothetical in this area, I think we should go to the dentist.
All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the evening. Please remember all of my admonitions; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, 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. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess. All right. When we regroup, I would like to see counsel, and we'll proceed to arguments on the other matters.
The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there.
An individual that's not the attorney, it's laboratory scientist, say, 'You're the expert. You should know it,' in a very mean manner and unprofessional.
It consistent with this transfer being a liquid stage.
When I walk in, I can see this feeling, I'm not welcome.
Oh, maybe him. You all look alike. I don't know.