All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Dr. Henry Lee is still on the witness stand under going cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue.
Now, Dr. Lee, you distinguished in your testimony between the manner of transfer as opposed to the mode of transfer; is that correct?
And the mode of transfer would be the exact mechanism, in other words, was it a hand, was it a gloved hand, was it an object, what is it exactly that caused that blood transfer; is that correct?
Now, with respect to that issue, the mode of transfer, were you able to render any opinion regarding the mode of transfer onto the socks?
There are numerous possibilities. I cannot tell you which one is definitively one method.
So would it be fair to say that on that this is an area where you were unable to render an opinion on that question, mode of transfer?
Now, you were asked a little bit about trace analysis on direct examination and you said that it fell in the area of hair examination somewhere in between class characteristics and individualization; is that correct?
And did you explain this--excuse me. Do you agree with the following statement: "While it is difficult to make absolute individualizations in these areas, the trace analyst can make identifications with a high degree of certainly and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence based on experience and analytical results"?
I would say eighty to ninety percent that statement correct. They forgot one thing. Depends on samples. Not all the sample you can reach that degree of certainty. Some of the sample, yes, you can. Other sample maybe only can do a class characteristic identification.
Sir, have you ever publicly stated the comment that I just made in any public forum, whether it is published or oral?
Maybe in certain context. I try to tell the investigator how important trace evidence is in solving crime or to disassociate a person from a crime. Trace evidence have particular value. Don't overlook trace evidence. Although trace evidence we cannot approach positive identification, two extreme. One, called individualization; one called identification. A lot of physical evidence fall in between; degree, different degree. Fingerprint, that is a possible identification. A hair we cannot reach to that, say, just from this person, no other person.
Well, let me ask you this, doctor. Maybe I can just approach counsel for a moment.
--with respect to trace analysis, would it be your position that in some cases regarding hair comparisons that identifications can be made with a high degree of certainty and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence?
Okay. And there were certain items that you looked at where you packaged some hair and trace evidence in bindles in this case; is that right?
And one was the envelope and one was Ron Goldman's boots, and the other one was the soil sample; is that correct?
I testify on direct, yes, only three, but in reality when I examine I found 21 separate bindles of trace evidence.
I'm sorry, I was asking about the testimony. Now, with respect to these three items, Dr. Lee, did you do any comparisons yourself on any of the hair and trace evidence in those bindles?
Okay. And is there any forensic significance to finding the materials that you found in those three items?
Well, sir, is it common to find stray hair and trace materials when you are analyzing a particular piece of evidence for hair and trace?
Just shows the presence of trace and of course what type of trace becomes significant. Whether or not can link a person or disassociate a person now become significant. If you found trace, that is uncommon. If you give me time, I go to jewelry box, I can probably find hundreds of hairs, all different fibers.
And we might be able to find some hairs and fibers--we would be able to find some hairs and fibers in the jury box that don't belong to any of the jurors in this case?
If you give me time I will found a lot of hairs and fibers, maybe nothing to do with the jury panel.
Even though this jury panel has been sitting in this jury box for quite sometime?
Okay. So there wouldn't be anything unusual about being able to find hairs and fibers at a crime scene that don't belong to the suspects and the victim; is that true?
Now, you were asked a little bit about the generalities of crime scene identification and the Defense used a chart that was Defense 1350, if we could just take a look at that.
Now, sir, this chart was intended in order to represent the basic steps in terms of categories of forensic examination from crime scene forward; is that correct?
And I just want to make sure that I'm understanding exactly how to interpret the chart correctly. Let's say that we have a situation, doctor, where the biological evidence at a crime scene, let's say it is blood, is stepped in by a Defendant and it is deposited on the sole of his shoes and then he takes it to some other location.
Okay. Now, in that hypothetical scenario that I have given you has the collection, in effect, been done by the suspect himself instead of by a police officer?
The collection actually involve two force. You start with recognition. If say an individual step in the blood, walk on the surface, you deposit some evidence on that walking--say walkway surface. Not--it is not by Defendant himself. The detective or the criminalist at the scene have to see it to recognize it, try to enhance it and then collect it. If you forget about that you create a big problem for future reconstruction. The second half you are correct, the shoe itself become a valuable piece of evidence. Unless you find the shoe you can't really do a side-by-side comparison.
Okay. And in that kind of a hypothetical situation where you had found the shoe like that, say, you would still be able to test that shoe for conventional testing and for DNA testing; is that correct?
Yeah. The shoe again, the testing involve quite a bit now. Not only serological analysis, you have to--the most valuable is a pattern comparison, side-by-side the shoe and the footprint. You will have compare not only look at general characteristic, also look at the wear, cut, pattern, so-called individual characteristics. Grouping just one part of it, whether or not you can link to certain source of a blood, just like hair, soil, whether or not you are link to the--back to the scene, so the whole process is involved in recognition, preservation, documentation, collection, everything.
Okay. And you would agree that--that--let me ask another question. Let's change the hypothetical a little bit.
And let's say that instead of a suspect at the crime scene we have a brand new police officer at his first crime scene.
And he is a little panicked and he is nervous about doing that, obviously, and he--but he immediately takes his shoe off, Dr. Lee.
If the shoe bring to me, yes, I will be able to identify whether or not that is blood. If in fact blood, human blood or not. If it is human blood, of course just like you indicate that additional serological grouping type A, type B, type O, DNA typing try to see whose blood. Equally important I have to look at a scene whether or not have same type of shoeprint.
So there is a variety of testing that you could do even in the hypothetical that I gave you?
Okay. And in my particular hypothetical, though, doctor, the police officer obviously didn't recognize the blood at the time that he stepped in it, right?
And would you agree, doctor, that a police officer dabbing his foot in blood is--and then using his shoe for analysis wouldn't be the recommended collection technique?
Let's say a police officer raises his hand, he is in the audience. "Dr. Lee, if I don't have any swatches or I don't have any bindles to scrape off the blood, can I just dab my foot in it and submit my shoe for analysis?"
I probably tell don't dab, just give me your shoes and don't do it next time.
KEY QUOTEOkay. All right. So even though we have a big mistake in terms of recognition, in terms of preservation, documentation, collection, identification, we can still do comparison, we can still do individualization; is that correct, in my hypothetical?
You going to be on shaky ground because unless we recognize everything where we can do partial reconstruction.
We botched preservation documentation and collection in the hypothetical. Identification we nailed, right?
So doctor, if we wanted to change the title of the chart from "Steps in forensic examination" to "Garbage in, garbage out," that would be incorrect from a scientific standpoint, wouldn't it?
But garbage in, garbage out, that is a common thing I use in lecture. You collect a lot of garbage from the crime scene. Laboratory scientist, my report going to like garbage. You don't really don't know where it come from, what is going to happen, like a garbage report. You have to do a so-called total team approach. Everybody have to work together do the best job.
Right. But known cases, just as the one I related, sometimes--I won't say that you can save the case, but you can still get some very meaningful test results, very meaningful evidence?
Now, if we changed our hypothetical again, Dr. Lee, see that the police officer photographed the bloodstain properly--
--before he stepped in it, then we might even be able to do some reconstruction as well; is that true, limited?
Your Honor, I will again object to--unless there is facts in evidence, I think the hypotheticals and changes have no basis in foundation.
Doctor, when I was questioning you a little while ago, you were talking--I think that you said something to the effect that you wouldn't recommend someone using their hands to touch the swatches to see whether they were dry?
But if we had someone who did that, and let's say our same police officer, our new police officer who is new, oh, my heavens, not only did I do all those other things, I also touched the swatches with my hands--
Dr. Lee, would your procedure there be that you would take a blood sample from the police officer, correct?
And you would test his--depending on what testing you were doing, you might do conventional serology, you might do PCR and RFLP, correct?
Yes. I will test the evidence with the control. If somebody touch it, the body cell may contaminate to the evidence. That is one possibility. Second, only for the protection of the individual may have a cut, some hepatitis or aids or other virus may infect the individual, so touching, not only is a contamination, also protection. If have some body material transfer to that sample, now you are going to have a contaminated sample. We have to have a known control compare, try to resolve, see what we can do.
And although things like that aren't supposed to happen, every once in awhile there are cases where something like that does occur?
All right. Now, you were asked about the socks being packaged together in an envelope and I just wanted to clarify your testimony on this topic. Is the packaging--let's say that you have two socks at a crime scene and you collect them together and you put them in the same bag together.
Is it your position that there could be a transfer from one sock to another sock?
If the socks are wet, if have some body tissues or body material can cause a transfer.
Are you going to expect a transfer, in your experience, at that time if the socks are dry?
If have dry skin, tissue, those you don't need any wet material. If it is bloodstain, sometime this touch can have a trace transfer. If it is wet, you definitely going to expect transfer.
Is packaging the socks together the way that I just described going to change the DNA type on the socks that was deposited there?
I cannot say specifically will relate to this case, but if a case, for example, a simple example, let's say ABO typing, the victim is type A, the decedent is type B. If have a transfer, our reading going to be type AB, a mixture. What AB means could be an AB type. There are people AB type. There could be a mixture of a and B. In other words, the interpretation gets so complicated now. Sometime possible to resolve; other times just impossible. You just call it could be a mixture.
All right. Let me make the hypothetical a little bit more specific then. Let's say that in our hypothetical we have a 15-probe RFLP match--
--on one of the stains on our hypothetical socks that were packaged together at the time they were collected.
In theory shouldn't; however, if let's say hypothetical because a lot of impossible, let's say just happen, I have to look at the band, I have a homozygote or heterozygote--let's call the band a heterozygote, two bands instead of one, it is remote, almost remote, but do have a possibility two individual, each one have one band mixed together become two bands.
Okay. Now, if we know the contributors to the biological evidence on that sock and let's say we know there is more than one donor--
And would you agree that even if the two socks are packaged together, a 15-probe match would be an extremely significant piece of evidence?
Now, Dr. Lee, just very briefly on the issue of collecting clothes and then we will move on to a different topic. Is it your position that in training police officers that where clothes are in a pile, for example, a number of different articles of clothes, they should in fact collect the clothes as a group and package them together in the same package? Is that the way that you train them?
Okay. So there is not an absolute that you always have to package the clothing separately?
If they are separate, you should package separate. If you have clothing on top of each other, or mingled together, for example, certain people take off their pants, the underpant come with it altogether, you don't have to separate them in the crime scene, you should collect as one group.
And would you agree that with respect to the sock photos that you have seen in this case, in your analysis of the sock, we could never exclude the possibility that the sock came into contact with one another prior to being collected anyway?
Thank you. Now, the--getting back just to our chart, do you have another chart that you sometimes use in explaining the concept of crime scene investigation called your four-way transfer theory that is contained in the--excuse me. I think it is four-way linkage. I got it wrong. That has become an international well-known four-way linkage theory?
Umm, I don't know if we gave him a copy or whether we just showed it this morning.
Your Honor, I'm just going to give Mr. Scheck a copy of the--I'm not going to give it to him, I'm going to let him borrow the page in the book.
And Dr. Lee, is this exhibit that we have just marked as "Henry Lee's four-way linkage theory," a--
I wish only one Henry Lee. There are too many people called Henry Lee. I just found out in L.A. the telephone books a lot of Henry Lee.
So if we are--if a criminalist goes out to a crime scene, what he is trying to accomplish is the idea of--I'm sorry--what he or she is trying to accomplish is the idea of four-way linkage?
Any investigation involve four important elements. One is the scene, the crime scene itself has to be in fact preserved. Anytime have a crime, have a victim, so victim itself become a crime scene. For example, a hit and run case, a pedestrian got hit, the pedestrian's body become a crime scene. A rape case, same thing. The rape victim become a crime scene. Of course the suspect who person or persons commit the crime become a crime scene itself. And physical evidence such as guns, shoeprint, hair, sometime earring can become a piece of physical evidence, tire track. All those four area as a good investigator, good criminalist, we have to have a concept of this back in our mind. When you walk through the crime scene you should understand this nature. To link you need the four-way linkage. You can link the suspect to the scene if you find certain crucial physical evidence. Also you can link the physical evidence back to the suspect or suspects. Also you can link the physical evidence to the victim. So this four-way linkage is rather important by using same analogy to case, let's say, a hit and run case. On that street we have a scene. At the scene you can find blood, you can find tire track, you can find glass, metal, soil. The victim's body take to the hospital. On his chest maybe we find tire track. On his clothing we may find imprint pattern. Maybe have glass fragment. The vehicle itself become a physical evidence which--such as a broken lens, lost--of course ideally lost an muffler, we can pick up the muffler, and it physically fit, you can have a link. And the suspect, of course if the suspect after hit and run stopped, step in the blood, now we have a footprint. We can link the suspect. So this so-called four-way linkage you have to always consider all the possibilities.
Doctor, can we perhaps use a simpler analogy or fact pattern. Let's say that we have a crime scene.
Just so we are understanding the concept. And there is an article of clothing at the scene that has a hair that is consistent with the suspect that he dropped at the crime scene.
And on that same article of clothing there is also a hair that is consistent with the victim.
Let's say piece of garment which we do have cases, for example, robbery or burglary, getting too hot, they take off their jacket, somehow left in a hurry leaving the scene. We found hairs. That hair can link to a victim. That hair also can link to a suspect. This hair also can link to a crime scene.
And if the suspect and victim hair is found on the same item, it also links the victim to the suspect?
Yes. Link depend on the condition of the hair, depends on whether or not this hair so-called secondary transfer.
And it would also, if the clothing is found at the crime scene, link the physical evidence up to the scene?
All right. And is it true, Dr. Lee--I think we are finished with that. Is it true, Dr. Lee, that the hallmark of a crime scene identification is whether or not we were successful in establishing four-way linkage?
Now, would you agree that it is very often that very experienced capable criminalists or crime scene technicians or police will go out to a crime scene and very carefully systematically process the crime scene, but they can't establish four-way linkage?
Yes. Do have cases, either failure of recognition or failure of any of those steps, and sometime maybe just not exist.
And is it also true that sometimes a less careful processing of the crime scene, less capable processing of the crime scene can, nevertheless, result in four-way linkage?
Now, let's get to the issue, Dr. Lee, of the Bronco that you testified to a little bit in your direct testimony. Now, did you ever physically inspect the Bronco yourself?
And were you present--excuse me. Did you know that there was a search of the Bronco that was done on August 26th of 1994?
Okay. Were you generally aware of some search of the Bronco that was done in August of `94 at which some Defense people and some--
I cannot come here--I have an official duty also. The world cannot stop just because this case.
Okay. So with respect to your analysis in this case, is it true that part of the limitation was your own busy schedule?
Yes, because the day I wanted was not available to me, and the day they wanted I cannot come here.
Okay. Now, with respect to the amount of blood that we are going to expect to find in an item such as the Bronco, do you agree with the idea that we can only interpret the bloodstains that are physically present and that no one should speculate as to why a Defendant was not blood stained except in the most unusual cases?
Okay. And do you agree, sir, that in the forensic scientific literature that there is a lot of literature that indicates: "Numerous references state assailant is not always blood stained as a result of their active participation in the blood letting events."
That again in general depends on type of crime and what condition of the crime, what type of physical force involved.
Do you also agree that forensic scientists have to interpret what they see as opposed to what they don't see?
I disagree that. Absence of evidence not necessarily wasn't there. Absence of evidence may be wasn't there; maybe somebody just not experienced enough or incapable or inability to see that.
KEY QUOTEOkay. All right. Have you read Mr. MacDonnell's article on the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
Dr. Lee, why don't you just take a quick look at that and see if that refreshes your recollection if you have read that article?
You don't have to read it. I just want to see if looking at it silently to yourself if you recognize it?
I know, there is an enormous amount of forensic science literature out there, isn't there?
And do you agree generally with the findings of MacDonnell in this particular article?
In general, yes, but the specific example he give maybe not totally cover the whole situation.
Okay. But in general do you agree with the proposition that we really can't infer that someone cannot participate in a crime involving a bloody event simply because they don't have blood on them, on their clothing or on their person?
Again, as I indicate before, depend on situation. One example said beat up a rabbit. Rabbit, human two different scene. You beat up a rabbit, did not get blood spatter on your clothing. Doesn't mean you beat up a human did not get blood on your body, and I guess depends on situation. If you standing a distance, firing a shot, gunshot, thirty feet away, kill somebody, I don't expect to find blood spatter on somebody's clothing. That is correct. However, if you put the gun next to somebody's head, fire a shot, nothing, no clothing, block the back spatter, I expect to find some blood spatter, so it varies. I cannot in certain senses, correct. In other situation maybe not.
Okay. Isn't there a lot of forensic science literature out there that generally cautions the forensic scientists who are involved in blood spatter that you can't really say that someone didn't participate in a crime just because they are not covered in blood even if it is something like a stabbing?
Your Honor, perhaps I can mark the article as People's next in order. I guess that would be 592.
Sir, do you agree with the concept that we can only interpret the bloodstains that are physically present and that no one should speculate as to why a Defendant was not blood stained except in the most unusual cases?
Again, generally we only can interpret a certain pattern which we can see. If you did not see it, not necessary wasn't there. You cannot interpret something you did not see. Then you say not there.
What I want to know, doctor, is do you agree with that particular quote that I just read?
Okay. Now, have you been involved--let me ask a couple other questions first. Is it true generally that stabbings, generally speaking, involve less blood than beatings?
No. Stabbing depends where you stab. You can have a lot of blood. Beating depends where you beat. If you beat somebody's rear end, when I was young my mother used to discipline me, I don't see blood spatter, so all different.
Let's say that we have a situation where someone has beaten another person to death in the head with a brick.
Well, it goes to the Bronco and a number of other items that the Defense got into.
All right. Now, sir, have you had some cases yourself in your own career as a forensic scientist where the crime scene was extremely bloody?
Off my head I don't really remember every crime scene I went. In general more blood, I should expect to find some blood on the suspect. Again, depends on situation. You have a shooting at a distance, yes, the victim lying there, have a lot of blood. Suspect with a long gun, you don't expect to find that. Those are correct. If a closed compact situation, maybe different.
Okay. Now, with respect to the Rockingham location, Dr. Lee, you saw some spots in the foyer; is that correct, of blood?
And can you determine the difference, as a forensic scientist, between a one-centimeter cut and a two-centimeter cut based upon those six spots?
So if we are dealing with a cut that did not go into a blood vessel, then we cannot say from the number of dots that you had how big the cut was?
All right. Now, in addition to that, doctor, when you were at the Rockingham location did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of air conditioning near Kato Kaelin's house?
And was that something that you believed that--that you thought appeared to be blood?
That is all right, your Honor. I will move on. I think he has answered the question.
Now, sir, with respect to the Bundy crime scene location, I would like to ask you a little bit about what you did in terms of the reconstruction at that location.
Well, first of all, let me ask you, were your opinions that you offered regarding the Bundy location based upon what you saw in the photographs or did you also take into consideration the testimony of pathologists in this case?
What my observation regards to imprint is my direct observation on June 25th on the tile. Also look at some physical evidence. Regards to this closed-in area, basically looking at photograph, the distribution of the pattern, the location of scene. Regard to some other information, they did relate to me some number of cut or stab or injury.
Okay. Let me just make sure we are clear. So is it your position that as a forensic scientist looking at the Bundy location you have to set aside what the pathologists say and just concentrate on what you see?
And the majority part. Of course I considered a number of injury. Not only one thing I look at. I did not look at stomach contents, lividity or postmortem change.
Now, I would like to mark as People's next in order an exhibit that is going to be 593 and it is a board of the Bundy location concentrating on what we've referred to in this case as the caged area and some photographs. Your Honor, one of the photographs is perhaps one that should not be suited for display. All right.
Dr. Lee, directing your attention to the exhibit that we've marked as People's 593 for identification, can you see that?
And, doctor, do those appear to be the same exact photographs that were used on a Defense exhibit that you were using to explain to the jury some of the blood pattern or blood reconstruction analysis in the case?
The picture I use, for example, this key, I did see some reddish stain; however, this picture, one look at now, I don't see any reddish stain.
And this boots, (Indicating), the picture provide to me have more like a bloodstain, compared to this, yes, I do see bloodstain, soil material, trace, but much less. And this one, (Indicating), is a much closer--it is a closer shot, but in general this is the same. And some of those--this, (Indicating), must be a so-called first generation, better picture than what I get is a printout of a print. I would say in general it depicts the scene. I wasn't there. I wasn't the one took those pictures, so I can't really come here misled you, say that is exactly what I see at the crime scene.
Okay. For the record, the ones that Dr. Lee indicated could be somewhat different than the photos that he saw are on the right-hand side of this exhibit in what would be the extreme right portion as you are facing the exhibit; the bottom photograph depicting Ronald Goldman's boots and the photograph above that depicting the keys and the photograph above that appears to be a close-up of the card that has item no. 108 in it.
All right. Now--but other than that, we've depicted all of the areas that were the subject of your testimony in terms of the reconstruction of what happened at the Bundy location; is that correct?
All right. Now, Dr. Lee, could you use some red tape, if you have any, to show us where these items are on the diagram. I think I have some red tape here.
I have some. You don't have a pole here. Basically it is around here, (Indicating). I don't have a diagram of body, so I really cannot tell you.
Take a close look. Does that look like a tree that is attached to a stake for support?
All right. Now, maybe we could just indicate--you could indicate for us this from the gate, the stain.
Okay. You are connecting to--let's not cover it up. Let's go like this. Would that be okay?
And those are the photographs in the upper right-hand corner of the exhibit. Can you connect this gate that has the photo card 108 in it to where the gate would be, approximately?
If you draw the picture, diagram with the number of pole, I will tell you exactly. I only go tell that is no. 8 (Sic) here in the picture. I would say approximately in this location, (Indicating).
You have eight bar. When you look at this picture, when you look at this picture, give you a round projection. That is called depth of the view. When we take a picture, the closer place looks like bigger. The distance one like a distance shorter. Can you see the gap here? Much bigger, (Indicating). In real sense all those gaps should be identical.
And with respect to the photo of the keys, can you connect that up to the general location?
Yes, sir. Again just a general location. I don't have a plane here shows me exactly the scene. I would say around here, (Indicating).
So that is somewhere--understanding this is an approximation of the area of where Mr. Goldman's feet would be?
Well, I don't know if we should connect up the shoe--let me think. I don't know if we should.
Let's not connect that, but can we connect the photograph that has photo card 119 in it?
Again I have to make some assumption this is here again, (Indicating), because the picture--the diagram did not show me. I would say in this general location, (Indicating).
So that is kind of like the post that you would expect the gate to swing opened and closed on?
Now, directing your attention, now we are going to move over to the left-hand side of this exhibit.
Why don't you just describe this for us orally and then we will connect it. The gate portion--excuse me. Gate is the wrong word. The fence portion at the bottom?
This looks like somebody took a picture from other side, (Indicating), other side of the fence look into the fence. For example, let's say jury box here is the fence, I'm taking a picture from here, not inside of jury box, so has to be other side.
Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, would it appear to you then that the photo card bearing 109 is the same stain that is contained in the lower photo only it is the--this is from the inside view?
Definitely different. It is same location but here shows different stain, (Indicating).
This one, (Indicating), is this, (Indicating). This dripping, not showing in this photo.
Here have more spatterings along the column that is not showing in this photograph, (Indicating).
Okay. But would it be fair to say that at least the 109 stain is showing the stain with the photo card 109 is showing in the lower photograph?
And can you tell us where this--the photograph that we are seeing now also has a stain on the lower portion of the rail. Is that stain the same as the 109 stain?
Okay. Can we connect those--well, I don't want to block too much of the--without blocking the picture, can we connect those two stains?
So the view that we have with the 109 card in it is simply a closer up view of the view that we have with the 101 card that shows the beeper well; is that correct?
Okay. And then the view above that also shows the beeper, so can we connect the two beeper photos.
Now, can you locate for us, using our diagram, the approximate location of the beeper?
Okay. Now, we know that is pole no. 6; however, again I don't know--no indication of a sort of a measurement. All I can say, it is a round here, general location, (Indicating).
Could this beeper be in the approximate location--if Ronald Goldman's head was up against a tree stump that is depicted in the photo that has the 101 card in it, could the beeper be a little bit further to the Bundy--the Bundy side of the street?
This is typical example of a two-dimensional background. We try to visualize a three-dimensional setting, it is almost impossible, but in general probably this location, (Indicating). If this diagram give me number of pole, I can tell you exactly.
Is there anything else that you feel should be connected up on this--hold on for a second. Let me just give you a photograph first, Dr. Lee. I think it has been marked as People's--I want to show him People's 56-D, but this is a photograph that also should not go out over the elmo. We are going to show you a photograph.
Dr. Lee, I just want you to take a look at this photograph for a moment and try to get yourself oriented a little bit.
This beeper shows under almost no. 3 pole and here you may less in between here no poles, then you have too big a gap, looks like no. 4 pole.
Dr. Lee, if you take a closer look at this, does it appear that what we've been referring to as the sapling in photograph that bears the 101 card, that is more of a perspective shot that the sapling and the stake are blocking one of our poles?
All right. So would the beeper be a little bit further back towards Ron Goldman's buttocks?
That is two-dimensional. Looks like this picture could be even little further here, (Indicating). It is kind of difficult now. If I go that far, here impossible to have three poles in that little corner area. Something wrong with this area, something wrong with perspective of this picture. You can eat the pie both ways.
Is it correct to say that when we are interpreting photographs we have some problems with perspective and distortions that occur?
All right. So is there an area where you would be more comfortable with placing this red dot--this red tape than where you have it now?
If I know exactly how many pole, if you give me a number, I can evenly divide it up and count the number of pole, tell you exactly the location.
Would it be safe to say that the beeper appears to be far east or at least east of Ronald Goldman's shoulder?
So Dr. Lee, would it be fair to say that with respect to all of the bloodstains that we referred to or that you referred to on the board that you were shown by the Defense, when you were discussing Bundy, that all of them happened in an area that is west of the--the portion of the fence that is parallel to Bundy, they are west of there?
With this particular set of picture, I don't have an overall shows this part, (Indicating). I did see another picture relate to really, so in other words, there are other patterns which are inability for me to see it. I only can testify on the picture I saw.
All right. As to the pictures that you saw, all of the bloodstains are to the east of--
Okay. All of the bloodstains are to the east of the area where the stump is located?
No. The stump is located here, (Indicating). Clearly it is the west side of the stump.
Oh, okay. A good portion is to the east. There are some, for example, this three--those little spatter drops, it appear to be to the west of the stump.
So would it be fair to say, doctor, that with respect to the photographs that you discussed on direct examination--
--that these photographs and the location of the blood spatters indicate that the murder occurred in an area with respect to Ron Goldman about the size of a very small walk-in closet?
I don't know a definition of a small walk-in closet. I do know this area is 68 inches total. If we divided it by the pole, then we can get the number.
Doctor, using the scale on the bottom of this exhibit, can we just get a measurement--let's see if we can do this--as to the approximate area that would contain all of the bloodstains that we have here?
Well, I have to be heard on that, your Honor, so perhaps we need to break for the--
All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:15. All right. Dr. Lee, you can step down.
If it is genuine, that is an important piece of evidence.
I'm a Chinese. Take me a while to think about this double-talk. Absence--
I probably tell don't dab, just give me your shoes and don't do it next time.
No, you cannot change my title.
Absence of evidence not necessarily wasn't there. Absence of evidence may be wasn't there; maybe somebody just not experienced enough or incapable or inability to see that.