All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
Yes.
Henry C. Lee, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Dr. Lee is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. Go ahead and have a seat, doctor. And we have exhibited to the jury People's exhibit 593, which is a combination of crime scene photos and diagram of 875 south Bundy. Also, counsel, I'm going to direct you that during the course of the trial, I don't want anybody in the clerk's well while court's in session. Mr. Goldberg.
Okay. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG
Now that you've sat down, maybe you could get back up off the witness stand and help us with this exhibit again.
Dr. Lee, using the scale that we have down here, can we just get an estimate of the area that contains the various bloodstains and blood spatters that you've now diagrammed on this exhibit. And why don't you watch me do this and see if I'm doing this correctly. Okay. Now, I've put the ruler up indicating that on this diagram, there's about three and a half inches between the corner of the gate and the approximate area of the last stain.
So on our scale, that would be approximately three feet, 10 inches, something in that neighborhood?
Now, I'm going to measure the gate that's parallel with Bundy on this diagram, and I'm measuring that to be about five and a quarter inches.
Is that true? So the area that contains all of the evidence that you've referred to as roughly four feet by five and a half feet?
Okay. And, your Honor, if the court knows, how long is--are the panels on the jury box? Are those three feet?
So five and a half feet--why don't we do it from the end of the jury box. So five and a half feet is a little bit less than two panels here (Indicating)?
All right. And we said it was a little under four feet, but just to keep it simple, let's say four. So the square that we've kind of delineated here between the end of the jury box where this tape occurred--intersects with the jury box--
--rectangle is right. Where I'm holding it and back, this rectangle is about the area where all of the evidence is that we've referred to on this diagram (Indicating)?
So, doctor, is it fair to say that all of the evidence that we have in this case of a homicide in terms of the confrontation, the physical confrontation is in a very, very tiny geographic area?
And is all of the evidence consistent with the homicide of Ron Goldman having occurred within that geographic area?
I can not say anything about walkway because no indication, no information. There are so many footprints, so many bloodstain on the walkway. But the caged area, that area alone is four by five and a feet, that general measurement.
Is there anything that you found that is inconsistent with the homicide of Ron Goldman having been committed within that four by five and a half approximate foot area?
Whether or not that's the location started, I don't know, but I do know that's the--a struggle in that area and end in that area.
And there's no evidence that it occurred in any other area that we are able to find or that you are able to find based on photographs; is that correct?
Based on photograph, I see quite a few footprint on the walkway, lower walkway near the entrance.
Many are dog print. Other appear to be shoeprint. However, took at angle. I can not tell you exactly what it is.
--that Mr. Bodziak referred to? And just getting back to the issue of reconstruction very briefly, sir, do you agree that in the area of reconstruction, that there are many, many limitations on ability of a forensic scientist to be able to tell us precisely what happened based on blood splatter analysis?
And do you agree that we can never reconstruct with certainty what happened and that only one person ever really knows in a homicide?
Okay. But other than the person that was there at the time, has it been your stated position on previous occasions that no one will ever be able to reconstruct with precision what happened other than the people that were there?
Depends on if have a--we have cases I can determine precisely what happened. For example, if I have camera, videotape running, taping the whole scene during the commission of the crime or I have a case a tape recording kick on, subsequently, I can hear and look at the pattern, I can reconstruct. So depends on if no such recording device, the reconstruction only can as good as whatever evidence we make.
All right. But even outside the extraordinary cases where we have a tape recording or a camera or those cases where this is a witness, a surviving witness, there--we have to be very careful in terms of how we try to reconstruct?
And have you all--is it your position, sir, that the correct interpretation of bloodstains depends upon a careful examination and experience in reconstruction and that overinterpretation of bloodstain patterns could be equally dangerous and misleading as underinterpretation?
Now, Dr. Lee, in this particular case, are you able to say anything about what happened based upon the evidence that you had? I'm not talking about pathologists. Setting that aside, based upon your evidence, are you able to say anything about the order or sequence of events?
Well, that's not obvious. A lot of people obviously they don't recognize, still not obvious.
Okay. But just based on the blood spatter. For example, are you able to tell us how many times Ron Goldman was stabbed based on blood spatter?
I can tell base on when I exam the shirt. I see all those cut, all those stab--cut. I can count the numbers. So reconstruction, you can not just base on one piece of evidence. You have to consider the totality.
A certain order I can tell you. For example, the imprint on the envelope, I can tell you the imprint was deposit first. Subsequently have some bloodstain deposit on top of the imprint. Not order I can tell you.
Okay. But in terms of the--let's assume that there is a struggle or a--an attack going on. Let's use the word "Attack." Can you tell us the sequence of the attack, what blow was made, what--when they were exchanged and the like?
I can tell you certain bloodstain, you can see have a contact, smear downwards, floating down. You can tell the sequence event. First have to have a contact before the smear down, downward. Then have the flowing dripping down. You can not go other way around. So in other words, I can give you certain sequence, not as--matter of fact, first day, first time I would testify, say cannot give you complete reconstruction with this case. Only get--give you pieces, partial reconstruction.
No. But I mean, between the direct and cross-examination, have you given us the pieces that are--
Just a second. Doctor, if you would, would you allow Mr. Goldberg to finish asking you the question before you start answering and, Mr. Goldberg, let him finish answering before you start asking the next question. Take a breath in-between.
Just to make it a little bit simpler, maybe getting at it more simply, can you tell us blow by blow what happened here?
All right. Thank you. And, doctor, would it be fair to say that if we cannot tell blow by blow what happened here, you can not tell blow by blow what happened, then it's difficult to give any kind of a scientific estimation of time?
All right. Okay. Thank you. I'm finished with this board. Your Honor, is it possible, because I may have been blocking the board at times, that we can show the jurors the board before we put it back up?
Now, sir, I'd like to switch to another issue, and that's the question of Ronald Goldman's shoes or boots.
Uh, as a matter of fact, I detect some other damage on the other boots too. However, when I testify, only show you one boot.
Okay. That's what I was going to get to. Now, sir, if a person is involved in some type of activity while they're wearing shoes such as sitting at a desk and maybe hooking their feet under part of the desk as they lean back in their chair and kind of using the desk as a fulcrum--know what I'm talking about?
Might you expect to have some type of damage to both shoes from that that a forensic scientist could detect?
I did not find any damage on my shoes. Sometime I do this given sometime I sit on airplane, I try to stretch the seat in front of me, doing that. Not necessary you going to have a sharp cut, gorge. You may have. I have to look at this person's or his shoes. If all his shoes, every pair shows identical pattern, then I can reach a reasonable conclusion of course. That's more likely he caught--have those kind of damage during the routine work.
Or there could be some kind of other activity such as riding a bike. If you hook your feet, that might conceivably expose both shoes to the same type of damage; is that correct?
When I was kid, ride a lot of bikes, but my shoes never got any of those pattern, but can not eliminate somebody else don't get the pattern.
At any rate, there are a variety of activity the person could engage in that could cause both of the shoes to get the same type of defect in a corresponding location on each shoe?
That's kind of unlikely because if you see the shoes, front of shoes have multiple damage. That I will think more likely because every day you ride, you form a gorge. You can't say every day you ride, the same contact, same location, same place day after day. It's kind of make it difficult. I can not rule out a possibility.
And is there also--have you also become aware of the practice by some people of purchasing goods that have been damaged at a reduced price at a discount location?
Okay. And if we saw a manufacturing defect, we might expect a manufacturing defect on a particular series of items--
Your Honor, at this time, I would like to mark as People's next in order a board that shows three shoes--excuse me--three photos depicting shoes.
Dr. Lee, I'd like to direct your attention to People's 594 for identification. Does this appear to be pictures of the shoes that were the subject of your examination?
Okay. And can you point out for us again the cut that was the subject of your testimony on direct examination?
He's indicating the top left photograph. And there's a cut over what would be the toe next to the big toe; is that correct, doctor?
And then he pointed at the photograph below that, pointing to the shoe that appears to have the least blood on it of the two; is that correct?
Now, you just alluded to another--some other damage that you saw on the other shoe. Can you point that out for the jurors?
And, doctor, does that also appear to be over the proximal area where the toe next to the big toe would be on the corresponding shoe?
Okay. Well, what is the location of the cut that you just pointed to in the other shoe?
I just counted here one, two--oh, well, you have a rule--no, a ruler cannot be used. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. You start eight and nine gorges this area. Here you start one, two, three, four, five, six, seven--seven, eight different locations (Indicating).
I'll take that down. Now, on a number of occasions, you've mentioned to the jury that the photographs that you examined were second or third generation photographs; is that correct?
The forensic importance is, every time the photograph, you make a generation. Some can be smaller or portion can be crack out, the color can be distorted little bit. So it's important we look at a--different generations.
Okay. And I think you also used the phrase "Photo of photo." Would that be a situation where there's a photo on a photo that's maybe lying down and someone actually takes another photograph of that and then hands that to you?
Now, with respect to the eyeglass envelope, I'd like to show you a photograph that's previously been marked as People's 54-B for identification.
Your Honor, I'd also like the witness to take a look at the envelope itself which has been previously marked as People's 32.
This is an envelope with some yellow evidence tape on one end with a marking 7-11-95, some initial. Right now, I'm unseal it. This envelope probably unsealed before I unsealed. I can see this somebody else unseal it prior to my unseal this. Inside, contains another envelope. This appear to be a plastic bag with multiple color, blue, red, yellow seal on top. Now I try to unseal this one.
All right. Hold on just a second. Mr. Goldberg, do you want Dr. Lee to open up the plastic envelope that's inside?
Dr. Lee, can you see the stain that was labeled with Greg Matheson's initials on this?
Well, there was one of these stains that you didn't see in one of the earlier--earliest photographs, is that correct, that typed consistently with being Ron Goldman, nonconventional?
Is that the Greg Matheson stain--well, the stain with Greg Matheson's initials on it that we were referring to?
Pull out a little bit so we can see where it is. Maybe with the telestrator we can just mark that, if possible, and then print it out for now.
Now, doctor, just for orientation purposes, on the lower right-hand corner of what we're pointing out is what appears to be a stain that seems to have what looks like it was once a bubble in it. Do you see what I'm talking about?
That probably some trace material adhere on the envelope and some--I have to look at a pattern itself.
Okay. Now I'd like to show you--so the Greg Matheson stain, as we're looking at this envelope now, is to the left of that major stain?
All right. Now, let's take a look at the exhibit that's previously been marked as People's 54-B for identification.
Your Honor, is it possible the witness may examine this before they put it up on the elmo?
While we're waiting for that to be scanned up onto the screen--oh, here it comes. Can that be--that can't be reoriented. Let's do it on the elmo.
Okay. Now, looking at this same bubble-like stain--oh, excuse me--stain that may have had some trace material adhere to it on the right-hand side--
Yes. Does it appear that the Greg Matheson stain is one of those three constellation of stains?
Judge by the size, it cannot be. This is a reference stain still on the envelope. If you look at a previous one, picture, use as a control, that stain is much smaller than those stain (Indicating).
Now, doctor, would you agree that that stain is in the same geographic location as the Greg Matheson stain?
Now, while we're doing that, doctor, is it true that with crime scene photography, sometimes we have artifacts that can appear in the photography that make it look like something is there that wasn't there?
Well, I think that's a crime scene photographer's provision, job, to actually depict the scene not to say something there not to be there or something there not to be there.
Okay. Well, what I'm asking you is this. We're talked about some of the problems with photographs.
And can--some of the limitations have to do with glare? Not on this photograph, but just in general.
Now, can those sometimes have a distorting effect in terms of what we're looking at in the photograph?
All right. Now, doctor, I'd like you to take a look at the actual photograph and look at the same stain that we've just referred to.
Have you had an opportunity to look at that? Did that particular stain wash out of the photographs that you were given that were copies of maybe second or third generation photos?
I doubt it because the rest of--solutrean (Sic) stain pretty defined. You can't selectively say that particular stain washed out. May happen, but if wash out, I should see that general area everything wash out.
And by the time we got a third generation photograph to you, you might not see it at all; is that true?
Uh, with this particular envelope versus this photograph, my opinion would not change. My opinion will not change. I think that stain wasn't present, did not--present in that envelope.
All right. Thank you. Now, doctor, just getting back to the socks very briefly, I wanted to ask you a couple questions that I may have forgotten.
Okay. I'm putting the plastic envelope back to the manila envelope, close it and reseal it, put my initial on it.
Thank you. Now, we were talking about how it's not possible to say that the stain, 42 stain is necessarily related to the wall 3 stain. Do you recall that discussion?
Okay. Now, is it possible, doctor, in your judgment that in the process of taking off the socks, if one was cut and they deposited some of their blood on the toe of the sock and they turned the upper part of the sock inside out, that the toe could come into contact with wall 3, which is now inside out?
Any type of transfer has--in this situation has to be wet. Still in liquid stage, only have minute transfer. It's not a large amount of blood or blood drop on it. It's little, tiny bead. So I can not rule out say possibilities.
And would it be fair to say, as in the case with some of the other photographs, the photographs that you saw of the socks at Rockingham were again second or third generation?
The picture I--my testimony is first generation, base my own observation, own photograph. The picture provide to me is different picture taken by different peoples.
Rockingham picture is maybe second, maybe third. I don't know how many generation before get to my hand.
All right. I'd like to mark as People's next in order, that would be 595--6 for identification what would appear to be a board with socks on it, three pictures. I think it has--oh, I'm sorry. I was going to do it as a board. It's just a single photograph of the socks that have been introduced in this case.
Now, doctor, you said that on your photographs, which were either second or third generation, you couldn't see the toes of the socks; is that correct?
Correct. I have a feeling, interpretation. But if I can not positively see that, I don't want to come here to misled you.
And if they were inside out partially, then wall 3 would be exposed to the outside, correct?
Okay. I'm going to ask you a few questions about this while this is up and then perhaps we can--oh--well, it's a little better. Dr. Lee, this is a higher quality photograph than the photograph you were provided; is that correct?
Much better--much, much better quality. I was not have privilege to look at this photograph until just minute.
KEY QUOTEOkay. And with respect to the toes of the socks, those now can be seen quite clearly; is that correct?
And is it correct that with respect to both socks, both socks are substantially turned inside out?
Yes, sir. Especially the lower one, it's positively inside out. The top one, it's kind of in the borderline, but the bottom one, definite inside out.
And does it appear that the toe of the top sock is coming into contact with what we've been referring to as wall 3?
And maybe--we can't say this with--positively, but does it appear that it's coming into contact with the ankle area of wall 3?
All right. May I show this to the jurors, your Honor, because it is getting a little washed off in the elmo.
All right. Let me see Mr. Scheck and Mr. Goldberg without the reporter while we're waiting.
Can you tell us blow by blow what happened here?
No, I can not. That's a good question.
I think more than one person should know. Why one person knows.
Much better--much, much better quality. I was not have privilege to look at this photograph until just minute.
My opinion will not change. I think that stain wasn't present, did not--present in that envelope.