All right. Thank you. Mr. Goldberg, you may proceed.

Thank you, your Honor.

And in that particular case is it a fair summary of what happened that the biological evidence was spread over a very significant amount of territory, about 2500 square feet, in the snow by a river as a result of the body having gone through the wood clipper machine?

The majority this and probably wound up in the river. Only small fragment were found scattered around the river bank.

Okay. And when you got out to the crime scene the police officers were picking out one little piece of evidence at a time; is that correct, in a very laborious process?

We actually melt the snow inch by inch and we don't know what we picked up, just leaves, debris, and go through preliminary recognition and identification through that.

Okay. That was the suggestion that you came up with to speed things up, because you saw that the police method was just going to take too long; is that correct?

No. We work together. It is a team effort.

Right. And just so it is clear, what was done in this case is large amounts of snow were put in buckets and then taken into tents and melted and the biological evidence would tend to fall or sink to the bottom of the bucket and all the debris would tend to rise to the top and you just throw the debris out and take the biological evidence out in the bottom?

Not exactly. Any recognizable material, for example, we found a fingernail, you can recognize, you don't have to throw in a bucket. You just taken it out. If it is bone chips, we can recognize, or a tooth. We have a team of scientists, team of investigator work together since we can see and recognizable right away, you remove it. For example, I can see a scissor, I collect a scissor. I don't have to throw the scissor in the bucket. Things we cannot visually recognize, we use the second procedure.

And that included some of the biological evidence in the case?

Yes.

And Dr. Lee, when that occurred, when the items would fall to the bottom of the bucket, various different biological samples could get mixed together or were mixed together; is that correct?

Yes, yes.

And it also mixed together human biological samples with others that were out there, like deer bones and the like; is that correct?

Yes, correct.

Yes. And despite that, sir, it was proper and you did decide to attempt DNA technology on this evidence; is that correct?

That's correct.

All right. But this case was a little while ago, as I recall, it was in the mid-eighties?

Yes.

So with the state of the technology at that time, you were not actually able to do DNA, true?

No. We did some DNA work.

Oh, you did?

We did some X, Y, determine male, female.

Okay. You were also able to do--when I say "You" I'm also including your laboratory people--

Yes.

--able to do some conventional serology; is that true?

We did with laboratory scientists also are some consultant life code scientists, University of New Haven, Dr. Gaensslen, and we bring in a lot of other expert together work on the evidence.

Okay. And you were able to get results that identified the human remains in that case even though all the biological evidence was mixed together at the time that it was collected?

Yes, sir.

And in fact in that case, to your recollection, did the police transport the biological evidence to the lab in sealed containers?

Your Honor, I think that this is outside the scope of direct and irrelevant.

Overruled.

We--those material collect in a container is a plastic cup, have a screw-up cap. Also put in an envelope, it is a sealed paper bag.

Okay. All right. Now, when you were looking at the soil samples in this particular case, you didn't find biological material such as deer bones or anything like that at the Bundy location, did you?

I found some biological material, as I testified, hair, that is considered as a biological material. I did not look for deer bone.

Okay. Now, you were also asked some questions about your laboratory in general and the people that work for you and such, the environment in which you are working as a forensic scientist, and I wanted to ask you a couple questions there, if I may.

Yes.

Do you agree, sir, that one of the practical realities that criminalists face who are working for law enforcement, is budgetary problems and monetary shortfalls?

Yes.

And is it true that even recently, after you got into your new laboratory, you had to lay off some people due to some financial difficulties in the state?

Have to remove, no, that is not correct.

Was that slightly--

Before. A couple years ago we have to lay off some people. After we moved to the laboratory we have some vacant positions and with the assistance of governor and legislature, we was able to fill those positions.

So would you agree, sir, that generally speaking, forensic resources are scarce in the sense that we can't do all the testing and all the study in every case that we would like to do?

That is absolute correct. Of course if you have the support of the leadership, for example, I have a good boss, my commissioner very supportive to forensic science, so we try to do what supposed to do. Of course impossible to do every possible test in this earth for a certain case.

Okay. So in theory there are theories about the ideal in terms of crime scene processing and handling a case that are stated in the textbooks; is that correct?

Handling crime scene and laboratory tests, that is two separate things. Handling crime scene, you don't need sophisticated instruments such as SEM or mass spectrograph, or handling crime scene basically is training and experience and some mechanic issues.

Let me give a concrete example. We talked about using videotapes at crime scenes.

Yes.

And ideally that would be a good idea if we could use that at every crime scene?

Yes, sir.

But based upon your experience, not only at your own lab, but traveling around the country as you do into other countries, is it correct to say that even in very serious crimes a videotape is not now currently being used as a standard technique at crime scene identification, crime scene investigation?

It is difficult to--most--most of crime scene involve homicide usually we suggest use videotaping and most the cases I see videotape when it submit to me, but once in a while cases without videotaping.

Okay. And that is because we don't have the resources necessarily to do all the videotaping we would like to do; is that correct?

That is a judgment call. If you want to find a videotape, you always can find a camcorder. Whether or not the department has that, I don't know. I cannot come here to tell you what the LAPD budget looks like.

Okay. Now, does financial difficulty also play a little bit of a role in terms of testing at the laboratory and the amount of testing that do you in a like--

Yes. That is an excellent question. We usually have to determine what type of test to do first, second, third, so non-destructive test. Basically visual examination, microscopic, microscopic examination, that don't cost any money, then the rest of tests, some are more sophisticated, them cost money, you have to make a judgment call.

And to face a lot of problems along those lines over the years in your laboratory, for example, in the old facilities, is it true that when you would use the electrophoresis machines the air conditioning would shut down?

Yes.

All right.

Your Honor, I think that this line is going to be irrelevant.

All right. Let's move on.

I'm almost finished, your Honor. I just have a couple more questions.

And for example, in the DNA testing, you have used paper towels as blotters instead of the blotter paper, to save money?

Early days. Early days we have to--my laboratory is a mens room, literally a mens room, so you have to do the best you can.

Yeah.

You can't just say I'm in a mens room, I don't do any tests.

Right. And the drying facilities, up until quite recently, for biological evidence, was in the yard of the laboratory; is that correct?

That is about fifteen years ago. We don't have a drying room, so everything have to dry in the yard. Even now sometimes dry my clothes in the yard. Nothing wrong dry in the yard.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, no, not at all, and that was particularly true in the summer months, some of the biological evidence you would try to dry in the yard because it was smelly?

Yes. The older really terrible, you don't want to have the whole laboratory evacuate. Sometime the odor the young and normal person can take.

And was the practice of drying the biological evidence in the yard discontinued once when a dog absconded with a rape victim's panties?

Not really. There are numerous clothing. One of my analysts was assigned to guard those clothing. Somehow a wild dog took a piece of garment and run away and luckily that just one piece of an undergarment. It is not all decomposed.

Okay.

So since then we have to post two guards to watching the clothing.

All right. And despite these kinds of problems and issues that we have been discussing this morning, generally, Dr. Lee, would it be fair to say that you and your laboratory people in the area of DNA and conventional serology have still been doing a very high quality work?

We try our best.

Yes. These are little obstacles that have to be overcome; is that true?

Yes.

Now, Dr. Lee, I would like to turn to the shoeprints at Bundy and let's try to divide our discussion up into three categories, if we can. I want to talk about the shoeprints, or excuse me, the--the items that we cannot say are impressions at all for sure.

What I testify is imprint evidence.

Yes.

Imprint evidence.

Okay. Now, is one category, though, items where you can't even be sure that it is in fact an imprint; it could be an imprint, it might not be?

Well, imprint it is different--it is a term we use to differentiate from impression. Impression is a three-dimensional pattern. An imprint is a two-dimensional pattern. What I testified first day I was here to report to you those two-dimensional imprint pattern I observe on different areas.

All right. Now, what I'm asking you, though, Dr. Lee, at the Bundy location and the evidence that came from the Bundy location--

Yes.

--were there certain instances where you saw something and it was your opinion I can't tell whether that is an imprint or not?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Some evidence I see a pattern because I examine picture. When you examine picture, you are examining something through photographer's camera lens. I wasn't there myself. If I see something, I can tell that is some kind of an imprint. As far as a shoeprint or not, I don't know. I don't want to make an opinion on that.

All right. Well, let's see if we can get into some of the specifics here. Regarding Ron Goldman's jeans--

Yes.

--with respect to some of the items on the jeans, was it your opinion "I see to parallel line imprint consistent with imprint"?

Yes.

Okay. And by that did you mean I'm not positive whether this is an imprint or not?

Well, I'm pretty sure it is an imprint; however, as a scientist I usually report to you what I see. I did examine the blue jean, by the way, however, I don't know the blue jean--when somebody wear the blue jean, that is three-dimensional setting.

Your Honor, I think he has answered the question.

Next question.

It will make things a little faster. I will give you the opportunity to explain.

Dr. Lee, so with respect to some of the items on the blue jeans, it was a situation where you cannot state to a scientific certainty that they were in fact impressions at all; is that true?

Objection, vague, as to which items.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Well, as to the prints that you were talking about on the right portion of the lower leg--

Objection.

That is vague, "Right portion lower leg."

On the right leg, lower portion, Dr. Lee?

There is a board, your Honor. There is a lot on the right--

Overruled.

I see some patterns, parallel pattern consistent with imprint.

Okay. And "Consistent with" is a phrase that is used when we are not certain; is that right?

Sometimes?

Yeah.

Now, there was also a photograph that you were shown that depicted the caged-off area and we will get to that in a little more detail later.

Okay.

But there was something that looked like a hole in that. Do you remember that?

Yes.

Okay. And with regard to that hole, was it your view that you don't know whether it is an imprint or not, it could just be a hole?

I say that is an indentation. It is not an imprint. Definitely not a two-dimensional thing. It is an indentation.

In other words, it could be something that the dog or the gardener dug out?

I don't know.

Now, were there also some items at the Bundy location where you were able to determine that was an imprint but you weren't sure that it was a shoeprints?

Yes.

And with regard to that, would the envelope fit into that category?

Yes.

And could that be a fabric pattern on the envelope?

I compare some known fabric pattern. I cannot match the pattern.

And that was the jeans and the shirt?

Shirt.

But is there any way of matching it to the fabric that the suspect was wearing?

I don't know what the suspect or suspects wearing.

Okay. What I'm asking you, Dr. Lee, is could it be some type of fabric pattern on the envelope?

It could be a parallel line. Any type of object have this same design--

Okay.

--cause a replicate.

Are you familiar, sir, with the kind of parallel lines that are sometimes on the cuffs of men's sweatsuits?

I don't know what kind of sweatsuit you refer to. If, say, a fabric design, you have a weave pattern, that couldn't be just a parallel line. It is no other horizontal weave pattern I can see.

So if we have a parallel line, for example, on a cuff--

It may be.

It may be. And this could be fabric of some type that imprinted the envelope; is that true?

It is difficult to--if you just look at a surface, it is a flat surface. Something has to be--are a certain force or flat. We say certain force applied have a very definitive line, not something being a curvature surface. I did not see a curvature pattern. Neither I did not see any fabric design.

Okay. We will get back to that a little later then. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to--well, did you form the opinion that that was a shoeprint?

No. I said consistent--could have made by a shoe.

Now, with respect to the prints on the Bundy walk--

Yes.

--there were two parallel line prints that you saw on the walk; is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And those were in fact shoeprints, correct?

In June 25th that--yes, I did issue opinion one definite is a shoeprint.

Now, would it be fair to say, Dr. Lee, that the only items that you identified that you are certain that it is, one, an imprint?

Yes.

And two, a shoeprint?

Yes.

Are those two items on the Bundy walk?

Yes, sir.

And would it be correct to say that in your opinion you determined that they were in blood?

Yes.

And would you say, therefore, Dr. Lee, would it be fair to say that from a forensic science standpoint by far the most important compelling imprint evidence that you discovered would be those imprints?

All the imprint evidence important. If you say shoeprints, you are right, you are correct, that, too, is compelling. If you say imprint, those--every imprint is equally important.

But only those that you were able to identify are the ones on the Bundy walk?

That's correct.

And there were two of those?

Yes.

And we will come back to those a little bit later, but let's just move on to bindle 47, which was the one that had the transfer stains in it. Do you recall what I'm talking about?

Yes.

Now, is it your view, Dr. Lee, that often science cannot provide explanations for every phenomena that we see?

Yes. I spend my life in this. Still a lot of phenomena I still cannot explain and report to you.

And the way, you sometimes put that is that life is complex, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, I do.

Now, does that mean that if you look at something and you can't explain it as a forensic scientist, that there is something wrong?

Yes, there is something wrong.

Okay. But isn't it often that you look at something and you can't explain it?

If everything right, I should be explainable. If something I cannot explain, I see something, I observe, for example, you mention 47 like imprint. Doesn't matter what, you see a wet transfer which means something wrong.

I'm not asking you about that. We will get back to that in a few seconds. But just in general, Dr. Lee, are there many occasions where you said as a forensic scientist where you look at a case or a piece of evidence and you just don't have all the answers?

That's correct.

And there is nothing surprising about that, is there?

Nothing surprising.

Now, if there is in fact a situation where a swatch is packaged when it is still damp, in a bindle, and there is a transfer, is that situation going to cause the blood to change into someone else's blood?

That is a difficult question. If that is original bindle, therefore should not change. If it is not the original bindle, am going to change.

Okay. Let me just give you a hypothetical so we are clear on what you are saying.

Right.

Let's say that I'm a criminalist and I take some swatches out of a drying cabinet in a test-tube. I don't touch them to see whether they are dry.

Okay.

All right. But I think that they look dry. I'm looking through the test-tube and they look dry, and I dump them out into the bindle. Are you following me so far?

Yes, sir.

Now, by the way, is it okay, from a forensic science standpoint, that I did not take off my glove and touch the swatches with my hand to check to see whether they were dry?

Usually experienced criminalist--

I'm just asking you that question. Should I have done that?

Your Honor--

Let him finish his answer.

Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.

It would be a very bad idea to actually take my glove off and touch it to make sure, wouldn't it?

Well, some people does that, but I don't do that.

And you wouldn't recommend doing that, would you?

I would not suggest people--you should make sure it dry basically.

But not with your hands, right?

Not your hand.

Now, Dr. Lee, let's say that I dumped it out into the bindle and I just didn't wait long enough, okay, and I closed up the bindle and there is a transfer in the bindle. Following me?

Yes.

Now, is that going to change the blood into someone else's blood in my hypothetical?

In theory will not.

And that would be your forensic opinion?

Yes, sir.

As a leading--as an expert in conventional and DNA technology?

Yes, sir.

All right. Now, would it change the DNA pattern of the evidence?

Sometime it will change the pattern, make it unreadable.

Okay. It might cause more degradation?

Yes, sir.

Right. But if we were able to test that, for example, and get a five-probe match--

Objection. I think this is now irrelevant and hypothetical, no foundation.

Overruled.

And if we were able to get a five-probe match, would the packaging procedure have caused that five-probe match to have occurred erroneously?

In theory not.

And that is your opinion?

Yes.

Move to strike, misstates the evidence--

Overruled.

--on the item in question.

Overruled.

We are just trying to get the principles.

And if you were able to do conventional serology, same answers, correct?

In theory should if you get an answer, the answer should be there.

Should be correct?

If you did not get that answer or the answer become so ambiguous you cannot make a determination, now you have a--

So in other words, you might get an inconclusive result or no result as a result of degradation?

Yes.

All right. For--now, I would like to show you the exhibit that has been marked as Defense 1362 for identification if we could put that up. It is the large swatch blow-up.

All right. 1386, can you see that?

165, can you see this?

Yes, sir.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Goldberg.

Now, Dr. Lee, would it be correct to say that the four transfers you saw on this item, item 47, were in fact relatively light?

Relative--

Light?

No, that is not say relative light. I saw lighter than those kind of transfer. In my opinion this transfer sort of consider pretty--some are pretty defined and heavy. Other maybe classify lighter.

So that we are clear, though, Dr. Lee, this is the interior of the bindle so that if I unfolded it, this is the inside; is that correct?

That's correct.

And did you see any evidence of blood on the outside of the bindle?

I did not see that.

All right. Now, Dr. Lee, if we had a situation where I was working with a reference vial standing approximately where I am right now and this bindle were sealed closed in a coin envelope that was taped shut and sitting on the little podium in front of you and I'm working with the reference vial, you wouldn't expect that to account for these transfers, would you?

If the envelope sealed with tape, put in an envelope, in theory should not get to the envelope.

It would be very difficult to imagine that happening, correct?

Very, very difficult.

Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, we use the term here wet and dry in connection with discussing exhibit 1362; is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And from a forensic science standpoint, as a forensic scientist, is there a little bit of an ambiguity when we are talking about the word wet and dry in relationship to blood?

Yes.

Okay. And is that because the threshold between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy?

Wet and dry, that is not fuzzy at all.

Okay. Either wet or dry, but they are in between damp. Not say soaking wet. What the definition of the wet? You kind of get into a semantic issue. As a scientist, if a swatch dry, it is dry. If it is not dry, anything else I call it wet.

All right. I will come back to that in just a second. But doctor, can you tell us when a swatch is dry in the sense that it looks dry and if I felt it, it would feel dry--

Yes, sir.

--how much water does it have in it?

I have no idea how much water.

But it does have water in it?

I don't know.

Well, doctor, I just want to ask you a little bit about the book that you participated in "Forensic science handbook," Richard Saferstein. You are very familiar with it?

Sort of.

This is one of the references that you talked about when you were talking about the twenty books?

Yes.

Okay. And sir, would you agree with the proposition that--

Excuse me, Mr. Goldberg. Can you show Mr. Scheck whatever it is.

I'm looking at page 385.

He has it.

All right. Mr. Goldberg.

Sir, do you agree with the proposition that: "The threshold between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy. Most importantly, dry material does in fact contain some water. Proteins, for example, bind water very tenaciously."

Yes, agree.

Okay. And do you agree that: "The water contents of dried materials is an equilibrium with a fractional saturation of water vapor in the surrounding atmosphere, that is, the relative humidity. Thus, for example, blood dried to an equilibrium in air at 25 percent relative humidity may contain about five percent of its total weight in water."

May, yes.

All right. And sir, what would the amount of water be if swatches were dried at 50 percent relative humidity?

I don't know how to calculate at this moment. May contain some water.

Okay. Well, would you agree that it would contain as much as ten percent of its weight in water?

Maybe.

And if the swatches were dried at 75 percent relative humidity, what would the percentage of water be in the swatches?

I have no idea.

Would 20 percent sound reasonable to you?

Reasonable.

Okay. Did you happen to go back and check the Saferstein reference book before testifying here about the swatches in this case?

No.

Okay. So there would be a number of facts that we would have to know, such as relative humidity, in order to figure out how much water the swatches in this case had after they looked dry?

It doesn't matter. If seven swatches--

Well, I'm just asking you that.

Objection, your Honor.

If it dry--

Wait. Finish your answer.

Thank you. Even if dry, should be all dry. If, say, some contains 20 percent of water, seven all should contain 20 percent of water.

Motion to strike.

Overruled.

Would we have to know the relative humidity to know how much water was in the swatches?

That is why I say I don't know.

Okay.

I have no idea what the percentage.

Well, can you explain for us a little--in a little bit more detail the relationship between relative humidity and amount of water that is in a dried swatch?

I guess the best person have to explain that is whoever wrote that chapter. I did not read that. I want to see it. Is that my writing, then I have to explain. If it is not my writing, I don't have to explain.

Actually I think it is in Mr. Sensabaugh's chapter.

Okay. Let George examine that--explain that. That is not my problem.

Would you like to take a look at it?

Okay.

Because very difficult for you to determine in a swatch how many percent of a humidity. If he come up with a number, I'm not going to argue with George; he is the one have to explain.

The bottom line is that after something is drying it still does have to water in it, correct?

Yes, I agree.

Now, doctor, would you also agree that there are a lot of variables in determining how long something takes to dry?

Yes, sir.

And have you looked at the labor and Epstein materials that they put together in connection with MacDonnell's book dealing with experiments and blood spatter analysis?

A long time I did read some of their material.

Okay.

Excellent material.

Okay. And sir, do you agree with the proposition that the amount of time required for a bloodstain--

Is he reading something, your Honor?

I'm actually reading it out of my notes.

Proceed.

Your Honor--

Proceed.

At any rate, for the record, we have handed him a copy of labor and Epstein.

Wait, wait, wait. Can I see what he is reading?

He says he is reading his notes. He can ask questions as he chooses.

Your Honor--

Proceed.

Sir, do you agree with the proposition that the amount of time required for a bloodstain to dry is dependent upon various factors, such as weather conditions, temperature, air movement, humidity, size and depth of stain or blood pool, and the nature of the surface upon which the blood is shed?

Yes.

All right. And do you also agree that it is very difficult to predict all of the factors that go into determining how long something is going to take to dry?

Not necessarily.

Well, let me just ask you this, sir: Do you agree that there are so many combinations of factors that exist that affect the time required for blood to dry that it would be impossible to make determinations in every situation how long it is going to take?

If you look at a crime scene, bloodstain, I agree whole heartily, totally, because that beyond our control; weather, rain, sunlight, shade, concrete versus carpet. If you are talking about a swatch, that is a totally separate situation.

Sir, according to your recollections of the labor and Epstein materials, didn't they do a number of drying experiments of a single drop of blood on cotton to show that there were extremely wide ranges of how long--

Object to this, your Honor, unless he is able to be shown the material and look at it for whether he relies on it and what it is.

Overruled.

I thought those were our procedures.

No, he doesn't have to see it. It has to be exhibited to counsel.

Well, that I haven't seen.

Do you have that?

I think he has all of labor and Epstein.

Your Honor, he just handed me as he is asking questions.

Your Honor, I object.

Have a seat, Mr. Scheck. Proceed.

I'm sorry, did I--

Do I answer the question now?

Yes, you may answer the question if you remember it?

Well, in contrast I think they come up some tables, give some general guideline. For example, single drop on cotton, if I remember correctly, is about five minute or something, or 45 minute, something like that. I don't remember exactly. I read long time ago. They have a table published in there, I see appendix, back of the book, give more or less specific time.

Well--

If you give me the book I can show you where it is.

Well, let me--yes, I am familiar with what you are talking about.

May I approach the witness, your Honor?

You may.

Dr. Lee, is it your understanding--

May I approach?

You may.

--that they concluded that the single drop on blood on cotton cloth could take from 55 to 330 minutes depending on the circumstances when they changed circumstances around?

Right. That is the--if you look at condition 3, that is a total different condition.

Yeah, right, and the purpose of this was to try to educate forensic scientists how difficult it is to ever predict how long it is going to take something to dry; is that true?

At the crime scene again it is difficult to predict. In the laboratory setting should be controllable condition, we should know take how long a swatch can dry.

Okay. Wasn't the purpose of their exercise to educate the forensic science student in how difficult it is, even in a laboratory setting, with the single drop of blood on a cotton, to predict how long it is going to take to dry? Wasn't that what labor and Epstein--

I don't think that you can--you can call them on the stand. I don't think they are going to say a single drop of bloodstain on the cotton cloth going to be unpredictable.

Well, what I'm asking you, doctor, is what the intent was of this material, and wasn't the intent to get across to the forensic science student be careful because it is hard to figure out how long something is going to take to dry, even in a laboratory?

Yes, in certain condition, yes, that's correct.

Okay. Now, let's move on to the socks, doctor.

Yes.

On the socks, there was a sock that you were asked about that we've numbered 13-A. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Yes.

And would you agree, sir, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct all of the various ways that different parts of a sock could come into contact with each other when you are taking it off?

Yes, sir.

And would it--and there is a stain on the sock that has been labeled 42-A?

Yes.

And you know what I'm talking about?

Ankle stain.

And are you generally aware that that has been identified as having blood that was consistent with Nicole brown?

Yes.

Okay. And then there is another stain that we have been referring to in the testimony that is on the inside, what we've been referring to as wall 3. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Yes, yes.

Now, doctor, is it your position that we cannot say with positiveness whether stain 42 is in fact related to the stain on wall 3?

That's correct.

Now, could the quantity of blood on stain 42--42-A--be as much as a milliliter?

42-A? You mean surface 1 or surface--

Surface 1.

Surface 1. Again the calculating of the volume of the blood is a difficult chore and I probably the only one wrote a paper in that; however, I entitled the paper called "Estimation of the volume of the blood--bloodstain." I choose the word "Estimation" not "Determination." As a scientist I cannot come here to determine that is one cc of blood.

Okay.

There are so many way to calculate, so many way to try to come up some reasonable explanation. Unfortunately, although these socks--probably I would say the most examine socks in the world, so many people look at these socks, but a big hole being sampled. Now, I look at the remainder, try to go back, say what's the volume? I did not look at the center portion. I cannot come here, in fairness, tell you how much blood in there.

Okay. And this is another one of those examples of something where a leading forensic scientist or a number of forensic scientists can look at an item and they just can't provide us with all of the answers; is that correct?

Yes, sir.

All right. That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it?

Well, weren't there photographs, though, of the socks before the hole was cut out?

I was not privileged to have a photograph shows the bloodstain intact.

Okay. But the point is, is that even with all those things, sometimes we can't do anything more than give a rough estimation; is that correct?

Yes, sir, that's correct.

That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it?

No.

All right. Now, let's talk a little bit about the mechanism of transfer. You've explained what a compression transfer is. Can you just give us a very, very brief additional explanation of that, sir?

The liquid blood either on an object or already on surface have certain pressure applied to it. I cannot come here again tell you how big the pressure, certain pressure. This liquid transfer onto the surface, that is called compression stain.

And can you give us a brief explanation as to what a swipe is?

A swipe you start generally when first moment contact, that probably can be a compression. Then with a lateral movement you--either the surface--receiving surface move or the applying surface move and could be both surface moved. That is called a swipe.

And those are two separate things; is that correct, doctor?

They are two separate definition.

And to a forensic scientist, such as yourself, that has some expertise in the area of blood splatter, that is an important distinction, isn't it, between swipe and compression?

It is important, but sometime again have a gray area. You can't really tell too clearly that is a compression or a swipe. Sometime it is a combination.

But if you can make a distinction, that is an important one from--for a forensic scientist, correct?

Yes.

And if Mr. MacDonnell testified that that distinction was not important, would you agree with it?

I don't know exactly he refer to. If you refer a special situation, that is not wrong. If, say, every case you shouldn't distinguish a compression or a swipe, then it is wrong. Certain situation a compression and swipe may be a combination. That is again each individual have their own opinion and I'm not going to argue with other--everybody entitle, other expert entitled to their opinion. Certain scientific fact should not be argued about it. As far as the opinion, they are entitle give their opinion.

Okay. Well I don't want to ask you to criticize someone else, but would it be fair to say that whether or not to that part of Mr. MacDonell's testimony you take a little bit of a different view?

Again, as I indicate, if on the particular item may be no differences. Giving overall picture a crime scene, a swipe, a compression, maybe make a difference.

Well, you heard that part of the testimony, didn't you?

I did not pay much attention on everything.

No, no, that particular part that I'm talking about where we got into the distinction between swipe and compression?

I don't recall. Some people may discuss with me; however, I did not really firsthand hear from herb MacDonell.

You weren't in the courtroom?

I wasn't in the courtroom.

Right.

I wasn't.

Okay.

No, I don't think I was in the courtroom.

All right. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to the socks, getting back to the socks, is the stain 42-A that we've been talking about--

Yes, sir.

--consistent with a person at the crime scene touching the socks?

You just look at surface 1 or you look at the whole socks?

Okay. Let's take surface 1 so far.

Surface 1, in order to have that, that is my interpretation now, okay? In order to have somebody touch somebody else socks, the pants and the shoes have to have a separation to expose the surface. The best example I can give to you, have to wear the pants like Michael Jackson. Certain portion of socks have to expose. If I wear my pants and socks like that, if touch, have to touch my pants, not going to be the socks, so that is one condition. The second condition the blood has to be liquid, not coagulate, not dry, has to be in liquid state. Third thing has to have certain pressure. I don't--I cannot tell you how much pressure. Not just a gentle touch.

Okay. Well, having said all that, if the pants are pulled up--

Yes, sir.

--or if someone is bent over or however it happens, the sock is exposed and someone didn't grab the socks, but touched the sock with a bloody finger, wet bloody finger--

Has to be single finger.

Single finger?

Yes.

Okay. And could it also be a--a result--this transfer, of or consistent with someone wearing that sock and the sock coming up against a bloody object?

Has to have a pressure in that one location, because we look at that--just that one location and very defined parameter.

Okay. So the answer is yes?

Has to be certain condition to cause that transfer.

Well, yeah. If someone come into contact with some pressure with some object that has wet blood on it, you can get that transfer?

Right.

All right. Mr. Goldberg, would be a good spot?

Thank you.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break. Meals remember all my admonitions to you. We will stand in recess for fifteen. Dr. Lee, you can step down.