All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And Dr. Henry Lee is again on the witness stand. The Prosecution has completed their cross-examination. And, Mr. Scheck, you may redirect.
Your Honor, before Mr. Scheck starts, I wanted to mark two printouts, printout of 598-C, I guess this is going to be 598-C-1, and it's a printout of what appear to be the prints that were on the second and third lines, tiles rather and I'd like to mark as 595-A what appears to be the printout of the evidence envelope with the yellow circle around the dot.
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
Now, first, let's talk about imprint evidence on the envelope, the piece of paper and Mr. Goldman's jeans. Dr. Lee, is it your understanding that each of those items was recovered on June 13th?
This is 1339, your Honor, the board entitled, "Imprint evidence at Bundy, imprint evidence on Mr. Goldman's blue jeans."
Dr. Lee, in the sections marked imprint 1, imprint 2, imprint 3, are these imprints?
Is--you made--you have a distinction here between scientific fact and interpretation.
Dr. Lee, you were shown some videotapes of police officers walking out of the crime scene after it was broken down.
For their shoes to have left imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans, they'd have to step on them, right?
Dr. Lee, for a detective or a photographer visiting the crime scene on June 13th, to make imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans, they'd have to step on them?
Your Honor, this is entitled, "Imprint evidence at Bundy," 1338, consists of four photographs, imprint on paper, close-up of imprint, imprint on envelope, close-up of imprint. I also have 1338-A, which is a photograph of the piece of paper that has blue markings on it entitled "PLP" and 1338-B, which is the envelope that also has blue markings on it entitled "PLP."
Dr. Lee, are these parallel lines, imprints on the piece of paper and the envelope, first of all, are they imprints?
Dr. Lee, could the police officers that were just shown in the videotape by Mr. Goldberg have made the parallel line imprints on the piece of paper on the envelope?
Dr. Lee, if a photographer or detective that came to the scene were to have made these parallel line imprints on the piece of paper and the envelope, they would have had to come over and step on them?
And, your Honor, do you have a removal stickum arrow so that I can put a mark on it and then remove it?
Dr. Lee, you indicated on cross-examination that you had never seen a photograph of this scene of this quality before.
And when Mr. Goldberg was asking you questions about imprint impressions, you said that you had observed something on this photograph?
And that was on--counting I guess, using the tiles where the no. 10 is, it would be the one, two, third one over?
Your Honor, I'm going to ask that nothing be put on that's going to obliterate part of the exhibit.
Yes. Dr. Lee, could you please indicate what imprint impressions you saw in the area of--withdrawn. Misuse of word. All right. In terms of imprints on that photograph where you've indicated with the yellow line, could you please explain to the jury what's there?
Here we see, if we use no. 10 as column no. 1., no. 10 is column no. 1. 10. This portion, assume this column no. 1. No. 1. 2, 3, the third column. On the third column, I can see imprint evidence. Column no. 3, 1, 2, 3, I can see imprint evidence. Column no. 1, no. 2, no. 3, I can see imprint evidence along this column (Indicating).
Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of the imprints that you described for us before on the envelope, the piece of paper, on the jeans, are those consistent with having been made in blood?
With respect to blood, all right, are the imprints consistent with having been made in blood?
Now, are there methods that are available to a forensic scientist when examining imprint evidence at a crime scene that had been made in blood to visualize them?
Now, calling your attention again to 583-A and the scene as depicted here, what techniques could have been used on June 13th with respect to enhancing imprint evidence here?
All right. What--what techniques are you talking about for enhancing imprint evidence made in blood at a crime scene?
Sustained. Was not in response to a question, that statement. There's also a line--I think we discussed this before, counsel.
What--well, Mr. Goldberg asked you about techniques that can be used in terms of photography for visualizing imprint evidence or potential footprint evidence at the crime scene. Do you recall those?
All right. In your opinion--and you were asked questions about what you did on June 25th. Do you recall that?
And what were the proper techniques for photographing and visualizing imprints. Remember those questions?
Now, Dr. Lee, in your opinion, with adequate time, what techniques can be used to enhance and visualize and photograph imprint evidence?
Are there techniques that can be used so that when photographing imprint evidence, there can be better visualization?
Dr. Lee, you indicated that by the--you were asked questions about the color of imprint evidence you saw on the walkway on pictures you took on June 25th compared to photographs that you saw on June 13th. Do you recall those?
All right. Now, what is the--assume that imprints had been made in blood. What effect does the passage of time have on the color of imprints?
And would--would an imprint that was made lightly in blood on one day when examined 14 days later appear darker than it did when first left?
When you say that imprint evidence in blood gets darker over time, what is the basis of that opinion?
Basically the protein heme of the hemoglobin start react. The oxidation process, it become more visible. Initial deposit, it's less contrast, less visible unless you enhance it. If aging, this aging processing will make it more visible.
So in other words, over time, as the proteins degrade, the imprint becomes darker and more visible?
All right. So what is the relationship between the breakdown in protein and the color of imprints made in blood over time?
In order to see it, to recognize, you have to distinguish from the background color versus the imprint pattern color. If two color very close, sometime human eyes cannot resolve it. You can't see it. You photograph, you can not take an image. However, when the time goes by, the denaturation of protein and the blood break down, also the material reaction, everything, now this area, imprint area if made in blood start have a contrast with the background because background, if no protein, no blood, don't form breakdown. Stay in the same color. Meanwhile, the decomposition of the blood, everything come darker, so now you can see it.
Now, you were asked questions about how you took photographs and visualized imprint evidence on June 25th. Do you recall those?
Now, if you had more time, what techniques could you have used to--with respect to photographing imprint evidence?
Were you limited in any way in what you could have done on June 25th in terms of visualizing and photographing imprint evidence?
There's three limiting factors. The first is the time, amount of time of the level 2. Second is the restriction. I wasn't allowed to edit something, remove something or cut something. The third, of course, I don't travel with my crime scene van with me. So with that limited factor, I only can use a major imitate, a camera, couched-up image, whatever, available.
Is there any doubt in your mind that that is a shoeprint of a parallel line pattern?
Now, other imprints that you saw on the walkway were not in the complete pattern of a shoeprint?
Now, enhancement techniques, can they reveal more than just what one sees with the naked eye in terms of imprints made in blood?
Now, Dr. Lee, you were asked on cross-examination questions about--withdrawn. And finally, on 58--598-A, where you've put the yellow marker, you've indicated that what you see as imprint evidence is something in this roll of tiles that is leading in a trail back to the rear of the Bundy location.
In which direction--just visualizing in this photograph, looking from the yellow arrow towards the step area, between those two markings, the yellow arrow and the step area, do you see a series of images that could be imprint evidence?
Could that be consistent with a trail of imprints heading out the back of the Bundy location?
Dr. Lee, you were asked a series of questions about the absence of evidence in crime scene techniques. Do you recall that?
--ask him about the chart, the witness should be allowed to take the witness stand.
All right. Now, in terms of the absence of evidence, if imprints are not recognized, documented, preserved and collected by criminalists, does that mean they are not there?
No. They're not--definite not means not there. Maybe presence. However, lack of documentation, enhancement or collection, nothing I can do about.
Now, with respect to the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper, you were asked some questions on cross-examination about cuffs and fabric. Do you recall that?
All right. You were asked about fabrics making imprints. You recall that on cross-examination?
Is there any fabric that you found at the crime scene that could have made the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper?
And in answer--and in cross-examination, you were asked about fabrics making such an imprint and you said something about the necessity in these imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper for direct contact and a certain amount of force and no movement. Do you recall that?
In order to get this transfer, first thing on the surface, have to have liquid blood, a pattern and the amount has to be just right (Indicating). Something has to be--have similar pattern which have to apply to the surface with certain pressure. I did not see any movement. In other words, it's not the smear. It has to be direct application with certain pressure just like when you stamp something.
I think we're finished with this board. Now, Dr. Lee, you were asked certain questions on cross-examination about DNA testing. Do you recall those?
Dr. Lee, is there a--are there correct ways to do DNA testing and incorrect ways to do DNA testing?
All right. And if DNA--if DNA testing is done properly in your opinion with RFLP and PCR, can it be reliable evidence?
That's my position all the time. DNA, if do properly, correctly, should be used as evidence.
You were asked questions about forensic scientists, molecular biologists and having a say as to proper DNA methods. Do you recall those questions?
And you said that forensic scientists should have a say on the methods that are used for the forensic application of DNA testing.
And you were asked--and you were asked about--well let me ask you, in terms of--is it your opinion--what is your opinion about forensic scientists and whether they should have a say in terms of what are the proper methods for doing DNA testing?
What I'm saying, as a forensic scientist, we're the one conduct the testing. We're the one look at the sample. We're the one evaluate the sample. So, therefore, as a forensic scientist, we should have some say in a committee, in national meeting, international meeting determine the procedure, the method and the type of analysis we perform. As a forensic scientist, we should have some say in. That shouldn't be just by other view of expert to dictate what we have to do.
And in terms of the role of molecular geneticists and population geneticists who are from clinical testing and academia, do they have a role as well?
They all have certain role. Even attorneys also have the certain roles in the DNA applications.
Now, you were shown a picture that's 596 on cross-examination of the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom. Do you recall that?
And you indicated that that was the best quality photograph you had been able to see prior to this occasion.
You were asked questions on cross-examination about Professor MacDonell and interpretations of the stains found on the sock.
And what is your opinion of Professor MacDonell and his expertise in the area of bloodstain interpretation?
He have a great amount of experience and did lot of experiment in the past, publish a book involving interpretation of the bloodstain analysis.
All right. Did you see the red balls depicted in photo micrographs that he testified about?
Do you agree with the testimony of Professor MacDonell that in terms of the mode of transfer, which I believe was the form of the question on cross-examination, that this--the mode of transfer here with respect to the ankle stain on the sock was side 2 having come into contact with side 3?
Now, you were asked some questions on cross-examination about hair and trace evidence in the soil exemplar and other samples. Do you recall those?
And you recall some testimony, some questions on cross-examination about hair and trace evidence in the jury box?
Now, Dr. Lee, if one were to drop a garment of some sort into the jury box area, would it be likely that hair and trace from some members of the jury panel might adhere to that garment if collected later?
In theory, if have a transfer, have a contact, if the receiving surface and deposit surface both have hair or fiber, now you have a cross-transfer.
Now, you were asked some questions with respect to linkage. Do you recall those, four-way linkage?
Now, in terms of trace evidence and linkage, does the integrity of the evidence collection have some importance in terms of forming links in that four-way linkage diagram?
If those trace evidence was not preserved properly, collect properly, things can missing, things can get cross-contaminated, a false linkage may be result.
KEY QUOTEAnd in terms of problems in recognition, preservation, collection and documentation, if there is contamination of evidence or failure to recognize evidence, can that affect that four-way linkage?
And if some links in that four-way linkage--withdrawn. If some evidence is not even genuine, can that affect the four-way linkage?
Did you use this picture, Hank? Your Honor, this is a series of three photographs that I thought was shown to the witness on cross-examination.
All right. Dr. Lee, you were asked some questions with respect to these cuts on the boot. Do you recall those?
And you were given some hypothetical about riding bicycles or reclining in chairs, things of that nature. Do you recall that?
Well, first, let me ask you, pointing to the photograph on the upper left-hand side of that cut, was that made with a sharp instrument?
What is the relationship between--if any, that you can see between the damage caused by one we'll call, left-hand photograph, the penetrating cut and the damage on the other boot?
These two damage are different. This one and this one are different type of damage (Indicating).
This is a definitive and sharp. A piece of a rubber-like material separate, disappear right on surface. This one is much superficial, being a slightly wavy pattern. Debris appears to form into this wiggly pattern. Here no debris can be observed. So the fourth slice, this much greater force sharper instrument (Indicating).
And is there any question you were asked on cross-examination that changes your opinion that this is a fresh cut with a sharp instrument?
You were asked some questions about the Bruno Magli--what has been identified as a bruin Magli shoeprint, correct?
Now, and in the course of your answers, you were discussing the need for side-by-side comparisons. Do you remember those answers on cross-examination?
If we see an imprint at the scene, you will recognize, see the imprint. If we document that, now we have an imprint evidence. That call a quashing evidence. We don't know where it come from. We can identify, say this is a Bruno Magli or Reebok or converse. That's called identification, or after our shoes, that's called identification. Now, you need a known shoes to compare side by side. That's called comparison. When we compare side by side, not only to look at the size, dimension, pattern. Those call general characteristic. Just give you a general thing just like you--at the scene, you see a fingerprint. That's a general characteristic, a fingerprint. To establish individualization, you need a known fingerprint from somebody to make a comparison, either the same or they're different. So for an imprint evidence made of a shoe, we need a shoe to compare side by side. And if we can link that shoe to that imprint, then that called a chief individualization.
Now, Dr. Lee, you were asked some questions on cross-examination with respect to the transfer stains on the bindle from item 47. Do you recall those?
And you were also asked some questions about some charts that appear in a publication entitled experiments and practical exercise in bloodstain pattern analysis by labor, Epstein--labor and Epstein. Do you recall that?
Your Honor, I don't know if Mr. Goldberg marked these. I know he showed them to the witness. If not, I'll mark them. I don't know what--
Was not marked? All right. Then I would like to mark these Defendant's next in order.
Now, Mr. Goldberg asked you about drying times with different kinds of materials under different conditions. Do you recall that?
All right. Now, on this study are a series of experiments performed for different amounts of blood.
One being a single drop, one being one milliliter of blood, one being five milliliters of blood, one being a hundred milliliters of blood.
And out of the materials listed, which one would be the most comparable to the swatches at issue in this case?
Now, what are the drying times for a single drop of blood under the three different conditions for cotton cloth?
Okay. Now, in terms of this experiment, what is condition 3? What set--in terms of temperature, humidity what is condition 3?
Condition 3 appear in this handout, laboratory cold with good air movement, temperature 38 degree Fahrenheit plus minus .1 degree, relative humidity, 80 percent plus minus 6 percent.
Condition 1 says laboratory work table which no more room, air circulation, temperature, 75 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent.
Would that be what would be ordinarily referred to as room temperature in a laboratory?
Condition 2, it says drying hood with good air movement, temperature, 76 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent.
So for a single drop of blood then under condition 1 which described as normal room temperature, the findings of labor and Epstein is the drying time is 55 minutes?
Five zero. And is it your understanding that each of the Bundy blood drops is a single drop?
Based on photographs that you've seen, the so-called items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, based on the photographs, what do they appear to be?
Can be a lot of drops. And let's say we use a .005 as a norm. Of course, it's variable. It's a wide range from little drop, big drop as I demonstrate to you before. Let's say we assume a norm .05 cc. That's almost 20 drops.
Dr. Lee, finally, you were asked some questions about the closed-in area of the Bundy crime scene, the absence of evidence and bloodstain patterns on cross-examination. Do you recall those?
Okay. Now, first of all, that is--that description is sort of like part of a baseball diamond insofar as it's just two parts of the rectangle, correct?
Well, let me ask you this, Dr. Lee. In a closed environment, closed-in environment with hand-to-hand combat, with multiple stab wounds, with blood stains in different places indicating multiple contact smears with vertical droplets in the areas of the different multiple contact smears, with other blood spatter cast off in different directions, with the key in one area, beeper in another area, in that kind of struggle, do you have an opinion as to whether or not an assailant or assailants would be covered with blood from the struggle?
Finally, Dr. Lee, in terms of the fact that you found imprint evidence on the envelope, piece of paper, Mr. Goldman's jeans, places on the Bundy walkway, the fact that you found it, does that mean it wasn't there on June 13th?
Well, let's talk about the wet transfer stains on bindle 47. Did you see anything in LAPD records indicating that there was a wet transfer on the item 47 bindle?
Does the fact that it was not recorded on the LAPD notations mean that it wasn't there?
Dr. Lee, there--you made the distinction between scientific fact and interpretation.
Any question in your mind that the existence of that wet transfer is a scientific fact?
Is there any question in your mind that the blood swatches such as we have in this case after three hours should be dry?
If swatches were placed into a bindle something less than three hours, maybe between an hour to three hours, might they leave damp wet transfer stains?
Are you familiar with the testimony of Miss Mazzola and Mr. Fung, that the swatches that they took out of test tubes were dry?
Now, Dr. Lee, you said at the end of your direct examination that as far as you were concerned, the existence of those wet transfers meant that something was wrong.
All right. Anything that has been asked of you in cross-examination that's changed your opinion about that?
Your Honor, I'm going to object because that's not a forensic opinion. Motion to strike.
My opinion still remain the same.
If done improperly, then should not be used.
In theory, should have some blood.
I don't play that much baseball. I don't know baseball diamond.
If those trace evidence was not preserved properly, collect properly, things can missing, things can get cross-contaminated, a false linkage may be result.