PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
SHARON RUFO, ET AL., )
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
VS. )NO. SC031947
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
_________________________________________)
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 9, 1997
VOLUME 39
REGINA D. CHAVEZ, CSR #8446
OFFICIAL REPORTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: DANIEL M. PETROCELLI ESQ.,
THOMAS LAMBERT, ESQ.,
PETER GELBLUM, ESQ., and
EDWARD MEDVENE, ESQ.
Firm: MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP
11377 West Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1663
For: Plaintiff Goldman
JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
330 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017-5090.
For: Plaintiff the Estate of
Nicole Brown Simpson
MICHAEL A. BREWER, ESQ.
Firm: HORNBERGER & CRISWELL
444 South Flower St.
Los Angeles, CA 90071.
For: Plaintiff Rufo
PAUL F. CALLAN, ESQ.
Firm: CALLAN, REGENSTREICH,
KOSTER & BRADY
One Whitehall St.
New York, NY 10004
For: Plaintiff Estate of
Ronald L. Goldman
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ.,
MELISSA BLUESTEIN, ESQ., and
PHILIP BAKER, ESQ.
Firm: BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2650 Ocean Park Blvd., #300
Santa Monica, CA 90405-2936.
-and-
DANIEL LEONARD, ESQ. and
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQ.
Firm: BAILEY, FISHMAN & LEONARD.
6355 Riverside Blvd.
Suite 2-F
Sacramento, CA 95831
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENDANTS' WITNESSES: PAGE
---------------------- -----
LEE, HENRY, DR.
DIRECT (B) 19
DIRECT (B) (Resumed) 106
CROSS (M) (Videotaped Deposition) 178
Legend: (B) = Mr. Robert B. Baker
(BL) = Mr. Blasier
(BR) = Mr. Brewer
(C) = Mr. Callan
(G) = Mr. Gelblum
(K) = Mr. Kelly
(L) = Mr. Leonard
(M) = Mr. Medvene
(MB) = Ms. Bluestein
(P) = Mr. Petrocelli
(PB) = Mr. Philip Baker
(TL) = Mr. Lambert
INDEX OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR I.D.
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
---------- ------------ -----
718 Two photographs of envelope and 214
blood drops
DEFENDANTS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
---------- ------------ -----
1359 Document entitled Steps in 175
Forensic , Examination
2314 Dr. Lee's Deposition Exhibit 4 175
2315 Dr. Lee's deposition exhibit 5 175
2316 Dr. Lee's Deposition Exhibit 6 175
1350 Document entitled Imprint 176
evidence at , Bundy
1352 Document entitle Evidence 176
Found:, Eyeglasses/Envelope at
Bundy Scene
1353 Document entitled Evidence 176
Found:, Eyeglasses/Envelope
bloodstain evidenceon envelope
1376 Document entitled Item 47, Blood 176
1324 Document entitled Imprint 177
Evidence of, Bundy
1366 Document Entitled Bloodstains 177
on, Evidence Bag
1360 Document entitled Trace material 177
found, on physical Evidence at
Bundy
1362 Document entitled History of 177
Socks, Item 13
1367 Document entitled History of 178
Item 47, Blood drop on Bundy
walkway
1368 Document entitled History of 178
Item 47, Blood drop on Bundy
walkway
1375 Document entitled History of 178
Item 47, Blood drop on Bundy
walkway
DEFENDANTS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
---------- ------------ -----
2309 18
2310 18
2311 18
2312 19
2313 19
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1997
8:30 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES: (Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Okay. We're here and somebody
wants to do something.
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, on the
Siglar deposition -- oh, I don't know if Your Honor
has a copy in front of you. If not we have an extra
copy or possibly Mr. Leonard does. If you want, we
can give our extra copy to the Court. However you'd
like to proceed.
THE COURT: I think somebody left one
yesterday.
MR. MEDVENE: All right, sir.
I wanted to briefly, if I might, go
through our objections, which will make much quicker
the reading, and they come basically in several
groups, your Honor.
The first deals with page 59, line 22,
through 67, line 12, and those pages deal with a
letter to William Hodgman of the District Attorney's
office, from Mr. Siglar, outlining certain of
Mr. Siglar's thoughts or comments with respect to the
autopsy of Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman.
That's Civil Exhibit 1869, and possibly
Your Honor has that in front of you.
The nature of those questions goes to
identifying the memorandum. There will be more
questions about it later and the uniqueness or
unusualness of writing such a memo.
We feel none of that is relevant or
material to the issues at hand, and this theme will
run through our objections, that any testimony of
Mr. Siglar is not relevant unless it deals with
theories that have been presented in this case and
things that go to the cause of death or other issues
in the case, but things such as whether more security
of the decedents or whether onlookers saw the
decedents at the coroner's office, that sort of thing
that's mentioned in Mr. Siglar's letter, are not
really relevant or material unless there can be some
showing of some tie-in upon and on looky-loo looking
at the body and some claim that the defense is making.
That's the nature of the objection to 59,
line 22, through 67, line 12. And that, as I say,
deals with their exhibit -- Civil Exhibit 1869.
Should I go on, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MEDVENE: The next, if we go to what's been
marked 1870, that's Civil Exhibit 1870, that's a
written list by Mr. Siglar of certain of his
observations. This is the written list that becomes
the letter to Mr. Hodgman in large part.
Again, it talks about things like
unmarked urine or looky-loos or things such as that,
that are referenced in the letter to Mr. Hodgman, and
we think that's not material or relevant to this case,
and on that basis we're objecting to page 84, line 8
through 14, which discusses that handwritten list, and
page 85, lines 9 through 25, which again makes
specific reference to the document that is now marked
as Civil 1870, and also page 86, lines 19 through 22.
Our next objection is -- covers pages 122
through 129, and those are questions that deal with
whether there was a coroner's office criminalist
response team that was called to the case -- was
called to the crime scene at Bundy.
It deals with a few other areas such as
who actually went, and we're not objecting to those
questions.
But the questions between 122 and 129
which deal with whether a coroner criminalist response
team should have been called, we think are not
relevant as we understand Your Honor's previous
rulings.
And Mr. Leonard and I know the
designation and the areas that he wants in on those
pages.
MR. LEONARD: Mr. Medvene, which pages were you
just dealing with did you say?
MR. MEDVENE: 122 through 129, and those are
within those pages.
MR. LEONARD: Okay, I got it.
MR. MEDVENE: Okay.
We're not seeking to exclude the fact
that Mr. Jacoby or Ms. Ratcliffe were there and what
their qualifications are. We're not moving to exclude
that. We're moving to exclude any and all questions
of whether should something else have happened that
didn't happen, i.e., the criminalist coroner's
response team.
Next, Your Honor, goes back basically to
the letter to Mr. Hodgman and/or the handwritten list,
1869, 1870, and starting at page 130, going to --
going to 131 and 132, 138, the questions there deal
with particular items on the list that we don't think
are relevant, i.e., did people look in and see the
bodies of the decedents, and the questioner went
through the various items on the list, and we object
to those questions unless the defense makes some
showing that some are relevant to any claim they have
in this case.
In other words, the fact that somebody
looked at the bodies, that they're making any claim
that that changed the evidence or who the murderer is,
we would withdraw our objection. As I understand it,
that's not their claim. They're just trying to show
that procedures were sloppy.
MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn, withdrawn that part,
then. Anything that has to do with the looky-loos, I
withdraw.
MR. MEDVENE: Not only looky-loos, but anything
that has been designated that deals with any of the
alleged deficiencies in what the coroner's office did,
unless there's some tie.
MR. LEONARD: No, Your Honor, I'm not offering
to withdraw everything, obviously. I just -- I think
I see the validity of Mr. Medvene's argument with
regard to that one point. I'm willing to withdraw
that one part.
MR. MEDVENE: That objection would generally be
made with 130, line 25, through 131, line 6, with 132,
line 6, through 133, line 18 be 138, line 5, through
138, line 14, 139, line 2, through 139, line 3. Those
all go to that point.
Next, Your Honor, there's -- counsel
asked a series of questions about security and I
believe the press staying in the lunch room or
whatever, which we don't think are relevant, and
that's page 185, line 4, basically runs through 190,
line 14.
And then the last thing on the first
volume, Your Honor, is, there's a discussion about a
draft letter that -- unless there's some significance
shown to a draft letter or a letter that was never
sent, we'd object on relevancy grounds. That's 191,
line 14, through 192, line 13.
That's the end of the first volume.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just to make it a
little bit easier, I will also withdraw the portions
that have been designated which deal with the issue of
the press in the lunch room. And that would be 185,
4, to 190, 14.
Am I correct in that, Mr. Medvene?
Or whatever portions they are, I won't
read.
MR. MEDVENE: Yeah, okay.
Volume 2, fewer.
Page 219, line 25, through 220, line 3,
again discussion about an item in the Bill Hodgman
letter about a media representative, we don't believe
is relevant.
Next, page 220, line 22 -- excuse me --
line 25.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, that's the same
point. I would withdraw that. When he said the media
representative, I withdraw all those questions.
MR. MEDVENE: Line 22, through 221, line 8,
that goes to -- 1869, which is Hodgman's letter and
the letter Mr. Hodgman -- we don't think that's
relevant unless they can tie it in.
Next, 246, line 20, through 249, line 25,
general discussion about coroner procedure discussions
he may or may not have had with Ms. Ratcliffe, unless
it's in some way tied in.
Lastly, on this volume, page 358, line 9,
through 360, line 12, that pertains to 1870, which is
the handwritten list of things Mr. Siglar thought in
the coroner's office maybe could have been done
better, and that in particular is -- dwells with when
the liver temperature was taken or things such as
that. I don't think there's any question about the
case.
That takes us through the second volume.
Now the third volume.
THE COURT: How much of this are you going to
be reading?
MR. LEONARD: How much?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. LEONARD: It's probably about an hour and
15 minutes.
THE COURT: Hour and 15 minutes?
MR. LEONARD: Something like that, yeah.
Depends on you.
(Indicating to the Court.)
MR. MEDVENE: The third volume, page 436, line
19, through 437, line 11, deals with a letter from
Mr. Siglar, Civil Exhibit 1877 or what's been proposed
as Civil 1877, it's a letter from Mr. Lakshmanan and
Mr. Hernandez to Sheriff Block, and we don't think
that has any relevance. It talks about photography.
Whatever it talks about, unless there's some tie-in,
we don't think it's relevant.
Next -- just one more. This is the last
one, Your Honor.
Page 487, line 19, through 492, line 18.
This deals with Civil Exhibit 1885, which includes two
things: One, a chronology, like two, three lines, a
date of things of -- that Mr. Siglar did. Unless
they're some way tied in -- and a separate document
that's attached to it has also separately been marked
1870, which we talked about before, and that's the
handwritten list of Mr. Siglar with things like
looky-loos and physical security, and we don't think
that should come in.
In essence -- last comment. What in
essence we did not object to is what we think the only
relevant portion basically of the Siglar testimony is,
is the turnover of the blood vial of Ms. Brown's blood
and Mr. Goldman's blood to Mr. Vannatter, and whatever
Mr. Siglar has to say about that, we don't -- do not
object to that.
But the other, in substance, Your Honor,
we've objected to for the reasons that we've said.
Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, very briefly. First
of all, we're not going to play -- it turns out we
have another issue involving this deposition. We're
not going to read it till this afternoon after
Dr. Lee's videotape is played.
And as I sit here and watch to some
extent your reaction and -- your reaction to my --
THE COURT: Well, you know what my reaction is.
Yesterday, you guys told me it's going to be like that
(clicking fingers.)
MR. LEONARD: This hearing --
THE COURT: You could have given me all this
stuff yesterday so I could spend the rest of the
afternoon and the evening to go through this. Now
you're throwing it up to me in the morning even before
we get the jury.
MR. LEONARD: I apologize.
THE COURT: That's why I have this look of
unhappiness.
MR. LEONARD: I don't blame you.
Let me cut to the quick. I am going to
go back to the drawing board over lunch, before we
read this, and pick out what I think are the four or
five best points that go to the following issue:
Number one, the failure of the LAPD to
call for the autopsy -- excuse me -- the coroner
criminalist response team. That was an issue that
was -- that was something that the coroner's office
had a problem with. A big problem.
And I would suggest, Your Honor, that
that is relevant for two reasons.
Number one, it goes to the efficacy of
this investigation in general, number one, and of
course the investigation that was done was -- was
targeted to Mr. Simpson.
The evidence that's presented -- been
presented here, including the bases for the
plaintiffs' expert witness testimony, relies in great
part on the investigation which was done and
particularly gathering of physical evidence at the
Bundy scene and the Rockingham scene.
So the -- the question of whether or not
there should have been assistance, I think, is a valid
one, and whether or not the efficacy of the
investigation was -- was jeopardized by the fact that
the -- that the criminalist response team from the
coroner's office was not called.
More importantly, I think, I think we
have at this point a very live issue about the --
about the issue -- question of framing in this case.
We saw yesterday a glove that has a hole
in it and then the hole disappears somehow.
And I would suggest when you want -- when
you talk about a circumstantial case, I think we're
building a very strong circumstantial case for
framing.
One of the circumstances I would suggest
is that the LAPD purposely failed to call the
coroner's office because they wanted to hold the scene
tight. They didn't want to have interlopers from the
coroner's office there who might interfere with
whatever they were planning to do.
So I would suggest that the fact that
they failed to call the coroner's office is a
circumstance that we should be able to elicit for this
jury, pointing towards framing.
Also, with regard to some of these
specific points -- and again, I'll fine-tune this, I'm
only going to bring up five or six of them or maybe
four or five. The ones I can tell you right now that
I think are particularly important are the -- and this
also goes to the delay, is the failure for an extended
period of time to get the liver temperature. That's
very important in discerning the time of death, which
obviously is a live issue in this case, and I -- so I
would suggest that that is important, too.
As far as the -- I've told you that I'm
willing to withdraw a great deal of this, especially
the criticisms about security and looky-loos, although
I would suggest again that would have some relevance,
but I'm willing to withdraw that.
So what I'm suggesting, Your Honor, is
that over the luncheon period or perhaps before, I'd
be willing to cut this down a little bit.
But basically the argument is that these
criticisms -- all of these criticisms are relevant,
and in particular, the failure of the coroner's office
to be notified to have a criminalist response team
sent out is highly relevant.
And there's one other -- one of the
things that Mr. Medvene was talking about was a draft
letter that was signed the next day, or at least it
was distributed by Mr. Siglar the next day, saying
this has got to stop, we have to be able to send out
these response teams. That was supposed to be sent to
LAPD and the sheriff's department and so on and so
forth -- excuse me -- and it was suppressed. It
hasn't been sent out to this day. And I think that's
relevant as well.
Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. MEDVENE: We would say briefly, Your Honor,
that the failure to call a criminalist response team,
you've ruled on similar issues, what wasn't done isn't
critical. What's relevant is what was done and what
does the evidence show to -- there's no evidence of
framing. We think that issue is very clear. There's
no hole in any glove.
There was a misstatement, however
unintentional, about what Detective Fuhrman said.
That's a red herring that's been thrown into this
case.
There's absolutely no evidence of any
kind of any planting, as Your Honor will see from
the -- from the Lee video that's going to be played.
Dr. Lee, I think the testimony will be,
examined the glove and whatever, says no scientific
fact indicates any planting of any evidence by any law
enforcement official.
In terms of liver temperature, there's no
issue that liver temperature wasn't taken. There's no
dispute about that on either side.
So we don't think these things are at all
relevant, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, how Mr. Medvene can
stand up and say there's not an issue about planting.
We've got blood on the back gate that's there and not
there. We've got blood on the console that's there
and not there. We've got Mr. Fung testifying
yesterday that the glove that he identified and picked
up at Bundy had a hole in it. The hole's not there
now.
How can you say that's not a live issue?
I don't understand that.
We've got EDTA in the -- in the socks.
We've got people saying they didn't see blood in the
socks at first.
I don't understand -- I think it's
definitely an issue, and if -- and if Your Honor were
to rule at this point that we can't present that and
we can't have a full explication of that issue, our
defense is highly prejudiced, Your Honor.
MR. MEDVENE: One last comment, Your Honor.
I mean, it makes absolutely no sense.
There was no -- they're not talking about the
Rockingham glove, where blood was found.
Why in the world would anyone switch --
MR. LEONARD: Exactly.
MR. MEDVENE: -- a Bundy glove? That makes no
sense. There was no blood taken from the Bundy glove.
There was no examination of the blood from the Bundy
glove. It makes no sense. There was no hole in the
Bundy glove. That will be demonstrated.
There's no planting of evidence of any
kind. Their criminologist says there's -- gives
nothing to any planting.
THE COURT: Well, the only thing that was
pointed out to me last evening before we adjourned
were the Hodgman letter and -- letter to Mr. Hodgman
and the list that was the basis on which the Hodgman
letter was constructed. And I looked at those two
items. I don't see the relevance of that. I'll
exclude those.
With regards to the remainder of Siglar's
testimony, I don't quite understand the objections to
the rest of the testimony.
MR. MEDVENE: Well, you basically covered 80
percent of what the objections were, because they
dealt with that.
The only other two objections, Your
Honor, other than whatever's already dealt with, were
the relevance of the coroner response team being
called out and --
MR. LEONARD: You mean not being called out.
MR. MEDVENE: Not being called out. That's
about the only objection you really haven't dealt
with, because 80-plus percent of our objections dealt
with the two letters you ruled weren't relevant. I
take it any testimony offered, those aren't relevant.
Why is it relevant they weren't called out? Unless
there can be some tie-in to this case, we know what
the evidence is, is it enough to show liability or
not. If --
THE COURT: Well, isn't the evidence that they
were not called out?
MR. MEDVENE: The evidence -- whoever was
called out was called out. There was not a coroner --
THE COURT: That's it?
MR. MEDVENE: -- a coroner response time called
out.
THE COURT: What did you need that for?
MR. LEONARD: This is somebody from the
coroner's office saying they should be called out.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to that.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I don't think their opinion about
who should be called out is relevant to what the
evidence is.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, it's relevant -- let
me make one more pitch.
It's relevant because that would have
been the normal procedure. LAPD didn't follow it.
Why? Answer: Because they didn't want anyone from
the coroner's office there. That's the answer. We
should be able to -- to elicit the fact that leaves
that inference for the jury. That's why it's
relevant.
THE COURT: Let me see what the letter says.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I can point you to
the testimony.
THE COURT: What is your argument? That the
fact that a coroner's office response team did not
have access to the decedent's body for approximately
10 hours -- how did that affect the coroner's
findings?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, first of all, they
couldn't -- there may have been valuable evidence,
trace evidence and so forth, that was on the bodies
that wasn't obtained.
The taking of the liver temperature --
THE COURT: Such as?
MR. LEONARD: -- temperature was compromised by
virtue of the delay. There were -- for instance,
there were drops on Nicole Brown -- blood drops on
Nicole Brown Simpson's back, such as -- you asked me
such as -- they were never tested.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Leonard, I will not
permit it on your theory of conspiracy. I don't see
any basis on that -- for that. I will permit it on
the basis of the fact that the liver temperature was
not taken and the time of death was made more
difficult because of that. That's the only reason I
would do that.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't see any other relevance.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, in view of the
statements of counsel, pointing out how they intend to
argue yesterday's testimony, I renew my request for an
admonition to the jury based on questions that had
absolutely no good-faith basis.
I will remind the Court that Your Honor
issued a written or an oral instruction to the jury
regarding my questions concerning the polygraph
examinations, some of which were --
THE COURT: That's quite different,
Mr. Petrocelli.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- and told the jury that my
questions were not evidence. Mr. Baker's questions,
which had no good-faith basis, were not evidence. I
had a good-faith basis; he had none.
THE COURT: I'm not going to make any further
admonitions to the jury at this point.
MR. BAKER: Quit whining.
THE COURT: Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: I could not help myself.
THE COURT: Would you not do that. It makes my
job a lot more difficult.
Bring the jury in, please.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we'll move into
evidence the photographs of yesterday: 2309, 2310,
2311, and both gloves, 2312 and 2313.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2309 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2310 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2311 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2312 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Defendants' Exhibit 2313 was
received in evidence.)
MR. BAKER: And we'll be playing the tape of
criminalist Henry Lee. And that tape has some scenes
that are a little disjointed because of objections
that have been ruled on and had to be edited out of
the -- of the videotape of Dr. Lee.
With the Court's permission, may we
proceed?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Whereupon, a videotaped
deposition of Dr. Henry Lee was
played.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Dr. Lee, where were you born?
A. I was born in China.
Q. And did you subsequently go to
Taiwan?
A. Yes.
Q. And in 1960, Dr. Lee, what did
you do?
A. In 1960, I was a police captain
in Taiwan Police Department.
Q. Did you graduate from Taiwan
police college?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long did you remain a
captain in the Taiwan police department?
A. Approximately five years.
Q. Were you the youngest Chinese
ever to be made a captain in the Taiwan
Police Department?
A. Exactly.
Q. When did you develop an
interest in science, Dr. Lee?
A. During my career as a police
captain, involving investigation of a crime,
crime-scene investigation, I start
developing an interest in crime-scene
investigation of physical evidence. I tried
to find a better way to solving cases.
Q. All right.
And when you're working in a
police department, you did cases where you
investigated the crime scene?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you also do evidence
comparison and interview -- interrogation of
witnesses?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right.
Now, how long did you remain in
Taiwan as a police captain, sir?
A. Approximately five years.
Q. And in 1964, did you leave
Taiwan?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you go then, sir?
A. I went to Maylasia first.
Q. And did you then leave the
Taiwan Police Department?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long did you stay in
Maylasia?
A. Approximately a year.
Q. Okay.
And then in 1965, what did you
next do, Dr. Lee?
A. I decided to come to United
States to further my study.
Q. Okay.
And where did you come to the
United States?
A. New York, to John Jay College
of Criminal Justice. That's part of a city
university.
Q. And did you go there on a
scholarship, sir?
A. Yes, I got some financial
assistance.
Q. In what -- what is or was at
the time John Jay College?
A. John Jay College, at that time,
probably has the best reputation in the
country of the best forensic program. Also
have excellent faculties that encourage me
to go to school, to further my study.
Q. And what, sir, caused your
interest in forensic science to lead you to
John Jay University?
A. I was a police
officer/detective, and I always have a
curiosity, interest in forensic science.
However, my degree in Taiwan as
police science -- I don't have a degree in
nature science. At the time I work at the
NYU Medical Center -- that's a graduate
school, medical school level. I need the
bachelor's degree to continue my graduate
study.
John Jay College is
geographically very close to NYU Medical
Center, also have a good reputation, and
they gave me some financial assistance.
Q. Okay.
Now, was John Jay College the
first college to offer a degree in forensic
science?
A. I think that time Berkeley also
offers the degree.
Q. Okay.
At that time, did you meet
Peter DeForest, the gentleman sitting in the
room?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was a professor at that
time?
A. Yes.
Q. And at -- that was at John Jay
College?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when did you ultimately
get your degree from John Jay College?
A. I forgot the exact date. 1970
or something like that.
Q. All right.
Now, in terms of while you went
to John Jay College, were you working
full-time at NYU?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you to go night school at
John Jay College?
A. Yes. Most of the courses is
nighttime.
Q. How long did it take you to get
your Bachelor of Science degree at John Jay
College, going at night?
A. Year and a half, two years.
Q. And then, two years later, did
you get your master's degree in biochemistry
from NYU in 1974?
A. Yes; two years later, I get my
master degree of science from NYU.
Q. And your principal tutor at NYU
is Serrio Ochia, the Nobel laureate in
medical genetics; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you then, in a single year,
received your Ph.D.; is that correct?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. What was your Ph.D. in?
A. Ph.D. in molecular
biology/biochemistry.
Q. And that was when,
approximately 1975?
A. 1975.
Q. Okay.
Now, after you had your Ph.D.,
what did you then do, Dr. Lee?
A. I started looking for jobs.
Q. Okay.
And where did you find the job?
A. I tried different places.
As a matter of fact, I had
Dr. DeForest also assist me looking for
positions and I got couple offers, some to
stay in a research area, continue my
biochemistry study.
In addition to that, I received
a couple offers to teach forensic science.
One of the offer for University of New
Haven, I took that offer.
Q. And, Doctor, that was 21 years
ago, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you still teach at the
University of New Haven?
A. Yes, I still teach at
University of New Haven.
Q. Now, in 1976, were you promoted
to run the program at the University of New
Haven?
A. Yes. I've become the program
chairman, and I first associate professor.
One year later, I become a full professor.
Q. As a full professor, were you
tenured?
A. Yes.
Q. What does tenure mean?
A. Tenure, basically, the school
recognize your acomplishments and your
contribution to teaching and in the
community affair and to your profession,
which means if you -- you have a job for
your life.
Q. And then there's no termination
once you're tenured; is that correct?
A. Unless you have some criminal
activity or other illegal activity, no
termination.
Q. You were tenured within three
years of getting your Ph.D.; is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right.
Now, Doctor, back in 1975, when
you went to the University of New Haven, did
you start investigating criminal cases at
this time?
A. Even before that time, yes.
Q. Okay.
And what type of agencies or
governmental agencies did you work for?
A. Start with most. The majority
of agencies agency are public defenders'
office, private attorneys, with a small
fraction of law-enforcement agencies or
prosecutors' office.
Q. All right.
Now, over the years, did you
work, then, for additional law-enforcement
agencies?
A. Yes. At that time, University
New Haven, we start to develop a laboratory,
testing laboratory, which I'm also the
director of that laboratory -- provide
forensic services to the community.
Gradually, more and more
police department, fire department, District
Attorney's office around the country utilize
our services.
Q. And do you -- did you, in the
'70s, do work for the New York police?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The Greenburg police?
A. Work with Dr. DeForest on
cases.
Q. And did you, over the years,
become well-known, both nationally and
internationally, as a criminalist?
A. Yes. Gradually, I got
recognized by our peers and law-enforcement
community.
Q. When you started the forensic
lab at -- at the University of New Haven,
could you tell me how many people were
full-time, how many people were part-time?
A. Start with university in 1975.
I'm the only faculty, only have two
full-time student and few part-time
students, without a laboratory, only a few
simple pieces of equipment.
By 1978, we have four full-time
faculties. We probably have approximately
100 students, and we'll have a more
well-equipped laboratory.
Q. Doctor, let's fast-forward to
1996.
Can you tell us how many
employees, students and faculty, you had in
the program at the University of New Haven?
A. In 1996, we further added
couple other faculty, including one of my
former professor, Dr. Gaensalen. He also a
colleague of mine. And there many other
faculties join the university. We start our
graduate program now. There was only
undergraduate. Graduate program only take
about 15 graduate students each year, try to
maintain a good, high-quality program.
Q. And how many undergraduate
students do have you presently?
A. We develop a program call Law
Enforcement Science. By that time, possibly
200 students in that program.
Q. And how many faculty members do
you have roughly in the undergraduate
program?
A. In total program, law
enforcement and criminal justice,
approximately 13, 14 faculties.
Q. Now, Doctor, is it -- did you
hire one of your former professors at John
Jay College to work in your program?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And that's Dr. --
A. Gaensalen. He's a very highly
respected forensic scientist in the field.
Q. Now, I want to go back into the
chronology, if I may.
In 1979, you officially joined
the Connecticut State Police; is that
correct, sir?
A. Before 1979, I -- I guess,
advisor for Connecticut State Police
Laboratory, in 1979 officially. May 1970,
Governor Grasso offered me a job of
director, chief criminalist, the first chief
criminalist for the State of Connecticut.
Q. And in 1980, Doctor, then --
Governor Grasso then gave you another job,
did he not?
A. Yes. The State offered me as
the director of the laboratory.
Q. And you have been the director
of the forensic laboratory from 1982, and
including the present time, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And right now, you are now
building a new, modern facility as a
forensic laboratory, are you not?
A. Half of the laboratory already
accomplished; the other half, hopefully by
next year, we will be finished.
Q. And give us just a general
description of the laboratory you were in
till you got the new laboratory and the
change from the size of the laboratory.
A. It's a long history. And I
started in the men's room, literally convert
a men's room about one-tenth of this room,
with one microscope.
I have 27 state troopers work
for me, sergeants and lieutenant troopers.
Now, we have about 43 civilian-type
scientists. Eleven have their Ph.D.s, M.D.
terminal degree. The majority finished a
master degree.
The equipment in the laboratory
now possibly over 40 million dollars through
the grants foundation, contribution, and
bonded money. The laboratory now have 14
sections. Early days, we just worked
together. Very little type of services we
can provide to the community. The majority
of my activity at that time involving crime
scene, actual crime-scene investigation and
bring to the lab for microscopic comparison
and analysis.
Nowadays, we have immunology
section, biology section, DNA section,
chemistry section, trace section, firearm,
document, fingerprint, imprint,
reconstruction, all variety of sections.
I'm very lucky. Have many good
people work with me.
Q. Doctor, in terms of the -- your
history from 1975, the last 21 years, you
went from the men's room to a thoroughly
modern forensic science lab; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you have worked on the
case that we're here on as an independent
consultant previously, have you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And does that indicate your --
is that on your own time, as contrasted to
the time for the -- that you put in for the
State of Connecticut?
A. Yes. This is not my official
capacity. I work on this case as a total
independent consultant, use my own time.
Q. Now, in terms of what your lab
handles in Connecticut, how many police
departments do you handle the forensic or
crime-scene evidence for?
A. Our laboratory currently serve
174 police department, 189 fire departments,
14 judicial district, plus about 30 other
state, local, federal law-enforcement
agencies in state.
Q. And do you also receive cases
submitted to you from states other than
Connecticut?
A. Yes. Many, many cases fall
from other state.
Q. Do you have other states, for
example -- for example, up here in New
England?
A. Yes. All of the New England
cases, including Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
constantly we're working with them on cases.
At this moment, all those five states, this
moment, I'm working cases with them. Those
are major cases.
Q. All right.
And do you work on cases from
states other than New England?
A. Yes.
Q. California, for example?
A. Yes.
Q. The L.A. County Sheriff's
Department?
A. Yes.
Q. Hawaii?
A. Yes. Many cases in Hawaii.
Q. Alaska?
A. Alaska.
Montana, Illinois, Wisconsin,
and Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania.
Q. Almost every state in the
country?
A. Almost every sate.
Q. Now, you get your cases,
Dr. Lee, in three different ways, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And how is it that the cases
are referred to you as the director of the
forensics lab?
A. The first type of cases,
official submission, case submitted through
the law enforcement agency to our
laboratory. By official capacity, we
examine those cases.
The second type of cases, if
one state request the other state for
assistance, for example, right in moment,
Pennsylvania's State Commissioner asked our
commissioner for assistance. A potential
homicide investigation.
West Virginia commissioner
asked our state police state commissioner,
so that kind of through one state to
another, to another state, request of the
third, basically, in the individual contact
referee, people would refer back and forth.
Also some through University. That's an
independent consultants' cases, nothing to
do with the laboratory.
Q. Now, at the federal level, that
is for the United States Government, as
contrasted to the state government, do you
do work for the federal government?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us about your relationship
with the FBI.
A. Very close. And FBI have
excellent laboratory. They always give
state local laboratories support. Over the
years, I've been as their chairman of
research training committee for many years
and -- until I resigned about six years ago.
I still have very close contact
with many laboratory examiners and FBI
laboratory people.
Q. Have you ever lectured at the
FBI Academy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what have you lectured
upon?
A. Quite a few different subjects
area.
Q. For example, crime
reconstruction?
A. Yes.
Q. Sexual assault?
A. Yes.
Q. How about trace evidence?
A. Participate in some lecture in
trace evidence, too.
Q. Now, ASCLAD is a group that
you're a member of; is that not correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what does ASCLAD stand for?
A. That stand for American Crime
Laboratory Directors Association.
Q. And does the ASCLAD and the FBI
Shave a close relationship?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you ever been, for
example, an editor, or had anything to do
with any journals that the FBI has
published?
A. I was the editor for FBI Crime
Laboratory Digest for many years.
Q. I want to go back a little bit
we're still on the federal.
Have you done any work for the
United States, such as the Defense
Department?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do for the defense
department?
A. Involving examination of
physical evidence, involving testing, the
procedure -- technique I developed, which is
used by their laboratory.
Q. Okay.
Did you assist the Defense
Department in a homicide case in Korea?
A. Yes.
Q. And how about with the Justice
Department? Have you ever done any work for
the United States Department of Justice?
A. Yes.
Q. What have you done in that
regard, sir?
A. The most recent one is for an
independent counsel Vincent Foster untimely
death case.
Q. Now, Doctor, we've on
international investigations have you been
asked by other heads of other countries or
administrations of the countries outside the
United States to investigate?
A. Yes.
Q. And how about -- can you give
us an example?
A. Two days ago I was in Taiwan to
assist the serial rapist, serial arson
investigation. Also, some kidnap and
legislator was kidnapped. I was -- I was
asked to review the case and asked to
reinvestigate the case.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of
working with the defense or the prosecution
in a criminal case, what would you say is
the percent of times that you work for the
prosecution as contrasted to the times that
you had worked for the defense?
A. Currently -- in the past in 20
years, I was in, 99 percent is for the
prosecution, maybe 1 percent for the
defense.
Q. Okay.
When you are working for the
prosecution, and the defense experts want to
observe experiments or look at evidence in
your lab, do you allow them to do that?
A. Yes, I allow them, and I think
that's healthy and have an independent
expert come to exam. We'll have nothing to
hide. I will welcome with open arms,
especially defense expert have credential,
have recognized as an expert. I have
nothing to hide about it.
Q. Do you let defense experts, for
example, in cases you're assisting the
prosecution, join in the experiment that you
do?
A. Yes. I will let them observe
or join, even have coffee with me together,
have tea, and work together as a team.
Q. All right.
And do you have to close down
the lab anything of that sort to let the
defense expert in to look at evidence or
assist you in an experiment?
A. No. That activity goes on.
Laboratory just have so many cases. The
defense expert allowed to walk around. In
other words, have all the freedom. I'm not
restrict them, say have to stay in one spot.
Q. Now, Doctor, is it your
practice and procedure to let defense
experts roam freely in the laboratory?
A. Depends on the defense expert.
They want to work in conference room, we'll
set up in the conference room. Defense
expert say I want to work in the lab bench,
I let them work in the lab bench. If
defense say I want to use men's room, I let
them use men's room (laughter).
Q. Very kind of you.
If they want to use the ladies
room, if they're ladies, you let them use
the ladies room?
A. Let them use the ladies room,
sometimes buy them lunch if they're people I
respect.
Q. Thank you very much.
Doctor, have you published any
papers?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how many?
A. I lost track. Maybe 200, 300,
something in that neighborhood.
Q. And what are the different
areas that you have published papers in?
A. Early days, Dr. DeForest
basically my principal co-author on many
papers. Subsequently, Dr. Gaensalen, we'll
work on a lot of paper together, and most
recently basically myself and the my
co-workers work together.
Area covers serological
evidence, typing, ABO grouping isoenzyme,
DNA, trace evidence, a sell ran, crime
scene, enhancements of shoe print,
impression, marks at the scene. Most
recently I'm very interested in writing
about reconstruction, how to put the case
together.
Of course, other areas such as
blood-stain pattern interpretation, hair
examinations -- right at this moment I'm
working on five different subject area: One
is involving trace evidence in traffic
accident reconstruction; one deals in DNA;
another area in the ethics in forensic area,
forensic scientist ruled in the trial should
not be bias, should not be -- say, if you're
a prosecution witness, you're okay, once you
become a defense witness, you're -- you
become a hired gun or a whore. That should
be a court appointed witness, so area like
that.
Q. Doctor, how many books or
monographs have you written major chapters
in?
A. Approximately 20.
Q. What's a monograph?
A. Monograph is a booklet that
deals with a specific area. For example,
recently my co-worker and myself,
Dr. Gaensalen, we receive a grant for a
National Institute of Justice to study the
rape -- the crime of rape. We publish it or
publish a monograph in regards to the rape
investigation; how to collect evidence, how
to preserve evidence, what that type of
genetic marker can use for identifying
somebody or also the limitation of such
tests.
Q. Doctor, some of the books used
as textbooks in forensic science --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that you've written? And
give me an example, if you can, of a book
that's used as a textbook in forensic
science?
A. One of the best books is
co-author with Dr. DeForest and
Dr. Gaensalen called Forensic Science
Introduction to Criminalistics. That's
probably one of the best textbook on the
market now.
Q. And how long has that textbook
been out?
A. That book been published for
quite a few years.
Currently it's under -- we're
under revision for second edition.
MR. BAKER: I'm getting rewired.
That's okay. Let me get to -- got to
redress. We okay?
Pardon me for the interruption,
Doctor. I had to get rewired here with a
different mike.
Q. Doctor, have you written in
Physical Evidence in Forensic Science?
A. We.
Q. And what have you written in
that regard, sir?
A. Physical Evidence for -- over
the years I work with the detectives and
police officer, fire marshals, I found an
urgent need to provide them some guideline,
how to recognize potential evidence, how to
collect the evidence, document the evidence
and preserve the evidence, and properly
submit to the laboratory.
I'm also -- they should know
what's the laboratory capability, what the
test means, the positive, negative,
inconclusive. So physical evidence in
Forensic Science basically is a -- not the
technical manual, but the book provide the
law enforcement community, sometime
attorneys, prosecutor, defense attorney, a
quick reference guide on different category
of physical evidence, and understand the
underlying principle and the current status
of analytic and procedure.
Q. That monograph on physical
evidence of physical forensic, physical
evidence has been widely distributed?
A. Yes.
Q. What languages has that
monograph been published in?
A. It's been published in English,
but been translated by many countries now;
in Chinese, both from Taiwan and China,
Korea and Spanish and Arabic.
Q. And Crime-Scene Investigation,
is that a book that you've written as well?
A. Yes. Recently I finish a book
called Crime-Scene Investigation.
Q. And is that a textbook
monograph? What is it?
A. A textbook on -- basically
dealing with the crime-scene procedures
specifically. This book is co-authored with
some laboratory people.
Q. All right.
Doctor, let's move to DNA for a
minute.
Have you ever written a
monograph on how to collect DNA evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that kind of the gold
standard in criminalistic writings about the
collection of DNA evidence?
A. Up to today that's the only
reference guide that was written with FBI
scientists about collection, preservation of
DNA evidence.
Q. All right.
TWGDAM, what's that?
A. TWGDAM, that's the technical
working group of DNA.
Q. That's T-W-G-D-A-M, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you a founding member of
that organization?
A. I was one of the early member
at the beginning.
Q. Okay.
What's OTA stand for, Doctor?
A. Office Technology Assessment.
Q. What is your involvement with
that?
A. OTA set up a DNA committee
called Forensic Application of DNA. I was
one of the committee members to study the
forensic application of DNA.
Q. And relative to the NRC report,
what did you do, if anything, concerning the
NRC report on DNA?
A. I only have some input of the
first -- only in the first committee -- I
was a committee member of National Research
Council. Council set up a committee to
study the DNA application for forensic
science; we issue a report. I'm part of --
a committee member.
Q. All right.
Now, you have been an editor of
various publications, have you not, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us, have you been the
editor, for example, of the Journal of
Forensic Science?
A. Yes, I'm editor of Journal of
Forensic Science. I'm an editor of Forensic
Identification, editor of American Journal
of Forensic Pathology, and I'm editor of
some other journal which I don't remember.
About seven of them.
Q. Forensic Science Review; how
about that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the Journal of Forensic
Science, they're the official publication of
what?
A. Academy of Forensic Science.
Q. It's American Academy, is it
not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And the Journal of Forensic
Identification is the official publication
of what?
A. For international
identification of association.
Q. All right.
And so you do serve as editor
on both the American Journal and the
International Journal?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right.
And the American Forensic
Pathology Journal that you serve on as the
editor, is that Forensic Medicine and
Pathology?
A. Yes. Basically 99 percent of
the paper related to forensic pathology and
not forensic medicine.
Q. Doctor, going to your -- into
your teaching for a moment, moving to a new
area, I think we've already established you
continue to teach at the University of New
Haven?
A. Yes.
Q. You also teach where else?
A. I also currently this semester
am teaching at UCONN Law School, teach with
a judge.
Also, I'm teaching at Central
Connecticut University, Connecticut. Also
was Wcsleyan University in Connecticut where
we have a molecular biology course.
Also, I'm teaching with some
other people in Western Connecticut.
Bridgeport University have
approached me. However, we haven't set up a
day yet.
Also, I give guest lecture
Northeastern and many other university
before.
I also lecture at John Jay
College of Criminal Justice before, People's
University Central Police College and
mainly --
Q. People's University, is that
Beijing?
A. Beijing.
Q. Go ahead. I apologize for
interrupting?
A. And three weeks ago I was in
China, lecture -- I give a series lecture in
different agencies and university.
Q. Now, do you teach law
enforcement agencies across the world?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you been a lecturer
for the FBI Justice Department?
A. Yes, the FBI, ATF, Justice
Department, DEA. I taught six courses of
crime-scene investigation reconstruction for
DEA, Drug Enforcement Agency, last year.
Many federal, Air Force, Naval
investigation, federal level -- as a matter
of fact, next week or next two weeks I have
to give a lecture for the U.S. Justice
Department for the U.S. Attorney on crime
scene.
Q. ATF is?
A. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm.
Q. An agency of the federal
government?
A. Yes, sir. I teach advanced
arson classes for them.
Q. Now, in terms of evidence,
you've taught police academies?
A. Yes.
Q. National Association District
Attorney?
A. Many, many.
Next week I have to teach for
the New England Fire Marshal annual meeting
next Monday.
Tuesday, I have to be in
Oklahoma to teach an advance crime scene
class.
Friday I have to be in
Pennsylvania to teach a course for
Pennsylvania Medical Examiners Coroners
annual meeting.
Pretty busy.
Q. I'll say.
Doctor, you're also a member of
various professional organizations, are you
not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you tell us what the
IAI is?
A. IAI stands for International
Identification of Association.
Q. And are you a distinguished
member of that organization?
A. Yes. I'm one of the few
distinguished member in that organization.
Q. Actually, there are less than
10 distinguished members in that
organization?
A. Yes. Much less.
Q. And in that organization you
seek to identify, by various means,
evidence, do you not, or -- strike that.
Do you seek to identify the
perpetrator of a crime?
A. It's -- basically it's an
organization involving identification
techniques.
Q. All right.
A. Which include fingerprint,
footprint, document, pattern evidence, and
other periphery -- other physical evidence
such as voice analysis and other type of
scientific technique using criminal
investigation.
Q. Now, does the IAI have a
certification program for criminalists?
A. No. They have a certification
program for latent print and a certification
program for crime scene.
Now, right at this moment, they
develop a certification program for blood
pattern interpretation.
Q. Okay.
And have they honored you with
any type of an award, sir?
A. Yes. They have the highest
award in their organization called Donnero
award.
Q. Donnero?
A. Yes.
Q. And when were you given that
award, sir?
A. I forgot. 1970 or '80
something, 1980 something.
Q. Fair enough.
Let's move on to the American
Academy of Forensic Science.
Are you a member of that?
A. Yes, I'm a member.
Q. And are -- have you been given
the distinguished fellow medallion in that
organization?
A. Yes. I received the highest
membership category couple years ago.
Q. You've also been given the
highest award of that organization that that
organization awards, have you not?
A. Yes, the criminalistics
actually received one of the Distinguished
Criminalist Award.
Q. And Doctor, to your knowledge,
has anyone ever -- else in the world ever
received the Donnero and the Distinguished
Criminalist Award?
A. No.
Q. Other than yourself?
A. Right. In moment I'm the only
one.
Q. All right.
Now, are you a member of the
International Association of Blood-Stain
Analysts?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're regional
vice-president of that organization?
A. I was.
Q. Okay.
International Homicide
Investigators Association?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a member and advisor of
that group?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you a fellow of the
English Fingerprint Society?
A. Yes.
Q. How about ASCLAD?
A. I was a board member. I was
chairman of research academy. I was
chairman of scholarship committee and many
other committees.
Q. And were you inspector for a --
A. Yes, I was an inspector for
American Crime Laboratory Inspection Team.
Q. And by the way, Doctor, is the
LA Crime Lab accredited by ASCLAD?
A. Probably not.
Q. Okay.
A. It's not.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
Doctor, are you also a member
of the American Board of Criminalists?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you certified by the
American Board of Criminalists?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I was the board member, and
also I was the peer group, also review some
tests. I feel not fair to other people if I
know what's on the questions, test question
and take the test.
Q. So you devised the test
question. You think you ought to be able to
pass it?
A. I only devise certain portion
of question. Other people devise the rest
of question.
However, I was the guinea pig,
take the question, that review the question.
Q. I see.
So you think you could pass
that one, Doctor?
A. Maybe.
Q. Doctor, have you received from
various police department and crime labs
around the world hundreds, literally
hundreds of certificates and awards of
appreciation?
A. Yes, plaques. medals -- last
week alone I receive two medals: One is the
highest honor for Taiwan government for
overseas Chinese for my accomplishment in
science. And next one is given to me by
Minister of interior for my contribution in
arson fire investigation and the
knowledge -- contribution of literature to
fire arson investigation.
Q. Congratulations.
Now, Doctor, putting modesty
aside, have people indicated in your
presence that they believe that you are the
number one criminalist in the world?
A. Oh, I don't consider that.
Q. All right.
Doctor, how did you get
involved in the murders of June 12, 1994, of
Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?
Dr. Lee, I want to -- Dr. Lee,
I want to go back over one thing before
you -- we get into how you got involved in
this --
THE COURT: 10-minute recess, ladies
and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form
or express any opinion.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Okay.
(Whereupon a videotaped deposition
of Dr. Henry Lee was played.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER: (continued)
Q. Let's go back over one thing
before we get into how you got involved in
this case.
Dr. Lee, in the criminal case,
were you -- you personally, as contrasted to
any organization, paid for your services?
A. Personally, I did not receive
any compensation except my expenses. I did
send a bill for consultation which half
donated to University New Haven scholarship
fund. Other sent to Connecticut State
Police Department of Public Safety for
forensic services.
Q. All right.
And you're not being
compensated here today?
A. No.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, how did you get
involved in the case of the murders of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman which
occurred on June 12, 1994?
A. The first contact through
attorney Robert Shapiro. I receive a phone
call on June 14, I think, request my
assistance in review some documents.
Q. Now, did you make any contact
with the LAPD relative to this case after
you had been contacted by Bob Shapiro on
June 14, 1994?
A. Afterwards, not the same day, I
did make some contact with LAPD laboratory.
Q. And who did you contact at LAPD
laboratory?
A. I first called Michelle
Kestler, the lab director.
Q. All right.
Doctor, could you explain to us
what forensic science is?
A. Forensic science is application
of nature science to the matters of the law,
utilize -- the principal technique using
chemistry, biology, physics, try to solve
some legal issue, both civil or criminal.
Q. And would you give us,
please -- well, just tell us what is
criminalistics?
A. Forensic science is a much
broader field, encompasses disciplines such
as forensic medicine, forensic pathology,
forensic odontology, forensic anthropology,
also an area called criminalistics.
Criminalistics involve physical
evidence, crime-scene, exam variety of
physical evidence through recognition,
documentation, preservation, collection,
identification, individualization.
Finally, try to reconstruct the
sequence of events, try to answer the
so-called 6 W's; what happened, how it
happened, when it happened, where it happen.
All those relevant facts relate to a crime.
Q. In terms of crime-scene
reconstruction, are there degrees of
reconstruction?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain that to us?
A. Crime-scene reconstruction
solely depend on the amount of information
available.
If you have a complete picture
just like in putting a puzzle -- if you have
all the pieces, you can put the puzzle
together.
If you have a half of the
puzzle, you can put the puzzle together --
half of the puzzle.
We use the interpretation, the
original pattern, what kind of figure it is.
If you only have limited
information, few pieces, you only can make
an intelligent interpretation based on your
experience and knowledge, say more
consistent with certain pattern.
If you have very few pieces
nobody can put this puzzle together anymore
with degree of certainty.
So reconstruction -- sometimes
we classify a complete reconstruction,
usually have to get to the crime-scene from
day one. Usually have documentation.
First, investigating officer,
all the physical evidence did not pick up
improper location, position, did not change
body position did not change, nothing
destroyed, medical examiners result, the
clothing on the victim did not contaminate
it. Then a qualified forensic scientist of
criminalist put pieces together.
There is something called
partial reconstruction. Physically we
cannot go to every crime-scene. Sometime
the department photograph the crime-scene or
videotape the crime-scene, collect the
physical evidence, send to the laboratory.
We can base on the investigative
information, crime-scene documentation,
diagrams, photograph, videotaping, plus the
physical evidence, plus medical examiners
result, try to insert partial question.
The limitation of the partial
reconstruction is we view crime-scene
through somebody else camera. The person
took the picture, they're usually selective;
usually, only partial representation, two
dimensional representation. Whereas with
assistance of a videotape, sometimes we can
see more. Without a videotape we only can
do that very partial reconstruction.
The third type we call limited
reconstruction; just to answer one or two
questions. For example, some blood stain
found in somebody's T-shirt, can we make an
interpretation just limited on this blood
stain, or of a gunshot wound based on the
powder residue distribution, whether or not
we can reach a conclusion, the possible
distance between the barrel to the target.
For example, if we find a
bullet hole through -- we have two entrance,
and one exit. Now we can establish the
possible trajectory, so those called partial
reconstruct.
Q. Now, Doctor, let me go to the
boards and let's take and put up 1350 and I
ask you -- this is a larger board. I don't
know if we're going to -- if it's going to
fit in the area directly behind you.
A. Yes, I think probably will fit.
Q. Well, it's a little too tall I
think.
Well, you're right again.
Now, Dr. Lee, would you
explain -- this board is entitled "Steps in
Forensic Examination."
Could you explain that for us,
please, sir?
A. The steps are the essential
dogma of any forensic examination; not only
limited to the crime-scene, even in the
laboratory. As forensic scientist, when we
examine piece of physical evidence, we
should follow this procedure. Of course, at
the crime-scene we'll have to follow
faithfully.
Recognition probably the most
crucial step. Unless the potential evidence
recognized, otherwise that piece of evidence
won't ever become in evidence.
For example, if a shoe print
present at the scene, the investigator did
not see it, he or she assumes no shoe print
exists. In reality, there are shoe prints,
just did not recognize.
Another typical example, people
often miss blood spatter pattern, pattern in
the ceiling, sometime pattern on the tree,
the investigator did not pay attention on
that, often miss those patterns, assume no
blood spatter pattern exists. So
recognition is so important for the
crime-scene.
At the same time, recognition
is so important at the laboratory. You have
a piece of evidence, submit to the
laboratory, if you only look something
visible and did not pay attention on
something minor or not so visible, many
times you missed.
In my career I reexam numerous
physical evidence being examined by other
laboratories and found so many time crucial
evidence missed because they omitted the
recognition step.
Q. Go ahead, Doctor. Please
explain the second step of preservation,
documentation and collection, and give us
examples, if you can.
A. Recognition -- after you
recognize it, the investigator or laboratory
scientist sees it, however, it's our
responsibility to document so other
scientist can also see what you see.
Subsequently, if those evidence
consumed during the examination, other
scientists or defense expert can go back and
check those documentation to verify. Those
evidence has to be preserved to guarantee
the scientific integrity, also to guarantee
the legal integrity, to document, besides
photographic document, many type of evidence
because it's nature of the human eyes only
can see a narrow spectrum of a visible
spectrum, so we'll have to use chemical
method use -- or special lighting method to
enhance -- to develop, to make it visible
and to document that.
The documentation, besides
photograph, should include diagrams,
detailed diagrams, notes, detailed
descriptions, also videotaping and
audiotaping, if necessary.
After that, then start collect.
The collection is also crucial,
it's in between forensic scene to the
laboratory. Unless you collect properly,
then those evidence -- the integrity can be
sacrificed.
So preservation, documentation,
collection.
The collection has to use
proper procedure; avoid contamination, avoid
loss of a sample of evidence, also avoid
mixing the sample.
Once they collect, should
submit to the laboratory as soon as
possible.
Any biological evidence
should be treated with special attention.
Any pattern evidence should
treat with care. Subsequent folding can
distort a pattern. Subsequent contamination
with a wet garment also can add an
additional pattern, make later the
interpretation, reconstruction, become more
difficult.
Once received to the
laboratory, laboratory's first step is
identification.
Proper documentation, accurate
counting of the specimens submitted, the
size, the weight, all the physical
measurements, before we do any biological
chemical, instrumental study. No other
should be collected for the comparison
purpose.
Through the laboratory analysis
with biological technique, chemical
technique, physical methods, a good
criminalist will be able to start
individualizing this particular sample such
as glass chips, through the analysis we may
be able to trace to particular lens, a blood
sample, DNA analysis may be traced back to
consistent with a certain individual, hair
fibers, soil, variety of physical evidence,
we can start trace back.
Finally, reconstruction even if
we identify those evidence we find, it's
origin, what does it mean in the total,
whole picture.
If you find somebody's hair in
a chair, not necessarily this person commit
a crime, may be due to a secondary transfer.
If you find a shoe print at the
scene, not necessarily that shoe print was
the deposit by the perpetrator.
So this reconstruction is
important. Unless step one, documentation,
recognition, everybody does their job, later
this reconstruction can be fruitless. And
if somebody tried to -- overdoes it,
reconstruct, can be biased, can be
misleading, can be totally wrong.
Q. Doctor, in hairs, they are not
as -- as fingerprints, they do not
individualize; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Relative to hair, they'll tend
to determine whether there's class
characteristics?
A. Hair is no problem. We can
tell the racial origin. Now, today, you
have more difficult now, the intermarriage,
we can tell somatic origin, we can tell the
hair was cut, pulled, what kind of damage,
whether or not have certain chemical
treatment. We only can say microscopically
this questioned hair and known hair are
similar, we cannot say this hair definitely
from that hair.
Q. Doctor, I would like to talk a
little bit about blood spatter evidence for
a few minutes.
Doctor, could we ask you to
explain what information that you obtained
from blood pattern evidence, spatter
evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm going to ask to you do
a demonstration. Let's demonstrate, if you
can, are there various different kinds of
blood stains?
A. Yes. Blood-stain evidence is a
pattern evidence, blood circulating in body,
human system, once the system interrupt,
blood shed onto a surface, can be carpet,
carpet, table, chair, floor, or piece of
paper or envelope, depends on the type of
surface, depends on the condition,
environment, and mechanism, a certain
pattern will produce.
Q. Okay.
A. For the purpose of
demonstration I'm using typing paper. I'm
not trying to mislead everybody all the
blood stain in this world going to look like
the typing paper, just a demonstration, by
no way say the blood drop on the carpet
going to look identical as the typing paper.
Q. Okay.
I want to go back for a moment.
I apologize, I should have asked you this
question.
In the blood system of the
human being --
A. Yes.
Q. That's a closed fluid system,
is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's a closed -- closed --
is it a closed fluid system under pressure?
A. Yes.
Q. So we have blood pressure,
and -- and to sustain life as a human being,
we have to have oxygenated blood to flow
through our arterial system through
virtually every place in our body, right?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Flowing through all the blood
vessel, not only artery -- we say artery
move faster.
Q. Even then it's returned --
after the oxygenation is used from the
oxygenated blood, it's returned by the
venous or the veins, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And it filters to get to some
of our extremities through little minor
veins or arterial systems called capillaries
true?
A. Yes, first vein to the
capillary, then capillary back to the vein.
Q. And the blood pressure in the
arterial system, that is when the blood
coming -- comes from the lungs there to the
heart and then is pumped to the various
portions of the body, is called systolic, is
it not?
A. Appears to be.
Q. The blood pressure in the
arterial system is higher than the blood
pressure in the venous system?
A. Yes, much higher; it's about
500 to 600 millimeter per second.
Q. So we have -- when we have the
upper and lower blood pressures, the
diastolic being the higher blood pressure
than systolic being the lower one is
arterial one is venous, is that not right?
A. It's a contrast, the venous the
flow rate is much lower; it's about 160
millimeter per second.
Q. All right.
Now, when we are looking at
blood pattern and blood spatter
demonstrations, we're looking at blood after
it has got out of the closed fluid system of
the body, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
Now, could you show us, for
example, what a low velocity drop would look
like?
A. Yes. What we're using for
demonstration just ink, not real blood. If
an individual cut their finger or a small
injury, the blood start dripping out from
the wound without any external or internal
force going to produce a vertical drop.
Those are --
Q. Go to this camera, Doctor.
A. I say low velocity blood drop.
Q. Put it down. 'Cause I don't
want it to run.
Let me just write "low velocity
blood drop" on there, please.
Okay.
A. This low velocity drop,
sometimes we see bigger drop, smaller drop,
depends on amount of blood. Also, sometime
depends on the source between -- a source to
the target, the distance, if the source is
close to the target, let's say at half an
inch, an inch, two inches (witness displays
drops of ink). If I keep increase the
distance, you can see this diameter increase
with the distance.
Q. So, Doctor, as a general rule,
in a low velocity blood drop, the larger the
drop the higher the source of the bleeding
is?
A. In general. And also when it
reach a constant it will not increase
anymore.
Q. Talking about terminal
velocity, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you explain what terminal
velocity would do to a blood drop, what
you're talking about?
A. Once it reach that terminal
velocity, the diameter will stay as a
constant.
Q. And what you're talking about
is that because of gravity, the blood drop
will reach a velocity at a certain height
above which it will not exceed that
velocity, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And so, for example, if we went
on the top of the Empire State Building, we
wouldn't have a block worth of blood drops?
A. You drop a drop of blood will
not cover all Manhattan.
Q. It's going to have a terminal
velocity that will reach somewhere lower
than 1400 feet?
A. No, terminal velocity is 32
feet per second.
Q. I had a poor question.
Now, Doctor, when you have this
low velocity blood drop, it looks like there
are -- after you get up to a certain height,
it starts to spatter?
A. Yes.
Q. And has jagged edges around it,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a satellite pattern?
A. Those called satellite pattern
and those are little spine from the major
group.
Q. All right.
And what is an angular deposit,
a low velocity angular deposit?
A. Some of the blood hit the
surface, for example, hit this side of the
board or side of the window or an incline or
decline, angle will not produce a perfect
round circle. So you're going to have a
so-called angular deposit. Let's say the
blood source parallel to the sheet of paper,
we have a pattern, if I gradually change the
angle, we can observe a pattern shift, the
length and the width of this pattern
correlate to the impact angle.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of using
blood spatter evidence -- or blood pattern
evidence, rather, to assist in
reconstruction, do you need to measure
the -- the blood drops at the crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. And can that be done in two
ways; an actual measurement or placing a
ruler beside the blood drop when a
photograph is taken?
A. Ideally we do a measurement and
when document we should then -- we should
photograph without the ruler, second one
with a ruler.
Q. Now, Doctor, in this case, in
the photographs you saw of the crime scene,
did you see a ruler next to a blood drop?
A. No.
Q. Now, Doctor, let me direct your
attention to the upper left-hand corner
photo, where we --
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, with the Court's
permission, we'll put that board up so the jury can
see it better.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Tape is paused.)
(Counsel displayed board.)
MR. P. BAKER: Criminal 1341. Civil 1342.
(Exhibit 1342 displayed.)
(Tape resumes.)
A. Yes.
Q. That's consistent with item 54,
is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us what is depicted in
that photo on the upper left-hand corner of
1341?
A. This appears to depict a group
of blood spatter. I can see in this, one,
two, three, four, five, six of them. Four
are relative clear. The other two consist
of a lighter color. Could be a smear.
Q. And the height of those was
approximately what?
A. 3 feet, 2 inches, the top one.
Q. And there was no picture
showing you whether or not there were blood
smears above that level; is that correct?
A. No picture indicates to me, no
record shows me whether or not anything
above. However, this same picture I can see
two smaller spatters is above this big one
in the middle fence (indicating to upper
left-hand photo).
Q. What is the blood type pattern
that we have in the photo in the upper
corner of 1341?
A. This one, because of no ruler,
no measurement, and just a interpretation,
consistent with the medium velocity pattern,
however, since lack of a measurement also,
the surface is alike, a flat surface, very
difficult to determine the direction up and
down or forwards or backwards unless we have
the actual blood stain.
Q. Is the pattern depicted in
photo 119, is that consistent with a blood
source being upright?
A. The blood source has to be
either up or around this area. As I
indicate, they are two additional stain
above this which creates some problem for
further interpretation.
Q. Okay.
Doctor, I want to ask you to
look at the middle photo.
A. Yes.
Q. On -- and then move to the left
middle photo, and ask you what's depicted in
that photo that's of significance to you as
a criminalist?
A. This photo have great
significance because a large amount of
smaller spatter was found between the corner
fence area on those metal bars. In
addition, heavy contact pattern on the post
and the tree. A large depression on the
ground was seen.
Adjacent to the left of the
large depression, an elongated depression
also can be seen. That indicative it's a
tenuous disturbance of the soil.
The facts of this depression I
can't tell you, I wasn't at the scene. In
theory, should measure -- in theory, should
measure diameter, and the depth also should
observe whether or not had blood drops
inside or not. But I did -- did see quite a
few fresh leaves, green leaves randomly
distribute on the ground. Also see the soil
disturbance.
Q. What's the significance of
that?
A. Which suggests some form of
struggle occurred in that -- this location.
Q. Now, Doctor, in addition to the
leaves, in addition to the depression, is
there also a beeper in that area?
A. Yes, also beeper was deposit
under -- almost under or over this fence.
Q. In fact, the beeper may be on
the other side of the fence; is that not
correct, sir?
A. Could be, because difficult
to -- this is a two-dimensional picture;
very difficult to tell.
Q. There certainly was no, at
least, picture taken from the outside, that
is the neighbor's yard, as is indicated in
the upper right-hand corner, depicting the
beeper, is that true or untrue, that you
see?
A. That's true.
Q. All right.
So that the picture in the
upper right-hand corner of 1341 which shows
blood and goes over to the tree, that does
not show the beeper, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right.
Now, the significance of the --
well, strike that, Doctor.
Were there keys also found I
noticed I pointed to one that's the number
next to the beeper?
A. Yeah, the beeper, and also
blood drops consistent with a low velocity
drop on the leaves on the ground. And
approximately 20, 30, just in that region.
Q. All right.
Now, Doctor, to your knowledge,
were any of those blood drops ever recorded
or measured?
A. No.
Q. Doctor, on the pole or the --
the bottom portion of the fence, there
appears to be additional blood drops next to
the beeper in the lower left-hand photo.
A. Yes.
Q. And was there any documentation
or measurements made of that?
A. I did not see any.
Q. Now, Doctor, there were also in
the closed-in area found the keys of
Mr. Goldman, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the keys and the beeper,
were they adjacent to each other?
A. No.
Q. How far apart, approximately?
A. Approximately 4 to 5 feet.
Q. Does that indicate to you as an
expert in crime scene reconstruction,
anything?
A. Yes.
Q. What's it indicate?
A. It indicates this has to be
dropped, a key dropped in one location,
subsequently beeper dropped in a second
different location.
Q. All right.
Now, Doctor, we have a -- so
presumably Mr. Goldman was in both locations
or one or the beeper or the keys were
thrown?
A. If the key belongs to
Mr. Goldman, which indicative, more likely
he either dropped the key first, then the
beeper, or dropped the beeper first or the
key, and unlikely dropped together.
Q. Now, in terms of the
indentation, that is around the tree and
over towards the fence?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, there is a difference
between an impression and an imprint, is
there not?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you explain that to us?
A. Impression generally would
refer to a three-dimensional indentation;
you have the width, length, and depth.
For example, this impression is
a three-dimensional. We have the width of
this area, the length, and the depth.
If the pattern is left on a
hard surface, a wooden board or certain --
for example, marble surface, you only have
the width and the length, generally, we call
two-dimensional imprints. Different people
may call different way. That's the
nomenclature we generally use to distinguish
a two-dimensional pattern versus a
three-dimensional pattern.
Q. Now, Doctor, relative to that,
that's an impression back there in the
middle photo on the left side, is there ways
of trying to determine not only the depth,
but to see if there were any marks in that
depression that would be consistent with,
for example, Mr. Goldman's shoe, as depicted
in the lower right-hand photo?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what -- what kind of
methodology can you use to determine the --
for example, the depth of the hole, to see
whether there are any impressions or
imprints left within the soil therein?
A. This impression, impression
indentation area covers a pretty good size
area. It's not this small dip, it's a
pretty good size. Exact size, I don't know.
But you could just use the fence as a
reference. We can see 1, 2, 3. In this 3
fence area, bar area shows the major
impression, and another 1, 2, 3, almost 4,
this elongated pattern. Those patterns
basically, physical measurements, you can
use a ruler to measure the length, width,
and the depth.
Also, you can use photographic
technique to document that.
So far, the crime-scene
photograph provided to me, we don't have a
single one show us the close-up, direct
imprint picture, direct above this area. If
a pattern observe, recognized and you can
cast it, using casting method to preserve
those patterns.
Q. And that's basically what,
plaster of Paris?
A. Yes.
Q. A hybrid?
A. Again, dental stone, plaster of
Paris, any of those can be used for casting.
Q. All right.
Now, Doctor, the lower
right-hand photograph, that is a photograph
of what, to your knowledge?
A. To my knowledge, is the boots,
the sole of the boots of Ron Goldman.
Q. And that is also depicted, is
it not, in the lower center picture?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
And what is the significance of
the photograph, from a criminalist
standpoint, in the lower right-hand
photograph?
A. These two photograph basically
related to each other. We can see the
boots. We can see the vegetated material,
bent, deformed. We see a key. Also, we see
soil, material on top of the blood stain,
which is indicative the blood have to be
deposit soil subsequently on top of this
blood area, so caked up on it.
At the same time, we can see
soil caked into the grove area. Meanwhile,
the blood on top of the soil surface, soil
surface, which is indicative around
Mr. Goldman was in an upright position at
one point in time, step into the blood.
Q. And so there would have to have
been blood on the surface either probably of
the dirt; is that right, that he steps into,
to give the impressions, and the dirt and
the blood on the bottom of the photograph in
the lower right-hand corner of 1341?
A. No. Has to be stepped in dirt.
That's correct.
The soil, the blood part is
relatively clean, blood that does -- did not
appear to be mixed with any large amount of
soil. So more likely, stepping on the
surface, have more blood than soil.
In addition, they are blood
drops under the soil, which indicative that
has to be deposit after the shoe form in
certain position. Cannot be somebody
standing up. That blood drop will not be
able to deposit.
Q. All right. So if the blood
drop that's about at the end of the red tape
had to be deposited after the shoe was in a
vertical position, can you tell?
A. Certain position, they -- these
are up in the air or down on the ground --
expose that surface.
Q. Can you put your magnifying
glass on that blood drop that's in the
center of the right-hand photo and tell us,
if you can, what angle the boot would have
to have been to have accepted that blood
drop, would have to have been upright, as it
exists in the photo, would it have been.
In other words, it would have been
laying sideways as it is in this photograph?
A. No. It has to be a very
upright position, because the direction
appears to be the whole heel goes upwards.
Again, we're looking at two-dimensional
picture.
The time when we examine the
shoes, some of those blood stain already
removed. So all -- I can reach a
conclusion: This has to be exposed. The
exact position, I cannot tell you.
Q. Okay.
But we can at least determine
that, more likely than not, the boot was not
in the position it's in, in the middle lower
photograph; is that correct?
A. Very difficult to have this
position, because a lot of vegetation
covers, so that drop to get there, more
likely higher to that.
Q. Or if blood was moved at the
scene, subsequent, after that?
A. It's possible.
Q. Okay.
Now, I want to go back just a
for a moment, because I missed it in the
middle picture on the upper.
A. (Witness indicates to photo.)
Q. Yes.
Does the tag inhibit you from
determining what kind of blood pattern
exists in that photograph? (Indicating to
center top row.)
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, that tag, or
criminalist, whoever, detective placed that
tag there, had moved it, would you be able
to interpret the blood pattern between those
two poles in the fence?
A. I have another picture without
a tag, although it's not as close as this
one, but I can give us some preliminary
indication.
Q. Would you, please?
A. Yeah.
This photograph actually is a
closer-up photograph for this one. Central
left, you have some smear pattern and
multiple deposit pattern.
Q. Okay.
Now, does the pattern of the
leaves, the dirt on the shoes, the keys, the
beeper, the blood drops, the blood smears,
the contact -- blood contact patterns, as
well as the blood that's in the upper left
or right-hand photograph of 1341, does that
indicate to you that there was a struggle
that occurred in the area that the blood has
been depicted in these photos?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have an idea, was it
a short struggle, a long struggle, a
prolonged struggle.
Can you determine that from the
photographs that you've seen and we've just
gone through, Dr. Lee?
A. I cannot determine exact time
of the struggle, but not a very short one.
Mr. Goldman did fight, put a big fight.
Q. Now, Doctor, I have marked the
blood-spatter demonstration exhibits 4
through 14; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Thank you, sir.
Now, I just have a couple other
follow-up questions on the board, Doctor.
Referring to the upper middle
picture of the board and those six drops
over towards the left, can you determine
whether or not those are the perpetrators --
that's the perpetrators's blood, perpetrator
or perpetrators' blood, or Mr. Goldman's
blood?
A. No, I cannot.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, what's the
significance, if any, to any of the
photographs on this board?
A. The significance --
(Pause in videotape.)
MR. P. BAKER: Want to take a break now or just
go get a board?
THE COURT: Need a break?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
THE COURT: Take five minutes.
Don't talk about the case, ladies and
gentlemen. Don't form or express any opinion.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respec