Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Scheck. The People are represent the by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel, is there anything we need to take up before we--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, we were in the process of showing exhibits to the Defense and I don't know if we have shown them all of them yet. We have shown them the boards that we brought down, I think all of which--all of which were completed either on Saturday or Sunday--in other words, completed and delivered to our office on Saturday and Sunday. I would like the opportunity just to make sure I have shown the rest of the exhibits to counsel. What I did want to bring up, prior to that, however, your Honor, is that the court may recall that with respect to a couple of our forensic witnesses, particularly Greg Matheson, there was an order by the court that the People not be allowed to discuss certain exhibits that were going to be used during cross-examination with the witness until those exhibits were used, and we would just like a similar arrangement here.

THE COURT: All right. That is reasonable. Mr. Goldberg, how many of these exhibits have you brought down?

MR. GOLDBERG: I have all of my exhibits down in court now and it may take a few more minutes just to make sure with counsel that I've gone over my list and I want to be sure that he has seen everything. Maybe I can do that while I'm standing here.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let's do it right now then.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, any other items you need to show Mr. Scheck?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. I am showing him a couple other items.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, do we have to show pictures of things that are already Defense pictures or already marked? I would assume not.

THE COURT: No. This is new stuff that has already been used, already been presented.

MR. GOLDBERG: There were two video clips that we wanted to use. One was a video clip that was taken after the crime scene was shut down on June 13th of a photographer taking some pictures at Bundy.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't want to describe it further for the record at this point in time. And another one is a video that was taken on the 17th.

MR. SCHECK: Well--

MR. GOLDBERG: Actually that one came from the Defense.

MR. SCHECK: When you say "Turned over," these are tapes that were not put into evidence yet?

MR. GOLDBERG: Portions of the second tape were, but not the clips that we are going to show, and may I just check on the other one?

MR. SCHECK: I think we have a right to see what they are going to use before they use it.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: And one was, Miss Clark advises me, was played before the jury.

THE COURT: All right. One has already been played.

MR. GOLDBERG: That is what she has advised me.

THE COURT: The other one?

MR. GOLDBERG: Has not been played, the portion, the clip that we are going to show.

THE COURT: What is the source of this video?

MR. GOLDBERG: News footage that came to us through the Defense from one of their tapes.

THE COURT: All right. This is from the 17th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. News footage as to what? From the Bundy crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: I just wanted to look at to it see what they are talking about before they show it. That is all.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to screen this with Dr. Lee out of the courtroom?

MR. GOLDBERG: If we could, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lee, why don't you step outside for us, please.

DR. LEE: Very well.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Dr. Lee exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, do you have that available?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Approximately how long is this?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Approximately two--two to three minutes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's see it.

(At 9:11 A.m., a videotape was played.)

(The playing of the videotape concludes.)

MR. GOLDBERG: That was the clip we wanted to show.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: The footage at the beginning of the police walking in and the grieving couple and then the police walking out, I don't remember that.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: The footage--the aerial footage of the people walking around the rear of Bundy and the back gate, that I remember as being on the clips. I don't remember where the other clips came from. I don't recall having seen this.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: I remember seeing it, but more importantly Mr. Fairtlough tells me that that is where it comes from and I know that he is very familiar with these tapes.

THE COURT: Well, the question being are you going to be able to lay a foundation for the source of this tape and the date and time?

MR. GOLDBERG: We will be able to lay a foundation for the date and the time just as was done with all of the other tapes that were shown here.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Wait. The way we did that was--we were very strictly limited to laying the foundation through the witnesses themselves. We had to show it to the witnesses who were at the scene and have them acknowledge that that was themselves and those we're events that they saw.

THE COURT: At a particular date and time?

MR. GOLDBERG: No. Actually that didn't happen at all, your Honor, and that was a major source of contention.

THE COURT: No, Mr. Goldberg. I allowed the videotape subject to the parties laying a foundation for it as far as date and time.

MR. GOLDBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: My only question as far as I assume the reason for this is to show that there are other explanations why there may be other footprints around?

MR. GOLDBERG: Correct.

THE COURT: Because of the multiplicity of people going up and down that walkway? That is what I assume this is for.

MR. GOLDBERG: Correct.

THE COURT: The problem being is obviously we need a date and time as to when these people are walking up and down the walkway. Do you have some of those police who can testify?

MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, yes, we have people who can authenticate this.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: As the court--

MR. GOLDBERG: I think we probably also have a civilian witness who may be here today, but at any rate, we do.

THE COURT: As an a offer of proof you need to tell me who the people are and what they are going to testify to.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well--

THE COURT: You need to make an offer of proof that you can lay the foundation for this.

MR. GOLDBERG: The offer of proof would be that there are police officers that were there at the time that will be able to say that is the 17th, including people like Ron Phillips, including Ron hardy who is one of the civilian witnesses depicted in the tape.

THE COURT: I saw Mr. Hardy.

MR. GOLDBERG: And this is not at all going to be difficult. I mean, these are very unique events that hopefully will never happen again.

THE COURT: No, Mr. Goldberg, the only point I'm making is that you need to make me an offer of proof naming names as to who is going to tell me this.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. It would seem to me that if they want to put this on in terms of the facts and circumstances of what those people walking in--well, it was my understanding, for example, from speaking with Mr. Hardy when we went to visit the crime scene, that he had washed down the front area of all the blood.

Now, the question is, you know, when did these events take place? They are not presumably walking through blood from the front walkway up. All those would have to be examined with some particularity. It seems to me for purposes of cross-examining Dr. Lee it is sufficient to ask him questions about how foot impressions could occur at dates prior to the time that he was there and would that change his opinion. But it seems to me improper at this point in time, given this offer, to allow them to show the tapes. They can put it on in their rebuttal case, they can lay the proper foundation, but it seems to me doing this at this time would be improper and certainly something that we were not permitted to do with any of the Prosecution witnesses. In other words, every tape we had to have a Prosecution witness, be it Detective Lange or be it Fung or Mazzola, who would say, yes, I remember either seeing those people--

THE COURT: That is not correct, Mr. Scheck. A allowed you to use several videotapes on offers of proof that you could establish when they were made and when they came--where they were from, and some of them obviously were self-authenticating, given the events that they depicted. That wasn't necessary.

MR. SCHECK: I thought--my recollection was, is that in each and every instance we had to show the tape to the witness and the witness had to say I recall those events or I was there at that event.

THE COURT: Somebody has to lay a foundation for it, but I have accepted offers of proof.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in any event, it seems to me that at this point in time it would be sufficient to simply ask him questions about that that are consistent with that they think these tapes will show before showing these tapes without an offer. That is all.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, you indicated that there are two videos?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: What is the second?

MR. GOLDBERG: The second video is a video of--that Miss Clark advises me has already been shown from American Journal that shows a photographer walking on the Bundy walk after the--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: No?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Actually I guess there are two tapes. We may have had a miscommunication. One is a tape from American Journal that is People's 101 which shows the police officers rolling up the crime tape and walking up the bloody walk. I think it was originally introduced by the Defense or portions of it, as I recall, with Riske, and showing that the police trampled through and stomped over the blood and so on and contaminated the crime scene and later on the People show that this happened after the crime scene was broken down, so that is one tape. But there was another tape which was apparently then taken chronologically after that which is taken by a photographer or a videographer that shows what I refer to as the second plane of tiles. In other words, the plane of tiles that is immediately west of where Nicole would have been located, and he is walking up and down and he scans back and forth over these tiles and shoots into the apartment, and you can see some of the letters still intact, the chalk letters from the crime scene. Crime scene is closed. You can see some of the footprints on the walk and you can see this photographer's foot--feet coming into contact with the walk of course.

THE COURT: And who is this videographer? Who is the videographer?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not sure if it is the same--I'm not sure if it is Darryl Williams.

THE COURT: What is your offer of proof as to being able to lay a foundation?

MR. GOLDBERG: We lay the foundation for this exactly the same way that we lay the foundation for the sequence of tapes that the Defense first showed of Dennis Fung going in and out of Rockingham. That is circumstantially, just as they did.

THE COURT: How long is this second tape?

MR. GOLDBERG: This second one is only about ten seconds.

THE COURT: Let's see it.

(At 9:19 A.m., a videotape was played.)

(The playing of the videotape concludes.)

THE COURT: Is this best quality that you have?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: What were we supposed to have seen from that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you can see a photographer walking on the walkway. You can see chalk marks on the walkway with letters on them. You can see some of the Bruno Magli shoeprints on the walkway.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, let me see it again.

MR. GOLDBERG: You do actually have to look at it more than once to catch all those features, but they are all there.

(At 9:20 A.m., a videotape was played.)

(The playing of the videotape concludes.)

MR. GOLDBERG: And you can also see the photographer's toes, I believe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you see that? Catch that, your Honor?

THE COURT: There appears to be also candles burning.

MR. GOLDBERG: What? Yes.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Do we have a source for this?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Mr. Fairtlough tells us this was provided in video clips provided to us by the Defense, and no, we do not have a source other than that. But the point is, your Honor, that it is obvious it is after the murder because we have chalk marks. It is after the murder because we have Bruno Magli prints and it is before Henry Lee did his examination, and that is all we need to show circumstantially for these purposes.

THE COURT: How do we know it is before Henry Lee did his examination?

MR. GOLDBERG: How would the candles still be burning on June the 25th inside the apartment? And also the--the--the prints at the location weren't as--

THE COURT: You see the Bruno Magli shoeprint--this is a very poor quality videotape. Let me see this again, Mr. Fairtlough.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: And on the June 17th video you can see that they did some clean-up, and these look fairly pristine, the Bruno Magli prints.

(At 9:22 A.m., a videotape was played.)

(The playing of the videotape concludes.)

THE COURT: I didn't see anything that lept at me as Bruno Magli shoeprints.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, if the court is--you see, I have been out to the scene now about a half a dozen times and I've been out there with those photographs and I am familiar--very familiar with that Bodziak chart and you can figure out exactly what tiles various prints are on. It is fairly easy to do. Our chart is laid out that way. And if you concentrate on those tiles, and you can tell which tell numbers they are from that photograph, too--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --once you start orienting yourself with the geographic features.

THE COURT: What is the purpose of this?

MR. GOLDBERG: That there--

THE COURT: Just to show that there is some videographer who is running up and down the walkway taking pictures? Is that the point?

MR. GOLDBERG: Right. It is pretty simple. There is a person who is walking on the walkway.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: I think that this particular one certainly is--based on this offer we have no way of knowing exactly when this picture was taken, who was there, how they were working, what their shoes were like or anything to that effect, so I don't think that based on this offer it could be used at this point for impeachment.

THE COURT: I don't think it is for impeachment. I think it is for cross-examination; did Dr. Lee take this into consideration, the public access to that walkway immediately after the crime scene was processed. I think that is the issue.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I think he can ask that question, but it seems to me that it would be--without knowing when this was taken and what was involved at the time, it seems to me that it would be certainly a 352 problem with respect to showing that to the jury.

THE COURT: But aren't those--isn't the depiction of the candles still burning pretty key indication as to what, when, where and why?

MR. SCHECK: Maybe. I understand that there were even some instances where certain television people went back and did pictures with recreations and may have relit the candles. I mean, I don't know. We haven't been able to authenticate precisely that tape either.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, this is kind of funny because we showed the videotape of--to Riske of someone tromping up the walk based on the same kind of circumstantial argument, only there wasn't anything really to say when it was the defense. The Defense simply wanted to infer, even though Riske, didn't see those events.

THE COURT: Have you made any efforts whatsoever to locate somebody to lay a foundation for this?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, we have started making efforts, but as your Honor knows, we were jammed with the tremendous amount of information at the last minute, and I have been working full-time on this everyday.

THE COURT: Well, you've had this videotape for a long time, counsel.

MR. GOLDBERG: I realize that, but as the court can appreciate, my attentions have been distracted to other things. Your Honor, the way that the court should view these kind of problems is what sorts of arguments can be made and what sorts of inferences can be reasonably drawn from the evidence by the attorneys at the time it is argued. Miss Clark is going to be able to say, look, we know when it was taken because there are chalk marks, there are Bruno Magli imprints. She is going to be able to correlate it back to our chart a hundred percent to show that this was taken after the murder. She is going to be able to point out to the candles to show that it was taken before the 25th of June, and also show the evidence that the walkway was walked--was washed down and therefore the chalk marks wouldn't have appeared, also showing it was before June 25th. What is Mr. Cochran going to do?

THE COURT: Wait a minute. Who washed down the walkway?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think that was already in evidence. That was Ron hardy.

THE COURT: Has he testified?

MS. CLARK: No, he hasn't testified.

MR. GOLDBERG: I thought there was some evidence about him washing it down, but at any rate--at any rate, your Honor, what is Mr. Cochran going to argue? Maybe this wasn't--

THE COURT: Well, at this point it is not relevant as to what Mr. Cochran is going to argue or not argue.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the point is in terms of--

THE COURT: No, no, counsel. That is not the point. The point is if you tell me you are going to bring in Ron hardy to say that he washed down the walkway and washed down the blood and washed away the chalk and that this--then this videotape took place prior to that, then I will allow this. If you can't make that representation to me, then I'm not going to allow it. Take your pick.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, we would like to confirm how far up the walkway he washed before I make that representation.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Miss Clark tells me he washed the whole thing.

MS. CLARK: We have spoken to him.

THE COURT: All right. Then I will allow it.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have a problem with that.

THE COURT: I have ruled, counsel. Next issue.

MR. SCHECK: On the factual representation, I just want to make this point to the court. You should know--

THE COURT: Counsel, I will allow it. It will be subject to a motion to strike. Let's proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Let me put this on the record before they make their representation just so it is clear, and that is it is my understanding the chalk marks were visible all the way to the 25th, all right, and in that walkway area. In addition, when we were at the scene for our last visit prior to the night viewing matter, I had a discussion with Mr. Hardy, and I think it is also in the so-called murder book, about what he washed down and what he didn't, and I think it is perfectly apparent and it is what he told me, that he washed down the front area, all right, the lower plane near the closed-in area, he did not wash down the other walkway. That is clear, because even when Dr. Lee was looking there on June 25th there are still imprints of Bruno Magli shoes, so I don't see how they can make this representation that he washed down that entire walkway area, because I think that on the face of it, that is impossible.

THE COURT: Well, they are making that representation. We will proceed on that.

MR. SCHECK: I find that troubling because it is contrary to what we were told.

THE COURT: Counsel, I find the fact that the candles are there burning and the prints are still there and the chalk is still there pretty compelling circumstantially, so I'm going to allow it.

MR. SCHECK: The candles are the only issue, but I'm--I can't--how do we know that those candles--

THE COURT: Counsel, I've ruled.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

THE COURT: I have explained to you. Anything else?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. There is one more chart that I wanted to use that has been bar coded and it is called "Four-way linkage." It comes from Dr. Lee's book "Crime scene investigation." Can we put that up just so they can see that?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Fascinating.

MR. GOLDBERG: I know it is not a big deal, but I want to give counsel notice of it. It is on page 80.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, you are aware of that? I'm sure you have seen that before.

MR. SCHECK: No. Crime scene investigation?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Nothing too surprising about that since it comes from Dr. Lee's works? All right. Anything else that you need to display?

MR. GOLDBERG: No.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --with respect to the offers on the footage that was seen before, I take it that--have you ruled on the--I take it you made a ruling on the one with the candles?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: I didn't know if you made a ruling on the others before.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Just with respect to those, it seems to me that without any showing as to footwear or if they made any efforts to figure out what the footwear was and what the situation was with respect to blood on what I guess they are saying is June 17th is the offer, as I understand it, it seems to me at this point in time it would--it is a 352 problem. I think it is more prejudicial than relevant at this point. It seems to me that it is perfectly okay for them to ask whether Dr. Lee has considered who has been to the crime scene, under what circumstances on previous occasions and would certain things make a difference, but to show him a tape like that, without any foundation that we have at this point as to exactly what they were wearing, what the circumstances were, what the clean-up was of the area, it seems to me, before they put on those witnesses, unfairly prejudicial.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to overrule the objection subject to the offer of proof by the Prosecution that they can produce a police officer to lay the foundation for that particular videotape.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors. Also, as a matter of scheduling, counsel, we have a juror dental appointment Wednesday, the 31st. That requires us to conclude at 3:15 on Wednesday, just for your scheduling.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, is it the 31st or the 30th?

THE COURT: I'm sorry, the 30th.

MS. CLARK: The 30th?

THE COURT: 30th, Wednesday.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I inquire about one other thing on scheduling?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Just so we are ahead. I spoke--first of all, good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: I spoke briefly with Mr. Goldberg this morning because I don't want to have any more down time if we can avoid it, and he indicates he perhaps will finish with Dr. Lee in a half day. The court is aware that you had earlier said we would do--you are smiling. We would do the McKinny matter tomorrow morning. We have another witness we have given the Prosecution I think that will be here for this afternoon. Today is a five o'clock day, right? I'm trying to use as much time as possible. Did the court want to do the McKinny tapes this afternoon? Is there a possibility of that?

THE COURT: I haven't finished my preparations yet.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. We will have one other witness today and we will have a Chicago witness coming tonight.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Henry Lee.

DR. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: Dr. Lee, would you resume the witness stand, please.

DR. LEE: Your Honor. Good morning.

Henry C. Lee, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: The record should reflect that Dr. Henry Lee is again on the witness stand. Good morning, Dr. Lee.

DR. LEE: Good morning, sir.

THE COURT: Doctor, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may commence your cross-examination.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning, Dr. Lee.

DR. LEE: Good morning.

MR. GOLDBERG: How are you doing today?

DR. LEE: A little tired.

MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, I just wanted very briefly to ask you a few questions about some of the qualifications that you went over with Mr. Scheck when you began your testimony. Just so we are clear, you are an expert in forensic DNA technology; is that correct?

DR. LEE: A lot of people refer me as an expert, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you consider yourself to be an expert in forensic DNA technology?

DR. LEE: I know something about DNA. Little bit; not everything.

MR. GOLDBERG: Quite a bit, right, in terms of its forensic application?

DR. LEE: Forensic application, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And Mr. Scheck was asking you about some of the things that your laboratory does in the forensic area. Is this laboratory exclusively a forensic laboratory?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And are you using RFLP technology in forensic cases?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are you also using PCR technology in forensic cases?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, are you using PCR technology in criminal cases both to include and exclude people as having committed a crime?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you were asked about some of the cases that you and your lab people have participated in involving the identification of human remains. Do you remember that?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, most of the cases that were referred to happened abroad, I think one in South America and then there was a number of instances in Europe; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Some in this country, too, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What were the technologies that are being used in the cases that you referred to on direct examination for purposes of human identification?

DR. LEE: Human identification basically bone technique, depends on the bone sample. Smaller sample, we have to use PCR, no other choice. If no high molecular weight DNA, with extract from the sample, we will have to do the best we can do. If have a large amount of sample, of course RFLP is a choice.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And sir, when you are saying that you used PCR technology, does that include the cases that you were referring to in--as a result of the conflicts in Europe to identify people that have been killed as a result of the war there?

DR. LEE: Yes. Those are victim was found on an unnamed grave or masked grave, unidentified human remains. For humanity reason we want to find out what is the loved one, so we try to help those country identify those human remain.

MR. GOLDBERG: And Dr. Lee, is it your stated position that forensic scientists are in the best position to evaluate whether PCR technology is ready to make the technology transfer into the forensic field?

DR. LEE: I think forensic scientists should have a good say about what method we should do, what is the reliable procedure, what kind of applications. Certain sample, doesn't matter what we do, we have problems. Other samples, forensic scientists, we should have a choice not dictated by molecular biologist or other scientists tell us what to do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, I wanted to just mention very briefly or ask you very briefly about one of the matters that you just alluded to a few moments ago.

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Regarding identification of human remains in cases here in the continental United States.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your most famous such case where you were personally involved at the crime scene, not at the time of the crime, but afterwards.

DR. LEE: Thank you very much.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.--was the People versus Crafts case; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was that a case, sir, where the victim in that case, Helen Crafts, was killed by her husband and she was--he disposed of her by putting her body through a wood chipper machine?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may we approach?

THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar.

MR. SCHECK: As the jury was filing in Miss Martinez walked over and handed me this rather thick volume and said, "Oh, we are also going to be asking about the Crafts case." So I would like to know--he may know all about Dr. Lee's cases, but I certainly don't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I don't intend to use this for impeachment purposes because I think he is going to tell me everything I want to know. And I'm going to ask him about this case for about three or four minutes very, very briefly.

THE COURT: What are we talking about? Using DNA to tell us who this was?

MR. GOLDBERG: And conventional serology.

MR. SCHECK: Well, could he tell me with some specificity so I know? I may not regard it as impeachment, but I'm entitled no know what he is going to be referring to.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know if he is actually. The body was chopped up, was spread outdoors, it was there for some time, the police collected it, think--

THE COURT: Bits and pieces.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. It is a very famous case.

THE COURT: Yes, I am familiar with it.

MR. SCHECK: I am the only one that isn't.

THE COURT: This is the one where the guy kills his wife, chops her up and puts her in a wood chipper.

MR. SCHECK: This is the wood chipper case?

THE COURT: There is little bits of bones and they do DNA and he says the wife took off. He gives some alibi that she--

MS. CLARK: She split.

THE COURT: --she split or left him or something like that, but she is actually spread over the north forty.

MS. CLARK: Remind you of Trott's case?

THE COURT: Okay. Let's proceed.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Goldberg, you may proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

DR. LEE: No. We work together. It is a team effort.

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: And that included some of the biological evidence in the case?

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, correct.

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

DR. LEE: That's correct.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: No. We did some DNA work.

MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you did?

DR. LEE: We did some X, Y, determine male, female.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: --able to do some conventional serology; is that true?

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Have to remove, no, that is not correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was that slightly--

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right.

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

THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.

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

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

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

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

DR. LEE: We try our best.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: What I testify is imprint evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

DR. LEE: Imprint evidence.

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I think he has answered the question.

THE COURT: Next question.

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

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

MR. SCHECK: Objection, vague, as to which items.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

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

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: That is vague, "Right portion lower leg."

MR. GOLDBERG: On the right leg, lower portion, Dr. Lee?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: I see some patterns, parallel pattern consistent with imprint.

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

DR. LEE: (No audible response.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sometimes?

DR. LEE: Yeah.

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

DR. LEE: Okay.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

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

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

DR. LEE: I don't know.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with regard to that, would the envelope fit into that category?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And could that be a fabric pattern on the envelope?

DR. LEE: I compare some known fabric pattern. I cannot match the pattern.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that was the jeans and the shirt?

DR. LEE: Shirt.

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

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

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

DR. LEE: --cause a replicate.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: So if we have a parallel line, for example, on a cuff--

DR. LEE: It may be.

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

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

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the prints on the Bundy walk--

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: And those were in fact shoeprints, correct?

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And two, a shoeprint?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are those two items on the Bundy walk?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

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

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

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And there were two of those?

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: And the way, you sometimes put that is that life is complex, right?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

DR. LEE: Yes, I do.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, there is something wrong.

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

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

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

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And there is nothing surprising about that, is there?

DR. LEE: Nothing surprising.

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Right.

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

DR. LEE: Okay.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

DR. LEE: Usually experienced criminalist--

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

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.

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

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: And you wouldn't recommend doing that, would you?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: But not with your hands, right?

DR. LEE: Not your hand.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: In theory will not.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be your forensic opinion?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: As a leading--as an expert in conventional and DNA technology?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

DR. LEE: Sometime it will change the pattern, make it unreadable.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. It might cause more degradation?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

DR. LEE: In theory not.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that is your opinion?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, misstates the evidence--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: --on the item in question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: We are just trying to get the principles.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if you were able to do conventional serology, same answers, correct?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Should be correct?

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. 1386, can you see that?

JUROR NO. 1386: (Nods head up and down.)

THE COURT: 165, can you see this?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Goldberg.

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

DR. LEE: Relative--

MR. GOLDBERG: Light?

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

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

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you see any evidence of blood on the outside of the bindle?

DR. LEE: I did not see that.

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: It would be very difficult to imagine that happening, correct?

DR. LEE: Very, very difficult.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Wet and dry, that is not fuzzy at all.

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: --how much water does it have in it?

DR. LEE: I have no idea how much water.

MR. GOLDBERG: But it does have water in it?

DR. LEE: I don't know.

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

DR. LEE: Sort of.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm looking at page 385.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: He has it.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, agree.

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

DR. LEE: May, yes.

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Maybe.

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

DR. LEE: I have no idea.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would 20 percent sound reasonable to you?

DR. LEE: Reasonable.

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

DR. LEE: No.

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

DR. LEE: It doesn't matter. If seven swatches--

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm just asking you that.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.

DR. LEE: If it dry--

THE COURT: Wait. Finish your answer.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would we have to know the relative humidity to know how much water was in the swatches?

DR. LEE: That is why I say I don't know.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

DR. LEE: I have no idea what the percentage.

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

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

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Would you like to take a look at it?

DR. LEE: No, no. If that is not my writing, I don't have to explain.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes, I agree.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

DR. LEE: A long time I did read some of their material.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

DR. LEE: Excellent material.

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

MR. SCHECK: Is he reading something, your Honor?

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm actually reading it out of my notes.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Proceed.

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

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

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

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Proceed.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Not necessarily.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: I thought those were our procedures.

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

MR. SCHECK: Well, that I haven't seen.

THE COURT: Do you have that?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think he has all of labor and Epstein.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: Have a seat, Mr. Scheck. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, did I--

DR. LEE: Do I answer the question now?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, you may answer the question if you remember it?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Well--

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

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

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, is it your understanding--

MR. SCHECK: May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes, in certain condition, yes, that's correct.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you know what I'm talking about?

DR. LEE: Ankle stain.

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

DR. LEE: Yes, yes.

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

DR. LEE: That's correct.

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

DR. LEE: 42-A? You mean surface 1 or surface--

MR. GOLDBERG: Surface 1.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

DR. LEE: It does mean something wrong. If at the beginning first day I have an opportunity to look at the socks, I can give you a really, really close estimation, but since a big hole there, I cannot create or recreate a hole.

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir, that's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it?

DR. LEE: No.

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you give us a brief explanation as to what a swipe is?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: And those are two separate things; is that correct, doctor?

DR. LEE: They are two separate definition.

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

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

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

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you heard that part of the testimony, didn't you?

DR. LEE: I did not pay much attention on everything.

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: You weren't in the courtroom?

DR. LEE: I wasn't in the courtroom.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right.

DR. LEE: I wasn't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: --consistent with a person at the crime scene touching the socks?

DR. LEE: You just look at surface 1 or you look at the whole socks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's take surface 1 so far.

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

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

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

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

DR. LEE: Has to be single finger.

MR. GOLDBERG: Single finger?

DR. LEE: Yes.

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the answer is yes?

DR. LEE: Has to be certain condition to cause that transfer.

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

DR. LEE: Right.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

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

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, please?

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Scheck. Hold on, Deputy Magnera.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, my apologies for making a statement to the court in the presence of the jury about these exhibits. I just want to be clear about the rules. If the witness is going to be questioned about a section from a treatise, it has to be established, as I understood, that he relied upon it, and I thought as well that counsel would be given an opportunity.

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. SCHECK: I just want to make it clear to the court that we had some discussion about what would be used with Dr. Lee and I was handed this paper seconds before the question was asked and that is the only reason I wanted time to see exactly what was being asked of the witness.

THE COURT: You were given--you see, let me tell you what my perspective is, Mr. Scheck, so we understand each other.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: I did not hear the foundational questions to Dr. Lee that he was about to be cross-examined as to somebody else's opinion in a learned treatise. I didn't hear the questions. I didn't hear anything read from an article, so I assumed that your objections were premature. And that is the way I felt at that time and I think that is the way the testimony unfolded, that is what came out, because he was not cross-examined or impeached as to anything in a learned treatise that he didn't rely upon or agree with.

MR. SCHECK: Well, if I--

THE COURT: I have much more confidence in this witness than apparently the lawyers do.

MR. SCHECK: No, nobody can--I yield to no one in my confidence in this witness. But the point is simply a procedural one because I don't want to be in the position of where I say something in front of the jury that--

THE COURT: But understand the context of my comment.

MR. SCHECK: --if you and I get into a dialect--

THE COURT: This witness is not going to argue with either side about other scientist's opinions.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, the point I want to maybe, for the record--

THE COURT: You are entitled to it, and if he is about to be cross-examined, you have the opportunity to read to see what it is.

MR. SCHECK: And he did. And just so that I'm clear on the practice, he was asked about labor and Epstein generally he said excellent people, and then Mr. Goldberg read something from his notes which in fact it was my understanding was either a direct quote or a summary of this and I thought at that point--

THE COURT: It was such an innocuous question, aren't there variables that have to do with how long it takes something to dry? That is a question that doesn't have to come out of a learned treatise and was obviously the focus of where Mr. Goldberg was going. It was not directly from this article. I agree with you, you have got the materials, if he is going to use specific passages to cross-examine before he goes into it.

MR. SCHECK: Just for the record, I will make a copy. What then unfolded is that specific tables were used with different conditions for drying cloth swatches with one drop of blood.

THE COURT: But the objection should been then foundation.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I thought I was trying to make them, but I also--

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, that was a speaking objection. If you had said "Foundation" you probably would have been sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor, I will get to it. I just want to have any misunderstanding between us--

THE COURT: We have none.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And I will make an application when this is done, I want you to take a look at it, because I think it opens the door to some other things that had previously been--

THE COURT: It may very well might.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: That thought crossed my mind when I heard it.

MR. COCHRAN: Ours, too, your Honor.

MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't ask about any experiments. I asked him about the generalized knowledge that he has which is what he testified to on direct. He was testifying from his generalized knowledge.

THE COURT: I understand, but then you went into this chart where somebody else did an experiment about drying times.

MR. GOLDBERG: He was the one that told me about it. I wasn't going to get into that except Dr. Lee wanted to.

THE COURT: Just because they go into it doesn't mean you should cross-examine on that. I thought he left you with a pretty wide parameter, if you set it out to dry at night and you come back the next morning it ought to be dry. I think that left you a wide enough parameter to work with, but you insisted on making it tighter, so I don't know. But I will see what the article says and probably get to read the article over the lunch hour, not that I have other things to occupy my time with.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: If the Defense insists on pursuing this particular line.

MR. SCHECK: I read you, your Honor, but you should look at it.

THE COURT: But you got the transfers. I mean, what more do you want?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Dr. Henry Lee is still on the witness stand under going cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, you distinguished in your testimony between the manner of transfer as opposed to the mode of transfer; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the mode of transfer would be the exact mechanism, in other words, was it a hand, was it a gloved hand, was it an object, what is it exactly that caused that blood transfer; is that correct?

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to that issue, the mode of transfer, were you able to render any opinion regarding the mode of transfer onto the socks?

DR. LEE: There are numerous possibilities. I cannot tell you which one is definitively one method.

MR. GOLDBERG: So would it be fair to say that on that this is an area where you were unable to render an opinion on that question, mode of transfer?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked a little bit about trace analysis on direct examination and you said that it fell in the area of hair examination somewhere in between class characteristics and individualization; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you explain this--excuse me. Do you agree with the following statement: "While it is difficult to make absolute individualizations in these areas, the trace analyst can make identifications with a high degree of certainly and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence based on experience and analytical results"?

DR. LEE: I would say eighty to ninety percent that statement correct. They forgot one thing. Depends on samples. Not all the sample you can reach that degree of certainty. Some of the sample, yes, you can. Other sample maybe only can do a class characteristic identification.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, have you ever publicly stated the comment that I just made in any public forum, whether it is published or oral?

DR. LEE: Maybe in certain context. I try to tell the investigator how important trace evidence is in solving crime or to disassociate a person from a crime. Trace evidence have particular value. Don't overlook trace evidence. Although trace evidence we cannot approach positive identification, two extreme. One, called individualization; one called identification. A lot of physical evidence fall in between; degree, different degree. Fingerprint, that is a possible identification. A hair we cannot reach to that, say, just from this person, no other person.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this, doctor. Maybe I can just approach counsel for a moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, your Honor. I just need to look at my index for a second.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I will come back to it later.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Let me just ask you this, Dr. Lee--

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: --with respect to trace analysis, would it be your position that in some cases regarding hair comparisons that identifications can be made with a high degree of certainty and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And there were certain items that you looked at where you packaged some hair and trace evidence in bindles in this case; is that right?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: And one was the envelope and one was Ron Goldman's boots, and the other one was the soil sample; is that correct?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: That you were--

DR. LEE: Actually 21 bindles.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that you testified to on direct examination?

DR. LEE: I testify on direct, yes, only three, but in reality when I examine I found 21 separate bindles of trace evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I was asking about the testimony. Now, with respect to these three items, Dr. Lee, did you do any comparisons yourself on any of the hair and trace evidence in those bindles?

DR. LEE: No, I did not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is there any forensic significance to finding the materials that you found in those three items?

DR. LEE: Unless examined, maybe some significance.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, sir, is it common to find stray hair and trace materials when you are analyzing a particular piece of evidence for hair and trace?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is there anything unusual about that?

DR. LEE: Just shows the presence of trace and of course what type of trace becomes significant. Whether or not can link a person or disassociate a person now become significant. If you found trace, that is uncommon. If you give me time, I go to jewelry box, I can probably find hundreds of hairs, all different fibers.

MR. GOLDBERG: And we might be able to find some hairs and fibers--we would be able to find some hairs and fibers in the jury box that don't belong to any of the jurors in this case?

DR. LEE: If you give me time I will found a lot of hairs and fibers, maybe nothing to do with the jury panel.

MR. GOLDBERG: Even though this jury panel has been sitting in this jury box for quite sometime?

DR. LEE: Sure. Maybe I can find your hair there, too.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there wouldn't be anything unusual about being able to find hairs and fibers at a crime scene that don't belong to the suspects and the victim; is that true?

DR. LEE: Yes, that's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked a little bit about the generalities of crime scene identification and the Defense used a chart that was Defense 1350, if we could just take a look at that.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, this chart was intended in order to represent the basic steps in terms of categories of forensic examination from crime scene forward; is that correct?

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I just want to make sure that I'm understanding exactly how to interpret the chart correctly. Let's say that we have a situation, doctor, where the biological evidence at a crime scene, let's say it is blood, is stepped in by a Defendant and it is deposited on the sole of his shoes and then he takes it to some other location.

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the form of this hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, in that hypothetical scenario that I have given you has the collection, in effect, been done by the suspect himself instead of by a police officer?

DR. LEE: The collection actually involve two force. You start with recognition. If say an individual step in the blood, walk on the surface, you deposit some evidence on that walking--say walkway surface. Not--it is not by Defendant himself. The detective or the criminalist at the scene have to see it to recognize it, try to enhance it and then collect it. If you forget about that you create a big problem for future reconstruction. The second half you are correct, the shoe itself become a valuable piece of evidence. Unless you find the shoe you can't really do a side-by-side comparison.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in that kind of a hypothetical situation where you had found the shoe like that, say, you would still be able to test that shoe for conventional testing and for DNA testing; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yeah. The shoe again, the testing involve quite a bit now. Not only serological analysis, you have to--the most valuable is a pattern comparison, side-by-side the shoe and the footprint. You will have compare not only look at general characteristic, also look at the wear, cut, pattern, so-called individual characteristics. Grouping just one part of it, whether or not you can link to certain source of a blood, just like hair, soil, whether or not you are link to the--back to the scene, so the whole process is involved in recognition, preservation, documentation, collection, everything.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you would agree that--that--let me ask another question. Let's change the hypothetical a little bit.

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: And let's say that instead of a suspect at the crime scene we have a brand new police officer at his first crime scene.

DR. LEE: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: And he accidentally steps in some blood.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And he is a little panicked and he is nervous about doing that, obviously, and he--but he immediately takes his shoe off, Dr. Lee.

DR. LEE: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: And he brings it to you.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: You would still be able to analyze the blood on that shoe, wouldn't you?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I haven't heard--no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: If the shoe bring to me, yes, I will be able to identify whether or not that is blood. If in fact blood, human blood or not. If it is human blood, of course just like you indicate that additional serological grouping type A, type B, type O, DNA typing try to see whose blood. Equally important I have to look at a scene whether or not have same type of shoeprint.

MR. GOLDBERG: So there is a variety of testing that you could do even in the hypothetical that I gave you?

DR. LEE: All start with recognition.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.

DR. LEE: You have to see it first.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in my particular hypothetical, though, doctor, the police officer obviously didn't recognize the blood at the time that he stepped in it, right?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And he didn't accurately document it or--or photograph it; is that correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I object to this on foundational grounds and 352 grounds.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree, doctor, that a police officer dabbing his foot in blood is--and then using his shoe for analysis wouldn't be the recommended collection technique?

DR. LEE: I'm lost.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, you go out and lecture police officers?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's say a police officer raises his hand, he is in the audience. "Dr. Lee, if I don't have any swatches or I don't have any bindles to scrape off the blood, can I just dab my foot in it and submit my shoe for analysis?"

MR. SCHECK: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would you tell the officer, "Well, I don't recommend that"?

DR. LEE: I probably tell don't dab, just give me your shoes and don't do it next time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. So even though we have a big mistake in terms of recognition, in terms of preservation, documentation, collection, identification, we can still do comparison, we can still do individualization; is that correct, in my hypothetical?

DR. LEE: You going to be on shaky ground because unless we recognize everything where we can do partial reconstruction.

MR. GOLDBERG: We probably can't do reconstruction?

DR. LEE: Cannot do a complete reconstruction.

MR. GOLDBERG: If I may approach for a second.

MR. GOLDBERG: So in my hypothetical we are probably going to--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Goldberg. You are blocking juror no. 7.

MR. GOLDBERG: We botched preservation documentation and collection in the hypothetical. Identification we nailed, right?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Comparison we nailed?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Correct? Individualization depends on how many problems?

DR. LEE: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Reconstruction probably not?

DR. LEE: Yes, that's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: So doctor, if we wanted to change the title of the chart from "Steps in forensic examination" to "Garbage in, garbage out," that would be incorrect from a scientific standpoint, wouldn't it?

DR. LEE: No, you cannot change my title.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. Good.

DR. LEE: But garbage in, garbage out, that is a common thing I use in lecture. You collect a lot of garbage from the crime scene. Laboratory scientist, my report going to like garbage. You don't really don't know where it come from, what is going to happen, like a garbage report. You have to do a so-called total team approach. Everybody have to work together do the best job.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right. But known cases, just as the one I related, sometimes--I won't say that you can save the case, but you can still get some very meaningful test results, very meaningful evidence?

DR. LEE: Yes, that's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if we changed our hypothetical again, Dr. Lee, see that the police officer photographed the bloodstain properly--

DR. LEE: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --before he stepped in it, then we might even be able to do some reconstruction as well; is that true, limited?

DR. LEE: Limited.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I will again object to--unless there is facts in evidence, I think the hypotheticals and changes have no basis in foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, when I was questioning you a little while ago, you were talking--I think that you said something to the effect that you wouldn't recommend someone using their hands to touch the swatches to see whether they were dry?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: But if we had someone who did that, and let's say our same police officer, our new police officer who is new, oh, my heavens, not only did I do all those other things, I also touched the swatches with my hands--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is foundation, facts not in evidence; swatches.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, would your procedure there be that you would take a blood sample from the police officer, correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you would test his--depending on what testing you were doing, you might do conventional serology, you might do PCR and RFLP, correct?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you would still then test the evidence; is that true?

DR. LEE: Yes. I will test the evidence with the control. If somebody touch it, the body cell may contaminate to the evidence. That is one possibility. Second, only for the protection of the individual may have a cut, some hepatitis or aids or other virus may infect the individual, so touching, not only is a contamination, also protection. If have some body material transfer to that sample, now you are going to have a contaminated sample. We have to have a known control compare, try to resolve, see what we can do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And although things like that aren't supposed to happen, every once in awhile there are cases where something like that does occur?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you were asked about the socks being packaged together in an envelope and I just wanted to clarify your testimony on this topic. Is the packaging--let's say that you have two socks at a crime scene and you collect them together and you put them in the same bag together.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is it your position that there could be a transfer from one sock to another sock?

DR. LEE: Could be.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that transfer could be hair and trace?

DR. LEE: Also could be biological material.

MR. GOLDBERG: If the socks are wet at the time they are collected?

DR. LEE: If the socks are wet, if have some body tissues or body material can cause a transfer.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you going to expect a transfer, in your experience, at that time if the socks are dry?

DR. LEE: If have dry skin, tissue, those you don't need any wet material. If it is bloodstain, sometime this touch can have a trace transfer. If it is wet, you definitely going to expect transfer.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is packaging the socks together the way that I just described going to change the DNA type on the socks that was deposited there?

DR. LEE: I cannot say specifically will relate to this case, but if a case, for example, a simple example, let's say ABO typing, the victim is type A, the decedent is type B. If have a transfer, our reading going to be type AB, a mixture. What AB means could be an AB type. There are people AB type. There could be a mixture of a and B. In other words, the interpretation gets so complicated now. Sometime possible to resolve; other times just impossible. You just call it could be a mixture.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Let me make the hypothetical a little bit more specific then. Let's say that in our hypothetical we have a 15-probe RFLP match--

DR. LEE: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --on one of the stains on our hypothetical socks that were packaged together at the time they were collected.

DR. LEE: Yes, right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Does packaging at the time that they were collected change the DNA type?

DR. LEE: In theory shouldn't; however, if let's say hypothetical because a lot of impossible, let's say just happen, I have to look at the band, I have a homozygote or heterozygote--let's call the band a heterozygote, two bands instead of one, it is remote, almost remote, but do have a possibility two individual, each one have one band mixed together become two bands.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if we know the contributors to the biological evidence on that sock and let's say we know there is more than one donor--

DR. LEE: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --to the blood on the two socks--

DR. LEE: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --then we can eliminate some of those mixture problems; is that correct?

DR. LEE: If we have a complete profile maybe we can be able to do that.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that even if the two socks are packaged together, a 15-probe match would be an extremely significant piece of evidence?

DR. LEE: If it is genuine, that is an important piece of evidence.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, just very briefly on the issue of collecting clothes and then we will move on to a different topic. Is it your position that in training police officers that where clothes are in a pile, for example, a number of different articles of clothes, they should in fact collect the clothes as a group and package them together in the same package? Is that the way that you train them?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there is not an absolute that you always have to package the clothing separately?

DR. LEE: If they are separate, you should package separate. If you have clothing on top of each other, or mingled together, for example, certain people take off their pants, the underpant come with it altogether, you don't have to separate them in the crime scene, you should collect as one group.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that with respect to the sock photos that you have seen in this case, in your analysis of the sock, we could never exclude the possibility that the sock came into contact with one another prior to being collected anyway?

DR. LEE: I only can testify what I see. I saw the picture, there is two socks separate.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right.

DR. LEE: Clearly. Before that, I don't know.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, the--getting back just to our chart, do you have another chart that you sometimes use in explaining the concept of crime scene investigation called your four-way transfer theory that is contained in the--excuse me. I think it is four-way linkage. I got it wrong. That has become an international well-known four-way linkage theory?

DR. LEE: That is one of my theory, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can we mark as People's next in order, it will be 591, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You have given a copy of this item to Mr. Scheck?

MR. GOLDBERG: Umm, I don't know if we gave him a copy or whether we just showed it this morning.

(Peo's 591 for id = document)

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: But it is also--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm just going to give Mr. Scheck a copy of the--I'm not going to give it to him, I'm going to let him borrow the page in the book.

MR. SCHECK: That is okay.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed. This is a slide you had made up?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: And Dr. Lee, is this exhibit that we have just marked as "Henry Lee's four-way linkage theory," a--

DR. LEE: I wish only one Henry Lee. There are too many people called Henry Lee. I just found out in L.A. the telephone books a lot of Henry Lee.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is this a summary of your concept of four-way linkage?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it true that this is the goal of crime scene processing?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So if we are--if a criminalist goes out to a crime scene, what he is trying to accomplish is the idea of--I'm sorry--what he or she is trying to accomplish is the idea of four-way linkage?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you please explain this to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

DR. LEE: With a pointer, your Honor, or if is--

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know if there is a pointer.

THE COURT: No, we don't have that working right now.

DR. LEE: The crime scene--

MR. GOLDBERG: I think that we can use the telestrator.

DR. LEE: Just the pointer is fine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

DR. LEE: Any investigation involve four important elements. One is the scene, the crime scene itself has to be in fact preserved. Anytime have a crime, have a victim, so victim itself become a crime scene. For example, a hit and run case, a pedestrian got hit, the pedestrian's body become a crime scene. A rape case, same thing. The rape victim become a crime scene. Of course the suspect who person or persons commit the crime become a crime scene itself. And physical evidence such as guns, shoeprint, hair, sometime earring can become a piece of physical evidence, tire track. All those four area as a good investigator, good criminalist, we have to have a concept of this back in our mind. When you walk through the crime scene you should understand this nature. To link you need the four-way linkage. You can link the suspect to the scene if you find certain crucial physical evidence. Also you can link the physical evidence back to the suspect or suspects. Also you can link the physical evidence to the victim. So this four-way linkage is rather important by using same analogy to case, let's say, a hit and run case. On that street we have a scene. At the scene you can find blood, you can find tire track, you can find glass, metal, soil. The victim's body take to the hospital. On his chest maybe we find tire track. On his clothing we may find imprint pattern. Maybe have glass fragment. The vehicle itself become a physical evidence which--such as a broken lens, lost--of course ideally lost an muffler, we can pick up the muffler, and it physically fit, you can have a link. And the suspect, of course if the suspect after hit and run stopped, step in the blood, now we have a footprint. We can link the suspect. So this so-called four-way linkage you have to always consider all the possibilities.

MR. GOLDBERG: Doctor, can we perhaps use a simpler analogy or fact pattern. Let's say that we have a crime scene.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's say it is a robbery.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Just so we are understanding the concept. And there is an article of clothing at the scene that has a hair that is consistent with the suspect that he dropped at the crime scene.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think at this point it is foundational, 352.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: And on that same article of clothing there is also a hair that is consistent with the victim.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you explain how that would work with your four-way linkage theory?

DR. LEE: Let's say piece of garment which we do have cases, for example, robbery or burglary, getting too hot, they take off their jacket, somehow left in a hurry leaving the scene. We found hairs. That hair can link to a victim. That hair also can link to a suspect. This hair also can link to a crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if the suspect and victim hair is found on the same item, it also links the victim to the suspect?

DR. LEE: Yes. Link depend on the condition of the hair, depends on whether or not this hair so-called secondary transfer.

MR. GOLDBERG: And it would also, if the clothing is found at the crime scene, link the physical evidence up to the scene?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is it true, Dr. Lee--I think we are finished with that. Is it true, Dr. Lee, that the hallmark of a crime scene identification is whether or not we were successful in establishing four-way linkage?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, would you agree that it is very often that very experienced capable criminalists or crime scene technicians or police will go out to a crime scene and very carefully systematically process the crime scene, but they can't establish four-way linkage?

DR. LEE: Yes. Do have cases, either failure of recognition or failure of any of those steps, and sometime maybe just not exist.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it also true that sometimes a less careful processing of the crime scene, less capable processing of the crime scene can, nevertheless, result in four-way linkage?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's get to the issue, Dr. Lee, of the Bronco that you testified to a little bit in your direct testimony. Now, did you ever physically inspect the Bronco yourself?

DR. LEE: No. As I indicate to the jury, I never physically personally look at the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: And were you present--excuse me. Did you know that there was a search of the Bronco that was done on August 26th of 1994?

DR. LEE: I don't remember specific date.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you generally aware of some search of the Bronco that was done in August of `94 at which some Defense people and some--

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: --Prosecution people were present?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did someone disallow you from coming there?

DR. LEE: Not exactly the situation disallow me. I only can work on my spare time on weekends.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

DR. LEE: I cannot come here--I have an official duty also. The world cannot stop just because this case.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So with respect to your analysis in this case, is it true that part of the limitation was your own busy schedule?

DR. LEE: Yes, because the day I wanted was not available to me, and the day they wanted I cannot come here.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to the amount of blood that we are going to expect to find in an item such as the Bronco, do you agree with the idea that we can only interpret the bloodstains that are physically present and that no one should speculate as to why a Defendant was not blood stained except in the most unusual cases?

DR. LEE: Yes, in general.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And do you agree, sir, that in the forensic scientific literature that there is a lot of literature that indicates: "Numerous references state assailant is not always blood stained as a result of their active participation in the blood letting events."

DR. LEE: That again in general depends on type of crime and what condition of the crime, what type of physical force involved.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you also agree that forensic scientists have to interpret what they see as opposed to what they don't see?

DR. LEE: I disagree that. Absence of evidence not necessarily wasn't there. Absence of evidence may be wasn't there; maybe somebody just not experienced enough or incapable or inability to see that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. Have you read Mr. MacDonnell's article on the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

DR. LEE: (No audible response.)

MR. GOLDBERG: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

DR. LEE: I'm a Chinese. Take me a while to think about this double-talk. Absence--

MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can get that for you and--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I put some lines on my copy. May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Can you show Mr. Scheck?

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: May I?

MR. GOLDBERG: Dr. Lee, why don't you just take a quick look at that and see if that refreshes your recollection if you have read that article?

DR. LEE: I have read a lot of article. Which part do you want me to read?

MR. GOLDBERG: You don't have to read it. I just want to see if looking at it silently to yourself if you recognize it?

DR. LEE: Okay. (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lee, do you recognize the article?

DR. LEE: Sort of. I don't remember every line.

MR. GOLDBERG: I know, there is an enormous amount of forensic science literature out there, isn't there?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you agree generally with the findings of MacDonnell in this particular article?

DR. LEE: In general, yes, but the specific example he give maybe not totally cover the whole situation.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But in general do you agree with the proposition that we really can't infer that someone cannot participate in a crime involving a bloody event simply because they don't have blood on them, on their clothing or on their person?

DR. LEE: Again, as I indicate before, depend on situation. One example said beat up a rabbit. Rabbit, human two different scene. You beat up a rabbit, did not get blood spatter on your clothing. Doesn't mean you beat up a human did not get blood on your body, and I guess depends on situation. If you standing a distance, firing a shot, gunshot, thirty feet away, kill somebody, I don't expect to find blood spatter on somebody's clothing. That is correct. However, if you put the gun next to somebody's head, fire a shot, nothing, no clothing, block the back spatter, I expect to find some blood spatter, so it varies. I cannot in certain senses, correct. In other situation maybe not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Isn't there a lot of forensic science literature out there that generally cautions the forensic scientists who are involved in blood spatter that you can't really say that someone didn't participate in a crime just because they are not covered in blood even if it is something like a stabbing?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, perhaps I can mark the article as People's next in order. I guess that would be 592.

THE COURT: All right. People's 592.

(Peo's 592 for id = article)

MR. GOLDBERG: I will put a 592 on it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you agree with the concept that we can only interpret the bloodstains that are physically present and that no one should speculate as to why a Defendant was not blood stained except in the most unusual cases?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Is he reading from something, your Honor?

MR. GOLDBERG: These are my notes.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Again, generally we only can interpret a certain pattern which we can see. If you did not see it, not necessary wasn't there. You cannot interpret something you did not see. Then you say not there.

MR. GOLDBERG: What I want to know, doctor, is do you agree with that particular quote that I just read?

DR. LEE: In general.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, have you been involved--let me ask a couple other questions first. Is it true generally that stabbings, generally speaking, involve less blood than be