Blood-Pattern Expert Bolsters Defense : Simpson trial: A second set of shoes could have left marks, scientist says.

With a studious jury taking copious notes, an internationally respected forensic scientist testified Wednesday that patterns on the bloody blue jeans of murder victim Ronald Lyle Goldman could have been created by a shoe of a different type than the one that left prints leading away from the scene of the crimes.

Henry Lee, director of the Connecticut State Forensics Science Laboratory, also said Goldman appeared to have put up a long fight with his assailant, testimony that favors the contention by lawyers for O.J. Simpson that their client could not be the culprit. And Lee told the jury that he saw tiny spherical blood drops on a sock found in Simpson’s bedroom, an observation that could bolster the defense’s argument that blood on those socks was planted.

Lee’s testimony Wednesday marked his first full day on the stand, and he presented some of the defense’s most compelling physical evidence in its attempt to rebut the prosecution case against Simpson, who has pleaded not guilty to the June 12, 1994, murders of Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

Outside the jury’s presence, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito signaled his intention to punish defense attorneys for another violation of evidence-sharing rules. He also met privately with attorneys to discuss news articles revealing details of tapes and transcripts of interviews that former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman gave to an aspiring screenwriter. Her lawyer, Matthew H. Schwartz, protested that stories about the Fuhrman tapes have revealed information that his client did not want released, but Ito did not immediately announce whether he would convene a hearing on the subject of how that information was obtained by the reporters.

Meanwhile, City Atty. James Hahn appealed to Ito for a copy of all tapes and transcripts of the Fuhrman interviews, and Fuhrman’s criminal defense lawyer told the judge that he was considering advising the now-retired detective to invoke his right under the 5th Amendment to refuse to answer certain questions if called back to the witness stand.

Those matters came after the jury left for the day, but earlier in the session, Lee methodically introduced jurors to the obscure but intriguing field of blood-pattern analysis, a topic he presented with a series of demonstrations in which he spattered red ink on sheets of white paper. As Lee tossed drops of ink around the courtroom, some jurors recoiled slightly, a gesture that Ito caught and remarked on jokingly.

“You’re making Juror 63 nervous,” he commented, drawing a thin smile from the panelist, a white woman who sits in the back row.

Lee took care to avoid splashing any of the jurors, and they followed his presentation with rapt attention, watching as he conducted each demonstration and then writing in their notebooks as he prepared the next.

Lee’s lively science lecture energized the session, but the substance of his testimony focused on the bloodstains that surrounded the bodies of Goldman and Nicole Simpson--stains that prosecutors have used to argue that the two victims died after a swift battle with O.J. Simpson. Lee took issue with some of the prosecution conclusions, testifying, for instance, that the struggle with Goldman could have been a prolonged one.

“I cannot tell you exactly how long,” said the scientist in typically cautious fashion. “It’s not a short struggle.”

Lee said he reached that conclusion in part because items such as an envelope, keys and a beeper, all of which belonged to Goldman, were scattered across the crime scene. That, he said, suggested that the struggle ranged across the small area.

Nearly all 14 jurors and alternates were writing in their note pads as Lee testified about his opinions regarding the length of the struggle, a point of contention between the defense and prosecution, which maintains that the altercation was relatively brief--allowing Simpson to commit the murders and hurry home in time to meet an airport limousine.

Lee’s testimony bolstered that of another defense expert, Dr. Michael Baden, and evidence suggesting a fierce and possibly long struggle between Goldman and his assailant strengthens another longstanding element of the defense case: With the exception of cuts and scratches on his left hand and wrist, photographs of Simpson taken soon after the incident did not reveal any signs of having recently engaged in a physical battle.

Lee’s testimony also focused, as it did the day before, on mysterious parallel line patterns that appear in several areas of the crime scene. On Wednesday, defense attorney Barry Scheck suggested that those lines had to have come from another assailant’s shoes.

The scientist was careful about drawing that conclusion and resisted some of Scheck’s questions, but in general Lee backed the defense attorney’s scenario.

“Is the parallel line pattern that you’ve circled there consistent with a partial shoe print?” Scheck asked at one point, pointing to lines on Goldman’s jeans.

“I cannot definitively say that is definitely a shoe print,” Lee responded. “It could be.”

Turning to another stain on the right leg of the jeans, Scheck asked whether a similar set of marks could have been made by a size 12 pair of Bruno Magli shoes--the size and type that an FBI shoe print expert said left other prints at the crime scene.

“If this parallel line imprint comes from a shoe,” Scheck asked, “could it be the Bruno Magli shoe?”

“No,” Lee answered forcefully.

“It would be some other shoe?” the defense attorney continued.

“If this is a shoe print,” Lee said, “this is a different type of design than Bruno Magli.”

Jury Ties Record

The jury in the Simpson case marked its 225th day of sequestration Wednesday, tying the California record for the longest time that a group of jurors has been isolated from friends and families. The Simpson panel entered the record books by catching up with the jury that heard the trial of Charles Manson, but the moment passed unacknowledged in court.

The trial’s sometimes glacial pace has caused Ito increasing concern, however, and he recently has ratcheted up the pressure on the attorneys to bring the case to a close.

Ito had said this week that he wanted to send the case to the jury shortly after Labor Day. And though few observers see that as a realistic goal, Ito’s impatience was on display for the jury Wednesday. During one line of questioning, Ito interjected his own objection before Deputy Dist. Atty. Hank Goldberg could even rise in protest.

Later, when Scheck tried to pose questions to Lee about when and where certain tests were performed, Ito upbraided him in front of the jury. Several times, Scheck insisted that the issue was relevant; each time, Ito contradicted him and refused the lawyer’s repeated requests to approach the bench to explain himself.

Outside the jury’s presence, Ito also came down hard on defense attorneys for their latest violation of the state evidence-sharing law.

“Once a trial has begun, the statutory discovery obligations must be complied with immediately,” Ito said in a written ruling that reviewed prosecution complaints regarding the defense’s failure to turn over reports and notes related to Lee’s testimony. “As has been recently noted by a nationally known and admired legal scholar, immediately means immediately.”

That reference was a sly one: The scholar to whom Ito referred is Gerald Uelmen, a member of Simpson’s defense team who raised that point when Simpson’s lawyers were complaining about the prosecution’s evidence sharing.

Continuing, Ito said he had concluded that defense attorneys delayed for more than two weeks before turning over notes. That, Ito added, constituted a violation of the discovery law.

“Significant and substantial monetary sanctions . . . appear warranted given the numerous warnings previously given to both parties,” Ito said. He also indicated that he intends to tell the jury about the defense’s violation and to grant the prosecution extra time to prepare for the cross-examination of Lee.

Lee Expresses Anger

For nearly the entire day, Lee testified with modesty and good humor. He smiled frequently at the jury and responded politely to the judge’s instructions to keep his voice up when his back was turned to the court reporter.

When he failed to recognize Simpson attorney Robert Blasier, Lee smiled and remarked: “You all look alike,” breaking the normally staid courtroom into peals of laughter.

But Lee turned steely and indignant when questioned about his initial examination of a much-discussed pair of socks that police say they found in Simpson’s bedroom. DNA tests performed on those socks pointed to Nicole Simpson as the likely source of a blood drop on the ankle of one.

According to the scientist, he was hurried through his initial examination, provided inadequate equipment and prodded along by rude and unprofessional representatives of the Police Department and district attorney’s office. During their case, prosecutors introduced a set of photographs belittling Lee’s inspection by showing that he did not wear a laboratory coat and by questioning other aspects of his work.

Shown those photographs Wednesday, Lee identified some of the attorneys who were present, volunteering that he considered a few of them--including prosecutors Marcia Clark and William Hodgman--excellent lawyers and that he regarded Deputy Dist. Atty. Goldberg as a good friend.

But when he spotted Deputy Dist. Atty. Rockne Harmon, who presented the pictures to the jury, Lee described him icily. “Used to be a good friend,” he said without elaboration.

Turning to the results of his various examinations of the socks, Lee echoed the testimony of another defense expert who described small spheres of blood sticking to the fabric opposite the spot where a large blood drop was recovered. That bloodstain, which was found to contain genetic markers matching those of Nicole Simpson, marks the end of the prosecution’s so-called “trail of blood” leading from the crime scene to Simpson’s bedroom, and the defense has vigorously suggested that it was planted by police.

In trying to make that argument, defense attorneys elicited testimony from a blood-spatter expert who said it appeared to him that the stain was pressed into the material, not splashed on it such as might have happened at the crime scene.

Scheck asked Lee about that interpretation and asked his opinion of it.

“That’s his testimony,” Lee said. “I have nothing to dispute with that.”

“So you agree?” Scheck asked.

“I agree,” he said.

Prosecutors have yet to begin questioning Lee, but his testimony raises at least one potential avenue for cross-examination. Another defense witness testified that it was not appropriate for scientific experts to testify about whether evidence was “consistent” with various scenarios, only whether it was reliable to a degree of scientific certainty.

Many aspects of Lee’s testimony, however, turn on the question of whether Scheck’s scenarios are “consistent” with the scientist’s findings.

Asked whether prosecutors would explore that issue, Goldberg smiled faintly and answered: “I don’t want to comment while the witness is still on the stand, but you can draw your own conclusion.”

Police Commission Seeks Tapes

As has been the case for most of this month, the proceedings in court were colored by the spiraling debate over a series of audiotaped interviews between Fuhrman and a North Carolina screenwriter and professor named Laura Hart McKinny.

Details of those interviews have become public in recent weeks and some of them--particularly a transcript of a session in which Fuhrman discussed a beating that he said he and other officers administered in the wake of a police shooting--have created a broiling controversy in City Hall and at police headquarters. The LAPD has launched an investigation into Fuhrman’s comments, but has been frustrated by its inability to secure its own copies of the tapes and transcripts.

Responding to their concerns, McKinny’s lawyers have allowed members of the Police Commission to review some of the material. Commissioners Deirdre Hill and Art Mattox did so Wednesday. Immediately afterward, they directed City Atty. Hahn to move rapidly to obtain the full set of tapes and transcripts.

“Based on our review of what was made available to us, we felt we had to move forward quickly,” said Hill, the commission president.

In court, Ito sympathized with the commission and Police Department, but said he was concerned that he lacked authority to order McKinny to supply them with copies of her material, which is protected under an order from Ito barring those who have access to it from disseminating it.

As he left Ito’s courtroom, Hahn said he understood the judge’s concerns but added that the city and department have a burning need to review the material in its entirety.

“If there is evidence of criminal activity out there,” he said, “the Police Department should be able to get it from a court.”

For Fuhrman, the furor surrounding the tapes has raised a host of complicated problems, including the question of what he will do if recalled to the witness stand. On Wednesday, his criminal defense attorney, former LAPD officer Darryl Mounger, told Ito that he was weighing whether to advise his client to refuse to answer questions.

“I have a client who the media and the world has been told has perjured himself, and I have to advise that client on what his legal position must be when he comes back to this witness stand,” said Mounger, a well-known criminal defense attorney who successfully represented Sgt. Stacey C. Koon during the state trial of the police officers who beat Rodney G. King. “My position is that when he was first here . . . his statements were compelled because his department requires that he testify. If he does not testify, he can be terminated.”

But Fuhrman has since retired from the LAPD and therefore is under no such compulsion.

“When he returns,” Mounger said, “he returns as a private citizen. . . . He may in fact need to take the 5th Amendment.”

Times staff writer Jean Merl contributed to this article.