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: All right. 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. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Gordon. Good morning, counsel.

MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, anything we need to take up before we proceed with the next witness? Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor. On scheduling, we submitted a letter to the Court last week regarding Dr. Weir's testimony and what we proposed that is we have the 402 hearing on Thursday and the testimony, if there is going to be testimony, on Friday morning. We won't get Dr. Weir's report until this afternoon and we also--there was a book that has been referred to that we have to get out to our experts, but we think we can work within that time frame. I discussed that with Mr. Harmon. He didn't seem to have any problems with it, but I won't speak for him.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, good morning, sir.

MR. HARMON: Good morning, your Honor. That is no problem. I'm not sure what that does with the rest of our schedule, but Dr. Weir is here, so--

MR. BLASIER: We are trying to accommodate the fact that he is out of town next week.

THE COURT: Okay. What is your time estimate on your presentation?

MR. BLASIER: We think everything can be done in a day.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: On the 402.

THE COURT: All right. Does that meet your approval then, Mr. Harmon?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Then I should set aside the whole day for this hearing?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Yes, I think so.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gordon. Good morning, sir.

MR. GORDON: Good morning. The issue regarding witnesses Holmes and Redfern. Your Honor, we presented the Court with moving papers. These are two very discreet incidents that are close in time; one `94, one `92. They are highly probative. They fit well within the Court's order. As I said, we went through the third investigation, we culled those down to find those incidents which fit squarely within the Court's order. These two incidents fits squarely within the Court order that the Court has come down with and the Court's ruling. They are extremely probative. They fit within the pattern. We are attempting to cull down and pare down the evidence that we do have to present the case in a streamline form in what is upcoming, and this evidence will assist us in doing that. It is extremely probative. One is a physical assault and the other I have evidence of stalking and one a pursuit in 1992.

THE COURT: Mr. Gordon, your moving papers indicate that discovery was provided to the Defense and I would like to know specifically when it was that these reports were turned over to the Defense.

MR. GORDON: Let me check on this.

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

MR. GORDON: Just a moment, your Honor. The witness were listed on the April 27th master witness list. As for the dates that the actual reports were done, I believe it was--let me check with Mr. Armstrong and the investigators if I could, your Honor--

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GORDON: --to get a specific date. That is a little bit outside my--

THE COURT: I would like to know the specific date that these reports were turned over.

MR. GORDON: Yes.

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

MR. GORDON: My understanding this regards--Mr. Darden has informed me he spoke to Mr. Cochran, if--depending on the Court's order, they should be ready to go on the witness whenever the Court does rule, but let me check on the dates for the Court.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: If I can add on the issue. At the time that those reports were prepared, we were operating under the order of the Court wherein the Court ordered us to provide discovery within one day. They were turned over within one business day.

THE COURT: All right. I'm just curious time frame wise what we are talking about here.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GORDON: We are checking on that, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Darden advises me that these reports were made available to the Defense within one business day of the completion of the report, as per the Court's previous order.

MR. GORDON: That is my understanding. I'm outside the discovery operation. February 23rd is the date of the interviews on the Holmes matter. I believe Redfern was some time in March, but I'm checking that for the Court right now.

THE COURT: All right. I have the report, the Holmes report.

MR. GORDON: Which are actually two separate Court reports. The Court has got both attached. Both have a February 23rd date.

THE COURT: All right. There is no date on the Giacondo/Redfern report.

MR. GORDON: My recollection it was in March and I'm checking that right now.

THE COURT: All right. I will hear from the Defense.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, with regard to these two items, I'm not clear on the dates that we got these actual reports. I will accept counsel's representation regarding that. The problem, however, your Honor, is that the Court will recall we had a rather lengthy hearing on this matter, I believe, back in January, and as I recall, on or about January 18th the Court issued a very, very lengthy ruling. We went to a lot of trouble to detail all these various discrete incidents and tell us what we could expect, what evidence would be admissible and why, what evidence will not be admissible. And now to come up at the very end of trial and have these two witnesses, specifically Holmes and Redfern, with these so-called discrete acts, I think is really unfair. We didn't have a chance to argue about these before and it puts us at a disadvantage. Now, it is true there is not much in the way of reports regarding these two witnesses and I think we now have all those reports, but this motion that details this, if the Court will recall, that I didn't actually get the motion, I don't think, until Friday, somebody handed it to me on this past Friday. I spoke to Mr. Darden this morning about it and I said that we are at a real disadvantage from an investigatory standpoint. And although the reports are short and I can read those and perhaps get ready, from an investigatory standpoint, having known the items that your Honor said would be admissible, we are ready with those. These are separate items which we have not had really a chance to investigate because it hadn't been an issue, but the problem it really raises, depending upon your Honor's ruling, although I can be ready, we would like some time to obviously sit and talk to our client about it. It hasn't been relevant--but discuss with our client and also to have our investigators take a look at this also, and that is the only--that is my indication. I think there is some question about fairness regarding this, because they had all these other issues. You counted them up. You had to do a chart to go through all of them, and we dealt with those and now we have these two and then now we are in the kind of a situation at the last minute where we have to scramble around reviewing all the reports, take time to talk to our client and then perhaps also talk to our investigators, which we have not done in that regard because it was not anticipated these witnesses would be called because they were never addressed to you.

THE COURT: Well, let me anticipate Mr. Gordon's argument and ask you, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gordon is going to argue that these reports were turned over in February and in March and that in April, late April, these two names were added to the Prosecution's witness list.

MR. COCHRAN: I will have to check with Mr. Douglas with regard to that. That may very well be true, your Honor. But again, with regard to items of domestic discord, it seems to me and it seems to us that the parameters were pretty well set by your Honor in your ruling and it was not a situation--the Court--as the Court has said so many times, we have been kind of busy in here as we go along with the evidence and we kind of anticipated we would be dealing with the witnesses that were set forth at that time. So all I'm saying is that there is an element of unfairness. I was just talking to my client about it. We have had not had a chance to discuss it and there are so many witnesses set forth on both sides, and as you know, there are over 30,000 pages now of discovery. We get discovery everyday in this case, so it makes it very difficult and that is the point we are faced with.

THE COURT: When you say you need additional time since this motion was served on you, as I recollect here in Court last Thursday or Friday--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: --how much time are you asking for?

MR. COCHRAN: Umm, gee, your Honor, may I--may I have a second to talk to my client about this? Because I need obviously to talk to him and to talk with our investigators on this point. May I have a second?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. GORDON: May I respond just briefly, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: I have discussed the matter with my client and also Mr. Douglas advises me that we were able to apparently interview a couple of these witnesses over this weekend, because we want to get this case over also, your Honor, so I would ask that the Court give us a couple of days, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday. We will be ready by that time.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gordon.

MR. GORDON: Yes.

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

MR. GORDON: To actually call the witnesses or to--I'm a little bit unclear.

THE COURT: I think they want the opportunity--you served the motion that you were going to call these witnesses to argue the admissibility, I take it, in a 402 hearing.

MR. GORDON: Certainly.

THE COURT: So I will hear that Wednesday.

MR. GORDON: Certainly.

THE COURT: And if you get a favorable ruling on one or both, you should have those witnesses available.

MR. GORDON: They are certainly going to be available. The one thing I would note to the Court is that the original 402 brought--

THE COURT: Excuse me just a second. Gentlemen, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Goldberg, keep it down, will you please.

MR. GORDON: Just bringing to the Court's attention and for the record the original 402 brought by the Defense we listed those incidents that were known at that time. We indicated to the Court and Defense that this investigation was continuing.

THE COURT: No, I recollect, and you told me that there were ongoing phone calls and information coming in all the time.

MR. GORDON: Certainly.

THE COURT: I am not surprised to hear this, but counsel is entitled, since they didn't get the motion until--

MR. GORDON: Thank you.

THE COURT: --Friday--

MR. GORDON: Thank you for your consideration.

THE COURT: All right. Wednesday.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. GORDON: Domestic violence issues.

MR. COCHRAN: Domestic discord issues will be fine at that point.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Counsel, I have received from the California Department of Justice two additional DNA reports from Mr. Sims and Miss Montgomery. And let me ask Miss Martinez, would you come forward, please. Give one copy to each side.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And this is a report dated by Mr. Sims and Miss Montgomery June 16th. Also, I have received two large packages from the Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Sciences, two additional packages. And let me give the original to the Prosecution and a copy to the Defense on this as well.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, anything else before the Prosecution calls their next witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Could we just on the record--we have had some informal conversations--can we get a statement that the People's case is kind of shifting here at the end? Can we get a definitive statement about the order of witnesses again, where we are going to go this week, so that we will know and prepare and I can get lawyers here.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, have we finished the gloves?

MS. CLARK: For now.

THE COURT: For now. All right. Then we were supposed to have shoes, domestic violence and DNA with Airtouch and hair and trace and fiber.

MS. CLARK: That's right.

THE COURT: In that order?

MS. CLARK: That's what I think.

THE COURT: All right. So I should expect shoes next?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Shoes today?

MS. CLARK: Yes, right now.

THE COURT: And how many witnesses are you going to be calling besides Mr. Bodziak.

MR. GOLDBERG: One.

MS. CLARK: One other.

THE COURT: Who is that?

MS. CLARK: Mr. Poser.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: I just had one question. What is our schedule for tomorrow, your Honor?

THE COURT: My recollection is one of our jurors has to attend a graduation somewhere quite distant and I think we are going to break at approximately 3:30.

MS. CLARK: I thought I had heard that. I wanted to make sure.

THE COURT: It has been on the calendar.

MR. COCHRAN: I thought we were going to six o'clock. I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Cochran, I will ask the juror if--

MR. COCHRAN: Only kidding, your Honor. Only kidding.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else before we invite the jurors to join us? Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, on the glove issue--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: --we are going to revisit that issue again, I don't know which day, and I would ask that Mr. Cochran keep his file relative to the glove handy.

MR. COCHRAN: Which issue are you talking about?

MR. DARDEN: The glove.

MR. COCHRAN: They haven't had enough of the gloves yet, your Honor. Okay. We will be ready.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else?

MS. CLARK: Not right now, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 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. The People may call their next witness. Mr. Goldberg, will you be handling this witness?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, sir. You may proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: The People call Bill Bodziak to the stand. Good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

William J. Bodziak, called as a witness by the People, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

MR. BODZIAK: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. BODZIAK: William J. Bodziak, W-I-L-L-I-A-M, middle initial J. the last name is spelled B-O-D-Z-I-A-K.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning.

MR. BODZIAK: Good morning.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, what is your occupation and assignment?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I'm currently assigned in the FBI laboratory as an examiner of questioned documents, footwear and tire tread evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: Have you had some training and experience that qualifies you for that position?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I have.

MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to first start with your formal training and experience. Did you have an university degree?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I have a BA degree in biology from East Carolina University and I have a Master's degree in forensic science from George Washington University.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you just briefly tell us what that forensic science degree, the Master's that you referred to, involves?

MR. BODZIAK: The forensic science degree is approximately half graduate forensic science courses and the other half of the courses are dedicated to law and criminology.

MR. GOLDBERG: What year did you graduate with this Master's ?

MR. BODZIAK: 1976.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And turning to your experience at the FBI, when did you join the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

MR. BODZIAK: I entered on duty in January of 1970.

MR. GOLDBERG: What was your capacity when you first entered?

MR. BODZIAK: I entered as a special agent and my first capacity for three years was as an investigative field agent in the New Haven and Baltimore divisions.

MR. GOLDBERG: So in approximately 1973 you were transferred to another division?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?

MR. BODZIAK: I was transferred to the FBI laboratory.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why were you transferred to the laboratory?

MR. BODZIAK: I was transferred there to begin training in the areas of questioned documents, footwear and tire tread impressions.

MR. GOLDBERG: Who do they select for that kind of a position?

MR. BODZIAK: The FBI had at the time a science program that intentionally brought in agents with science background to potentially bring back to the laboratory for those assignments.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was this something that you were interested in?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were first assigned to the laboratory division in 1973, what was your first assignment?

MR. BODZIAK: My first assignment in 1973 was to begin training, was a three-year course of training in the laboratory where I would work cases, hundreds of cases over those years, everyday under the direct supervision of the senior examiners.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in addition to doing documents, are there other kind of things that you do in that section?

MR. BODZIAK: Documents including footwear and tire impression evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how long have you actually been conducting examinations on footwear impression evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Shortly after arriving in 1973 and beginning that case work training I was introduced to footwear and tire tread analysis as well.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is that what you have done in this case, is to provide an analysis of some--of some footwear impression evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I have.

MR. GOLDBERG: In this case?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do we have a chart that is--that we can use to illustrate the kind of analysis that you have been doing in the FBI laboratory in general terms since 1973 in terms of footwear impression evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would that be helpful to you in describing the kind of techniques that you performed and the analysis that you perform there?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it would.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would like to mark as People's next in order a chart entitled "What shoeprints can show," and I believe that is 373.

THE COURT: People's 373.

(Peo's 373 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to what's marked as People's 373 for identification, the section that says "If covered shoes of a suspect may be identified or eliminated," can you describe for us--if you need to step down you may do so--what kind of analysis you've performed that is signified by this portion of the chart.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. May I step down, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BODZIAK: Directing the attention to the top portion of the chart, one of the primary purposes of footwear comparison is ultimately to examine the footwear impressions from the crime scene, which is depicted here on the right side, (Indicating), with shoes of suspects that might be obtained during the investigation. In this particular chart I've shown, as an example on the right, an impression from a crime scene, a test impression made from the shoe of the suspect, and on the left side a reverse photograph of the shoe of the suspect. This comparison involves the class characteristics first of the shoe, that is, the physical shape and size, the design or pattern on the bottom of the shoe, which leaves its print in the impression, and then subsequently we will draw its attention to wear characteristics. Maybe the heel may begin to wear on the edge and other wear that might be evident and would change the pattern of the shoe. The fourth area of comparison, after the size design and wear, would be things such as accidental characteristics, such as a cut mark that would also show up in the impression and would be found on both the test impression and the known shoe. These cut marks or changes to the pattern of the shoe are what makes a shoe unique and would possibly enable, if there was an adequate number of these, the positive identification of this shoe having made the impression at the crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you do that kind of analysis in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I did not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that?

MR. BODZIAK: There was no shoes that were given to me of the suspects.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in cases that are submitted to you for analysis at the FBI, since 1973 when you've been working there, can you give us an estimate as to what percent, where they are submitted to you, they do not have shoes of a suspect?

MR. BODZIAK: Approximately forty percent of the case work that is submitted to us initially does not have the shoes of the suspect. A few of those may be submitted later after we provide them additional information.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are there some where the shoes are never recovered?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in cases where the shoes are not recovered, is it, nevertheless, possible to do other kind of analysis on the shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, on the--

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that indicated on the chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The second and third portions of the chart draw the attention to those kind of requests we get in situations where we do not have the shoes of a suspect, and we are asked to provide the brand name and manufacturer of the shoe and we do this by accumulating, in a reference collection, thousands of designs of shoes and searching a particular pattern from the crime scene print through that reference collection, and hopefully we will be able to determine the manufacturer and brand name of that shoe. After that, depending on the quality of the impression and the completeness of the impression at the crime scene, as well as the kind of manufacturer of the shoe in question, we may be asked to give either a general estimate of the size and that would be just through a linear measurement, or an actual specific sizing of the shoe by directly working with the manufacturer.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And these last two portions of the chart where you have discussed where it says "Brand name, manufacturer and size of the shoe," did you perform that kind of analysis in this particular case?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. You may resume the stand if you like.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, returning to your qualifications in the area of shoeprint examination, are you a member of some professional organizations in the area of forensic science?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have a curricula vitae that summarizes your various experience and training?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And sir, are you a fellow of the document section of the American Academy of Forensic Science?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: Does that have certain entrance requirements?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It has basic education and experience requirements for entrance. In other words, you would have to be working in that field for a number of years and have people that would recommend you as a viable candidate.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you also a member of the International Association for Identification since 1988?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you a member of any subcommittees of that organization?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The International Association for Identification, known as the IAI, instead of calling their individual components dedicated to specific areas of forensic science sections, they call them subcommittees, and I'm a member of the subcommittee on footwear and tire track impression evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are you a professional member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you also a certified diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are you associated with the International Association of Forensic Science?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: Does that have a formal membership, that organization?

MR. BODZIAK: The International Association of Forensic Science is an international organization which does not have regular membership. It meets every three years in a different country and the organization for that particular meeting is made by the country which hosts it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you chair any meetings of that organization related to footwear and tire tread type evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I chaired the section on footwear and tire impression evidence in Vancouver in 1987, and at Adelaide, Australia, in 1990, and in Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1993.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you make presentations at those three meetings?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in addition to your membership in these organizations, do you have also have some teaching experience?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what that consists of?

MR. BODZIAK: There is a one-week course in the examination of footwear impression evidence at our FBI academy which I have taught since 1983.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you also published some articles in the area of footwear impression evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I have.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you publish an article that appeared in the FBI law enforcement bulletin entitled "Shoe and tire impression evidence" in 1984?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you publish another article entitled "Manufacture and processes for athletic shoe outsoles and their significance in the examination of footwear impression evidence" in the journal of forensic science in 1986?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you co-author another article entitled "Forensic evaluation of the air bubbles present in polyurethane shoe outsoles as applicable in footwear comparison impressions" also published in the journal of forensic science in 1988?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Who did you author that with?

MR. BODZIAK: I authored it with Dorene Music of the Los Angeles Police Department.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is she with their--is she a footprint examiner at that organization?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, she was at the time, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in addition to the article that we just mentioned, did you also author a book entitled footwear impression evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: That was in 1990. That was initially published by Elsevier Science Publishing Company in 1990 and the book rights have been taken over by CRC Press.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, during your involvement in this case, when you first became involved in the case, what type of analysis were you asked to perform?

MR. BODZIAK: Initially I was asked to determine what type of shoe, what brand or manufacturer, type of shoe made the impressions that were located in blood on the Bundy sidewalk.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you consult any reference collections of the sort that you mentioned previously in order to do that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did. I initially consulted the FBI's reference collection which involves thousands of impressions on computer and in photographs and catalogues, but I was unable to find that particular design.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how long has this reference collection been in existence?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, we have changed it over the years, but it was initially started in 1937 basically as a rubber heel file.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is it a computerized system?

MR. BODZIAK: Part of it is computerized, yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. You also were unable to locate the design in your reference catalogue?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: After you were unable to locate the design based upon your own resources, did you take some additional steps?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do?

MR. BODZIAK: In looking at the detail in the shoe impressions in the thirty photographs which I was submitted which were the impressions from the Bundy location, I observed that there were certain features about that shoe that strongly suggested that it was a high end--that is a very expensive Italian brand shoe. So I looked through our written reference material and I identified approximately 75 to 80 manufacturers and importers of high end Italian shoes and some south American shoes or Brazilian shoes, and I prepared a sketch and a--one of the photographs, a composite photograph--excuse me--a composite sketch and three photographs of heel impressions from the Bundy scene, along with a letter, and contacted those manufacturers and importers to see if they recognized or knew the origin of that particular design.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you get any information back as a result of that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On August 17th I received a reply from a Mr. Peter Grueterich of the Bruno Magli Uma Shoe Store in New Jersey.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did he send you anything?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. He sent me two shoes that were left over from a Bruno Magli distribution of his in 1991 and 1992. These were both right shoes. One was a size 9 and a half and one was a size 12. And I believe from looking at them they were probably samples that were just left over.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order a chart.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, 374.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, 374, a chart that is entitled "Bruno Magli" and it has Lorenzo and Lyon shoes.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 374 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, directing your attention to People's 374 for identification, do you recognize that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?

MR. BODZIAK: These are enlarged photographs on the right side of the Lorenzo at the top and the Lyon or Lyon at the bottom. The differences between those two shoes is the Lorenzo has a higher heel collar to it and the Lyon or Lyon has a lower cut as a conventional shoe would have, and those shoes were sent to me by Mr. Grueterich. The retail of those was approximately $160.00, and they were Bruno Magli shoes distributed in 1991 and `92 in six different colors. The colors were white, black, brown, blue, brandy and olive.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are there any design features of the shoe that you can point out to us of significance in terms of your analysis?

MR. BODZIAK: Only the point that I've already mentioned, that the Lorenzo and Lyon are different primarily was because one is more of a high-top shoe and the Lyon or Lyon is a lower cut around the heel.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You actually received the shoes themselves?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And at this time I would like to mark as People's 375 for identification a box and its contents of Bruno Magli shoes.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. The box and contents, Bruno Magli shoes, 375.

(Peo's 375 for id = box & contents/shoes)

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to write a little "375" on the top of the box.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 375 for identification, can you tell us what that is?

MR. BODZIAK: Exhibit 375 are the two shoes, the Lyon or Lyon and the Lorenzo, which were submitted to me by Mr. Peter Grueterich and which were left over from the shipment or distribution of those shoes in 1991 and 1992.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if you can hold up one of them again, I think it is the Lorenzo, it appears to be faded a little bit on one side?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The left side of this shoe is much darker than the right side, which appears to maybe have been in a window and is somewhat discolored.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that the condition they were in when you got them?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in addition to the information that you sent out that you just told us about to these shoe manufacturers, did you send out any other inquirers to law enforcement agencies?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Also sending--I sent an inquiry to eight international laboratories which I knew had computerized reference collections such as the FBI and I sent them pictures of the sole of the shoe as well as the pictures from the crime scene, a couple pictures from the crime scene at Bundy, and asked them the same question, could they identify the brand name or manufacturer of this shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were any of those countries with computerized systems similar to the FBI's able to provide you with any information?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Seven of them responded and said they did not have this shoe in their collection. The eighth one, the national police agency in Tokyo, Japan, responded and advised that they had a shoe that they had obtained from a merchant of this design that was distributed in Europe and was made in Italy.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as a result of the information that you have just talked to us about, did you determine who the manufacturer was of the Bruno Magli shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, if I could comment on the bottom of the shoe, which has the manufacturer's name on it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.

MR. BODZIAK: The bottom of the shoe has design elements--may I step down?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BODZIAK: The bottom of the shoe has design elements which are repeated across the entire sole area, as well as the heel, and these design elements, which repeat after one another across the width and length of the shoe, are identical in size in both the heel and the sole, and they are surrounded by a perimeter, a little raised line, and then there is an outer perimeter which does not actually touch the surface of the ground, but which is a little bit raised but can touch it if there is enough weight or other factors. The same is true of the heel. And the leading edge of the heel is curved and has the notch cut off of the medial side, the inner side. This is a reverse photograph so this is actually the left--an enlargement of the left shoe, and this would be the outside of the body and this would be the inside to the right as you look at it, (Indicating). And in the center arch area also is the name "Bruno Magli," that is b-r-u-n-o m-a-g-l-I, as well as the capital "M" for Bruno Magli, their logo in the middle of that, and at the very bottom in the shadow here, which is probably hard to see, is the words "Made in Italy" and up in the top corner here is the word "Silga," s-I-l-g-a, which to answer your question, this is the manufacturer in Italy of this outsole.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is that common in the footwear industry, that the company whose name goes on the shoe doesn't necessarily have their own factories that they own?

MR. BODZIAK: That is very common in the footwear industry, to have one company make the outsoles and sell those to another company that will then create the upper, which are attached and glued and stitched to the bottoms.

MR. GOLDBERG: So what is the Bruno Magli company? If it is not a shoe factory, it is a what?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it may also be a shoe factory, but they may--I don't know their full habits of purchasing, but with regard to this shoe, they had this mold made by Silga for their shoes and these molds--these molded bottoms which were sent to another factory which is called 4C also in Italy, in the same area of Italy, and then the uppers were stitched and placed into the bottom and made and sold as a shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after you made these determinations, Mr. Bodziak--and you can resume the stand, if you like.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: --as to the manufacturer of the sole of the Bruno Magli shoe and also the upper, did you decide to visit the factories, these two factories?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And before getting into that, did you have some training and experience specifically in shoe manufacturing?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Over the years, since the late seventies, I have been to approximately--footwear manufacturers approximately 25 occasions.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the purpose of trying to gather information about how shoes are manufactured from the standpoint of a forensic shoe examiner?

MR. BODZIAK: In some cases the purpose is because of the need to, in a particular case that I might be working, but as a general training tool it is important to learn the various ways that shoes can be manufactured, because there is quite a lot of differences between a direct attach injection molded shoe or a cut shoe that is made of unvulcanized rubber or a composition molded shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And are you able to use this information in your analysis in determining shoe size that left impressions at a crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is this something that you are routinely able to do based on that kind of information and other information?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do we have some charts that can be used in order for you to illustrate for us how it is that this kind of a determination of shoe size can be made?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to mark as People's 276 for identification--excuse me--376, a chart entitled "Determination of shoe size."

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 376 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to People's 2--excuse me--376 for identification, do you recognize that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what the top portion of the chart under "Nonspecific sizing" refers to?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Nonspecific sizing is what I would label as instances when we were submitted partial impressions from a crime scene or impressions that we could never specifically identify as having been made by a specific manufacturer, and because of those characteristics, not being able to link them to a specific manufacturer, we would only be able to give an estimate and sometimes a very rough estimate, of the approximate size based on the impressions that we had from the crime scene. And this would be, like I say, a very rough estimate, but in responsible specific sizing would be what I would call that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in cases where you do have the information as to who manufactured the shoe, what can you do?

MR. BODZIAK: In that case we can specifically size the shoe if it has been made in certain manners. If it has been cut from a sheet of goods and then just glued to the bottom, that is usually not possible with an absolutely 100 percent certainty, but if the shoe has been folded and the molds have been made with a hand-milled method, where the person is actually guiding the milling device and creating the molds through their personal direction, as opposed to a computer method, then each of those molds, both in different sizes, as well as molds that may be duplicated in the same sizing, each of those will come out slightly different. And those differences will manifest themselves in impressions at the crime scene and enable a direct comparison to eliminate the molds that did not make the shoe and identify the mold which did make the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is the testimony that you just gave as to determining a shoe size summarized on this chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And using the lower portion of the chart, can you explain for us in a little bit more detail what it is that you can determine from a hand-milled mold?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I mentioned that the molds would vary because of--

MR. GOLDBERG: Again, if you need to step down, you may.

MR. BODZIAK: I think I can do it from here.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: The molds would vary, because person's hands would be involved in it, and they would not be directed by a computer, and I placed arrows on two molds here, (Indicating). The drawings represent two molds of the same size, and because a pattern or template is used, it is transferred at a different manner each time when they wrought out or hand mill the mold and the arrows showing the exact resulting positions of the design in this case, the circles and the zigzag or herringbone pattern and where those circles and patterns touch the perimeter of the shoe, those will vary both within the same size and between different sizes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So, for example, on the two shoe sketches, if we are referring to the portion that has the arrow that relates to the zigzag, it appears that the shoe on the left starts with a zag and then has a zig and the other one has a zig and then a zag; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That is your terminology.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: If I may use the pointer, on the right-hand side, what I was stating is that the zigzag is going in a downward direction in an identical point in the heel where at this same point in the heel it is going in an upward direction and almost parallel to the corner, even though the size and shape features of the zigzag are the same because they are from the same original pattern, it is the point at which they meet the perimeter which most clearly shows the differences. The same would apply to the circle.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Do we have another chart that is designed to indicate how it is that this phenomena occurs with hand-milled molds?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 377 for identification, a chart entitled "Hand-milled molds or how hand-milled molds are made."

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 377 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Directing your attention to the top of this chart, Mr. Bodziak, where it says "A design pattern is used in the hand milling of a mold," what does that refer to?

MR. BODZIAK: What I'm referring to at the top of the chart is basically a pattern or template and this would be, for demonstration purposes, one which had again the zigzag or herringbone pattern and the circles and this would be larger than the resultant molds and it would either be a plastic template or some other type of pattern that the person would use as a reference or guide to control the direction of the wroughting device which would chew out the metal from the steel block and create the actual steel or aluminum mold which the shoe is molded in.

MR. GOLDBERG: And using the bottom portion of the chart, can you indicate for us how it is that this process can result in variations each time you create a mold using that same template?

MR. BODZIAK: What this shows at the bottom, and I have made one of these herringbone rows a different color to draw attention to that, this would be the template, and we will use the yellow or gold line as a reference point, and this would represent the block of steel or aluminum that the hand operator would wrought out in this pattern using this as a pattern device or as a guide. And even though at first look these two shoe designs seem to be the same, looking at the exact configuration and directly--particularly easy to see at the perimeter from one shoe to the next--and specifically looking at the gold line for demonstration purposes, you can see that the resultant pattern is different from one mold to the next, even though they are the same size.

MR. GOLDBERG: So does that mean, sir, that if you have two molds that were created with the same template, that as a forensic shoeprint examiner you would be able to distinguish those two molds?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is that based upon the placement, the exact placement of the mold with respect to the perimeter of the shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: It is based on the fact that in the hand milling process, as opposed to a process where you make duplicate molds from the beginning, or a computer process where the computer of course is going to do exactly the same thing every time with a cadcam device, in the hand milling process each of these patterns will result in a slightly different position each time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is there--are there some other factors that you take into account when you are trying to determine shoe sizing of shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do we have another chart that is designed to illustrate some of those other factors?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark as People's 378 for identification a chart entitled "Other factors contributing to shoe size."

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 378 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to People's 378 for identification, can you tell us what the top portion of the chart refers to?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The top portion of the chart depicts what is known in the footwear industry as a last, l-a-s-t, and this is--was originally years ago always in wood, but nowadays it is normally aluminum or a hard plastic, and it is basically a foot form, represents the size and shape of a foot, that would be used to stitch and stretch the upper of the shoe over and then the upper would be tacked around the bottom of it and then that would be placed on top of the molded bottom and that molded bottom would be glued or stitched to the upper.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how is it that this factors into determining the size of a shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Because the size and shape features of the last are going to denote the width, the height of the instep, the width of the heel, not the bottom of the heal, but the top as well. They are going to be quite a bit different, and high-healed shoes of ladies, versus work boots of a man, versus hip boots, versus athletic shoes, and so those features, because they allow and control the room in the upper of the shoe, they are going to be a factor in the eventual fit of that shoe to a particular person.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what are the other factors that are discussed on this chart?

MR. BODZIAK: The second portion refers just generally to the fact that the physical size and shape as well as size considerations of shoes drastically different, such as high-heel shoes, athletic shoes and work boots, obviously are different because of the type of construction, even though they might accommodate the same size foot.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And what is the choice of which sizing system is used refer to?

MR. BODZIAK: The choice of which sizing system is used is the common sizing systems used in the world. The top row which is labeled "Centimeter" and the bottom row which is measured in inches, they are just linear measurements for reasons, they are not sizing methods. But the Europe, method which goes from zero to 48 on this chart, if I can see from it here, and the English or British system, the United Kingdom and the American size for men and then the U.S. ladies sizes are laid down in this diagram or chart showing the relative conversion factors or equivalents. For instance, if I may step down--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.

MR. BODZIAK: The--for instance, a size 42 European--let me first say that the distance between each size in the European is different than the distance between each size in the English and American. The difference in sizes between English and American are each a third of an inch, each size for half size, but the European is different, so when trying to--when an American person travels to Europe and they go to buy a shoe that is made for a European market and not to be sold in America, they will have to look at the sizes, such as 38, 40, 42 and so forth, and try to find the American equivalent size that they normally would wear in America, and that would be a starting point for them in trying on shoes to see if that shoe fit. For instance, looking at a 42, it coincidentally lines up very well with the British size 8, but not very well with the American size, more like an eight and a half or in between an eight and an eight and a half, but the 38--excuse me--the 40 coincidentally lines up just right with the American. A 44 is a little bit more than an American 10 and a 46 falls between the 11 and a half and 12, and so those would simply be equivalents, so if you were to go into a shoe store in America, you might find on the label U.S. size 10, and then also perhaps the United Kingdom size, the equivalent and the European equivalent.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, are these comparisons that you have just made between the European and American sizes such that you know for sure that any given European shoe of a particular size can automatically be converted to an American shoe--

MR. BODZIAK: No, because--

MR. GOLDBERG: --using this conversion method?

MR. BODZIAK: Because of the fact that there are other factors in the shoe in addition to just the size of the sole, and the fact that in most instances the European size doesn't line up directly with the American or British size, there would have to be some decision as to which size that shoe would be made on and what it would be called.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And are there some other factors that are--in addition to the ones that are on this chart--that also go into the issue of shoe size?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there are. May I--

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. There is other factors. One that is very important is the personal preference for fit. Some people, for instance, if they are buying a soccer shoe, may prefer it to be very tight. If they are buying a dress shoe, they may prefer it to be loose so they don't have to go into that breaking-in. If the shoe is in very expensive leather shoe, they may know in a couple wears it will be very soft and pliable and very much to their foot and they may like that fit, so they may intentionally buy it a little snug, so there is a lot of factors involving personal preference that play into account.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Would it be just fair to say, to summaries this issue of shoe sizing, that there are more factors that go into it than a lay person might imagine?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you receive some additional evidence from Bruno Magli and Silga companies in terms of some sole sample?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Who was that from?

MR. BODZIAK: I contacted the Silga company, which is on the eastern side of Italy, and which possessed the ten molds from size 38 to size 47 of this design, and I obtained samples in the range of 42 through 47 for comparison purposes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's 379 for identification a series of outsoles 42 through 47. They are in a box, so it would be the box and its contents.

THE COURT: All right. Box and its contents, 379.

(Peo's 379 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: I will write a "379" on it. I wrote it on the piece of paper.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 379 for identification--here, let me take the shoes-- sir, can you show us what you received from Silga?

MR. BODZIAK: Do you want me to haul them all out?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure. Just take one out just to describe for us what it is that you got.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how it factored into your analysis.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. The--this is the--this is the compression molded sole and I received a left and right for size 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47. The company refers to it as their U2887 mold and that is molded in the back of it, as well as the European size. The European size is on this sole because it is made in Italy, which is of course Europe, and so that is the sizing system that they would typically put on their molds and their soles when they make it. This is the same size sole. This one is a 47, which was on one of the prior displays, and shows the different design elements and the different aspects of this shoe design.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: For instance, this is a size 42 and there is quite a bit of difference between the 42 and the 46, and it is that reason that I did not ask for the 38, 39, 40 and 41, because they were literally tiny compared to the larger impressions that we had.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now--

THE COURT: Mr. Bodziak, may I see one of those, please?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you, on January the 23rd of 1995, actually go to Italy to visit the Silga factory and the 4C factory?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And which facility did you go to first?

MR. BODZIAK: I went to the Silga factory first where they actually have the molds and through a compression molding process manufacture the--what I call the outsole or the sole unit of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do we have another chart with some photographs on it to show you what saw when you were observed the manufacturing process at Silga and then 4C?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, we do.

MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to mark that as 370--excuse me--380 for identification.

THE COURT: 380.

(Peo's 380 for id = chart)

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, showing you this diagram--excuse me--this series of photographs and the top part that says "Silga, factory A, B and C," using those photographs can you describe for us what you saw when you were observing the manufacturing process of the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I would like to point to a few things if I might.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.

MR. BODZIAK: The top three pictures are pictures that I took at the Silga factory in Italy. On the left it shows a bottom and top of a compression mold. The point I'm pointing to, which is to the right or actually in the center of the photograph, is the bottom of the mold and that is the part of the mold which would have the pattern and design and also the logo that says "Bruno Magli" in it. And to the left in the southwest corner of this photograph is the upper, and that would be the portion which puts the design in the back of the sole, sort of a honeycomb design. And just to the right of it, (Indicating), a couple of soles which happened to be there at the time, and this is known as compression molding or an open mold process, because like a waffle iron, they will put the pre-measured rubber in this mold cavity with this portion over top of it and they will mold it. It will melt and conform each time to the exact size and shape features and come out of the mold the same size and shape each time. In the photograph marked B at the top is a close-up showing the heel cavity of one of these molds, and in particular showing the word "Made in Italy" which I previously pointed to on the outsole, which are just in front of the heel. And also there is an oval area and removed--that is normally where the name goes, Bruno Magli, but the slug which is removed is sitting next to that mold and this was the purpose of taking this picture, was to show that this can be removed. The factory has another set of slugs which have the name lord, l-o-r-d, on them and that was the name on the shoe that the national police agency in Japan had identified as part of their reference collection from Europe. There is a little circular area between the heel and the oval area, and this--at this point it is blank, but if these shoe soles were made in Europe, the European size, such as 42, 46, 47, would go there if they desired to have them on the bottoms. There was one other name that they did have that went into this area, I can never remember how to spell it, but it is a-n-t-I-c-a, and I believe the last name is c-o-u-r-I-c-i-a or c-a, and it basically means tradition of fine shoe making in Italian, I'm told, and it was only for the display shoes, they had never sold a shoe with that name on it. And they only had a couple of those slugs. They didn't have them for every mold. On the right under C on the chart, (Indicating), is a compression molding oven, and once the biscuit of rubber has been put in the cavity of the mold and this top has come down and placed on top of it, it will then be pushed into this oven and the oven will close and under heat and pressure it will cause the melting of that biscuit of rubber and the resultant rubber sole in the same size and shape each time. I obtained a pair of these size 46 soles and hand carried them to the Silga factory--I'm sorry--the 4C factory.

MR. GOLDBERG: Hold on for a second. I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask about the Silga.

MR. BODZIAK: Sure.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you were at Silga did you look at only one mold or a variety of the molds?

MR. BODZIAK: I examined all of the molds from size 38 to 47.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Then when you left Silga what did you have with you?

MR. BODZIAK: I had a pair of size 46 left and right soles.

MR. GOLDBERG: And where did you go with those?

MR. BODZIAK: I then went to the 4C factory, which was a few miles down the road, and that is the factory which Bruno Magli had commissioned to make the upper of their shoes and glue those uppers to the molded soles. Picture number D shows in the background, slightly out of focus, a shoe that is being--the glue is being applied to, and in the foreground in the center of the photograph, the outsole, which is having some glue applied to it. This glue is applied, it is allowed to cure and then before the two are put together, it is reactivated with heat to give sort of a contact cement arrangement. In photograph E the person there is taking an upper of the shoe and right next to his thumb is a little bit of green that you can see and that is part of the last that was used that had the upper of the shoe stitched around.

MR. GOLDBERG: So the green thing is actually inside the shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, part of the last which you can see over on F, and he is taking the molded rubber sole from Silga that has had glue applied and he is pressing them together very carefully to position them right. He is then going to put them in this machine to the right which will apply uniform pressure for a period of time to assure that the contact with that cement is complete. After that, in order to get the shoe which is very tight stretched around that last off of the last, it is turned over and put on this metal rod which has a little pin coming up that fits into a hole in the last and the toe of the shoe is pushed upward which breaks this last down in a manner that you would if you were sliding your foot out of the shoe and it allows them to remove the shoe from the last and of course put the shoelaces on and sell the shoes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, why is it that this particular shoe is in leather, as opposed to suede?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, when I went to the factory, of course they were to longer making the shoes that were only made in 1991 and `92 for Bruno Magli. They are still making--these are Bruno Magli shoes. They are the same lasts. This is a size American 12 last, and they are making the shoes for the same company in the same style, but they are--they do not have the same leather material of course that they had, which was a softer suede leather back in `91 and `92. They are now using a harder pebble grain material.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the photograph that is letter F on this chart, the item there that is depicted as the last--is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you actually obtain one of those?

MR. BODZIAK: I obtained two of them.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Did you bring those back to the United States?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: You can resume the witness stand.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to mark as People's 381 for identification, two lasts.

THE COURT: All right. 381, shoe lasts.

(Peo's 381 for id = shoe lasts)

MR. GOLDBERG: And they are in a bag--excuse me. They are in a shoe box that is in a brown paper wrapping and I will place the exhibit no. 381 on the brown paper wrapping. May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you 381 for identification, can you remove the contents of the package and tell us what you are doing.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) Exhibit 381 is the pair of lasts which were used to make the shoes that I observed being made at the Silga and 4C factory. The outsole size that I observed being used at that time was the size--European size 46 sole, and these lasts are--even though they are made in Europe, are graded with an American size 12, and the reason for that is the American grading system for shoes takes into account more measurements and variations than the European lasting system which normally shoes in Europe are only available perhaps in one width, maybe two widths. So because these are quality shoes, they are very expensive shoes that are made with leather, to have or to be produced with a high quality, they use the American grading system and American lasts. On the side of one of these lasts was written when I observed it in the factory, in addition to size 12, was written the number "46."

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can you place one of those lasts perhaps in the size 46 outsole just so that we can see how they compare.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir. (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, based upon all of the information that you had from your visit to Italy from the lasts and the soles and the photographs of the Bundy crime scene location, were you able to form an opinion regarding the size of the shoe--the size of the shoes that caused the shoeprints at Bundy location?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is that opinion?

MR. BODZIAK: That size was an American size 12 with the European size 46 sole attached to it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do you have some additional charts that are designed to show the basis of that opinion and how you arrived at it specifically?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Directing your attention to what I would like to mark as People's next in order, a chart entitled "Reversed"--excuse me--"Reverse shoe sole chart," 382 for identification, your Honor?

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 382 for id = chart)

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, 10:30.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me?

THE COURT: 10:30.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to this exhibit, it is People's 382 for identification. Can you tell us what this is?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On the top of the chart are reverse photographs, approximately two-time enlargements of photographs that I took of the left soles from size 42 through 47. By "Reverse" I mean that they were photographed and then the negative was reversed and the reason for doing that is so that the--it is as if as if you were looking down through the shoe and the same configuration as if the shoeprint was being laid on a two-dimensional surface and it also makes the comparisons easier for test impressions which are of course made in that manner. So these are reverse photographs, approximately two-time enlargements of soles 42 through 47, and on the bottom of the chart is a very small portion of a test impression made with each of these soles and it--the test impression represents the area which has the red rectangle around it on the sole above it. So on the left of the chart is the corner of the heel of the left shoe in a six-time enlargement demonstration configuration, and to the right of that is the 43 and so forth, all the way to the 47.

MR. GOLDBERG: Using this--

MR. BODZIAK: Go ahead.

MR. GOLDBERG: Using this chart can you describe for us how it was that you were able to make a determination regarding shoe size?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Because of what I had mentioned before, the differences between the molds of each size, because they are hand-milled and because there is only in this case one mold for each size, I'm using this as a demonstration of showing how the pattern, drawing your attention to the upper corner of this, how the pattern will vary in the respective areas of each of these soles. This is true of all areas of the heel and all areas of the sole, but for demonstration purposes you can see that the pattern is in a different position, even though the pattern remains the same size. Each individual design element is the same size.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, if you take, let's say, 42 and 43, just for illustration purposes, can you demonstrate for us how the impression for 42 corresponds to the sole for 42?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then also the differences with 43.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The--I don't know if the sole is large enough to be seen, but looking first then at the impression, there is a fragment of part of the design element on the left border, a certain distance from the top curved portion of the heel, and then this is this curved area between that design element and the other half of the design element and so you can see that there is a respective portion of this design corresponds with that area on the left shoe, size 42. And the reason it corresponds is because the impression the shoe leaves makes physical contact with the surface and the physics of contact ensure that this pattern is going to be reproduced. In other words, this pattern is going to represent these features precisely. You wouldn't have this shoe making a pattern that agreed with one of the other shoes, and then looking at the same area in 43, you can see that the--there is a much bigger part of this area, this curved area has got a lot of design between it and the perimeter. This is moved out a lot further and you are starting to get the angulation here of other aspects of that design and this is an angle you have here as well, (Indicating), and this represents precisely what you have in the respective area of the size 43 sole. Looking to the far right, between the 47 and the 46, in the instance of the 47, to the far right, the manufacturer of the molds forgot to route the border, that is, this line, raised line around the shoe and so the designed is opened, there is no connecting border, and that is very, very obvious in the impression. And then looking to the left of 47, looking at the 46 impression at the bottom, there is just a drastic difference between the design positions in those shoes whereas these are a little bit closer but still distinctly different.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, this was done for illustration purposes I take it?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: But could you have done the same thing with different parts of the shoe and made the same kind of illustration of how you can distinguish from 42 through 47?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I could have done it with both shoes and I could very well done it for each part of the shoes, but because I would have to make these so large to see for demonstration purpose I chose to just illustrate one as an example.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have another exhibit chart showing one of the shoeprints or actually two of the shoeprints at Bundy location and how you engaged in an analysis to determine the size of those shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to mark that as People's 383 for identification, your Honor. It is called "Shoeprint comparison" chart.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 383 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to this chart that is entitled "Shoeprint comparison," can you illustrate for us how it was you were able to make your comparison? Maybe you can start with one of the two shoeprints.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, may I step down?

MR. GOLDBERG: And move on to the other. Yes, please.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) Okay. The chart entitled "Shoeprint" comparison on the left side has one of the photographs which I examined which is a bloody shoeprint from the Bundy location. At the crime scene it was marked shoeprint E, the Los Angeles Police Department called it shoeprint E and the FBI--in my report I referred to it as Q107. It is an impression of both the sole and heel. On the right side is another shoeprint which I marked FBI Q68 and which was down in the lower walkway area at the very entrance, inside the gate, and that is of a heel impression. And if whatever impression would have been up here, (Indicating), would have been--if an impression had been laid down up here, it would have been interfered with by the other blood in that area, so you can really only see the heel impression on FBI Q68. In the middle is an approximate two-time enlargement of one of the test impressions I made of the left shoe using the European sole size 46, and attached to shoeprints E and the shoeprint on the right and the left of the chart, are transparencies that are made from the same test impression that is in the center, and this allows, in the comparison and demonstration process of superimposing the features that are left in test impressions of the size 46 and other size soles, over top of the impressions that are examined at the crime scene. And by putting these over these impressions, the precise configuration of the design elements, as I had mentioned before, and how they meet the borders where they are visible in this print, as well as the design element and fragments of the border which were up in this area and made from respective areas of the shoe, correspond, and also FBI Q68, the heel impression, the overlay demonstrates that as well. You can place this overlay back and forth and see the corresponding pattern agrees. Using this method I was able to take the size 42 through 47 shoes of both left and right and I was able to make test impressions through direct physical contact in a transparency form. I was able to place these over the crime scene impressions and determine which size of the European soles made that impression and eliminate the others. And in doing so, with regard to these two, I determined the left size 46 sole positively made the impressions and the 42 through 45 and 47 soles could positively be eliminated.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the print on the right that says "Shoeprints FBI Q68" even though only a heel of that is visible, you were able to determine that was a 46 European sole?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: How?

MR. BODZIAK: Because the heels, like the rest of the shoe, are distinctly different and so no other heel in the other sizes could have made that impression.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were you able to determine whether these shoe prints were made with a shoe that was manufactured on that precise mold that you saw at the Silga factory, the 46 mold?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it was--it had to have been made in that mold. There would be no other mold like it. So it was made--the shoe that made the impressions that I have addressed here, Q107 and Q68, were positively shoes that came from the Silga mold size 46.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I was going to move on to another topic now. Do you want me to do that, given that it is only 25 minutes after the hour?

THE COURT: Well, I will leave to it your discretion. Counsel, do you want to forge ahead or do you want to take a break at this point?

MR. GOLDBERG: Perhaps we could take a break with the Court's permission.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are go going to take our mid-morning recess at the time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess for 15. Mr. Bodziak, you may 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. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us? I take that as a no. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please. Mr. Bill Bodziak is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, were you provided with any item in order to determine what the Defendant's shoe size was?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what were you provided with?

MR. BODZIAK: I was provided with a pair of Reebok shoes that the Defendant wore.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, it would be 384 for identification. And I'm going to write a 384 on the exterior of the package, the package and its contents of what appear to be Reebok tennis shoes.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 384 for id = Reebok tennis shoes)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 384 for identification, can you remove the item from that package and tell us what you're doing?

MR. BODZIAK: (The witness complies.) 384 is a pair of Reebok shoes, white in color, what I would call a low profile that were represented to me as the shoes of the Defendant.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what did you do with those Reebok shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: I made measurements of the exterior length of the sole as best I could without cutting the tops off. I made measurements of the inner length of the insole and I made a direct physical comparison between them and a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: What size did you determine the Reebok shoes to be?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, the Reeboks are labeled U.S. size 12.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in making a determination of the Defendant's shoe size, could the--why not just measure the Defendant's feet instead of doing this?

MR. BODZIAK: Because of the factors of personal preference of fit and other factors which come into consideration, measuring the feet would not be the most accurate way of determining shoe size.

MR. GOLDBERG: In terms of getting an idea of personal preference and fit, did you write a letter to Detective Lange and Vannatter about wanting another search to take place in order to inventory all of the Defendant's shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that that you wanted that?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I thought it would be more thorough to look at all of the shoes. But the shoes I had I did make a comparison of.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is this a fair comparison between the Reeboks and the Bruno Maglis?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you need to have the complete inventory in order to render certain opinions as to whether or not the Defendant would be a candidate for having left the shoeprints at the Bundy crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry. Could you rephrase that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you need to have additional information other than what you have right now in order to be able to render an opinion as to whether the Defendant could have deposited the shoeprints at Bundy?

MR. BODZIAK: That he would be a viable candidate?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: No. What I have is sufficient.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, can you show us in terms of a demonstration here what you did to compare the Reeboks to the Bruno Magli shoes that you had?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I had a size 12 right Bruno Magli shoe, the one which was from the original shipment from Bruno Magli in New Jersey that Mr. Peter Grueterich had provided to me, and that is marked 12 in--U.S. 12 and was the shoe that was made on the American 12 last with the 46 sole. And I took this shoe and made the same linear measurements of the outer sole and inner sole and found that they were within a couple millimeters of one another. Essentially they were the same. And I took the shoes and, matching the heel and the toes, compared the dimensions of those shoes and found that they were of similar construction and were for all practical purposes identical in the size and shape features. In other words, the person wearing one certainly would be a candidate for wearing the other. When I say the construction is similar, I had mentioned that the Bruno Magli shoe was what's called a cup sole. In other words, it's a--I guess because it could hold water, it comes up around the edge, and you--that particular type of shoe construction in this case was compression molded, and with regard to the Reebok shoe, there's also a cup sole. In this case, it's cut down in the midline of the shoe on the medial and lateral portion of it. And that's referred to in the industry as a half cup sole, but the construction is the same. And this also would be compression molded and it would--the sole would be molded separately and the upper would be lasted and lowered down and glued and stitched to the out sole. So these shoes are viable for a comparison in terms of the dimensions and the shapes of them.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you said you also did the linear interior measurements.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And for the record, your Honor, when he was doing his demonstration in court, he held the Bruno Magli size 12 which--shoe which comes from the box 375 up against the Reeboks which comes from the bag and its contents, which was 384 for identification, held them together with the soles, and they appeared to be the same dimension.

THE COURT: So noted.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in your book, footwear impression evidence, did you discuss any materials relating shoe size to height?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you also do a study yourself of that issue?

MR. BODZIAK: I did a study which was concerning the bare feet impressions and bare foot dimensions of people, and part of that study reflected a chart which related the size of a person's foot to their height.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'd like to mark as People's 385 for identification a page out of Mr. Bodziak's book, just the chart portion. It says "Height calculation chart."

THE COURT: What page is that from, counsel?

MR. GOLDBERG: Let me double-check because I cut it off on the Xerox. It was in chapter 6, Mr. Bodziak?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: The first chart is on 175. Could we have this, your Honor, as 3--

THE COURT: --85.

MR. GOLDBERG: --85-A?

THE COURT: 385-A.

(Peo's 385-A for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: And I wrote a 385-A on the piece of paper.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I would like to show you People's 385-A and have you identify that for us. We're going to project it up on the screen. I think you have a--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's supposed to be a 385-A, your Honor, that I wrote on there. Looks more like a 383.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, what is that?

MR. BODZIAK: This is a chart entitled, "Height calculation chart." It reflects a study conducted by inspector Mike Cassidy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and it was first published in his book in 1980.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in terms of his study, what findings did he make regarding a size 12 shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: This particular chart was to relate the range of height of people in his study to a shoe size; and for the size 12 shoe, he has the range of height as six feet to six foot four inches.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that's indicated on the chart where he has six feet to 6/4 and then right underneath, there's a 12. It's the third item down from the right?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if we could mark as People's 385-B for identification Mr. Bodziak's chart which is on page 174 of his book.

(Peo's 385-B for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you what we've just marked as People's 385-B for identification, do you recognize this?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is it?

MR. BODZIAK: This is a chart which I prepared as part of the survey of a total of 500 people, 399 which were males, and it reflects the correlation between the shoe size of a person and the height of that person.

MR. GOLDBERG: And does one of the lines on this chart pertain to an American size 12 shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can we zoom in on that perhaps? All right. Well, now we don't really have any reference point.

MR. GOLDBERG: But with respect to your study, sir, what findings did you make with respect to the height of men that wear size 12 shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: The height range was 71 to 77 inches.

MR. GOLDBERG: 71 being 5/11?

MR. BODZIAK: 5/11 to six foot five.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, have there also been studies that have been done related to what percentage of the American population wears a size 12 shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what findings have been made along those lines?

MR. BODZIAK: There's a group called footwear market insights which publishes their study of approximately 260 to 300 million pairs of shoes sold in this country, and they break down the various shoe sizes and widths of the shoes sold, and this is produced for the footwear industry for their use.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what percentage wear size 12 shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Counting all of the shoes sold, a general percentage is slightly over 9 percent for size 12.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did they have a breakdown with dress shoes as opposed to casual shoes and so on?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they did.

MR. GOLDBERG: It was a very slight difference?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. There was like .1 to maybe .4 percent depending on whether it was an athletic shoe or formal dress shoe or a woman's shoe or something.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to the items that you looked at from the Bundy location, did you actually see footprints at Bundy or did you look at them and analyze them through photographs?

MR. BODZIAK: I looked at them through photographs.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it common for you to analyze footprints using photographs?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are there problems that you've encountered generally speaking?

MR. BODZIAK: There can be problems with photographs if the photographs aren't taken properly. If the photograph is out of focus, if there's no scale in the photograph, if the photographs are taken at a sharp angle, then of course, the ability to interpret and make a direct physical comparison is hindered. And so in that respect, photographs, if not taken properly, can be a problem.

MR. GOLDBERG: How common is it for you to have difficulties in trying to make interpretations from photographs that are submitted to you by a variety of law enforcement agencies?

MR. BODZIAK: It's not uncommon at all for us to get photographs that are far from what we would like to have.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in terms of the photographs that you were provided by the Los Angeles Police Department that were taken for comparison purposes, what was the quality of those photographs in terms of being able to do a comparison?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I--the photographs that were taken of the footwear impressions at this scene were taken in a prescribed method in as much as they were taken from directly over top with the film plane parallel to the ground. They were taken with a linear scale such as a ruler with a finely divided scale on it, and that would be for use to enlarge those photographs back up to the natural size, the exact size that those appeared at at the crime scene. And they were taken all in focus. All of the ones which I saw were in focus, and they also used both color and black and white with--which in regard to blood impressions, is often very useful to have both because in some instances, the color will assist the interpretation of the photograph.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were there any photographs that captured footprints that were not taken in that manner? In other words, that were not for comparison purposes, but just happened to capture a footprint?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. There was one--there was one photograph which I had enlargements made of which was on the step, one of the steps near the front gate, and that was taken at an angle with a--without a ruler next to the impressions. And I don't think the intention when that photograph was taken was necessarily for those impressions, but it's the only photograph I saw those depicted in. And then there were some other impressions which were photographed going down steps near the back of the walkway, and those were not really full impressions of any comparison value, but rather just rubbings of blood over the corner of the steps. And so it wasn't essential to have them taken in that method.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you eventually visit the crime scene on February the 15th of this year?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you go alone or with someone?

MR. BODZIAK: I went there with Dennis Fung and with Vic Patrozoni.

MR. GOLDBERG: For what purpose were you going there?

MR. BODZIAK: I went there to take the photographs, the natural size photographs I had of those footwear impressions to confirm the orientation. In other words, the direction, east versus west or north, direction they were heading and determine for preparation purposes of a chart the tiles that they were on or the various steps that they were on.

MR. GOLDBERG: And were you able to do that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what did you do when you were at the crime scene in terms of looking at the photograph and the crime scene in order to determine that relationship? Were you looking at tiles or--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: --what?

MR. BODZIAK: Because of the irregularity of the tiles, the concrete tiles and cracks and blemishes in the surface of the concrete and the steps of the tiles, it was very easy to confirm precisely which photograph came from which portion of the sidewalk.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, before getting into the Bundy crime scene in a little more detail, do you also have a chart that's been prepared to show generally speaking how footprints can be deposited at a crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I'd like to mark as People's next in order a chart that's entitled "Footwear impressions after stepping in liquid." That is going to be People's 386 for identification, your Honor?

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 386 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to the chart that we've just marked as People's 386 for identification, the top portion, can you describe for us what that's showing?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The top portion is an artist's rendering of what occurs when a person tracks or walks through liquid. And liquid could be water, liquid could be blood, liquid could be grease or any--oil or any other type of opaque material which would adhere to the shoe and then be laid down as the person took the next succession of steps. And what this depicts and what actually happens is, the first step after leaving this liquid, the impression is very dark because it has a fresh coating of this material on it. And as the foot presses down, it presses that liquid out to the different edges of each design element and therefore removing some of that liquid from the surface. So the next step that would be taken with that foot would be lighter. It would not be--would not have as much material in it, so it would be lighter. And eventually as you continue the walk, there will no longer be any impressions being left because all of that material will be off the flat surface. The surface that normally touches the ground will no longer have that material on it. There may be--in the case of blood or water or any other lipid liquid, there may be other material up in the cracks and crevices and the little edges, but not on the surface that typically leaves the impression.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of the impressions that we have here under where it says, "The detail--the degree of detail retained in the impression varies," did you create those test impressions?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I assume you didn't use blood in--

MR. BODZIAK: No. I used a blue color latex paint.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, on occasions, have you made impressions that were actually in blood, test impressions?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I make them all of the time for classes which I teach where we then enhance those impressions in blood and also to demonstrate what I've just described where the impressions get slightly lighter and eventually disappear.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on these three test impressions that you made, were these consecutive? In other words, was the one on the left-hand side of diagram no. 1, the one in the middle, 2, and the one on the right, 3, or were there ones in-between?

MR. BODZIAK: No. This particular chart, this is a computer scanning of the actual--of a photograph, black and white photograph of the actual impressions, the low one on the left being no. 1 for the right foot, the one in the middle being the second time the right foot struck the ground and the one on the right being the third time the right foot struck the ground.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an estimation as to how quickly footprints in blood may disappear to the point where you wouldn't see anything that you could recognize as a shoeprint, you might just see lines or squiggles or whatever?

MR. BODZIAK: There will be things that cause variables, that is the porosity of the surface, the amount of blood that's initially stepped on, whether it's a pool of blood or whether it's blood that has already been coating the surfaces, is rather flat, which wouldn't be as three dimensional. But if there's a heavy coating of blood, it normally disappears in approximately six to 10 steps.

MR. GOLDBERG: What was porosity?

MR. BODZIAK: The amount of absorption and pores in the surface. This countertop would be nonporous. It would be very smooth, and a very porous object, of course, would be a sponge, and concrete or concrete tiles are very porous and they would absorb the liquid and therefore cause it to dry quicker.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you were making the test impressions, is this on a porous surface or a relatively non-porous--

MR. BODZIAK: It was on a rough--a rough piece of paper, not a smooth finish paper, but a piece of brown craft paper that you would use for wrapping.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you indicate for us using this chart the kinds of problems that you can confront in terms of patterns appearing different than they really would on the shoe as a result of the blood bleeding over or other kinds of problems that you might have along those lines?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. May I step down?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. If I can use the sole as well as the picture. I mentioned before the individual design elements, which are these little designs that together make up the total pattern on the shoe (Indicating), and I also mentioned the slightly raised perimeter, which confines the design elements in the sole as well as that slightly raised perimeter which confines the design elements in the heel. And that perimeter and these design elements, if you look at the shoe from the side, will both touch the surface if the surface is flat. The outer perimeter is raised. It's actually above the level of the ground, but it's very, very close. So if there's a lot of liquid such as blood on this outer perimeter, depending on the amount of blood and depending on the pressure exerted in a particular shoe impression, you may get this secondary perimeter, which on the first impression here is almost complete around the heel and is also in other portions of the sole, the top left corner. You also--because there's a lot of material on the shoe with the first step, there's also more of a printing of the flat surface of the design element. In other words, the actual pattern of design element. But you can see darkened edges which represent that material being squeezed out. And this is known as a squeegee effect where the pressure is causing this material, whether it be blood or paint, to squeeze out to the edge of the design element. And the same would also be true where there's excess blood in other areas such as the perimeter. This would squeeze out. In the second step, there's now going to be less material on the sole, and most of the material on the flatter surfaces of the design element has been squeezed away. So it is very thin.

But where the edges are where that material has been squeezed out to it, your surface tension will remain. You will get more of a printing of the edge characteristics of the design element, and except in areas where--for instance, there are a couple here where you do see a filling in of the design--you're basically getting the edge characteristics and you're getting less of the perimeter because there's less material on that secondary outer edge. The third step, again, you're getting some partial outer edge, but now you're really getting just the perimeter of the design element. And in areas now where I'm now pointing to now down in the sole area, but on the heel side, you're starting to get just little speckles and portions, perhaps little corners or edges of that design element. And then the succeeding steps, you would get less and less until eventually you would not be able to recognize this as this pattern.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that why, when you're looking at an impression at a crime scene, certain features of the design characteristics might not be apparent or might look a little bit different?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. If you were looking at this impression or perhaps the next impression that would be made, it might not look to you--if you weren't--if you weren't trained and experienced in looking at this, it may superficially look like a different pattern initially.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Perhaps we could pass around that sole--I think it's the 46 sole that he has, your Honor, which was 379--while this chart is up so they can get a better idea--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bodziak, hand that to juror no. 1, please.

(The exhibit was passed among the jurors.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I could mark some exhibits while we are waiting. I don't know whether the Court wants to do that.

THE COURT: Well, we're just about done. I would like the jury to have their undivided attention.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you retrieve the sole from Deputy Russell.

(Mr. Goldberg complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were talking about how when you went to the Bundy location, you were going out to compare the photographs to the tiles at the location. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that was for the purposes of creating a chart?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, that would be 387 for identification. It's actually a two-part board, your Honor. So maybe we should mark it 388--387-A as the first section and B as the second.

THE COURT: All right. So marked.

(Peo's 387-A and B for id = two-part board)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, perhaps with the Court's permission, we could use this chart closer to the jury because--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: While they're doing that, maybe I can mark as People's next in order a series of photographs of what appear to be shoeprints from the Bundy location as 388, a photograph that's Q68, as 389, a photograph that's Q67. And then, your Honor, there are a series of photographs that are a through P. they already have the letters a through P on them I would like to mark as 390-A through 390-P, photograph that has the letter S on it as 391, X would be 392, Y would be 393, Q116, 394. And there's only one unlettered item, and I'd like that to be 395.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 388, 389, 380-A through 390-P, 391, 392, 393, 394 and 395 for id = photographs)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey, can you see this? All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, directing your attention to the chart that we've just put up of what appears to be the Bundy location that's been marked as 387-A for identification, do you recognize what this shows?

THE COURT: You have to ask him to step down because I think the angle is too--

MR. GOLDBERG: If you can step down.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And the legend of this is on the other side of the chart; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what the color codes mean and starting with the purple shoeprints?

MR. BODZIAK: The purple shoeprints such as is indicated here in B (Indicating) represent the right foot, the right foot impression, and the pink or red, whichever you choose to call it, as represented by D as an example, are the left footprints, and the medium color blue sort of without a footprint shape to them, those represent ones which were too indistinct. In other words, the impression had worn down to the point where they were too indistinct to attribute to either that design of shoe or to a particular left or right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And, Mr. Bodziak, is this the chart that you were referring to when you were talking about how you went out to the crime scene with Mr. Fung?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Your Honor, I'm going to pause for a moment just to let counsel--they want to get a closer look at the chart.

THE COURT: Certainly. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, when we were previously talking about the shoeprint comparison chart, were some of the items that you referred to on that chart represented on this Bundy chart as well?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they were.

MR. GOLDBERG: And which items were those?

MR. BODZIAK: They were 268, which was that left heel impression and the impression which is depicted with the letter E, which was also a left impression and which is further up the walkway.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe we can start then just very briefly with the Q68, if you'd like to, perhaps you can show us, showing you People's 388 for identification, what you did in terms of comparing that footprint. And since we've covered it, maybe you can just indicate for us how it was--in brief how you did it.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Q68 is the same heel impression which I've previously demonstrated with an overlay, and this just shows the natural size rendition of that with--which is what I would have compared with what I did compare with the actual original impressions that I made of the left and right soles from size 42 from 47.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was this the area of the scene that's--where you would enter into the gated-off or fenced-off area?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is the front gate which is running across the walkway, and Q68 is pretty close in the corner and it is headed in the direction of the arrow which is on the tip of Q68. So if I were to hold this up, it would be headed in this direction (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And actually the print was you said just a heel print; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: But on our chart, it has a full little footprint that's an icon?

MR. BODZIAK: Just to recognize left and right, we put a full foot on each of these charts.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And an arrow would indicate the direction?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, perhaps we can move to People's 389 for identification which is your number Q67?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what you did in terms of comparing that print?

MR. BODZIAK: Q67 was compared in the same manner using the original natural size enlargement and original overlays of test impressions of all of the shoe sizes. And with regard to this, I determined that although there was a tremendous amount of indistinction in here, there were some features which correlated with the size 46 left heel impression, and then the sole impression of that would be running off into a soil area, and there's no evidence of any detail in that area on the soil. And adjacent to that is a white envelope.

MR. GOLDBERG: So what was the opinion that you rendered with respect to this item, this Q67?

MR. BODZIAK: Q67 corresponded also with the heel of the size 46 or American size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the Silga sole that you--

MR. BODZIAK: With the Silga sole, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, what kinds of variables are involved in determining whether you're going to get an impression on the dirt?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, any surface has to have--well, when we talk about the 3-dimensional surfaces such as soil and sand and snow, any of those surfaces will have to have--be fine enough in terms of, we all know that sand is a very fine material, and if you step in sand, you will depress it; and if it's dry, it will flow back together, it won't leave a very good impression, and if it's wet, it's a fine enough granulated material to in most cases leave an impression. With regard to soil, there is a more mixture of material that can be anything from rocks and mulch to hard clay soil to muddy soil to dry soil, and the fine particular material that's in any piece of soil may allow for the reproduction of the sole or it may not. It may--it may show some compression, but absolutely no detail of the shoe that made it or you may get a very good impression as well.

MR. GOLDBERG: Such as depends?

MR. BODZIAK: Depends on the soil wherever the foot steps.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in this case, you're saying that there doesn't appear to be any recognizable footprint in the soil area?

MR. BODZIAK: There's an area which looks just to be a little flat, more flattened out, but there's no detail that can be seen in this area of the soil that's on the photograph that corresponds with any design at all, much less this design.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to People's 390-A for identification, your letter--excuse me--LAPD letter A, can you tell us what you did with respect to that comparison and show that to the jury?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Again, using the natural size photographs and the--I mean, the original overlays, test impressions of the shoe as depicted in this demonstrative display, I found the characteristics in this impression corresponded only with the sole of the left size 46 shoe. And this is marked a and the orientation of that is west slightly angled toward the south, but--but in a somewhat westerly direction on the step as denoted here by a.

MR. GOLDBERG: So that's the second step?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe you can just walk down here a little bit and show the jurors that item and then with the overlay removed and back--and flip the overlay back and forth.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Bodziak.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, incidentally, on some of these photographs, I've noticed little tiny red arrows that are on the photograph itself as opposed to the overlay.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I put a few of those on each one because it shows the variety of characteristics that are reference points I used. Some of the impressions, as in the case of the first impression I showed, actually show the entire shape of the design element whereas others, you just have a slight fragment of a corner or an edge because it's--it's an impression where the blood has been squeezed out on prior steps; and I put a few red arrows in each of these to help show the variety of these reference points that I used.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that so if someone wants to look at later on a couple of the route key, some of the reference points will be sort of highlighted?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are those all the reference points that you looked at?

MR. BODZIAK: No. There are others as well.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to People's next in order, it was 390-B for identification, LAPD photograph B, can you tell us what analysis you did on that footprint and what determinations you came to?

MR. BODZIAK: I used the same type of analysis. I compared the original impressions with natural size, a natural size photograph of this impression of size 42 through size 47, and I found the only sole which fit was the right size 46, European 46, and the orientation of this impression is as denoted with the arrow, and it is a B, is a right sole impression.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be going in the direction--in a westerly direction?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, it would.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe you can just very briefly walk that so the jurors can see.

(The witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, handing you People's 190-C for identification, LAPD C, can you tell us what comparison you did on that and what opinion you rendered?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. C is a right sole impression. It is--I also compared the original impressions of size 42 through 47 soles and determined that the only sole which could have made this was the right size 46 European sole. Attached to C is a transparency to demonstrate this. I marked the chart with a right foot labeled C, and that is headed in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. And now, directing your attention to 390-D for identification, LAPD D, can you tell us what comparison you did and what opinion you rendered on that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Again, the same type of examination with original impressions from soles 42 through size 47 against natural size picture of this sole, and I determined that the only sole which would superimpose over and fit this impression was a left size 46 sole. The orientation of the left impression D is also in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: And now showing you what we've marked as 390-E for identification. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinion you rendered on that?

MR. BODZIAK: E is the same item which was part of the two-time enlargement chart which I previously demonstrated with a much larger overlay because it would be easier to see and that--in the original examination, I used the original impressions of size 42 through 47 soles and determined that E was a left heel and sole and orientation-wise, I marked it as a left sole and heel on this board, labeled it E, and it is headed in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was that also the Silga 46 sole did you say?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It would only fit size 46.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--

MR. GOLDBERG: And that's American size 12 as you've previously--

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct. All of the 46 I'm referring to are American size 12.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I don't want to pass all of these around, but perhaps just one so the jury can get a closer look with the Court's permission.

THE COURT: I would probably pass more than one since they are of differing--

MR. GOLDBERG: They are of different qualities.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't want to take up too much time. I can do a few if the Court wants.

THE COURT: Why don't you select--it's your case.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Maybe I'll start with this.

THE COURT: If you're going to use more than one, perhaps you should start them going at the same time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. This is E that I'm passing around.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe I'll, just so the jury can just get a sense of what different impressions look like, pass F around at the same time, and then I'll ask him with regard to--

THE COURT: All right. Hand that to juror no. 7.

(The exhibits were passed among the jurors.)

THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at the sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're at the sidebar. I want to caution counsel on both sides there's too much talking going on by counsel over at the jury box on your end and you guys are over in the corner there talking to each other. I can hear you talking. And if I can hear you talking, the jurors can hear what your conversation is. You guys are too close to the jury box. If you want to talk with each other, consult, do it over at counsel table.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: I don't want any conversations while you're over at the jury box.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, at the lunch break, can we--

THE COURT: We're not breaking for lunch today.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MS. CLARK: We're not?

MR. COCHRAN: Whenever you decide to break, I just want to be able to show these various things to the client.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I looked at them for the first time. Okay.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Because he hasn't seen the bottom of his shoes in a while.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm not commenting on any personal comments, Judge.

THE COURT: Would you advise your co-counsel?

MR. COCHRAN: I will.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you collect those two items.

(Mr. Goldberg complies.)

THE COURT: And for the record, would you give me the number and letter identification of both of those?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. It was D and e.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, we already asked you about e; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to--

MR. GOLDBERG: Again, for the record, it was C and f.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to photograph F, can you tell us what analysis you did on that and what opinions you rendered?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. F is a right foot impression. I examined all of the sole impressions, 42 through 47, with it and determined that only the right size 46, American 12 Bruno Magli shoe would have made it with that sole.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you're looking at that impression, Mr. Bodziak, you can see down towards the heel, there's a portion where the blood appears to go over the overlay that you have.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What accounts for that?

MR. BODZIAK: The--two things can account for it. One is the angle of the heel strike and the other is the amount of blood in that area may be sufficient that at the point of that heel strike, it's squeezed out that distance from the actual strike of the heel.

MR. GOLDBERG: So is the fact that that doesn't exactly match up mean that it's not the shoe or in some way undermine the opinion--

MR. BODZIAK: No. This is a normal thing which I observe in impressions of this type, and what's important is that the various edges of the elements in the reference points match the European 46 right sole and are distinctly different from all the other soles which I compared.

MR. GOLDBERG: And thinking back to the chart that we had where we were shown how shoeprints are deposited at a crime scene and how successive shoeprints look different from the first to the third--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: --does that chart help to explain any of the phenomena that you just pointed out here in terms of why certain of the elements appear to bleed over if you will the--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, there's a lot of other things going on in this impression. There's a lot of blood still in this area of the heel (Indicating) and something has caused the left portion of the sole and heel not to print. And what that can be caused by is just the blood would not be picked up by that part of the shoe. In other words, the shoe would step in blood and only the right portion of the shoe would be stepping in. And then as that-- in this area, there's still stifling in the heel which you get typically when you have a lot of blood, and as the heel pulls away, it's--there's surface tension pulling it out and it interferes some with the pattern. And then over on the edges, you do get the borders and some of the edge detail and you get the perimeter and some of the other fragments of design up in the front. You also have the grout line which, as it runs through the--dissects the right sole print, because that grout line is recessed in the concrete walkway, the shoe did not contact that surface and, therefore, did not leave a print in that area.

MR. GOLDBERG: And incidentally, when a shoe--bloody shoeprint goes over leaves, does it tend to leave a shoeprint on the leaves?

MR. BODZIAK: If a bloody impression steps on a leaf?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: If everything was perfect, if there was--if there was blood on the design element in sufficient quantity and the leaf was laying flat and the person stepped on it, it would more likely stick to the shoe. I guess it could come off and leave some impression or fragment of an impression, but it is not a particularly good medium. I cannot think of hardly any cases where I have been submitted pictures of leaves that had shoeprints on it. In theory, I guess you could get some fragments, but it's not a good medium.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are some surfaces better than others for receiving shoeprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. A firm smooth surface would be the best, and any time you start to get grout lines or unevenness of the concrete tiles or real porous surfaces or other blemishes, all of those things would interfere with the impression-making process.

MR. GOLDBERG: Going back to E for a second, since the jurors had a chance to look at that up close, some of the items that you have the red arrows near seem to line up almost perfectly or perfectly and then there are other little areas that you can see where maybe the blood goes over where the pattern is. Can you explain that for us?

MR. BODZIAK: Are you referring to the front and rear of the heel?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, not so much that. But on some of the design elements in the middle, you can see that some of the design elements appear to be bigger on the impression that was left at the scene than the design element on the overlay although a slightly different shape.

MR. BODZIAK: That would be--that specific thing would be because of the squeezing out of the blood. So the design element--if the piece of paper which I'm holding in my hand, exhibit E, was the design element and had blood on it, it would squeeze blood out beyond that edge and then the blood would stay on the surface. So if you consider that on both edges, top and bottom and left and right, the overall element size would be reflected as larger than the actual shoe element that made it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was that one of the things that you were showing us on the shoeprint chart where we had how shoeprints are deposited at crime scene and show how they fade out?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I refer to that as a squeegee effect which is actually a printing term which we use in documents from the older printing process.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to 390-G for identification, can you show us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at on that?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. The exhibit marked G is a left sole impression. In the rear of it, the heel is much more limited detailed than the sole portion and the heel crosses over the grout line. I compared that to the original impressions of size 42 through 47 and found that it only fit the European size 46 left sole. The item G is marked as a left impression and is heading west on the chart.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, so I don't have to ask this question over again, on a lot of the other photographs that we're going to discuss, are there also ones that have the squeegee effect that you've referred to and some of the other phenomena cause certain of the design elements or characterizations not to line up perfectly?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That is typically what you find in blood impressions almost all of the time. The only way that you could in theory get a blood impression that printed like the test impressions I've showed is if you took a roller like a paint roller and very thinly coded shoe and made one impression. Then you might have such a thin coating that you wouldn't have that squeeze out. But, of course, that doesn't happen at crime scenes. And so whenever a shoe has to step in a large amount of blood to then leave a track, there is that excess blood which squeezes out and these types of things are normal.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now directing your attention to 390-H for identification, LAPD photograph number H, can you tell us what you did to analyze that and what opinion you arrived at?

MR. BODZIAK: S is a left heel and sole impression and it is also dissected by a grout line and it is--I compared the natural size photographs of H with all of the soles, size 42 through 47, and found that only the left size 46 sole matched this impression. H is depicted on the chart as a left impression also headed in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: And now directing your attention to 390-I for identification, can you tell us what analysis you performed and what opinions you arrived at?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I is a right shoe impression, both the heel and the sole. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles and found that the size 46 characteristics, the European size 46, were the only ones which corresponded with this. This particular heel impression has a lot of excess squeeze out around the back of it and there is a very, very fine line that you can see from the edge of the heel, and this excess area which is void of any pattern is a squeeze-out effect due again to the amount of blood on the shoe and the angle of the heel at that point. So based on this, the size right 46 is the only sole that could have made it on the chart, I is a right shoe impression and it is heading in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to 390-J for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions if any you arrived at on this?

MR. BODZIAK: J is an impression, is a left sole impression. There is no heel depicted other than a slight staining here, but it's not enough to confirm as a heel. So looking at just the sole pattern alone of this impression with the size 42 through 47 left soles, I determined that the left size 46 contains characteristics which--some of which I've pointed to, indicating that the 46 sole of a left shoe left that. J is marked with a left sole shape and is headed in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: So does that mean that this was the Silga sole or just that it's consistent with--

MR. BODZIAK: No. It was the Silga sole, size 46.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, looking at 190-K for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at on k?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. 190-K, the chart that is marked K, was an area of blood which you could clearly see the blood, but in looking for features that I have looked for in the comparisons that I have demonstrated that would be associated with this sole, there was insufficient detail in this impression to make any correlation. In other words, the impression is now becoming--this way down the side--the walkway is becoming light enough to where there is no longer enough detail in this particular one with all of the variables considered that would enable me to associate it positively with a left or right Silga sole.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that's why it's in blue on our--

MR. BODZIAK: That's why it's in blue and because I could not associate it with a particular sole as would be the case with some of the other ones marked blue, I can not orientate its direction. In other words, I cannot tell what direction it's going in.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is there anything about this that was inconsistent, in other words, that would allow you to illuminate the Silga sole as having deposited--

MR. BODZIAK: There is no pattern or evidence of design or anything in that impression which would have been different or of another shoe. It simply did not have enough detail to make any association with the Silga sole.

MR. GOLDBERG: And incidentally, are there occasions where you can look at a shoeprint I take it and say this did not create the impression that--

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, absolutely. Yes. The obvious one is, if it's a different design, it could not have been made by a different designed shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to 390-L labeled as LAPD L, can you describe for us what analysis you did on that and what conclusions you reached?

MR. BODZIAK: L is a--both a heel and sole impression. I made a comparison with the size 42 through 47 soles and determined that only the right size 46 heel and sole could have made that. When I orientated with the direction of this impression--and this L is a right sole marked so. The direction of this was in a--let's see--was in a southerly direction actually coming out of an area of soil that parallels that sidewalk.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that like a soil planter over there or place for shrubs?

MR. BODZIAK: There's two or three feet of area as depicted on this diagram that contains some plants and soil.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in that particular area right around where we have L, is there any object in the planter area in terms of shrubbery that you took note of when you were out at the scene?

MR. BODZIAK: The only thing I noted at the scene, and you couldn't help but note it, at the time I was there, which was several months after this took place, there was a tree which was hanging well over the sidewalk at that point, and I made it a point to check the photographs which were taken after the crime--

MR. GOLDBERG: On the 13th?

MR. BODZIAK: --on the 13th of June. And at that time, that tree was standing normally and straight up, and, therefore, this was something that occurred afterwards and was insignificant.

MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your observations when you were out at the crime scene, if someone were to stand in that area facing in a southerly direction as indicated, would the shoeprints--are they visible from the street?

MR. BODZIAK: Where they're standing here, they are because they would be in line of somebody standing out on the street. But back in the soil area, if they were just to step back into this area, even though there's no real cover there in terms of bushes, because of this high wall and the other obstructions, a person standing back here would not be able to see them (Indicating). They would be out of the line of sight.

MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, if they were standing a little bit back of--in the--of M where the soil areas is?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if you're facing--if you're standing in that location and you're facing a southerly direction, where is this tree that you referred to? Is it--would it be to your left or to your right?

MR. BODZIAK: No. It's pretty much in the center around M and L. somewhere right in there. But it's a very thin tree. I mean, it's not going to obstruct a person from standing in there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, direct your attention to 190-M for identification--

MR. COCHRAN: 390.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me?

MR. COCHRAN: 390.

THE COURT: 390.

MR. GOLDBERG: 390--sorry--m for identification, LAPD M, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinion you arrived at?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. M is a sole print. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles. I am of the opinion that the size 46, European size 46 sole, which would be the American 12, was the only sole that could have made that and those features matched. I orientated this at the Bundy location and found that M was also orientated in a southerly direction. So this is a left foot impression in the same approximate area as the right L foot impression headed in a southerly direction as if it were coming out of this area of soil.

MR. GOLDBERG: And direct your attention to 390-N for identification. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinion you rendered on that?

MR. BODZIAK: N is a heel impression. And at the top of the photograph, there is a part of the sole in that picture as well, and that is a heel impression which I compared with 42 through 47 soles and heels and found that the left size 46 or American size 12 made that impression. In orientating it at the scene, N is orientated as a left impression heading west along the Bundy sidewalk.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then 390-O for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at?

MR. BODZIAK: O is a portion of the heel and the sole impression. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles and found that it corresponded only with the European right 46 Silga sole. I oriented it at the Bundy scene and found it was heading in a southwesterly direction at an angle a little bit further west of L and M, but also as if it were exiting that soil area along the walkway.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then P would be another indistinct I take it from the--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it would.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just take a quick look at that. Can you just tell us with respect to 390-P, why you concluded that that was indistinct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. 390-P does reflect blood, and it was in all probability made by an item of footwear as common sense would dictate, but it does not contain any of the detail necessary to compare with the Silga sole, but at the same time, it does not contain any differences that would indicate it was a different design than the Silga sole, simply getting to the point where there is insufficient blood on the shoe to make an impression that's discernible.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or is there anything to indicate whether it would be a size European 46, American 12--

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: --as opposed to something else?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I couldn't make any determination from that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's go to footprint S for identification. That starts with another series of exhibit numbers. That's 391. Did you do an analysis on 391?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: What opinions did you conclude on that?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. S is a heel print--let me hold it this way--is a heel print that I compared to the 42 through 47 soles and found that it corresponded with the left European size 46 heel and did not correspond with any others and, therefore, was made by a shoe from the Silga left size 46 mold. I oriented that on the walkway and found that that heel was heading in a southwesterly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to People's 392-X--excuse me--392, which is LAPD X for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you came up with on those?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. S--I'm sorry. X is the heel and part of a sole impression, and in comparing it to size 42 through 47, I determined that only the left size 46 Silga sole could have made this impression. I oriented it on the walkway and found that X was heading in a due westerly direction.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, would this be a good point to take a break?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure. This is fine. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the lunch hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you regarding the case. And we will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. Mr. Bodziak, 1:00 P.M., please. All right. We're in recess.

(At 12:05 P.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1995 1:01 P.M.

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. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Miss Lewis. Good afternoon.

MS. LEWIS: Good afternoon, your Honor. Your Honor, I just filed a motion to quash subpoenas that were issued by the Defense on certain District Attorney personnel. I have talked to Mr. Bailey who expects to handle this a week from Friday. Does that suit your motion calendar, June 30th? Or this Friday, if it is all right with the Defense.

THE COURT: Friday.

MR. BAILEY: Fine with me.

THE COURT: Friday it is.

MS. LEWIS: The 23rd.

THE COURT: The 23rd.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. Anything else?

MR. GOLDBERG: No.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

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

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Mr. Bodziak, could you resume the witness stand, please.

William J. Bodziak, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Bodziak.

MR. BODZIAK: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Mr. Bodziak, you are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Will Bodziak, I think when we left off we were talking about the Bundy board and we had gotten up to exhibit Y. with the Court's permission can I put the board back up?

THE COURT: You may. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: If you would like to step off the witness stand again.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Showing you 390-Y, LAPD photograph Y, can you tell us what analysis you did on that and what conclusions that you reached?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Y is a full heel and some of the sole impression of a right shoe and I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles, both left and right, and found that was made in a right size 46 European Silga sole. I orientated the Y at the Bundy scene as a right impression heading in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, I would like to change to the other half of the Bundy board. It is exhibit 387-B for identification. And Mr. Bodziak, does that have some more footprints on which you were able to make a comparison?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to the exhibit that has been marked as People's 394 for identification and it says, "Q116" on it. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you rendered?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Q116 was an impression in the rear driveway area and it consisted only of the right border area of a shoe. In this case there are two parallel lines that curve for three or four inches, as well as an area up at the toe that would be associated normally through my comparisons as a toe-off, in other words, why the shoe would tilt forward and perhaps some blood up around the toe of the shoe might then be left. And in making a comparison I determined that the right size 46 test impression, particularly the inner and outer border along that area, were the same relative size and same contour, and when put in that position, this little toe-off area corresponded with the toe, so there is a strong indication that this is a right size 46 Silga sole as well.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So is this one in which you did not come to a definitive opinion?

MR. BODZIAK: I came to a definitive opinion that it was a right sole and that the characteristics which are evident there, namely, the two parallel lines, the inner and outer border along the right edge and the toe point up here, (Indicating), correspond, but there was not any of the remnants of the pattern as there were in the other impressions.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was there anything on this one that was inconsistent with the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: No, there was not, and the orientation of that was in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, if you take a look at this diagram, is there anything to account for why, given what you've told us about how footprints are generally deposited at a crime scene, you would have this Q116 footprint, but no other footprints represented on this half of the chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. May I take one of the soles to answer that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) As I had mentioned before, there is this raised perimeter which goes around the design area and there is also an outer perimeter which is a smoother corner and it is raised a little bit above the surface, but it is a very close to the surface. The blood could have accumulated in between this raised line and also be around just above what would normally touch the ground, this outer border, as well as around the toe, and if a person were to go along here and essentially there would not be enough blood, normal steps, to be deposited, but then came down this step or steps here, just that little bit of decline, a little bit more weight on that foot, perhaps at an angle like this as you would be coming down the step, could cause a few remnants of blood to then be deposited there. So this would not be unexpected to see that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And can we go back to the other half of the board, 395-B, but I'm going to want to come back to this again in a little while.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to show you the exhibit that we have previously marked as 395 and will you tell us whether you did any analysis on those two shoeprints and, if so, what conclusions you rendered?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This particular photograph was one which was not taken with a scale in it. It is representative of the area of the two impressions, one which is left heading westward and one which is a right impression heading eastward which are on the same step as impression number B, but on the opposite side of the step. And this can be seen in a general scene photograph, but none were taken with a scale in it from directly over top. These impressions are both very, very light and fragmented.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can walk up in front of the jury so that they can see these because these are a little harder.

MR. BODZIAK: Because there was no scale in the photograph and because it was taken at a slight angle, the best that I could do was to have an enlargement of approximately the size of the step made, and of course even if it was exactly the size of the step, because it would be at an angle, it would not be accurate, but just close enough to show--to demonstrate that where I've put the arrows there are some design features with regard to the Silga sole and both of these impressions. The one that is heading eastward, which is the left impression, has the double border and I've pointed arrows to that and it also has some slight angles from where the design intersects the perimeter at those angles, and there is also a corner which corresponds with the heel of the left shoe. And so you can see some design similarities between this very partial impression and the Silga sole.

MR. GOLDBERG: So it was your view that it was consistent with being a Silga sole or that it was the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: All of the features that I just mentioned, and which I saw in this impression, were consistent with the Silga sole and I did not see anything different about the shoe that would indicate it was a different design.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: On the bottom of this chart, that represents the left impression heading westward on the same step as B, and I've also pointed some arrows to that impression showing various fragments of the design elements that are associated with the Silga sole. And even though I have attached overlays to these, because the picture was taken at a angle and we have no way of knowing the accurate scale, these are merely to help assist for demonstration purposes the design elements on the Silga sole such as the parallel border and the angle of the design when it intersects the border.

MR. GOLDBERG: What was your opinion then with respect to the lower shoeprint, the one that is pointed in the westerly direction?

MR. BODZIAK: That the features that I saw in that corresponded with the Silga sole, but because there was no scale or no angle, I cannot associate it with a particular size Silga sole, but I don't see any crevasses that would be indicative of a different design.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, in addition to the photographs that we've specifically discussed this morning and this afternoon, were there some other photographs that you did see of some indistinct prints that we didn't specifically go over?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And a couple indistincts we discussed this morning; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the--the items that we just discussed, if you saw some crime scene photographs, do you think you could give us an indication of where in relation to the chart those crime scene photographs show?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would like to show some photos that have already been marked as exhibits for identification. And some of them were fairly graphic, about three of them. Do you want me to let you know when we get to those? All right.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I would first like to--do we have these on the--

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

MR. GOLDBERG: I would first like to direct your attention--this is the photograph that has the part of the shoe of Mr. Goldman in it. I don't know whether that was one that the Court--okay.

THE COURT: I'm sensitive to that picture.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That is exhibit 566 for identification.

THE COURT: 566?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 56-G, I'm sorry. We haven't gotten there yet.

THE COURT: Yet.

MR. GOLDBERG: I have a few more.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: We don't have the Court's operator for our elmo so Mr. Fairtlough is going to step back and turn that on.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Mr. Bodziak, maybe you can look back at the display behind you of People's exhibit 56-G and tell us if there are any footwear impressions in that exhibit that you can correlate back to our chart on the Bundy drive?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. In the lower right-hand corner of the display there is a heel impression and that heel impression is the same heel impression which was at the corner of the front gate which I had called Q68 on the chart, on the Bundy board.

MR. GOLDBERG: And on the Bundy board you had that oriented in a south--southerly direction but so it points to the west?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to the next exhibit which is People's--this is also a graphic photograph, your Honor--60 for identification. Are there any shoe wear impressions in that photograph that you can see and correlate back to our exhibit?

MR. BODZIAK: There are, but they are very hard to see in this photograph. The same impression that I just mentioned, is that the center of the screen about--just above the midline, and it is actually, if you were to extend the finger of the person pointing outward, it would point pretty close to it.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be q--

MR. BODZIAK: That would be Q68.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us the general area? If you can't see Q67, just tell us the area.

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. Q67 is located over near the envelope, again pretty much in the center of the screen. But a little bit to the left of the corner of the envelope, which is closest to the bottom of the screen, you can see some pattern and that is the area of the Q67 impression and it is oriented in such a manner that the front portion of the shoe would be over into the soil area.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the third photograph, your Honor, is also a graphic photograph. It is People's 45-B for identification. Do we have that?

THE COURT: No. We have Mr. Fairtlough doing double duty today.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay, yes. They changed it while I wasn't looking.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, on 45-B, can you point out any other footwear impressions and correlate them to the Bundy drive chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On the second step in front of the area where you can see the toe of a white shoe, there is the impression which was called impression A, which was a sole of a left shoe, which was headed in the westerly direction. That would be on the second step.

MR. GOLDBERG: And now taking a look at 45-C for identification.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. In 45-C again first looking at the second step where the toe of the white shoe is, again you can see impression A, and then going up one more step, more toward the top of the picture where the leaf is, you can see what I have marked impression B, which is more to the other side of the step. And then coming toward this side, down toward the bottom of the screen, very, very lightly, you can see one of the--it is a right impression heading back down the step, very light, which is one of the last ones that I demonstrated. That is the photograph which I called Q122, which both contained both the left and right very light impressions and it was taken at an angle, not with the ruler.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, looking at People's 45-F for identification, can you tell us, generally speaking, what shoeprints or shoe impressions are indicated in this photograph with respect to the chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, we skipped a few feet since those steps, but it is basically down this walkway that impressions E, F, G, H, I, so forth as you look away off into the distance heading in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: And there was a part of your testimony this morning where you were testifying about L and M and where they were in relationship to some shrubbery that you saw in photographs that were taken on June the 13th. Can you tell us where that shrubbery is?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. The shrubbery is the shrubbed area to the right of the picture, beyond the railing, and in about the center area of that shrub area is a tall, thin tree and that is the tree I was referring to that at the time I went was leaning across the sidewalk, but as you can see in pictures that I checked, it was in a normal position, and that area is a couple feet deep, and it is that area where that taller tree is kind of in the center of the shrubbed area on the right that the impressions L and M come out of.

MR. GOLDBERG: And were those impressions oriented so as to be west or toward the alley of the shrub or east toward Bundy drive?

MR. BODZIAK: The L and M were oriented, as you look at this picture, to your left which would be a southerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: South of the shrub?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: But were they directly in line with it or were they east or west?

MR. BODZIAK: Of which part of the shrub?

MR. GOLDBERG: Of the, let's say, the center where the trunk of it would be.

MR. BODZIAK: They are pretty much in the center area.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And there is a series of three steps that we can see in this photograph. There appears to be some sort of a metallic object up there. Where is that in relationship to our chart?

MR. BODZIAK: That would be up here beginning with S and T and u.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And then further back on that second plane of tiles would be where X and Y were as well?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you. You can resume the witness stand if you would like, Mr. Bodziak, at this time.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Do we need the board?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. I'm going to return to it in a little while, but we can take it down for a few minutes. Is it okay if we leave it there?

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were examining these various shoeprints that we have discussed at the Bundy location, did you take a look to see whether there were any wear characteristics on the shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what is a wear characteristic?

MR. BODZIAK: A wear characteristic is a general term for wear. It is the frictional forces acting against the sole of the shoe that cause that shoe, the rubber of the shoe, to wear away and in doing so the design or pattern of course will eventually change, and that change can also be noticed in the footwear impression. In other words, you can distinguish a new shoe of a particular design with ones which now have wear and which the design is beginning to change.

MR. GOLDBERG: What, if any, conclusions did you come along these lines in your analysis in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: All of the impressions that I examined from the Bundy scene which you could see the design clearly reflected a shoe that was in a relatively unworn condition. Umm, unworn to the extent that the design had not yet started to change.

MR. GOLDBERG: So was it either new or relatively new then, in your judgment?

MR. BODZIAK: It could be anywhere from new to moderate wear to where the shoe design was still pretty much intact and hadn't begun the change.

MR. GOLDBERG: By "New" I should probably clarify, are you talking about when it was purchased or just the wear, how frequently or often it was worn?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, when you are talking new, to me that means the shoe is relatively unworn. It could be a shoe that is several years old that just was never worn.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. Now, of any of the shoeprints that we've discussed that are distinct shoeprints, in other words, where you were able to label them as either a right or left with the pink or purple colors that we used to signify those, were any of those inconsistent with the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: No, none of them were. Everyone where you could recognize the design corresponded with the size 46 Silga sole, or in the case of those last two which were not--of which the photograph did not have a scale in it and it was taken at an angle and they were very faint, they I could associate with a Silga sole but not a particular size.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the distinct shoeprints, was there anything inconsistent in any of them with being European size 46 or American 12?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to the distinct impressions where I could make a determination of size, all of them were either a left or a right European size 46 and I could exclude sizes 42 through 45 and 47.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the indistinct shoeprints, was there anything to indicate that the indistinct shoeprints were made by a size of shoe other than 46?

MR. BODZIAK: Umm, well, I couldn't determine size from the indistinct prints. There was nothing to indicate that they were a different design. In other words, I could not see any design in those prints because they were so--there was such little blood, they were so faint, that I couldn't say it was or was not the design. I couldn't say anything with regard to your question.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to go back to the first part of the Bundy chart, which is People's 387-A for identification and direct your attention to a few of these indistinct shoeprints. Let's start with the one that was labeled K which you previously discussed. If you need to step down to--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, keeping in mind what you previously told us about how shoeprints are deposited at a crime scene, when you were talking about how they become fainter and fainter--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: --is there anything to indicate whether shoeprint K indistinct was from a design other than the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: There is nothing to positively indicate that because you can't see the design that is in that, it is too indistinct, but there could be inferences that it was not another design simply because in order to have a light impression from footwear in blood, out in this area, there would have to be some impressions preceding it that were sharper, because they had more blood on them, and so it would not be possible for a person to step in blood, leave no distinct impressions and then out in the middle here, (Indicating), which is somewhat away from anything, just leave one indistinct impression, unless it was the same shoe that was going down the sidewalk, the Silga sole, and leaving that faint--just a faint mark that you couldn't really examine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would your answer be similar with respect to the other indistinct shoeprints, for example, the ones that generally occur between O and A on this diagram?

MR. BODZIAK: Generally, yes. With regard to AH through AO, those are impressions where, if I might get the sole again, as you go down the step, the foot is just rolling over the corner of the step and it is squeezing out a little remnant of blood, and there is no real impression so to say those are just blood that are on the edges of the step, and so these I wouldn't really be able to comment upon, because they are not a typical impression. But nevertheless, since all of these preceding it are indistinct until you get back to the Silga soles, the deduction from that would be a strong inference that this was the Silga sole and the reason why these become indistinct was simply the blood had worn off insufficiently to where you could no longer see this kind of detail.

MR. GOLDBERG: So would it be a fair summary of what you just said--just going back to K for a moment for illustration purposes, that if that were of a different design, you would have expected to see a distinguishable or distinct impression prior to that time of that different design?

MR. BODZIAK: There would have to be other impressions that were darker, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. You may resume the witness stand.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldman, do we need--

MR. GOLDBERG: No, I can take this down.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in performing the analysis that you did in this case, did you also have occasion to look at some photographs of police officer--of the shoes of police officers?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to direct your attention to what we've previously marked as People's 73 for identification.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark as People's next in order, that would be People's 296 for identification--

THE COURT: How about 396.

MR. GOLDBERG: 396, what appears to be several photographs that were D.A. discovery no. 4381 and they are similar to 63--73.

(Brief pause.)

(Peo's 396 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'm going to show you what we've marked as 73 for identification. Can you take a look at that to see whether you looked at the pictures of those shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And now will showing you a series of six photographs that we have just marked as People's 396 for identification, did you also look at those prior to taking the witness stand today?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to these two exhibits, were you able to include or exclude the officer's shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location?

MR. BODZIAK: I was able to exclude those officer's footprints as having made any of the distinguishable, you know, the Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning. That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officer's shoes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And just for the record, the package of six photographs that I sent--just showed you, included Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let me just put them on the elmo quickly.

(Brief pause.)

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Can we just take a quick look at those.

MR. GOLDBERG: And Mr. Bodziak, can you confirm whether those are the ones that you saw and excluded. Can you just move those around so that we can see all four of them up front.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, are those four photographs, the ones that say "Phillips" up at the top and then "Fuhrman" and "Fuhrman" again at the bottom?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they are.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you turn that over just so we can see the reverse side.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the "Roberts" and "Roberts" photographs?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, that's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And look at those. I'm not going to ask you about all the ones in 73, but let's just look at Officer Riske's shoes. Can you pull back so we can see the name. Thanks. Did you look at these officers, the ones of Officer Terrazas--the pictures, and the pictures of Officer Riske?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. There was far more detail in what I looked at than what I could see here, but those are the same photographs.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And you excluded those?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in your experience have you learned about something or heard about something called stride or gait analysis?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what is that?

MR. BODZIAK: Stride or gait analysis is--a person's gait is the distance between their left and right and left and right footprints as they walk in a straight normal fashion. It takes into account not only the distance between each footstep, but the--if I might use these, the angle the toes are out when they walk. Some people walk like this, some people walk fairly straight, some--a few even walk toed-in, and so all of those characteristics, the angle of the toe in and toe out and the distance between the footsteps is what is generally referred to as stride analysis or gait analysis. This is not a tool which is used forensically for crime scene photographs, but one which is used by trackers, such as the border patrol, that track people from point a to point B, and they use this or have knowledge of this because when they first see the--the first few footprints that they want to then track, they will take a step and measure the angle and the arc and the distance that approximately falls between each of these footprints, and they will use that as an indicator of where they might find the next mark, whether it be a crushed leaf or a broken twig or something and that is how they track and they use that as an assistance in tracking a person from point a to point B. in a crime scene where there is close encounters and abnormal movement of people and struggles and other things going on, you don't have this normal walking from one point to another, so it is not useful as a forensic tool for personal identification of a person.

MR. GOLDBERG: In terms of figuring out how tall they were or how fast they might have been moving?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: In your experience is it in fact difficult, in the crime scene context, to try to use the stride or gait analysis to figure out exactly how they were moving or leaving the crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. It--it is--I have never had an indication or known of a case where for a close encounter at a crime scene, because of the erratic behavior and other factors, that could be useful, but it is only used for tracking purposes.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you say "Tracking," that is something is used to try to find someone?

MR. BODZIAK: If a child is lost in a state park, they may get a tracker to try to follow their footprints or if a person is coming across the border, or just I've had cases where trackers have tracked people from point a to point B, that--in other aspects of the case but not related to the close-in crime scene comparison.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, shifting to another topic, in addition to the footwear impressions that you talked about at the Bundy location, did you also look at some footwear impressions on items of evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And starting with the Bronco carpet, did you have occasion to see the Bronco carpet, LAPD item no. 33 for identification?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And where was it that you saw that?

MR. BODZIAK: I saw that at the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory.

MR. GOLDBERG: On what date?

MR. BODZIAK: I believe it was September 1st, 1994.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was anyone present when you saw it?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Present initially were Greg Matheson of the Los Angeles Police Department. There was two representatives from my laboratory to assist in the photography. Do you want the names of everyone?

MR. GOLDBERG: No, that is okay.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. There were two representatives of the Defense that were present and there were two other observers from the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory who stood in the background just to observe the procedure.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you see Mr. Matheson take any cuttings or samples from that item in your presence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, before getting into the photography of the item, just if we can put up the tail end of the Bundy board again--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, if we were to assume that there were a Bronco parked at the tail end in the alley area of the crime scene, given that we don't have any shoe impressions on this part of the board, other than 116, what would account for or explain how impressions could get on the Bronco carpet?

MR. BODZIAK: Could you--you are saying that the Bronco would be at the end of the driveway in the alley area?

MR. GOLDBERG: Right.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. And the blood would have been picked up back at the front gate area where the--the majority of the blood was? Okay. If I might use a sole again, as I have previously gone over, I believe before, the surface areas of the shoe that commonly come into contact with whether it be a tile walkway or the driveway, by that time the blood would have been worn off of those areas, and there also could be blood, though, up in the crevasses and grooves of this which had not yet dried or worn off. And so that if a person were to get into a vehicle with an item of carpeting, when they stepped on the carpeting you could have a situation where the blood, as the carpeting was pushed up into these grooves, the blood was pulled out and left on the carpeting, but it would not be the same kind of impression that you would get with a lot of blood on a shoe leaving a track such as we have discussed earlier today.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, excuse me for interrupting you. The jury has asked for a brief break.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a ten-minute comfort break. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will resume in ten minutes.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please. And we are still missing our elmo operator.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think I am going to use the elmo for the rest of direct.

THE COURT: That's fine.

(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. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand. All right. Good afternoon again, Mr. Bodziak. Mr. Goldberg, you may continue.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, before continuing with the Bronco carpet, I just wanted to clarify when we were talking about stride or gait analysis, was it your testimony that one of the things that made it easier for trackers to do this, that they are going over relatively long distances and seeing numerous shoe impressions, as opposed to a crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, that the tracking I was referring to was--the examples I gave were, for instance, a missing child in that state park. Obviously that wouldn't be just a few feet, it would be--could be miles, and the same would apply to the other reasons for tracking.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, getting back to the Bronco carpet, I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 397 for identification, another chart that is entitled "Bronco carpet."

THE COURT: Bronco carpet?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is a good title.

THE COURT: Catchy.

MR. GOLDBERG: Appropriate.

(Brief pause.)

(Peo's 397 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, perhaps you could step down, and using this chart, can you tell us what you did in trying to make an analysis to determine whether or not there were any footwear impressions on this item of evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On September 1st I came to the Los Angeles Police Department and examined this carpet and I was asked to attempt to enhance, that is, make it easier to see, the blood impression, particularly this area here, (Indicating), but any other area of the carpet as well, that might contain some blood and possibly a shoe impression. And by doing so I first treated the carpeting with what is known as a fixative and that is so that when the subsequent enhancement solutions contacted the blood, that is where it will not run away and just dissolve, but it will stay in its fixed position on that respective area of carpeting. I then treated the carpeting with luminol. Luminol is a material which reacts with a substance in the blood and it must be done in total darkness. And that was photographed. And when blood reacts with luminol you get a luminescence or a glowing in the dark, in layman's terms. And that was photographed. And then subsequent to that I treated the carpeting with a material called luco crystal violet, which also reacts with material in the blood, but which turns a crystal violet color, and that is now seen, since it can be done in normal light. That was photographed. And you can see the entire mat as well as the enhanced area. That is now seen as a dark violet area of staining and there is a lot of little drops, but also primarily this area here which is the entry point to the Bronco. In other words, if this door is opened, this is the part that you would step up into if you were getting into the car, into the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you look at that area where a person steps up into if they were getting into the Bronco?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. And after I treated the carpet with any chemicals at all, I examined the photographs which were taken immediately upon the acquisition of the Bronco, as well as the current condition of it, and you could see the reddish or reddish brown staining in this area, but not as clear as it can be seen now.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So both of the photos that we are showing here, do both of these show the carpet in its enhanced condition?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is after the total enhancement process to your right on the chart shows the whole piece of carpeting that had been cut out of the driver's side on the floor, and to the left is an enlarged area to natural size of this approximate area, (Indicating), the area where the feet would be, if you were sitting in a seat.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you now tell us, and if you need to use either an overlay or a shoe to do this, one of our shoe soles, can you tell us what you did in order to try to make a comparison?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, as I had mentioned before, before the break, the blood, after going down the long walkway to--across the driveway to a possible car that was parked there, would not have an imprint in it from the bottom of the shoe, like it would have further back up the sidewalk, but instead it would have had blood up in the areas or grooves of the shoe between the design elements and possibly blood that was wedged in crevasses between the perimeter or even around the edge of the shoe and would have therefore still survived that distance, that far along. And what I did was take a test impression in a transparent form, such as I have previously showed, and I tried to put it--position it different ways over the impression where you would normally step up and enter into the Bronco to see if I could get any of the features in this enhanced impression to correspond with the Silga sole, such as I had with the other comparisons that I made. And I was not able to make--take an overlay and actually reconstruct the exact position of that shoe to the point where I could say it was absolutely the Silga design and even go farther and say it was the same. There just wasn't enough detail and of course it is not representing the normal design of the case, but it is just wherever there happened to be some blood up in the grooves and wherever the carpeting had to go up, it just randomly whipped down the--

MR. GOLDBERG: So this would be in the negative area?

MR. BODZIAK: In the negative areas of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or the areas in the grooves, so to speak?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I did notice that there was this area here which could possibly have been a border of the shoe, and there also is some little what I call squiggles or little "S" shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear enough or reliable enough to make any kind of a positive determination.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you point out to the areas that you did just refer to and maybe draw in a little arrow, if you can do that without drawing over any significant portion of the photograph that would hide something that you needed to do in your analysis?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't you just draw a little red arrow and try to avoid any areas that were significant in terms of what you looked at?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. This area here, (Indicating), was the area that I referred to that might be the border of the shoe, and this area down here, (Indicating), where it changes direction, kind of like an "S" is an example of that possible--the negative area of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Stop for a second. Can you take the rubber shoe and describe for us how it is that that is possibly consistent with the sole of the Silga?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, the--I don't know how well this can be seen with the light, but the--if you follow the grooves between the design elements, they change direction, so there is gentle curves between those design elements, and that would be the area that would be--still might be some blood in it at that point back down the driveway, that far from the actual crime scene. And these little changes of directions that you can see down here, (Indicating), as well as this border, and you really can't see any of them clear enough to make an overlay, but you can see something that suggests that, but there is just not enough detail to absolutely say that that is representative of the Silga sole.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you going to point out a couple other of these design elements that were consistent with this sole?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I think that these--these in here, (Indicating), probably show it as well as any, and actually there is--there isn't enough clarity throughout this whole thing to really point to it and say positively that is what it represents, but rather you are seeing a change of direction and that is what you would expect if there was some blood here and the carpet tuffed up. But there is also the phenomena of when you get into a Bronco that is up rather high and you step up into it with your shoe, there is going to be some movement in getting into a vehicle, and because of the thick nature of this carpeting, I wouldn't expect to see, necessarily, a clear rendition of--at that point of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: So I couldn't eliminate and I couldn't positively associate it with the Silga sole.

MR. GOLDBERG: And just generally speaking, when we are talking about impressions on carpeting, what kind of problems are there or issues are there concerning whether you are going to get an impression on a carpet?

MR. BODZIAK: Carpet in general?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: If you have carpeting that is stepped on right after stepping in blood, you will get impressions, but not as crisp and clear as you would on a smooth surface or on the concrete walkway, and again, it is going to be a factor of how thick the carpeting is. If it is the indoor-outdoor carpeting that is very smooth and tightly woven, you will get a better representation of the shoe than if it is a very thick shag carpeting which will give you all sorts of problems in reproducing the design from that shoe, so you have those variables as well.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the 1st of September when you were at the Los Angeles Police Department and you saw this Bronco carpet, did you see some other items there that you later on analyzed?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you see specifically an item 86, Nicole's dress?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, before getting into some of the other items that you looked at in this case, Mr. Bodziak--and you can resume the witness stand.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you make any effort to assist law enforcement in trying to locate someone that might have sold the shoe to the Defendant, a Bruno Magli shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do in terms of that?

MR. BODZIAK: Initially I obtained the distribution records from Mr. Peter Grueterich, who is the owner of the Bruno Magli store in New Jersey that distributed the shoes in this case, and that listed all of the shoes in size 12 and 13 which were sent out or distributed in 1991 and 1992. The reason included size 13 was this request was made before I ever had any samples of the soles from Silga, and I was just, as I had mentioned earlier, making that general specific determination of shoe size, just with the measurement, whereas later on I would have only needed to ask him about the size 12. But I went and requested those and I also requested a list of 40 locations in the United States and Puerto Rico which sold these shoes, and I provided that information, along with photographs of the Bruno Magli shoes which he had sent me, and provided them to the Los Angeles Police Department and to the FBI office in Los Angeles for the purposes of looking for sales records at those stores of those shoes.

MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge was a salesperson located who could recall having sold a Bruno Magli shoe of either the Lorenzo or Lyon type to the Defendant?

MR. BODZIAK: No. To the best of my knowledge that was never done, because every store had a problem searching their records back that far.

MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge was any determination made whether or not these shoes were given to the Defendant as a gift?

MR. BODZIAK: That is a possibility.

MR. GOLDBERG: In the cases that you have analyzed you said many of the shoes are not recovered; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Specifically limiting yourself to the cases that you have analyzed where the shoe impressions are in blood, is it uncommon not to recover shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Shoes are an article of clothing which are very personal to most people, and they--after we wear our shoes for a while they become comfortable and we do not like to give them up, and in most of the cases I receive which do not have a lot of blood in that case, either because it is a burglary or a shooting and the person wasn't near the victim, we find the shoes, because the person sees no reason to get rid of them and they are really not conscious of the shoes. In homicides where a lot of blood is shed and the subject steps in the blood and leaves bloody shoeprints, it is very common to not only not retrieve the shoes, but the bloody clothing as well, because it is obvious to the person who committed the crime that the clothing and the shoes are well covered with blood and that that would be incriminating and they usually discard them. In some of those cases we will recover that material from a dumpster or something, if someone sees them place it there, and then of course we would make comparisons to associate it with any suspect, but in a lot of the cases we never recover the clothing.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, sir, with respect to the other items that you looked at, I would like to start with the eyeglass envelope which has previously been marked as People's 32 for identification, if I might approach the witness.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 32 for identification, can you unseal that telling us what you are doing for the record.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I'm going to--do you want me to tear the seal, the yellow seal?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I'm tearing the yellow seal and I'm opening the envelope and inside encased in plastic is a white envelope with a pair of glasses inside.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, did you look at the envelope, the shoe pattern, if there is one, on that envelope?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you hold it up so the jurors can see what you looked at?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The shoe pattern is down at the bottom center of the envelope on its edge.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are there any difficulties that would be encountered in terms of depositing the shoe impression on this kind of item?

MR. BODZIAK: Are there difficulties in--

MR. GOLDBERG: I mean, what kind of shoe impression are you going to get? A high quality impression, a not so high?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, you could get a reasonably good quality impression, depending on a lot of factors. In this particular case there is just a small partial fragment that is maybe an inch, inch and a quarter long, and representing just two of the design elements of the Silga sole, as well as the evidence of the double border.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were there enough design elements there for you to make any kind of a positive determination?

MR. BODZIAK: Only to say that the design on this envelope is similar to the components of the Silga shoe, but it is not large enough, it is too small to associate with a previous portion of any of the soles or to determine if it is a left or a right or a particular size.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. You may remove--you can replace that, if you like.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to item no. 86, which you first saw on September the 1st at the Los Angeles Police Department, did you have the opportunity to look at that in more detail at your laboratory?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry, which item?

MR. GOLDBERG: 86, the dress?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what, if any, analysis did you perform on the dress?

MR. BODZIAK: Umm, the dress was examined initially, just visually, then it was examined with various light sources not visible, ultraviolet and infrared range. And based on that screening under the different wavelengths of height, the dress was photographed with infrared film, and the reason for that was that the black color of the dress became very light and therefore the resultant blood impressions on the dress became relatively dark and were easier to see.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would like at this time to mark as People's next in order, that would be 398, a board entitled "Nicole's dress" or dress board LAPD item no. 86.

THE COURT: All right. So marked, 398.

(Peo's 398 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, maybe you can step down and illustrate for us what conclusions you drew regarding this and how you came to those conclusions?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. On the left-hand side of the chart is just a regular copy shot of the front of the dress, just showing what the entire dress looked like, and you can see how small it is in contrast to its regular size because of this ruler. In the center is a natural size photograph, meaning it is the actual size of the dress, again of the front of the dress, and in this area you can see in the center front an impression, and to visualize that impression, to further enhance it--

MR. GOLDBERG: Hold on for a second, Mr. Bodziak. Now, in the middle photograph are we looking at the front of the dress or the back or what portion?

MR. BODZIAK: We are looking at the front of the dress.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: There is a seam here, but it is the front of the dress. You can see the zipper going down the back.

MR. GOLDBERG: You said to enhance it you had to do something to it. What was that?

MR. BODZIAK: To enhance it, I photographed it with infrared photography and the result of that is the picture which is also natural size which is on the right side of the chart and it has now turned the or rendered the black color of the dress a very light color, but it has not had any effect on the blood on the dress and so the blood now appears dark.

MR. GOLDBERG: So basically this infrared has simply changed the contrast, so to speak, in order to be able to visualize this better?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The dress is recorded on the film as light and the blood is recorded as dark.

MR. GOLDBERG: What conclusion did you come to and tell us how you came to that conclusion?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I found three areas of a heel print on the front of the dress and those areas were the top left corner of a heel, the curved border, and the flat edge on the right of the heel, and I prepared an overlay over this to show those three features, because those features are also found on the left Silga sole that I have previously been describing this morning. Namely, because the cut-off nature of the medial side of the heel, the pointed nature of the left side, and the curve in between, those same features appear on the dress. The impression was too limited to make any further comparison, so I cannot say that it was made by a Silga sole, but I can say that there was an impression which did share those three features. Even though that is limited, they are there.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is this a shoe impression?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That is a heel impression.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in terms of a dress that is being worn by a person at the time that the shoe is impressed onto the dress, what kind of an impression are you going to get, given that a person is somewhat rounded?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, this particular dress is a stretch type dress so when it is worn it is a different size and shape than when it is just laying out like it is here, so even though these are natural size photographs of the dress, there is no way to reconstruct the exact--exact--excuse me--exact shape and size of this particular area. Nevertheless, the overlay of the--in this particular case, the size 46 heel, left heel, fits into the--as far as the point of the heel on the left and the cut-off area on the right fits that very well, but the curved area in between is a little distorted, which is very likely because of the stretching effect of the dress. So there is nothing here to suggest that this absolutely was the Silga sole of this size. There are other shoes that have curved heels and also cut-offs and points, but based on the limited things we can see, it could have been made by this sole as were the other impressions.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. And you can remain there because we are going to switch to another chart shortly. Mr. Bodziak, did you also have occasion to look at some autopsy photographs of Nicole Brown in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was there one photograph in particular which you looked at in order to determine whether there was a shoe impression on that photograph?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark as People's next in order, that would be 399 for identification, a board that says "Autopsy photograph of Nicole Brown." It is one that has already been introduced into evidence, one of them has. I don't know whether this is something the Court blocked out.

THE COURT: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: I think the Court is familiar with this.

THE COURT: Yes, it is. Mr. Bancroft, avoid this one, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, I direct your attention to 399 for identification. Are these two autopsy photographs that you saw?

MR. BODZIAK: The one on the left is one that I saw. The one on the right is an improved visualization of that same photograph.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is this another situation in which something was done to change the contrast essentially in order to bring out certain features so that they could be seen more readily?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to these photographs, can you tell us what you did to determine whether there were any shoe impressions on those depicted on the photographs?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the one on the left, which is the natural light photograph of the back of Nicole Brown, there is a contusion area, an area which is reddened in which I recognize as a contusion. This is something that I normally examine. And one particular part of that impression has a very, very straight line, and perhaps if I drew several little arrows so it would be easy to follow the line somehow, but I don't know how well it can be seen, but it is a very, very smooth line which would represent about the middle of the back of the heel or toe around about ninety degrees. And because of the straightness of that line, I would interpret that as being either a toe or a heel impression, the beginning of a contusion as a result of contact with the shoe and the skin.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you have been referring to the photograph on the left of this board which appears to be the unenhanced photograph; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would you like to use a pen or can we use an overlay for the purposes of illustrating what you just testified to?

MR. BODZIAK: Either one.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Your Honor, do you want these separately marked?

THE COURT: I think the overlay should be included as a sub item of 399, so we will make that--the overlay 399-A.

MR. GOLDBERG: Make it what?

THE COURT: 399-A.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. This is going to be hard to write on, your Honor. Actually I have two overlays. Can we make the larger one 399-A and the smaller one 399-B?

THE COURT: Fine.

(Peo's 399-A for id = chart)

(Peo's 399-B for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Fairtlough just gave me a pen that he says will write on this, so I'm going to place that on with the Court's permission, just to make it easier.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'm going to hand you what we've marked as 399-A for identification, and perhaps using the unenhanced photograph you can indicate for us by placing that on.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Is there some tape or something I can permanently--

THE COURT: Tape? Got it? Got it.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. With regard to 399-A, I place the curvature of the raised area, which is the inner border, the area which would apply most pressure to the skin, and I will place that over the curvature, okay, and that would be one--if it was the toe of a left shoe, this would be one way in which this curvature would correspond with the curved area in the toe of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: And now if you could take the smaller one, perhaps you could place this on in the position where the curvature would be represented on the enhanced version, but going the other way, since you are indicating it would be a toe or a heel.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. If it was the heel, it would have to be in the other direction, and so again--thank you--we will place the raised inner border of the heel over this and we will tape that to the photograph. And now by moving this up and down you can see how this curved area is very, very straight-edged, coincides with the same contour and general size and shape features of the curvature of the heel as well, so it is a very limited mark. But it does have two features that are important. One is that it is a very, very straight line. It is not like a rock or a stick or something that would be fallen on or would be an unnatural type of event, but rather something that is more likely to be a man-made object, such as a shoe, and the curvature of that does coincide with the curvature of the heel and toe. Even though that is limited, there is not enough other features to make any further comparison.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you can't say that that is from the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I cannot.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything inconsistent, though, with the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the only area that really can be relied upon is that curve, and there is nothing inconsistent about that curve, but there are no other features which are reliable enough to include in this.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, do you have some training and experience, over and above what you've already talked to us about, in the area of patterned injuries that you could just briefly relate, that is different from what you've already said with respect to shoeprints in general?

MR. BODZIAK: I have a lot of experience, because this is--the photographs of contusions from autopsies of victims is one of the regular types of footwear impressions which I have been trained to examine and have been training for over twenty years. In addition, I have listened to presentations of forensic pathologists, I have taken courses by forensic pathologists in blunt force injury and pattern injury, and have conferred with them on several occasions with regard to my observations and have found that mine and theirs agree as far as interpretation.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was one of the portions of your book dealing with patterned injuries in the case of shoeprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And Mr. Bodziak, perhaps if you could, could you show this board to the jurors so that they can see it a little bit better and point out to them the curved area on the enhanced photograph that you aligned it with the heel, just so that they can all see it.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. If I just hold this up--

MR. GOLDBERG: With the Court's permission, your Honor.

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. BODZIAK: And just walk this in front of the jury?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: Do you want me to flip it up and down?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, if you could.

MR. BODZIAK: I actually need an extra hand, but I will try to do this. The straight curved edge is this edge right here, (Indicating), and it coincides with the curvature of the heel. And the curved straight edge--I said straight edge. It is a curved edge but it is very man-made like, not rough, but very consistent, corresponds with that respective portion of the heel or in the case of the toe as well. This particular edge here, which may be a curved contusion from the heel, corresponds with this respective area of the heel of the shoe, (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Retake the stand.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Madam court reporter, quarter till?

REPORTER OLSON: (Nods head up and down.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm almost finished, your Honor.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, based upon your analysis of all of the items that we've discussed today, was there any indication that more than one pair of shoes was involved in this crime?

MR. BODZIAK: No, there was not.

MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your comparison of the Bruno Magli shoe with the Defendant's Reeboks, can you include him as a candidate who could have worn the shoes that created the impressions in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I could include him as a candidate for possibly having worn those shoes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I thought we agreed to take a brief recess at this point?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess to reset up some of the exhibits, and a few matters, so we will be in recess probably about fifteen or twenty minutes. All right. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Bodziak, 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. Mr. Bailey, has your client had an opportunity to review those items?

MR. BAILEY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Are we ready to proceed? All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(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've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Bodziak. You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. Mr. Bailey, you may cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Bodziak, in your book, you indicate that in many law enforcement departments, footprint impression identification is often a poor orphan even in the document examiner's corner, fingerprint guy's corner and so forth.

MR. BODZIAK: I don't think I used the term "Poor orphan," but I think I understand what you mean.

MR. BAILEY: No.

MR. BODZIAK: It takes second or third place to another discipline, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Have you worked directly with your counterpart at the LAPD in cases including this one?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have in the past.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what about in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: Worked in what capacity?

MR. BAILEY: Well, in an advisory capacity. How early in the game were you consulted in this matter? Can you tell me?

MR. BODZIAK: I was first--I first received the evidence I believe August 8th of 1994. I was advised that I would be receiving it a few days prior to that.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. So you had no input at all in the handling of the crime scene, et cetera?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Now, would you tell the jury the difference between a patent and a latent foot impression?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. A patent, p-a-t-e-n-t, foot impression is one which is visible to the naked eye, and a latent, l-a-t-e-n-t, foot impression is one which is invisible, cannot be seen by the naked eye.

MR. BAILEY: Is it possible for an expert to expose, as you showed us with the infrared on the dress, a latent footprint so that it becomes visible and photographable?

MR. BODZIAK: That's often possible, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And what about footprints that are made with the substance--leaving the impression on concrete as in this case being blood, are there ways to enhance the blood chemically with lighting, special photography in order to lift those prints as you might lift a latent fingerprint?

MR. BODZIAK: Primarily in this case, either through specialized photography or through chemical enhancement.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Had you been called to the scene of the crime and seen what you have before you now?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And this by the way is a reconstruction done last February, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: The--when I visited the scene?

MR. BAILEY: That exhibit that's standing vertically.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Might you not have been able to enhance some of the footprints which you could not identify by use of special techniques?

MR. BODZIAK: That would be possible.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Had you been called upon to do so, do you have the equipment and experience to have looked in the home of the victim, Nicole Brown Simpson, for any evidence of footprints going in and out or on the carpet and other places?

MR. BODZIAK: Bloody foot--

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant and beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Bloody footprints or any footprints?

MR. BAILEY: Any footprints.

MR. BODZIAK: Would I have the ability to look in the home? Of course.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And tell the jury, if you would, how these can be seen even though they may not be apparent to the naked eye.

MR. BODZIAK: You're referring only to the latent footprints then.

MR. BAILEY: Latent footprints.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Latent footprints--we're covering a large number of possibilities here, so let me list a few, and if you want--

MR. BAILEY: Right.

MR. BODZIAK: If--if you have a latent footprint, it denotes, one, it's not visible. And very often, it's not visible because the contrast of the material that's deposited by the shoe is--is--it's essentially the same color as the background it's on. For example, if a person has some residue or dust on their shoe and steps onto a light color tile floor, both the--both the impression and the floor, being so close in color and the impression being so thin, it simply wouldn't be able to be seen. But with either specialized lighting or with special lifting techniques, that impression could be further visualized. It could be either discovered or transferred to a black surface, which would then give better contrast. So with regard to possible impressions, you could go through an interior scene and, using techniques such as that, look in areas for footwear impression.

MR. BAILEY: Were you at any time furnished any footwear impressions of the interior of the Nicole Brown Simpson home to examine or compare?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Now, in the sketch we have pointed out--

MR. BAILEY: Let me put this up, if I may. With the Court's permission, I'm going to leave it here because the jury's already seen it. It doesn't block us off.

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. BAILEY: The question refers to this area here. You told us this morning that soil varied from place to place in its ability to capture and hold footwear impression.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Did you make any examination of that soil on February 16th when you made your trip to 875 south Bundy?

MR. BODZIAK: I was aware of it. I purposely didn't look at it because it was several months afterwards and there were--could have potentially been tremendous differences in the characteristics of that soil at the time.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And you say you purposely did not even view it?

MR. BODZIAK: Not specifically for thoroughness in terms of looking at very aspect of it. It was an area where there were a lot of plants and vegetation and leaves and mulch and all, but I didn't actually look at every little area. I just generally glanced at it as I was doing my other business there.

MR. BAILEY: Did it generally appear to be soft soil?

MR. BODZIAK: I didn't--didn't walk on it.

MR. BAILEY: Didn't step on it, poke in it?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Well, did it appear to be cracked and dry?

MR. BODZIAK: I really didn't examine it any further than what I've described.

MR. BAILEY: Were you anxious not to see it for some reason?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I didn't have any impressions or any reason to see it, and the only way in which I recall it is because it was right next to where I was working.

MR. BAILEY: To your knowledge, were impressions or photographs ever attempted in the area of the soil where Mr. Goldman's body was found?

MR. BODZIAK: I asked if there were any other impressions in this case than what I examined including casts or impressions photographed in soil. That's a routine question which I ask in any case because for some reason, we very often don't get all of the photographs or a person may make a cast and not think it turned out well and not send it in when in fact it may be of some value. So as a matter of routine, I asked if there were any others, and I was told there was not.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So so far as you know, you have everything?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you said at the close of your testimony that Mr. Simpson was a candidate for having worn the shoes whose impressions you found in the photograph.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Well, what do you know besides the fact that you have some size 12 Reeboks that are apparently his that would make him a candidate?

MR. BODZIAK: That would be what I was basing my statement on. I couldn't eliminate him. He certainly, with the size foot that would wear these shoes, could wear the Bruno Magli size 12, European size 46 shoes.

MR. BAILEY: That size foot or any smaller foot within limits, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You're assuming that the perpetrator, whoever that may have been, wearing Bruno Magli shoes, size 46, was wearing his own shoes, aren't you?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, you can always get into the hypotheticals of could you have borrowed someone's shoes to commit a crime.

MR. BAILEY: Or steal?

MR. BODZIAK: Or steal them or whatever, sure. There's always those possibilities.

MR. BAILEY: What are most bank robberies committed with by way of vehicles?

MR. BODZIAK: By way of vehicle?

MR. BAILEY: The perpetrator's vehicle.

MR. BODZIAK: They usually steal a car and then they have a switch point at which they get out of the stolen car a few blocks or a few miles from the scene and they get into their own car and--

MR. BAILEY: Hopefully that car--

MR. BODZIAK: --very often they're seen.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. You need to allow him to finish.

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me. I thought you were through.

MR. BAILEY: Their hope is, they can't be tied to the vehicle identified by one or more witnesses perhaps as being at the scene, right?

MR. BODZIAK: And sometimes they can't.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. Okay. Can we eliminate the Reeboks as having made any of the impressions you've testified to today?

MR. BODZIAK: I saw nothing to indicate these Reeboks left any impression that I was shown at this scene.

MR. BAILEY: From the pictures that you have exhibited and explained to the jury and the Court--

MR. BODZIAK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: --is it not possible to say those Reeboks did not make those prints?

MR. BODZIAK: Is it not possible to say they did not make--I'm sorry. There's a double negative. I'm not sure how you're--could you rephrase that?

MR. BAILEY: Can you not say as you examined the Reeboks these shoes didn't make any of those prints?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't feel they did because they would of--there would have had to have been darker impressions. If you were being totally hypothetical about it and said could one of those impressions that were very, very faint somewhere down--further down the walkway in blood have left the impression, in theory, including unrealistic things like could somebody have carried that person wearing these shoes and then put them down or could they have walked along the soil and behind it and jumped over the wall and then stepped on the sidewalk, if you include those kind of things, then I couldn't eliminate them. But if that person were to walk through the blood down the Bundy walkway, there would be darker impressions before those light impressions.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know where these came from, Mr. Bodziak?

MR. BODZIAK: Do I know where they came from?

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: They were represented to me as shoes that Mr. Simpson said that he wore the--either the day before the crime or the day of the crime.

MR. BAILEY: And he gave them voluntary--voluntarily to Detective Lange; did he not?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, there's no personal knowledge. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: All right. But in any event, it was represented to you that those were positively identified by Mr. Simpson as his shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Now, on September 21, 1994, after you had gotten into this case apparently and before you had made a positive identification by going to the factory, did you write a letter to Detectives Lange and Vannatter requesting something?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: What did you ask for?

MR. BODZIAK: I asked if it were possible to obtain any additional shoes of Mr. Simpson for comparison purposes for different reasons.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. And what was the response that you got?

MR. BODZIAK: The response--I didn't get from them, but the response I got was that no further search warrants were possible, that it was too--I think it was just too late or I don't know. You'd have to ask them.

MR. BAILEY: A search warrant is an order from a court allowing law enforcement to go into a private residence whether the owner likes it or not, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'm--I'm telling you that I don't have firsthand knowledge of the reason. I'm just speculating which I shouldn't have done.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But you were told that warrants were unavailable?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you ever make any requests of the Defense that you be permitted to examine all of the shoes in the house?

MR. BODZIAK: I've never known of a case where that was done.

MR. BAILEY: Is it logical?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: No?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Well, if the Defendant has been voluntarily assisting in giving his blood and giving his hair and other things to the police, do you have any reason to think that he would be otherwise?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor. Calls for--

THE COURT: Calls for speculation. Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What happens when officers who perhaps may be unaware of the phenomena of latent prints trample up the sidewalk before the technicians get there?

MR. BODZIAK: Latent prints of what type, sir?

MR. BAILEY: Footprints.

MR. BODZIAK: I know. But in dust, in blood, in--

MR. BAILEY: In the general circumstances in this case.

MR. BODZIAK: In this case, the only ones I'm familiar with are blood. With regard to blood, at the time they arrived, they could have marched a hundred people over them. It wouldn't make any difference.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would not have disturbed it or otherwise changed the pattern because it had dried, right?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Blood dries rather rapidly; does it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Very rapidly.

MR. BAILEY: If, assume for a minute, someone were to walk down a narrow path partially covered with leaves and partially concrete, might it be that whoever was doing the walking would leave footwear impressions of some kind?

MR. BODZIAK: On the leaves or the concrete?

MR. BAILEY: I'm not talking about bloody feet now. I'm just talking about street shoes.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. With--well, I don't know how many leaves and how much concrete you're talking about. But with regard to leaves, leaves--I've never had a case where I had a footwear impression on leaves. I've never in walking around--and believe--I've created a lot of cases for training. In walking around trying to make impressions, I've never had a case where I could make an impression on a leaf. As I explained earlier today, in theory, if you had a bloody shoe and you stepped on a leaf, aside from the fact it would have probably stuck to the shoe and may got--eventually got scraped off, it's conceivable you could find a leaf or two with some partial impressions on it. It's conceivable, but I've never seen one in over 20 years.

MR. BAILEY: But my question specifies a lack of blood on the suspect's shoes.

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, I'm sorry. A lack of blood.

MR. BAILEY: Especially a dry leather sole.

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I wouldn't think that you would get any reproduction on the leaf whatsoever. On the concrete--concrete's generally rough and porous, and you wouldn't get a residue impression on concrete because when it's concrete or the carpeting in this courtroom, as you're walking, you're picking up residue, but you're depositing the same residue onto a surface that has the equivalent. So you wouldn't be able to see a differentiation between what you deposit and what you picked up and you would not be able to visualize any footwear impressions whether it's carpet or concrete. So you wouldn't in those cases be able to--unless the person was picking up some type of residue and then stepped on an object like a--perhaps a piece of paper or a folder maybe the victim was holding or something that was around the scene and was relatively clean. If they then stepped on that relatively clean object, then they could leave a coating of that residue either in a patent or latent impression, and then that could be retrieved.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bodziak, would you allow the attorneys to complete asking the question before you start to answer.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: As the court reporter has difficulty writing. Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: When you walk on a surface, you never really know what evidence you may have left of your footwear until it is checked, true?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: And certainly that would be true of a layman who does not have your expertise in this area, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: If difficult or faint, non-bloody, non-greasy footwear impressions are left and then the area is trampled, what is the likelihood that any will remain that are distinguishable?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, assumes facts not in evidence, that it could have been left.

THE COURT: Overruled. I assume it's a hypothetical question.

MR. BAILEY: It is, your Honor.

MR. BODZIAK: Presuming that the situation was different than the one I just described and there could be latent footwear impressions at a scene, it's possible that an unknowing person could walk over those and coincidentally happen to step on the same areas, and they probably wouldn't totally eradicate or eliminate them, but they might cause some damage to them.

MR. BAILEY: All right. I wasn't meaning to ask you to assume a single person, but quite a number of people and quite a number of feet--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: --walking back and forth over the exact same area. Doesn't that tend to obliterate whatever might have been there?

MR. BODZIAK: It doesn't help it and it may obliterate it, but each case is different.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Fine. When you began to lay out all of the positive footprints that you've testified here today as to left and right--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: --and see what appears to be movement of someone both down at the gate, on the steps and then in a fairly straight line out to the west as if making good one's escape, did you notice something very odd about the pattern?

MR. BODZIAK: About the ones that I have labeled left or right?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: There's two many of them.

MR. BAILEY: What do you mean by "Too many"?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the person in those Bruno Magli shoes didn't just walk down the walkway once. They went back somehow and walked down again.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, why are your impressions generally going to the west?

MR. BODZIAK: Because that's where the blood is and they're tracking the blood from east to west.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. And what about the stop and turn? I want to point specifically to I believe it's L and m.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: These two here both facing directly into the house (Indicating).

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: You notice by the way that the left and right are on the wrong side?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And do you have any explanation as to how those were made?

MR. BODZIAK: I wouldn't purport to be able to reconstruct exactly what happened, but it appears likely that the person may have been standing over in that bush area where the tree was to get out of the line of sight perhaps and then came out of that area initially in the direction of the doorway and then proceeded back west again.

MR. BAILEY: All right. If the set of prints that leads up to L and M were made by the same shoes as L and M, we have a person who's turned 90 degrees and standing like this; do we not (Indicating)?

MR. BODZIAK: Not if they're two different sets of tracks.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So are you assuming that we have a right but no left and a left but no right standing next to one--each other and both facing south?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'm not assuming if that's what's there and I can't explain why that is happening.

MR. BAILEY: All right. If a person were exiting the scene with some alacrity--and by the way, you talked about gait and stride. There's nothing that gives us much help on the speeds in these prints, is there?

MR. BODZIAK: No, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Except that they seem close enough together as to suggest, if it's one set, no running, no leaping?

MR. BODZIAK: I--I think even if it's one or two sets, they're relatively close together for a person that's big enough to wear a size 12.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You have identified a Bruno Magli or Magli 46/size 12 shoe as the only prints, left and right, that you are able to single out, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And no other shoe of any manufacturer have you been able to pin to any of these impressions, true?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: So if there was more than one person running, it would appear that they were both wearing Bruno Magli 46; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: Or one person went back--after they have worn the blood off their shoe, they went back to the front gate area, reobtained blood on their shoe through whatever activity or walking through the blood they were doing, and then exited that area again. So it could be the same person. In fact, it's very likely that it's the same person.

MR. BAILEY: In other words, having made good one's escape to the alley, you're assuming that somebody, a perpetrator then returned, stepped in more blood and made more prints?

MR. BODZIAK: If they encountered the second victim in this case or they forgot something or had some other reason to go back, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you show me any two prints that overlap?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: In the event that someone had done as you suggest and left the alley and then come back for some reason and stepped in blood, would you not be likely to find at least two prints that overlap one other?

MR. BODZIAK: Not in an area that big, not necessarily.

MR. BAILEY: Well, it looks like a walking pattern on that diagram; does it not?

MR. BODZIAK: No. It looks like--it looks like two persons--two separate walkings of one person.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is the southward facing set of prints, even though they appear to be reversed, that is to say L and m--and L is the right foot and M is the left foot, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Is that consistent with someone who is leaving and turns to look back for some reason?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I mean it could be, but I would think--

MR. BAILEY: Would you step up to the board--

MR. BODZIAK: Sure.

MR. BAILEY: --and tell me why that is not consistent with the prints we see? What mitigates against it?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. You're referring to L and m.

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: And you're saying could that person--I'm not sure your enactment of that--

MR. BAILEY: Assume that I'm running or walking west out of the alley.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. This direction (Indicating).

MR. BAILEY: And then turn in some fashion.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: 90 degrees in order to look back 180 degrees.

MR. BODZIAK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Might that have caused those impressions?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it would be on the opposite side.

MR. BAILEY: Puzzling.

MR. BODZIAK: Pardon?

MR. BAILEY: That's puzzling, isn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Well, if he has an explanation, I would like to hear it.

MR. BAILEY: But it would appear from those prints that L and M is like this; does it not (Indicating)?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. I make a motion to strike Mr. Bailey's comment.

THE COURT: Overruled. And you want to describe, Mr. Bailey, your stance at this point?

MR. BAILEY: Yes. For the record, your Honor, I'm standing with my legs crossed, my right foot on the left side and vice versa.

MR. BAILEY: Which is consistent with what we're looking at there; is it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, yes, with regard to L and m.

MR. BAILEY: If those two were made by the same person at the same time, his legs are crossed, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Describe "The same time."

MR. BAILEY: Two feet attached to the same body.

MR. BODZIAK: If they were, yes, you would have to be standing like you are.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, if they weren't, then you're assuming somebody with the same shoes walking twice, having gotten a fresh supply of blood to lay on the--

MR. BODZIAK: Not necessarily.

MR. BAILEY: No? I'm sorry.

MR. BODZIAK: Would you like me to explain?

MR. BAILEY: Yes, please.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. In this particular area (Indicating)--

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: --very possibly, because it's out of the line of sight of the front gate area, the person could have stepped back into the soil area to get out of the line of sight. They could have stepped forward and looked. They could have stepped back. They could have stepped forward, the left foot on the opposite side and gone down the sidewalk. So there's a very logical explanation for that. There's no way to absolutely reconstruct it.

MR. BAILEY: Was there soft soil at the time of the crime in that area?

MR. BODZIAK: Was there soft soil?

MR. BAILEY: Yes. Just north of the--

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I don't have photographs of the soil at that time nor would I be able to tell the hardness or softness of the soil from photographs. When I was there in February, it was full of vegetation.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you see in L and m--

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think he finished his answer.

THE COURT: Have you finished your answer?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I was just going to say, if it's very low vegetation, you would have no problem standing in it or walking back in it.

MR. BAILEY: When you photographed or looked at the photographs of L and m--you didn't take any of these, did you?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: When you examined those photographs, did you see any evidence of any soil in them?

MR. BODZIAK: In the photograph--of the impressions? No.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So when you speculate that the author of L and M may have stepped backward into the soil, that is just that, isn't it, speculation?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it's speculation as much as I can't say that's absolutely what happened. But I would not necessarily expect there to be soil from stepping back in that area. If the soil was very hard or if it was covered with low-growing vegetation, there may be nothing on the shoe and they would still be depositing blood impressions.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you have said--and again, you're assuming that someone wants to get out of the line of sight. Line of sight of what?

MR. BODZIAK: Whatever they're trying to avoid. A person coming to the gate, a noise out on the front, a noise in the back, anything.

MR. BAILEY: Did you attempt to do that yourself and see if you removed yourself at all from the line of sight of either end?

MR. BODZIAK: Just by standing on the edge of the sidewalk, you're out of the line of sight of the front. Yes, I did observe that, because when I was reconstructing the position of these, I was surprised to see them in this configuration and I was looking for an explanation of why these would be in this direction. And the one that I have given you is one of the better ones that I thought of.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, where does it lead us?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Generally speaking, light travels in straight lines; does it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Assuming that a person is standing on those footprints, can you see in a straight line to the front gate?

MR. BODZIAK: You can with L. but as I had explained to you, this could be simply a stepping out and looking and coming back real quick. So in that case, under that hypothetical, which I hate to get into because they're not factual, the person would want to extend out far enough just to get into the line of sight (Demonstrating). So again, that's--we can't say if that's what happened or did happen, but it's certainly logical in my opinion.

MR. GOLDBERG: And for the record, your Honor, when Mr. Bodziak was answering that, he stepped forward with his right foot and he turned to his left as if he were looking in the direction of a line parallel with his shoulders.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Are you seeing any obstruction between the gate and those footprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Which gate, sir?

MR. BAILEY: Front gate.

MR. BODZIAK: Front gate? With l?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: You can see the front gate if your head is centered over L. remember, your head is over l.

MR. BAILEY: Right.

MR. BODZIAK: With M, you're starting to interfere with the corner there, but I believe you can see over that, at least part of it.

MR. BAILEY: Have you got a straight edge up there like a pointer?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you connect L and the front gate, please?

MR. BODZIAK: Parallel to the--okay (Indicating).

MR. BAILEY: No. I don't mean just that edge. Go right to the middle of the front gate and see if you can draw a straight lane from both L and M to it.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm not sure what you're asking. Like this (Indicating)?

MR. BAILEY: Can you see a straight line from M to that point without obstruction?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: In l.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: The same is true for the rear gate?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It appears to be.

MR. BAILEY: But your theory is that somebody was trying to hide from someone; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: That's--as I represented that as a hypothetical, that might be one plausible explanation of why L and M were heading out of that soil area.

MR. BAILEY: Now, there are two at a 45-degree angle, a left and a right.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Not very close to one another. However, O is fairly close to M. could that impression have been made by the right foot while M was being made with the left by a person standing like this, one food cocked at a 45, the other pointing south (Indicating)?

MR. BODZIAK: It could be or the person could have stepped out on M and then headed westward with O being the first step with the right foot. In other words, they could have stepped out of the soil with M and then at an angle stepped off toward the back gate.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what about the next one, S I believe it is?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there's no way of knowing if S was the next one because you have some indistinct ones in here that may be intermediate steps.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry. When I said "Next one," I meant the next one at a 45-degree angle to the track--

MR. BODZIAK: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: --of the person. That is s; is it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: There is no footprint pointing in a similar direction close enough to it to have been made at the same time; is that true?

MR. BODZIAK: None that I can see.

MR. BAILEY: Now, what is the approximate scale on that chart? Do you know?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's on the other chart.

MR. BODZIAK: I believe it's on the second board, wherever that is.

MR. BAILEY: Is it shown there?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I don't know how the represent--

MR. BAILEY: Here it is.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BAILEY: Just eyeballing that, Mr. Bodziak--by the way, do you prefer being called Mr. Or agent?

MR. BODZIAK: Either.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Just eyeballing it, does it look like a foot is a little less than an inch?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: So having that in mind, would you say that O and M could have been made by the same person?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they could.

MR. BAILEY: Standing with one foot askew?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Go ahead and resume the stand if you will.

(The witness complies.)

MR. BAILEY: If your theory is correct and somebody, having committed one murder and created a lot of blood, got partway up the walkway and decided to turn around and head back, do you see the turning point anywhere in your reconstruction?

MR. BODZIAK: If--no, I do not see a point where footprints turn around, but I would not expect that that would eliminate the possibility that they did turn around.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, without any evidence of turn-around, supposing you had two people with the same brand and size of shoe.

MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion, that would not occur in this case.

MR. BAILEY: Why not?

MR. BODZIAK: Because in all of the cases I've worked, I can count on one hand the number of cases where a common shoe like this Reebok that's sold in many, many stores, both in size and design were shared by two persons simultaneously at the crime scene. It has occurred, but only on a couple of occasions and only with common shoes. You might, for instance, with regard to certain gangs that wear the same pattern of shoes find that type of a scenario. With regard to different suspects wearing different size shoes of the same brand, I've only had a couple cases like this. So in most instances, if they did have the same brand shoes, they would be different sizes, and only that has occurred to my knowledge a couple times over 20 years. Those are with common shoes. These shoes were very uncommon, and most of the shoe stores around the country only carried at one time one size 12. To conjecture with what I know about this, that two people independently bought size 12 Bruno Magli shoes at different points or over different months apart from the same store or at different stores--and they were only sold by 40 stores--and just happened to commit this crime together is impossible for me to believe.

MR. BAILEY: You're making an assumption I didn't ask you to make and that is that the pairs were coincidentally similar.

MR. BODZIAK: What pairs?

MR. BAILEY: If there were two pair of shoes, that they were there by coincidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this point, it is an improper hypothetical and calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: It's a coincidence that I don't believe would occur.

MR. BAILEY: Of course not. But it could have been deliberate, couldn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

MR. BODZIAK: No. I don't believe that either.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Sustained.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Rephrase it?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MR. BAILEY: Would it be possible for two people to arrange--knowing that footwear, particularly if you're in the business of crime, can be almost as dangerous as a fingerprint, would it be possible for two people to arrange to arrive at a crime scene in the same footwear, make and model?

MR. BODZIAK: Of this type, Bruno Magli size 12?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: Sole to soles?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: As I stated in my opinion, no.

MR. BAILEY: Do you mean to say it would be impossible to buy two pair of those shoes in the United States?

MR. BODZIAK: You're suggesting that they intentionally did it, right?

MR. BAILEY: Absolutely.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. And the reason I'm saying no is because most people, even fairly knowledgeable people about evidence, would not have the degree of knowledge necessary to know where to find some kind of a rare shoe. I mean they would go for a common shoe like-- if, presuming that that could be done with a common shoe, they would do that with a common shoe. They would not be searching for a $160 to $180 Bruno Magli shoes where they had to go halfway--you know, to different states at the same time to buy them in the same size. Just--in my opinion, it wouldn't happen. It's--it's uncanny. I don't believe it happened and I don't believe it happens intentionally or otherwise.

MR. BAILEY: But it's possible?

MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion--

MR. GOLDBERG: That's argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion, it's not even possible because it's so ridiculous.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What you're saying is that two perpetrators who decided on this plan are totally incapable in the United States of America of finding two pair of Bruno Magli 12's; is that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: What I'm saying is, they wouldn't have the knowledge to look for Bruno Magli shoes of this rare design. If they were going to commit a crime, why not just go out and buy shoes down at the store where you can walk in and find two of the same size and design? Why go to a situation where you would have to find rare shoes and probably have to make phone calls at one store to find out where you could buy the next pair at another store and spend that kind of money just to do that? People are not aware of footprint evidence to that degree. That would be more sophisticated that I could even envision if I were to--if you asked me how would I construct something like this. It's just uncanny.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Do you ever work on bank robbery cases?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Have not quite a number of those been solved by discreet footprint, foot impression?

MR. BODZIAK: By footprints on the counters or in the lobby or on the exit of the bank, yes.

MR. BAILEY: If I were to hop the bank counter to get the money--

MR. BODZIAK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: --with this shoe and you recovered me with this shoe nearby, might you be able to match exactly my shoeprint to the impression on the counter?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I do and I do that regularly.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Why is it that you feel that criminals are unaware of the fact that footwear can be a liability in detection?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: They simply are. I mean we're having a hard time--

MR. BAILEY: Could I ask you a question?

THE COURT: Wait. He needs to finish the answer. Go ahead.

MR. BODZIAK: We're having a hard time educating the police forces of all of the possibilities with shoes. Most people are totally unaware of the footprints they leave. And perhaps the best example I could give on this is, maybe 15 years ago, there was a fad called streaking, and I had a case involving some streaking in a hotel up in the northeast part of the country. And ironically, the only part of clothing that the person ever wore and what convicted the person was the shoes. So I use that as a good example of how persons are just unaware of the prints they leave, which we discussed earlier, and they are even more unaware of the kind of hypothetical that you're suggesting. And not only are they unaware of that evidence and how to use the evidence in the manner you suggested, but the possibility or the likelihood of them going to the extreme that they would have to find this shoe, I just--I don't believe in my opinion that that could possibly happen.

THE COURT: So the FBI investigates streaking.

MR. BODZIAK: We conduct comparisons of evidence that are submitted to us by any law enforcement agency. We don't decide what's important or not.

MR. BAILEY: Any idea of how many people since you have been involved have gone to jail because of their footprint impression?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry. Could you--

MR. BAILEY: How many cases can you think of just since you have been on the scene where footprint evidence has helped to put people in jail for various crimes?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, I've worked, made thousands of comparisons in over--since 1973, and I've testified many, many times. But many, many more of those cases were adjudicated in other ways and I didn't have to offer testimony. So I--I can't count the number of cases I've influenced, if that's what you're asking.

MR. BAILEY: It is. Now, in most of the cases where you testified or whether it's an adjudication that didn't need your testimony, namely a plea of guilty--

MR. BODZIAK: Or stipulation.

MR. BAILEY: --or stipulation that this shoe made that print and we don't need Mr. Diedrich to tell us that, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Bodziak.

MR. BAILEY: Bodziak. I'm sorry. I believe your colleague is in a different specialty. You would assume that somewhere along the line, the Defendant who got caught because of his own shoeprints was made aware of that fact?

MR. BODZIAK: They are, yeah. I mean they would--they'll sit and watch my testimony, and I've even had one case where they came in the next day without their shoes on. So they certainly are aware of that, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Do you think these fellows chat together at all once they get in the hoosegow?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sure they do.

MR. BAILEY: And most of them are acutely aware of what mistakes they made because then they get convicted. Wouldn't you say that's a fair statement?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Now, when you say criminals don't know or talk about certain aspects of their business, that's not based on any association you have with criminals, is it?

MR. BODZIAK: To the degree of elaboration that you are speculating on with regard to this case, it is far more sophisticated than I would ever envision any criminal no matter how long they've been in jail or how much they've talked of being able to pull off.

MR. BAILEY: Well, of course, the criminals that you know about who left footwear impressions weren't so smart because they get caught, right?

MR. BODZIAK: And often they get caught a second time with foot impressions.

MR. BAILEY: Sure. Sure. Professional assassins frequently do not get caught, true?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond his expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: In any event, have you ever heard of bank robbers that wears covers or masks, funny mask or something?

MR. BODZIAK: All the time, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And that's so that no one can testify, "I saw that face," right?

MR. BODZIAK: Or that the bank camera will not pick up their face.

MR. BAILEY: Have you heard of others who deliberately make themselves up with some degree of expertise to look like someone they are not?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, that's rare, but I've heard of it, yes.

MR. BAILEY: A higher level of profession; wouldn't you say?

MR. BODZIAK: Or a different approach, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Well, that would cause a victim/witness to look right at the perpetrator and say, "That's not the man"?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I guess you could make that argument, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Well, that would be the purpose of it; wouldn't you think?

MR. BODZIAK: It certainly would be.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, haven't you investigated crimes, Mr. Bodziak, where it was apparent that the perpetrators were trying to mislead detectives?

MR. BODZIAK: I've--I've had a couple cases where they have tried to plant evidence or create evidence to divert the attention from themselves, but that became known in the normal processing of the crime scene. There were things that didn't make sense and it was ultimately other evidence caused them to admit that they did these things, and they confessed, but they weren't very sophisticated.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And then there are any number of unsolved crimes where we don't know whether that happened or not, right?

MR. BODZIAK: That's possible, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Without a solution, you don't know whether the planted evidence has misled the officers?

MR. BODZIAK: That's right. Sure.

MR. BAILEY: Well, to bring to our conclusion our investigation of the possibilities that could have led to this evidence that you have compiled for us, my understanding is, your best explanation of the excess number of footprints that appears to be there is that one perpetrator wearing one pair of Bruno Magli shoes left the scene, went back, got some more blood and left the scene a second time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's vague as to leaving the scene. Misstates the testimony.

MR. BAILEY: Well, when I say "The scene," Mr. Bodziak, I mean the immediate vicinity of the killing where the bodies were found. I do not mean the general surround.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The--there--there would have to be one person with the Bruno Magli size shoes that did exactly what you described, left a set of impressions. The blood would have been worn off their shoes, so you wouldn't see a turnaround or a--footprints coming back, and then they would have new blood on the shoes for possible reasons, either a second victim or just walking back through the blood of the two victims and then leaving the scene again.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You are making the assumption in that scenario that before the perpetrator turns and goes back to where the bodies are found, that all the blood is gone from the soles at least so much as is capable of leaving an impression?

MR. BODZIAK: The physical evidence at the scene which doesn't lie is making that assumption, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Show me a single print going the other way.

MR. BODZIAK: That's my point. There is none, and yet there are two sets of tracks of the same size and design shoe. And in my opinion, because of the scarcity and the--in some cases, stores carry one pair of size 12's and didn't get another till a year later. The scarcity of that design rules out any possibility that there were two people simultaneously with the same pairs of shoes on, Bruno Magli size 12. So that person would have had to have turned around, and obviously the blood is no longer on their feet, they didn't track backwards and they rebloodied the shoes and left again.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And is that the best you are able to make out of the evidence that's before us despite the fact that there is not one single overlapping step?

MR. BODZIAK: I wouldn't--that's a big area. I wouldn't expect an over-- when you say "Overlapping," you're talking about one step touching another.

MR. BAILEY: One part of an impression overlapping--

MR. BODZIAK: Overlapping another.

MR. BAILEY: --preexisting impression from trip no. 1 in your scenario.

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. That--that is a large area. That wouldn't be unusual at all, for those two--two sets of tracks of one person not overlapping.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What is inconsistent about that set of tracks with someone taking very small steps, about a foot at a time?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, if you look at those impressions and you try to--to reenact that as one set of impressions, stepping left and then right and covering every one of those, you would--I don't know how to describe it, but you would look like unlike anybody that normally walks or runs. You would be dancing around. So--

MR. BAILEY: Well, supposing I step right over here in some blood (Indicating).

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And I walk this way (Indicating). Would that have--

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: What's wrong with that?

MR. BODZIAK: Because in that case, you're giving a consistent pattern of left, right, left, right.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: Even though they're close together.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. So you conclude that not only because they're close together, but because of the irregularity of the stepping pattern?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm looking at impressions that are-- where you have two lefts and two rights, you can say, if this left goes with this right, which is a couple feet later, and goes with this left, which goes a couple feet later, so on, then you're left these other ones. And even though you can't say for certain matching every footprint and sequence to others, I can see enough in those impressions that tells me there were two separate travelings of one person from that scene westward.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you identify any of the identified footprints and tell me which trip made them in your scenario?

MR. BODZIAK: I wasn't asked to do that. If given the proper time, I could go back and possibly show corresponding features of one with another. That gets into an area of-- as we mentioned or as I mentioned at the beginning of answering these questions, I don't purport to be able to reconstruct exactly what happened. But physical evidence can rule out certain possibilities, and my knowledge of these shoes and of what people do at crime scenes with shoes enables me to say certain things, and that's been our discussion. But to go back and say with certainty in every case, this impression preceded this impression and so forth, if asked to do that, I might be able to reconstruct some of that, but probably not all of it.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And in any event, would be unable to say whether a given footprint was from trip one or from trip two?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct. I wouldn't be able to tell trip one from trip two.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, let's talk about the shoes. You got what one might call a fair degree of cooperation from the company that made them; did you not?

MR. BODZIAK: Quite a bit of cooperation, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Grueterich?

MR. BODZIAK: Pardon?

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Grueterich?

MR. BODZIAK: Mr. Grueterich and Mr. Loomey in Italy--

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: --and Desoga in Four Sea Factories was extremely cooperative, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, as you traced the manufacturing and distribution of these shoes insofar as the United States is concerned, only this sole was on Bruno Maglis, correct, the two types?

MR. BODZIAK: No. There was the Lorenzo and the Lyon, l-y-o-n, which both had the same soles, and the only difference being the higher heel count or heel versus the cut-away one.

MR. BAILEY: As you showed us this morning?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Every pair of Lorenzo and Lyon Bruno Maglis had that same sole, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: From what you were informed?

MR. BODZIAK: In the distribution in `91 and `92 in this country.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Were they made in `91 and `92 or distributed in those years?

MR. BODZIAK: The distribution was in those years.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And only those two years, right?

MR. BODZIAK: They're selling them again I believe as of this February or March. Not exactly like this, but I believe it is also called the Lorenzo and I think it's more in a pebble green--I haven't seen it, but I think it's a pebble green type shoe with the same sole to sole.

MR. BAILEY: You think it's the same sole?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. It's from the same molds. I don't know if it's the same color, but it's the same--from the same mold.

MR. BAILEY: But to the best of your knowledge, from 1992 to the date of the crime, June 12th, 1994, none were made or distributed, right?

MR. BODZIAK: They--not in this country.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, there was a European version called Lord was it?

MR. BODZIAK: Lord, l-o-r-d, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And that's what you learned by confirming with your colleagues in Tokyo, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I confirmed that at Desoga factory and in fact, they provided me with their distribution of the soles to other companies in Europe who then sold the shoe in Europe, primarily Italy. And I contacted them to determine if any Lord shoes were sold in the United States. And as thorough as I could be--since a couple of factories did go out of business and there was no one to contact, as thorough as I could be, no one had any records of selling any Lord shoes in the United States.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So you are pretty well satisfied that wherever those shoes may now be, they are Bruno Maglis?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the likelihood is there. I certainly can't rule out the possibility that someone went to Europe and Italy and bought a pair of ones with Lord on it and came back to the United States, but there wouldn't be a great number of those.

MR. BAILEY: If they were purchased in the United States by whomever, they would be Bruno Maglis, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, by the way, you told us this morning when you showed us a certain table where you can give a range of heights for shoe sizes, that that's kind of an approximate situation.

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, certainly. The purpose of that--of the chart that I prepared was simply to show that the taller you get, there's a--the bigger your foot is, therefore, the bigger the shoe is. It's simply a correlation.

MR. BAILEY: Generally speaking?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: There are prominent exceptions all the time; are there not?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Douglas, could you stand up, please?

(Mr. Douglas complies.)

MR. BAILEY: Can you estimate his height and weight and tell me what size you think his shoe ought to be?

MR. BODZIAK: I can't estimate his weight from up here, no.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, would you assume that he's about 5/10, 170 pounds?

MR. BODZIAK: How tall are you?

MR. BAILEY: 5/9.

MR. BODZIAK: Well, he looks like he's probably about at least 5/10, maybe 5/11.

MR. BAILEY: Well, that's just his hair.

MR. BODZIAK: You've got--you've got raised heels on. So I don't know if you--

MR. BAILEY: I hadn't asked you. Take a look at Mr. Douglas' feet, tell me what size they are.

MR. BODZIAK: They're pretty long and narrow. They're probably--well, can I walk up and look at them closely?

MR. BAILEY: Sure. You can meet halfway.

MR. BODZIAK: They're pretty long. They're probably 12 or 13's.

MR. BAILEY: That's a little off the chart, isn't it?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I said that that was based on 399 males and it was just to show correlation, and I readily admit that there's exceptions, sure.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And you were working with a single size when you give that range; are you not? In other words, you said a 12 on this chart, so many inches and so many inches.

MR. BODZIAK: The purpose of the chart was just to show that a person--the general range of height of a person with a size 12.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. As I understand it, you never did get a response to your request, a factual response with details to inventory Mr. Simpson's shoe arena?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I never received any additional shoes, no.

MR. BAILEY: Would it surprise you that in his shoe closet, there are sizes as small as ten and a half and as large as 13, all of which he wears?

MR. BODZIAK: Not at all. In fact, in my book, I cite that very example, where my shoes range from eight to 10 and I normally wear a nine.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So the fact that these Bruno Maglis happened to be a 12 might fit different people of different sizes because manufacturers are not precise in their sizing. Isn't that a fair statement?

MR. BODZIAK: They--what I was saying is that we could not eliminate Mr. Simpson. He is a candidate based on these shoes (Indicating) as the wearer of a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe and we're saying nothing more.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: For the record--

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me.

MR. GOLDBERG: --when he said "These shoes," he gestured towards the Reeboks.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: None of your impressions gave any indication as to weight?

MR. BODZIAK: There's no valid way to do that, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So that all that you say when you say someone's a candidate is, they could have worn those shoes that night?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Even if they were much too big?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'm saying that I believe they are the same as I--when I held them up together, the same size--

MR. BAILEY: Size 12.

MR. BODZIAK: --and interior as well as exterior, and that if Mr. Simpson wore these shoes, then they would be shoes he would possibly wear a size 12 Bruno Magli.

MR. BAILEY: Well, how many people statistically could fit into those shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there--"Could fit," and you brought up the point earlier a person with a size nine could wear them. They certainly wouldn't fit good. They'd be stumbling all over the place. But could they put them on? Yes. So you--you're asking a question which I can't give a definitive answer to obviously. Even a size 12, over nine percent of the population is size 12. So a lot of people.

MR. BAILEY: How many 11's and 13's?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't know the exact percentages for those.

MR. BAILEY: Many more people, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And are you saying that a person with a size eight or nine foot who tried those shoes on and laced them up would be necessarily stumbling all over himself?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah, because I've tried that.

MR. BAILEY: With these shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah.

MR. BAILEY: And you fell on your face?

MR. BODZIAK: I didn't fall on my face. But if I was trying to commit a crime, I'd never feel comfortable doing that. I wouldn't be running down a sidewalk or even trying to get somewhere in a hurry with that. I--again, I know of one possible case in over 20 years where this happened, and a person wore his brother's shoes. And I don't think it was to throw anybody off. I think he didn't have any shoes. So it became quite evident what happened because the brother was on a naval I think ship out in the Pacific and they knew it couldn't be him. So it's just a rare occasion. You can say hypothetically could it happen, but it doesn't happen as a matter of regular practice.

MR. BAILEY: So your experience is that criminals just aren't smart enough to wear oversized shoes to mislead the police; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: My experience is that shoes are a personal item of clothing and people generally wear shoes that are theirs except for social economic reasons or hand me downs of brothers and things of that nature. An adult who is affluent enough to purchase their own shoes generally regards their shoes as their own and those are the shoes they wear. I can't rule out the hypotheticals that you're postulating because common sense dictates there's no basis for ruling that out. As a practice of practice and my experience, this just doesn't happen except in rare, rare occasions.

MR. BAILEY: In 40 percent of cases where no shoes were recovered for matching purposes as is the case here, then you have no information as to whether the perpetrator was wearing his correct size or a larger one, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Only based on my experience of the other 60 percent, which is what I've just said.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Uh, 60 percent you said were people who wore their own shoes to the crime.

MR. BODZIAK: Which is pretty representative over a 20-year period of time. It's--if you were to ask people in general whether they typically loan out their shoes, men's athletic shoes, men's casual shoes, they generally don't unless there's mitigating circumstances.

MR. BAILEY: I'm not talking about loaning anything. I'm saying that in the 40 percent you didn't recover, for all you know, someone deliberately wore the wrong size--

MR. BODZIAK: I can't rule the possibility out. I'm just saying it is not something I normally encounter.

MR. BAILEY: You know that killers who premeditate often disguise themselves, do you not, one way or another?

MR. BODZIAK: Who--I'm sorry? Who meditates?

MR. BAILEY: Premeditated.

MR. BODZIAK: Premeditated?

MR. BAILEY: People planning a murder--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: --will often try to disguise themselves, will wear gloves?

MR. BODZIAK: People are much more aware of fingerprints--

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: --then they are of footprints and they are much more aware of personal identification of a face and they wear masks. They are far, far less cognizant of hiding their feet. And the hands and face don't normally have personalized articles of clothing that they wear on them. The shoes are personalized articles of clothing. People like to wear their own shoes.

MR. BAILEY: And so far as you know, despite the fact that long before you got on the scene, criminals were being identified by their footprints, you think it's not a subject of their concern; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm surprised it's not--

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm surprised it's not, but it isn't.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, let's get to the Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes were made in part by a company called Uma in Italy?

MR. BODZIAK: U-m-a--

MR. BAILEY: U-m-a, whatever.

MR. BODZIAK: Bruno Magli makes them in Italy. I mean, there's a--I don't know the exact correct terminology for who owns what, but Bruno Magli in the United States purchases them through a Bruno Magli representative in Italy. I don't know exactly where the u-m-a initials come in, if that's a separate company and he owns them both or if it's related to the Bruno Magli.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But two different companies make two different parts of the shoe which are joined and the finished product is produced?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And you attempted through the executives in the company to learn everything you could about these two styles of shoes, how many were made, when they were made, when they were shipped, et cetera, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And particularly once you learned that 46 would fit the blood pattern which I assume was after you went to the factory and obtained all your exemplar soles?

MR. BODZIAK: Actually, the soles were shipped to me prior to that, and this--the trip was to confirm that and learn more about how the American size last, size 12 last was used and to assure that they didn't use other sizes, size last or put other sizes on. And that was the purpose of the trip.

MR. BAILEY: And you satisfied yourself that they did not?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And you learned that they did not ship Bruno Magli shoes of this type to any other country; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, no. They could have sold Bruno Magli shoes to other countries. I just couldn't find a tracing of it. In other words--

MR. BAILEY: All right. The ones that came to America came through Mr. Grueterich in New Jersey?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: That was the sole distribution point for the U.S.?

MR. BODZIAK: His distribution as I understand it covers North America, South America, the Caribbean and the United States, and I believe these were the 40 stores he distributed to them. Whether Bruno Magli sold that sole in Europe through one of those other Italian factories, what names might have been on those shoes produced in Italy, I didn't pursue that. I was only inquiring as to those people as to whether or not any of their shoes, regardless of whether they were Bruno Magli or Lord or whatever, were shipped otherwise to the United States other than the ones that Peter Grueterich sold.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did he, if you know, drop ship to other countries or did he physically get the shoes and reship them?

MR. BODZIAK: All I know is that he told me he was the owner of that design, that they were only on Bruno Maglis and that all of the shoes that were sold in the United States were distributed by him. As to how he did the distribution, drop ship or whatever, I didn't determine that.

MR. BAILEY: All right. During the years `91 and `92, do you know how many pair of Bruno Magli shoes period were imported through Mr. Grueterich into the United States, forgetting Canada and South America?

MR. BODZIAK: Of any design?

MR. BAILEY: No. These two.

MR. BODZIAK: Of this design?

MR. BAILEY: These two.

MR. BODZIAK: I only know for size 12, there were a total of 299 size 12's only that were shipped in--that were distributed throughout the United States.

MR. BAILEY: Were any returned, if you know?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, obviously these two, one of these is a 12. So we're down to 298. And I would imagine that there were some which--I know there were some which were returned and like sold as reduced prices through stores like Sims, and whether there were any left after, I--I asked him about that, and I believe he told me about three percent is a typical average, but he didn't know the exact number in this case.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What did these shoes run at retail before they were devalued in the secondary stores?

MR. BODZIAK: The price tag that's still in one of these shoes says $160.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. That's fairly expensive for a fair of shoes; wouldn't you say?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. How many different stores actually receive a shipment of a size 12 shoe according to the records of Mr. Grueterich?

MR. BODZIAK: How many stores? There were a total of 40 stores in the United States including one in Puerto Rico.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And how many did each one receive, if you know?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'd have to--there's a large list I have that breaks that down by date that goes through. But in most cases, the shipments were one pair at a time to these stores, and then maybe six months later, as they replenish their stock, they would order another size 12, and this happened three or four shipments over a two-year period to each store. So most stores didn't carry more than one size 12 at one time, although a few stores did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would you tell the Court and jury where these stores are located in the United States?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I'd have to refer to my--my notes.

MR. BAILEY: If you would. Yeah.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. There's 40 four of them. Would you like me to just give the cities or the names of the stores or--

MR. BAILEY: Just give the cities for the moment.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Of course, some of these--I'll say New York more their one time. So--

MR. BAILEY: Sure.

MR. BODZIAK: Want me to read down the list? Huntington, New York; New York, New York; West Orange, New Jersey; Highland Village--I'm sorry--Jackson, Mississippi; Chicago, Illinois; Dearborn, Michigan; Troy, Michigan; Chevy Chase, Maryland; Hackensack, New Jersey; Yonkers, New York; Charleston, West Virginia; Knudson Center, Massachusetts; Jacksonville, Florida; Madison, Wisconsin; Phoenix, Arizona; Costa Mesa, California; San Francisco, California; Norfolk, Connecticut, El Paso, Texas; Decatur, Illinois; North Miami Beach, Florida; Bellevue, Washington; Orlando, Florida; Denver, Colorado; Secaucus, New Jersey; a second store in Secaucus, New Jersey; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; New York, New York; Dallas, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; again, New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Frauntenack, Missouri; Westfield, New Jersey; again, New York, New York; Secaucus, New Jersey; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Burlington, Massachusetts; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Gurnee, Illinois.

MR. BAILEY: That's all?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So in California, in other words, one in Costa mesa and one in San Francisco--I thought I heard one other.

MR. BODZIAK: Two in California.

MR. BAILEY: Two in California. Many in New York, fair statement?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Now, are these big chains mostly or are they small individual--

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, Saks, Bloomingdales were some of the bigger stores in New York. There's Saks all over the country.

MR. BAILEY: Right. I think you told us on direct examination that an effort was made to find out whether there was any record of any sale to Mr. Simpson.

MR. BODZIAK: An effort was made by our FBI office in Los Angeles, was directed by the FBI office and the--in conjunction with the LAPD homicide unit.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And is it your understanding that each of the stores was visited and the records checked?

MR. BODZIAK: It's my understanding that was done, and I don't have firsthand knowledge of exactly how that was handled and what the results were. I just presumed that if we had located something, I would have known about that.

MR. BAILEY: So far as you know, it's all negative, right?

MR. BODZIAK: At this point, yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Now, was anything other than records checked in order to find out if Mr. Simpson was a fan of Bruno Maglis shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: I know there were efforts made to that. I don't have personal knowledge of that. So I may be erroneous if I were to speculate on what that might be.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, as against the ordinary purchase by Joe average, there's a little edge when trying to find out whether Mr. Simpson bought something; is there not?

MR. BODZIAK: I didn't--I wasn't actively participating in that effort. I just provided the information. So I don't know if there was or wasn't.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You don't know if somebody went to the sales people who would have been working when the shoes were in stock and said, "Do you remember the juice"?

MR. BODZIAK: It's my understanding that when they covered this lead, that they were purposely not mentioning that, that there was no mention made of Mr. Simpson or that they were simply trying to reconstruct the records to find all of the shoes.

MR. BAILEY: Wouldn't it have been helpful to find a witness who said, "I'll never forget the day I sold O.J. Simpson a pair of Bruno Maglis"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion.

MR. BAILEY: I didn't get the ruling, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Fine.

MR. BAILEY: All right. The long and the short of it is that no one has located any store where it is claimed that Mr. Simpson bought such shoes, true? Your understanding.

MR. BODZIAK: Based on their records that apparently aren't very good that many years later, that's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Were there any marks that could have come from shoes at the scene of the crime--and once again, I'm referring to the rather specific area around the bodies--that could have represented the footprints of other soles, not the ones that we've been dealing with?

MR. BODZIAK: None that I'm aware of that were in blood and actually none of any other type that I'm aware of that I was given photographs of.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Were there any partial prints that might have come from a different sole?

MR. BODZIAK: None which I saw other than, you know, back to the ones at the end of the walkway that were indistinct, I couldn't theoretically rule that out, but I don't believe that was the case.

MR. BAILEY: And the white envelope that you inspected earlier, the glasses envelope--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: --do you or do you not say that that partial print is from the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there's--there's some features in common between it. It's so partial, I can't link it to that specific--a specific size, but it does match the parallel border and the design element of that sole.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You can't rule it in or rule it out, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it looks like that sole. If it was different design, it would have to be one just like the Silga sole with regard to that small part.

MR. BAILEY: Well, are you making an identification or not?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm saying that it's consistent with another shoe that has made impressions all over the sidewalk and in blood and it's also on that envelope, and in as much as the parallel border and that design element matched, I would say that that same shoe also made the impression on the envelope. I would see nothing there to draw attention to a different design of shoe.

MR. BAILEY: All right. In other words, another piece of white paper, which I understand is missing, did you examine another piece of white paper with some kind of impression on it at some point?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence as to this witness.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: From the Bundy scene?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: No. There were two pieces of paper I think from the Bronco or Rockingham, but not from the Bundy scene.

MR. BAILEY: Did you examine any impression evidence that came from Rockingham?

MR. BODZIAK: There was a piece of paper that--it's hard for me to tell where--it's my understanding it was Rockingham. I saw photographs of a vehicle and there was a piece of paper next to it. I don't know where that photograph, from my personal knowledge, was taken, but it possibly was Rockingham. And I examined that piece of paper. And then there was a piece of paper that was in the Bronco of the Defendant. And of course, that Bronco was at times at Rockingham. So I don't know if you would want to call that from Rockingham or from wherever they found it at the time.

MR. BAILEY: Well, I'm--the answer is--

MR. BODZIAK: So the answer is--

MR. BAILEY: The answer is responsive, but I had more in mind, the walkway, the driveway, the interior of the house and so forth.

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, no. No. None that I--no, none were submitted to me.

THE COURT: Mr. Bodziak, you're going to have to allow Mr. Bailey to finish asking the question.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry.

MR. BAILEY: Assume that someone who had worn the extrinsic blood off the lower part of the sole, that is the part that contacts the concrete as you've said would eventually happen--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: --then walks on a carpeting, isn't there still some blood likely to be damp enough to transfer that the carpeting would catch by getting up inside the pattern of the sole? That is to say whereas a flat concrete surface just makes this contact (Indicating), as you pointed out before, you could get a reverse contact if a bunch of hairs went up in between the pattern.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: True? Did you ever see any other in the Simpson home in that respect?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Do you know if any was ever looked for?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't--I couldn't answer that question. I don't have personal knowledge of what people were doing at the crime scene.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Were you ever asked to view any photographs of impressions lifted from his driveway, the street near his home, his walkway, et cetera?

MR. BODZIAK: To my knowledge, none were found.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is it fair to say that most of the impressions that you examined are on that board today, either identifiable or not identifiable?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me a minute, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: With respect to your examination of the photographs of the Bronco which you enhanced in two ways I believe, but the second time you photographed in daylight inchoata?

MR. BODZIAK: The carpeting you're referring to?

MR. BAILEY: My understanding is, there was insufficient detail present to call it one way or the other as to those marks, whether they're a footprint or not, in the Bronco?

MR. BODZIAK: I couldn't associate them with the sole to sole, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Now, Mr. Bodziak, you made a statement in response to a question of Mr. Goldberg's that one kind of criminal who was attached to his shoes is likely to take them home and sometimes they're recovered and sometimes they help capture him?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't think that was the summary of what I said.

MR. BAILEY: Well, you had a 60/40 breakdown, and the 40 were the more likely to destroy their shoes. That's what captured my interest.

MR. GOLDBERG: I think that misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Bodziak I think can handle this question.

MR. BODZIAK: The--that was based on the submissions to our laboratory.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: What I said previously about the bloody impressions was, of the shoes, of the cases involving shoes where the suspect purposely got rid of the clothing and bloody shoes were and in fact in most--overwhelmingly most cases, those where they saw the blood on their shoes, they saw the blood on their clothing, and anybody would know that that was incriminating and they, therefore, would very quickly get rid of the clothing. Even then, in some cases, we have people who go back, throw the clothes in the wash, wash the shoes and we've actually recovered shoes from people that were still wet. But in most cases with bloody clothing, it's very obvious that they have to get rid of the clothes and the shoes because it's incriminating evidence.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And in order to be able to dispose of the accoutrements of murder, that is bloody shoes, clothes and maybe a weapon, there must be an opportunity; must there not?

MR. BODZIAK: That would be common sense, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, any redirect?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, I do have some redirect.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, you were asked some questions about crime scene processing type issues. Can you just briefly indicate for us what additional experience you have in the area of crime scene processing, exclusively as it relates to collection of shoeprint evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the function of the laboratory that I work in, the FBI lab, is not primarily to respond to crime scenes, but I have on occasion responded to crime scenes. In addition, perhaps the biggest summary of crime scene efforts that I see is in the casework that's submitted to me; namely, the photographs, the casts, lifts and other evidence which relates to shoes and then talking to the investigators, seeing general photographs of the scene, reading about the circumstances of the scene. So to that effort, I have a great deal of experience in understanding what is normally retrieved and normally found at crime scenes and what efforts are normally successful and what efforts are not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Have you also taught people how to do crime scene investigation in the area of shoeprint analysis?

MR. BODZIAK: That's one of the most common requests which I get, and I've been doing it steadily since 1982.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you tested various techniques for searching for shoeprints and also recovering shoeprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Any materials or methods which are new, we immediately obtain to see if they're better than what might have been existing before and to see if they work.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, breaking down the Bundy drive location into some discreet components, I want to ask you some questions about searching and retrieving shoeprints.

MR. GOLDBERG: If I may approach, your Honor.

MR. GOLDBERG: Directing your attention to what we have referred to in this case as being the caged-off area, the area north of where Q67 and Q68 was located, if you arrived at the crime scene at night, what kind of technique would be used in order to search for shoeprints in the soil in this area?

MR. BODZIAK: The technique would be to use what we call an oblique light source. And the word "Oblique" simply refers to the light being held low to the ground and grazing the ground. And that helps in determining the depressed areas versus the nondepressed areas and it basically visualizes the shoeprints better.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you give us an example of what an oblique light source would be?

MR. BODZIAK: An oblique light source could be anything from a sophisticated high-intensity light source that, you know, generates a lot of light and you'd have to plug in somewhere, and on the other hand, you would probably see just natural sunlight in the morning grazing the ground or a flashlight grazing the grounds. And any of these would be suitable for finding these impressions. Obviously, the ones with more light intensity would show them up better, but you could also see them with the other methods.

MR. GOLDBERG: So would a high-intensity flashlight then qualify?

MR. BODZIAK: If used properly, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that--by properly, you mean by shining it at an oblique angle across the area?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. By grazing the surface and looking for impressions in that area, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So if detectives did a search of this area with the flashlight, would that qualify as a competent search for shoe impressions in that area?

MR. BODZIAK: If they were using the flashlights specifically in that manner and were carefully looking, that light would be adequate for finding them, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, let's talk about shoeprint impressions on the walkway at a nighttime search. What would be done for locating shoe impressions on a nighttime search on the walkway?

MR. BODZIAK: Just a portable light source to light up the area.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would a flashlight qualify as an oblique type light--

MR. BODZIAK: Well, you wouldn't use--

MR. GOLDBERG: --under those circumstances?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry. You wouldn't use an oblique light source on the concrete. You would just want to illuminate it. The concrete is not an area where you're likely to find dust impressions because it has so much residual dust to begin with. So--and because it's very rough and porous and uneven. So to look at that surface with a light surface is unlikely to produce anything. But just looking for opaque impressions such as the blood impressions, just the high-intensity light. You could use a flashlight, but the brighter the light, the easier it would be.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, switching to a daytime search, what kind of search would you do in the area of the, what we've called the caged-off area in the soil during the day?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, in the daytime, the amount of light around you is so much more intense than these portable light sources, that basically at that point, you're just looking for any depressions in the soil with just your naked eye and the existing light.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if that was done, would that be a competent search of that area during the day?

MR. BODZIAK: Actually, the light source, oblique light source at night would make it easier to see those depressions than trying to look at them on a bright sunny day.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if you did both, would that be a competent search of that area?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to a daytime search of the area that we've been referring to as the walk, which is made of the tiles and the concrete, what would constitute a competent search of this area for bloody shoeprints and also possible latent shoeprints during the day?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the bloody shoeprints of course would--for just searching for them or for recovering them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let's start with searching for them.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Searching for them, again, just a light source that would enable you to adequately see the sidewalk area. Daylight would be better. If you were looking at night, any light source that was adequate enough to illuminate the sidewalk so you could see the sidewalk would be adequate. The brighter the light, obviously, it would make it easier.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about using--we've heard testimony about oblique light and alternate light and all these fancy things. What about using those on the surface that we're referring to as the walkway, the concrete and the tile for the purposes of trying to look for latent shoeprints? Shouldn't that have been done?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I--I have never seen a latent shoeprint except in one occasion, which was a rarity, in Florida. I haven't seen a latent shoeprint on a concrete surface in all of the other cases I worked because concrete is inherently dusty and dirty and rough and porous. And for a flat surface, in order to see those minute residue impressions, you have to literally skim the surface, and you can't do that with an oblique light source on concrete or concrete walkway such as this because magnified, it's going look this (Indicating) in the light which has cast a lot of shadows and irregularities. Secondly, a residue impression would not occur on this sidewalk because--residue meaning dust or dirt, because, as I had mentioned before, whether you're walking across the carpeting here or concrete, you're picking up the same and redepositing the same residue and you wouldn't see any differentiation. Only have one case where I saw someone walk across wet sand in Florida, and then the sand was deposited on the concrete and gave adequate differentiation to leave impressions. Other than that, I've never seen one on concrete.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, what about using some other technique like an electrostatic dust print lifter in order to look for latent prints that might have existed on the walkway area--

MR. BODZIAK: It wouldn't--

MR. GOLDBERG: --during the daytime search?

MR. BODZIAK: It wouldn't be applicable for residue impressions because you're picking up the same residue and putting it turn. The only time the electrostatic lifting device is of use is when you step on something relatively clean. So if there was an object that was clean laying across the walkway and you were picking the residue up from the normal concrete and then stepped on that clean object, then you could make a lift of that object and you may recover a footwear impression. But you wouldn't recover it from the walkway itself.

MR. GOLDBERG: So in your view, if a visual search was made for shoeprints at night using flashlight on the surfaces that we've referred to as the walkway and then also a visual daytime search was made for shoeprints on that walkway, would that be a competent way of processing this crime scene as far as shoeprints are concerned?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it would be--let me say that you wouldn't find any other prints on a concrete walkway like that other than something like blood or grease or water, which of course would evaporate very quickly. You're not going to find any other kind of--you're not going to find 3-dimensional impressions. You're not going to find dry residue impressions. You're only going to fine opaque type of impressions on concrete. So looking at it with a light source, just a white light source of visual situation, daytime or light source at night is what you would need just to visualize those impressions.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, we've heard a lot of testimony in this case about booties and trampling over latent footprints. What do you feel about wearing--should the officers in this case that searched the crime scene initially and walked through what we've referred to as the walkway area that's concrete and tile, should they have worn booties?

MR. BODZIAK: Actually, the impressions would have been dry probably within five to 10 minutes with the exception of the large quantities of blood around the victim and perhaps underneath the victim. And so those impressions wouldn't be affected whether the person had booties on or was just wearing their regular shoes. In the areas immediately adjacent to the victims where there was larger quantities of blood that were perhaps shielded from the air, the tackiness of the blood might last a little longer. And in looking at crime scene material that's sent to me, the only occasion with regard to blood impressions that we ever get secondary impressions from police officers or paramedics are those which result when they come to the scene and maybe turn the body over to see if they--to verify they're deceased or to give them the necessary, you know, attention and uncover those previously shielded areas that might still be tacky. So with regard to the ones down the walkway from the--from a on, it wouldn't matter if they were wearing booties or just their shoes. They would not affect those impressions.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is your position on wearing booties? And I'm referring strictly to not health issues, but the question of preserving footprints at a crime scene.

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I think the purpose of wearing booties might extend into other areas of forensic science where they're perhaps trying to preserve other types of evidence as well. Simply with regard to footwear impressions, the booties--actually, I have seen some bootie prints more often around the body, as I previously described, than I have shoeprints. So they seem to have more of an affinity for tracking the pattern of the bootie than a person's shoes do in themselves just tracking their shoeprint.

MR. GOLDBERG: So does that mean that you are recommending or not recommending the wearing of booties when the health issue is not a concern in terms of footprint recovery?

MR. BODZIAK: Except for the area like I mentioned right around the body, it doesn't make any difference. It's just that it's cloth, and cloth tends to pick up stuff more than leather or rubber. So--

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: It doesn't really make that much difference.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, with respect to what you understand of the crime scene processing, of the shoeprints from your conversations that you presumably--well, let me ask you this first. When you went to the scene with Mr. Fung, did you have some conversations with him relating to the shoeprints in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: What aspect of the shoeprints?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, where they were, how they were recovered and so on, how they were photographed and the like?

MR. BODZIAK: I had conversations with him and other people prior to coming out here to ascertain whether there were any other photographs of any other footwear impressions that I had not been given. And in coming out here, I reviewed many photographs of the general crime scene to make sure that there wasn't anything overlooked with regard to footwear impression evidence. So I was pretty familiar with that prior to coming out to the Bundy scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And based upon that as well as your reviewing of the evidence in this case that you've previously discussed and your understanding of how that scene was processed, was the scene insofar as shoeprints are concerned processed in a competent manner when you're comparing it to what you've grown to understand as the national standard in the forensic community?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard just to the photographs or the whole scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: The photographs and the scene.

MR. BODZIAK: The photographs were adequate. They are better than most that we receive in the laboratory.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what about the rest of the processing?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I would have, as I previously stated, tried a protein stain or some other chemical enhancement on the impressions. In cases of bloody impressions on a light colored surface such as this walkway, in most cases, the chemical enhancement gives very little additional enhancement. But I would have tried it as a practice. If we had a pair of shoes to compare with these tracks, then perhaps that fine difference of what we might have achieved with chemical enhancement versus what we have with good photographs might have made a difference. For purposes of determining what size shoe it was and what pattern it was, which you can see already with the photographs, it wouldn't have made any difference.

MR. GOLDBERG: So in terms of what you're used to getting at the FBI for purposes of analysis in the area of shoeprints, was the quality of the work that was done here in terms of shoeprints pretty high?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I can only Judge by what I received; and what I received was good quality for comparison purposes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked some questions about various hypotheticals in terms of how these two shoeprints--how the shoeprints, the left and right shoeprints and the indistinct ones could have been deposited at the crime scene. Do you recall that series of questions?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to-- Mr. Bailey.

MR. BODZIAK: --by M and N and O?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, is there anything that you observed in your analysis in addition to what you've already told us in terms of the wear characteristics of the shoes which would be helpful to us in resolving this scenario that you were given in which two individuals purchased two size 12 Bruno Magli shoes in 1991 or `92 and then saved them for a special occasion where they wanted to dress up in their nice Italian loafers for the purpose of committing a murder? Is there anything you can tell us about the wear characteristics that would help us resolve that hypothetical?

MR. BODZIAK: Only in general terms that none of the impressions showed any great degree of wear. As I've mentioned before, they were either unworn or of very little wear. And so, again, to the hypothetical, which I don't agree with, that two people did this, that would also mean that they didn't wear their shoes very much until they committed this crime, which is not what I agree with.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment, your Honor? I just want to look at the rest of my notes.

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in terms of the hypotheticals that you were given, is there anything that would rule out the possibility that a suspect went down the walkway and then at some point realized that he had left a hat and also a glove behind and came back for the purposes of trying to find them could not do so or became alarmed and then fled the crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm not sure what you're asking me.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything that would tell you that that did not happen or did happen?

MR. BODZIAK: Based on the footprints?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Well, as I've stated before, I believe the same person left both sets of footprints, which means that they had to have turned back and come back to that scene. So that certainly is one of many possibilities.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked whether there were any footprints that were facing in the other direction, meaning in an easterly direction on this diagram, in the area of the stairs. Was there such a footprint?

MR. BODZIAK: There's a very light footprint coming down the stairs on the same step as impression number B. that was the enlarged photograph which I had said did not have a scale or a--it was taken at a slight angle, and to which I had two overlays taped to, one going in one direction and one in the other. One of those was coming back down the step and it--it was just a very fragment of the edge of the shoe. So because it was coming down the step, it's possible that, again, with that weight being emphasized on that foot, there might be a little bit of blood squeezed out that wasn't coming out before and you could have had that light impression. So that's possible that that was a representation of the return of the person after the first walking down the sidewalk.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you show us where that is on the Bundy chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The blue or purple right footwear impression, which is the center impression on the step which is marked B, is very, very light and coming back down in an easterly direction toward the original crime scene (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. And, sir, in your experience with the Federal Bureau of Investigation analyzing footprints, footprint cases, have you ever heard of a case where two suspects bought two shoes of the same size with the same lack of wear characteristics on them and then walked at a crime scene in such a way so as to replicate only one person having been at the crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I haven't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bodziak, thank you very much, sir. You are excused. People may call their next witness.

MR. GOLDBERG: People call Mr. Poser to the stand.

THE COURT: All right. And, Mr. Goldberg, you want to collect the Reeboks here?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor?

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, something has come up that I need to take a recess at this time. So we're going to break 15 minutes early today. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you. And as far as the jury is concerned, we'll be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:00 clock. All right. And let me see counsel with the reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: I have in my notes Weir for--Weir 402 Thursday is our agreement.

MR. COCHRAN: I wouldn't mind, Judge, if it's going to save some time--I said Wednesday or Thursday. If Wednesday--I mean if you've got something else planned. If we get to it, we'll be ready on Wednesday.

THE COURT: Here's the thing. If I have to put the jury on ice for a whole day, I've got to find something for them to do.

MR. COCHRAN: That's fine.

MS. CLARK: Well, it would be better I think if we do Weir on Wednesday because, you know, he has an engagement the following week in another state. So the sooner we get him up--

MR. COCHRAN: You mean the hearing on Wednesday. When is the Weir hearing?

MS. CLARK: He said Thursday. If we could do it on Wednesday instead.

MR. COCHRAN: For Weir? Could I--when's the DV hearing? I'm reluctant to say--I presume we can do it, but can I let you know in the morning?

THE COURT: Let me know in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Right. Now you have both the Weir and the--

THE COURT: DV.

MR. COCHRAN: If we do it on Thursday, you have to put the jury on ice, find something for them to do?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll check and let you know tomorrow morning.

THE COURT: Decide.

MR. COCHRAN: Decide. She wants a stipulation--I showed her a stipulation regarding crime scene photos, if she wants to save some time. While we're up here, can you tell us what else do you have to the end, go all the way to the end, end of your case? Any surprises? I want to get this over with.

MS. CLARK: Revisit the gloves. We're going to revisit the glove.

THE COURT: Are you going to get some gloves?

MS. CLARK: We all are.

MR. COCHRAN: We're not going to get some gloves. Let me tell you something, Judge. We're going to--I think--what I'm saying, if they're going to revisit the gloves, we would like a hearing on that because we tried the gloves on that they claim was part of their case. Everything else we want to be heard on.

THE COURT: Let's see what they come up with.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just saying I would like before they parade them out--Mr. Darden, to his credit, did come over to me the last time they brought in gloves that had nothing to do with this case, and I then asked you--and you sent the jurors away, which is very wise. So I don't want them to go whip out some gloves in front of the jury. Could we hear, Judge, just for once and for all--and we're talking to the right person now, Marcia Clark--what they've got to the end and when they're ending? We hear the end of this week. So if that's going to be the case, I mean, I would like to know.

THE COURT: No. That's not going to happen.

MS. CLARK: I wish it were true, but that's not going to happen.

MR. COCHRAN: Give us some idea where we're going so we all can agree.

THE COURT: We've got one more shoe person, right?

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And we have the stipulation, Posner guy. All right. We have the DNA. We have Sims, Sims going to the last testimony, and Weir's going to make sense out of your numbers.

MR. COCHRAN: We're going to have a hearing about that.

THE COURT: Yes. That's where--yes. We have the hearing. Then Airtouch records regarding the calls that night.

MS. CLARK: Right. We have EDTA in there.

MR. COCHRAN: Mark.

MS. CLARK: I think so.

MR. COCHRAN: Rockne wouldn't tell us that this morning.

MS. CLARK: This is a team effort, you know what I mean? No decision before its time.

MR. COCHRAN: Right now, where are you on EDTA?

MS. CLARK: As soon as I talk to my DNA people again, I'll--

THE COURT: Then hair and trace.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you talked about that yet?

MS. CLARK: Yeah. We talked to the boys in New York, who apparently are kicking up a fuss about wanting to stipulate. So I'm going to be calling everybody. It's going to be a long track.

MR. COCHRAN: They'll be out here and talk about it. What else do we have?

MS. CLARK: That hopefully is it.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MS. CLARK: We might have--

MR. COCHRAN: I'll remember that.

MS. CLARK: I know. You know, there might--there might be a witness to testify about these socks. That's something that's breaking right now. The minute we find out that we do have such a witness, we'll let you know.

THE COURT: What is this person going to say about the socks?

MS. CLARK: I don't know. As soon as we--

MR. COCHRAN: It's breaking right now? Sale of the socks? What area are we talking about?

MS. CLARK: We're talking about the kind of socks, where they would be purchased.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, wait a minute. Where were these socks found?

MS. CLARK: In his bedroom.

MR. COCHRAN: So we don't have discovery on this.

MS. CLARK: We don't have discovery on it yet.

MR. COCHRAN: Obviously.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: So now we have general--

MS. CLARK: If we have anything to give you, if anything turns up on that, it will be literally within minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now we have a general understanding of where we are going.

MS. CLARK: And the DV which you already know.

MR. COCHRAN: Last thing. How long will that take, what you just told us?

MS. CLARK: I would guess through the end of next week. It depends. Are you going to have Scheck and Neufeld cross-examine Denise Lewis and Susan Brockbank about the folds in the paper films and scotch tape on the coin envelope? Well, okay. It will be the end of July.

MR. COCHRAN: I don't think so. I assume there will be a reasonable amount of cross-examination. You should talk. Mr. Kelberg, who started out like a genius, ended up slithering out of here. I--

MS. CLARK: I dispute that characterization vehemently.

THE COURT: He had a lot of holes to fill, but he could have combined some of it.

MR. COCHRAN: Fine lawyer.

THE COURT: Off the record.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(At 4:50 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Tuesday, June 20, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. Ba097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Monday, June 19, 1995

Volume 170 pages 32595 through 32868, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 170 pages 32595 - 32868

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Monday June 19, 1995 A.M. 32595 170 P.M. 32715 170

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden D Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

People's witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Bodziak, William J. 32611gb 170 (Resumed) 32718gb 32774b 32844gb

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Bodziak, William J. 32611gb 170 (Resumed) 32718gb 32774b 32844gb

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

People's for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

373 - Chart 32615 170 entitled "What the examination of footwear impression from the crime scene can determine"

374 - Chart 32624 170 entitled "Bruno Magli shoes"

375 - Box and contents 32626 170 shoes "Bruno Magli" blue in color

376 - Chart 32631 170 entitled "Determination of shoe size from a crime scene impression

377 - Chart 32635 170 entitled "How hand-milled molds are made"

378 - Chart 32637 170 entitled "Other factors contributing to shoe sizing"

379 - Shoe soles 32642 170 six pair - sizes 42 thru 47

380 - Chart 32644 170 with 6 photos entitled "Manufacture of Bruno Magli shoes-Silga factory"

381 - 12 shoe lasts 32650 170

382 - Chart 32653 170 entitled "Reverse photographs of soles"

383 - Chart 32657 170 entitled "Shoe print comparison"

384 - Reebok tennis 32663 170 shoes

385-A - Chart 32668 170 entitled "Height calculation chart"

385-B - Chart 32670 170 entitled "Survey of 399 males shoe sizes"

386 - Chart 32675 170 entitled "Footwear impressions after stepping in liquid"

387-A - Chart 32683 170 entitled "875 south Bundy"

387-B - Diagram 32683 170 of Bundy drive

388 - Photograph 32684 170 of a shoeprint

389 - Photograph 32684 170 of a shoeprint

390-A thru 390-P - 32684 170 each a photograph of a shoeprint of a shoeprint

391 - Photograph 32684 170 of a shoeprint

392 - Photograph 32684 170 of a shoeprint

393 - Photograph 32684 170 of a shoeprint

394 - Photograph 32684 170 of a shoeprint

395 - Photograph 32684 170 of a left and right shoeprint

396 - Posterboard 32737 170 with photograph os shoe bottoms of Detectives Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts

397 - Chart 32647 170 entitled "Bronco carpet, LAPD item no. 33

398 - Chart 32760 170 entitled "Nicole Brown's dress, LAPD item no. 86

399-A - Chart 32766 170 large shoprint overlay

399-B - Chart 32766 170 small shoe heel overlay