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.)
(Pages 45745 through 45785, volume 222A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
(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 present with counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld, People represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Darden. Good morning, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. As far as scheduling is concerned today, I understand we're going to conclude with Miss Ramirez and then I understand the Prosecution is going to move on to the presentation of Mr. Deedrick and Mr. Bodziak; is that correct?
MS. CLARK: Yes, with one addition, your Honor. I understand that--I think--we have informed counsel we forgot to put on the list a photographer.
THE COURT: Mr. Adkins?
MS. CLARK: Right.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, with regard to that, it would violate the three-day rule. But since the People have only two other witnesses, we need some time to interview Mr. Adkins. So we'll need some time on that and probably we'll be ready after that. I spoke briefly with Mr. Darden about the scope of this. We can talk to Mr. Adkins. We may be able--I believe that's Mr. Neufeld's witness. We may be able to proceed on that, but we'll need some time.
MS. CLARK: He should be very brief.
MR. COCHRAN: May I have an oral estimate? Do the People expect to finish their case either--depending on my cross-examination, by tomorrow at the latest?
MS. CLARK: Well that's what I think. I mean, cross is unpredictable, but my proposed direct is not that extensive. I think we should finish tomorrow.
THE COURT: My guess is Monday.
MS. CLARK: You may be right, your Honor. I mean, I'm optimistic because there is going to be down time today before we get to the witnesses. Everybody wants to talk to everybody, so that may be true. But, you know, hope springs eternal.
MR. COCHRAN: Is today a 6:00 o'clock day? So see, we may be able to finish.
MS. CLARK: Is there any possibility going past noon tomorrow to finish?
THE COURT: It's possible.
MS. CLARK: Okay. If we can.
THE COURT: Let me check because I don't know what other--I mean, I'm going to be here. So--
MS. CLARK: Right. I know. But it's a juror thing.
THE COURT: Right. Let me see what plans we made. I'll check with Deputy Jex to see what other plans, because we may have made doctors' appointments--
MS. CLARK: Right.
MR. COCHRAN: With that thought in mind, your Honor, we will then proceed to try to line up our--the balance of our witnesses starting Monday. So we'll try not to have too much downtime.
THE COURT: That would be a good idea.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. We'll do that.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, there's one other thing. Two other things. No. 1, we had made a motion for judicial notice on the phase of the moon on June the 12th, and the court granted that motion. So I'd ask that the court--I don't know if the court has it. I have it with me. If the court would read that to the jury prior to the People conditionally resting on rebuttal. And also, the People have made--
THE COURT: All right. I think what you need to do then is make a formal request in front of the jury that the court take judicial notice of that particular phase of the moon.
MS. CLARK: Yes. And I just wanted to make sure--
THE COURT: Is there any objection? That was a request that was made quite some time ago.
MR. COCHRAN: I missed part of it.
MS. CLARK: Judicial notice of the phase of the moon on June 12th.
THE COURT: Submitted?
MR. COCHRAN: Phase of the moon? What's the word? "Increasing"? There was "Waning," "Waxing," remember that word? There was some question about what you were going to do about "Waning" and "Waxing."
THE COURT: I was going to tell them what the appropriate term is, "Waning" and "Waxing," and I assume, since that is a common term, the jurors will know what that means.
MS. CLARK: Anyway, the proposed sentence is here your Honor; on June 12th, 1994, the moon was a cres--we have as a crescent moon with 12 percent. Why not just say then on June the 12th, 1994, the moon was a waxing crescent moon with 12 percent of the moon surface illuminated? And that will satisfy both sides I think.
THE COURT: Fine.
MS. CLARK: And I'll submit that to the court so you have your script in front of you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: You're welcome. Also, the People have--
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Mr. Cochran, is that issue submitted?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, the problem is with that, if you recall--I don't want to spend a lot of time on it--instead of using the word "Waxing," I thought we talked "Increasing" because you see--
THE COURT: No. The terminology for the phase of the moon, increasing and decreasing illumination is "Waxing" and "Waning." Everybody knows that.
MR. COCHRAN: Not everybody, your Honor.
THE COURT: Everybody knows that. Who in this courtroom doesn't know that?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. We just had our focus moved, Judge. So my point is proven.
THE COURT: All right. Is the matter submitted, Mr. Cochran?
MR. COCHRAN: If you'll take the survey.
THE COURT: Is the matter submitted?
MR. COCHRAN: Submitted, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: Lastly, your Honor, the People have made repeated requests for the Stockdale tape. We've attempted to get it from the--from the answering machine company as directed by the court. We submitted a letter, I think a copy of it came to the court with a declaration from the person told to us by Miss Stockdale who indicated they do not keep copies, they do not any longer have a copy of the tape, which means that under Meredith, we're back at our initial starting point, which is that the Defense has altered evidence to a point that we can no longer obtain it by our own means, and we requested of the Defense by a letter I think sent a couple weeks ago to present that tape to us. We would like now to have that tape produced in court.
THE COURT: Who wants to address that for the Defense?
MR. COCHRAN: I can just address it generally. I think that if I recall correctly--and we'll have to get back to this later perhaps. I think we submitted some declarations to the court under seal regarding this, and I'd like the court to pull those up. I don't have copies of that here.
THE COURT: All right. That was during a 1054.7. We need to revisit that because I need to check my notes.
MS. CLARK: Can we do that today, your Honor?
THE COURT: Maybe during the breaks in-between witnesses I can look that up.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Just for the record, I have just received a letter dated September 13th to Mr. Cochran from James Michael Maddock, deputy counsel of the office of general counsel of the Federal Bureau Of Investigation. And as I previously informed the court, this letter indicates that the bureau does not object to Special Agent Frederick Whitehurst testifying in this matter.
Therefore, a subpoena for his presence is unnecessary. I think we probably should just mark this letter and make a copy for--so that that's before the court. And also, I should put on the record what I think I've previously informed the court. In this letter, Mr. Maddock indicates that the subpoena that we served for records to the FBI--well, it was a subpoena that we served on Mr. Whitehurst's counsel. It was then forwarded to the FBI--was not jurisdictionally valid in so far as it had to go through the federal district court--we've taken measures to do that, and that he has also--it's not reflected in the letter, but he's also agreed and Mr. Whitehurst--dr. Whitehurst has agreed to an interview with both sides in this case with the court reporter present. And hopefully we can arrange that by Saturday and then further discovery can ensue from that. But for purposes of the record, I thought we should just make this part of the record so it's clear.
THE COURT: All right. Yesterday, the Defense filed and then withdrew that out-of-state subpoena request. And, Mrs. Robertson, did you send that down to the main file?
THE CLERK: No your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It's up here? Okay. Okay. All right. Let's have the jury, please.
(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. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Ramirez, would you please resume the witness stand.
Teresa Ramirez, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. The record will reflect that Miss Teresa Ramirez is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Good morning, Miss Ramirez.
MS. RAMIREZ: Good morning.
THE COURT: You are reminded, ma'am, that you are still under oath. And, Mr. Neufeld, you may continue.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Good morning, Miss Ramirez.
MS. RAMIREZ: Good morning.
MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Ramirez, I'll try and make this brief so you can get on to the dentist where you started to head for yesterday afternoon. Do you recall that before we broke yesterday, ma'am, that I asked you if you were aware whether Mr. Goldberg had had prior conversations, that is prior to the July 27th, 1995 taping session with Mr. Peratis? Do you recall me asking you that or that subject coming up?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And after we broke yesterday, did you have an opportunity and this morning as well to review portions of that videotape, the complete videotape that you made on July 27th to refresh your recollection?
MS. RAMIREZ: I saw a portion of the tape.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And let me ask you this. Now that--let me ask you again, did you become aware during the July 27th taping session at Mr. Peratis' home that in fact on a prior occasion, Mr. Goldberg had met with Mr. Peratis at the dispensary where Mr. Peratis works at the jail?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you also become aware during that July 27th taping that Mr.--excuse me--that Mr. Goldberg had also spoken to Mr. Peratis sometime in February and given Mr. Peratis a subpoena to appear in court during this trial as a Prosecution witness?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I'd like to--
MS. CLARK: Objection. Misleading.
THE COURT: Counsel, we need to have the objections before the answer comes in.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm going to play two brief segments, and I reviewed it first with Miss Clark before we started.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to ask you to look at this segment and I'm going to ask you to authenticate it, okay?
MS. RAMIREZ: Okay.
(At 9:36 A.M., a videotape was played.)
THE COURT: All right. Let's hold that. Is that the portion of the tape that you wanted, Mr. Neufeld?
MR. NEUFELD: Yeah. But you're missing the--
THE COURT: No. The question is yes or no. Is that the tape that you wanted to show?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. That's the portion of the tape. Could we just play that portion one more time again very quickly? I'm sorry. It happened so quickly that I missed it.
(At 9:38 A.M., a videotape was played.)
THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the sidebar without the court reporter. The record should reflect though that the portion--hold the tape. Hold the tape. The record should reflect the portion that we've just viewed, the counter is at 350 and 351. Let me see counsel without the reporter.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
MR. NEUFELD: I apologize, your Honor. It will take one minute. We just have to switch the tapes.
(Brief pause.)
(At 9:41 A.M., a videotape was played.)
THE COURT: That should be about the right spot.
(At 9:42 A.M., a videotape was played.)
MS. CLARK: Can we complete the sentence?
THE COURT: Let's just see that in its--let's go back about 20 seconds. All right.
MR. NEUFELD: That's the end of that segment.
(At 9:44 A.M., a videotape was played.)
(At 9:45, the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, there's a reference there to Patti Jo. Do you know who Patti Jo is?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And who is that?
MS. RAMIREZ: She's secretary for the lawyers.
MR. NEUFELD: You mean the District Attorneys?
MS. RAMIREZ: District Attorney's office. Yes. Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on that tape--I'm sorry. And on that occasion when there's that reference to Mr. Goldberg--is that Mr. Goldberg's voice you hear on the tape?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And--
THE COURT: Miss Ramirez, why don't you just pull the microphone closer to you so you don't have to keep leaning over. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, during that session, apparently--not apparently. During that session, they were discussing a Prosecution subpoena that was given to Mr. Peratis in early February of 1995? Do you recall that?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: During the July 27th, 1995 taping session, ma'am, did the topic come up at all as to why during the four months, Mr. Peratis was never brought in as a Prosecution witness?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection, your Honor. The tape speaks for itself.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. It's argumentative, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. One second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now that you've seen the tape again to refresh your recollection, Miss Ramirez, when Mr. Goldberg asked Mr. Peratis about his visit, about Mr. Goldberg's visit to the dispensary where Mr. Peratis worked and you saw Mr. Peratis mouth the words--do you remember that?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Was Mr. Peratis, as you recall, having been there, was he mouthing the words, "I don't remember"?
MS. RAMIREZ: I couldn't tell.
MR. NEUFELD: But what Mr.--but what Mr. Peratis was doing was responding to Mr. Goldberg trying to talk to him about Mr. Goldberg's earlier visit with Mr. Peratis at the dispensary. That's when it came up, didn't it?
MS. CLARK: Objection.
THE COURT: It's argumentative. Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Good luck at the dentist, ma'am. Thank you.
THE COURT: Miss Clark, anything further?
MR. NEUFELD: There's such a thing as possible.
THE COURT: Now you're going to get all the dentists mad at us. Miss Clark.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: All right. Miss Ramirez, so it's clear, during the 14 minutes that the videotape was off, did anyone question Mr. Peratis about the case?
MS. RAMIREZ: No.
MS. CLARK: At any time, did Mr. Goldberg suggest to Mr. Peratis what he should say?
MS. RAMIREZ: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, beyond the scope of redirect.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: And--
THE COURT: Recross. Actually cross.
MS. CLARK: Actually cross. And Mr. Peratis indicated to Mr. Goldberg that he called Hank Goldberg, he was the one who called Hank?
THE COURT: Counsel, I think the tape--we've heard the tape. We've heard Mr. Peratis' words.
MS. CLARK: Okay. It was just foundational.
MS. CLARK: Did the Defense ever ask you to go and videotape Mr. Peratis for them?
MS. RAMIREZ: No.
MS. CLARK: Would you have done so if they had asked you?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's irrelevant.
MS. CLARK: Nothing further.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Ramirez, you work for the District Attorney's office, don't you?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't work for the Defense, do you?
MS. RAMIREZ: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Did you sit and speak with the Defense this morning at their request?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And did you watch all the tape they wanted you to watch?
MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And would you have refused a reasonable request to help them if they had made it?
MR. NEUFELD: Oh, objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. All right.
MS. CLARK: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Miss Ramirez, thank you very much. You're excused.
MR. NEUFELD: One second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: She's excused.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, Miss Ramirez. All right. Miss Clark, People's next witness is who?
MS. CLARK: People's next witness should be Mr. Deedrick and the Defense wants to talk to him. So--
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, the next witness is--the Prosecution is going to recall Mr. Deedrick. If you recollect, Mr. Deedrick testified earlier in the case. Yesterday, the court received a number of exhibits from various sources from outside of the state of California. The attorneys have asked for the opportunity to look at these items before we proceed with Mr. Deedrick's testimony. They've asked me for a one-hour recess between this witness and the next witness so that they can examine those photographs and exhibits that will probably be used in the examination of the witness. So we're going to take about a one-hour recess at this time. I'm going to keep you--I'm going to put you up in the larger lounge upstairs. But I'm hoping to complete the presentation of the Prosecution's rebuttal case by either tomorrow or Monday. All right. So these will be probably the last three or four witnesses that we'll be presenting for the prosecutions' case in rebuttal, just to let you know that we're making progress. And the reason I'm keeping you here is because I want to use as much time with you as possible. So as soon as the attorneys tell me they've had an opportunity to look at these items, we'll reconvene with you here in court. All right. With that, we'll take a recess. Counsel, I'd like you to let me know as soon as you are ready to proceed. If you need the court's assistance on any of these matters, let me now. And I'll review the Stockdale matters while we're in recess. All right. All right. We're in recess. Let me see Mr. Scheck and Miss Clark.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(Recess.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 1:05 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: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Are the People prepared to call their next witness? Mr. Darden? Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Who is your next witness?
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Scheck, who's back in the back room now, still working with Mr. Bodziak, was under the expectation they were going to call Mr. Adkins first, which I think was the court's expectation also and all of our expectation. So he was going to use this additional 15, 20 minutes to keep working with Bodziak. That's what they're doing. I mean, I understand it's up to them. But they did tell us that, and all I'm simply saying is, if they still intend to call Adkins, it should be done right now to give us that additional 15 minutes.
THE COURT: If you promise me it's only going to take 15 minutes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, I have no idea how long it's going to take, your Honor. I'm must telling you that that's what Mr. Scheck is doing right now.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, are you willing to call Mr. Adkins at this time?
MS. CLARK: No. We're not going to call him period.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: If I was going to call him now, of course I would call him now. We want to get this done. We mean it.
THE COURT: All right. So you're going to call--
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick.
THE COURT: All right. Who is going to handle Mr. Deedrick?
MR. NEUFELD: Barry Scheck is and he's also going to be handling Mr. Bodziak. That's why he's been seeing both of them.
THE COURT: All right. No Adkins. We're going to start with Mr. Deedrick.
MR. SCHECK: I just have a few more minutes with Mr. Bodziak. We might as well start with Mr. Deedrick, and then I can get that time later. How's that?
THE COURT: Perfect. All right. Let's go.
MR. SCHECK: Just give me a second.
THE COURT: Let's go. All right. Let's have it quiet, please. Counsel, why don't you be seated.
(An interruption was had in this matter.)
THE COURT: All right. We now have Mr. Scheck present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You may be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Sorry for the delay, but we're ready to get up and running now. Miss Clark, you may call your next witness.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. People call Mr. Deedrick.
Douglas W. Deedrick, called as a witness by the People on rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Deedrick, you do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about 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. DEEDRICK: I do.
THE COURT: All right. Have a seat, sir. And would you please state and spell your name for the record again, please.
MR. DEEDRICK: My name is Douglas W. Deedrick. Deedrick is spelled D-E-E-D-R-I-C-K.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Agent Deedrick, you've previously testified in this case as an expert with regard to hair and fiber comparisons that you made in this case, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MS. CLARK: Now, you also testified regarding the fabric samples you received from the victims in this case, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MS. CLARK: Do you have any experience or have there been many cases in which you've examined--you've--there have been many cases that you've been involved in, sir, that cause you to do fabric analysis in the FBI laboratory in the past?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Fabric analysis is very common because it's the type of material that is submitted for examination most of the time, whether it's fabric damage where you have to reconstruct pieces of fabric or determine what type of material, a knife or a bullet or a club or some other type of instrument may have caused the damage to the fabric. Fabric is examined for the presence of fiber composition and also design construction. So fabric is commonly examined in our unit.
MS. CLARK: Have you done any work to establish--to do fabric matching?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, fabric matching is another type of exam that's done where fabric may be recovered from a victim such as the bindings or wrappings around the hands of a victim found at a crime scene, and that fabric might need to be compared with pieces of fabric left in the suspect's car or found in the suspect's residence. He may have stripped off pieces of a bed sheet or a pillow case so that he could prepare bindings for the victim. In so doing, in tearing that fabric, each tear is unique so that it's possible to physically match the piece of fabric from the victim or from the crime scene with the piece of fabric taken from his own residence.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever done any work to determine fabric damage to determine the kind of weapon that made the damage?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, fabric damage is important as well. When the question is, could this particular knife have caused or this particular weapon have caused the damage in the fabric, again, it may be used--this type of work may be used in conjunction with the fiber comparison. That is, if you find fibers on the knife that exhibit the same characteristics as the fibers from the victim's own clothing, then you can use that information coupled with the type of damage that that fabric has incurred. You can determine if it's a single bladed knife, double-edged knife, the size of the knife. These are determinations that can be made. And, again, there's some flexibility there because there's actions involved in stabbings for instance.
MS. CLARK: Could we approach, your Honor, already?
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the sidebar. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: I want to ask a question. I don't know what the answer is and I don't know if counsel has--counsel has been speaking to Mr. Deedrick, but I don't know if they asked him about this. I would like to ask him--well, he obviously examined the shirt in this case. He already said that. I'd like to know if in examining the shirt and jeans, he made any effort to determine what kind of weapon was used in this case based on the damage to the fabric.
MR. SCHECK: Well, beyond the scope of rebuttal. Nobody's testified to that.
MS. CLARK: Well, it's not beyond the scope of rebuttal because we had testimony from Dr. Baden about the nature of the wounds and whether it was a single or double-edged knife. So it's certainly not beyond the scope. I don't know what the answer is.
MR. SCHECK: It doesn't rebut anything that Dr. Baden said.
MS. CLARK: I don't know--
THE COURT: Well, we're going to be taking a recess soon. So why don't you ask him that and see.
MS. CLARK: Ask him? Can I ask him?
THE COURT: Ask him when we take a break. Okay.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Have you ever done any work in cases involving fabric pattern in comparisons?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Can you explain to us what that means?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, fabric imprint comparisons are where an incident may occur or contact may occur between a fabric and another surface, and this contact may result in leaving an indication that the contact occurred such as an imprint pattern. There might be some material that's on the surface of the fabric like blood or some other--grease, and then when the fabric comes in contact with a surface, it may leave an indication of how that surface of the fabric looks. Another type of imprint transfer may be where an individual leans up against a surface like siding on a house and may pick up some of the dust from the surface and an impression may be left as well in the dust. Most of the cases that I've looked at over the years have been relating to hit and run cases where victims have been struck with vehicles and the clothing has actually made an impression of some type in the vehicle, whether it's on the bumper, on the fender, on the windshield. But there are many different types of cases that could involve imprint examination, burglaries, someone crawling through a window leaving an imprint pattern from the clothing of the pants or the shirt in the putty around the window or on the window sill. Bullets as they pass through fabric may actually pick up the fabric imprint pattern on the nose of the bullet in the lead. Tape that's often used to bind victims or for disguises may have an imprint pattern, not just fingerprints. They may use gloves, but they may also leave imprint patterns on the tape or on the adhesive surface. So this is just another piece of this puzzle that we work with in a forensic laboratory to try to get the information for a case.
MS. CLARK: Now, have you ever examined fabric imprints where blood was the mechanism--was the liquid that was imprinted?
MR. DEEDRICK: I can't recall specifically if I worked a case where blood was imprinted. It's hard to believe I haven't. Most of the imprint patterns that I've looked at have been involved with transfers like on vehicles. And in those instances, they often bleed quite a bit and they may even bleed on impact. So it's possible that I have, yes.
MS. CLARK: And when you say "Bleed on impact," are you talking about hit and run cases?
MR. DEEDRICK: On a hit and run case, yes. I've--I've looked at situations where weapons may have been concealed in fabric items like a bag or a pillowcase or wrapped up in clothing. And so there you have an imprint of the weapon on that clothing, but there also may be an imprint back on to that particular weapon from the blood, from--originally came from the knife or some weapon.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, have you ever examined clothing or fabric items where imprint patterns have been formed from other clothing items; in other words, an imprint made on a shirt from a pair of pants being impressed on them or an imprint from a pair of pants on to a shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: I've seen it on sheets. Not so much on clothing. That's--it's not common for me to look at casework and even concern myself with that because that is generally not an issue. Most of the--the concerns of this type of examination involve like breaking and entering, hit and run. You may have some tape exams. But I have seen fabric impressions on sheets in murder cases I believe and also on rape cases.
MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. Can you explain to us why you usually don't see or get involved in analyses that have to do with one piece of clothing impressed on another piece of clothing?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't quite follow that exactly.
MS. CLARK: Okay. You indicated that usually it's when you have fabric on fabric impressions that you're looking to identify, it's because you have a fabric impression on a sheet or maybe it involves fabric tape that's used to bind a victim or something like that if not usually an article of clothing on another article of clothing.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Testifying, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: No. Usually it's not--we're not concerned so much with whether or not the fabrics made contact by looking for fabric type imprints or impressions. If they're going to make contact, we're either going to be looking for the hair or the fiber evidence and maybe some blood evidence, and that's going to be the main focus of the laboratory, not so much looking to see if a piece of fabric may have scraped across it because many of these are not as definitive because fabric on fabric often leaves a very limiting type indication or limiting marks.
MS. CLARK: In other words, if--even if you had a suspect's clothing worn at the time of the crime, if you found an imprint that may be consistent, you still couldn't identify--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading, calls for conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. Even if you found a suspect's clothing at the time of the crime, would you be able to say in most cases whether it came from that clothing to the exclusion of all others?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: No. It's not possible to take most fabric cases, fabric type examinations and say absolutely this fabric made this imprint on a sheet or on another--even on a bumper of a car. It's not possible to say absolutely. Where you may be able to come up with more definitive conclusions would be where there's been some defect in the fabric or there's some unusual characteristic, some design, some unusual design or perhaps an emblem or an embossed label or something that is very unusual and this made an imprint on a surface, then it comes a little more unique. But most fabrics don't leave imprints that are that significant. Where fabrics may be--may have some value is where you have some raised surface, something that may--may give you an imprint pattern.
MS. CLARK: Would you say, sir, that the fabric imprint examinations in a forensic laboratory are relatively common?
MR. DEEDRICK: Very common. Very common.
MS. CLARK: In that respect, sir, are imprint--are fabric impression comparisons part of the larger family of imprint examinations?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they are.
MS. CLARK: Can you explain what that means, what you mean by that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, imprint examinations, as I said, are very common in a laboratory. In our laboratory, we have different units that do different things. Tool marks at a point of entry, they may leave an imprint or an impression of that tool in a window or on a lock. In shooting cases, you may have the impressions, lands and grooves that are impressed on the surface of the bullet as it passes out the barrel. You may have fingerprints obviously. That's one. Shoeprints, tire treads, something that may have been left behind that you're trying to link back up to that particular crime. Fabric is just another one. If the surface of the fabric comes in contact with another surface and it is in a condition that it can leave something behind, then we compare it. And since we do hair and fiber fabric examinations in our unit, we're the ones responsible for most of those types of exams.
THE COURT: Next question.
MS. CLARK: Now, are you familiar with a man by the name of Bill Bodziak?
MR. DEEDRICK: I am, yes.
MS. CLARK: And who is he, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: He's an agent in the shoeprint unit of the document section.
MS. CLARK: And are you aware of what his job description is, what he does?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, he's a supervisory special agent. He's responsible for looking at shoeprints of different types, and I think he's done some tires and some other miscellaneous document work over the years.
MS. CLARK: If a--if an impression is determined to be a shoeprint, do you examine it?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MS. CLARK: Does he examine it?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. And we have cases that come into our unit where no request is made, that a shoeprint is visible, and I take it right to him.
MS. CLARK: So if you think that a shoeprint may be involved, you pass it to him, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: I pass it along, and it's not always a requested exam.
MR. SCHECK: Move to strike as to his qualifications to determine this issue.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: And, sir, conversely, if something--if there's an imprint that appears to be a fabric impression, who does it go to for examination and analysis?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they generally ask me to do it because I've been there a while.
MS. CLARK: How many cases have you done that involved the comparison of fabric impressions?
MR. DEEDRICK: Probably a hundred or more cases. Either working by me directly or as a consulting with other examiners. Every time an examiner has a case like this, they consult me on it.
MS. CLARK: In your experience, sir, have you found that different kinds of fabric have different distinctive features to them?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. They can be very distinctive.
MS. CLARK: Can you describe some of the features that you look for in determining whether or not an impression is left by a particular type of fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, different types of fabrics, whether they're woven or knitted, may leave a pattern, depending on the surface characteristics. That is the design of the fabric may be such that there may be raised areas that may absorb a certain material and may leave that upon contact with another surface. Twill slacks, for example, like blue jeans, they're pretty--that's not uncommon to see blue-jean type impressions or imprint patterns on a lot of different items because it's a raised ribbed fabric and it's a common fabric. And in hit-and-run cases that I've worked, a lot of blue jeans have struck bumpers.
MS. CLARK: Did you prepare a board to allow the jury to see some examples of different kinds of fabric impressions?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: I have a board here, your Honor, that has been shown to everyone, ask to be marked People's next in order.
THE COURT: All right. People's 618.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Is that correct, Mrs. Robertson?
THE CLERK: Yes.
(Peo's 618 for id = board)
MS. CLARK: Sir, why don't you step down. You want to take the pointer?
THE COURT: 618. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. For the record, on this board are six photographs. Each of them is labeled with the kind of fabric that it is so we will not have to use A, B, C, D.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: If you would, sir, please point to whichever photograph you choose to begin with to explain to the jury what you are attempting to depict with these photographs. When you do that, would you please identify the photograph by the name of the fabric that you put on there.
MR. DEEDRICK: All right. The first thing right off you see is this front porch down here, and that's not a fabric. I have brushed surface area on the front porch, and I wanted to see what kind of imprint pattern that might leave. So I just put a little food coloring down and wiped it across with some tacking paper just to give you an idea of how this might look if it left an imprint pattern, something came upon it. The other fabrics include a gabardine up in the upper left. The pattern it leaves, it looks like a bunch of dots. But if you look closely, it almost has a diagonal type of rope pattern to it. The corduroy is again a raised type fabric with ribs. It will leave this particular pattern. Twill pants just beneath it here, Dockers are good examples. There's many different types of manufacturer labels that use twill pants. This differs from blue jeans on the left simply by the fineness of the rows. That is, these ribs are closer together. And you see that on blue jeans. They're a little bit coarser and they tend to have these ribs a little further apart. I took one of the lab towels that we have in the unit and did an imprint pattern of it, and you can see a kind of unique, a different appearance (Indicating). And that's just the design of the surface of the towel. And all this was--I did this for was just to give you an idea of the varying type of patterns that you may have between five fabrics and a front porch.
MS. CLARK: Now, I forgot to ask you one critical thing here, sir. Were there some items of evidence that you examined in this case that are--to which your examinations are relevant with respect to your knowledge of fabric impression?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what was it you examined from the evidence in this case concerning fabric impressions?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I examined Ron Goldman's jeans, shirt. There was an envelope that originally contained some glasses, was found at the crime scene, and a photograph of a piece of paper that was from the crime scene.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Miss Clark, are you done with the exhibit?
MS. CLARK: Yes. I'm going to take it down.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you indicated that you looked at Ron Goldman's jeans and his shirt in this case, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: Now, did you also look at photographs of those two items, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: When you looked at those photographs, were there photographs of different magnifications made of the jeans and the shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Let's focus on the jeans for a moment. Did you prepare a chart showing the photographs of Ron Goldman's jeans at different magnification levels?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. The chart has a complete image of the jeans and it's actually less than one to one. It was reduced just to fit onto the developing paper, and then there are two other photographs that are one to one from about the pocket area down to the bottom.
MS. CLARK: Maybe I'll just show that chart now. People's 619, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. People's 619.
(Peo's 619 for id = chart)
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Because I think a picture is going to make it easier, if you wouldn't mind stepping down to explain to the jury what you're showing in these photographs.
MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. As I said, this one on the left, this photograph shows you the blue jeans here identified as coming from the victim Ron Goldman. What I did was, I circled--and it might be difficult to see here (Indicating). There's two photographs--two circles that I made on the right side of the right leg that I was interested in because there appeared to be some type of pattern imprint. These were--these photographs on the right, it's about one to one. It's about the actual size of the right leg. And these circled areas--this one circle on the top is broken down into two areas and the circle at the bottom is depicted on the bottom photograph.
MS. CLARK: Now, so the areas that you have circled here are the areas of interest to you?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Because there does appear to be some type of pattern imprint present on the leg.
MS. CLARK: Now, was--was your attention directed to those areas by someone?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And by whom?
MR. DEEDRICK: By Mr. Bodziak.
MS. CLARK: And so he had already examined it by the time he gave it to you?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. He's the one that initiated the photographs. I didn't--I had not seen the blue jeans except for very early on in this particular case and I had not seen them since. So he showed me these photographs.
MS. CLARK: Now, when he passed them on to you, did you, after examining them, make some preliminary observations concerning what you thought they depicted?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I wasn't--I wasn't quite sure what they depicted initially. It did appear to be some--some parallel type lines going in different directions in the top circle, in the middle circle and going down from right to left and also down--vertical type lines that were present down just below the knee area. Wasn't quite sure what they were.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Did you have some test impressions submitted to you for comparison to these impressions that you see on these jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. I had test imprint patterns submitted from the blue jeans as well as from Ron Goldman's shoe and Ron Goldman's shirt.
MS. CLARK: And when we say "Test impressions," could you explain to the jury what that is and how it's done?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a test pattern can be prepared a number of different ways. Years ago, ink, ink pads were very common, commonly used and they still are. I mean, ink pads do work pretty well. So that many of the original imprint tests that were prepared from fabric were done with ink. And, again, as I say, you can still use that. There's another system that's been developed in the market. It's called the Identicator, and it's a chemical that has a pad and the fabric is blotted into it and then it's pressed onto some treated paper, and the treated paper reacts with the chemical real quick and it will leave the imprint pattern of that fabric. This particular system can be used for shoes, it can be used for a lot of different things. It's the chemical that reacts with the paper based upon the pressure.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So when you make that impression of a piece of fabric, do you wind up with kind of like what looks like a fingerprint of the fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. You'll get an exact kind of a mirror image of it or negative of the surface of that material that you're looking at. For instance, the ribbed blue jeans, the ribs that set out a little bit further from the fabric, they will appear to be dark on the Identicator.
MS. CLARK: Now, once you've performed that, once you have a test impression, what do you do with the area that--the imprint that is questioned that you're trying to determine the source of?
MR. SCHECK: Objection to the word--
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MS. CLARK: What do you do? Didn't I say that? I didn't say that? Okay. What do you do after you have the test impression created in order to compare it to the questioned imprint on the evidence?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these are compared visually side by side, again, making sure that you start with 1X, that is one to one, and you can do a visual comparison. Sometimes it's not possible to see as much one to one, so you may have to photograph it, enlarge it to where it's clear and then do a comparison that way. You may need to make overlays if you think it's necessary. But most of these are just visual comparisons and also making some measurements.
MS. CLARK: Now, did you also make your own test impressions of the jeans in this case?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: Before I get to that, sir, if I may ask you, after you did the test--you compared the test impressions of Ron Goldman's jeans to the questioned imprint areas on his jeans, did you form some opinion concerning the possible source of that imprint?
MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. The jeans and the jeans I didn't do. I compared the shirt with the jeans.
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. Let me back up. In this case, you compared--did you also prepare test impressions of Ron Goldman's shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Before you prepared your own test impressions of his shirt, did you have in your possession test impressions of the shirt prepared by someone else?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And did you compare those test impressions to the questioned area of imprint on the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: And did you form some opinion at that time concerning the possible source of the imprint you saw on the jeans which you've circled on People's 618?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Later at some point after that, did you also make your own test impressions using the Identicator of Ron Goldman's shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.
MS. CLARK: And did you then compare those test impressions also to the questioned imprint areas on Ron Goldman's jeans circled on People's 618?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did. I compared both--the test that I made, I compared with the original test plus I compared them with the imprint patterns that were present on the jeans.
THE COURT: Counsel, I think you may have misspoken yourself. I think this is 619, is the jean exhibit.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. 619. May I ask that that--when I said 618 these last two questions, I meant 619.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, after those comparisons were done--and were these one on one comparisons by the way?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were, yes. The latest ones were one on one.
MS. CLARK: And the more--the earlier ones were?
MR. DEEDRICK: They were up to 4X, four times.
MS. CLARK: And what opinion did you form, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that the pattern that was prepared from the test imprint of the shirt could have produced the imprint patterns or the parallel lines that are present on the jeans located mainly in this top circle. Down in the middle circle here on the right-hand side of the photograph, lines that are also very similar and down here at the knee area. But by far, the best ones were right above the knee area on the right side of the pants (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Can you--do you have an opinion, sir, as to the type of movement that would have caused the imprint that you've circled on People's 619 on Ron Goldman's jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it could be a swiping type movement, very easily could have been that, or a flat imprint. But I believe more likely, it probably was a swiping type in the direction of the rib on the shirt.
MS. CLARK: Now, I want to ask you another question, sir, and for that, you can retake the witness stand.
(The witness complies.)
MS. CLARK: Do you see commonly variations between the test impression taken from an article of fabric and the questioned imprint to which you may find to be consistent with that fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. You'll always find some variation.
MS. CLARK: And why is that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because the active transferring and imprint onto a surface during an actual living event is affected by the amount of force, the movement of the individuals, the duration of the contact, the force of the contact, directionality of it, if it's twisted or slid. and when you make a test imprint, it's--you're trying to recreate it as best you can, but there's no way to know exactly what happened during the initial event or when a crime has been committed. It's--without having a videotape and actually seeing it occur, you don't know. So you try to do your best to recreate various movements or pressures that you put onto that treated paper.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Let me ask you a question, sir. Fabric typically is stretchy. It bends, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: Fabric is flexible, yes.
MS. CLARK: When fabric is worn on a person's body, a person's body is generally not flat like a board or table or piece of paper?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. Common sense.
MS. CLARK: Right. When you make a test impression with fabric, what do you--do you impress it on a rounded surface?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. It's flat.
MS. CLARK: Like a leg or something?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. It's flat. It's on a flat surface.
MS. CLARK: And the surface that you make the impression on, is that another fabric, piece of fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. It's on a piece of paper or on a table.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So it's--so using the piece of paper that's flat on a paper, can you say, first of all, whether or not the paper has the same kind of absorbancy as fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, you can't.
MS. CLARK: And so it's flat and it's a different absorbancy. Also, is there any way that you can make--that you try to stretch the fabric or pull it to show how it's going to look different if bent or stretched in any particular manner when you make the impression?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, sometimes you can place a finger in one area and stretch the fabric and make an imprint pattern that way. That may be more characteristic of fabric that's at the elbow or if it's on gloves at the knuckles or if it's on pants at the knee area because these are the areas that often get worn and they also often are flexed a little bit more. So an imprint that's taken in a situation like that on a twill fabric or blue-jean type fabric, often you'll see that the ribs are a little bit further apart whereas if you press it flat, turn the fabric in a little bit, it can make these ribs a little bit closer together. So it's kind of--it's a test that you're conducting and you do your best to try to recreate an actual event, but you never really can.
MS. CLARK: Do you know necessarily how much force was applied during the commission of a crime to cause a fabric imprint to be made?
MR. DEEDRICK: In some instance, if you know how fast a car is going, I mean, you could know then.
MS. CLARK: Could you ever duplicate that force in making your test impression?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you probably have to find some dummy wearing some clothes standing out there waiting to be hit. Maybe that would be one way to do it, because you have to have some resistance and the resistance to that impact would have to be some mannequin or dummy that--and I don't think you could even do it then because obviously the victim of a hit and run case may be aware, may not be aware, may be running, may be ducking, may be jumping. So I don't know if you could even recreate it then.
MS. CLARK: But the bottom line is, sir, that, are there a number of variables that occur when an actual imprint is made on fabric during the commission of a crime that cannot be completely duplicated in making your test impression?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There's many variables.
MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, would you ever render an opinion as to whether or not a specific kind of article of clothing made a questioned imprint on a piece of evidence without having a test impression?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. I would never attempt to do that. I would try my best to recreate what type of pattern a fabric may have or an object may have before I conducted an comparison.
MS. CLARK: Would you be willing to dismiss the possibility that any particular item of clothing may have made an imprint on a piece of evidence at a crime scene without having seen a test impression of that item to compare it to the questioned imprint?
MR. DEEDRICK: I think in some instances, if you have an unusual enough pattern, I think you might be able to do that. I'd really want to do it. Just to be scientifically accurate as much as possible, you'd want to show people that in fact these do make different test patterns. But with blue jeans and some other fabrics, I would want to do that because--like twill pants, blue-jean pants, you may want to make sure that the ribs and so forth are similar. So I would want to make sure I did a test pattern.
MS. CLARK: Now, are you aware, sir, that Dr. Lee testified during the Defense case to certain imprints on Ron Goldman's blue jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: I heard some of that testimony, yes.
MS. CLARK: Are you aware, sir, that he in his testimony excluded the possibility that Ron Goldman's shirt could have made any of those imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: I remember that, yes.
MS. CLARK: Are you also aware, sir, that he made no test impressions prior to--and made no comparisons between test impressions and the questioned imprint prior to arriving at his conclusions?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not sure if I recall hearing that.
MS. CLARK: Hypothetically speaking, sir, if under those facts, that is, a questioned imprint on a pair of jeans and a victim's shirt of the type that Ron Goldman wore, if that shirt were to be excluded by an expert as having made the imprint on the jeans, without having any test impressions to compare to the questioned imprint from Ron Goldman's shirt, what would your opinion be of that scientific procedure?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think it's inadequate. I think you really need to do as much as you can as far as trying to recreate a pattern to compare it to. I don't know how you can make a statement like that without knowing what kind of pattern the shirt actually makes. I think you need to do it.
MS. CLARK: Now, did you examine the board created by the Defense known as 1339?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, I think they may need an exhibit. All right. Mr. Fairtlough, this is Defense 1339?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, is there anything that is not--I'm sorry. Miss Clark, is there anything that's not appropriate on this exhibit?
MS. CLARK: No. It's fine. You don't have to cut the feed on this one I don't think. Black and white photographs with the jeans without any--
THE COURT: Thank you. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Sir, we have here Defendant's 1339. Have you looked at this board previously?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: You probably need to step down with the pointer.
(The witness complies.)
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, the area that is designated with the red numbers 1, 2 and 3, the areas that are designated, have you examined those areas on this photograph on Defense 1339?
MR. DEEDRICK: I have, yes.
MS. CLARK: Have you also then examined the pullouts 1, 2 and 3 in the blow-up photographs on this board that purport to be the locations designated by the red arrows and numbers on this overall shot of the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. I examined all of these imprint photographs.
MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to imprint no. 1, do you have any observations regarding that designated area?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. It seems to be accurate. I mean, you'd have to turn this photograph on its side because this area here at the bottom, this dark area represents the dark area on the right side of the jeans (Indicating). But it represents the area that's depicted.
MS. CLARK: With respect to imprint no. 2, the pullout over here, it's represented to be the upper right knee area on the overall picture of the jeans, do you have an observation with respect to that imprint?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's not quite positioned by the arrow. It's in the general area, but this particular pattern here is actually located right in this area (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: And for the record, the witness is pointing to a location that is approximately one inch down and maybe quarter-inch in that is towards the right-hand side as you face it more towards the center of the knee.
MS. CLARK: So where the arrow is pointing to as no. 2 is not really where that pattern is?
MR. DEEDRICK: It's--
MR. SCHECK: Objection. The pictures speak for themselves.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: It's pointing towards it, but the arrow doesn't land on it. I mean, it's--it's in the general area.
MS. CLARK: And with respect to no. 3, imprint no. 3, do you have any observations with respect to that imprint, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, no. 3 is just not right at all. 3 is located right up in this area (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: And for the record, the witness has pointed to what would--what is actually on the same side as the number--red no. 2 and up about two inches where there seems to be a blotch of dark substance on what would--
THE COURT: Appears to be adjacent from the label on the ruler that is to the left.
MS. CLARK: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: Then based on your examination, sir, imprint no. 3 as designated on the inside of the jean was not there at all?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. This particular pattern, if you superimposed it, you would see that this is the area of interest (Indicating). And that's the area that I was focusing on, so I recognized it right off.
MS. CLARK: And when the witness said, "This is the area of interest," for the record, your Honor, he pointed again to the area adjacent to the label on the ruler that's on the left-hand side of the jeans as you face them.
MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to imprint no. 2 and imprint no. 3, sir, are they the same level of magnification?
MR. DEEDRICK: They don't appear to be. No. Imprint no. 2 appears to be a higher magnification, and this is just based upon the size of the ribs. the ribs on imprint no. 3 are smaller and imprint no. 2, they're much larger. Of course, the exposure, as you can see, they're a little more washed out on imprint no. 2.
MS. CLARK: Is there a problem with that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if you're trying to compare patterns or compare two things, you'd want to have them magnified about the same. It's like a pair of hairs, fibers or anything. If you're comparing them, you should be comparing them using the same perimeters. And imprint patterns would be one way to do that.
MS. CLARK: Why should you use--why should you be comparing them at the same level of magnification?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, just so you're correct. I mean, you wouldn't want to give someone the idea that it's something when it actually isn't. You want to represent the evidence as accurately as possible.
MS. CLARK: When you magni--the more you magnify, does it make the--what impact does that have on how much space there appears to be between the ribbing?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if you magnify--as you magnify an image, you're going to increase the distance between--between objects obviously. The object will get larger, the space between objects will get larger. the ribbed pattern, the lines that are present on imprint no. 2 on the lower left-hand corner will increase in size between them. That is, if you're comparing it to something that perhaps--like imprint no. 3, these lines appear closer together. Yet, it's not unreasonable that both of them were produced perhaps by a similar type material.
MS. CLARK: So by putting in different--photographs of different areas at different levels of magnification, might it occur that an imprint, a questioned imprint might appear to look similar--two questioned imprints might appear to look similar when they really aren't because the spacing is misrepresented by the magnification?
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MS. CLARK: Can the use of different levels of magnification on two different imprints have some impact on--strike that. Let me try it again. Can the use of two different levels of magnification on two different imprints create a misimpression with respect to whether or not they were made by the same source or same item?
MR. DEEDRICK: I think it goes to what message or what you're trying to say, what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to show two things are from the same source, then you would want to represent it under the same conditions, the same magnification. It's misleading to take something that's very small and magnify it up to something that's very big if that's what you're interested in comparing it to. Because you really don't know anything about it, you might think that the small thing looks like the big thing, and in reality, they could never be the same.
MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to the imprint that you identified on the jeans as being consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt, can you show us where on the overall photograph that imprint was?
MR. DEEDRICK: The imprint pattern on the full photograph on the left of the blue jeans that I thought was by far the best--and there were several in several different directions--were located on the--just above the knee on the right-hand side on the outside of the jeans.
MS. CLARK: Would that be the area where imprint 3 should be designated on this photograph?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. You would take imprint 3, turn it up and move it right over here, and that would be the area, which is just above the knee right above on the right-hand side of the pants (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: And that was the area that you found to be consistent with the shirt of Ron Goldman?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. I did.
MS. CLARK: Would that--would the appearance of that imprint be consistent with his brushing his sleeve over that area of the jeans?
MR. SCHECK: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: I answered that, but yes, in my opinion, that would be.
MS. CLARK: Now, did you also sir--why don't you have a seat.
MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you. (The witness complies.)
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Did Mr. Bodziak also give to you photographs of an envelope found at the crime scene and a piece of paper that was found at the crime scene?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, he did.
MS. CLARK: And had he already examined them himself when he gave them to you?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Having already examined them, he asked you a question? He asked you to perform some work?
MR. SCHECK: Calls for--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: He gave you those photographs; is that correct, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: He did.
MS. CLARK: Did he give you those photographs everyday as a gift, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: I have enough work, but no, he doesn't.
MS. CLARK: When he gave you those photographs, what did you understand you were supposed to do?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I was to look at the pattern on those photographs to determine if fabric may have been the source of the imprint pattern.
MS. CLARK: And did you cause a board to be prepared of the photographs of those items, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: People's 620, your Honor.
THE COURT: 620. And I'm sorry. May I see that briefly? All right. Thank you.
MS. CLARK: Three photographs on this.
(Peo's 620 for id = board)
MS. CLARK: All right. Is this the board you prepared to depict the envelope, the paper and test impressions?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Did you identify any patterns on either the paper, which you have labeled on this board as "Paper," or the envelope found at the crime scene, which is labeled on this board as "Envelope"?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. There were very fine parallel lines on the piece of paper at the bottom photograph and also on the upper right-hand corner of the backside of that envelope that was recovered from the crime scene.
MS. CLARK: All right. Would you like to step down, sir, so you could show the members of the jury?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'd be glad to. (The witness complies.) Okay. The top photograph is the envelope, the area is upper right-hand corner on the backside, just real small area, small parallel lines going from left to right. The bottom photograph is of the paper. These lines are much fainter, but they're located in this general area going from left to right again. They're in this area in the center of the photograph as well as it appears that there's some a little bit further into that more stained area (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: All right. For the record, with respect to the envelope, the witness pointed to the upper right-hand corner as you face it of the envelope, and with respect to the paper, the witness pointed to the area that is along the lower edge and approximately one inch up in the approximate middle of the paper.
MS. CLARK: Now, if those lines on the paper, sir, are so faint, why didn't you just simply magnify the photograph to be very big so that you could more easily visualize it?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you can do that. Often when you magnify something this faint, you're going to start losing definition to it. And often, many imprint patterns are more easily seen at the lower--a real low magnification, not higher magnification. You can alter the contrast by photographic techniques. You may add chemicals to different things that could also darken it. But to leave it in its existing condition, I did not enlarge this. I felt you would lose definition.
MS. CLARK: Well, then why not add chemicals to the development process of the photograph so that you could easily--more easily see the lines?
MR. DEEDRICK: I think you--again, in maybe a technique where--again, I'm not a photographer, but you may--you may also increase the contrast by washing out some of the other areas and maybe focusing in on the--on just the fine lines. But I think you'd better speak to a photographer on that.
MS. CLARK: All right. But if you did that for the purpose of your scientific comparison, would there be a problem with the validity of making a comparison with a photograph in which the contrast and the lines have been altered in color to your test impression?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, obviously it changes the appearance of it. If you're interested in just the image of the imprint pattern, it may not be that big of an issue. But trying to keep it in line with what you actually see in its real state, probably you may want to do that. Just depends on what angle you want to approach it from.
MS. CLARK: Now, when you examined the envelope and the paper, did you have any test impression to compare those patterns to on those two items?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.
MS. CLARK: And what was the test impression you had?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there was a test pattern that was prepared and submitted taken of the jeans and I also had one that I prepared myself.
MS. CLARK: And when you say "The jeans," you mean Ron Goldman's jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MS. CLARK: So you compared the impressions you found on the envelope and the paper to test impressions taken of Ron Goldman's jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MS. CLARK: And when you did so, sir, did you form an opinion?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, my opinion is that the imprint pattern on the back of the envelope and also on the piece of paper could have been caused by the jeans, which is represented by the imprint patterns in the center photograph. All of these photographs are one to one.
MS. CLARK: Now, is that an important thing to know and to tell the jury, that the photographs are all one to one?
MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. I mean, that's truth. I mean, that's what I'm here to tell you, that this is what you're actually seeing. It's a very fine pattern that's exhibited, and you see the same fine type patterns that are found on the envelope. You want to represent the evidence--represent the identification as it is.
MS. CLARK: And in having a test impression that is not magnified compared to an unmagnified impression shown on the envelope and the paper, does that give you any greater degree of scientific certainty as to the consistency of those patterns with Ron Goldman's jeans than if you had a magnified test impression or magnified impression of the envelope or paper to compare?
MR. DEEDRICK: Again--and we've gone over this--that whenever you're comparing two things, whether it's one to one, two to one, three to one, four to one or a hundred to one, you're going to be comparing them, you compare them at the same magnification, or you can compare them one on one, and you may use a hand magnifier with low magnification to do that comparison.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, did the impression on the envelope and the paper appear to you to have come from the same source?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: They looked similar, did they?
MR. DEEDRICK: They looked the same to me.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And the impressions on the envelope and the paper, did they look similar to the impression you saw and identified on Ron Goldman's jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: The imprint pattern that was on his jeans?
MS. CLARK: Correct.
MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no. It's different. No. The shirt makes a completely different pattern than the jeans.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And regardless of whether it was Ron Goldman's shirt or not, the imprint that you identified on Ron Goldman's jeans, did it appear similar to you to the imprint patterns you found on the envelope and the paper?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MS. CLARK: Then in your opinion, sir, the imprints on the envelope and paper, were they made by a different object than the imprint on Ron Goldman's jeans that you identified?
MR. DEEDRICK: They're made by different sources. The envelope and the paper appeared to have come from a single source or a couple sources that may have same pattern, and the one fabric imprint that was found on his hands while could not have been caused by the jeans, it could have been caused by the shirt or another fabric that has the same pattern.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So between the envelope, paper and the jeans, you have at least two possible sources for the imprints, maybe three?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, at least two, yeah, at least for these and one or more for the imprint pattern on the right side of the pants.
MS. CLARK: Now, did you also prepare a chart, sir, showing the jeans, the shirt and the envelope?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: People's?
THE COURT: 621.
(Peo's 621 for id = board)
THE COURT: May I see that briefly?
MS. CLARK: Sure.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, you know, the previous chart was so small, Mr. Goldberg pointed out that perhaps it would be better to pass it around to the jurors or at least have somebody hold it up and show it to them.
THE COURT: All right. Would you hand that to juror no. 7, please. Thank you.
(People's exhibit 620 was examined by the jurors.)
THE COURT: Miss Clark, 2:30.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, would you collect that from Deputy Smith, please.
MS. CLARK: Thank you. And People's--
THE COURT: 621.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, on this board, I see that you have a picture of the blue jeans and a test imprint of the shirt, an imprint of the envelope and a test imprint of the blue jeans. I don't see the piece of--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: I don't see a picture of the little paper that was photographed at the crime scene that was shown on the previous exhibit. Is there a reason for that, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: These were all magnified. And, again, I stated I didn't increase the magnification on the paper.
MS. CLARK: So--what? Because it was so faint?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. Again, you have a lot of difficulty in seeing it.
MS. CLARK: Tell us what you're trying to show us here on this board.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the imprint patterns on this particular--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Counsel, remember our rule on discussions?
MR. NEUFELD: Sorry, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Just reminder.
MR. DEEDRICK: The imprint--test imprint patterns on this particular chart are on the right-hand side, imprint of the shirt, of the blue jeans and here's another faint or lighter test imprint taken under a little different photography situation. The photographs on the left were either color or black and white at about 4X for the top four photographs here, both test imprints and imprints on the blue jeans and envelope. The photographs on the bottom are a little bit larger. They're closer to 8 magnification, and I'll explain why that is. Upper left-hand corner, the imprint patterns that I pointed out before on the right side on the blue jeans on the right leg, there's that blob again. That's kind of like the marker that I went by.
The patterns appear going across the twill. They're going across the ribs, which is significant because you wouldn't expect to see lines going in that direction unless there was something actually cutting across it (Indicating). The pattern that the shirt leaves is on the right and it's magnified about the same. So the spacing and the appearance of these was compared with the spacing and appearance of those patterns found on the blue jeans. The imprint on the envelope, upper right-hand side, it's about 4X again. This was a little bit darker. This is a heavy imprint. It's a lot of Identicator or solution pressed in. The better--I often find that the better imprints are represented by the ones that you see on the lower right-hand side, and that's a Polaroid photograph of an imprint pattern. This was taken from the same sheet that this one came from, but it was from a little bit--a little different area.
MS. CLARK: For the record, when the witness said, "This was taken from this," the witness was pointing to the lower right-hand photograph as being "This" and then "Was taken from this," he pointed to the middle right side photograph.
THE COURT: As "That."
MS. CLARK: As "That." Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. DEEDRICK: And the reason I say this is because many of the imprint patterns that are left are not real dark. They're often very light, especially dust imprints that are almost--they're very difficult to see. But this spacing here was compared with the spacing and so forth in appearance of the imprint that was on the envelope. And these are magnified again about the same, about eight times or so.
MS. CLARK: So on these two lower--lowest photographs, sir, they're both eight times magnification?
MR. DEEDRICK: They're about eight. They're about eight.
MS. CLARK: So in the right-hand column, those are all the test impressions?
MR. DEEDRICK: On the right--on the right side, these are all test imprints from the shirt on the upper right, test imprint from the blue jeans, they're the second and the third on the right-hand side.
MS. CLARK: But in each case, when you compare a test impression to the questioned imprint on this board, each pair is of the same magnification; is that right?
MR. DEEDRICK: Same--same conditions straight across, and it's similar to when I did hairs or fibers. Same thing.
MS. CLARK: Now, did you notice on Dr. Lee's boards whether there was any indication as to what the magnification was that was used for any particular photograph?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, some of the ones that I saw, I didn't see any indication of magnification.
MS. CLARK: And was there any indication that you could see on those boards as to whether or not the items compared were of the same magnification or not?
MR. DEEDRICK: If you had two items and you know they were the same, you could do a comparison that way and see if they're proportioned--proportionately the same. Otherwise, you may have some difficulty. You have to have a reference point to work from to determine whether or not they're the same or they aren't the same.
MS. CLARK: Was there any indication on the boards that you could read to see whether the magnification was the same? Were they labeled as such?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. No. But I didn't label these bottom photographs either. I'm just telling you because that's what I remember them to be. But I didn't see anything on his boards there to indicate that.
MS. CLARK: And in any case, you're telling us that those are the same magnification?
MR. DEEDRICK: They're the same, same photographic settings on the microscope that I used and same size frame, same size picture in each case.
MS. CLARK: You can have a seat, sir.
(The witness complies.)
MS. CLARK: So, Mr. Deedrick, based on all of the examinations that you conducted on the--with respect to the questioned imprint on the jeans of Ron Goldman and the imprint patterns that were questioned on the envelope and piece of paper at the crime scene, what conclusion did you come to?
MR. DEEDRICK: I placed the victim Ron Goldman at the crime scene.
MS. CLARK: That's the significance of what you found?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's what I did.
MS. CLARK: Which is where he was found, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's what I understand.
MS. CLARK: Thank you. I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Break at 2:30? So could we take it a little earlier, come back--
THE COURT: You want to get your exhibits.
MR. SCHECK: Reorganize.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our mid-afternoon recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will be in recess for about 15 minutes. All right. And, Mr. Scheck, I'll have Mrs. Robertson assist you with the exhibits. All right. Thank you. Mr. Deedrick, fifteen.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. 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. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel, that Mr. Douglas Deedrick is on the witness stand, and that the Prosecution has completed their direct examination on the recall of Mr. Deedrick. And Mr. Scheck, you may commence your cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
(Brief pause.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Good afternoon, agent Deedrick.
MR. DEEDRICK: Good afternoon.
MR. SCHECK: Agent Deedrick, I think I didn't have the pleasure of being in the courtroom the last time you testified, but I did watch it on television. You testified about hair and fiber?
MR. DEEDRICK: Primarily, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I recall you telling the jury that you had done 500,000 or about a half million comparisons under a microscope of hairs and fiber?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is probably reasonable.
MR. SCHECK: And you indicated that that was about 3000 cases per year?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. It is about 300 some cases per year probably.
MR. SCHECK: 300 cases per year. Well, you--you have been with the bureau from, what, 1977, `78 was your initial training period?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. `77 is when I came.
MR. SCHECK: And would it be fair to say that most of the time that you've been working at the bureau you've been at that microscope doing those half million comparisons of hairs and fibers?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Most of the work probably has been surrounding the microscope. That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you are not expert in blood pattern interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: I am not.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And that involves the examination of bloody imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not an expert, but I assume that that is reasonable.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You used a term before "Swipe."
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know if that has any particular significance in the discipline of blood spatter interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I've heard it used before.
MR. SCHECK: Well, were you just sort of throwing that term out, swipe?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is the term that came to mind. It has nothing to do with a blood analysis, because I'm not expert in that.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. We will get back to that. So you are not--you don't hold yourself out as an expert in blood pattern interpretation? Fair enough?
MR. DEEDRICK: I would say that in general that is accurate.
MR. SCHECK: And you are not trained in serology?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I have some basic training, but I'm not a serologist.
MR. SCHECK: Wouldn't hold yourself as having expertise in serology?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I wouldn't dare testify in that area.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, you rarely go to crime scenes in your--was it--how many years have you been with the bureau? 28 years?
MR. DEEDRICK: 23, 23 about.
MR. SCHECK: 1977/1995?
MR. DEEDRICK: `72, that is about right, 23 years.
MR. SCHECK: 23 years. In your 23 years you have rarely gone to crime scenes?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, rarely, yes. I would say that is a good term.
MR. SCHECK: And you just told me before that to the best of your recollection you can recall being at between 20 to 25 crime scenes?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is probably a good number.
MR. SCHECK: And to your recollection you had never been at a crime scene at the point where a body was still there? Most of these were homicides, right?
MR. DEEDRICK: Most of them have been homicides and I come in generally--in fact, in almost all of those cases the body has been removed.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, you would agree that the analysis of items at a crime scene is a much more dynamic and fluid situation than an analysis conducted in the laboratory?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there is many considerations at a crime scene that you also may think about as a laboratory examiner because you may need to request additional materials or request a certain other collections be made. But the crime itself is a dynamic event, there is many things that are going on, and you might be able to reconstruct some of that through the lab. You may need also to be at the crime scene to help.
MR. SCHECK: All right. But we've discussed blood spatter interpretation, serology, and now what I'm getting to, as we discussed before, is the discipline of crime scene reconstruction. You are familiar with that?
MR. DEEDRICK: I am.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you would not hold yourself out as an expert in crime scene reconstruction, that is a person that goes to the crime scene, and taking account of all the different disciplines, tries to do a reconstruction?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. I wouldn't do that, no.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, have you ever--you were asked to--you examined the jeans and the shirt at some point much earlier in the investigation of this case, did you not?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Came to the Los Angeles Police Department with Susan Brockbank from the LAPD, you looked at the jeans and the shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And at that time you did not take note of any imprint patterns on the jeans that you thought had any forensic significance?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. I didn't look at those clothing items with that intent.
MR. SCHECK: And the first time you began to look at photographs of the jeans and of the shirt was when you were in your office at the FBI sometime prior to Dr. Lee's testimony when you and Agent Bodziak got a telephone call?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I believe he may have been on the phone at the time and he also had a report that I saw.
MR. SCHECK: That was a report from Dr. Lee?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: So you and Agent Bodziak began a reconsideration of imprints patterns after seeing Dr. Lee's report before he testified?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a lot of my work initiated with that day as to consideration of fabric imprints or--it started on that day. I don't recall how it--negotiations went on or what discussions were held.
MR. SCHECK: And you refer to test impressions that were the basis of your testimony here?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And these test impressions were conducted at the Los Angeles Police Department starting on August 21st?
MR. DEEDRICK: Of this year.
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. And did you even direct anybody on beginning those test impressions and how they should be done for purposes after fabric comparison?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't have any direct communication with anybody from the police department on that.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, Miss Clark asked you a number of questions about your experience and qualifications to give a jury an opinion about imprints on fabrics. You recall those?
MR. DEEDRICK: I do.
MR. SCHECK: And you and I had had a discussion just a few minutes ago, before you got on the witness stand, about your qualifications in this area?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And after you and I discussed that matter, you went and had some further conversations with Miss Clark?
MR. DEEDRICK: Umm, I don't believe so. I think I went upstairs and then came back down and ate some lasagna and came right back in.
MR. SCHECK: Didn't speak to anybody in the District Attorney's office about anything that you and I had discussed?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I just had a seat.
MR. SCHECK: Good. Now, in terms of the fabric impression work that you do, you have indicated that about a hundred cases you've been involved in your 23 years as an agent where you did anything with fabric imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is about a hundred, that's right.
MR. SCHECK: And most of these involve dust imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: Most of them did, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And most of these were involved in hit and run accidents?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's probably true.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in reviewing Dr. Lee's testimony do you recall he made a distinction between scientific fact and interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall that.
MR. SCHECK: No?
MR. DEEDRICK: There is a distinction I'm sure.
MR. SCHECK: Did you read his testimony?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you watch his testimony?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, only part of it. I have other things to do.
MR. SCHECK: Do you think that Dr. Lee was intentionally misrepresenting facts to this jury?
MS. CLARK: Objection, argumentative, speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: I have no idea what was going through his head.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, would you accept the distinction between scientific fact and interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.
MR. SCHECK: And would you agree that it is important to have adequate qualifications to get up on the witness stand and testify about something as an expert?
MR. DEEDRICK: It would be nice to do it a few times before you talk about it.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Would you agree it is a scientific fact that the imprints that you just testified about are bloody imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'm not certain of that, but I mean I assume that is blood. It looks red and it is a bloody crime scene, so I suspect that is blood. That is a fact.
MR. SCHECK: Well, do you in any way dispute that the imprint on the envelope is an imprint made in blood?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I had no question about it.
MR. SCHECK: The imprint on the piece of paper is an imprint made in blood?
MR. DEEDRICK: Looks like blood.
MR. SCHECK: The imprints--parallel line imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans are imprints made in blood?
MR. DEEDRICK: They are pretty dark. I couldn't tell. Black and white almost--most of my photographs that I looked at.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you saw some color photographs?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, but that was--the color photograph was less than one-to-one. I looked at the jeans last night. It could be dried blood.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you don't feel qualified to render an opinion as to whether or not what you were examining here was--in terms of those parallel line imprints were blood?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I think I have already not qualified myself as a serologist.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't do any tests on them, but it is reasonable that they were blood.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And when--you just indicated the first time that you looked at the jeans with the purpose of examining the imprints was last night?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: And basically what you were doing was a comparison of these test impressions and photographs, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: Last night it was test--
MR. SCHECK: No, no. Prior to that, yes?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry, that's right. It was based on photographic comparisons.
MR. SCHECK: And you had already written a report stating your conclusions before you ever went to the laboratory and looked at the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, isn't it a fact, agent Deedrick, that in these fabric analysis cases that you've done before you cannot recall even one time before this case that you did an analysis of bloody imprints on fabric that were left by other fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, as I stated to you, that I cannot recall a specific case where that situation existed.
MR. SCHECK: So--and you were--didn't you tell me before, if I understood you correctly, that in the 100 fabric impression cases that you had done before that most of them were dust prints?
MR. DEEDRICK: Most of them were.
MS. CLARK: Asked and answered.
MR. SCHECK: Some of them you indicated--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. When there is an objection--
MR. SCHECK: I thought it was overruled. No?
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
MR. SCHECK: Told me that--and I think you repeated it on direct examination, that there were some instances where when you were investigating a burglary you would take putty imprints of some kind to relate it to fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I've had impression exams plus imprint exams both.
MR. SCHECK: But this case and Dr. Lee's testimony concerned imprints made in blood, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: I believe so, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you cannot tell this jury that you have ever done such an imprint comparison before?
MR. DEEDRICK: I can't--as I said, I can't recall a specific case where that has occurred.
MR. SCHECK: Now, basically would this be a fair statement? That when the call came in to you and Agent Bodziak to examine Dr. Lee's report and the imprint evidence, that Agent Bodziak said that he told you that he did not feel qualified to examine the imprints on the jeans?
MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, was there discussion between you and Agent Bodziak as to qualifications--respective qualifications to evaluate the imprint evidence?
MS. CLARK: Same objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Was any decision made with respect to your qualifications and agent Deedrick--Agent Bodziak's qualifications to evaluate the imprint evidence?
MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: At the Federal Bureau Of Investigation you have a number of different units?
MR. DEEDRICK: Is that a question?
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Hair and tries?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is one.
MR. SCHECK: That is your unit?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And there is tool marks, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: Tool mark--firearm tool marks unit.
MR. SCHECK: And there is a document section, but Agent Bodziak is within the document section?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. He is in the shoeprint tire tread unit, I believe.
MR. SCHECK: So there are various different areas and different people have different expertise?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And you are saying that out of everybody at the FBI you were the individual that has the most experience in evaluating bloody imprint evidence on fabric?
MS. CLARK: Objection, misstates the testimony; argumentative.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Did you tell us on direct examination that you were the person people went to because you had the most experience in interpreting bloody imprint evidence on fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I never said that.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You did offer some testimony--is there anybody else that has more qualifications than you at the FBI in this area?
MR. DEEDRICK: With fabric imprint comparisons?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: So you are the most qualified and nobody--and you have not, to your recollection, ever done a bloody fabric imprint before?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I said I can't recall a specific case where I've done that.
MR. SCHECK: Now, a decision had been made to do the comparisons by making this test impression before you were even called into this?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
MR. SCHECK: Isn't that what you just told us?
THE COURT: Assumes facts not in evidence.
MR. SCHECK: I thought before you received--did you have any involvement in the decision to have somebody from the Los Angeles Police Department on August 25th do this test impression?
MR. DEEDRICK: I wasn't consulted about that by them or--nor did I have any conversations with them about that.
MR. SCHECK: But the purpose of the test impression was to make the comparison of the imprint evidence on the--on the jeans, on the envelope and the piece of paper?
MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Was the purpose of the test impression to make comparisons of the imprint evidence on the envelope, the piece of paper and the jeans?
MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. He is not the person who made the decision to do that; he wasn't there. That is what he has testified to.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Well, when you were asked to do an analysis of the imprint--bloody imprint evidence, had the decision already been made, as far as you knew, as to what the motive comparison should be?
MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Irrelevant.
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm kind of missing something here on this question. Maybe if you could repeat it for me.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Before you undertook to do the imprint--bloody imprint analysis in this case on the fabric, piece of paper and the envelope, had the decision already been made that the way to go about doing this was to use this Identicator kit to do a test impression?
MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained, the way it is phrased.
MR. SCHECK: Did you have any involvement in the decision to use the Identicator kit?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, would you not agree that the Identicator kit is what is sometimes known as inkless fingerprint?
MR. DEEDRICK: It is inkless, yes, and it is used for fingerprints.
MR. SCHECK: And that is how it's involved initially?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sure it did.
MR. SCHECK: This is sort of a yellow--long yellow pad that is pressed onto the jeans in this case that were lying flat on a table?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I generally do it the other way, I press the fabric into the pad, but you could do it either way.
MR. SCHECK: Well, do you know how it was done here?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I know the way I did it, but I don't know the way they did it.
MR. SCHECK: Well, when you got up and testified here about People's--
THE COURT: Is that 621?
MR. SCHECK: 621.
MR. SCHECK: --you were working from imprints that were made at the LAPD?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Made by somebody else?
MR. DEEDRICK: Made by somebody else.
MR. SCHECK: And did you endeavor to find out exactly how they made those imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't discuss that with anybody there.
MR. SCHECK: Well, did you ever review any data to figure out how they made those imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Now, would you not agree that the media involved in taking impressions is important in terms of imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, yes, there are differences in media.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And as we were discussing this before, you told me that when you were first approached to do this analysis of the bloody imprints, the thought crossed your mind that the most appropriate test and experiment to perform was to take blood and use that as the media to create imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, you misstate. That is not what I said. I didn't use the term "Most appropriate media."
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. DEEDRICK: I said it did cross my mind to use blood.
MR. SCHECK: Fair enough. It crossed your mind that doing this imprint impression for which you were making comparisons, that it would be maybe a good idea to use blood?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I--I thought of using blood, but that is not the protocol that we have in the unit. I don't believe necessarily if it would make a better representation or not.
MR. SCHECK: Well, these are bloody imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that is true.
MR. SCHECK: Are these bloody imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: We have agreed on that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And blood is thicker or more viscous I think the term is than the inkless chemicals that you are using to make your test impressions here?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And blood coagulates quickly?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not a serologist. I don't know what the rate of coagulation is.
MR. SCHECK: But in terms of designing a scientific experiment to do comparisons, isn't it desirable to be using like media to make comparisons when dealing with imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I mean if you want to nitpick this down to this level, if the results that you get are so definitive, then maybe you want to do that, but you we are not talking about something that is that definitive. We are only talking about a little line that doesn't have a lot of characteristics.
MR. SCHECK: Well, is your answer then you don't think it would have been desirable to create an experiment where the imprints were done with blood?
MR. DEEDRICK: Umm, I don't--I don't know if it would be or not.
MR. SCHECK: Well, basically I think by your answer you said the reason that you decided not to do the imprints in blood or perform experiments along those lines is that it wasn't part of your standard protocol in the laboratory?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. That is not the standard protocol that we have to take whole blood and do things like that.
MR. SCHECK: So is this standard protocol written down someplace in your laboratory?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it would be in the protocol manual.
MR. SCHECK: In the protocol manual do you address the analysis of bloody imprints any place?
MR. DEEDRICK: I believe so. I think they do discuss that, but I can't recall.
MR. SCHECK: Bloody imprints on fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall that, but I know bloody type imprints are discussed.
MR. SCHECK: Well, is there anyplace in your protocol where it says the standard procedure for doing a comparison of bloody imprints, particularly fabric on fabric, is to use this Identicator kit?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. I think the use of different materials like Identicator or ink or whatever, that kind of flexes a little bit.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you said that to the best of your recollection you've never done a bloody imprint comparison before, I think you told us that?
THE COURT: I think we have asked that question.
MR. SCHECK: Just a foundational question.
THE COURT: About five times.
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall a specific case where I have done that type of comparison, bloody imprint on fabric.
MR. SCHECK: And yet you say that you decided not to create imprints for purposes of comparison with blood because there was some kind of standard procedure as to how to do this?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I mean it is just not--no, there is no--in the protocol I don't believe it indicates what kind of medium to use. We have been using Identicator and we have been using ink pads over the years, but to take whole blood is not something that--that we routinely do.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, would you agree that blood on fabric can saturate the fabric?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that often when fabric is saturated and you make an imprint that that can, for lack of a better word, smush the ridges so you can't see the imprint?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Too much--too much fluid will ruin the imprints.
THE COURT: That is another word for obscure.
MR. SCHECK: Obscure, thank you.
MR. SCHECK: And on Mr. Goldman's jeans you saw areas where it was saturated?
MR. DEEDRICK: It appeared to be.
MR. SCHECK: Now, another scientific fact--well, would you agree that another scientific fact about these imprints is that they are in blood, but also that the imprint on the envelope, the piece of paper and the jeans, actually, are static, that is, they show evidence of little movement?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is difficult to say with the jeans, but I think I've already testified it might be a swiping type or a moving type motion that may have caused that, but the paper is probably static. I think the papers were sitting and something landed on it.
MR. SCHECK: So you would agree that in terms of the observations that it would--we could agree it is scientific fact that the bloody imprints were made and impressed with relatively little movement?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, I--that is reasonable. I don't really know the dynamics, nor could I say with hundred percent certainty what the dynamics were of this, but it probably was laying down and something landed on that one area.
MR. SCHECK: And you would think that would be the most reasonable interpretation of how the imprint got on the paper and how it got on the envelope?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. That is more logical than having the paper float down and land on something. You know, I think it is more reasonable.
MR. SCHECK: And would you--is your reluctance to opine on this a little bit because you feel a bit insecure about making comments in the area of bloodstain interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not reluctant to answer the question. I don't feel I'm necessarily lacking abilities in doing this type of comparison. I think blood comparisons on fabric, as far as imprint, can be done in a similar way to other types of materials.
MR. SCHECK: But I guess what I was really asking you, you don't feel in any way uneasy about offering opinions about these bloody imprints, because as I think you've told us, you don't regard yourself as having expertise in the area of bloodstain or blood pattern interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. It is just a different transfer media. That is all. It is a different one than what we use.
MR. SCHECK: Now--but if I understand your opinion correctly, you are indicating that there was a bloody imprint made on the envelope and a bloody imprint made on the paper, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And you say it is consistent with having come from a pair of blue jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: Could have.
MR. SCHECK: So based on that interpretation that some person wearing blue jeans would have to have come into direct contact with that paper and with that envelope on separate occasions?
MR. DEEDRICK: May have been the same--same contact. Maybe it was just a different portion of the same bloody surface, whatever it may be. I mean, if you are talking about a leg, it could be that long, and I don't know the relationship of the paper with the envelope, so if they are in the same general area, a piece of the--the bottom portion of the jeans may hit, if that is jeans, and a portion of the knee may hit, for instance. I don't know. It could be two separate incidents or one.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you said you don't know the relationship between where the envelope was and where the paper was?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't--I don't recall that.
MR. SCHECK: You haven't seen a photograph of Detective Fuhrman pointing to the Rockingham glove with the envelope near his foot and the piece of paper out on the walkway?
THE COURT: Counsel, you are misstating the evidence.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Well, have you seen a photograph of Detective Fuhrman pointing--oh, I said Rockingham glove. I'm so tired. I'm sorry. Pointing at the Bundy glove, all right. Have you seen that picture?
MR. DEEDRICK: I think I have, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And that--does that picture orient you as to where the envelope and the piece of paper were in relation to each other?
MR. DEEDRICK: I just don't recall. I mean, I would have to really see the pictures. Obviously it is a pretty small area, so it had to be pretty close.
MR. SCHECK: So when you said it is possible that the imprints that you are asserting came--could have come from a pair of blue jeans, if it were Mr. Goldman's blue jeans and it were one contact, then that would have meant that Mr. Goldman's body was configured in such a way that his jeans were hitting the envelope and hitting that piece of paper at the walkway at about the same time?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that is a single event, that is what we are saying, or it may have been two events.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So in terms of your reconstruction that could have been one event that he--wouldn't you expect that that would have meant that he had fallen in the walkway?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know. Maybe so.
MR. SCHECK: If your interpretation--
MR. DEEDRICK: If that is where the imprint was applied, if it was on the soil or somewhere else, I don't know where in relationship to the body that imprint pattern was deposited.
MR. SCHECK: But it would be fair to rule out, in terms of your interpretation, that the imprint, for example, on the envelope or the piece of paper, could have come about with the envelope or the piece of paper hitting jeans and then falling to the ground?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Calls for speculation and it is beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know. I think--I think I have said that it seems reasonable that the paper--papers were laying flat and then contact occurred causing the imprint pattern. That seems to me logical. But there has to be some force, some resistance to that contact, so the paper, if it were not on the ground, would have had to have been against something, so that that imprint occurred. It wouldn't be floating; it would have to be either held or on something else.
MR. SCHECK: When you and I were talking before and we were operating on your premise that this could have come from Mr. Goldman's jeans, these two imprints, that didn't you indicate or aren't you saying that you felt it unlikely that either the piece of paper or the envelope could have gotten these imprints if they had just touched the jeans and fallen to the ground?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I think I've already testified to that, too, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Just wanted to be clear. And you are indicating and assuming--just going along with a presumption that you've made that could it have been imprints caused by Mr. Goldman's jeans and there were two contacts, then that would have to be two separate contacts of Mr. Goldman's jeans, one on the envelope, and one on the piece of paper?
MR. DEEDRICK: Or another pair of jeans or maybe two different pairs of jeans.
MR. SCHECK: Now, do you have any idea whose blood or any genetic typings are on the blood on the envelope?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MS. CLARK: Objection, no foundation, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: I'm just asking if he knows.
MS. CLARK: Beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. He said no.
MR. SCHECK: Certainly that piece of paper, to your knowledge, was never collected, right?
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: My understanding, and I don't have the greatest understanding of all the events of this case, they don't have that piece of paper.
MR. SCHECK: All right. I mean certainly if that piece of paper were available, at some point you would want to look at it for purposes of coming in and testifying about comparisons.
MS. CLARK: Objection. This is irrelevant and calls for speculation, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, it would be nice to see the actual evidence, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Although you rendered your opinion with respect to the imprints on the blue jeans just from photos?
MS. CLARK: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, I did that with just the photographs, right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you indicated that you thought that Dr. Lee's board with the jeans was misleading; is that right?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I said that--two things I said. I said that the direction of the arrows as to where these photographs were taken were not--were not correct. I don't think that necessarily represents misleading anybody, but the magnifications do appear to be a little bit different.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, is this 1339?
MR. SCHECK: Yes, and my apologies to the jurors in the back, but I'm just going to do a quick general one.
THE COURT: I just want to make sure that is 1339.
MR. SCHECK: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Now, just if I understand your testimony correctly, would you agree that imprint 1 and imprint 2 are, when you examined them, about the same magnification, right?
MR. DEEDRICK: They appear to be, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And your criticism here is that imprint 3 is of a different magnification?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I wouldn't call it a criticism. It is just an observation that it appears to be a little less magnified.
MR. SCHECK: Well, are you trying to convey the impression to the jury that somehow by breaking out these larger magnifications of the jeans that Dr. Lee, in creating this board, was in some fashion trying to mislead?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. What I was saying here was that these photographs do not appear to be the same magnification, so if you are going to do a comparison between the two, it wouldn't be as accurate as if they were the same magnification.
MR. SCHECK: So just so we agree, these two, when you measured--
MR. DEEDRICK: They look the same.
MR. SCHECK: This one seems a little different, is that what you are saying?
MR. DEEDRICK: A little smaller.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Incidentally, just on this issue, I think you were saying that the way one magnifies lines of these impressions can affect the way that one views the comparisons?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I think as you conceded, you didn't explain the bottom ones here either?
MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't, that's right.
MR. SCHECK: And with respect to Dr. Lee's testimony, do you know if Dr. Lee ever told this jury that all three of these pictures were exactly the same magnification?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know that, no.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, you are referring to 621 now; is that correct?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah, I just briefly--thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, ordinarily when magnifications are done, isn't it the standard forensic practice, if one is trying to do precise enlargements to scale, is to put a ruler in the picture?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you could do that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the reason that one puts a ruler in the picture is then if somebody actually wants to go and do a precise comparison, you can take a look at the ruler, make a measurement, take a look at the lines, make a measurement and do precise comparisons?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Well, I had rulers in these, but the pictures were pretty big, so in order to cut them down for the chart so I could ship them, I cut the rulers off. So there might be some portions of the rulers underneath the border, okay?
MR. SCHECK: Were there rulers in the Polaroid?
MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't put those in the Polaroids, but they were in the other four shots.
MR. SCHECK: So just to be clear, the two bottom pictures are Polaroid?
MR. DEEDRICK: Those were enlargements of Polaroids, yes.
MR. SCHECK: There were no rulers there?
MR. DEEDRICK: I didn't, no.
MR. SCHECK: Basically I think you have indicated to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that you just basically had these taken and then you sent them to the lab and you said make them 8-by-10's?
MR. DEEDRICK: I took them at about four times magnification. I asked that they be enlarged 8-by-10 so could you see them better and it comes out to be about eight times or so.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, I believe in--would you agree that with respect to an imprint made in blood, that if a shoe had a certain portion of the sole blood on it, and--but not the entire sole, and a portion of it hit the side of an envelope, it could make an imprint such as is depicted on the envelope here.
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope of his expertise; no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it could if the pattern on the base of that shoe exhibited or left a pattern just like Levi jeans and it would look like that.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you say a pattern like Levi jeans. If the pattern on the sole of the shoe had parallel line imprints that were consistent with what you see on the envelope, then in terms of the imprint you see, this would be consistent with a portion of the shoe touching an envelope?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I mean, I couldn't tell the difference, if all the other things were the same.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, would you step around to the other side of the exhibit, please. I'm sorry.
MR. SCHECK: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I can take this down.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: 3:30?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. SCHECK: 3:30?
THE COURT: No, four o'clock.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, this is the chart you created with respect to the imprints on the jeans; is that correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
THE COURT: All right. Is this 619?
MR. SCHECK: I believe it is.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you said that you created photographs on the right side of this exhibit that were about one-to-one?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were created in the photo lab, yes, from the negative.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And you and I discussed earlier this morning the--if you could get down for just one second, please.
MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. (Witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: The--on the top--the photograph on the upper right-hand corner of this chart, the second photograph down, (Indicating), there is a circle; is that correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There is a circle--there is a circle beneath a circle, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And that is a pattern that has a contour of about what would you say, three inches?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is pretty close, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And also you can see within it parallel line imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: Looks to be, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And would you not agree that that could be consistent with the heel of a shoe?
MR. DEEDRICK: You are getting into Mr. Bodziak's area. I can only speak as a lay person.
MR. SCHECK: And when you and I were discussing this before what did you tell me?
MR. DEEDRICK: It--this may be the edge of a shoe.
MR. SCHECK: And the best you could do in assuming that these parallel line imprints came from Mr. Goldman's shirt was raise the possibility that that represented his elbow?
MR. DEEDRICK: I suggested that, yes, that it might be, but I don't know.
MR. SCHECK: Now, a swipe--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, did you--if I could put this up on the elmo, your Honor. It is Defense 1340.
THE COURT: 1340.
MS. CLARK: I have never seen it.
MR. SCHECK: I think you were there.
MS. CLARK: No, I wasn't.
MR. DEEDRICK: May I sit down?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: There would be an objection, your Honor, beyond the scope; no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Has the court seen it?
THE COURT: Yes. I know what it is.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: You know what, your Honor, I have a feeling that isn't going to be the best media. Oh, there it is. Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, can you see the monitor there?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, was part of the testimony of Dr. Lee that you watched the demonstration that he performed with respect to blood patterns?
MR. DEEDRICK: I missed a lot of that.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, in terms of--you said you had some training or familiarity with blood pattern analysis?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I said I have some experience with serology and serology testing procedures, but blood pattern analysis has been--was left up to one other examiner primarily in the laboratory. I didn't do much of that.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Well, to your knowledge does the--do you know that in terms of blood pattern analysis, when experts in that field refer to swipes, they are referring to something on the order of that pattern?
MS. CLARK: Objection. This goes beyond the scope of his expertise; no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, when you used the word "Swipe" in your direct examination, you were indicating that it caused a--Mr. Goldman's shirt could have swiped the jeans in a certain area and caused an imprint? Didn't you say that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I used the word "Swipe," yes. Could have been moving in one correction.
MR. SCHECK: Could you show the jury where on this diagram you are referring to, the place where the imprints that were a swipe?
MS. CLARK: Could we have the exhibit taken down, in view of the witness' answer?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: No relevance, your Honor.
THE COURT: That is true.
MR. SCHECK: What?
THE COURT: He is not a blood pattern person, but you can ask him describe the portion on this exhibit.
MR. SCHECK: I'm only going into now what he said.
THE COURT: I know. Take it down.
MR. SCHECK: Oh, take that down? Sure.
MR. SCHECK: What area did you say was--what imprint was created by a swipe on this exhibit?
MR. DEEDRICK: I indicated it may be some type of swiping motion in the direction of the ribs. There is one direction going this way, (Indicating), one going this way, (Indicating) another down here in this area, (Indicating), so essentially it looks to be slightly maybe three different motions. And if you are assuming here that this is the shirt, the shirt could have brushed back and forth in perhaps a couple different directions.
MR. SCHECK: And where is that on the--is that here on the pants?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. It starts essentially near where this blob is, (Indicating), down--starts--
THE COURT: Juror 7, can you see that?
JUROR NO 7: No.
MR. SCHECK: I don't think that--
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry. It starts, this blob area here, (Indicating), which is this area here, (Indicating).
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, agent Deedrick, looking at the--you are referring to the circle now--let's be straight for the record. On the picture of the blue jeans on this diagram, the upper circle is the area that you've blown up on the upper right-hand photograph?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It would have been--I think it is generally both--it may incorporate--I guess it is, right, it is the top circle primarily.
MR. SCHECK: It is the top circle primarily?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: And the section that you've drawn the second circle around in the upper right-hand photograph, right, that is just below the circle?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It is just below this top circle, (Indicating), that's right on the jeans.
MR. SCHECK: As you said before, I don't mean to be nitpicky, but maybe is this a small error in terms of breaking out?
MR. DEEDRICK: You got me on that, Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: No big deal. I agree. Let's talk about the upper right-hand photograph in the top circle. I think you have indicated that you see a different set of imprints going in different directions against the grain?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it does appear that way.
MR. SCHECK: Now, I realize that you were using the term "Swipe" without any particular reference to an expertise in blood pattern analysis, right?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's right.
MR. SCHECK: But the substance of what you were saying is that you were suggesting that those imprint patterns could have been made, and I think your motion was, by a movement of the arm or the sleeve against the side of the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: It may have been, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, do you have any scientific basis, as a blood pattern analyst, to tell us what kind of imprint would be left by the shirt coming into contact with the jeans with movement?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with Dr. Lee's testimony that the imprints in this area of the jean represented multiple imprints on top of each other, that that was his interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall his testimony.
MR. SCHECK: And do you recall his testimony that the reason he reached that conclusion is he had those distinct imprint lines that were consistent with a flat surface covered by blood hitting the side of the jeans?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: That is just a suggestion, an idea that I came up with here that it could have been a brushing type movement.
MR. SCHECK: You were kind of improvising?
MR. DEEDRICK: I was just saying--offering that as a possibility.
MR. SCHECK: Would it be fair to say, agent Deedrick, from what you know of Dr. Lee, that his experience and expertise in the area of bloodstain interpretation and the interpretation of bloody imprints is vastly superior to yours?
MR. DEEDRICK: I can't even answer that question.
MR. SCHECK: You can't--well, let's establish that you have conceded that you have next to no expertise in this area.
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague. What area?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: The area of bloodstain interpretation. You don't hold yourself out as an expert in that, do you?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not claiming to be one.
MR. SCHECK: I understand. Now, by reputation are you aware of what is Dr. Lee's reputation in this area, if you know.
MS. CLARK: Objection.
MR. DEEDRICK: I think he has a background in blood, blood serology type testimony.
MR. SCHECK: You don't have any knowledge of him having written any texts or given any lectures even at the FBI on bloodstain pattern interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: I've never attended any. I know I read his book.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
MR. DEEDRICK: I read the book that he wrote.
MR. SCHECK: On serology?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, it was a book by DeForest. I believe Gaensslen also participated in that.
MR. SCHECK: Introduction of forensic--
MR. DEEDRICK: That sounds like it.
MR. SCHECK: Had a chapter on bloodstain blood pattern interpretation?
MR. DEEDRICK: I can't recall all the chapters.
MR. SCHECK: Does it bother you a little bit, agent Deedrick, that you have been brought in here to this courtroom at the end of the trial to render an opinion about--
THE COURT: Sustained, sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you are testifying here about a bloody imprint and you readily concede that you have no expertise or training in bloodstain pattern interpretation?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant and argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: That is not what he is testifying about.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, you are saying that you believe that the imprints on the jeans could have been caused by the impact of Mr. Goldman's sleeve against the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: Could have been, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Actually I should say--I misstated that. Or the swiping against the side of the jacket?
MR. DEEDRICK: I said swiping, yes, that is a possibility.
MR. SCHECK: Now, did you see any two-way transfer here? That is, an imprint on Mr. Goldman's shirt that reflected the pattern of the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't even look for one.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry, your Honor. I'm just taking some time. It has been a long day.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, one point I forgot. Agent Deedrick, when you were suggesting before that you thought it might be possible that there was--oh, withdrawn. If I could summarize then what you've said in your report and your opinion, you say that the imprint on the envelope and the imprint on the piece of paper are, quote-unquote, like the test impressions done in inkless fingerprint chemicals, for lack of a better term, that you made?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: That was your report. In your report you used the word "Like"?
MR. DEEDRICK: All those words aren't in the report, but it means that, essentially.
MR. SCHECK: Well, in your report don't you use the word "Like"?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, I do, but I didn't say inkless stuff. I didn't include that.
MR. SCHECK: Right. But when you are referring to it, you are referring to these test impressions that you made, right?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And just to be clear, there were, for example, from the jean, seven test impressions made?
MR. DEEDRICK: At least, yes.
MR. SCHECK: By the LAPD?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: Two on August 21st?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: Five on August 31st?
MR. DEEDRICK: I believe there were different dates for those, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Then you came back here yesterday?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And then you went to the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And you did your own imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: And you looked at the jeans for the first time for purposes of imprint examination?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: And you had already written your report?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: And did you see any purpose in doing that, other than being able to come in here and tell the jury that you had actually done it yourself?
MR. DEEDRICK: I wanted to see just--just to take a look at them to see that in fact there were yellow markings on the legs. I wanted to see the imprint patterns personally that I had indicated were like the shirt. Other than just to show that the imprint patterns that I made are just like the imprint patterns that they made, that is basically it.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, you are not saying that you can positively identify those patterns as being from Ronald Goldman's jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right, I can't.
MR. SCHECK: And you are not even saying that it couldn't have come from jeans worn by another person?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not saying that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: You are not even saying that it could be jeans or that it--it could have--it is necessarily an imprint made from jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, at the end of your testimony from Miss Clark you said that the bottom line or the conclusion you drew from your analysis of all these imprints is that all you could say is that Ron Goldman was at the crime scene?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, based on the could have associations, that is one interpretation, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, didn't you say at the end of your testimony that the bottom line is that you can tell us your conclusion is Ron Goldman was at the crime scene?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. What I was saying is that--
MR. SCHECK: That is what you said?
MR. DEEDRICK: Essentially that, that's right.
MR. SCHECK: That is what you said. But when you say at the end with that conclusion that you've now reached the judgment that it was Ron Goldman at the crime scene, aren't you indicating by that answer that you have conclusively demonstrated that those imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper came from Ron Goldman's jeans and no other jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, in a way.
MR. SCHECK: And no other object?
MR. DEEDRICK: In a way you are correct, that's right.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, you formed your opinions concerning the source of the impressions on the envelope and the paper initially based on the test impressions done at LAPD, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MS. CLARK: You then did your own test impressions more recently on the jeans, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MS. CLARK: Did you then compare the test impressions you made off the jeans to the imprints on the envelope and the paper?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't believe I had those--I didn't have those photographs for that. Basically I was comparing the imprint patterns to see if the design was the same, to see if the spacing was the same, and I didn't have any reason to doubt that it would be.
MS. CLARK: And why is that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I guess there is--I trusted them to do what they said they were doing and it looked like they did that.
MS. CLARK: Did your test impressions look like the test impressions earlier done by LAPD?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you see any--any--any distinctions that caused you to change your opinion as to the conclusion that the pattern--the imprint on the envelope and the paper was consistent with Ron Goldman's jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: I had no reason to exclude based upon the second one and they were all the same.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
MR. DEEDRICK: No reason to believe my impressions or my imprint patterns would be any different in a comparison side-by-side than the first set.
MS. CLARK: So the LAPD impressions that were done and the test impressions you that did yourself were the same?
MR. DEEDRICK: From the same pair of jeans, right.
MS. CLARK: And doing your own test impression, does that cause you to change any of your opinions previously formed about the jeans having been consistent with the source of the imprint on the envelope and the paper?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, is there a difference between blood spatter pattern analysis and the interpretation of a bloody imprint?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. No basis for the witness to answer the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, sure. Yeah, I think you are talking about an imprint pattern analysis. If it is on fabric it would fall into my area no matter what the medium was that was on that fabric, but blood spatter is a different topic altogether.
MS. CLARK: And how is it different, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it deals with the movement, the projecting of blood, and what happens to it after it strikes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, did you hear Dr. Lee state at any time any qualifications he had to compare and identify bloody fabric impressions?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall--
MR. SCHECK: Objection. He did not hear Dr. Lee's complete testimony. Improper question.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. The answer will stand. He said no. Next question.
MS. CLARK: And are you aware that Dr. Lee gave no indication that he had any qualifications--
THE COURT: Sustained. It is argumentative.
MS. CLARK: Do you think--sir, the fact that you cannot recall a specific case in which you compared or identified bloody imprints on fabric, does that inhibit your ability to determine the source of the imprints found in blood in this case?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, but--no. I mean, there is a lot of cases I don't remember.
MS. CLARK: The fact that you cannot recall a specific case, does that indicate in any way that you have never compared or attempted to identify a bloody imprint on fabric in your past experience?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. I mean, I've had blood imprints on sheets, I mentioned that, but I can't recall a specific case. Many of those have been shoeprints.
MS. CLARK: And when you have determined that you see an imprint that you think is a shoeprint, what do you do with it?
MR. DEEDRICK: Give it to Mr. Bill Bodziak.
MS. CLARK: You indicated a--I think you indicated an observation, sir, and I'm showing you People's 619. You indicated an observation of an area on the jeans that you thought might be caused by Ronald Goldman's bloody elbow?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Yes, I believe it is the second circle. Well, it would have been the--right.
MS. CLARK: The upper circle?
MR. DEEDRICK: Just below that--that top circle. It would have been the second circle on the black and white photographs on the right.
MS. CLARK: The upper circle?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, the second one.
MS. CLARK: Thank you. And--okay. Is that the curved line you see here, (Indicating)?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. I think it is in--it is in a little further.
MS. CLARK: Can you point that out?
MR. DEEDRICK: (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: For the record the witness has pointed to a curved line that appears more toward the right of the circle as you face the photograph.
THE COURT: The right, yes, that's correct.
MS. CLARK: You were asked a question earlier about whether that might be a shoeprint, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: I was asked that question, yes.
MS. CLARK: Is that your field of expertise, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: I've already stated I am not an expert in shoeprints.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that you earlier looked at these items of clothing, the shirt and the jeans earlier in the case, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: And for what purpose?
MR. DEEDRICK: Mainly to--just to take a look at them after some drying time, and also I wanted to take a look at them to see composition, appearance, type of fabric. And there was some damage. I was interested in determining possibly some damage to the fabrics.
MS. CLARK: What damage was that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, to see if there was any--any way that I might be able to make a statement about the type of weapon that may have been used.
MR. SCHECK: Objection, outside the scope of cross-examination.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Did you?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it looked to be a single-edged knife about three-quarters inch or more--
MS. CLARK: Did you make any observation--
MR. DEEDRICK: --or more, at least one cut that I saw, very sharp.
MS. CLARK: Did you make any such observations with respect to the shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: That was on the shirt and on the jeans, both.
MS. CLARK: Single-edged weapon as to both?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the ones that were clear. Some were gaping type cuts, but the ones that were clear, about three-quarters inch, it appeared that that was the size of the weapon, and it was a single-edged--
THE COURT: Counsel, we are actually going afield of the cross-examination.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
THE COURT: We did discuss the other purpose for which Mr. Deedrick looked at the Levis.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
MS. CLARK: So that was the other purpose that you looked at it for earlier in the case, correct, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. A couple things: One, to see it after it has dried a little bit and see if there is any more particulate that I could remove, and for damage.
MS. CLARK: At that time did you make any observations concerning any imprints of significance?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't look at it for that reason.
MS. CLARK: Now that you have--I take it you have now?
MR. DEEDRICK: I have, yes.
MS. CLARK: First of all, now that you have looked at the jeans and the shirt for imprints of some significance to the solution of the case, did you find any imprints that you found were of significance to the identification of the murderer or the manner in which the crime occurred?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MS. CLARK: And in saying that your--the conclusions you formed placed Ron Goldman at the crime scene, were you attempting to convey that you found no significance in the imprints you had identified?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they didn't seem to me that significant.
MS. CLARK: I think you indicated that you did not do any test impressions in blood on cross-examination, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MS. CLARK: Did you feel that your failure to have done that in any way has a negative impact on the validity of your opinions?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't think it has that--again, I haven't done test imprints in blood. I've done them in a more viscous material, that is ink, with ink pads, but I don't think it detracts from the conclusion at all, just because I didn't use blood.
MS. CLARK: Why not?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, we are looking at test imprints, just an imprint pattern of a medium that is on the surface of a fabric and with blood, I don't think it--I don't think it matters, but again, I haven't done that, so perhaps that is another story.
MS. CLARK: Something that you might do later?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, maybe somebody who is interested in that perhaps.
MS. CLARK: In any case, sir, the conclusions that you drew in this case, after comparison with test impressions, are you--do you feel confident in those conclusions of consistency with jeans and shirt?
MR. SCHECK: Asked and answered. Improper form, this question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah, I don't have any problem with that.
MS. CLARK: And the fact that you used initial photographs of the jeans and shirt to make your comparisons, does that in any way undermine the validity of your opinions concerning the consistency of the jeans with the imprint on the envelope and paper and the consistency of the shirt with the imprint on the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't believe so. I mean, with--with some of those patterns, they are pretty simultaneous and you have to enlarge them, and the best way to do that is through photography, so it actually helps you.
MS. CLARK: All right. Final question, sir: With respect to the imprint on the envelope and the paper, can you tell us whether--and you concluded that that was consistent with Ronald Goldman's jeans, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right.
MS. CLARK: Would that--were those imprints on the paper and the envelope consistent with Ron Goldman having fallen and writhing on the ground on top of that paper and envelope at some point during the murder?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, argumentative, and there is nothing in my questions about writhing.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEEDRICK: I mean that is possible.
MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: It is four o'clock.
THE COURT: How much do you have?
MR. SCHECK: Well, actually I believe that some questions and answers opened up something else that we have to discuss.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will take our recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will be in recess for about 15.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
MR. SCHECK: I was informed they have some more questions.
THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark is not here. I think that is kind of the end of it, isn't it?
MR. COCHRAN: Neither is the witness.
(Brief pause.)
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(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. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand, please. And good afternoon again, Mr. Deedrick. Miss Clark, you had a couple more questions?
MS. CLARK: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. Very briefly.
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, we asked you--you were asked a little bit on cross-examination about whether an imprint could have been a shoeprint on the jeans. You recall that question?
MR. DEEDRICK: I do, yes.
MS. CLARK: I take it by some of your answers that you have seen shoeprints before?
MR. DEEDRICK: I have, plenty.
MS. CLARK: In your experience, sir, is there a difference, based on what you have seen in the past, between the nature of a fabric impression and a shoeprint impression?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, fabric impressions are often a little more hazy, because it is soft, it doesn't leave a very sharp line, sharp indication, like a hard surface would.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Such as a shoe?
MR. DEEDRICK: Shoe imprint, outline of any hard item, but shoes in particular.
MS. CLARK: Now, is the science--you talked a little bit about various kind of imprint analysis, you talked about firearms identification, striations on a bullet and fingerprints. Is the science of imprint analysis an old science, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it has been around as long as fingerprinting and that has been a while.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And when you find, for example, a bloody fingerprint at a crime scene, you have a suspect, do you require the suspect to make his fingerprint in blood before you compare those fingerprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, they are made in ink. They are inked prints.
MS. CLARK: So even when you have a bloody fingerprint, you compare that fingerprint in blood to a print taken from the suspect?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That is standard practice.
MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Miss Clark asked you on redirect examination whether it in any way undermined your opinions that you lacked background in blood spatter analysis. Do you recall that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I don't--I don't have any expertise in blood spatter analysis.
MR. SCHECK: But she asked you whether that lack of expertise in any way undermined, in your opinion, the validity of any of your conclusions?
MR. DEEDRICK: Umm--
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I don't believe it has an impact on the imprint pattern comparisons.
MR. SCHECK: The bloody imprint pattern comparisons?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right, right.
MR. SCHECK: And you said that blood spatter analysis, as you understood it, concerned the movement, projection of blood and what happens to it when it strikes surfaces?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that is my limited understanding of it.
MR. SCHECK: And based on your limiting understanding of it, do you think that might have something to do with an analysis of bloody imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't see it in the same vein.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I am having a little trouble with this. Agent Deedrick, if you don't know something, how do you know that it is irrelevant?
THE COURT: Argumentative, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: Well, without knowledge of this field, how can you state with such assurance to the jury that it has no relevance to an analysis of bloody imprints?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I--I really can't comment on that.
MR. SCHECK: Right. And agent Deedrick, just take that explanation you gave about swipe. Do you recall that?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Upon reflection, do you think that an analysis--an understanding of blood pattern analysis might be of some usefulness in interpreting the multiple imprint impressions in the area of the jeans that you are telling us was caused by a swipe?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I said it may have. That was a possible explanation for it.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you think blood spatter analysis might have some relevance to that point?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it would be nice to know a little bit about everything or maybe a lot about everything, but I don't know everything.
MR. SCHECK: Well, before you hold yourself out as an expert on bloody imprints at the conclusion of this trial, do you think it might be important, even to consult somebody who had expertise about that?
MS. CLARK: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you said that you had looked at the shirt and the jeans at some point on redirect examination. Do you recall that?
MR. DEEDRICK: I do.
MR. SCHECK: And you observed imprints at that time?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't recall seeing imprints at that time.
MR. SCHECK: Didn't you say on redirect examination that you saw imprints when you observed the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't look at the clothing items at that time early on for that purpose, nor did I notice any.
MR. SCHECK: Did you ever inspect the clothing items--well, when was this first time you inspected the jeans or the shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: I'm thinking August of `94.
MR. SCHECK: And was there a subsequent time you examined the jeans?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I looked at them for the second time last night.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. So in August of `94 you looked up and down the jeans and you were looking for damage?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I did examine the jeans and the shirt for possible damage.
MR. SCHECK: And was it at that time that you made the observations that you told us about on redirect examination with respect to knives?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It was basically an observation of both the jeans and the shirt.
MR. SCHECK: So that is all of 1991 that you made this inspection--`94?
MR. DEEDRICK: `94.
MR. SCHECK: `94, right?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, when you were conducting that inspection in August of `94, did you observe the imprint with the circular ridge and the parallel lines that you've identified in People's 619 as an imprint that you thought, based on your observations, could be consistent with the imprint of a heel?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't make any observations regarding imprint patterns of whatever type at that point.
THE COURT: All right. That is 619, upper photograph, lower circle.
MR. SCHECK: If you had noticed that, would you have immediately notified Agent Bodziak or someone else to go examine that because it could be an imprint pattern consistent with a shoe?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know quite how to answer that. I assumed at one point it would be coming in, but then it may not have. I just didn't make this observation.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you said you were--didn't see anything, I think on redirect examination, of significance?
MR. DEEDRICK: From an imprint pattern standpoint I didn't look for anything regarding that.
MR. SCHECK: Would you agree that sometimes significance--the significance of imprint patterns or any other observations are affected by the point of view one has towards the examination of the evidence?
MR. DEEDRICK: Perhaps.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you said, I guess--well, we've now established that was on your August 31st or August--is it August 31st, 1994, that you looked at the shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: It was in August, I remember. I can't recall the exact date.
MR. SCHECK: August of 1994 you examined the shirt for damage?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: And that is--Miss Clark asked you on redirect examination about your observations with respect to damage caused perhaps by knives?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I did observe some cutting marks.
MR. SCHECK: And before she asked you that question the two of you hadn't discussed it at all?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Just a question she happened to ask you out of the blue at the end of this trial about damage to the shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, that's right.
MR. SCHECK: No discussion between the two of you whatsoever about what answer you might give?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Is that typical, in your experience?
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. I did cut off the redirect examination as to this issue.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I understand, but substantive things were said and I would like to just explore them briefly, your Honor, because the jury heard them.
THE COURT: Briefly, briefly.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you told this jury that you saw damage to the back of Mr. Goldman's shirt, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: And that you now recall that you saw one area where there was a three-quarter of an inch, what would you call it, incision or entry?
MR. DEEDRICK: Looked like a stab cut.
MR. SCHECK: Stab cut and that you had concluded it was from a sharp instrument?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And a single-edged knife?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you so made such--and you made such observations and conclusions in August of 1994?
MR. DEEDRICK: That was an observation I made then, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Did you write it down?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you make a report about it?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you take a photograph of it?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: When you inspected the shirt last night, the gaping area was not in the same condition as when you observed it?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it--it looked to be a little bit different, probably because of handling.
MR. SCHECK: Is the reason that you did not bother writing down, documenting, taking a photograph of this damage you saw with respect to an entry that you said comes from a single-edged knife, is you thought somebody else will do it; not my department?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was not a requested examination. I didn't have a weapon to compare it to.
MR. SCHECK: And didn't you tell me before you thought somebody else would deal with it?
MR. DEEDRICK: I don't recall saying that, but--
MR. SCHECK: Is that--
MR. DEEDRICK: I wasn't involved with examining the items of evidence except for looking for hair and fiber.
MR. SCHECK: But didn't you just say that you were looking at the shirt for damage?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I did--that is because I was in the lab, but the main purpose was to look at the shirt to--just to see it, just to be familiar with the structure of it, the composition of it, the texture of it, transferability of it. And also damage is part of it, but also the items will dry. Early processing of items for hair and fiber evidence often will not recover as much as secondary processing.
MR. SCHECK: But I thought you said--so one of the purposes of observing the shirt in August of 1994 was damage?
MR. DEEDRICK: That was part of it, right.
MR. SCHECK: And damage would include something that could be consistent with a knife wound?
MR. DEEDRICK: It was at the time like scientific curiosity, just to see what type of damage was present in the shirt.
MR. SCHECK: Never told anybody about it?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: And as you sit here today you can actually remember, without any notes, that was a three-quarter of an inch incision in its widest part?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That would have been the maximum blade width, three-quarters inch.
MR. SCHECK: Did you measure it?
MR. DEEDRICK: Sure.
MR. SCHECK: And didn't write it down?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. SCHECK: Just remember it now?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I remembered it all along.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And just shared it with everybody right now today?
MS. CLARK: Objection, argumentative and asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: And on redirect examination you were asked about--you were talking about the number of cases where you did fabric comparisons. Do you recall that, Miss Clark was asking you about that?
MR. DEEDRICK: I talked about fabric, but I don't know what type of comparison you are asking about.
MR. SCHECK: Well, on cross-examination I had asked you, I thought we had established--we had agreed that to the best of your knowledge you had never done a case involving bloody imprints on fabric, fabric to fabric?
MS. CLARK: Objection, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Well, on redirect examination are you now saying that you might have done such a case, but you forgot it?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Did you just say on redirect examination that you could have done such a bloody imprint case but you simply don't remember?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. I said that I couldn't recall a specific case. I've worked a lot of cases involving imprint patterns, especially on sheets, on homicide victims, people standing over the body. You will see a lot of those imprint patterns, but I can't recall what case it was.
MR. SCHECK: Well, when we were--I asked you a very specific question about bloody imprints made by one fabric to another. Now are you saying now that you might have done such a case but you just can't remember it?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony. It is argumentative.
THE COURT: Argumentative. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Are you saying that you could have done such an analysis, but you have forgotten it?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, as I said, I don't remember all my cases and I do recall getting cases similar to that over the years, but there is an awful lot of cases that we get in.
MR. SCHECK: But the group of imprint cases that you say you worked on are primarily dust imprint? You said about a hundred?
MR. DEEDRICK: About a hundred cases, that's right.
THE COURT: All right. Counsel, this is really getting redundant.
MR. SCHECK: Well, she asked.
THE COURT: It is redundant.
MR. SCHECK: But you can remember that one-quarter of an inch entry of a night in August that you never wrote down and you never took a picture of?
THE COURT: Misstating.
MS. CLARK: Objection, asked and answered.
MR. SCHECK: Three-quarters of an inch, that one you got?
MR. DEEDRICK: That one I got. I still remember it.
MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Deedrick, thank you again, sir. All right. You are excused. Next witness.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. The People call Mr. Bill Bodziak.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may I go out here to get some of the exhibits?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, People's next witness.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. Mr. Bill Bodziak.
William J. Bodziak, recalled as a witness by the People in rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand to be sworn. 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.
MR. BODZIAK: William J. Bodziak, B-O-D-Z-I-A-K.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Mr. Bodziak.
MR. BODZIAK: Good afternoon.
MS. CLARK: Sir, you have previously testified as a qualified expert in shoeprint analysis, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: And is that your specialty, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Have you written a book about that subject?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Now, as a shoeprint examiner, sir, is it one of your duties to be able to distinguish between impressions that are from shoes versus impressions that are not from shoes?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: When you--you train other footprint examiners, do you, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And when you--in the course of that training do you test them in any way to cause them to make the distinction between what is a shoeprint and what is not a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: There is one. Occasionally in a class I will give a pre-prepared test along with other comparison test type materials where I have two impressions of shoes which are obviously shoe impressions, they are the entire full shoeprint and are recognizable as such, and I will make a third impression with something that is not a shoe, such as it may be the rung of a ladder with some ribbed patterns or some other material, and I will give them questions that don't tell them it is shoeprints, but kind of infer that it is, and just to see what their answers are, and a lot of them mistakenly assume it is a shoe impression.
MS. CLARK: Now, has it ever happened to you, sir, that an impression has been shown to you in which you cannot say for sure that it is a shoe impression or not?
MR. BODZIAK: All of the time, yes.
MS. CLARK: In that situation, sir, what opinion, if any, do you render?
MR. BODZIAK: In--if I am questioned specifically about a particular mark or pattern or imprint or impression or whatever that person calls it, on an item, and I cannot determine that it is or isn't a shoe impression because it is so small or partial or faint, I will say it is of too limited a value to make a positive determination.
MS. CLARK: And why is--I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. If it is obviously something that has enough detail where I can say positively what it is, then depending if it is a shoe impression or not, I will proceed in the appropriate fashion.
MS. CLARK: And why is that?
MR. BODZIAK: Why--
MS. CLARK: Why do you not make a determination regarding the possibilities of whether something is a shoeprint when you are not sure?
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Because impressions of all objects, whether they are fingerprints, ears, noses, shoes, fabric, rungs of a ladder, no matter what they are, there are impressions of varying quality and varying density, and so if you have an impression that you can hardly see that is very partial, it is very faint where you can't see reliable detail, then more than likely you are not going able to make a valid comparison of it. You might be guessing to try to presume what it is and it just does not contain enough detail for sufficient comparison or a meaningful comparison and it would be best not to go beyond what information that you can see in that impression. On the other spectrum you may have a very, very clear impression and all of the detail is very crisp and clear and you can make a very valid impression.
MS. CLARK: When there is insufficient detail to characterize an imprint as a shoeprint, in your opinion, sir, is it scientifically inappropriate to say it could be consistent with a shoeprint or might be a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: If I were asked to make a comparison of an imprint, I would either be asked to compare it with a shoe, in which case I may be able to make a comparison if there is enough detail. If there were no shoe, was just an imprint by itself, then I would render what opinion I could, but I would only render it based on what I could see with absolute certainty. If it was too faint, I wouldn't render an opinion because it could be misleading.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, you previously testified that you did an analysis on an envelope?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And that envelope was found at the crime scene, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And you saw photographs of that envelope as it was found at the crime scene?
MR. BODZIAK: I saw photographs and the envelope itself.
MS. CLARK: Now, after your testimony, sir, in this case, did you see more photographs, one of which was of a paper found at the crime scene at Bundy?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Now, after Dr. Lee's testimony did you go back and look more closely at the photograph of that paper found at the crime scene for the first time?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Without telling us what your opinion is, sir, did you form an opinion whether the impressions on the envelope and paper found at the crime scene were created by footwear?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And did we prepare a graphic display to demonstrate the basis for that opinion?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, 622?
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is this new?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
THE COURT: 622.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
(Peo's 622 for id = posterboard)
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, can I see that real briefly?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: 622, your Honor?
THE COURT: 622.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Maybe you need to step down to demonstrate to the jury what you are going to testify--what you are going to tell them.
MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)
MS. CLARK: Why don't we start--well, where would you like to start, sir? The paper or the envelope?
MR. BODZIAK: On your side is fine.
MS. CLARK: All right. On my side for the record, your Honor, as you face this board, there are two photographs to the left that are the envelope and on the right is one photograph of a piece of paper.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Sir, if you would indicate to us, does this appear to be the envelope found at the crime scene at Bundy which you examined?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And could you point to the area--you recall Dr. Lee's testimony concerning this item, do you not, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: I saw portions of the testimony; not the complete testimony.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you remember the portion of his testimony where he indicated that parallel lines in the upper right-hand corner of this envelope that I'm designating here with my finger were consistent with a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: I recall him not stating it was a shoeprint, but that he couldn't eliminate the possibility that it could be.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, can you tell us, sir, what you see in that--in those imprints that caused you to form an opinion concerning what might have been the source of those imprints?
MR. BODZIAK: Sure. On the left side of this exhibit at the top is a picture of the envelope which contained the glasses. And this picture is as the envelope was observed at the scene and below it is a picture of the envelope which is enlarged to a natural size, an actual true size. This was taken by me in the LAPD laboratory, and these are orientated in the same fashion so that on the right top corner of the envelope is a very small impression. And looking at the natural size, if I put my thumb next to it is actually about half the size of my thumb impression. It is that small. Within that impression are several parallel lines which have sort of a zigzag to them. In other words, the lines themselves don't zigzag, but it is like if you drew a straight line and there are little motions going left and right as you go down that line.
MS. CLARK: When you say half the size of your thumb imprint, can you estimate for the jury, sir, how big that is in terms of inches or something?
MR. BODZIAK: The area here is perhaps a half-inch by--well, maybe a three-quarter inch square area, about three-quarters of an inch in each direction would encompass this impression.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. One moment. I'm going to ask to put this picture on the elmo so that the jury can see it better. I think it is difficult to see on the board.
THE COURT: Is that the same--I don't believe that--never mind.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: All right. Can you see the area that you have been discussing with us in this photograph, sir, on the screen?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I can.
MS. CLARK: And can you describe for the jury the location of those parallel lines you are talking about?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It is at the top right of the envelope. I will wait until it gets back in focus so you can see it.
MS. CLARK: There you go.
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I think it is still a little out of focus. Okay. That is still not in focus. It is very--can we bring it into focus.
MS. CLARK: Can you focus a little better, Mr. Fairtlough?
MS. CLARK: That is as good as it gets on the elmo.
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Well, just in the area of the arrow, that the arrow is pointing to, there are several very close lines. You can't really see the detail I would like to show in this particular picture, but those lines in general are parallel, and there is about six to eight of them, and they encompass an area about one--three-quarters of an inch long by three-quarters of an inch wide, which is less than the surface of most fingerprints or thumbprints. And within each line, even though each line runs in a straight line, there is some interruption in the line, a different pattern within that line itself. And you can't see that in this particular enlargement, but if you were to view this picture you could see that very clearly, or better yet, we could use the enlargement from Mr. Lee's chart perhaps which was enlarged tremendously and I think that might be the best way to see it.
MS. CLARK: All right. I will get that, sir.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: I pulled out Defense exhibit no. 1338-B, your Honor, and I'm going to put it up on the easel.
THE COURT: All right. 1338-B.
MS. CLARK: All right.
MS. CLARK: Do you see the area circled on this exhibit?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do. Now, this--this exhibit is an extremely enlarged area. It is enlarged so much it is also starting to get out of focus, which is what happens when you take a picture of an object and then try to really make it big, but this area that is circled represents this thumbprint size area of the envelope, the top right corner, (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Referring to People's 622.
MR. BODZIAK: And you can see there is a number of parallel lines, but those lines aren't straight narrow lines. They have a little misdirections in them which are characteristic of that line. In other words, they all have that same characteristic. It is not just an accident. It is reflective to some degree of the item which caused that to come in--which came into contact with that envelope.
MS. CLARK: Now, is there something about the features that you have just described of those parallel lines that is significant to you in terms of your determination as to whether or not it is a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. In my opinion it is not a shoeprint for a number of reasons. First of all, this has a non-printing area completely surrounding it, so in order for a shoe to make that print, it would have to have--it could only be a situation where there was perhaps one drop of blood on the bottom of the shoe and that is why it was limited and didn't make a print around it. In other words, if the shoe was totally bloody or the surface of the bottom of the shoe was totally bloody, there would be prints extending out, because a shoeprint isn't that small, it is much bigger, so there would only be one scenario when you could have a shoe make an isolated, literally, an island of an impression by itself. Secondly--
MS. CLARK: Let me stop you right there and ask you a couple questions if I may, sir.
MR. BODZIAK: Sure.
MS. CLARK: You have seen photographs of this crime scene, have you not?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Would you characterize it as a very bloody crime scene?
MR. BODZIAK: Very bloody.
MS. CLARK: And the shoeprint that you saw going down the walkway at Bundy, did you see basically all of the features--but most of the features of the heel and sole in many of those shoeprints?
MR. BODZIAK: There were heels and soles of a lot of shoeprints at that scene, yes, the Bruno Magli design.
MS. CLARK: Does that indicate to you that those shoes picked up a fair amount of blood at the crime scene?
MR. BODZIAK: The pictures that I saw of the crime scene were so covered with blood on the walking areas that you could not physically cross them without getting blood fully on the bottoms of your shoes.
MS. CLARK: So the scenario you've just depicted for us of one drop of blood on a small portion of the shoe creating that imprint on the envelope, based on your knowledge of the crime scene and the photographs you have seen, would that be possible in this case?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation; no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Based on what you have seen in the crime scene photographs in this case, sir, can you--
THE COURT: Foundation regarding crime scenes, counsel.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Foundation for crime scenes.
MS. CLARK: Did you see all the photographs of the Bundy crime scene, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: I reviewed several volumes of them, yes.
MS. CLARK: And having reviewed those volumes of the Bundy crime scene photographs, can you tell us, based on what you saw, whether it was possible for someone to step in that crime scene committing the murders and come away with one drop of blood on one discreet area of the shoe to create the imprint you see in Defense 1338-B?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation; vague as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: The only possible way that could happen would be at the very onset of the crime, the first drops of blood that were spilled, where one of those drops may have fallen to the ground, whatever contacted this--that blood at that point was limited in size because there was only one drop in that area and then it was transferred to this paper. I still don't, for other reasons we haven't gotten into yet, believe it is a shoeprint. In my opinion it is not. But whatever made this isolated island of an impression could have done it under that particular scenario. After there was more blood at the scene it would not be possible to have a shoe or any object make contact with that ground surface and then leave this isolated impression.
MS. CLARK: All right. So this opinion so far is based solely on the features of the parallel lines that you have seen in that pattern?
MR. BODZIAK: So far just on the size of it and the fact that the impression does not extend outward, it is isolated just like an island, so the blood on whatever object touched it would also have to be restricted to that size.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, those parallel lines, sir, are they typical features that you would expect to see in a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: No, they are not. The--there is three basic ways that the bottom of a shoe can have a design implanted into it and that design is always implanted through a molding process, but the mold has to be made and in making the mold the--and again I'm pointing to this for demonstration purposes, but I would like to point out that this very, very tiny print where the lines are extremely close together is what in reality I am talking about. The lines, the design of these lines would have to be put in there, one of three ways: Either through a routing device, something that would actually chew up the metal where they have a metal block before they make the mold and they chew it out into the design of a shoe and that would have to be an extremely fine tool. And you typically don't see them using fine metal bits that way because when they get too small they break and they just--it is not a productive way of trying to make a shoe. There is other ways to implant small designs like this on a shoe. The second way would be through stippling. Stippling would involve a metal dye that is about the size of this wooden piece on the top of the pointer, and actually in most cases maybe half the diameter of this pointer, the wooden piece and on the tip of it it will have a design that they want to implant in the mold and they will take a hammer and put this dye on the mold and strike real hard with the hammer and that will transfer the pattern into the mold which in turn becomes part of the shoe when it is molded. And what happens is when they use these dyes they on purpose turn them each time they strike and they wind up with more of a texture and there would be no way that they would either try or could accomplish to get these perfectly parallel lines by making it that way. The third method is through chemical etching and that is more for texturing, like the texture on the face of this elmo projector or the dashboard of your car, and that is a very, very small pattern, it would not have parallel lines at all. So understanding those three ways that designs are implanted into molds, I don't see this as a shoe design. There are very fine patterns that may be this fine, but not--they will have a texturing or stippling type--type or siping, but not of a premolded routed out type where they would be parallel.
MS. CLARK: Is there any other reason, other than the features of those parallel lines themselves and the type of design it is that causes you to conclude that this is not a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, based on all of those things, particularly the little misdirections in each of those parallel lines, I'm of the opinion that because of all of those things that this is not and could not be a shoe impression.
MS. CLARK: All right. And let me show you a shoeprint from Bundy?
MR. BODZIAK: Sure.
MS. CLARK: This is what, People's 45-I. All right. Up on the elmo now is People's 45-I.
MS. CLARK: You have testified previously as to the identification of this as a size 12 Bruno Magli at Bundy?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Do you see that there is a distinct line around the area that is the heel and the area that is the sole?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there is, and I testified to the borders and those characteristics in my prior testimony.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you see any such border in the imprint shown on People's 622 or on Defendant's 1338-B?
MR. BODZIAK: No, there is none.
MS. CLARK: Does that play any part in your determination that this is not a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, it goes along the same lines as to what I was explaining, that this is actually an isolated mark or print where there is nothing around it, so it is isolated in itself and would not be typical of a shoe that has picked up blood on its entire surface.
MS. CLARK: Now, the Defense 1338-B, can you tell us how much magnification there is to create that enlargement?
MR. BODZIAK: This isn't my enlargement, so I don't know the magnification. I'm guessing that it is probably four or five times at least, but again, I--it is hard for me to do that here without making measurements and so forth and it is not my enlargement, but it is a very enlarged area.
MS. CLARK: Now, is there a problem, sir, in your opinion, in using enlarged photographs without using them next to the natural size photograph of the object?
MR. BODZIAK: As long as they are represented properly, enlargements are very good for conveying smaller images to groups of people such as in the courtroom to show things that they otherwise won't see. However, that shouldn't--should be qualified as being an enlargement and in this case either a scale should be used or--and I believe it was--a natural size photograph with the understanding that this is being used for illustrative purposes, but the actual impression is this small.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And in that regard, sir, if you look only at the enlargement without any discussion about how much enlarged it is, do the parallel lines appear to be farther apart in the enlargement on 1338-B than they do in People's 622 which is the natural size of the item?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, irrelevant. This does not rebut the way the display was given to the jury.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: If in fact a person viewing this were to mistakenly look at this and believe this was the natural size of the print, then of course it would look more like a shoe impression with parallel lines or some type of design because the size has now been enlarged and it comes into a whole different class of shoes and shoe designs. However, as long as it is represented properly, that wouldn't be a problem for demonstration purposes.
MS. CLARK: Now, you spoke a little bit about the fact that this is not--this imprint does not appear to you to be anything like a shoe design that you have seen in the past. Have you seen many shoe designs, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I have--since about 1986 I have mentioned the shoe reference collection. I have been to many shoe manufacturers, I have been to shoe fairs and conventions where they sell the equipment that makes the shoes and molds. And I have never seen a shoe design this fine that was intentionally--I mean that was routed out in parallel lines with these little designs within it. Anything that would be of that size would be done with either etching or stippling.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Does the FBI have some kind of a computer that references all different kind of shoes?
MR. BODZIAK: We have a computer and a hard copy reference collection of shoe designs.
MS. CLARK: Do you attend any conventions where you learn about new kinds of ways of making shoes and different shoe patterns?
MR. BODZIAK: I've gone to many manufacturers and every three years there is a Footwear International Convention. I've also been to shoe shows where they will maybe have 1600 booths from these shoes all over the world been distributed explicitly for the purpose of seeing if there was any way we could expand our reference material in shoe design.
MS. CLARK: Now, if you would, sir, would you address your comments to the piece of paper and let me get the Defense exhibit.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: Showing you, sir, Defendant's 1338-A. Do you see the area that is circled in that photograph?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And do you recall observing Dr. Lee's testimony concerning this item?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And do you recall what he said with respect to the area circled in blue in Defense 1338-A?
MR. BODZIAK: I'm not sure--I may have seen it on a news clip and didn't hear his voice, so I'm not--I don't remember what he specifically said about it, other than--
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
MS. CLARK: Do you recall him characterizing this as something that could be a shoeprint?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: My recollection is that in the bits and pieces of his testimony he was referring to this as an imprint, I believe is the terminology he used, and that he couldn't say it was definitely a shoe impression.
MS. CLARK: And what is your opinion concerning this area circled in blue on Defense 1338-A?
MR. BODZIAK: For many of the same reasons which I mentioned on the envelope, this pattern is very, very small, and as well as the area that that pattern encompasses, and it is not something I recognize or believe to be a shoe impression. If I could further explain it, the Defense exhibit--I'm sorry, I don't remember the number.
MS. CLARK: 1338-A?
MR. BODZIAK: 1338-A, is enlarged above the natural size of the piece of paper. On the right side of this chart--
MS. CLARK: People's 622?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.--is an approximate natural size, and when I say approximate, the photograph was taken at a slight angle, as opposed to directly overhead, but we measured the distance from the concrete barrier that the railing is on, and this intersection, and this is actually about the width of a half a tile, which are 11 and a half to 12 inches square, and so looking at this is a pretty close estimate of the size of this actual piece of paper. As a secondary reference of size, I looked at the toe of this shoe and even in a very big foot, being gracious, this would maybe be at this point three to three and a half inches across up near the toe, so this piece of paper is approximately five--five, four inches, it is not a rectangle, but it is somewhere in that size. The area that contains the impression, when transferred over to this will now only be a couple inches wide, and if this were a shoe that stepped on it, it would have to either be a tiny shoe or something would have had to interfere with the reproduction of part of that design, but because of the other reasons I mentioned, I do not believe this is a shoe imprint either.
MS. CLARK: What do you mean by tiny shoe?
MR. BODZIAK: A kid shoe, a very tiny shoe, because it would only be a couple inches wide, if you are confining it to the area that has been drawn on this exhibit.
MS. CLARK: And then again, with respect to this little piece of paper as well, is it your opinion, sir, that it was not a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. No testimony that it represents a shoeprint. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Next question.
MS. CLARK: All right. Since you determined, sir, that shoes were not responsible for making this imprint, was your work done?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it was. I was requested to make comparisons of these various items for the purpose of examining shoeprints. And in fact on the envelope there was, which I testified to before, a partial impression that was consistent with the Bruno Magli design and the edge of that shoe. Even though I may see other marks, whether they be spatter or streaks or wavy lines that I don't think are shoe impressions, once I determined it wasn't a shoe impression, I wouldn't pursue it any further.
MS. CLARK: And by contrast, by way of contrast, sir, on People's 622, on the upper photograph on the left-hand side, there is an area that you designated that did appear to you to be a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: It did and that was one I testified to before in my prior testimony and it was consistent with the Bruno Magli design.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: And do you see a border in that shoe--in the area that you did indicate was a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. As you face this chart, (Indicating), along the top edge is the border of the edge of that shoe.
MS. CLARK: Now, after you determined, sir, that the imprint circled on the Defense exhibits in the 1338-A and B, that is on the envelope and on the piece of paper, were not shoeprints, did you turn them over to someone else for examination?
MR. BODZIAK: Not immediately.
MS. CLARK: And why is that?
MR. BODZIAK: Because I wouldn't normally think there was any other examination to be conducted. There was no other material or requests to which to conduct an additional exam. It was out of my area of expertise.
MS. CLARK: When you say out of your area of expertise, what do you mean?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, whatever other marks or splatter might be on this, if there were other questions that the submitter of these items had, then they would direct those questions to people in areas of expertise that they believed were able to answer those questions.
MS. CLARK: All right.
MR. BODZIAK: But it wouldn't be the area of shoe impression.
MS. CLARK: Because you found none?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And so you eventually did, though, send the photographs of the envelope and the piece of paper to someone else in the FBI?
MR. BODZIAK: After learning that this very small fingerprint-sized impression that I first testified to today--
MS. CLARK: On the envelope?
MR. BODZIAK: On the envelope--was possibly going to be referred to as a shoe impression, I took another look at it and thought there is a possibility it might be a fabric impression. The other possibility which I recognized when I first examined it in the laboratory here was that it might also be some marks from the irregular surface of the concrete tiles at the Bundy location, but because I did not believe it is a shoe impression, I didn't pursue it at that point. But when the issue came back up again I referred it to Douglas Deedrick.
MS. CLARK: While we are talking about the envelope and the paper, sir, do you recall some testimony by Dr. Lee concerning a blood drop that he claimed was not present in the June 13th photographs but did appear in later photographs that he examined?
THE COURT: Counsel, could you rephrase that question, please. Rephrase the question.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Argumentative as phrased.
MS. CLARK: Do you recall the testimony of Dr. Lee in which he testified that there was a blood drop he observed in later photographs that he did not observe in the June 13th photographs of the envelope?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And directing your attention, sir, to People's 622, first of all, the lower photograph of the envelope, do you see a blood drop that I'm pointing to that has initials next to it?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Can you locate that blood drop in the photograph taken on June the 13th that is right above this one?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It is right here, (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: For the record the witness has pointed to a spot on the June 13th photograph.
MR. SCHECK: Could I--
MS. CLARK: I'm going to ask the witness to circle it.
MS. CLARK: Would you circle that, please, sir.
MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.)
MS. CLARK: Thank you. Can you tell us, sir, if you see a difference in the blood drop on the envelope in the photograph taken June 13th from the appearance of that blood drop on the envelope from a later dated photograph?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, of course the--the coloring is different and that is just a variable of photography, of different film and processing, this is a little redder than this is. And also blood, as it dries, if there are thick areas of blood, it will darken in the thick areas initially. But this particular spot here, (Indicating), also has something else that is interfering with the ability to see it in its entirety, and that is what is known as flashbacks.
MR. SCHECK: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Sir, what experience do you have in the area of photography and the interpretation of crime scene photographs?
MR. BODZIAK: I've had extensive training at the FBI laboratory in that area, both in general photography and forensic photography. I use photography on a daily basis in my work and work with our specialized photographic unit.
MS. CLARK: And is there some inclusion in your book concerning crime scene photography?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. There is a whole chapter on that.
MS. CLARK: In that book do you describe various methods and procedures that should be used to take the best crime scene photographs?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Do you yourself, when you to go crime scenes, take photographs in order to capture the image of shoeprints?
MR. BODZIAK: In some instances I do and in some instances there may already be a photographer assigned.
MS. CLARK: And for how long have you been doing that, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Since the beginning, maybe after my training ended in 1976.
MS. CLARK: All right. And so can you explain to us, sir, what you mean by flashbacks?
MR. BODZIAK: Flashbacks is something that we are all familiar with, because if you take pictures of people at different occasions, particularly if you are standing--they are standing in front of a mirror, you get that bright reflection of the flash and you get your film back and it kind of ruins the picture, or perhaps a person is wearing glasses, and if you were to take a photograph straight on at me and the light were to hit the glass perfectly straight, it would reflect back into the lens perfectly straight and this would be what is known as a hot spot and that is--that is caused by the light bouncing back off of this particular glove which is somewhat glossy and coming back into the camera lens in a straight angle and actually overexposing the film at that point and causing it to wash out and becoming so light that it is hard to see. in addition, this is also sometimes encountered if you just had natural light hitting it at the right angle, where it would bounce back into the lens of the camera and do the same thing, such as sunlight, bright sunlight.
MS. CLARK: So when you use a flash, sir, and you are using it outside in maybe a dark area, if you don't capture part of the sky, can you tell whether it is night or day, based on just looking at the photograph?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, beyond the scope of the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry, could you reask that?
MS. CLARK: Yes. If you are standing outside taking a photograph with a flash and you are taking it in an area where it is dark, if you do not capture part of the sky in your photograph, all you capture is that dark area that you are taking a picture of with a flash, when you just look at only the photograph, can you tell if it is night or day?
MR. BODZIAK: In some instances you would be probably able to show a number of reasons why it was night, and in other cases, particularly if you are like at twilight or as the sun is beginning to come up in between dark and light, other factors were existing, light, the aperture of the camera, the speed of the film, there is a lot of variables. I think you would have to Judge that on a case by case basis.
MS. CLARK: So you may or may not be able to tell if it is day or night if you just looked at the photograph under the conditions I described?
MR. BODZIAK: You might be able to, yes, but I wouldn't want to venture a general answer that would hold true in all cases. There wouldn't be one.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Let me move on to the jeans, sir.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: I show you People's 618. Did you, sir, examine photographs of Ronald Goldman's jeans to determine whether you saw any--anything that looked like a shoeprint impression on those jeans?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I examined the original jeans in our laboratory in Washington D.C. and I caused all of these photographs to be taken in my presence and under my direction in October of `94. This one is what is known as a copy shot, it is a color shot where you are attempting to show the actual color and general features of the pair of jeans and it is more for record keeping purposes just to see its general appearance. To the right are two photographs, (Indicating), which are enlarged to a natural natural size. They are overlapping. In other words, the top of the one on the bottom actually overlaps with the bottom portion of the top. And they are representative of the front side of the right leg of the jeans of Ron Goldman. And the reason they don't have the blue appearance is because a filter was used when taking these and that filter was used specifically to drop the blue color, the blue background of the jeans, and to show the red coloring of the blood impressions on there with much greater detail. You can see all of these same markings on the color copy, but they are much easier in a natural size enlargement with the filter dropping the blue color to look at for purposes of discussion and examination.
MS. CLARK: Now, when you examined the areas in the circles shown on this chart, sir, did you form some opinion as to whether or not they were shoeprints?
MR. BODZIAK: There were two impressions which I referred to in my prior reports which stemmed out of my examination in October of 1994 that refer to a heel print on the lower left leg and a partial footwear impression on the right leg, and they were consistent with the Bruno Magli design. But they really, because of the absorbability of the cotton fabric and the fact that there was obviously--this wasn't made on a flat surface, but with a leg inside of the jeans, it wouldn't be an even strike. Because of those factors the detail is very limited and I wasn't able to make any more of a detailed comparison. I did examine the jeans, front and back, both legs, for other markings which might be shoe impressions. I observed a number of markings of almost every describable size and shape along the front and back of these jeans, some of the best ones which are depicted in the right pants leg here on this chart, but none of them, in my opinion, were footwear impressions. If they were, I would have pursued looking for that design of shoe, as I did with the case of the Bruno Magli.
MS. CLARK: Now, you said you saw a partial shoeprint that you testified to earlier and characterized as a Bruno Magli. Do you see that area of the right leg depicted in the photograph in People's 619?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It is down here, (Indicating), in the lower portion. It is actually intersecting the circle.
MS. CLARK: For the record the lower circle?
MR. BODZIAK: It is actually crossing the lower circle on the right pants leg and then the heel impression is just into the edge of the lower portion of the left pants leg.
MS. CLARK: All right. For the record the witness was referring to the color photograph of the jeans overall.
MS. CLARK: Now, other than those two areas, sir, when you examined these pants, did you examine them with the thought in mind of looking for any shoeprints; not just those that would be Bruno Magli?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Other than the two you have indicated to us just now on the lower right and left leg, did you find any other imprints that you would characterize as shoeprint impressions?
MR. BODZIAK: No, I didn't.
MS. CLARK: The areas that are circled on these overall of the jeans and indicated on the black and white photographs next to the picture--the color picture of the jeans, did you examine those?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I examined--well, these circles were made by agent Deedrick and I--I examined the entire surface of the front and back of the jeans, which included the areas within these circles.
MS. CLARK: And you passed them on to agent Deedrick, as you have testified, because you found they were not shoeprints?
MR. BODZIAK: No. At the time, because they weren't shoeprints and I didn't think they were shoeprints, I did not pursue it because there was nothing more relevant to my examination. However, when the testimony of Dr. Lee came to my attention that these--and I believe he referred to them again as he did everything, as imprints--could have been shoe impressions, then I referred that at that point to agent Deedrick.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, why did you determine that these were not shoeprints, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, they--they don't have a border. That is the most primary reason with regard to the ones on the jeans. If--I don't know if--is it permissible for me to demonstrate by taking my shoe off?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I will give him a shoe. Do you want my shoe?
MR. BODZIAK: Taking my left shoe which has a nice sharp heel to it and it is a raised heel, as did the Bruno Magli and as do many shoes, and even if it didn't have a raised heel, it would also have an edge on the sole, but I will just use the heel for demonstration purposes. And using my left arm as a representative, although it is not nearly as big, of the pants legs that would have a leg or an arm in them, if this heel was covered with blood and as shoes walk through blood the blood--excess blood gets squeezed out to the side, so the areas along the edge are typically the ones which have more blood than the interior areas, and this shoe was contacted ever so lightly with this cloth, it is impossible not to get the edge design somewhere, particularly if there were weight where there was now 150, 200 pounds on it or there were kicks, that edge would be very crisp and clear, very dominant and would show up in these impressions. In addition, looking within these impressions, the lines that are parallel do not always run parallel to one another. For instance, in this particular one here there is a few lines that are parallel at this point, (Indicating), very small area, maybe an inch and a half square, and now there is some going in a different direction and now there is some crossing over here, (Indicating), going back in another direction. There is some going this way, (Indicating), and they are all very little partial impressions. Here is two lines that just kind of go out from one another and that is more typical. The indistinct nature of this imprint, the changing of directions of the parallel lines, the very partial nature of the impressions, the lack of a border, these are typical of imprints of fabric or material and not imprints of shoes.
MS. CLARK: For the record the witness was referring to the upper right-hand photograph as you face the board.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: That was the lower circle area.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: But, sir, doesn't it appear that there is a sharp line here in the lower circle, and I'm gesturing to the arc that seems to be toward the right side of that circle inside it?
MR. BODZIAK: There is--there is that line, there is a line here, (Indicating). There is a line over here, (Indicating), with another one next to it. There is some curved lines of all different shapes and sizes around this. In my opinion this has nothing to do with these parallel lines and is not the edge of a heel. It would be much more than--in fact, the parallel lines within--if this were hypothetically a heel, the parallel lines within it are not running straight across it as any shoe design manufacturer would have. They wouldn't have the heel with the lines running crooked. It is just not esthetically something that they would do in the design and manufacture of that shoe. And these do not even run true to this hypothetical border, but we see this kind of a line all around the jeans. And not being there, I can't account for what that is, but I do not believe--do not recognize it as a shoe impression or the edge of a heel.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, the parallel lines that you see in the circles on this exhibit, People's 619, did you compare those to the parallel lines shown on the envelope and paper?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Do they appear to be from the same source?
MR. BODZIAK: No.
MS. CLARK: And tell us why.
MR. BODZIAK: The size of these lanes and the broadness of them are just totally different in size and features than the very, very small lines which have almost a zigzag to them that were on the fingerprint size impression on the envelope and the wavy pattern in the piece of--triangular piece of paper.
MS. CLARK: So however, sir, would you--what would you say about the similarity of the parallel lines in the envelope and the piece of paper?
MR. BODZIAK: They were consistent with one other within the range of detail that I could see, and then in the assessment of them as far as it goes to--with regard to shoe impressions. They were both totally different and without any doubt totally different than these parallel lines that crop up on various places on the right leg of Ron Goldman's jeans.
MS. CLARK: So the source of the imprint on the jeans is different from the source of the imprint on the paper and envelope?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: I think you mentioned something about kicking. If you were just kicking someone, maybe, you know, with the bottom of your foot, you indicated that you would still leave a border that would be indicative of a shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely. More so than just standing on a person or lightly touching your foot against the person.
MS. CLARK: Sir, did you hear testimony that Dr. Lee, in forming his opinions concerning the impressions on the jeans and on the envelope and paper, did not make any test impressions of the jeans or Ron Goldman's shirt?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Do you have an opinion as to whether it is scientifically correct or appropriate to form an opinion concerning the source of an imprint without having made any test impressions?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The--and I wrote about this extensively and teach about it in the lectures I give. To examiners, with regard to shoe impressions or sock impressions, the print that is made by a shoe or any object cannot be perceived by looking at that object itself. In other words, you could look at the fabric on my sleeve and you could look at it with a magnifying glass, but because of its three-dimensional qualities, you could not determine what the exact pattern would look like in a test impression, particularly when you get to light fabrics or light shoe designs. There is no way to perceive that three-dimensional very, very minute difference and the variations that occur from shoes or fabrics of similar designs. For that reason, even in the preliminary examination stages, it is absolutely essential to make test impressions of shoes or fabric or any other impression materials for comparison purposes. It is the only way that you can make a valid comparison.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, the test impressions you are talking about making, are they made with the Identicator?
MR. BODZIAK: The Identicator is one of many materials that I use in making test impressions of known shoes. It initially started as a source of inkless fingerprints and there are a lot of places in the country use inkless fingerprints, so if you apply for a job and have to be fingerprinted, you don't have to be through the messy ink that you used to go through. I found out about it many years ago. I found out that the air force was using it for, if you will, bare footprints of their pilots, because if their pilots were killed in an accident, they would have to sometimes resort to the ridge detail on their feet because sometimes being in boots they were the only preserved parts of their body and they would find that they had to take prints of their full feet, in addition to their hands, so they made a much larger pad, bigger than fingerprint size. And we started ordering it, and it is very good for making preliminary comparisons, and in some cases for actually the examination quality, the final product. It actually surfaces other materials in a lot of cases, depends on the shoe or the material.
MS. CLARK: Now, imprint analysis, is that a pretty old science, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: It is just--it goes back as far as you can read in the forensic literature.
MS. CLARK: In order to make a valid test impression to compare to a bloody imprint, do you need to make that test impression in blood?
MR. BODZIAK: And I might also point that out. That is a fallacy that you have to reproduce the exact set of circumstances. What you are trying to do, when you make a test impression, is to reproduce with as much quality as you can all of the features of the shoe or fabric or whatever you are trying to compare, and that is your standard. That is the idealistically best detail that you can get with all of the features exhibited in that known standard that you are comparing. Then you look to the crime scene impressions, and whether they are shoes or fabrics or whatever, those always--almost always have far less detail and do not reproduce as well because they are not being made as test impressions; they are being made under adverse conditions where the receiving material may be absorbent, like these cotton jeans or the sidewalk may be very rough and coarse, and so you don't expect to see all of the detail in those kind of impressions. But you can take the maximum amount of detail in the standard test impression and then compare the respective parts to see if there is any likenesses or differences. If you went and tried to use blood in the exact materials, you would have inferior standards for comparison. You would wind up with a whole `nother set of problems in that comparison which had nothing to do with your original intended examination.
MS. CLARK: Now, when you determined that these were not shoeprints, you actually gave them to Mr. Deedrick for examination?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, that's correct.
MS. CLARK: Do you have--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Do you have in the FBI a blood spatter analyst?
MR. BODZIAK: I believe we had one at one time, I think we had two, and I think one of them transferred back out to the field.
MS. CLARK: You did not give those impressions that you eliminated that as being shoeprint, you--the imprints that you determined were not shoeprints, you gave them to Mr. Deedrick, you did not give them to the blood spatter analyst?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Why not?
MR. BODZIAK: I had observed the pictures of--I had examined the jeans and I also had pictures of the jeans that you see here and I had also seen enlarged photographs of Ron Goldman's shirt. It was very bloodied and the blood in the picture caused the ribbed design on the shirt to show up very vividly. And so when looking at that I noticed a striking similarity between that design, even in that smaller photograph, when looking at this, and for that reason thought the first person that should look at it is Doug Deedrick for doing a fabric analysis.
MS. CLARK: Is the science of imprint comparison distinct from blood spatter analysis?
MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely, yeah.
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us why?
MR. BODZIAK: Umm, they are like apples and oranges. Imprints or impressions are physical contact between one object and another and in that physical contact there is a transfer of both class characteristics with regard to a shoe, the characteristics that all shoes of that size and design would share, as well as wear characteristics and accidental characteristics. The same would apply for any other imprint, whether it be clothing or whatever, those general characteristics would be class characteristics that all of those share. And they will, if there were tears or something on a fabric, you can also have accidental characteristics. With regard to blood spatter, there is actually--I'm not a--I work with blood spatter in the sense that I see it on evidence and the--there is--as I understand it from my training in the area, this area, there is two--
MR. SCHECK: Objection, foundation.
MR. BODZIAK: --there is two areas.
THE COURT: All right. Let's wind it up.
MS. CLARK: Why don't you complete this answer, sir.
THE COURT: Next question. Next question.
MS. CLARK: Then would you--is it your opinion, sir, based on what you've told us thus far, that a blood spatter analyst would not be the one to compare a fabric impression in blood to determine what the source of that impression was?
MR. BODZIAK: Not unless they had had training in fabric impressions or shoeprints or whatever they were comparing.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And training in blood spatter analysis is not required or even helpful in being able to determine the source of an imprint made in blood?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading, argumentative.
THE COURT: It is leading.
MS. CLARK: Would blood spatter analysis training assist someone in being able to determine whether a--a particular mechanism--a particular item made an imprint in blood?
MR. BODZIAK: Not if it was an impression or an imprint, no.
MS. CLARK: I was going to move on to another area. Do you want me to go ahead and start?
THE COURT: No. Let's take a break. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. We will take a brief recess to clear the jury and then I will see counsel in chambers on the record, please. All right. Thank you.
(Proceedings held in camera, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
(At 5:44 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Friday, September 15, 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 Thursday, September 14, 1995 volume 223
Pages 45786 through 45993, inclusive
(Pages 45994 through 46009, inclusive, sealed)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 223 pages 45786 - 45993
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Thursday September 14, 1995 A.M. 45786 223 P.M. 45869 223
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (Rebuttal) witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Ramirez, Teresa 223 (Resumed) 45797N 45804MC 45806N (Further) 45807MC
Deedrick, 45816MC 45871BS 45917MC 45932BS 223 Douglas W.
Bodziak, 45946MC 223 William J.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Bodziak, 45946MC 223 William J.
Deedrick, 45816MC 45871BS 45917MC 45932BS 223 Douglas W.
Ramirez, Teresa 223 (Resumed) 45797N 45804MC 45806N (Further) 45807MC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
618 - Posterboard 45829 223 entitled "Imprint patterns 8X"
619 - Posterboard 45833 223 entitled "Ronald Goldman's blue jeans"
620 - Posterboard 45854 223 entitled "Envelope, test imprints and paper"
621 - Posterboard 45861 223 entitled "Imprint on blue jeans 4X"
622 - Posterboard 45950 223 entitled "Eyeglasses, envelope and paper"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1376 - Letter (Not marked on the record) dated September 13, 1995, from James Michael Maddock