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 45994 through 46009, volume 223A, 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. Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck, People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Goldberg. Good morning, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Good morning, your Honor. Very briefly.
THE COURT: We're about ready to reconvene with Mr. Bodziak and conclude his testimony.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I have him here. I'm ready to go and I'll conclude I believe in half an hour with direct. I wanted to raise with the court the issue of the Stockdale tape. I had a conversation with Mr. Shapiro this morning. He was very helpful in explaining to me the circumstances of the Stockdale tape. I have in my possession now from Mr. Shapiro a copy of the affidavits filed under 1054.7 with the court. I haven't had a chance to read them, but counsel already told me what's in them. It is the bottom line that the tape is no longer in existence. The issue then now to be litigated is what is the remedy for the People. Miss Stockdale is not an adequate substitute for the tape itself, which would be--
THE COURT: All right. I think if you peruse the affidavits--my recollection from my last reading of them was that there is a transcript that was prepared.
MS. CLARK: Right. That's not going to--that will not satisfy--what the People wanted from the tape is the Defendant's demeanor, his tone of voice, how he sounded. The words are almost irrelevant to what is more important to us, which is the sound of the voice, the tone and the demeanor of the voice, and that's why Miss Stockdale herself, even if she could give us a verbatim memory of the words, would be inadequate. We need--we needed to hear and let the jury hear his voice, and we cannot do that. So, I mean, that's the issue to be framed. I assume--
THE COURT: So--
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: I'm just sort of anxious to get started this morning.
MS. CLARK: Yes. And that's exactly what I was going to say, your Honor. Why don't we just get started and calendar this argument for some future time not too long in the future.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARK: And tell me the court's pleasure in that, and we're ready.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: That's acceptable to us, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Because if it appears that if we're going to finish with Mr. Bodziak today, my understanding, Miss Clark, is that that is the last major witness you intend on offering in rebuttal; is that correct?
MS. CLARK: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. Then we may have some additional time in the court day then to discuss those other issues. Also, as a matter of planning for scheduling, counsel, I've received requests from the interested parties regarding the Jewish holidays that are upcoming later in this month, and as soon as I determine certain sundown times, we'll--I'll issue a modified schedule as far as that's concerned. And I think we need to set the record straight about our conversations in chambers yesterday at the conclusion of the court day concerning the concerns that one of our jurors had about her financial situation as it was impacted by jury service, and that has been concluded successfully to her satisfaction without the necessity of the expenditure of any county funds. So that is a non-issue at this point.
MR. SHAPIRO: Our previous statements on the record--
THE COURT: Stand.
MR. SHAPIRO: --stands.
THE COURT: Yes. All right. All right. Are we ready to proceed?
MS. CLARK: May I make one inquiry?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Is the court already in possession of the memo from Mr. Whitehurst and the transcript that Mr. Neufeld provided us with of Mr. Whitehurst?
THE COURT: I believe so.
MS. CLARK: Okay. I had copies brought down to furnish to the court. Mr. Blasier and I discussed the fact that it would be more expeditious if we could give this to the court to let it begin reading even in advance of the interview scheduled for tomorrow.
THE COURT: All right. I have the memo. I don't believe I have the--was given a copy of the four page per page transcript. I think we copied it, but I don't think I had a copy of it.
MS. CLARK: Is it all right if I--may I give it to the court?
MR. YOCHELSON: Your Honor--
THE COURT: To Mrs. Robertson. Thank you.
MR. YOCHELSON: There was an order by the court, both sides, not to copy these documents. At this point, they seem to be widely disseminated. I wonder if we could have some relief from that so other members of both sides can be more conveniently--
THE COURT: All right. It appears that that is being publicly disseminated in the news media. So I have no objection to counsel making whatever copies they feel it necessary to make preparations for the argument.
MR. YOCHELSON: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: May I ask that the court order us to furnish a copy to the court and to each other so that we're all--in view of the fact that there may be some litigation by some party, I don't even know who, I would appreciate it if the court would issue an order indicating that we should furnish to you copies of the transcript and the memo and to share those copies with each other.
THE COURT: All right. Well, that's--it's been offered to the court. There's been no objection. So I--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. Hold on. Let me finish my discussion with Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Mr. Yochelson reminds me that the court did order it in chambers, to furnish copies to the court of those items.
THE COURT: I think of the memo. I don't believe of the transcript. Because in my pile of documents that I have on this issue, it does not include this transcript. But to my recollection, it was presented to the court in chambers. I directed my staff to make photocopies for the parties, but we did not keep one. All right. I will now put this in my stack of materials on that pile. All right.
MR. YOCHELSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Yochelson. Mr. Goldberg, anything we need to take up before we conclude with Mr. Bodziak?
MR. GOLDBERG: We're trying to find one of the Defense exhibits, 1337-A we believe it is. May we have permission to look for that after the jury comes in by having Miss Martinez go into the hallway and check--
THE COURT: Why don't you get it right now. What is 1337-A?
MS. CLARK: Defense exhibit.
THE CLERK: It was here yesterday.
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, okay. Sorry. Mr. Scheck had that. Okay. And can we also have permission to go back to put our magnetic boards together in preparation for Miss Clark's continuing direct examination after the jury comes in?
THE COURT: Why don't we do it right now so that we don't have to wait.
MR. SCHECK: Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing it for the first time.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this is a previously marked exhibit.
THE COURT: No. I understand that. Why don't we just bring it out now so that we don't have to be schlepping these things back and forth all day. Why don't we just get the exhibits out that we're going to use.
MS. CLARK: That's our plan. Also, let me indicate, Mr. Fairtlough is home ill today.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Woodin can ably--
MS. CLARK: Mr. Woodin is going to fill in.
MR. SCHECK: One other issue about that. I was looking through the exhibits. It's my distinct recollection that out of all the different videotapes that the People had initially proffered when Dr. Lee was cross-examined, there was only one that they showed, and that was of the two uniformed officers breaking down the crime scene and walking through the initial area. And my distinct recollection, that was shown to the jury, and Dr. Lee was then asked if the imprints from those--the shoes of those officers could have accounted for 1337-A. And we can't--when we look at the exhibit list, it's not distinctly noted because I think it came off a previously marked exhibit from the People or in fact I think that Mr. Fairtlough had played it off the laser disk. So I was wondering if they could get that because I would like to use it.
THE COURT: I don't think it was played off the laser disk. My recollection, it was videotape because the quality was bad and it was jumping on my monitor. So I think it's videotape.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Harris recalls it coming off the laser disk, and that's why we can't locate it as a separate exhibit. It wasn't marked. So I was wondering if they could find that because I would like to play that.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, can you help us on that?
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, your Honor. I missed part of the discussion.
THE COURT: On the--during your cross-examination of Dr. Lee, you played the videotape which shows the two officers winding up the crime scene tape and walking down the walkway. Then you used that to cross-examine regarding the source of possible other footprints, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
THE COURT: Do you recollect what exhibit that was?
MS. MARTINEZ: I believe it's 101, your Honor.
THE COURT: 101. Do we have 101 available? Now I've lost my clerk.
MR. SCHECK: Well, we'll need some time to just rearrange that.
THE COURT: Well, I'd like to make sure we got it available. Mrs. Robertson, do we have--
THE CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. She's on top of it.
MS. CLARK: We also have other videotape that we'd like to show, the one, if you recall, that showed--I believe it was hard copy, filmed by hard copy of the Bundy area and--
THE COURT: American Journal.
MS. CLARK: Was it American Journal? That's shone in through the window of the living room of Miss Brown with the candles still burning. Remember that? So I would like to show that snippet as well.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have that cued up?
MS. CLARK: No, but it will be. It'd better be.
THE COURT: It'd be nice if we could finish this morning.
MS. CLARK: I agree. We can begin, your Honor. I don't--
THE COURT: All right. There's 101. All right. Mr. Yochelson, would you give that to Mr. Harris, and you can preview that to see if that's the tape you're looking for. All right. Anything else before we invite the jury to join us? Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Let's begin. If we have to at the break, I'll show--
THE COURT: All right. And one further note before we get started today. Counsel, I would recommend that you each, each side get copies of rule 5120, rules of professional conduct, which will become in effect October the 1st, regards out of court statements by counsel in a pending case. I recommend you read that carefully. All right. Let's have the jurors, Deputy Magnera.
(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. And let the record reflect that we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: I see we're Friday casual. Miss Clark, you may recall Mr. Bodziak.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
William J. Bodziak, 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 should reflect that Mr. William Bodziak is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Miss Clark. Good morning again, Mr. Bodziak.
MR. BODZIAK: Good morning.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And, Miss Clark, you may continue with your examination.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Good morning Mr. Bodziak.
MR. BODZIAK: Good morning.
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Now, did you also make an examination on a number of occasions of the Bundy walkway?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: You've testified previously to your findings of one set of bloody shoeprints, the type you determined to be Bruno Magli and size 12, if you recall.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated to us that you did hear some portions of Dr. Lee's testimony, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: I heard the majority of it, yes.
MS. CLARK: And in that, he was pointing out various marks that he thought could be imprints. Do you recall that portion of his testimony?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am, I do.
MS. CLARK: Sir, do you have an opinion as to whether it is appropriate to point out marks or things that could be imprints, but cannot definitely be characterized one way or another?
MR. BODZIAK: I was first a little confused by the term "imprint" that was used so loosely to describe so many different things. I had no problem with the term "imprint" because in the area of impression marks, it's a well known fact that around the world, different terminology is used to describe shoe impressions. For instance, in England and much of Europe, a two-dimensional impression would be a mark, a three-dimensional would be a depressed mark. I like to use the term "impression" to cover everything because I think it's less confusing or "shoeprint." I think the term "imprint" is probably more of a general term, and so I had a hard time understanding when Dr. Lee pointed to many different things and referred to them all as "imprints" exactly what in his mind he was inferring, although he seemed to, when questioned about it, admit that he couldn't say it was a shoeprint. So I was a little confused by some of his testimony.
MS. CLARK: If in fact, Mr. Bodziak, you--I look at a photograph. I'm a layperson, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: I look at a photograph and I can't really see imprints. You think you may see something. Under those circumstances, do you think it's appropriate to render an opinion concerning the possibility of the existence of imprints that may have forensic significance?
MR. BODZIAK: You might want to make a statement about it, but it should be a qualified statement so that it's understood that there are limitations. Perhaps you can't exclude it as having been made by an object, whether it be a shoe or fabric, but not to infer that it is if there is less than optimal detail.
MS. CLARK: Okay. In other words, if we can't all see it, is it appropriate to say I as an expert can see maybe there might be something? In other words, if we can't all see it, is it appropriate to characterize it?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: No. If--being an expert in an area doesn't give you any better than 20/20 vision. If as an expert you see something, everyone should be able to see that clearly. You should never point to something and say, "I can see this," knowing that no one else can see it.
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor. Move to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: I'd like to show you a couple of photographs I think that have not previously been marked.
THE COURT: Miss Clark, keep your voice up, please.
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: For the record, your Honor, I believe this exhibit has previously been marked as People's exhibit 598 and--
THE COURT: All right. We have a minor problem. Do you want Mr. Bodziak to testify to this since he can't see it and he's being shielded by the jury?
MS. CLARK: Yes. What I would like to do is actually put it in the middle if I can, but it's really heavy. It's a magnetic board.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: There are magnetic overlays on them now. I'm going to remove them for the moment and put them back on.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: All right. Mr. Bodziak, you're probably going to have to step down so you can look at this.
MS. CLARK: For the record, at this moment, your Honor, there are only two photographs on this board, one labeled B, one labeled C that appear to be overalls of the walkway at Bundy.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MS. CLARK: I would like now to attach to this board two other overalls. I'm going to ask that they be labeled as part of this exhibit. The first one shows letters E through K. Actually--yes, E through K, and ask that this be labeled D.
THE COURT: All right.
(Peo's 598-D for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Do you recognize that photograph?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And what is that of?
MR. BODZIAK: This is a photograph of the Bundy walkway. The view is towards the west and it begins with the third row of tiles that start after you come up the steps of the front gate.
MS. CLARK: I have another overall photograph that shows letters H through N as--and may I have that labeled as E, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 598-E for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: And do you recognize E, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And what is it?
MR. BODZIAK: This is also a photograph of the Bundy walkway looking toward the west, and it's taken just a little bit further down the walkway and it therefore begins with row 7, actually part of row 6 of tiles row 7 and then row 8 of which H and I are, and then you can see the steps going up to the next tier as you head west down the Bundy walkway.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, Mrs. Robertson--forgive me for interrupting you, but Mrs. Robertson indicates that on 598, you already have a through I.
MS. CLARK: Right. That's the--
THE COURT: So this should be J and K.
MS. CLARK: Okay. What was previously D will be J, what was previously E will be K.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Peo's 598-J and K for id = prev. Marked D and e)
MS. CLARK: Now, did you place these letter labels on the overall photographs, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And what was that based on?
MR. BODZIAK: This was based on my previous comparison of the tiles and the Bruno Magli design shoes and the comparisons I made and the letters that were in the photographs that were taken by the LAPD as they took the photographs at the crime scene of each individual footwear impression.
MS. CLARK: In these overall photographs, sir, do you see other than the items you have labeled--well, let me back up. The labels are affixed to what? They're showing what?
MR. BODZIAK: The labels which begin with E on one photograph, they go E, F, G, H, I, J, K, it becomes very hard to see much after that. So we added this additional photograph, which is a little bit further down the sidewalk, and that continues with H and I, J, K, L, M and N, and these letters represent the letters that were taken in the photographs of the Bruno Magli shoe impressions.
MS. CLARK: Would it be more clear if I were to place J lower and place K above it so that it's a continuation of the walkway?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I think that would be much clearer.
MS. CLARK: Do you actually see the rear gate of the Bundy location at the top of the photograph that's labeled k?
MR. BODZIAK: You see a gate. I don't believe it's the most rear. The most rear is down the next tier and up again and further back, but you do see another gate, yes.
MS. CLARK: That's not the last gate?
MR. BODZIAK: No. No, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: Now, so the items that are labeled with letters, those were all the Bruno Magli shoeprints that you found?
MR. BODZIAK: They were some of them. There were many others, but these were some of them with those respective letters.
MS. CLARK: Other than the Bruno Magli shoeprints, some of which you have labeled with letters on these overalls, did you see anything else recognizable as a shoeprint on the Bundy walkway?
MR. SCHECK: Objection as to time. Talking about the picture?
THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.
MS. CLARK: In these pictures.
MR. BODZIAK: May I answer that?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BODZIAK: Looking at these two photographs, I could not see any other footwear impressions in these photographs other than what I have already marked here with the letters and I previously examined, testified to.
MS. CLARK: Now, are you aware that the date on which these pictures were taken, these overalls, was June the 13th?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: You can resume your seat for a moment, sir.
(The witness complies.)
MS. CLARK: Now, the photographs that you examined, sir, were they original photographs developed from the negative?
MR. BODZIAK: Initial--they were first-generation photographs from the negative, yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you hear Dr. Lee's testimony that the photographs he examined were second generation, that is a photograph of a photograph?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Vague as to what photographs we are talking about.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: In some instances, did you hear Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to some of the Bundy walkway photographs, that what he examined were photographs of photographs?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am, I did.
MS. CLARK: What is your opinion of the practice of forming an opinion based on the appearance of a photograph of a photograph?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Based on discovery problems.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: In some instances, you could reach a conclusion with the photograph of a photograph, particularly eliminations. If there was a design, even though the photograph--poor design was definitely a different design, you could still see that, you could reach an opinion. You might also be able to reach certain qualified opinions. But using a second-generation photograph is generally not what you strive to do in your examinations because there always is the possibility that the original full-framed picture from the original negatives contains much more information. It might even contain other areas that you don't see on a copy of that first photograph. So as a general rule, it's dangerous to work with that kind of material. It's limited.
MS. CLARK: Now, you are aware that the People provided the Defense--
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor. Ask for a sidebar.
THE COURT: No. Sit down. Sustained. Argumentative, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Have you spoken with Mr. Scheck at some length, sir, prior to your testimony here today?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: And have you gone over photographs with him, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: And have you seen original, that is first-generation photographs, in the possession of Mr. Scheck?
MR. BODZIAK: Most of the photographs that we went over were photographs that I generated or the LAPD had generated from the original negatives.
MS. CLARK: And did you discuss with him providing to Mr. Lee of second-generation photographs in lieu of original photographs?
MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall any specific discussion about that. There may have been a reference to it, but I don't recall it as a discussion.
MS. CLARK: Let me put it to you this way, sir. If the Prosecution had sent to you photographs of photographs, second-generation photographs, and asked for you to render an opinion characterizing or forming a conclusion based on those photographs, would you do so?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, objection. Ask to approach.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: That happens quite frequently because a lot of departments don't want to give up their original photographs or negatives, and I pick up the phone and call them and explain to them for various reasons why I have to have the best evidence, and I usually won't do the examination, even a qualified one, if I don't have that.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. I just put up the Defense exhibit labeled as Defendant's 1337. Have you previously examined this board, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: I can't see it. May I step down?
MS. CLARK: Please.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Let me--I first want to direct your attention to the photograph on the lower--lower left, lower left-hand side.
THE COURT: Labeled?
MS. CLARK: It's labeled as--sorry--walkway, 6-12 to 13, 1994.
MS. CLARK: Have you looked at that photograph before, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: And perhaps we could put that one photograph on the elmo, and that's People's 45-I.
THE COURT: Appears to be oriented differently than the--Miss Martinez, I think we need to turn it upside down. Thank you.
MR. BODZIAK: That's not the same.
MS. CLARK: That's not the same.
MS. CLARK: Until we get that, let me ask you a couple questions, sir. First of all, do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony, sir, that there were lines in this area that I'm pointing to here (Indicating)?
MS. CLARK: And for the record, I'm pointing to, as you face it, to the right of the grouting that appeared to him to possibly be an imprint.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Since that time, sir, have you gone back to the Bundy walkway to examine that particular tile?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: And when you went back to look at that--ah, good. We have the photograph. And that's People's what? Showing you People's 45-I on the elmo, sir, if you could explain to the jury and use the laser pointer and circle the area that we're talking about.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The area that you're referring to that I went back and examined is this area in here, and within that area, there are some parallel lines which I'm following with the laser pointer (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Now, first of all, sir, before you ever testified, did you go to Bundy and locate the exact location of where each shoeprint that had been photographed was?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And did you create a map showing the location of each shoeprint in your notes?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And those notes that you made, they were made before you testified here for the first time?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they were.
MS. CLARK: And you turned them over to the Defense back then; did you not?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did Dr. Lee ever call and ask you where on each tile each shoeprint was located?
MR. BODZIAK: No. I never had any contact with Dr. Lee about any facet of this case.
MS. CLARK: When you testified previously, sir, did you indicate and specify exactly where each footprint was on the walkway?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Now, since your testimony, you indicated that you went back to Bundy to locate that precise tile shown in People's 45-I again?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: And can you tell us how you were able to do that, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Uh, it was very easy. I knew exactly where that imprint was since I had already been to the Bundy scene and had mapped each of these by the letter and by the photograph numbers and in order to create the long Bundy chart which was used during my original testimony. So I already knew exactly which tile to go to. And even though the impression is no longer there, the impression of blood is no longer there, the many imperfections in the tile and the grouting make it easy to confirm that I was looking at the exact tile.
MS. CLARK: So by various distinctive defects in the tile that were innate to the tile, you were able to locate each shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: I have a new board, your Honor, I'd ask be marked next in order. Is that 623?
THE COURT: 623. Yes.
(Peo's 623-A through G for id = board w/photos)
MS. CLARK: For the record, it's entitled "Bundy walk photos."
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, when you went--
THE COURT: All right. Are these just footprints?
MS. CLARK: Yes. Well, they're all walkway markings on the walkway. I should describe it for the record. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: This board contains seven photo--actually eight photographs. In the lower right-hand corner are two photographs put together because they are part of one tile, a continuous part of the tiling, and they have numbers 15 and 19 on them. In the lower left-hand corner is a photograph, black and white, with two rulers that seems to show an imprint in cement. Above that is another black and white photograph with two rulers. Another above that is a color photograph with what appears to be a shoeprint and two rulers. In the middle is an overall photograph with what appears to be--it's a color photograph with what appears to be white labels in it. To the right of that is a black and white photograph with two rulers. Next to it is a color photograph with a tape measure in it.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: All right. Sir, directing your attention specifically now to the photographs that--
MS. CLARK: I'm going to start labeling them, your Honor, for the record. The upper photograph labeled color photograph with the shoeprint a and the black and white below it B.
MS. CLARK: Directing your attention to photograph B, sir, that appears to be a black and white photograph?
MR. BODZIAK: It is a black and white photograph.
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us when that photograph was taken?
MR. BODZIAK: That particular photograph I didn't take. To the best of my knowledge, I believe it was September 1st, 1995.
MS. CLARK: 1995?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And did you direct that it be taken black and white like this?
MR. BODZIAK: I gave general directions to how to take the photograph of the tile using an oblique light source and a camera on a tripod and a scale and everything in the photograph.
MS. CLARK: Can you explain to us what you mean exactly by "oblique light source"?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. "oblique light" is when the light skims the surface as opposed to light just coming down from overhead as it would if you were to walk outside or in a room such as this where the lighting is coming from overhead. And when the light comes from overhead, it is very even and does not give you a lot of contrast regarding surface detail. If you were to bring--turn these lights off and bring a bright light in here and skim the surface of different objects, you would see the texture, the carpeting texture, shoeprints that might be depressed, other tool marks or marks from objects, you would see them much better because the low light would be creating shadows in the low areas of these uneven things and would highlight the upper areas and it would give you better contrast. So you would be able to, by skimming the light on the surface, see those defects much better in the walkway.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So does the oblique lighting create new features that were not there?
MR. BODZIAK: It doesn't create features. It enables you to see them much better than you might be able to see with photographs taken without other lighting sources.
MS. CLARK: Now, what was the purpose in this particular case of asking that these black and white photographs be taken with oblique lighting in September of 1995?
MR. BODZIAK: After Dr. Lee's testimony regarding this particular imprint, which is the original photograph of which is depicted in photograph a on this board, in order to obtain a picture that shows more clearly that mark, I directed them to take this different type of photograph.
MS. CLARK: Now, the parallel lines that appear in People's 45-I and on the Defendant's exhibit 1337 that you've circled with the laser light--
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: --can you tell us whether you were able to locate that particular tile, that location on the Bundy walkway after Dr. Lee's testimony?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That was the edge--this particular edge here in this photograph a on this board is the same as the area I just circled. This edge is the border between the second and third row of tiles and it is in the area of the impression, this particular impression which we labeled E on the original--with the Bruno Magli design on the original Bundy walkway board (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Okay. And for the record, your Honor, I've placed labels a and B.
MS. CLARK: Now, directing your attention to photograph B, the photograph taken September of 1995, can you tell us, sir, whether that is the exact location depicted in photograph a which was taken on June 13th, 1994?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is. The grout line, which is running up and down, this corresponds with this grout line, and this tile to the right of the photograph on the right side of the photograph B as you face it corresponds with the heel portion or the part of the tile on the heal area which is actually a second row of tiles on the photograph a (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Now, the parallel lines that were testified to by Dr. Lee, do you see them in the photograph taken in September of 1995 labeled on this exhibit as b?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The same lines are right in this area, and they are the same lines that you can--you can still see it in photograph a as you can up when I pointed to it with the laser, but you can see it much more clearly in photograph B (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Then with respect to the parallel lines in--that were pointed out during Dr. Lee's testimony in photograph a and what's shown on the screen, People's 45-I, in your opinion, sir, is that an imprint?
MR. BODZIAK: No, it's not an imprint nor is it a shoeprint.
MS. CLARK: What is it?
MR. BODZIAK: It's a result of the making, the finishing of the concrete tiles. Much of the discussion including my own of the Bundy walkway has referred to the individual squares as tiles. In fact, they are not actually tiles in the sense that they could be picked up, maybe an inch or a quarter-inch thick and would be laid down and filled in with concrete. On the other hand, they are actually poured concrete and they are grouted to make it look like individual tiles. So this was actually a walkway that was poured with concrete and certain tools were used to finish that concrete just as it would have been if it had been a plain concrete walkway.
MS. CLARK: So when you were there, did you notice many marks or defects inherent in the concrete itself?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: I'm going to place the label C on the photograph that appears to have what looks like a shoeprint in the cement and ask you if you had seen that particular feature, sir.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On this particular photograph, which is on the second tier, the seventh row of tiles, there was actually almost an entire well-defined shoeprint of a left shoe that was made by stepping in the concrete tile before it was dry, and it was there since the day this tile was poured and I imagine it will always be there.
MS. CLARK: Is it a Bruno Magli shoe, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: No, it's not.
MS. CLARK: All right. Directing your attention to the photographs to the right of that that I'm going to place the label D above, describe for the jury what is shown in this photograph.
MR. BODZIAK: This photograph is--looking at it from the left, the two photographs which I had taken, one Thursday this week, yesterday--no. Wednesday. Wednesday--and they are depicting the edges of the tile between tiles 11 and 12 and 12 and 13 on the first tier, and west would be in the direction to your right as you look at D. So the crime scene would be on your side and as you walk away would be going down the walkway. And this was taken to just show how on many, many of these tiles, the same types of marks from finishing the concrete were present, and these are the same type of tool marks used by the concrete workers as you do see in B and A and that were previously referred to as an imprint, and in fact, they are actually tool marks from the finishing of the concrete.
MS. CLARK: And so it's clear, sir, B, C and D were all taken in September of 1995?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: With oblique lighting?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: Directing your attention to the color photograph above D which I'm going to place--label as E, placing a label on, your Honor, can you tell us--first of all, have you seen this photograph before?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Did you direct that it be taken?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And when was it taken, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: In September 1995.
MS. CLARK: And what was the purpose for having this photograph taken?
MR. BODZIAK: After I went out to the Bundy walkway to document the various shoe impressions in concrete and marks, imperfections in the various tiles that were a result of the concrete work as you can see in--on the bottom edge of B and also in two spots on D, there are some labels, and you can see these labels down the walkway. And these just are general scene photographs just to give it a reference point to show where some of these pictures were taken.
MS. CLARK: Now, this is pointing in which direction?
MR. BODZIAK: This is facing--this is actually facing back toward the east. So the victims were down at the top of the photograph, and as you come down the photograph, you're actually heading west.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So as you go from the bottom of the photograph to the top, you're going towards Bundy?
MR. BODZIAK: Toward Bundy, yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, those markers you say indicate defects that exist in the tile?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, every tile has many finishing marks from trowels, and--I mean, that's normal in concrete, and you can see--if you were to look on D, you can see many different lines and scratches and things which will cause shadows and which will appear as various shapes and marks. Even next to the shoeprint, you can see another line here, you can see some trowel marks along the edges of these trowels, you can see indentations here. And when you use the oblique light source, it shows these up very well, and every tile along the walkway had it and it's normal for this type of concrete finishing to have those marks. It's impossible not to have it.
MS. CLARK: And did you hear Dr. Lee testify when looking at one of the overall shots, perspective shot looking from Bundy towards the back of the location that was taken on June the 13th, that he thought he could see possibly other imprints?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And--
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: --based on what you saw--based on what you saw in the defects in the tiles that you testified to, sir, do you have an opinion with respect to those possible other imprints that Dr. Lee testified to?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: That's vague.
MS. CLARK: Given the defects in the tiles to which you have testified, sir, if you look--take a long shot, a perspective shot of the overall Bundy walkway, could those defects create the appearance of imprints that are not in fact--
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MS. CLARK: Based on what you saw at the Bundy walkway, sir, the defects that you've testified to, did that create an appearance of imprints when you examined them that were not in fact imprints?
MR. BODZIAK: When you look at the general scene photographs that we took of the--that were taken on June 13th of the walkway looking in a westerly direction that I believe are on the board behind this one--
MS. CLARK: Why don't I take it down. And this was the board marked as 598.
MR. BODZIAK: When you look at these photographs which are marked B and C and the ones on which I put the letters from E through M or N, you can see because of the imperfections in the walkway as well as the unevenness of the color and various stains and weathering of those concrete tiles since the walkway was put there, which is all normal, you can see various lighter or darker areas or imperfections and it's impossible to tell what they are. So in that very loose sense, you could look at it if you were asked--if I were asked or anyone including Dr. Lee to look at this and say you see these various dark splotchy areas and different imperfections, can you exclude a possibility that there are other footwear impressions, of course, you couldn't. But these are--from my inspection of the scene and these photographs, there is nothing that you can look at that in my opinion looks like a shoe impression other than the ones that I previously testified to.
MS. CLARK: Which were?
MR. BODZIAK: Which were the Bruno Magli design.
MS. CLARK: Now, I'm going to direct your attention, sir, back to People's 623, the upper--
MS. CLARK: Let me label the remaining photographs while I'm at it, a black and white photograph next to E as F and the color photograph next to that as G. And I put the labels on, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: Directing your attention, sir, to photograph G on People's 623, that is a photograph testified to by Dr. Lee during the course of his testimony. Do you recall that, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am, I do.
MS. CLARK: And that is a photograph taken by him on June 25th, two weeks after the murders, 1994?
MR. BODZIAK: That's my understanding from his testimony, yes.
MS. CLARK: First, your Honor--
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, that should be marked--
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think that G is actually their copy of 1337-D, which is also the middle photograph on the imprint board at Bundy, and I'd suggest we use those instead of the other copy.
THE COURT: Counsel can use their own exhibits, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: Directing your attention, sir, to 1337, do you see the photograph on the board that's labeled as walkway 6-25-94?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And I'm showing you now Defendant's 1337-B, sir. Can you tell us if that appears to be the same photograph as shown that on 1337 that I just indicated?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And is that the same photograph that's shown on the People's exhibit 623 as labeled g?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is. It--this actually includes a larger area, but it shows the same content. But they both center around the same tile and reveal the same information.
MS. CLARK: Thank you. I'm going to put that 1337-B on the easel. All right. First, let me direct your attention to the area in this photograph to the left of the tile. And by that, I mean, sir, this what appears to be kind of wavy lines here and a few other lines above it.
MS. CLARK: And for the record, I'm indicating lines to the left of what appears to be a heel print.
THE COURT: Yes. Appears to be approximately on the tape measure the area to the right of the inch marking 9.
MS. CLARK: Can you show the jury more specifically what I pointed out?
MR. BODZIAK: In this particular photograph?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
MR. BODZIAK: Or all of them?
MS. CLARK: All of them.
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Looking first at G, there is a wavy line pattern that is evident next to the bloody Bruno Magli heel print which I previously testified to. That is also depicted in--this is 13--
MS. CLARK: 1337-B.
MR. BODZIAK: --1337-B. If I could turn it this way to orientate it the same. This would be--in this area here, there's a wavy print. I don't know if that can be seen by everyone, but it is in this area here (Indicating). It's also in this area here, which is the same photograph next to the bloody Bruno Magli heel print, and the wavy pattern is over here in this area.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, perhaps I could pass this photograph to the jury so they--this is pretty faint stuff.
THE COURT: Which do you want to pass?
MS. CLARK: I'll pass the Defense photograph if I may.
THE COURT: That's 1337?
MS. CLARK: Yes. Again, for the record, the area we're pointing to is to the left with the lines and what appears to be kind of a wavy pattern to the left as you face it of the heel print.
THE COURT: All right. Hand it to juror no. 1, please.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
(Defendant's 1337 was examined by the jurors.)
MS. CLARK: Excuse me. 10:30, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, would you retrieve 1337 from Deputy Long.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Now, do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony in which he testified and characterized this area--oops--as a possible shoeprint?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
MS. CLARK: Did you go back and locate--
MR. SCHECK: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Did you go back--
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Imprint.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: Do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony in which he identified this area as an imprint?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And did you go back and locate that exact location and that exact tile on Bundy after his testimony?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And is there a photograph that depicts that location of that exact tile on this board, People's 623?
MR. BODZIAK: A general photograph or a close-up?
MS. CLARK: A close-up, sir.
MR. BODZIAK: A close-up, yes, there is.
MS. CLARK: And which one is that?
MR. BODZIAK: That is that (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: And in that photograph, you caused that photograph to be taken; is that correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It's upside down as it's mounted here. Might be confusing, but it's the same area.
MS. CLARK: Is that on the double-stick tape, Hank? I wonder if we could--
THE COURT: Is it possible to reorientate that, Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: That's exactly why I was asking if it's on the tape. Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: Would this be correct, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: All right. For the record, I have turned it rightside up.
MS. CLARK: How were you able to locate again the exact tile that is depicted in Defendant's 1337-B?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, that's--first looking at this particular photograph with a bloody Bruno Magli print which is right next to it, which was imprint number I or letter I on the walkway, it was on the eighth tile, and then going to the Bundy scene in September `95, through the imperfections in the tile, reconfirming that that in fact is the tile in question and then making oblique-like photographs showing the wavy-line impression on that tile.
MS. CLARK: Now, the photograph that is labeled as F on People's 623 was taken in September of 1995?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: Did you see the same features characterized by Dr. Lee as an imprint that still existed in the tile in September of 1995?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Can you explain that, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: This wavy line imprint referred to by Dr. Lee is in fact another impression in concrete that was there when the walkway was poured and which is still there and will probably be there as long as the walkway.
MS. CLARK: If I may, your Honor, rather than ask that the jury pass by and look at it, if we could hold the board close and let Mr. Bodziak point that out.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think this mischaracterizes the testimony.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Can we approach so I can explain?
THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the sidebar. What's your objection? What's the objection?
MR. SCHECK: The objection is that Dr. Lee's testimony was, as to the bloody imprint that he presented previously tested--the bloody imprint or three lines in the corner, didn't testify that that wavy line was an imprint or bloody imprint, which is the whole point here.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
MR. SCHECK: I think this is misleading.
MS. CLARK: That's not correct at all, your Honor. Dr. Lee--I was here. Dr. Lee testified to that kind of chevron-looking lines with these other straight lines as being a possible shoeprint, not just an imprint, and that is what he testified to. So there were a number of defects in his testimony concerning that tile. That's one. The other one pertains to what Mr. Scheck has referred to, but he testified to both.
MR. SCHECK: That's not what he's saying. He's saying the imprint in the tile could--one of the things, could be somebody stepping in that cement. So he's not saying--I just think this is extremely misleading and I object under 352.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Mischaracterizes the testimony.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can I ask you something on scheduling? We would like to finish today. Could we go a little longer?
THE COURT: No. The jurors have scheduled activities, doctor's appointments and things today. I checked. Remember we talked? We have to stop at 12:00.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. For the record, your Honor, we're moving 623 closer to the jury so they can get up and look.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: I'm directing your attention, Mr. Bodziak--can you get over to the side there? Thank you, sir--to photograph F. And if you would, sir, demonstrate to the jury what you see in photograph F identified as the same item you found in September of `95 to which Dr. Lee testified was a shoeprint or a possible shoeprint found in his photograph on June 25th.
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MS. CLARK: Imprint.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The--looking at F, which is what I have the laser pointer on now, there is this wavy pattern, which is actually permanent depressions in the concrete that would have had to have been made when the concrete was still wet in the finishing process, and there are--this as well as many other footwear impressions in concrete, one of which is depicted in C, and that is the same mark or impression or imprint or however you want to characterize it as is depicted in the Defense exhibit that Dr. Lee testified to which is next to the bloody Bruno Magli heel print (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Doctor, if you would move down and show the other end of the jury.
MR. SCHECK: Based on that testimony, I renew my objection from the sidebar. He just said "test shoe impression."
THE COURT: Noted. Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Pointing again to the photograph F which was taken in September `95, there is a wavy pattern. This is a shoeprint made in the finishing process of the concrete before it was dry. It's permanent and it is also depicted and was testified to by Dr. Lee as an imprint in the photograph which is part of the Defense exhibit to which I'm now pointing (Indicating). This is the same exact impression on the same tile that was next to the bloody Bruno Magli heel print and this is the eighth tile in the Bundy walkway, and this Bruno Magli heel print was number or letter I which I previously testified.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. All right, sir. I'd now like to direct your attention to Defense 1337-A. I don't know if that's depicted on 1337. Is that the last photograph? All right. And Mr. Scheck indicates to me that this photograph that is enlarged as Defendant's 1337-A is depicted on the board 1337 labeled as "walkway 6-25-94" prior to the far-most right as you face this board. Have you seen these photographs before, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am, I have.
MS. CLARK: And do you recall that it was Dr. Lee's testimony that he detected this what he characterized as a shoeprint on June 25th, two weeks after the murders, 1994?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Mischaracterizes.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MS. CLARK: This one was testified to as a shoeprint, your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you recall his testimony concerning this particular photograph, 1337-A?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, are you aware that the crime scene was broken down at Bundy on--at 3:00 P.M. on June the 13th, 1994?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: And are you also aware, sir, that people were walking through that crime scene after it was broken down at 3:00 P.M. on June 13th?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I am.
MS. CLARK: Directing your attention to People's board 598, the color photographs that are labeled B, C and then the two color photographs next to that, you've seen these photographs before, sir, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: Now, in your visits to Bundy, were you able to locate the exact tile on which Dr. Lee testified he found this print depicted in Defendant's 1337-A?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.
MS. CLARK: And how were you able to do that?
MR. BODZIAK: Through the imperfections in the tile first going by his testimony as to where approximately it was and then looking at the various tiles, the cracks and imperfections in them, which are unique to each of the square pieces of concrete, and confirming that that impression or that imprint in the Defense exhibit was from the tenth row of tiles as you face the photographs in this board. In the tenth row, it would be the second tile to the right, and on the top corner of each of those is the letter K and J. So it's right below that, tenth row, the second tile I guess on the north side, second in from the north side (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Now, in the photograph that you're pointing to, which is the lower unlabeled color photograph where you have labels in the photograph, can you see actual shoeprints next to those labels?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. E and F, G, H, I, J and K are all bloody Bruno Magli shoeprints which I previously testified to.
MS. CLARK: And the tile that you've indicated you located which was where Dr. Lee testified he sees an imprint two weeks later, you say that was located between K and J here in the 10th row of tile?
MR. BODZIAK: It's right in-between or surrounded by K and J on the west side just inches away and to the east side of H and I.
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, do you see that photograph--do you see a--anything indicative of a shoeprint in the area where Dr. Lee testified he found one on June 25th?
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MS. CLARK: Do you see the imprint shown in Dr. Lee's June 25th photograph in the location where it was in the June 13th photograph?
MR. SCHECK: He identified precisely which photograph that is. I'm not sure it's--
THE COURT: Yes. The question is vague. Direct us to which photograph we're talking about, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Okay. The lower overall photograph to which you've been testifying, sir, do you see the imprint on--
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think we need a more precise one. These are the magnetic boards coming on and off. We probably need to identify them.
THE COURT: I think what you're referring to is j; is that right?
MR. SCHECK: J.
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?
MR. SCHECK: I think it's J.
THE COURT: J. Photograph J. Photograph 620--
MS. CLARK: No.
THE COURT: 598-J, is that what you're referring to?
MS. CLARK: Yes. I forgot we gave them a label. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: You're welcome.
MR. SCHECK: No. I think it's K actually.
MS. CLARK: It's K. It's K. It's the second one.
THE COURT: Second one, K. Mrs. Robertson says K. See, that's why we're supposed to mark these things.
MS. CLARK: I know. Well, this happened last night, your Honor. I apologize.
MR. SCHECK: I think the upper one we made D, J and E, K, and the upper one is J and the lower one is K.
THE COURT: K.
MR. BODZIAK: I said K.
MR. SCHECK: He was pointing to K.
THE COURT: I said K.
MS. CLARK: Wait, wait, wait. Your Honor, the lower one were the earlier letters, and I think that was J.
THE COURT: The jury says you're right.
MS. CLARK: All right. I'm going to put a J here--it's not worth it--and the upper photograph is K.
THE COURT: Fine. Let's proceed.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Now, you're referring to photograph j?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: Thank you. Now, that photograph was taken on June the 13th, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: The photograph that Dr. Lee referred to as 1337-A was taken on June the 25th, two weeks later, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: The location of this imprint that he testified to from the photograph taken on June 25th you indicated earlier would be between K and J where I'm indicating in the tenth row of tile?
MR. BODZIAK: Below the letters K and J on chart J that is in the tenth row of tiles.
MS. CLARK: Do you see any imprint in that location, sir, in the photograph taken on June the 13th?
MR. BODZIAK: No. In looking at photograph J as well as the same respective area in photograph K, which represent a closer view of that tile, and in looking very closely, I cannot see any evidence or indication of this particular impression at that point.
MS. CLARK: Now, were there direct blow-up photographs taken--let me rephrase that. Were there close-up photographs taken of each of the shoeprints you have labeled in H, I, J and K that would surround the imprint seen on June 25th by Dr. Lee?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there were.
MS. CLARK: And what is your opinion of the quality of the photography done by LAPD with respect to the shoeprints on the Bundy walkway?
MR. BODZIAK: The photography of these impressions which were taken with both black and white photography are excellent. An example of those is in the Bundy walk photo chart labeled A, and they were taken with a tripod with correct lighting and they depicted very accurately with a scale very minute details of those impressions in the tile area around those impressions.
MS. CLARK: Now, then given the fact that close-up photographs were taken of all of the shoeprints surrounding that tile, what is your opinion, if any, as to whether the imprint identified by Dr. Lee that he found on June the 25th was actually even there on June the 13th?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: Based on my observation and examination of these photographs J and K as well as the fact that H, I, K and--j and K were photographed meticulously by the LAPD on June 13th and the fact that if there were another impression right next to them, that also would have been photographed, I'm of the opinion that that imprint that Dr. Lee referred to on the Defense exhibit was not there at that time or it would have been photographed.
MR. SCHECK: Well, objection. Move to strike.
THE COURT: Stricken.
MR. SCHECK: Speculation.
THE COURT: Stricken.
MS. CLARK: Do you see any other imprints like that shown in 1337-A near the tile where this imprint was located?
MR. SCHECK: Are we referring now to photographs, what he sees in photographs?
THE COURT: Yes. Which photograph?
MS. CLARK: On the June 13th photograph, sir, did you see any other imprint like that shown in Dr. Lee's June 25th photograph near the tile where you located it?
MR. BODZIAK: I've seen no other imprints like the parallel line imprints on Dr. Lee's--or the Defense exhibit--I'm sorry. I keep forgetting the number--1337-A.
MS. CLARK: A.
MR. BODZIAK: I've seen no other imprints or shoeprints having this design on any of the other photographs that were taken by the LAPD on June 13th or in any of the general crime scene photographs such as J and K, none whatsoever.
MS. CLARK: Now, the parallel lines that you see in this imprint on the photograph marked as Defendant's 1337-A, are these consistent with the parallel lines that you saw on the envelope and the piece of paper at the Bundy crime scene?
MR. BODZIAK: No. They're totally different in size and characteristics.
MS. CLARK: And on the jeans, are they consistent with any of the parallel lines testified to on the jeans?
MR. BODZIAK: No. They are--the lines on the jeans are parallel lines, but they're much broader lines. If we could hold this up again.
MS. CLARK: Sure.
MR. BODZIAK: The lines on here are very, very thin lines, and even though they're both parallel lines, there's a lot of different types of parallel lines, designs on shoes, and these are very, very narrow. The ones on the jeans, if you were to accept hypothetically that they were made by a shoe, they would not be the same as these (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: So these parallel lines that you see here are not consistent with the parallel lines on the envelope, the paper or the jeans?
MR. BODZIAK: No, ma'am.
MS. CLARK: Now, I'd like to direct your attention, sir, to I think it's photograph G on People's 623--on People's 623. And do you see this photograph duplicated on the Defendant's board 1337, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It's at the bottom center, the bottom center photograph that's labeled "walkway 6-25-94."
MS. CLARK: Now, do you--there's an area that's in the corner of that photograph to which Dr. Lee directed some testimony. Do you recall that, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Could you locate for the jury the area to which he directed his testimony that we're now referring to.
MR. BODZIAK: We're now referring--I believe you're asking me to point to this corner of the tile which would be to the right of the bloody Bruno Magli heal print and actually bordered in the corner by the grout lines. It would be--another way to describe it would be above the numbers "89" on the ruler (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: And can you locate for us that area on People's 623, please?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That area is located in photograph G at the very top and, again, between the grout lines or bordered by the grout lines, and in this particular photograph, the way it's oriented, above the Bruno Magli heel print.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, are there some features of that particular corner that could be a shoeprint, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: Uh, I think there's another picture that depicts it much better.
MS. CLARK: The one on this--
MR. BODZIAK: Uh, that might be--no. This one.
MR. SCHECK: This one.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Showing you Defendant's 1337-B, can you point to that area you're talking about?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The area which has been previously circled and with a blue marker is up in this corner; and in this whole corner area, there are many discolorations. In this area, which I'm pointing to now, particularly a very dark area here--and of course, these would appear to be parallel marks of some type along the corner of the tile and just various discolorations here (Indicating). These were not all made at the same time and I cannot exclude the possibility that part of all this discoloration represents in some way an item of footwear. But all of these do not--would not be in totality from an item of footwear and some of these I think are from berry stains and other things.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, do you have photographs taken that were taken on June the 13th, 1994 of that very same area shown in Dr. Lee's June 25th photograph?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Can you show us first of all on the overall where that tile would be?
MR. BODZIAK: The area that we're--if I can use the enlargement K because I think that's the easiest to see the area that we're talking about--is down in this area (Indicating). If I can have the Defense exhibit oriented the same way.
MS. CLARK: It's 1337-B.
MR. BODZIAK: Right. This area (Indicating), if you're looking at the heal from the back as if you were walking in that direction, looking at the Defense exhibit, then to the lower left corner are the marks that we were talking about and oriented in the same way on photograph K, this would be in the corner of the tile which has the impression marked I. It's also very close to the impression marked H. So it is actually in the corner between H and I.
MS. CLARK: And for the record, the witness is referring to K on People's 598.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, were there photographs of close-ups of that location that were taken on June the 13th blown up for the purpose of display to the jury?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am, there were.
MS. CLARK: I'm going to ask you to actually put these up here, Mr. Bodziak. Do we need to move one of these photographs?
MR. BODZIAK: No. I think--
MS. CLARK: How about moving it this way?
MR. BODZIAK: This is fine.
MS. CLARK: All right. For the record, the witness has placed a magnetized color photograph which we will label--this one's already been labeled I'm informed, your Honor.
MR. BODZIAK: 598-I.
MS. CLARK: I.
THE COURT: All right. 598-I.
MS. CLARK: The witness has replaced I, and now the witness is placing on 598 H. I'm going to ask to restructure these photographs so they all fit on the board later, your Honor, but for the time being, the witness has placed H and I on them.
MS. CLARK: Now, what is the area--what area is depicted in these two photographs, sir, if you can explain with reference to the overall photograph in J.
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. The two photographs that I just placed on the magnetic board represent--the black and white one represents the impression which was referred to as impression H in my prior testimony as photographed on June 13th by the LAPD, and it's now overlapping with a color photograph photographed on June 13th, 1994 by the LAPD of the impression which was marked I. And these are--these correspond with the letters H and I which are on photograph K on the same magnetic board.
MS. CLARK: Now, where is the area where Dr. Lee found--testified to the imprint in Defendant's 1337-B, the photograph taken on June 25th? Where is that area in People's H and I?
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. That area--to orientate you to these impressions, the bloody heel mark in the Defense exhibit correspond with the bloody heel mark in the impression I in the color photograph on the magnetic board, and then looking in the corner of the tile where the discolorations and the parallel marks are, that area would be on the black and white photograph in the area next to the numeral 8 and mounted on the sides by the grout and the ruler in this corner (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Is it there, sir, on June the 13th?
MR. BODZIAK: The only possible remnant of anything on the June 13th photographs are a possible mark that might be the same as this discoloration, which is possibly from a berry or something, something natural.
MS. CLARK: And for the record, you're referring to a dark brown spot that is to the left of the no. 8?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. To this discoloration in the corner (Indicating). But there is no evidence of any of the other parallel line markings or other discolorations which I was previously asked about and to which Dr. Lee testified. None of those existed in this very good photograph taken on June 13th, 1994.
MS. CLARK: And for the record, when the witness for the second time referred to "this," he pointed to the Defendant's 1337-B and another dark brown spot in that photograph. And if I may, I'd like to put up on this board photograph labeled F that appears to be another print of the Defendant's 1337-B.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, would this be a good spot?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, thank you.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid morning recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Bodziak, you may step down. We'll be in recess for 15. Thank you.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. And, Miss Clark, you've repositioned some of the exhibits?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Would you like me to put it on the record how?
THE COURT: That's all right. When the jury comes out, you can explain where things are so they'll know, although I think they're ahead of us. That's encouraging.
MS. CLARK: It is. Would the court--assuming we finish Mr. Bodziak, would the court like to take judicial notice as we previously discussed?
THE COURT: Might as well.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: All right. Sir, directing your attention to People's 598, have we repositioned the photographs?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: All right. Do they accurately reflect the manner in which they were detected on the walkway and the location specifically referred to in the June 25th photograph of Dr. Lee labeled on this chart as f?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they did.
MS. CLARK: And for the record now, your Honor, the photographs that are on the board are labeled A, B, C, F, H, I, J, K. So there were duplicate photographs in D and E and they've been withdrawn.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARK: And G.
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Let me just ask you this. The area in which Dr. Lee testified to the discovery of imprints on the June 25th photograph shown in F, can you point out the area on the June 13th photograph labeled as h?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That would be this area next to the numeral 8 and between the two rulers in the corner of the tile (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Is the imprint shown on June 25th photograph of Dr. Lee shown on the June 13th photograph labeled h?
MR. BODZIAK: No, it is not.
MS. CLARK: Now, let me ask you, sir, do shoeprints left in blood get darker over time?
MR. BODZIAK: Shoeprints that are the normal shoeprints we encounter which are of the lighter variety; in other words, as you track blood on your shoes--let me go back. If you step in a quantity of blood, the first track will be fairly dark and the next one will be lighter and so forth until they disappear. The--so shoeprints are generally very thin layers of blood because of the pressure of the shoe with the person wearing it, and even if it's heavy, it's usually--the excess blood is squeezed out to the sides, and so most of the tracks are very, very light. The only exception would be if you stepped in a pool of blood. With regard to those shoeprints, which I encounter daily and have for my entire time in the FBI laboratory, they become lighter with time. With regard to whole blood or big glops of blood that are very thick, they tend to appear darker with time.
MS. CLARK: Now, the shoeprints that--excuse me. Strike that. The imprints identified by Dr. Lee in photograph F and some of the previous ones that we've referred to--and when I said F, I meant People's 598--were any of those imprints made in those glops of blood that you referred to?
MR. BODZIAK: No.
MS. CLARK: Then in the case of those imprints, sir--
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Gloss is such an amorphus term, but let's move on, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us what you mean by glops, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: In a natural pool of blood where you're--there's so much blood, when you step in it, it would cover up that particular impression.
MS. CLARK: And do any of those imprints identified by Dr. Lee such as the one in photograph F have that appearance?
MR. BODZIAK: No, they do not.
MS. CLARK: In that case, sir, based on your experience, would such imprints as those identified by Dr. Lee become darker over time or lighter?
MR. SCHECK: Object.
THE COURT: Foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Vague as to which and no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Those imprints identified by Dr. Lee in 1337 on the board behind you, the three lower photographs, okay, with the exception of the one that you have identified, the photograph to the far left in which the imprints that Dr. Lee testified to you have determined were trowel marks, other than that, the other two imprints that Dr. Lee testified to in the photographs dated 6-25-94, do either of those have the appearance of having been made as a result of stepping in a pool of blood?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'd like to answer those separately. First, the center photograph, which is the parallel marks in the corner that we've just been talking about as well as the other discolorations which, looking to that area on photograph H on the magnetized board, those areas just simply didn't exist. There was no impression there on June 13th, 1970--or 1994, and, therefore, whatever these marks are here now on June 25th are not related to the crime. With regard to these parallel impressions, the very thin parallel lines, they may be a shoe impression, but there is no evidence of them in photographs J and K on the magnetized board which depict that second--in the tenth row of tiles, the second tile adjacent to K and H and also in-between H and I, they do not appear there in any of the general crime scene photographs. And I would believe that based on the fact they don't appear there and they were not photographed at that time, I see no reason why they would have been there on June 13th.
MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Then with respect to People's 598, sir, in photographs H, I and F, do these constitute clear photographic proof that the imprints shown in the June 25th photograph of Dr. Lee labeled F was not there on June the 13th, 1994?
MR. BODZIAK: This is absolute proof that it did not exist on June 13th, 1994.
MS. CLARK: And would that tend to indicate then, sir, that it was deposited at some time after the murders occurred and after the murderer left the scene?
MR. BODZIAK: Whatever--whatever occurrence or occurrences caused these discolorations in this area and these lines would have had to have occurred after June 13th, 1994. And these are not trowel marks. These are other discolorations (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: And, sir, based on your analysis of all of the evidence including Dr. Lee's photographs, is there any evidence that more than one set of bloody shoeprints were left at the scene at the time of the murders?
MR. BODZIAK: No, there is not.
MS. CLARK: And all those shoeprints you identified at Bundy, were they made by size 12 Bruno Magli shoes?
MR. BODZIAK: All of the bloody shoe impressions which I previously testified to were made by size 12 Bruno Magli designs and there is no other shoe impressions that I examined or saw in any of the evidence that I've seen in this case that were there on June 13th, 1994.
MS. CLARK: And since your testimony, you've heard Dr. Lee's testimony in large part, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: And you have seen his exhibits?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Has anything you've seen or heard since your testimony in this case when you previously appeared that causes you to waver at all in your opinion that there was one set of shoeprints on June the 13th, 1994 at Bundy, all of which were size 12 Bruno Magli prints?
MR. BODZIAK: Nothing has changed my opinion, no.
MS. CLARK: And has anything you've seen or heard caused you to change your opinion that the Defendant is included as a candidate for wearing those size 12 Bruno Magli shoes?
MR. BODZIAK: No.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. I have nothing further.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Woodin, would you take these items down unless, Mr. Scheck, you're going to start with these.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let's start with these.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Good morning.
MR. BODZIAK: Good morning.
MR. SCHECK: Good morning. I'll try. Mr. Bodziak, you've testified here that you were familiar with the majority of Dr. Lee's testimony. You said that today.
MR. BODZIAK: Probably about 90 to 95 percent.
MR. SCHECK: Well, yesterday, didn't you tell us that you were--didn't read it?
MR. BODZIAK: I haven't read his testimony. I videotaped or saw on TV approximately 90 to 95 percent of his testimony.
MR. SCHECK: Didn't you tell us yesterday that you had seen portions of it on news clips?
MR. BODZIAK: I said that I had seen the majority of it on tapes of his testimony, continuous tapes, and I had seen some other recordings and news clips of parts that I didn't see.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. BODZIAK: On the original tapes.
MR. SCHECK: --yesterday--you said yesterday you saw the majority of them?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you feel confident that you fully reviewed and studied his testimony in a way that gives you confidence that you can criticize what he said?
MR. BODZIAK: I'm not here to criticize what Dr. Lee said, but to clarify it so it's not misleading, that the term "imprints" was not a shoeprint in my opinion.
MR. SCHECK: Well, first of all, Dr. Lee used the term "imprint," correct?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And with respect to testifying as to a shoeprint, the only full shoeprint in pattern that he testified to was the one that had been labeled 1337-A, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Could I see that?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. That was his testimony, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I believe he was questioned several times throughout his testimony to clarify whether what he referred to as "imprints" he could positively say were shoeprints, and he qualified his opinion that he could not positively say they were shoeprints with the exception of that one that you're just referring to.
MR. SCHECK: Well, he did that on direct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: He was very clear about it, wasn't he?
MR. BODZIAK: I didn't perceive it as clear all of the time.
MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall the distinction that Dr. Lee made--well, would it be misleading to come in here and try to rebut testimony and statements that weren't even given?
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Argumentative. Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you talked about misleading the jury and your concerns about it.
MR. BODZIAK: I was miss--I was confused myself in watching his testimony whether he was referring to shoeprints when he used the term "imprint" on many occasions. If I were confused, I'm sure that other people could be misled in his explanation of certain things.
MR. SCHECK: Well, throughout your examination of his direct testimony and the boards, were not everything labeled clearly as imprints and throughout the course of his direct testimony, clear distinctions were made?
MR. BODZIAK: That was part of the problem, sir. If you say "imprint," it includes fabric, ears, noses, shoes, fingerprints, everything that could actually press against logic. And if you use that term that way, as the flow of the questioning of both direct and cross of Dr. Lee went through, there were many occasions when I was not sure as a footwear examiner if he were referring to that as a shoeprint or some other object that made contact and left that mark. And if I could continue, the--
MR. SCHECK: Well, I think--
MR. BODZIAK: --term "shoeprint"--
MR. SCHECK: Move to strike as not responsive.
THE COURT: No. He's finishing his answer, counsel.
MR. BODZIAK: The term "shoeprint" or "footwear impression," as we discussed yesterday in our meetings prior to my testimony I thought was a much clearer term because it leaves no doubt as to what you're talking about. And if you're not sure if it's a shoeprint and you call it an imprint, then it should be a possible footwear impression or something, and that would leave total clarity as to what the discussion was about.
MR. SCHECK: Well, when Dr. Lee was talking about--he talked about nose prints, ear prints and fabric prints; did he not?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, just to make this distinction clear, Dr. Lee made a distinction between the term "imprint" and "impression"?
MR. BODZIAK: And--yes, he did.
MR. SCHECK: An "imprint" he called a two-dimensional marking and an "impression" three-dimensional?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You happened to use the term "impression" to refer to both?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Do you see any scientific problem in making that distinction?
MR. BODZIAK: No. As I previously stated, around the world and I think I mentioned yesterday, the British use the term "mark" in lieu of what Dr. Lee is saying he uses "imprint," and I recognize that when I read their literature and go to their meetings, that they're talking about a two-dimensional shoeprint or fingerprint, and they use the term "depressed mark" or "impression" if they're talking about three-dimensional. I found when talking--particularly in teaching classes, if you try to restrict yourself always to talking about "mark," "print," "depressed mark," depressed"--or "depression" or "impression" for different things, a lot of times, you were talking about all of them and other times you're talking about part of them. It became very confusing. So I just like to use the term "footwear impression" myself to cover everything. I think it tells the people you're talking about footwear impressions, either two-dimensional or three-dimensional.
MR. SCHECK: Well, the answer to my question then, you see no scientific problem in making the distinction between "imprint" and "impression," the answer to that is yes?
MR. BODZIAK: I have no problem with him by his choice, making that distinction, no.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you have testified here that you think there is something misleading about communicating that an imprint cannot be eliminated as a full shoeprint pattern.
MS. CLARK: Objection.
MR. SCHECK: Is that your testimony?
MS. CLARK: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: I don't understand the question to what you're asking. Could you please rephrase it?
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Do you think it is fair for an expert to testify that an imprint cannot be eliminated as coming from a shoe and can not be positively associated either?
MR. BODZIAK: If they state it that way just as you have, no.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And didn't Dr. Lee in the course of his testimony about imprints indicate as to various different imprints, that some of them--one of them he could say was a shoeprint and others he said he could not eliminate as having come from a shoe?
MR. BODZIAK: At times, he did do that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in fact, you offered very similar testimony, almost precisely the same kind of testimony in talking about certain imprints and impressions in this case; did you not?
MR. BODZIAK: There were shoeprints I talked about today as well as other marks which were not shoeprints, yes.
MR. SCHECK: When you were talking about the Bronco carpet fiber, you reached the opinion that you couldn't eliminate it, you couldn't possibly associate it with the Bruno Magli?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you went on to answer a question where you were asked to take a rubber shoe and describe for us how it is possibly consistent with the Bruno Magli and you then began playing with the overlays and lining things up?
MR. BODZIAK: I was asked that specific question and that was my answer, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you went on to talk about possibilities even though in your opinion, you could not either eliminate or positively associate?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Now--and there was nothing misleading about that, was there?
MR. BODZIAK: I hope not.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, you talked about the envelope.
THE COURT: All right. This is 1349.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you said these are--do you recognize these as three different pictures of the envelope?
MR. BODZIAK: May I step down?
MR. SCHECK: Yes, please.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: And did you see Dr. Lee testify about this?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: With reference to this board?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, yesterday, you gave testimony about a flash bounce, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of identifying the differences between the picture in the middle, which you recognize to be the first picture taken of the envelope; do you not?
MR. BODZIAK: I don't know what order they were taken in.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you remember that there was a picture taken with Mark Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove and then close-ups were made of the envelope as it was at that position at that time?
MR. BODZIAK: I don't know what sequence they were in. I know what photographs you are talking about. I just don't know what sequence they were in.
MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall the testimony that the sequence was, the middle picture was the envelope from the Fuhrman photograph and the one to the left was a subsequent photograph taken at the crime scene with the evidence marker as you can see in the top here?
MR. BODZIAK: I see they're different photographs. Again, I don't remember the exact sequence of it.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in regard to this board, do you think that a flash bounce moved the hair, fiber and trace that you see in the middle picture that we now see in the left-hand picture?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You see that there's hair and fiber, the trace evidence in the middle picture.
MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Do you see that?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Do you see it in the left-hand picture?
MR. BODZIAK: Point specifically to what you're referring to.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Hair, fiber and trace at the top of the envelope here, do you see it in this picture here (Indicating)?
MR. BODZIAK: You're referring to all this material which appears black on the center of the envelope (Indicating)?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. BODZIAK: And over here (Indicating)?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. BODZIAK: No, I do not see it.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And could flash bounce be responsible for the differences in these two photographs with respect to the hair and trace?
MR. BODZIAK: I would not--
MS. CLARK: Objection to characterization of hair and trace, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: I would not attribute flash bounce to eliminating all of this. There may be differences in exposures in lighting that would account for minor things, but not for a large quantity of material.
MR. SCHECK: So flash bounce couldn't have moved that material off of the envelope in your opinion?
MR. BODZIAK: No. That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you are aware of testimony in this case that these two pictures represent the envelope being moved from one place to the other?
MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall that, that particular testimony, no.
MR. SCHECK: You don't recall Dr. Lee putting up boards and showing the movement of the envelope from one place to the other?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: I was listening to his testimony as it pertained to footwear impression.
MR. SCHECK: So your answer to that is no?
MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall that, that exact statement.
MR. SCHECK: All right. But you would agree that flash bounce can't move an envelope from one place to another?
MR. BODZIAK: Of course not.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Harris.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you--in terms of including something as possibly coming from a shoeprint and excluding something as possibly coming from a shoeprint, would it be fair to say that before you can make a definitive exclusion, you have to have an adequate amount of information?
MR. BODZIAK: Are we talking about shoeprint comparisons with known shoes or just looking at the--could you be more specific, sir?
MR. SCHECK: Sure. Looking at an imprint made in blood. Are you with me?
MR. BODZIAK: A shoe imprint?
MR. SCHECK: Just an imprint.
MR. BODZIAK: Of anything.
MR. SCHECK: An imprint pattern made in blood.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Are you with me?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Before one can conclude that it could not have been left by a shoe, eliminating that possibility definitively, is it necessary to have an adequate factual basis to do so?
MR. BODZIAK: You would need to have an imprint which had sufficient detail so that you could recognize the characteristics in that what you're calling an imprint, whether it be from fabric or shoes or other material, and you would have to have that sufficient detail and clarity to make a determination as to whether you, based on your expert experience, experience and expertise in that area, could say it was a fabric or shoe or something, and there may be a point in time where you have insufficient detail to make any determination.
MR. SCHECK: And would it be fair to say that the imprint itself is a scientific fact, it's there?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Vague. What shoe?
THE COURT: That is vague.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry? Are you familiar with the distinction Dr. Lee made between scientific fact and interpretation?
MR. BODZIAK: I'm very familiar with what he said and also what I practice by.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. But do you recall his distinction between scientific fact and interpretation?
MR. BODZIAK: It's hard sometimes to understand the way he--when he words things exactly--I believe he was saying the same thing I believe in, that a scientific fact is in fact something that you can prove beyond any doubt at all at least in your opinion. This notebook is sitting on this desk. That's a scientific fact. The interpretation in this case would be very easy, and anybody that looked at it would agree in that interpretation, that if there is a notebook in front of me on this desk. If you had something that was less obvious, then interpretation becomes a more important factor, and you must be fair in that interpretation and you must always only refer to something that you can see as clearly as this book on the table before you make a determination in the case of an imprint whether--or what it was.
MR. SCHECK: So you would say that the imprint or the physical object would be a scientific fact and then there is interpretation of scientific fact based on lots of different factors and other observations a scientist can make?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, if you're--if you're referring to the imprints that Dr.--are you referring to the imprints that Dr. Lee pointed to in his testimony?
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm trying to define some terms with you at the beginning. I'm just asking you very simply, Mr. Bodziak, you heard Dr. Lee testify that there is a distinction between scientific facts and interpretation?
MR. BODZIAK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: You concur that that is--
MR. BODZIAK: Right.
MR. SCHECK: --a recognized distinction?
MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And that different experts can have different interpretations of scientific facts?
MR. BODZIAK: If they're properly trained and they're--they limit their conclusions to only what they can see with absolute certainty, they should reach the same opinion.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And the available information to them?
MR. BODZIAK: As I just stated, if there's sufficient information in detail to make their determination, they should reach the same conclusion.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And do you have--you're aware of Dr. Lee's reputation in the forensic community?
MR. BODZIAK: Uh, I--as far as I know, he holds a fine reputation.
MR. SCHECK: And on scientific facts, experts can differ in their interpretations?
MR. BODZIAK: If that expert is adequately trained and experienced in that area and the material, the information which they're basing their opinion on is clear, they should not differ. They do in real life, but they should not.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, are you telling us that you think Dr. Lee is not adequately trained in the area of imprints and footwear impressions?
MR. BODZIAK: I have only some information regarding his training in that area, and I would believe that it's far less than mine. I don't--I've never had the opportunity to check any casework of his. He's never--I know he's checked cases of mine and I know of no instance in which he's disagreed, but I don't have any personal knowledge firsthand of his work in shoeprint analysis.
MR. SCHECK: Well, have you read his books?
MR. BODZIAK: No, I have not.
MR. SCHECK: So without reading his books and without having reviewed his cases, you feel confident that you can say that his knowledge of this area of imprints and footwear impressions is inadequate?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That is misleading, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Concerning reference to the books.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: The only recent books that I'm aware of that were edited--and I don't believe the areas within--regarding footwear impressions were written by Dr. Lee, but they were edited by him--were in fact prepared in large by--to the best of my knowledge, by Mr. Kenneth Zercie, who is the senior footwear impression examiner in Connecticut and who has taken my class and received training from me in that area. I have looked in his book to skim over it and it seemed very, very general and basically very small part of what I teach and have taught to Mr. Zercie and other people throughout the years.
THE COURT: All right. Would you spell Zercie for us?
MR. BODZIAK: Z-e-r-c-I-e.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: I thought you just told us that you hadn't read Dr. Lee's books.
MR. BODZIAK: I skimmed over it. I thought it was very, very general. I--
MR. SCHECK: Which books?
MR. BODZIAK: There were a series of I think--I don't know if they're laboratory manuals from his--that someone showed to me once and I briefly skimmed through them, and then there was a book that was written in 1994 and I think it was published in the republic of china that was very, very general with regard to shoe impressions.
MR. SCHECK: So you feel that you were sufficiently familiar with his work in this--all his work in this area and all he's written?
MR. BODZIAK: I believe he's been the director of a laboratory for a considerable number of years and that he doesn't conduct on a normal basis in that laboratory bench experience--bench-type examinations of shoe impressions, but rather directs the laboratory. He may oversee it and he may occasionally take an interest in it, but I don't think he gets out casework and I don't--and as I previously stated, I don't have a lot of personal knowledge. That's why it's hard for me to answer your question.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. BODZIAK: You're asking me to answer you and I'm trying to give you the best, you know, information that I can on what I do or don't know about Dr. Lee.
MR. SCHECK: Wait a second. Mr. Bodziak, you just told us that you don't have any direct personal knowledge or about what Dr. Lee does with respect to casework or his--what he's published in these areas, yet you're telling us that you think that he doesn't do much bench laboratory comparisons of imprints and shoe imprints.
MS. CLARK: Objection.
MR. SCHECK: Didn't you just say that?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you just--didn't you just say that you think that Dr. Lee doesn't do much comparison of imprints and shoe imprints at crime scenes at the laboratory bench?
MR. BODZIAK: Let me make it perfectly clear. I thought I did. He is the director of a laboratory.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. BODZIAK: He attends many, many meetings as he testified to. He's very active in many, many aspects of forensic science from a management level. He has people under him who I have trained who told me they are the senior footwear examiner, meaning they do the footwear casework. I don't know personally what amount of casework Dr. Lee does. The facts I've just stated are what I know.
MR. SCHECK: Well, in our--in terms of--you are familiar with his testimony in this case?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I am.
MR. SCHECK: And are you familiar with the fact that Dr. Lee testified that when he--that he goes to crime scenes on a regular basis?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that he looks at imprints and footwear impressions?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that he goes back to the lab and analyzes them?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And cited many, many cases--
MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: And cites many, many cases where he actually went out and did that and continues to do that?
MS. CLARK: That misstates the testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: I believe he stated in general cases he's worked on. I don't know if he referred specifically to footwear impressions in what you would call many, many cases.
MR. SCHECK: Well, isn't it true--withdrawn, the form. Are you aware of Dr. Lee's reputation in the community as someone who actually goes out to crime scenes and examines evidence and comes in to court and testifies about it as opposed to being a manager that oversees?
MR. BODZIAK: I've stated to you the full extent of my knowledge of Dr. Lee's work.
MR. SCHECK: And by your own admission, it's limited?
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is argumentative.
THE COURT: It is.
MR. SCHECK: It is limited, isn't it?
MS. CLARK: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: It's limited, yes. But--
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
MR. BODZIAK: --it's what I know.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's talk about the parallel line imprints on the envelope and the eyeglasses. You had said that--you gave us a number of reasons that you thought that you could definitively eliminate that as having come from a shoe.
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And I believe the first reason that you talked about is that on the imprint of the envelope, you detected non-printing areas around the imprint itself.
MR. BODZIAK: The areas around it do not contain a continuation of that same pattern.
MR. SCHECK: And that you I think referred to it as an island.
MR. BODZIAK: I thought a good way of describing that print was that it was isolated and I thought the word "island" would be something that the jury could relate to in understanding what I meant.
MR. SCHECK: And you also said that that imprint didn't--was not accompanied by a border?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And I believe that you testified that--withdrawn. Now, you would agree--and I think we had--we had some brief discussion before you came in here and testified, correct?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Not a very lengthy one. No more than a half hour?
MR. BODZIAK: I think it was longer than that, but--
MR. SCHECK: Close?
MR. BODZIAK: Hour and a half.
MR. SCHECK: Hour and a half total?
MR. BODZIAK: Yeah.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you would agree, would you not, that if blood gets on to a portion of the sole of the shoe, that it would leave an imprint without a border?
MR. BODZIAK: And I testified to that yesterday, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. And it would leave a partial imprint with non-printing area around it?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Now, did you not testify on direct examination that the only possible way that this could have happened with respect to the parallel line imprint on the envelope is if the imprint occurred at the very onset of the crime? Were those your words?
MR. BODZIAK: I was trying to make a case for that happening, and it would be likely that if that kind of occurrence did in fact happen, it would be before the whole walkway was covered with blood.
MR. SCHECK: Well, did you not say the only possible way that could happen is, it would--if it was at the very outset of the crime, the first drops of blood that was spilled were one of those drops that may have fallen to the ground, whatever contact that blood at that point had was limited in size because there is only one drop in that area and then items transferred to the paper?
MR. BODZIAK: That sounds like what I said, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you were asked--questioned by Miss Clark that the basis--
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Could I see what counsel is reading from?
THE COURT: It's the transcript from yesterday, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Which I don't have.
THE COURT: You have real time. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Now, and you gave this opinion after a discussion of the volumes of photographs that you would look at at the crime scene, right?
MR. BODZIAK: And the examination of the actual envelope itself, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now--
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: This is 1346.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Did you review Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to this board?
MR. BODZIAK: Can I come down and--
MR. SCHECK: Please do.
MR. BODZIAK: I don't believe I saw this particular board, no.
MR. SCHECK: And you didn't review his testimony--
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. SCHECK: --by MR. SCHECK: With respect to this board--
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, do we have any remains on this?
MR. SCHECK: No.
MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry. Could you--
MR. SCHECK: And you didn't review his testimony with respect to this?
MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall him talking about this--these blood marks on the envelope, no.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you said that the parallel line imprint could have been made without a border and without a non-printing area around it if that came from some blood drops that were shed at the onset of the struggles?
MR. BODZIAK: That's one possibility, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. But you were dubious about that because there was a whole pool of blood that you saw at the crime scene?
MR. BODZIAK: That's one of the reasons that I don't think it's a shoeprint.
MR. SCHECK: Now, do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony that the parallel line imprint, because of the bloodstain patterns, had to be left first and there were other blood imprints over it later, thereby indicating that there could be some--you could time the deposits by way of an interpretation of the bloodstains?
MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall that testimony.
MR. SCHECK: You don't?
MR. BODZIAK: No. I don't recall this board. I must have missed that part.
MR. SCHECK: You don't? You must have missed--
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Must have missed it. And--well, do you think that before you come in and testify about when you think bloodstains were deposited, it would have been useful to study Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to the bloodstain evidence?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That's argumentative and it's beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's argumentative.
MR. SCHECK: Do you think that bloodstain analysis in terms of spatter and the times of deposit has some significance in terms of figuring out when imprints were made?
MR. BODZIAK: Are you referring to shoe imprints?
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm referring to bloodstains generally.
MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'm not here to testify about bloodstains, but shoeprints.
MR. SCHECK: I understand. But these are imprints made in blood, aren't they, that we're talking about?
MR. BODZIAK: Are we talking about shoeprints or fabric impressions or other markings in blood?
MR. SCHECK: Isn't the discussion here about imprints?
MR. BODZIAK: The--one of the reasons that I'm here is to dispel this mysterious word "imprint" as including anything that you want it to be and refer specifically to shoeprints, which is what I examined.
MR. SCHECK: But as a scientific fact, an imprint is an imprint.
MR. BODZIAK: No. It's not a scientific fact that an imprint is an imprint. You mean, imprint of a number of objects we've talked about and if you would be--
MR. SCHECK: I would be very specific--
MR. BODZIAK: --referring--
MS. CLARK: Objection. Counsel is interrupting the witness.
THE COURT: Yes. Let him finish his answer.
MS. CLARK: May the witness please finish his answer?
MR. SCHECK: Had you finished, sir?
MR. BODZIAK: I just would like to talk specifically about shoeprints or know in your questions if you're asking me about shoeprints or fabric impressions or specifically what you're asking about.
MR. SCHECK: Well, don't you believe that it is important to consider all the evidence in reaching an interpretation of an imprint found at a crime scene?
MR. BODZIAK: In general, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And wasn't one of the reasons that you were ruling out the parallel line imprints as could have possibly coming from his shoe was the lack of a border and the non-printing area around it?
MR. BODZIAK: That is one of several reasons why, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, two actually. Right?
MR. BODZIAK: Two. Two of several reasons.
MR. SCHECK: And before you came and testified, yesterday you gave us a board that you didn't use listing your reasons for eliminating the parallel line imprint patterns as being--possibly coming from a shoe. Do you recall that?
MR. BODZIAK: I didn't prepare those boards and when I reviewed them upon arriving in Los Angeles, I did not think they could explain it as well as I could just talking. So I chose not to use them.
MR. SCHECK: All right. But in those boards, there were four different reasons that you stated?
MR. BODZIAK: I believe there were four boards--
MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Now, if there were evidence based on bloodstain interpretation that the parallel line imprint on the envelope happened before the other bloodstains on the envelope, would you not agree that that was scientific facts to support the position that that imprint was left before a greater amount of blood shed occurred at the scene?
MR. BODZIAK: I totally concur that that imprint was left at that point, but by fabric where another object, not a shoe.
MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. Not responsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: My question, sir, is that if through the--you understand that Dr. Lee--do you--dr. Lee testified that the parallel line imprint pattern was then covered over with a greater amount of blood from another imprinting source.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I've examined the envelope. I'm aware of what you're talking about.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And that would you concur, looking at the middle photograph labeled bloodstain pattern no. 2, that in the upper right-hand corner of that is the parallel line imprints that we're talking about?
MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I think there's a much better photograph to discuss it.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. I understand.
MR. BODZIAK: This is very hard to discuss because you can't see the parallel lines very well and it's way out of scale. But yes, I know what you're talking about.
MR. SCHECK: Well, there are other photographs of this.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Correct?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there are.
MR. SCHECK: And this particular board, do you know, was the one where the discussion of when things were deposited occurred in Dr. Lee's testimony?
MR. BODZIAK: I previously stated I did not--
MR. SCHECK: Right.
MR. BODZIAK: --see that board.
MR. SCHECK: Didn't follow this.
MR. BODZIAK: But I know what you're talking about--
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. BODZIAK: --with regard to the imprint or the small mark which he referred to as "imprint" with the wavy lines.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, would you not agree that this depiction of the order of deposits of blood supports the position that the parallel line imprint on the envelope occurred earlier in the struggle rather than later when there was more blood shed?
MR. BODZIAK: Are you asking that in the context of how it would influence my determination regarding whether or not that was a shoeprint?
MR. SCHECK: I'm asking you just to concede that that is a fact that relates to when that imprint was made, when the blood deposits occurred.
MR. BODZIAK: In my testimony yesterday, I conceded there was hypothetical ways which could have in fact occurred that that small print could have been put on there in a way--and I gave one example, at the onset of the crime--with--before the other blood or, you know, that would be the reason that it would be a small isolated print, which I think is what you're asking. If I could continue. That in no way influences my whole interpretation of it as to whether or not it's a shoeprint.
MR. SCHECK: Well, wait. Please, if you can, I'll try to make my questions as clear as possible and maybe you could--
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor, to the editorializing.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Now, all I'm asking is that you said yesterday you were answering in response to hypotheticals, right?
MR. BODZIAK: I gave a hypothetical of how that impression could occur without surrounding features in an island configuration.
MR. SCHECK: Right.
MR. BODZIAK: Of that size.
MR. SCHECK: Right. And what you were saying is, if it occurred earlier in the struggle where there were just a few blood drops that might have gotten on the sole of the shoe, you would get an imprint without non-printing area around it and without a border, right?
MR. BODZIAK: I never mentioned anything about blood drops on a shoe in this case. But in the hypothetical context, I said it could be a drop of blood on any object hypothetically, including a shoe, and that is how you could get the isolated island impression.
MR. SCHECK: Right. And that was on direct you offered that, right?
MR. BODZIAK: Not as a shoe in this case, but as a hypothetical event, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Right. Yes. And you said that would be the only possible way it could happen, right?
MR. BODZIAK: That was one way in which it could happen.
MR. SCHECK: Well, but you were unaware of this board and testimony that Dr. Lee gave supporting his contention that that imprint--
MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered by the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: --occurred--
MS. CLARK: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: --earlier in the struggle before subsequent deposits of blood were on the envelope?
MS. CLARK: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: The sequence of the events with regard to the blood deposition on the envelope has no influence on my interpretation of those parallel lines. Whether they came before or after would have no bearing on my overall interpretation and opinion that that is not a shoeprint.
MR. SCHECK: Would it have bearing on at least two of the factors that you raised, the lack of a border and the lack of non-printing area around it?
MR. BODZIAK: No. Because if we had a picture of the entire envelope here, which I would like to use or explain if I could in my answer--
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.
MR. BODZIAK: Do we have one of the entire envelope, because this doesn't show what I would like to point to in my answer.
MR. SCHECK: You are talking about what kind of picture would you like? Picture of the entire envelope in any size?
MR. BODZIAK: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. This is 1349.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. If I can answer your question, if you look at the envelope, there are many areas around this parallel pattern which don't have a continuation of that pattern. Some of them are obstructed by additional blood, and if you are stating that that came afterward and I--that wouldn't have any bearing on my example. There are other areas that still do not contain blood which still are isolated. And, for instance, over here, there's no continuation of that pattern, but there's no border like you may get on a shoe. So on this side, there's very little blood, almost no blood right here (Indicating) on the corner of the envelope. Yet, there's no contamination of the pattern (Indicating). Over here, of course, it's obstructed by other bloodstains. This in no way--what you're stating then to Dr. Lee's testimony has no influence on my opinion regarding whether this is a shoeprint or not.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I really don't want to be repetitive about this, but are you conceding that from the deposition of the blood, that the other blood that you say was obstructing the pattern came after?
MR. BODZIAK: I'm not rendering an opinion whether it came before or after. I'm stating that with regard to the examination of these parallel lines and their features, which are dissimilar in the entire--looking at this examination, dissimilar to a footwear impression, have no bearing on my opinion.
MR. SCHECK: Well, so in other words, even if, as you said on direct examination yesterday, this imprint was made at the onset of the struggle and it came from an early blood drop and thereby accounted for the fact that there's no border and no impression, nothing in a non-printing area around it, that wouldn't affect your opinion?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: It had--what I'm examining is the characteristics of this imprint or impression, whatever made it, I'll use a general term "impression," whether it's fabric or shoes or whatever, I'm saying that my examination of that is totally independent of the other blood around it, which obviously is not related to it and has no bearing whether that other blood came before or after on my opinion with regard to this impression.
MR. SCHECK: So you're looking at one factor and not considering the rest?
MR. BODZIAK: When you look at a shoe impression, you don't consider anything else. You're looking at the shoe impressions.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, there--I think even in your own report, you indicate that there are--you observed creases and folds in this area of the envelope.
MR. BODZIAK: Well, there's obviously normal--this envelope has been creased and folded or crumpled in many places.
MR. SCHECK: But I'm referring particularly to the area of the parallel line imprint was an area that was creased and folded.
MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. Right here, along here, along here, here, this mark along here was actually a result of the eyeglass curvature inside the envelope (Indicating). There's just a number of those features that you're describing along the envelope, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the envelope was not on a flat surface, was it?
MR. BODZIAK: I don't know if, when this mark was made, it was or not. But it has no influence on the examination of these characteristics.
MR. SCHECK: Well, do you know if the receiving surface that the envelope was on was flat?
MR. BODZIAK: The receiving surface could have been as varied as a drop of blood on the envelope and Ron Goldman's jeans making contact and making that print. It could be a drop on his jeans and him with the envelope in his hand coming down and responding to that and putting this mark on it. There's no way to look at this and tell how that happened. That is why you rely on your examination of the physical features here and you're not influenced by other factors that you don't know for certain what occurred. I'm looking at the physical characteristics of this impression or imprint. Based on those features, in my opinion, for the reasons I stated yesterday, it is not a shoeprint.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Bodziak, did you hear Agent Deedrick testify?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: Did you hear Agent Deedrick say that he thought it was unlikely that the imprint there could have been made by the envelope coming into contact with Ron Goldman's jeans in the fashion that you just described and then falling to the ground?
MR. BODZIAK: I believe he stated there had to be some pressure involved of some sort. It couldn't fall through the air and just touch his jeans and fall off, but it could with pressure make contact with his jeans.
MR. SCHECK: Are you--you don't recall Agent Deedrick saying that he thought the most likely and reasonable interpretation of how that imprint occurred is that the envelope was flat on the ground and something or some object--
MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.
MR. SCHECK: --imprinted on it?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall his testimony about that?
MR. BODZIAK: May I answer that?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BODZIAK: I recall his testimony that there had to be pressure, and common sense would dictate that the envelope being on the ground would be a more likely scenario than what I described with grabbing a leg where there might be a drop of blood.
MR. SCHECK: He did say that, didn't he?
MR. BODZIAK: Did say what?
MR. SCHECK: He did say it was his opinion that both the envelope and the piece of paper being on the ground was the most likely and reasonable way that the envelope and the paper would be when the imprint was made. Didn't he say that?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: I think his most definitive explanation was that you had to have pressure between the envelope and the blood. It could not just be something that bounced off of it or grazed it. There had to be pressure. I don't think he rendered an opinion as to exactly what happened.
MR. SCHECK: You sure?
MR. BODZIAK: I know he didn't.
MR. SCHECK: You sure he didn't say that the most reasonable unlikely way--
THE COURT: Counsel, we're arguing now. Counsel, we're arguing now. The jury heard the testimony.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And we have transcripts that we can get.
THE COURT: The jury heard the testimony.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of, as a general proposition, when a shoe makes contact with the surface that is not flat or uneven surfaces, it can leave an imprint made in blood of part of the shoe and not the borders, for example, that wouldn't come in contact with it?
MR. BODZIAK: Could you give a specific example of what you're stating? I believe I know what you are, but could you define it?
MR. SCHECK: Well, uneven surfaces will cause contact with only parts of the shoe.
MR. BODZIAK: Such as if you stepped on a golf ball.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you stepped on a curved tile.
MR. BODZIAK: On a curved tile?
MR. SCHECK: Curved tile?
MR. BODZIAK: On the very edge of it?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. BODZIAK: If--yeah, that's possible.
MR. SCHECK: This envelope is found near the edge of a curved tile, right?
MR. BODZIAK: That's where it was photographed. I don't know where it was when the impression was put on it.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. In fact, when you made your notes, you were investigating the possibility that this envelope had been turned over, there was blood on the corner of the envelope and that somebody or something stepped on it and the imprint came from what you call troweling marks on the edge of the tile.
MR. BODZIAK: Not exactly.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. BODZIAK: May I explain?
MR. SCHECK: Sure.
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. In my notes, when I examined this envelope, the first time I examined it at the Los Angeles Police Department lab, I observed these marks and I was interested what could have accounted for them. And so I made some notes. During the time I had to examine this and photographing was limited. I made some notes possibly troweling marks on the concrete because I had some photographs which showed blood marked areas of the tile and various striations again from these finishing marks that whoever finished the concrete put on there. So I noted "possible trowel marks."
I also noted that in looking at Ron Goldman's Pataqua boots, that there was a certain cleat formation, design to those boots, and I was looking at some of the different shapes of the blood deposited here and I was trying in my mind to see if those boots may have either directly or with the envelope turned over on a blood-soaked walkway and then stepping on the back of it and then flipped over again have caused or if I could associate those boots with any of those marks. Upon final examination of the photographs, Pataqua boots and all the other things I had, I was never able to fully explain this and subsequently referred it to Douglas Deedrick because it was not a shoe impression with parallel lines; and with regard to these, I was never able to associate it definitely with Ron Goldman's Pataqua boots or any other item of footwear.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So you were investigating that first in your reports, you indicated more than one shoe impressions on this envelope?
MR. BODZIAK: Possibly what I have just described from Ron Goldman's Pataqua boot.
MR. SCHECK: And would that scenario not include the fact that you thought that the envelope might have been on the edge of the tile and that's how you got the troweling marks?
MR. BODZIAK: At that point, when I made those notes, I wasn't eliminating anything. I was making exactly what notes are, "notes," to refer to later and to follow up with additional examination which I did and to which I've testified.
MR. SCHECK: So the answer to my question is yes?
MR. BODZIAK: Could you restate your question so I'm sure what it is--
MR. SCHECK: Is part of your scenario, that possibility you were pursuing, that you thought that the envelope might have been on the curved edge of the tile?
MR. BODZIAK: No. I know--I made no reference of a curved edge of the tile. Simply the troweling marks.
MR. SCHECK: Troweling marks, which could have been on the curved edge of the tile?
MR. BODZIAK: It could have been anywhere on the tile.
MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to the piece of paper, you have indicated that you saw the parallel line imprint impressions on that piece of paper?
MR. BODZIAK: You're referring now to the triangular piece of paper?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that piece of paper was not recovered for examination?
MR. BODZIAK: No. I never saw the original piece of paper.
MR. SCHECK: And maybe if we could bring that up here just for a second.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, did you recall parts of Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to the bloodstain patterns and the orders of deposit on this piece of paper?
MR. BODZIAK: Uh, I just re--my memory just recollects that he was referring to wavy lines that he referred to as imprints and that he could not state definitively that they were made by shoes.
MR. SCHECK: And so you did not--
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, excuse me. I'm sorry, counsel. You're referring to a new exhibit for the record, please?
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. This is 1338-A.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: And--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Are you close?
MR. SCHECK: Close to what?
THE COURT: You know what.
MR. SCHECK: Finishing, no. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: All right. Finish this line of questioning.
MR. SCHECK: Sure.
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of, did you--so you did not focus on his testimony as to the order of deposit of blood on the piece of paper?
MR. BODZIAK: No.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And would it make a difference to you that Dr. Lee indicated from the best that could be said, looking at the photograph, that it appeared that the parallel line imprints were first and there was other blood covering them based on the bloodstain pattern?
MR. BODZIAK: Again, as for reasons I stated before, if he said that, it would have no influence on my interpretation of the portions of the wavy lines that you could see that was the imprint.
MR. SCHECK: But it would go towards at least two of the reasons that you gave us, the absence of a border and the absence of non-printing area around the imprint. It would be relevant to that, wouldn't it?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, the detail in this particular impression is a lot less than the detail of the envelope for which we had the original item, and the area that it covers and the adjacent areas don't have a border. But as far as it being an island, I don't think that you could definitively rule where it began or ended on this photograph.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I simply was asking you whether or not the order of deposit had some relevance in terms of at least two factors, the border and the absence of a non-printing area. Does it have relevance to that?
MR. BODZIAK: There's--the only relevance--the answer is no because the only relevance is what remains there. What remains there is what an examiner can examine, not what they want to hypothesize or say was there and is no longer there.
MR. SCHECK: Well, is the bloodstain pattern visible on that envelope?
MR. BODZIAK: The--probably two-thirds of--you mean the triangular piece of paper?
MR. SCHECK: Yes. On this--I'm sorry. On this triangular piece of paper, do you see bloodstain patterns?
MR. BODZIAK: Well, there's a lot of blood on it. Whether or not that blood was whipped up because it was lying in blood or whether blood fell on it and was whipped or absorbed into it or whether it's a result of contact with an object that all of these other points or if it's actually blood spatter flying through the air and striking it, that's not my area of expertise. I'm comparing the footwear impression.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Well, I understand that what you're basically telling us is that you don't have--you feel you don't have an area of expertise in bloodstain interpretation.
MR. BODZIAK: With regard to shoe imprints--
MS. CLARK: Objection. It's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BODZIAK: With regard to shoe imprints, I have a very good base of experience and expertise in that area.
MR. SCHECK: But is it--you're saying that you can--you look at the imprint, but as far as the rest of the stains are concerned, that's not your area?
MR. BODZIAK: You can not reconstruct--well, let me say this. All of these stains which are not part of the wavy lines have no bearing on my examination.
MR. SCHECK: Just one more question then. Do you recall Dr. Lee offering any testimony about the effect of the blood surrounding this parallel line pattern and its obscuring borders?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. And I can see that. I can see where there are wavy lines that blood has either before or after come over it and partially obscured it.
MR. SCHECK: So you would agree then with Dr. Lee that because of the subsequent deposit that obscures some of the area with the wavy lines, that that could obscure some pattern of a border?
MR. BODZIAK: It definitely does obscure part of the impression, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
MR. BODZIAK: There's other areas where there is no bloodstains which the wavy lines run into.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Mr. Scheck, would you take this item down, please.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Harris. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you; don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. I hope you have an enjoyable weekend this weekend.
Also, I wanted to compliment you on your continuing level of attention. I can tell by the expression on your faces every day that you're all tired, almost as tired as I am. But I know you're hanging in there because I've noticed that when certain items have come up, that obviously you're very attentive as to which item is--which item of evidence is which and I've seen you react to things that indicate to me that you're clearly as much on top of this as some of the lawyers and maybe more so than me as far as the numbering of exhibits and I know you're paying attention, I know it's tough. But hang in there. We're almost there. All right. Have a good weekend. See you on Monday. Mr. Bodziak, unfortunately, Monday, 9:00 o'clock. All right. We're in recess.
MR. DARDEN: Can we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(Proceedings held in camera, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
(At 12:05 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Monday, September 18, 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 Friday, September 15, 1995 volume 224
Pages 46010 through 46135, inclusive
(Pages 46136 through 46154, 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 224 pages 46010 - 46135
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Friday September 15, 1995 A.M. 24010 224 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.
Bodziak, William J. 224 (Resumed) 46026mc 46086bs
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Bodziak, William J. 224 (Resumed) 46026mc 46086bs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
598-J - photograph 46030 224 of the walkway at the crime scene with the no. 10 and the letters E, F, G, H, I, J and k
598-K - photograph 46030 224 of the walkway at the crime scene with the no. 10 and the letters H, I, J, K, L, M and n
623-A thru 623-G - 46039 224 posterboard with seven photographs entitled "Bundy walk photos"