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 46136 through 46154, volume 224A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier, People represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kelberg. Good morning, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ready to proceed with Mr. Bodziak?

MR. KELBERG: I'm sure that we are, your Honor. Could Mr. Blasier and I speak to the court very briefly on a scheduling matter without the reporter at the sidebar?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would note with Mr. Bodziak, we need all of the exhibits that we had last Friday. I don't know if they've been brought up, the various boards.

THE CLERK: They're on their way.

MR. BLASIER: When they come up, we'll be ready.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, what's the status of the exhibits?

THE CLERK: They're in the elevator now.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, anything else we can resolve before we have--get started with Mr. Bodziak again?

MR. COCHRAN: Couple things, your Honor, if I might. In the interest of moving the case along, once the Prosecution is finished, I would like to ask the assistance of the Prosecution and the court in making the following witnesses available for us. We need Detective Vannatter, we need FBI Agent Martz, we need the--both Fiato brothers, FBI Agent Michael Wachs, W-A-C-H-S I guess, Deputy District Attorney Dale Davidson and we need Mr. Gary Sims back. The court will recall that we said we were going to call Gary Sims very briefly on a matter we approached sidebar on if you recall. Those are the witnesses we need available and I think they have some control over, and we can move quickly to begin the balance of our case and then our surrebuttal.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I'm puzzled about Gary Sims, your Honor. Perhaps that was a sidebar I was not present for. But with respect to Agent Martz, let me indicate this. The witness is Mr. Whitehurst. Agent Martz is irrelevant until the court rules on the admissibility of Agent Whitehurst, and so I think we need to have that motion first, and then, depending on the court's ruling, we will discuss the availability of Agent Martz. At this time, there is no reason to do so at all. If the court will recall, the Defense rested conditionally subject to the admissibility of Agent Whitehurst, and Agent Martz has no relevant testimony to give unless and until the court rules on the admissibility of Agent Whitehurst's testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: Unfortunately, Miss Clark, after she promised to be here Saturday, was not here, and we have now talked to Agent Whitehurst and we have further questions based upon newly discovered evidence of Agent Martz. They can't tell us which witnesses we want to call. We want Agent Martz, we want Detective Vannatter--this is all newly discovered evidence--we want the Fiato brothers, we want Dale Davidson and we want--and with regard to Gary Sims, the court will recall Mr. Barry Scheck asked the court to allow--

THE COURT: No. I recollect Mr. Sims was released subject to recall.

MR. COCHRAN: That was it. So as the court has said so many times, we have the right to present our case, and we have an absolute right to do that. We have not rested and this is newly discovered evidence and we want to have him out here. Now, if he's our witness, we don't mind paying for him, but we just want to have it facilitated so we don't have any downtime with regard to getting this witness out here.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, if I could respond because I was here both Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Cochran was not here Sunday. Both days were used to interview Dr. Whitehurst. And our position is quite simply, Dr. Whitehurst has a perspective about Agent Martz, and the question is, is anything that Dr. Whitehurst has to offer relevant to these proceedings.

THE COURT: I assume we're going to take up that issue after we have concluded with Mr. Bodziak. I take it this is the Prosecution's last witness.

MS. CLARK: That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. Then the--

MR. KELBERG: So the question is--

THE COURT: --Defense then has the opportunity to conclude their case, which I assume they're going to do.

MR. KELBERG: But our position with Martz is not to have this man have to fly out here just so we can have a motion that his testimony be excluded until the court rules on Whitehurst's testimony because if as--

THE COURT: Well, let's assume for the sake of the argument, Mr. Kelberg, that there is a possibility that Martz could be recalled for matters regarding the EDTA testing that had nothing to do with Whitehurst. I mean, that's a possibility as well; don't you agree?

MR. COCHRAN: That's correct, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Except not for the Defense's case because as I recall the court's statements, the court indicated it was allowing the Defense not to rest its case in chief due to this limited area and that the court would limit it to this area as a result of which the court said to the Prosecution "Start your rebuttal." If this is a matter of EDTA and we have not on rebuttal, our rebuttal, offered anything on EDTA, then their case in chief is--

THE COURT: Well, that's another legal issue.

MR. KELBERG: All right. But the long and short, just the geographics involved, does Agent Martz have to fly out here to sit until this court rules on Mr. Whitehurst? If we know when--should be Dr. Whitehurst. If we know when the court anticipates ruling on Dr. Whitehurst, then we can have arrangements available so that Mr. Martz can do his work back at Washington.

THE COURT: All right. Well, counsel, my understanding is that the court reporters will have the transcripts of both Saturday and Sunday's interviews available sometime I hope by the end of today. Miss Moxham is indicating that's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I just indicate as follows?

THE COURT: So that indicates to me that we will probably, if counsel have the transcripts by the close of business today, that they'll be able to proceed with an offer of proof and argument regarding Dr. Whitehurst probably tomorrow and we can resolve some of these issues.

MR. COCHRAN: Might I just indicate, the reason I brought this up, your Honor, is, as the court is aware, those of us who have been here every day in this trial are very much aware of this jury, that we want to get the case to the jury. And I'm trying to--

THE COURT: Counsel, you don't need to tell me that.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just pointing this out, your Honor, because of the fact we have people who don't always appear here, and I'm trying to point out to you I want Martz here. They can't tell us how to try our case. We want Martz here and we think we can recall Martz before we ever get to the Whitehurst issue. And so I want to make sure--you listened to them--that that's our issue, that we believe Martz--which we intend to call first.

THE COURT: As soon as we finish with Bodziak, I suspect the People will get up and say subject to court's permission to reopen if anything else comes up, they rest their rebuttal case, then focus turns on the Defense.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Giving you a heads up. That's all it was.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I be excused?

THE COURT: Don't go too far away because I don't know how long we are going to have with Mr. Bodziak.

MR. KELBERG: I'll be upstairs. I can be reached in Mr. Hodgman's office.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: I just need the exhibits, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, why don't you and Miss Clark check with Mrs. Robertson then, make sure all the exhibits are ready to go. As soon as they are, we'll get started. All right.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, do you have any of your witnesses ready?

MR. SCHECK: We do.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Trower, let's have the jury, please.

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

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

THE JURY: Good morning.

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

William Bodziak, the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that Mr. William Bodziak is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Scheck. Good morning again, Mr. Bodziak.

MR. BODZIAK: Good morning.

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

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Good morning, agent Bodziak.

MR. BODZIAK: Good morning.

MR. SCHECK: How are you today, sir?

MR. BODZIAK: Fine.

MR. SCHECK: Agent Bodziak, I think you indicated to us on Friday that your knowledge of the extent to which Dr. Lee actually goes to crime scenes and inspects imprint evidence, shoeprint evidence is somewhat limited.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I stated what knowledge I had about Dr. Lee on Friday.

MR. SCHECK: Are you aware that this Saturday, Dr. Lee investigated a crime scene involving imprint evidence in Kennebunkport, Maine--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. It's irrelevant.

MR. SCHECK: --at the request of the FBI?

THE COURT: It's irrelevant.

MR. SCHECK: Now, we left off discussing reasons I believe on Friday that the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper in your opinion could not possibly have come from a shoe.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And I believe we discussed on Friday your views that the non-printing area around the imprints and the lack of a border were factors you considered in reaching your conclusion that it could not have possibly come from a shoe.

MR. BODZIAK: That's part of the factors, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. And I believe you told us that although you recalled seeing 95 percent of Dr. Lee's testimony, you did not see his testimony about the blood patterns on the envelope and the basis for his belief that the parallel line imprints were made first and other bloodstains were deposited later?

MR. BODZIAK: I didn't see that nor do I believe it has anything to do with whether or not that is a shoeprint.

MR. SCHECK: I understand. Now, have you, since we last discussed this on Friday, made any effort to read or review that testimony of Dr. Lee?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I haven't.

MR. SCHECK: We also had a discussion at the end of the day on Friday about whether Agent Deedrick believed that the paper and the envelope were probably laying down when something landed on it and made those imprints on it. Do you recall that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--and at that time that we were discussing it, neither of us had Agent Deedrick's testimony right at hand.

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I know what Agent Deedrick's conclusion was and what his statement--what I believe the significant statement in his testimony was that there had to be pressure.

MR. SCHECK: My only question to you, sir, is, neither of us had that precise testimony at hand?

MR. BODZIAK: No. No.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, I'd like to read you something and ask--from Agent Deedrick's testimony on this issue and ask if you agree with it. All right?

MR. BODZIAK: Sure.

MS. CLARK: May I see it?

MR. SCHECK: Sure. It's from the real time, so--and do you want to look--

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

MR. SCHECK: "Question:" this is to Mr. Deedrick. "And on Mr. Goldman's jeans, you saw areas where it was saturated? "Answer: It appeared to be." Now--"Question: Now, another scientific fact or would you agree that another scientific fact about these imprints is that they were in blood, but also that the imprint on the envelope, the piece of paper and the jeans actually are static, that is, they show evidence of little movement? "Answer: Well, it's difficult to say with the jeans because I think I have already testified that it might be a swiping or moving type motion that may have caused that. But the papers is probably static. I think the papers were sitting and then something landed on it." Recall that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: "Question: So you would agree that in terms of the observation also that we could agree it's a scientific fact that the bloody imprints were made and impressed with relatively little movement? "Answer: Yeah. That's reasonable. I don't really know the dynamics nor could I say with 100 percent certainty what the dynamics were of this, but it was probably laying down and something landed on that one area." Do you recall him saying that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: "Question: And you would think that would be the most reasonable interpretation of how the imprint got on the paper and how it got on the envelope? "Answer: Yeah. That's more logical than having the paper float down and land on something and I think it's more reasonable." Do you recall Agent Deedrick saying that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, do you disagree with that?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I totally agree. May I explain?

MR. SCHECK: Okay. All right.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. He's an expert witness. He should be allowed to explain.

THE COURT: No. He said, "I totally agree."

MS. CLARK: And he asked to explain.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And then there was further discussion, just to read it all. "Question: But it would be fair to rule out in terms of your interpretation that the imprint, for example, on the envelope or the piece of paper could have come about with the envelope or piece of paper hitting the jeans and then falling to the ground? "Answer: I don't know. I think I said that it seems reasonable that the papers were laying flat and then contact occurred causing the imprints pattern. That seems to me logical." Excuse me. "But there has to be some force, some resistance to that contact so the paper, if it were not on the ground, would have had to have been against something so that the imprint occurred. It wouldn't be floating. It would either have to be either held or on something else. "Question: When you and I were talking before, we were operating on your premise that this could have come from Mr. Goldman's jeans, these two imprints, that didn't you indicate or aren't you saying that you felt it unlikely that either the piece of paper or the envelope could have gotten these imprints if they had just touched the jeans? "Answer: Yeah. I think I've already testified to that too. Yes."

MR. SCHECK: Fair enough?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, without repeating the entire discussion, can we agree that on direct examination, you told us that you did not believe these parallel line imprints on the envelope and paper were typical of the parallel line imprints one expects to see from shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: However, it would be fair to say that there are many parallel line imprints in shoe patterns?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there are.

MR. SCHECK: And you have a computerized database of shoe patterns at the FBI?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: And that was the computerized database that you consulted when you were looking for the Bruno Maglis?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And I guess as of Friday, you had not reviewed that database looking for the parallel line imprint on this envelope. Yes or no?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I would not.

MR. SCHECK: And over the weekend, you have not done that either, have you?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I would not.

MR. SCHECK: Now, the--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, there were test imprints of the jeans that were created in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: It's my understanding that Doug Deedrick prepared some when he was out here and I know there were some prepared prior to his coming, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And one set were done on August 21st at the LAPD lab by LAPD personnel and some were prepared on August 31st.

MR. BODZIAK: I don't know the exact dates, but it was in August, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Right. Two on August 21st and five on August 31st.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: And, your Honor, we don't have the--upstairs they have the full set of imprints, but what I have here are Xeroxes of the actual imprints and two pieces of paper. They appeared in one piece of paper. So for the sake of expediting things, could we mark these two documents Defendant's next in order and then we'll later substitute it with the full imprint pad, if that's okay?

THE COURT: 1376.

THE COURT: And this is going to be test impression from the jeans?

MR. SCHECK: Test impressions from the jeans.

THE COURT: Do you know what date that was taken?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Is this the LAPD or the FBI?

MR. SCHECK: These are the ones that were done by the LAPD and sent to the FBI that formed the basis for the boards.

THE COURT: All right. These are the 8-21 impressions.

MR. SCHECK: They're 8-31 and--

THE COURT: 8-21 or 8-31?

MR. SCHECK: They're all dated on the paper.

THE COURT: 8-21 or 8-31?

MR. SCHECK: They're--there's one on 8-30, there's one on 8-31, another on 8-30, another on 8-30, another on 8-30 and another on 8-30 on the two pages I have.

THE COURT: All right. Multiple dates. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: But they're each labeled.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Have you seen these test impressions before?

MR. BODZIAK: These are of the jeans, yes. They have actually my initials on them because they passed through me. Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Now--your Honor, may I put these on the elmo?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, agent Bodziak, the manner in which these test impressions are created is that the jeans are laid flat on the surface?

MR. BODZIAK: I wasn't present when these were prepared.

MR. SCHECK: Have you seen subsequently pictures of how they were done?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I have not.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, there would be an objection, 352, incomplete. If we can approach.

THE COURT: Well, let him show you what he is going to show you first.

MS. CLARK: I know what he has.

MR. SCHECK: Well, they gave them to me.

MR. SCHECK: Let me just establish this while Miss Clark is looking at the various pictures. Are you aware that pictures were taken of the process by which these test impressions were made at the LAPD laboratory?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That's misleading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Only now that you've just told me. No.

MS. CLARK: Then the objection is speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Did you have any--withdrawn. Would it have been your--was it your recommendation that the manner in which these test impressions be made that the jeans are laid flat and then this yellow pad, this palm print chemical pad is placed on the jeans and then--and rolled and then subsequently a white piece of paper is put on the jeans and then these--these impressions are made by the interaction of the chemicals from the yellow pad on to the white piece of paper? Is that how it works?

MR. BODZIAK: I wasn't present when they were made. I didn't direct the obtaining of these impressions.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you sent the Identicator kit to the LAPD?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. SCHECK: And you have testified that you've used this yourself for purposes of taking impressions of soles of shoes and I think socks whereby people step on them?

MR. BODZIAK: Right. That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is the method that--when you sent this Identicator kit to the LAPD, did you direct them that the method of creating the test impression would be to lay the jeans flat and then place the yellow palm print pad on it and roll it and then place the papers on it?

MR. BODZIAK: I've never used a roller. So I know I would not have recommended that. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but with shoes and socks, it's easy to wear them and step on the object.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Why wouldn't you have recommended the roller in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it's not that it wouldn't in a case of a fabric--I don't conduct fabric examinations. So I don't get into that kind of a problem. But there would be nothing wrong with using a roller. You're get a representative sample of the jeans, but I'm more used to taking the object and pressing it on the pad and then onto the paper because I deal with shoes and socks.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.

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

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, we need to approach.

THE COURT: Well, are you going to use any of these at this point, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm going to show him these pictures.

THE COURT: All right. Sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MS. CLARK: The problem I have, your Honor, no. 1, this all calls for speculation from the witness because these photographs, there's only one way these were done, but they did them multiple ways, and so the test impressions that are being shown to Mr. Bodziak are the result of different methods of doing the test impression. This only shows one. He can't possibly know that. So you're asking a witness who has no personal knowledge of how it was done or whether there were a variety of methods used and you're asking him about one method that led to one set of impressions. The problem is that this whole area is speculation on his part. Agent Deedrick did his own impressions and testified to that, indicating that they were the same. He was the appropriate witness to question about the methods of doing the imprints and Mr. Scheck elected not to do that. This is not the witness.

MR. SCHECK: I think I did both. Miss Clark has not looked at her own reports that were turned over to us because the report from LAPD personnel indicate that on August 21st, they placed a yellow pad on top of the jeans, they rolled it, then they placed the paper on it. The pictures that I have at sidebar that were turned over by the Prosecution reflect that process. And then on August 31st, the memo indicates they did the same thing. Agent Deedrick's testimony is that he went back to the lab after he prepared the boards and--

THE COURT: But here's the problem though. Is that if Deedrick was the one who was involved in getting these impressions--excuse me, Mr. Shapiro. If Deedrick is the one who was involved in making these impressions, why are we talking to Bodziak about this?

MR. SCHECK: We talked to Deedrick about it too. But the point is that I want to go into how they were laid flat and what the significance of that is. He testified in this area.

THE COURT: What's the point though--

MR. SCHECK: A few pages.

THE COURT: Such as? What's the point about how those impressions were made?

MR. SCHECK: Well, when you roll them out, you are going to be expounding--

THE COURT: Stretching it out.

MR. SCHECK: Stretching it out and you are going to maximize the distance between the ridges, and that will become important in terms of comparison of the test imprints to the actual imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, what's unfair about it--this is beyond the scope. This witness was not questioned about the jeans matching the impression. This witness was asked specifically whether or not it was a shoeprint. Agent Deedrick was asked and he didn't rely on the test impressions of the jeans in forming his opinion. He was the one who initially said this is not a shoeprint and passed it on to Agent Deedrick. If Mr. Scheck wanted to question the manner in which the impressions were made to attack the foundation for Agent Deedrick's opinion that it was the jeans, that was the person to confront with discrepancies in the manner in which the impressions were made. He would know. He also by the way made his own impressions and failed to bring that up. And by the way, Agent Deedrick's impressions were done in a variety of ways too, and now the jury is not going to be given a correct picture. They're going to be--

THE COURT: All right. Ask if this witness compared any of these impressions.

MR. SCHECK: I think--I just want to make the record clear. Miss Clark is misstating the testimony a number of ways. Agent Bodziak--

THE COURT: Counsel, I'm sorry. Did you hear my question?

MR. SCHECK: Yes. I'll go into it.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I'd like these next two documents to be marked Defendant's 1337. It's two LAPD reports.

THE COURT: 1377.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation.

MR. SCHECK: 1377?

MS. CLARK: There's no foundation for this, your Honor, and it's hearsay.

MR. SCHECK: Just showing to the witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed. It's marked 1377.

MR. SCHECK: 1377. Thank you.

THE COURT: 1377.

(Deft's 1377 and 1377-A for id = two LAPD reports)

MR. SCHECK: Agent Bodziak, I show you two documents marked 1377. Now, in your work as an expert witness, is it your practice generally to rely upon descriptions of procedures used by other laboratory personnel in preparing items that you will inspect for purposes of making comparisons?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: What's the purpose of showing the documents?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry. I was--could you say that again?

MR. SCHECK: Sure. In the course of rendering an expert opinion on the basis of making comparisons of imprints, is it your general practice to rely upon the documents and laboratory procedures of other police personnel or scientific personnel who you direct to do certain work?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to impressions? You mean if they take impressions and then send them to us to make an examination?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: In some cases.

MR. SCHECK: And if--when you receive both impressions and police reports or scientific memorandum indicating how they were prepared, it's your general practice to rely upon the scientific personnel's records of how they were prepared?

MR. BODZIAK: You certainly would read that and take it into consideration, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And in this instance, the two documents I showed you, do they reflect the reports of the LAPD personnel with respect to how they created the test impressions for the jeans?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay, speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I'd have to finish reading them.

MR. SCHECK: Please take your time and examine them.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I've read them.

MR. SCHECK: And based on these documents as a basis for your expert opinion, would you rely on the fact that--

THE COURT: Counsel, we're missing a few things, aren't we?

MR. SCHECK: Missing a few things at this point?

MR. SCHECK: Would you regard these reports as reports that would ordinarily be relied upon by an expert such as yourself as a basis for rendering an expert opinion?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation. There's no foundation. People would ask to take the witness on voir dire concerning it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: In most cases, if we were sent test impressions--and I can only speak for shoes because I don't do fabric exams, which is what you're asking about. But with regards to shoes, we are many times sent test impressions of shoes and we--we may be able to do a comparison like an elimination-type comparison with those. If it was the same design of the shoe impressions in question, of course we would expect that they would send in the shoes, and we would not do any exam at that point except a preliminary exam perhaps on class characteristics. And I think that's what's done in this case. I've never seen anyone so thorough as to write a report attached with those impressions as to how they were taken. So I can't reference any other instance.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you saw the boards created with respect to the test impressions of Mr. Goldman's jeans?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you looked at those and compared them with the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper?

MR. BODZIAK: You're referring to the boards, meaning the exhibits?

MR. SCHECK: Well, the exhibits that Agent Deedrick prepared, the actual envelope yourself, you yourself made a visual comparison between the test impressions created by the LAPD that were used for the boards and the actual imprints on the envelope?

MR. BODZIAK: No. The sequence of events is this. I had the envelope with the impression on it. I had a picture of the triangular piece of paper with an impression on it. I had the jeans which were photographed which I had previously examined for footwear impressions and determined that there were only two possible ones, and none of those are the parallel lines you're referring to. In looking at the characteristics of the small little fingerprint size or smaller fingerprint size parallel lines on the envelope and the piece of triangular paper, I referred that to Mr. Deedrick because I believed they might be fabric impressions.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I don't think this is responsive.

MR. SCHECK: The question I'm asking you, sir, simply is--

THE COURT: Counsel, it was a responsive answer.

MR. SCHECK: I'm asking him if he saw the test impressions. He's telling me everything before that.

THE COURT: He's explaining it. Ask your next question.

MS. CLARK: May he please answer? He was cut off.

THE COURT: Ask your next question.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Bodziak, I'm simply asking you, sir, did you visually examine the test impressions created by the LAPD and used by Mr. Deedrick for his boards to the parallel line imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper? Did you do that?

MR. BODZIAK: I did not conduct an examination. They passed through my hands, but I did not conduct an examination.

MR. SCHECK: So you're telling us that you never looked at them?

MR. BODZIAK: I looked at them, but it was a fabric examination. Mr. Deedrick does that. I don't.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in the course of your testimony on Friday, did you not express a view that you thought that the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper were likely to have come from Mr. Goldman's jeans?

MR. BODZIAK: I expressed that as a possibility through common sense and what I have seen in the case, yes.

MR. SCHECK: But you're telling us that you expressed that opinion without yourself actually having compared the test impression, looked at them, the test impressions that were created and then looked at the parallel line imprints on the envelope and the paper?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm not an expert in the area of fabric comparisons and I did not conduct a final comparison, but I did see certain characteristics both in the photographs of the jeans, the jeans themselves and in those items which passed through my hands and referred them to Agent Deedrick.

MR. SCHECK: So the answer is yes, you looked at the test impressions and compared them to the imprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: Not in an examination way, but just a visual. I saw them.

MR. SCHECK: And was that visual comparison, sir, part of the basis for the expert opinion that you rendered on Friday?

MR. BODZIAK: It's part of many things I saw in this case which was, of course, the foundation for which I stated my opinion on Friday.

MR. SCHECK: But that was part of your expert opinion?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And in rendering that expert opinion, would you not rely upon the documents created by the Los Angeles Police Department as documents that would be reliable and something that an expert such as yourself would rely upon in forming--

THE COURT: You've asked that question already.

MR. SCHECK: Well, all right.

MR. SCHECK: Then let me proceed directly. Would you accept the representation in the LAPD--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Wait, wait, wait. Have you seen these reports before?

MR. BODZIAK: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: End of inquiry.

MR. SCHECK: Well--

THE COURT: It's not the basis of an opinion if he has never seen it before.

MR. SCHECK: Let me ask you this then. Ask you to assume that the test impressions were created by laying the jeans out flat, putting the yellow pad upon it and rolling the yellow pad with a roller, putting a roller over the yellow pad, and then placing a piece of paper on top of it.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Are you with me?

MR. BODZIAK: I understand, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if that were to occur, would you not expect that the ridges creating the imprint, all right, on the paper, the ridges from the jeans would be stretched out because the jeans were flat and there was a rolling of them?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is beyond the scope of expertise.

THE COURT: You want to take him on voir dire?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Excuse me.

MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor--

THE COURT: This is a shoeprint expert, not a fabric expert.

MR. SCHECK: He rendered an opinion based on the visual comparison.

THE COURT: He said he looked at it and passed it on.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Maybe I can shortcut this.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Are you telling us that because you're a shoeprint expert, not a fabric expert, you would not be able to express an opinion about whether or not rolling the palm print pad on the jeans would tend to expand the distance between the ridges on the jeans, tend to spread them out?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't make test impressions of fabrics except socks which would be worn with some kind of protection in-between. So I couldn't answer that question based on my expertise and experience.

MR. SCHECK: Now, agent Bodziak, did you ever measure the distance between the ridges on the envelope and compare the distance between the ridges on the envelope to the distance between the ridges on the jeans in the test impressions?

MR. BODZIAK: Not with a measuring device. Just with a side-by-side look at them in a preliminary sense prior to referring it to Agent Deedrick.

MR. SCHECK: To your knowledge, has Agent Deedrick ever made those measurements?

MR. BODZIAK: I have no knowledge of the experiments Agent Deedrick performed.

MR. SCHECK: When you do shoeprint comparisons, do you perform measurements on the distance between imprints that you see?

MR. BODZIAK: No. There's two things we do. We use a divider which you would apply the points of the divider to one measurement, transfer that divider which remains at a fixed point to the other; but more commonly, we use an overlay technique where we would make a test impression of the shoe with a clear material and superimpose that over the questioned impression. That reduces any possibility of error in measurement and you have a more direct impression.

MR. SCHECK: Well, the first method that you described is, you would take some kind--what are those devices called? Calibers or--

MR. BODZIAK: Well, a caliber is a divider with a measuring scale on it. You only need the divider. You don't actually need a caliber.

MR. SCHECK: Caliber would be one of those devices where it has two points on it, you stick it between two things and there's a little device that shows you how far the distance is between the two points?

MR. BODZIAK: Not the ones I use. It just holds that position. You can lock it into no measurement.

MR. SCHECK: There are some that have that measurement on it?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And then the ones you use don't have measurement on it, but you basically take the distance on one shoe imprint and then using the same measure, you go over and look at the other one?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And that's a form, would you not agree, of measurement even though you don't write down a precise number?

MR. BODZIAK: I believe it's more accurate than measurement, yes.

MR. SCHECK: More accurate?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And so that--and the use of overlays to try to show that the imprints are reasonably similar are techniques you use to demonstrate that one shoe imprint corresponds to the other?

MR. BODZIAK: In the comparison, it would be if they're similar or different. You can use that technique, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, would you not agree--

MR. SCHECK: Could we put this up again?

MR. SCHECK: --that with respect to the test imprint here--

THE COURT: 1376.

MR. SCHECK: --1376, one sees at different points that this so-called inkless fingerprinting chemical, right, when pressed on to the jeans, there was ink so to speak that would go between the ridges of the jeans and show up on the imprint?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: You're referring to the filling in-between parallel lines?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I can see that.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And would you not agree that the media used to do this test impression is not as thick as blood?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And would you agree from your examination of Mr. Goldman's jeans that many areas of his jeans were saturated with blood?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And I take it that you have never conducted experiments of imprints of fabric in blood?

MR. BODZIAK: As I previously stated, I'm not a fabric examiner.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you said on direct examination that imprints made in big globs of blood get darker with time, but most tracks that are blood imprints that are light get lighter with time. Do you recall that testimony?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I don't think it was stated exactly that way.

MR. SCHECK: Well, let me read you this and see if it refreshes your recollection. "So most of the tracks are very, very light. The only exception would be if you actually stepped into a pool of blood. With regard to those shoeprints which I encountered daily and have from my entire time in the FBI laboratory, they become lighter with time. With regard to whole blood or big globs of bloods that are very thick, they tend to appear darker with time."

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, so you were making a distinction here between imprints made with big globs of blood and imprints in blood that are thinner?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm making a distinction between a thick quantity of blood and a very thin pressed-out quantity of blood and what the differences are that occur over time.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And you're saying that the ones that are thinner and pressed out will get lighter over time?

MR. BODZIAK: The footwear impressions that I--that I incur daily, the typical scenario of what I get in a case is a crime occurs anywhere from two to three months away. And I have a case right now from 1980. I will get crime scene pictures taken the day of or the day after the murder showing these footwear impressions. I will also in many cases get scatter rugs, cut-out pieces of carpet, tile floors or linoleum floors that are rolled up and sent in with the actual impressions. I receive those and examine those, on the average, months later. In every instance, the thin shoeprints have all but disappeared. The real thick blooded areas that are now flaking and crusting are darker.

MR. SCHECK: Well, so now you're saying that these are imprints that you're looking at months later?

MR. BODZIAK: I believe that's what I said the other day.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, I was looking--this is your book?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.

MR. SCHECK: Impression evidence. And I was looking over the weekend and I was trying to find some passage in your book that discussed this phenomena. Do you recall, do you discuss this phenomena anywhere in that book?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't know if there was an appropriate part where I actually said that. I talk about enhancement of the blood impressions that are very faint. Obviously, if they were all darker with time, you wouldn't have to enhance them. But I don't know if I actually stated what you're asking specifically that way.

MR. SCHECK: So there's--to the best of your knowledge, there's nothing in your book that corresponds with the testimony that you gave the jury on Friday about faint imprints in blood not getting darker, but lighter over time?

MS. CLARK: Objection. It's irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I don't know if there was a reason why I should state that. I was talking--I spent a whole chapter talking on enhancement of faint impressions. Wouldn't be a reason to try to give reasons why they may be faint, but just that they are faint.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you have chapters in here about awareness, detection and treatment of footwear impression evidence.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And you actually have a section in here about impressions in blood.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And you are writing with the purpose of informing crime scene personnel as to what they can expect to encounter when they look at bloody imprints perhaps from shoes at a crime scene.

MR. BODZIAK: I was addressing what they should do to retrieve those impressions and enhance those impressions and to locate those impressions, to be aware that they could be light, they may miss them and that those light ones have as much value as darker ones.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you do devote considerable time in this book to identifying impressions made in blood.

MR. BODZIAK: Positive identification of footwear impressions.

MR. SCHECK: You mean--in other words, when I mean identify, I mean criminalists going to the scene and actually recognizing the impressions.

MR. BODZIAK: The first chapter basically is generally on the detection and awareness and potential of footwear impression evidence, the fact that it occurs in many different ways and for many reasons both in blood and other materials. Then the next three chapters go on how to retrieve it photographically through casting and lifting and the fifth chapter is on the chemical enhancement, part of which is in blood.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. We'll review that just a minute. Just on this one point so we're very clear with the jury, you were saying then on Friday that when you have globs of blood--

THE COURT: Counsel, this will be the third time we're going through this.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I just want to make clear--

THE COURT: No.

MR. SCHECK: Let me ask you this question. Isn't blood from an imprint blood?

MR. BODZIAK: Could you restate that?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah. When you make an imprint in blood, whether it's a glob or a thin imprint, the imprint is made in blood?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, you wouldn't have a--you may have misunderstood what I meant by "Glob." I'm talking about a body at a scene which a lot of blood has been spilled, there will be pools of blood, and as they go through the changes before they become hard, they can get it to be rather gelatinous, you know, in different consistencies, particularly if the body is rolled over on--that the bleeding is under the body. And in fact when the remainder of the area where the blood is thinner has dried, if the body is rolled over, the areas under will still in many instances be tacky; and that pooling of blood, that thick blood is what I'm talking about with--what I meant when I said "Globs."

MR. SCHECK: That's what you meant by "Globs"?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: But what I'm directing your attention, sir, is to your assertion that faint imprints made in blood that get lighter over time. Do you recall that?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, absolutely.

MR. SCHECK: Now, those faint imprints made in blood are nonetheless blood?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And blood has certain chemical properties?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it does.

MR. SCHECK: And when protein breaks down in blood and bacterial degradation occurs, blood turns darker?

MR. BODZIAK: If it's in a thick quantity, you will see it turn color and darker. If it's thin, as I've stated, it will fade away due to I guess ultraviolet radiation and other things. But that's what I've seen in every case for 20 years.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So you're saying that that's--you're talking about seeing--getting something months later?

MR. BODZIAK: The average case is probably three to six months from the time of the crime.

MR. SCHECK: So three to six months is what you're--

MR. BODZIAK: We don't keep statistics on that. I haven't averaged every case I worked, but I'm trying to give you a ballpark figure.

MR. SCHECK: And imprints made on June 13th or June 12th I should say and then looked at 13 days later on June 25th, that's not two to three months?

MR. BODZIAK: No. It's going to get lighter though. I mean, I've gotten cases the same day when I was at the crime scene.

MR. SCHECK: I only asked you whether that was two to three months.

MR. BODZIAK: But I want to be clear.

MS. CLARK: Can the witness finish the answer?

THE COURT: No. The answer was nonresponsive. The answer stands.

MR. SCHECK: We agree on the dates, don't we, between June 12th and June 25th--

MR. BODZIAK: Right.

MR. SCHECK: --13 days?

MR. BODZIAK: Right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is there any serological reason in terms of the properties of blood that you know of that would not--that would prevent a thin, by your definition, imprint in blood being darker 13 days later than when it was left?

MR. BODZIAK: I can only--no. The answer to your question, I am not a serologist. I can't give you the chemistry of blood. I can only testify to my experience.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And your experience is, we've now clarified is with faint impressions that you're seeing two or three months later.

MR. BODZIAK: Seeing them any--everything from the same day to, like I said, I have a case now from 1980. That's quite a distance. And in every case, they only get lighter with time.

MR. SCHECK: Now, latent imprints are imprints that are not visible to the naked eye?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And shoe imprints made in blood can be latent?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And you agree, do you not, that the location of footwear impression evidence primarily on ground surfaces makes it sometimes difficult or inconvenient to find particularly if the impressions are latent or nearly invisible. Specialized lighting and enhancement techniques are often required along with an aggressive effort to find the impression?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And do you agree that before beginning the crime scene search, careful thought should be given to what occurred at the crime scene, how footwear impression evidence could contribute to the proof of facts and what areas of the crime scene might contain footwear impression evidence, then the footwear impression should be looked for aggressively and carefully, what is not looked for will not be found? Do you agree with that?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, absolutely. I wrote it.

MR. SCHECK: And you agree that lack of success in finding footwear impressions at a crime scene is often due to the investigators not believing that latent footwear impressions will be found and not aggressively looking for them?

MR. BODZIAK: As a general statement, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, the close-up pictures that you received from the Los Angeles Police Department of the Bundy walkway area close-ups now were directed at the clearly visible bloody imprints that you later identified to be from Bruno Magli shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now, do you agree that chemicals used for enhancement are very sensitive to small traces of blood?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection, your Honor. This was the court's ruling on the other day.

MR. SCHECK: No. This is enhancement techniques, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Do you agree?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: Therefore, in areas where blood impressions are very thin and faint or where the suspect has tracked through blood and left a series of blood impressions, enhancement methods can develop a latent or nearly invisible blood impression into a highly valuable impression. In fact, faint impressions once enhanced are normally more valuable in detail than those containing larger quantity of blood?

MR. BODZIAK: In some instances, that's true, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, have you ever recommended using as an enhancement technique dusting with a magnibrush and fingerprint pattern?

MR. BODZIAK: Are we talking about the surfaces in this case or just in general?

MR. SCHECK: In general.

MR. BODZIAK: In general, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Do you know who holds the patent on the magnibrush?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Have you cited in your book Dr. Lee's work with the TMB enhancement technique as a very sensitive technique that will reveal faint and otherwise invisible traces of blood that works particularly well on light-colored surfaces where bluish green color would often offer sufficient contrast?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay, irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I believe that was Knutt, Hazen and Lee, an article they wrote on that, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you cited that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Page 158?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Page -59 of your book?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, to your knowledge, was--did the LAPD make an effort to do enhancement of impressions following the trailing of the Bruno Magli when the clearly visible footprints disappeared?

MR. BODZIAK: No. Not to my knowledge.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. That's beyond the scope, also misleading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: And do you not recommend in your book or do you not say in your book that very often, the blood impressions containing the best detail are those made after excess blood is off the shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: In some instances.

MR. SCHECK: Now, to your knowledge, did the LAPD attempt to use enhancement techniques in other areas of the Bundy walkway looking for footwear impression evidence on June 12th?

MR. BODZIAK: As I previously stated in my direct testimony, I'm not aware of any.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. And just so we're clear about what this would look like--

MR. SCHECK: Just one second, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would like to show the witness--

MR. SCHECK: You--page 158 and 159 of your book, do you not show three photographs there that demonstrate how enhancement techniques can be used to bring out impressions made in blood that were either latent or nearly invisible and make very clear patterns?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I show these on the elmo to the jury?

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is all irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. It wasn't done. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well--

THE COURT: It's irrelevant.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think it's--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Did you review Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to whether or not--withdrawn. Do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony that when he went to the Bundy crime scene and was examining for footwear impressions on June 25th, that he had about 20 minutes and he was not allowed to use enhancement techniques?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That's hearsay, calls for speculation.

MR. SCHECK: That's his testimony.

THE COURT: Did you hear the testimony?

MR. BODZIAK: I heard it, your Honor. I just don't remember the exact quote of what he said.

MR. SCHECK: Now, do you remember that to be the substance of what he said?

MR. BODZIAK: I really don't remember exactly what was said about that. I was more looking at the visuals of the footwear impressions.

MR. SCHECK: So that's another part of the five percent of his testimony that you don't recall hearing?

MR. BODZIAK: I just can't remember the quote.

MR. SCHECK: I'm asking you about the substance.

MR. BODZIAK: Well, if I can't remember the quotes or--

MR. SCHECK: Then you can't remember the substance?

MR. BODZIAK: Then I can't remember the substance.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, 10:30.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would like to use a--

THE COURT: Mr. Harris.

MR. SCHECK: I've got it.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And, Mr. Scheck, which exhibit is this?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Mr. Harris, which exhibit is this?

MR. SCHECK: I think this is 1337 if I recall; is that right?

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. 1337.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I've taken out the board 1337 entitled "Imprint evidence at Bundy." Do you see that, sir?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I believe you testified on Friday or Thursday, I can't recall which, that you were confused in watching Dr. Lee's testimony and you were sure other people were confused whether he was referring to shoeprints when he used the word term "Imprint" on many occasions?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And you indicated that you were here to clarify Dr. Lee's testimony so it's not misleading.

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I think that the effect of my testimony is to do that to some extent, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, do you remember Dr. Lee's testimony on direct examination with respect to the photograph at the far left-hand bottom corner of 1337 that was taken on June 13th by the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. SCHECK: I--may I just have a second?

MS. CLARK: Vague as to date, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: If counsel is proposing to read, may I see what he proposes--

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Starting on 42772.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Objection under 356 and 352. It's misleading. I would ask it be put in context.

THE COURT: Whose testimony is this?

MR. SCHECK: This is Dr. Lee's.

THE COURT: Ask the question.

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to that picture, bottom left-hand corner of 1377--

THE COURT: What's the labeling on the bottom?

MR. SCHECK: It's indicating "Walkway 6-12- 13-94."

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall seeing, because you saw Dr. Lee's testimony in videotape, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall seeing or hearing Dr. Lee testify on direct examination to the following?

MR. SCHECK: And I'm starting, your Honor, at page 42772 of this transcript

MR. SCHECK: "Question: And incidentally, Dr. Lee, with respect to the parallel line imprint pattern that you identified for us on this June 12th, June 13th walkway photograph, in theory, isn't it possible that the imprint pattern could arise from an imperfection in the tile? "Answer: It could be because I only look at a picture. I myself did not have an opportunity to go there, identify the tile. It could be anything. What I don't want to mislead people and, ladies and gentlemen, say that is a shoeprint. By no means I did not say that is a shoeprint, just a partial imprint with some parallel lines." Do you recall him saying that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: That was on direct examination?

MR. BODZIAK: That is correct.

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall that as in any way misleading to this jury?

MR. BODZIAK: My statement about misleading was in context to his whole testimony.

MR. SCHECK: I'm asking about this.

MR. BODZIAK: In this one, I think he clarified it that if he had inferred before by saying it was an imprint, that he meant it was a shoeprint, he was saying later on that it wasn't a shoeprint with regard to this particular one.

MR. SCHECK: Direct examination, the section I just read you with respect to that picture, do you recall that testimony--my question to you very simply is, do you regard that answer on direct examination as an effort to confuse or mislead this jury in any way?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Under 356 and 352, it's misleading.

THE COURT: Overruled. Restate the question. The way the question is stated, it's argumentative.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. With respect to the section I just read you from Dr. Lee's direct examination with respect to that picture, do you believe that in this question and answer, Dr. Lee was misleading or confusing anyone?

MR. BODZIAK: Not with regard to that particular statement, no.

MR. SCHECK: Now, do you recall that when this issue then arose on cross-examination what Dr. Lee said about it?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I don't have this committed to memory. You know, I saw most of this, but I don't have his quotes committed to memory, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm not asking you about quotes. I'm asking you about substance. Do you recall the substance of what he said on this?

MR. BODZIAK: It's my opinion from what I saw that he admitted that these could be trowel marks on the sidewalk or imperfections in the sidewalk, but I don't remember his quote exactly.

MR. SCHECK: Just one second. I'm sorry, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: To save some time, do you recall that Mr. Goldberg showed Dr. Lee an enlarged picture of that tile?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall that Mr. Goldberg showed Dr. Lee a picture which Dr. Lee remarked was a better picture than one that had been available to him?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't remember that part exactly. Again, maybe because it wasn't part I saw or I just don't recollect that far back.

MR. SCHECK: And do you recall that when Dr. Lee was shown that photograph, he immediately told Mr. Goldberg, "Yes, this is a better picture than I had, and looking at that tile, I now agree the most reasonable interpretation is that those parallel line imprints came from the etchings in the tile"?

MS. CLARK: No. Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: I'll get back to this after the break. Now, with respect to--this is 1337-B, and that is, you agree a blow-up of the middle photograph entitled "Walkway 6-25-94" on 1337?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee identified a parallel line pattern that he entitled "PLP"?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And he indicated that by way of tests and observations that he'd made on June 15th, that this was an imprint in blood?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't believe I recall him calling it conclusively in blood.

MR. SCHECK: But consistent with an imprint in blood based on his tests and observations at the scene?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall that specific part of it.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Let me ask you this question. Very simply, yes or no. Do you agree that this parallel line imprint pattern identified by Dr. Lee is consistent with having come from footwear?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't believe, as I've previously stated, that you can look at that area and say that any of that has positively come from footwear. It could, but it wasn't there on June 13th.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I move to strike the last part of his answer as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Stricken as nonresponsive, last part.

MR. SCHECK: Simple question, yes or no.

MR. BODZIAK: You can't tell from that partial of an impression and I stated that on direct.

MR. SCHECK: But did you not state on direct that in your opinion, that this parallel line imprint pattern could come from footwear?

MR. BODZIAK: It could have come from footwear.

MR. SCHECK: And isn't it your understanding that that's what Dr. Lee said as well?

MR. BODZIAK: He--as I recall, he referred to that area as a parallel line imprint and he was asked many times about it from both sides and said it could have come from a shoe. I don't believe he conclusively said it came from a shoe.

MR. SCHECK: Right. He said just what you just said.

MR. BODZIAK: Right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to this wiggly line that one sees above the Bruno Magli--you see that?

MR. BODZIAK: The wavy line.

MR. SCHECK: The wavy line.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Well, did not on direct examination Dr. Lee simply refer to that as wiggly-line pattern?

MR. BODZIAK: That sounds correct, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And he did not circle that?

MR. BODZIAK: Not there, no.

MR. SCHECK: And Mr. Goldberg asked him some extensive questions about that on cross-examination. Do you recall that?

THE COURT: That calls for a conclusion as to what's extensive.

MR. SCHECK: Did he ask Dr. Lee some questions about this wavy-line pattern on cross-examination?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't remember how many he asked him, but he questioned him about that, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And when he was questioned about it on cross-examination, did Dr. Lee indicate that he had performed tests on the parallel line pattern, but did not recall any tests being performed on the wavy lines?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Again, I'm not able to memorize all of that testimony. I saw parts of it. Parts on the east coast were cut out and a lot of it I don't recollect because it's been sometime. So I'm not going to get into the quote game. I'm sorry. I just can't remember that.

MR. SCHECK: You on direct examination indicated that this wiggly-line pattern was an imperfection in the sidewalk.

MR. BODZIAK: It's a shoeprint in concrete.

MR. SCHECK: Shoeprint in concrete.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And this was passed out to the jury and this was all pointed out to them, right, as a shoeprint in concrete?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And when you did that or when that was done, were you in any way trying to represent to the jury that Dr. Lee had maintained that this wavy-line pattern was an imprint made in blood?

MR. BODZIAK: Are you asking me my intent of explaining all of these or just this one specific?

MR. SCHECK: When you did that, were you aware that Dr. Lee had never represented to this jury that this wavy-line pattern was an imprint made in blood?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall him saying--anything that I saw, I don't recall him saying it was made in blood, no.

MR. SCHECK: And, in fact, to the best of your recollection, his testimony was directed just to the parallel line pattern as an imprint made in blood that could be consistent with a shoe just as he drew it in this picture?

MR. BODZIAK: You're--you're asking me about quotes about him talking about things conclusively made in blood. I don't remember that part of it. I remember the parallel lines as possibly being a shoeprint. I don't remember the blood portion.

MR. SCHECK: And the parallel lines possibly coming from a shoeprint that he drew, Dr. Lee said with respect to that exactly what you've said here today?

MR. BODZIAK: Which is, it's parallel lines that could have been made by a shoe.

MR. SCHECK: Right.

MR. BODZIAK: With the exception that I'm saying--

MR. SCHECK: No. No. Is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: He can finish the answer, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Well, if he's going to start saying about--

THE COURT: He can finish the answer. That's the way you asked the question.

MR. SCHECK: No.

THE COURT: Have you finished your answer?

MR. BODZIAK: No, sir.

THE COURT: Finish your answer.

MR. BODZIAK: Except that I also determined that that impression was not present on the June 13th photographs which were very detailed photographs.

MR. SCHECK: Right. All right. And Dr. Lee simply said that he observed this on June 25th?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And--

MR. SCHECK: Well, I think that's enough. It's 10:30.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our midmorning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We'll stand in recess for 15.

(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. All right. Deputy trowel, let's have the jurors, please.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Scheck, you may resume your cross-examination.

MR. SCHECK: And hopefully conclude, your Honor.

THE COURT: Amen.

MR. SCHECK: Now, agent Bodziak, there--the picture to the far right on 1337 and the blow-up which is marked 1337-A, do you recall this one?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Scheck, would you just give me the labeling on the 1337?

MR. SCHECK: It's called "Walkway 6-25-94," but it's the one on the lower right-hand corner, and 1337-B is the blow-up that's labeled with the circle "PLP SP" standing for shoeprint.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you recall Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to this particular imprint pattern?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you recall that he testified that in his opinion, this parallel line imprint pattern was a shoeprint?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Do you agree that this is a shoe print?

MR. BODZIAK: It's more than likely a shoeprint. I mean, it looks very much like a shoeprint, but it's again partial.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in your opinion then, it's more than likely a shoeprint?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Yes.

MR. SCHECK: So you would agree in that respect with Dr. Lee, that this is a parallel line imprint that's more than likely a shoeprint?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, is this one of the kinds of imprint patterns that you believe would get lighter over time as opposed to darker?

MR. BODZIAK: What is it composed of?

MR. SCHECK: Well, Dr. Lee testified that based on his tests and observations at the scene--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection.

THE COURT: What's the objection?

MS. CLARK: Tests, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: Well, if they're going to imply it's not--

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee testified based on the work he did at the crime scene and his observations that he believed that that parallel line imprint was made in blood. Are you aware of that?

MS. CLARK: Same objection, what he did.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if we assume that that is indeed made in blood, would you believe that that imprint pattern is the kind that would get lighter over time? And here I'm talking about a period of 13 days. Would it get lighter over 13 days or darker?

MR. BODZIAK: If this particular impression was an impression made on June 13th in blood, it would only get lighter.

MR. SCHECK: And--and do you have any--and it's your testimony that this would get lighter?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

MR. SCHECK: And you're saying that these--assuming that there was an imprint pattern made on June 12th in blood with this configuration--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --is it your testimony that the lines in blood would not break down in terms of the proteins and the bacterial degradation and those lines get darker?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the first part I would agree with. They would degrade as any blood would when exposed to the weathering and time, particularly over that time period. But based on my experience in casework as well as blood impressions which I prepare for classes, then maybe don't use for nine months later purposely to make them light for chemical enhancement in those classes, they always turn lighter without exception.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you just mentioned nine months.

MR. BODZIAK: They gradually get lighter with time, sir. It doesn't matter what the time frame is. As more time goes by, they will get lighter.

MR. SCHECK: And can you--now, we're talking now 13 days. You realize that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And can you tell us what scientific chemical serological properties is the basis for your opinion that an imprint that size made in blood would get lighter within 13 days as opposed to darker?

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Asked and answered. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: We've already asked this question. We've already asked this question.

MR. SCHECK: Well, this is on a different imprint of a different size.

THE COURT: But we asked the same question. We've already been through the lighter and darker.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So your answer would be the same that we went through before, that you're not a serologist.

MR. BODZIAK: May I answer that?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, my answer would be the same. It's from experience.

MR. SCHECK: All right. But you're not a serologist?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. SCHECK: You're aware of the fact that Dr. Lee is regarded as one of the foremost--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

MR. SCHECK: --serologists?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Again, I've stated my knowledge of his qualifications. I don't work with Dr. Lee and I don't have very extensive knowledge of exactly what his strong points are in terms of experience.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in--you indicated--I think first you said you hadn't read any of his books, and then you indicated--

THE COURT: Counsel, we went through this last week.

MR. SCHECK: Well, any of the books that you skimmed of Dr. Lee--

THE COURT: Counsel, move on.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you do not have a close-up direct picture of this tile from June 13th?

MR. BODZIAK: Not that part of it, no.

MR. SCHECK: And basically what you told this jury before is that you were looking at some overall shots, and looking at those overall shots, in your opinion, you could not see this imprint?

MR. BODZIAK: The large photographs which I have labeled starting with "E" on one and going through I think "L," "M" and "O," which were general scene shots, but you could see the tiles fairly well, I could not see that impression on the 10th row of tiles, which is where that's from.

MR. SCHECK: Now, these--

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Excuse me, counsel. When we say "That," we're talking about 1337-A; is that correct?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, these pictures that were labeled "H"--that you used on your direct examination, those blown-up pictures of the scene, do you recall those?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The ones you just showed me at break.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. I think that--

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris, which exhibit is this?

MR. HARRIS: 598.

MR. SCHECK: This is 598.

MR. SCHECK: And we were making reference before to the pictures labeled "A," "B," "C" and then we had some labeling problems, "J" and "K." Do you recall those?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, those pictures were created by you sometime in August?

MR. BODZIAK: These particular prints were created by me in August, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And that was in anticipation of Dr. Lee's testimony?

MR. BODZIAK: I was requested to print those, yes, for that reason.

MR. SCHECK: And you have never received contact sheets of the pictures taken from the crime scene from the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. SCHECK: And are you aware that the Defense has repeatedly asked for contact sheets in this case?

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: May I approach?

THE COURT: No. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: You were sent in August the negatives; were you not?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

MR. SCHECK: And you then from these negatives were able to prepare enlarged contact sheets?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And from those contact sheets, you could then select out photos and do enlargements?

MR. BODZIAK: No. From the original negatives, not from contact sheets.

MR. SCHECK: The contact sheets directed your attention to the picture.

MR. BODZIAK: Right.

MR. SCHECK: You were then able to select it and do enlargements.

MR. BODZIAK: It saves time rather than enlarge everything to that size, which would be very costly and time consuming.

MR. SCHECK: And would you not agree that these pictures that you created in August were of a better quality than the ones that had previously been provided to you by the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. BODZIAK: Which ones are you referring to?

MR. SCHECK: A, B, C, J, K.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: The--I had seen smaller pictures of those. I had--I had not requested larger pictures at that time because my examination was about the close-up photographs. But I did have an opportunity to look at the pictures they had available of those other frames.

MR. SCHECK: And you also prepared a picture from the original negative of the socks that were found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall enlarging a picture of the socks in his bedroom, no, sir.

MR. SCHECK: To your knowledge, during this period, did someone else do that?

MR. BODZIAK: They may have. I don't recall that.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you went out to the crime scene and you took recently and you took a series of black and white photographs of what you found to be imprints in the concrete of these tiles?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Some of which were footwear imprints?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to--

MR. SCHECK: We can take that one down for a moment. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: And with respect to 1337-B, the three parallel line imprints, and 1337-A, okay. Have these in mind?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: You are not telling the jury that any of those imprints in concrete that you took pictures of recently formed these parallel line imprints in 1337-A and 1337-B?

MR. BODZIAK: No. Not--just the wavy line and the one in your right hand, whichever that is.

MR. SCHECK: Just the wavy line.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So as far as 1337-A, those imprints labeled by Dr. Lee "PLP SP" and 337-B, the one labeled "PLP," those were not made from the indentations in the concrete.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And from the indentations in the concrete, you were asked--withdrawn. You were asked on direct examination whether or not those indentations you found and photographed in the concrete could have caused the imperfections and the unevenness in color of the various tiles that one sees in the overall pictures that you recently blew up.

MR. BODZIAK: That certainly could be a part of it, but by no means is it all of it.

MR. SCHECK: And did you not tell us that the dark splotchy areas that you saw in the overall pictures and various imperfections, that no one could exclude the possibility that there are other footwear impressions there from just looking at the overall shots?

MR. BODZIAK: Are we talking about on June 13th in blood?

MR. SCHECK: We're talking about the overall--do you recall that there was one point in Dr. Lee's testimony when he saw these new pictures that you created, that he testified that he saw impressions, dark impressions in the tiles that could be imprints?

MR. BODZIAK: I recall strongly one area which I believe at the end of his testimony on recross by Mr. Goldberg, that he just all of a sudden made a general statement pointing to those photographs which were just up here, those enlarged ones that I had made, that there were imprints everywhere. I think he might have even called them shoeprints. I don't recall the exact quote, but I know he certainly referred to them as imprints, and the implication were that the walkway--there was many things on the walkway and he made a very general statement about you could see things everywhere. So I--you'd have to get the exact quote out. I can't remember. But I was concerned about that statement.

MR. SCHECK: Well, if you're concerned about that statement, would it behoove you to be very specific about it do you think?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm being as specific as I can without being inside of Dr. Lee's mind.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in anywhere, did he say that when he looked down that walkway, that he could see a shoeprint?

MR. BODZIAK: There was an open inference. I don't know what he meant.

MR. SCHECK: I only asked did he say that.

MR. BODZIAK: And I'm answering you, I don't know what he meant. He said imprints or shoeprints. There were many of them on that walkway and he pointed to those photographs in answer to Mr. Goldberg.

MR. SCHECK: So you think that he said that one of the dark splotchy areas was a shoeprint?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't know what in his mind he was specifically pointing to. He referred to those general photographs.

MR. SCHECK: I'm only asking you about what he said.

MS. CLARK: Objection. It's argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in your testimony here, did you not state that in the overall shot, looking at the unevenness color and various stains and weathering of the concrete tile since the walkway was put there, that you can see various lighter or darker areas of imperfections and it's impossible to tell what they are?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I'll be happy to show those if you can put that chart back up.

MR. SCHECK: No. But is that what you said?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.

MR. SCHECK: And did you also say that in a very loose sense, if I were asked or anyone including Dr. Lee to look at this and you see these various dark splotchy areas and imperfections, that you cannot exclude the possibility that there are other footwear impressions of course, but you can't say that there are footwear impressions there either?

MR. BODZIAK: There--that's a whole lot different than what he stated in his testimony.

MR. SCHECK: That's what you think.

MR. BODZIAK: Can I exclude the possibility that--

MR. SCHECK: I'm only asking about what you said.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm trying to explain that.

MR. SCHECK: Is that what you said?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: No. The question is, is that what you said.

MR. BODZIAK: Would you read it back again?

MR. SCHECK: Sure. "So in a 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, do you see these various dark splotchy areas and various imperfections, can you exclude the possibility that there are other footwear impressions, of course, you couldn't. But these are from my inspection of the scene in these photographs, there's nothing that you can look at in my opinion that looks like a shoe impression other the ones I had previously testified to."

MR. BODZIAK: In a very loose sense, yes. That's exactly what I said.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, I understand it's your position that the parallel line imprints reflected on 1337 and identified by Dr. Lee in your opinion, based on your previous testimony, you don't believe could have been present on June 12th?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: However, based on the previous discussion we had this morning, you would agree that as far as you know, people from the Los Angeles Police Department did not use enhancement techniques on other areas of that walkway on June 12th?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered, speculation, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Am I aware if they used enhancement techniques? No.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, with respect, however, to the imprints on the envelope, the piece of paper and Mr. Goldman's jeans, would you agree based on the photographic evidence you've seen that those were present on June 12th and June 13th?

MR. BODZIAK: What was present? The parallel--

MR. SCHECK: The parallel line imprints on the envelope, the piece of paper and the imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans.

MR. BODZIAK: In contrast to the exhibit you just showed me on tile 10?

MR. SCHECK: I'm asking you a very simple question.

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah.

MR. SCHECK: And perhaps--

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, it's a compound question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. I'll take it one by one. Would you agree that the parallel line imprint impressions on the envelope from the photographic evidence you've seen were there on June 12th?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Would you agree that the parallel line imprint impressions on the piece of paper were there on June 12?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Would you agree that the imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans identified by Dr. Lee were there on June 12th?

MR. BODZIAK: 12th or 13th I believe is the correct date. Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, as part of the 95 percent of Dr. Lee's testimony that you recall hearing and seeing, do you recall what he said about the so-called accordion effect that made imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to--

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you recall Dr. Lee's testimony--

MR. SCHECK: Maybe we could put up a board, if I may, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Actually--I request that we actually--Mr. Harris, if we could pull that one out and place it in front of the podium, I think that might be--I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: This is 1339, your Honor, imprint evidence and Bundy imprint evidence on Goldman's blue jeans.

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to this board?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall him testifying with respect to certain imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans that he detected something that he characterized as an accordion effect?

MS. CLARK: Same objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, did you testify on direct examination with respect to how an imprint imprints on these jeans?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. SCHECK: And would it be important in your evaluation of imprint patterns on the jeans to consider all of Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to how various imprints were formed on the jeans?

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Goes to agent--

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you have no recollection of what Dr. Lee said with respect to an accordion effect?

MR. BODZIAK: Not specifically, no. Are you referring to the accordion of a fabric or a shoe? I don't recall--I don't believe what he said.

MR. SCHECK: Does it refresh your recollection that Dr. Lee pointed out certain imprint patterns on the jeans that he characterized as an accordion effect that occurs when the jeans are folded and bunched together?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant.

MR. SCHECK: Does that refresh your recollection?

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm familiar with that phenomena.

MR. SCHECK: You're familiar with that phenomena?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: But you don't recall Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to identifying various imprints on the jeans?

MR. BODZIAK: In general, I just can't remember his exact quote.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, we've discussed before and without going into specifics of it, it's your understanding that--withdrawn. Would you agree that the pictures taken of the blue jeans here are when the blue jeans are flat and they are two-dimensional representations?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And would you agree that nobody except perhaps a very peculiar thin individual would, when wearing jeans, have those jeans flat?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: That it's a very important factor in considering how imprints were made on these jeans to recognize that there had to be a leg inside the jeans that would affect imprints made upon it?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And as I recall your direct testimony, you recognized the significance of this when you were talking about your arm and slapping your arm to indicate how imprints might be made on your arm?

MR. BODZIAK: I believe I had a heel over my arm and I was showing how hard it would be because of the cloth conforming to the shoe so readily with hardly any pressure to make an imprint of just the interior of the heel over and over with no perimeter of the shoe showing.

MR. SCHECK: So you would agree that the fact that the jeans are on the leg and the receiving surface is three-dimensional would have an effect on how imprints are made on the jeans by another object that comes into contact with it?

MR. BODZIAK: Can have a minor bearing on it, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Minor?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Minor.

MR. SCHECK: Well, if the jeans are folded and bunched and there is contact from a flat surface with ridges and that surface has blood on it, could that not affect folds in the bunches, the kind of imprint one sees on the jeans?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Improper hypothetical, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I can only speak with regard to the shoes and shoes, if the material is bunched like you're suggesting and the shoe comes down on top of it and compresses on it with pressure leaving a shoeprint on it in blood when it's bunched, then when it's flattened out, it will separate and those lines--there will be evidence of that, evidence that you can recognize as a person that's experienced that, made test impressions that way and recognizes what you're looking at.

MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall Dr. Lee testifying with respect to how these imprints were made on the jeans, that he considered the fact that it was three-dimensional and the jeans would be folded and bunched was a significant factor in evaluating these imprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. But I don't understand how he could have known exactly what the scenario was since he wasn't there. You could have that scenario and many others and you have many areas on the jeans and I would--they would not be the same.

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall him testifying to any particular scenario as opposed to simply testifying that when a leg is inside the jeans and the jeans become folded and bunched, that's going to affect the way imprints look?

MR. BODZIAK: Which type of imprint? Again, are we talking of shoeprints or--or fabric imprints?

MR. SCHECK: Well, Dr. Lee testified about imprints made in blood whether from shoes or other objects, didn't he?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there's a distinction between them though. That's the whole point, is that shoeprints are not like fabric impressions and the dynamics of what you're hypothesizing here is different for shoes as it is for fabric because one's a soft material and the other is a very rigid material.

MR. SCHECK: Well, let me ask you this. As I understand the way you have been testifying, you're telling us that you're not an expert in the way imprints are made by fabrics.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: You're only an expert you say on the way imprints are made by shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in your last answer, you were just telling us about what imprints one could expect from fabrics as opposed to what imprints could be expected from shoes.

MR. BODZIAK: I have made fabric impressions and it's mostly common sense.

MR. SCHECK: So in other words, you're saying that you don't need any particular expertise about how imprints are made by fabrics; you can do it from common sense?

MR. BODZIAK: What I'm saying is, you don't need any particular expertise to know that the scenario you're giving is one of many, many, many that could have occurred and that you would see evidence of that and that they would not--you have impressions on many different areas of the jeans which were made at different points. You're suggestions they were all made exactly alike with this compressed fabric. It simply doesn't happen that way, Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Did I say that all of them were made exactly alike with some compressed fabric now? Did I say that?

MR. BODZIAK: That was the inference I understood, yeah.

MR. SCHECK: I understand that's the inference. I'm only asking you, is that what I said?

MR. BODZIAK: Not specifically, no.

MR. SCHECK: And isn't it important, agent Bodziak, to carefully review what another expert says if you are going to come into court and criticize exactly what that expert says?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Do you think it would help to read a transcript--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Counsel?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you have stated--and I would ask you to come down and look with respect to imprint no. 2 over here.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall on direct examination that your attention was directed to the area of the parallel line imprint on imprint no. 2 on board 1339?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And this is in fact I think where you had--had a discussion about your arm.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And your direction was drawn to what I'm indicating here within the larger red line, a curved imprint (Indicating)?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you have indicated that you believe that that is consistent in your opinion with an elbow from fabric as opposed to a heel from a shoe.

MR. BODZIAK: That's not what I said, Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: The--I had a discussion with Mr. Deedrick where he suggested could that possibly be an elbow, and that was something for him to pursue, not for me to base on my experience.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So you're not going to venture an opinion about whether it could come from an elbow?

MR. BODZIAK: No. My opinion is that it's not a shoe impression.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And you don't want to say anything about a elbow because you don't feel qualified to state that?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, did you not say that looking within these impressions--and I'm now directing your attention to imprint no. 2--the lines that are parallel do not always run parallel to one another?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And could you tell us which ones in particular you're pointing to?

MR. BODZIAK: Sure. May I get the pointer?

(Brief pause.)

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Well, there's many lines in this--in this area and there's two right here (Indicating), which are a little bit offset of what appears might be a continuation, but they're actually two that go in this direction and then the two that are--well, these two on this side are about like that and these are just slightly turned. These down here are angled up a little bit or in contrast to those. Maybe I can get the other pointer. If I put this over one of these lines and this one over this line, you can see that they're not perfectly parallel (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Just hold it right there for a second if you may. Okay. Just so we're very clear on what you're saying--

MR. BODZIAK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: --is that you're referring to within that heel impression, you see two parallel lines?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't see a heel impression.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. SCHECK: Withdrawn. Let me state it differently. Within this curved impression that you would agree is about three inches?

MR. BODZIAK: There's no scale on this photograph.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you did a blow up.

MR. BODZIAK: Would be approximately.

MR. SCHECK: Approximately three inches. In the top pointer, you're indicating that there are two parallel lines that are in the direction you've indicated here; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And now you're pointing to three other parallel lines below and to the right at the bottom of the picture, correct (Indicating)?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there's more than three. It's hard to count because they're--but you can see--again, we're running with the fabric.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: And you're getting blood on a garment that's kind of on its own just gathering up within that weave. This is right along the parallel lines of the fabric, and so a lot of these lines, you can't look at them and tell whether they just happened to soak that way or whether they were actually from a contact of something. But there's more than three down here if you're going to count everything that looks like a parallel line (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Okay. There's a series below to the right and then there's the two that you've indicated that are directly touching the curved line?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there's two here which appear to be different from two more. This I wouldn't count as really anything because it's all run together, and then there's several down here which, again, they kind of deteriorate into just being blood which is in the weave of the fabric (Indicating). So it's very unreliable to say what all of these are.

MR. SCHECK: Well, when you on direct examination said looking within these impressions, the lines that are parallel do not always run parallel to one another, you were referring to the two sets of lines you've just indicated?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I was referring to the most obvious, the ones up here, the two and two and the ones down here (Indicating). You've got some that go outside of this perimeter as well.

MR. SCHECK: I'm only asking to the ones you referred to on direct examination.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And the part of the testimony I just quoted, those are the ones you just indicated to the jury?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I don't think I pointed every one out, but all of these lines have inconsistencies in the angulation.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And it's your testimony that the bunching or folding of the jeans could not have created the difference in the way those lines are pointed?

MR. BODZIAK: I can answer that question, but, again, I want to premise it with, I'm not a fabric examiner. But I--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: It would be more than likely that the inconsistencies of the direction of these lines would be of the inconsistency of Ron Goldman's shirt than it would be of jeans which would be more like taut over the leg of him, be tighter.

MR. SCHECK: Now, these--so the answer to my question is no, it couldn't be from the folding of the jeans. That's what you're saying?

MR. BODZIAK: I wouldn't begin to tell you exactly what happened at this crime scene. That's part of the whole point, is that you can look at physical evidence and sometimes you can determine things and sometimes you're limited. And I don't think that you can say every one of these lines that runs along the weave of the jeans is a parallel line caused in an imprint fashion with the ones that you can see are not from a shoe.

MR. SCHECK: Have you not seen parallel line imprints on the jeans that are against the grain of the fabric?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony that he believed that the parallel line imprints that ran with some of them and some of them that ran against the grain were made by a flat thin surface coming into contact with the jeans? Do you recall him saying that?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall him saying precisely that.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you're saying that you don't have expertise in the area of fabric impressions?

MR. BODZIAK: In terms of comparison, yes.

MR. SCHECK: But you do concede I take it that there are a series of parallel line imprints on the jeans, some of them running with the grain and some of them running against the grain?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there are.

MR. SCHECK: And if the hypothesis that you just put forward, that these imprints were caused by Mr. Goldman's shirt coming into contact with the jeans, would you not agree that that would require his arm or the shirt coming into contact in a series of imprints with the jeans to cause those lines?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there's a series of--

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is beyond the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Do you believe--agent Bodziak, you said I believe that you do not regard yourself as an expert in bloodstain interpretation?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: That's true.

MR. SCHECK: And the bloodstain interpretation at crime scenes would include an evaluation of imprints on garments or fabrics such as blue jeans?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: My interpretation of bloodstain analysis is blood pattern or blood spatter, that it would be limited to the passing of the blood through the air and landing on a surface and the physics of what happened to that blood. In other words, you would look at a drop of blood, and if it was totally circular, you could determine it was approximately 90 degrees to the surface, and if it was at an angle, the elliptical nature of it would enable you to measure really science of physics or the approximate angle in that you could use this in part to reconstruct, but more importantly to corroborate or discorroborate statements that might be made by witnesses. As far as when it gets into shoe impressions or fabric impressions of blood, I don't believe that's within the area of blood spatter analysis.

MR. SCHECK: Well, do you think that it's within the scope of bloodstain interpretation at crime scenes that analysts will investigate how various different kinds of imprints are made by objects on different receiving surfaces?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, would you call the clerk over at San Bernardino for Miss Moxham, tell them she cannot report to jury duty. In a week maybe. You may find this amusing, Miss Clark, but I also got mine today too.

MS. CLARK: What did you do?

THE COURT: I told them next week. Something I wouldn't wish on anybody. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: I think we've concluded this area. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: My last series of questions, agent Bodziak, have to do with the extent you're familiar with Dr. Lee's testimony and whether you feel--what parts you feel qualified to comment on and which time, okay?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Did you hear Dr. Lee's testimony about the multiple contacts of bloodstains on the fence and closed-in area that were indicative of a struggle?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Some of it.

MR. SCHECK: Do you feel qualified to comment on any of that?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I don't.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope.

MR. SCHECK: Just finishing up, trying to get through this.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you heard Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to Ron Goldman's shoes. It was a board that contained Ron Goldman's shoes, keys, a pager, buttons missing, a beeper and disturbance of soil, all that were directed towards his testimony concerning struggle. Do you recall that?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: Any of that testimony that you feel that you are qualified to comment on?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. If you want to narrow it down to footprint.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm trying to see what he--

MR. SCHECK: Did you examine Ron Goldman's shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. SCHECK: Did you see a cut on the toe of one of Ron Goldman's shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: I examined the shoes for the sole pattern and the foxing strip around the side of it, not anything else. So I didn't see any other features on the shoes.

MR. SCHECK: So in other words, you're telling us you did not see that area that Dr. Lee identified as a fresh cut that would have come from a sharp instrument when the shoe was in the air?

MR. BODZIAK: I--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Did you see Dr. Lee's testimony with regard to the cut which he characterized as fresh from a sharp instrument?

MR. BODZIAK: On the shoe?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. But that's not what I examined.

MR. SCHECK: And you never saw that on the shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: I never examined the shoe--that part of the shoe for that type of evidence.

MR. SCHECK: To your knowledge, did anyone?

MR. BODZIAK: I would have no idea of who examined the shoe beside myself and for what reasons.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in this part of Dr. Lee's testimony, there was reference to soil being disturbed in the closed-in area. Do you recall that?

MR. BODZIAK: Again, my interest in his testimony was concentrated on the shoes. I saw a little bit of the others. I don't remember that discussion.

MR. SCHECK: Well, would not impressions made in soil be relevant in terms of your expertise with respect to footwear?

MR. BODZIAK: If he stated shoe impressions, that's a lot different than disturbance of soil.

MR. SCHECK: Well, do you know what he said?

MR. BODZIAK: To my knowledge, he did not testify to anything about shoe impressions in soil.

MR. SCHECK: Can shoe impressions be taken from soil?

MR. BODZIAK: You mean can they be made in soil?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: If the soil conditions are right, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony about the envelope in different positions?

MR. BODZIAK: I think that's what we discussed the other day, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. You saw that?

MR. BODZIAK: Part of it, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did you see his testimony about the--with respect to the envelope again about the missing lens from the glass and blood material on the eyeglass frame?

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is beyond the scope, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Did you see Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to bloodstains found in the foyer of the Rockingham home and his examination of the carpet?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Did you see Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to what transfers on the sock--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, is socks an area of your expertise?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to what examination?

MR. SCHECK: Blood.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained. This goes way beyond the scope, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Well, are you confident that you actually saw 95 percent of Dr. Lee's testimony?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to the--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to the shoe impression evidence, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Oh. So if I understand your testimony now, what you're saying is that you saw 95 percent of Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to shoe impressions, but not necessarily with respect to all of what he testified to?

MR. BODZIAK: On the east coast, the coverage of his testimony was limited to part of his testimony. There was time when they cut it off, and all during the testimony, they would go to breaks and commercials about every 10 minutes, which would mean any time there would be a segment of that, I wouldn't see it, I had no way of seeing it. So that's why I sometimes remember things and sometimes don't, and I have no control over that.

MR. SCHECK: I hate to make this my last question. Do you have Court TV?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. SCHECK: No further questions.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Very briefly. Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Sir, you indicated at one point that when you look at a shoeprint, you don't consider anything else. Can you explain that answer? I believe it was an answer you gave to Mr. Scheck on cross-examination when we broke on Friday.

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I think that was with regard to the envelope in specific. But in general, when we're looking at a shoe impressions, very often there is other excessive blood that interferes or obscures that or there may be other things which interfere with that impression. If it's in soil, it may be leaves that are fallen in or sticks or rocks that were in the bottom that prevent reproduction of that shoe detail at that point. And, of course, no one can examine things that are obscured or interfered with. So the examination would be limited to the part, in the case of the envelope, that was the parallel line pattern, and any other interferences or secondary or primary blood spatter or stain or absorption on the envelope would be irrelevant. I would only examine what I could--the part of the pattern that I could see.

MS. CLARK: All right. So you base your opinion on what you can see, not what you can't see?

MR. BODZIAK: Of course.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated you did not look in your database, in your computer database for the parallel line imprints that were found on the jeans, the envelope, the paper, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. BODZIAK: The parallel imprint in my opinion is not a shoe impression.

MS. CLARK: And if it's not a shoe impression, then will it be found in the database?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there are a lot of shoes with parallel line imprints and I'm sure some of them would become very close to spacing on those jeans. But it's the manner in which the imprint is made on the jean and the absence of characteristics that I, based on my experience, would respect to see in that many impressions. And because I don't believe it's a shoeprint, I wouldn't search for something that I didn't believe existed.

MS. CLARK: And did Mr. Scheck show you imprints made by a shoe that did have parallel lines this morning?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, he did.

MS. CLARK: And did he ask you for your opinion concerning whether or not those parallel lines bore any resemblance to the ones on the jeans, the paper and the envelope?

MR. BODZIAK: It was limited to the ones on the envelope.

MS. CLARK: He asked you for your opinion, sir?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: And what opinion did you give him?

MR. BODZIAK: I told him they were totally different. Upon looking at that, it's impressive because they're are very, very fine parallel lines on the shoeprint he showed me. When comparing it side by side, those on the envelope, they're still twice as big, which shows that it would be very--well, in my opinion, impossible to manufacture a mold that would implant that minute a design on a shoe.

MS. CLARK: So the shoe impression with parallel lines that he showed you you indicated to him were not at all similar to the parallel lines on the envelope in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: Only in a sense that they both ran parallel. But the size of the one that Mr. Scheck showed me was twice as big, twice as wide as the ones on the envelope.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you had that conversation with him this morning before you took the witness stand, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. He asked me to look at it and I obliged him.

MS. CLARK: Now, the Identicator kit uses large-size pieces of paper; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: And the Xerox pieces of paper that you were shown by Mr. Scheck today of the test impressions taken by the jeans were 8-1/2 by 11?

MR. BODZIAK: I saw them on the screen here and briefly when he showed them, and they weren't as large as the Identicator pieces, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, are you aware, sir, that Agent Deedrick made his own test impressions of the jeans with the Identicator?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Because I furnished it to him.

MS. CLARK: And do you know how he made his test impressions of the jeans?

MR. BODZIAK: I wasn't present when he did that.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you know whether LAPD took impressions of the jeans in many different ways?

MR. BODZIAK: Again, I wasn't involved in that aspect of it. If he has any--if Agent Deedrick had any information about that, I'm not aware of it.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I move to strike that question. It's without foundation.

THE COURT: He said he didn't know about it.

MR. SCHECK: Well, but I object to the question being asked.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: There's no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any information about the methods used by Agent Deedrick to make his test impressions of the jeans?

MR. BODZIAK: Do I have knowledge of how he did it?

MS. CLARK: Correct.

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MS. CLARK: Sir, would he be the appropriate person to ask about the way the test impressions of the fabric of these jeans were made?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. It's his opinion of another person's expertise.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to the fabric impressions, Agent Deedrick would be the one that's qualified to know how impressions, known impressions should be taken and what is adequate or not adequate within the context of that examination.

MS. CLARK: So he would be the one to pose the questions to about whether the ribbing would have been spread out by rolling the impression or not, for example?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, he would.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, was he ever asked such questions by Mr. Scheck?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Sir, if the impressions--test impressions of the jeans were made by merely pressing the paper on the jeans with your hand, would that make the space between the ribbing seem larger?

MR. BODZIAK: Again, I have not made all of these different types of fabric impressions because it's not my area with the Identicator; only sock impressions that I use for a footwear-related type exam. So I wouldn't be able to answer that question. I haven't done a study or had experience in those different ways to know if there's a variation.

MS. CLARK: Agent Deedrick might know that though?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, he would.

MS. CLARK: Based on what experience you do have, sir, do you have any reason to believe that the rolling of impressions of a paper on top of the jeans would cause the ribbing to spread and appear more widely spaced?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. I sustained his objection to the same question.

MR. SCHECK: If she wants to open it up, I'll go into it.

THE COURT: No. We're not opening that up. We're going to finish.

MS. CLARK: Sir, do you have experience with cases where bloody shoeprints faded on just the day after they were made?

MR. BODZIAK: Uh, you know, with--it's hard to answer that. I would say no because--I mean, I've seen impressions the day after they were made, but I don't go around comparing with a densitometer or something the exact fading of shoe impressions. I know they fade because I see that in my daily work, but I don't try to measure the amount of fade per day. So I wouldn't be able to tell that.

MS. CLARK: Well, have you seen impressions made in blood with shoes the day after they were made?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Have you seen impressions made in blood with shoes a week after they were made?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Two weeks?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Three weeks?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So your experience and your opinion rendered in this case about the fading of bloody shoeprints is that based on cases in which you've seen impressions the day after as well as years after?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, you were asked a series of questions by counsel concerning the conditions under which Dr. Lee did his examination of the Bundy crime scene. Do you recall that, sir?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you know whether it's true that Dr. Lee had a time limit when he made his investigation at the Bundy crime scene?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Lack of knowledge based on the doctor's testimony.

THE COURT: Do you have any idea?

MR. BODZIAK: No, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any idea whether the Defense asked to allow him in the Bundy crime scene to complete his investigation?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Sir, you indicated--you were asked a question--read a portion of your book about doing careful investigation in order to make sure that all shoeprints are properly detected. Do you recall that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: What is your opinion of a shoeprint investigation done by LAPD in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to the photography, they did an excellent job. It's almost hard to recall many other cases over the year where both color and black and white photographs with that type of clarity were taken and with that many exposures taken.

The only thing that they might have done in addition would be to have sprayed a chemical enhancement on those impressions. They may have darkened up some of the lighter ones slightly. The surface was very light to begin with. You don't get the amount of contrast change when it's already a light surface because you have dark blood or blood color on a light surface. It might have helped a little. And if in this case, we had a pair of shoes from the suspect where we were looking for minute detail from cuts or scratches or wear, then it might have been critical to enhance those impressions. But in this case, we didn't. We were only looking for shoe size and manufacturer, and the darker impressions were more than adequate and any lighter impressions would not have made any difference.

MS. CLARK: As a matter of common sense, sir, if you have a series of shoeprints in blood, would they tend to get lighter as they go on in location, as they get farther and farther?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. One of the things we do for preparation in classes is to, as bad as it sounds, it has to be done, is to step in blood and take steps down a tile flooring. And with each, we number them. And with each step, the track, of course, becomes lighter and lighter. Normally, the imprint starts breaking up around between six and eight steps, and usually after it gets to about 10 to 12, it's all but disappeared. And that would vary with the surface, the weight of the person and the amount of the blood, but they disappear, become lighter with each step as they go along.

MS. CLARK: Now, you said it varies with the surface. For example, on concrete--that's a hard surface obviously, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Has it ever happened in your experience, sir, that shoeprints will fade out to the point where they're not detectable on concrete, but then appear on a softer surface that might mold into the shoe itself?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Could you be more specific?

MS. CLARK: Yes. In this case, sir, with respect to these fading shoeprints, did you make an observation as to whether the shoeprints faded out at some point along the Bundy walk?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they did.

MS. CLARK: And approximately how far along the Bundy walk had they gotten by the time they faded out?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, when they got up to what I had labeled "L," "M" and "O," they were starting to just become pretty much non-existent. There were a couple thereafter, particularly if we went--and that could vary just with the weight. You could go a step and step lighter and not leave anything, and then the next step, if you really came down heavy, you might have a little evidence of it, and there were a couple beyond that. But pretty much around L, M and O, they started to lose their--you know, their appearance.

MS. CLARK: And was that about halfway down the walk, sir?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it was.

MS. CLARK: And then did you see a piece of carpet on the driver's side of the Bronco--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: --in which there was--in that situation, sir, where concrete no longer picks up the details of a bloody shoeprint, might you still find some transfer of blood from that shoe on a softer surface?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Does the nonenhancement of any of the shoeprints in this case have any effect on the reliability of your opinion that only one pair of shoes, the Bruno Magli size 12, was found on the walkway on June the 13th?

MR. BODZIAK: No, it does not.

MS. CLARK: Why not, sir?

MR. BODZIAK: If there were any other shoes that were at the scene, they would have left dark impressions which became, you know, lighter and lighter as they also left the scene.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, you were directed to testimony by Dr. Lee concerning the lines, parallel lines that you testified were actually not imprints, but trowel marks. Do you recall that, sir?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, ma'am.

MS. CLARK: We're putting up People's--I think it's 598.

THE COURT: All right. This is the heavy one?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Let Mr. Woodin handle that.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: I believe the photograph you were directed to by Mr. Scheck is on the Defense board 1337. Now, Mr. Scheck read you testimony of Dr. Lee from August 23rd, Wednesday. I'm going to read you the testimony from August 22nd.

THE COURT: Do you have a page number on that?

MS. CLARK: My real time says 246 on it.

THE COURT: Why don't you just show it to Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: I have the actual pages.

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

MS. CLARK: It's quicker if I just use this, your Honor. I would like to wrap it up.

MR. SCHECK: I need to know if this is testimony from a week ago.

MS. CLARK: This is our real time.

MR. SCHECK: We have transcripts of this.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark, we're within a couple minutes. But it ought to be the actual transcript since--so that the reference to the record can be made.

MS. CLARK: Right. We don't have these. So--

MS. CLARK: Now, you were shown 337-B, correct, by Mr. Scheck? Do you recall this one?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

MS. CLARK: And with respect to this imprint, sir, there was an aspect of the imprint shown--of the lines shown to you here that you determined was made in concrete?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And could you point that out to the jury, please?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is the wavy lines up between the ruler and the obvious heel mark (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: And do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony, sir, discussing that particular set of lines as an imprint?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: In your opinion, sir, is it misleading to discuss something as an imprint that is made in concrete?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, if I could explain.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: The only thing misleading is--as I perceive the discussion, in some context, Dr. Lee--this is over his testimony, was pointing to things that--

MR. SCHECK: I move to strike, generally is not responsive. Should be directed towards a specific testimony.

THE COURT: Ask a specific question.

MS. CLARK: Let me ask you this, sir. Do you recall that on one day of his testimony, August 22nd, on Tuesday, Dr. Lee referred to the photograph taken and shown on the far left as you fa