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 face the photograph entitled "Walkway 6-12," referred to lines in that tile as possible imprint?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And do you recall that he did not correct or qualify that conclusion until he returned to court the next day, August 23rd?

MR. BODZIAK: I believe it was the next day, yes.

MS. CLARK: And in your opinion, sir--and then at that point, he qualified it as being possibly the result of a trowel mark in the tile, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: But until that next day, he left the jury with the impression that that might be an imprint?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: And your opinion is, sir, with respect to the lines on that tile, is it a possible trowel mark or possible imprint?

MR. BODZIAK: No. It's positively a trowel mark.

MS. CLARK: And you have no doubt about that?

MR. BODZIAK: There's no doubt about it. I felt it with my bare hands and photographed it.

MS. CLARK: Sir, with respect to the parallel lines on the jeans and on the paper and envelope and on the walkway, are the parallel lines in those three areas--and I group the envelope and the paper together, then the jeans and then the walkway.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Are the parallel lines in those three areas similar to each other?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MS. CLARK: Why not?

MR. BODZIAK: In differences of spacing and breath of the lines and other features, of course, the biggest obvious difference is on the walkway. It's probably a shoeprint. On the--on the jeans and on the envelope and the paper, in my opinion, it's not even a shoeprint. So that's the biggest difference. But if you were just to compare the features of the parallel lines, they are also different.

MS. CLARK: And is it important in your opinion to point that out to the jury, that there's a different mechanism for the imprint that was made on those three areas?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. BODZIAK: So they have a full and clear understanding of what caused those items or what features in those items were significant.

MS. CLARK: Now, you agreed with Mr. Scheck that you did not say 1337-A and B, the lines that are outlined--that are circled by Dr. Lee were in concrete?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: They were not in concrete?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MS. CLARK: And your testimony with respect to those impressions as to whether or not they were there on June the 13th at all was?

MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion--well, with regard to the parallel lines in the corner of the tile that we have very good photographs of, in my opinion, they absolutely were not there. With regard to the other shoe impression, my opinion is also, they were not there before for several reasons, not for just one like a photograph.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated in response to Mr. Scheck's question that in a very loose sense, you can look at it, if you were asked to say that various imperfections in tile could not be excluded as other footwear impressions. Do you recall that answer, sir, in the loose sense.

MR. SCHECK: Well, misstates. That was his testimony.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Sustained. I'm sorry. Overruled. Last question.

MS. CLARK: It is.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall that, your answer--

MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry. I thought it was sustained. Would you restate it, please?

MS. CLARK: You gave an answer in a very loose sense you could look at it, and I believe you were referring to the walkway, if you were asked or anyone, including Dr. Lee to look at this and say there are various other imperfections in the tile that could not be excluded as possible footwear impressions, and you indicated, of course, you couldn't. Could you explain to us what you meant by "In the very loose sense"?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. In looking at the overall photographs--

MS. CLARK: And referring you back to People's 598.

MR. BODZIAK: In looking at the overall photographs of the walkway as well as the various respective tiles that we have of the close-ups and looking at all of the evidence with regard to footwear impression evidence, you can see, particularly on the overalls, many discolorations and different shadowing and marks. You can just take every tile and see something that's ununiformed about it. But none of them in my opinion have any shape or caused by shoeprints other than the bloody Bruno Magli prints to which I've testified and which are much clearer to see. So the fact that the tile has numerous trowel markings and miscolorations on it, that's basically what I see. I don't see any evidence from these photographs of other shoe impressions.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. And I have nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our recess for the noon hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 1:00 o'clock. And let me see Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran just for a moment. All right. Mr. Bodziak, you may step down.

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

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

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 1:05 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Trower, let's have the jury. I'm sorry. Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Very quickly. Mr. Yochelson informed me that shortly before the noon hour, he came down. I'm not sure it was in direct communication with the court, but the response I got was, we had requested to allow Mr. Martz the opportunity to review the transcript of the interview with Dr. Whitehurst in order that we may ascertain his views of the allegations that are made. The allegations just for the most part do not directly pertain to anything Mr. Martz did in the Simpson case, they deal with other allegations, and that not to allow Mr. Martz the opportunity to review what these allegations are and to give us his perspective on these allegations obviously is in our judgment quite unfair for we have no idea how much of a mini trial there would have to be regarding the allegations. Separate and apart from that is, the court is probably--

THE COURT: The bottom line is, you are asking for an opportunity to make an additional copy of the transcript?

MR. KELBERG: And submit it directly to Mr. Martz for him to be able to comment upon it to me.

MR. BLASIER: Well, we object. We intend to use that for impeachment and there are specific things about this case. That's just not accurate. There was a lot of discussion about this case and memos about this case. So we will be cross-examining or asking further questions of Agent Martz about his truthfulness in this case.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I don't think that's an accurate characterization. But whether or not I'm correct on the percentages or Mr. Blasier is, this is the equivalent in essence of an expert's report, Dr. Whitehurst's report, and--

THE COURT: Matter submitted?

MR. KELBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Granted.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Restricted to one copy.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

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

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the People are filing a motion for request for judicial notice that we're going to ask the court to give before we conclude today, and so at the conclusion of Mr. Bodziak's testimony--

THE COURT: I haven't given waxing and waning yet either.

MS. CLARK: I know. So we have some more to add to that. I'm filing that with the court now. Defense will get a copy before we conclude today. We need to be heard on that so that we can wrap it up.

THE COURT: What's the nature of your request for judicial notice?

MS. CLARK: There will be a request to have the court take judicial notice--this is pursuant to Henry Lee's testimony, your Honor--that the Defense never sought a court order for inspection of the socks between November 22nd on the date they were returned from DOJ and February 16th, the date that they actually did inspect them, they never sought a court order for inspection of the Bronco or complained about their access to the Bronco or never sought a court order for impressions of the crime scene or complained--

THE COURT: I got the flavor.

(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, Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please.

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

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

MR. BODZIAK: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, have you concluded your redirect examination? Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Good afternoon. Just a few questions, agent Bodziak. Miss Clark asked you on redirect examination about--she asked you can anyone examine what's obscured. Do you recall that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And she asked you if you based your opinion about the parallel line imprints on what you could see and not on what you couldn't see.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And you said yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, was not part of your opinion concerning the parallel line imprint evidence on the envelope and the piece of paper based on the fact that you did not see a border?

MR. BODZIAK: That's one part of it, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Well, that's something that you did not see, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: The fact that I did not see it is the whole point, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you said just a second ago you based your opinion based on what you could see, not on what you can't see, didn't you?

MR. BODZIAK: Absence of characteristics is the significance here.

MR. SCHECK: Now, would you not agree that there are bloodstain impressions over the parallel line imprint on the piece of paper?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there are.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Scheck, you're making reference to a particular exhibit that's before the jury?

MR. SCHECK: 1338.

THE COURT: Right. Making reference to the upper left-hand photograph.

MR. SCHECK: And there are also bloodstain impressions over the area of the parallel imprint on the envelope?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I'm well aware of that.

MR. SCHECK: And with respect to--now, you gave testimony or redirect testimony that you based your conclusion that the imprints on the jeans did not come from shoes based on the manner in which the imprints appeared on the shoes.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm not sure--

MR. SCHECK: On the jeans. I'm sorry.

MR. BODZIAK: No. It's based on several things.

MR. SCHECK: You don't recall that question on redirect?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't recall the exact quote. My answer is, it is based on many things. If you ask me was it in part based on that, I would have said yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, you indicated on redirect examination that the use of the Identicator kit to make test impressions and to draw conclusions about imprints on the jeans from fabric was Agent Deedrick's area?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to the fabric impressions, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you would rely on his expertise in conducting that examination?

MR. BODZIAK: He would do it independently. I wouldn't rely on it. I mean, he doesn't come back to me and report to me and that is the basis for my opinion. He does that independently and reports that independently.

MR. SCHECK: But I think that Miss Clark's question to you on redirect examination, that's not your area, that's his area?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And are you aware that Agent Deedrick testified that as far as he could remember, he had never done such an analysis before of bloody imprints on fabrics?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: Are you aware of what Agent Deedrick said about the amount of experience he had in terms of doing analysis of bloody instruments in imprint fabric on fabric?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I did hear that part of his testimony, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, on redirect examination, you complemented the Los Angeles Police Department saying that they had done an excellent job photographing imprints at the crime scene.

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Because they made both color and black and white.

MR. BODZIAK: And the manner in which they took them and the quality of the subsequent photographs that they developed.

MR. SCHECK: But, agent Bodziak, in your book, you emphasized 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 fact and what area of the crime scene might contain impression evidence, then footwear impressions should be looked for and aggressively and carefully, what is not looked for will not be found. Do you agree with that?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Do you agree with that?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

MR. SCHECK: Now, based on--have you reviewed the testimony of Dennis Fung, Andrea Mazzola, Detective Lange as to how the Bundy crime scene was processed?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I have some knowledge of that, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Do you feel that you're in a position to say that they did an excellent job in giving thought before they began the crime scene search to what could have occurred and how footprint impression evidence could contribute to the proof of fact and aggressively searching out footwear impressions?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. They knew what the crime was. It was quite obvious. They could see bloody shoeprints leading from an area which was totally, almost totally covered in blood. They, as far as I remember from their testimonies, looked for other evidence of shoe marks and they did their best to preserve it and they ordered that it be photographed and recorded it, which it was. As to anything else that went through their minds that they didn't state, I wouldn't be able to testify to that. But from what I've heard, that's exactly what they did. They made a point of looking for footwear impressions. There were those that were obvious, and they also looked all the way down the walkway, documented them all the way to the end in the back of the residence and photographed everything that they could see.

MR. SCHECK: Agent Bodziak, in terms of--you didn't read their transcript, right?

MR. BODZIAK: I haven't read anybody's transcripts.

MR. SCHECK: And what percentage of the testimony of Fung or Mazzola or Detective Lange with respect to how they sought out and examined footwear impressions do you think you heard?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: How much--what percentage of their testimony do you think you heard?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: How much of their testimony did you hear?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Let's not get into this.

MR. SCHECK: Do you feel comfortable based on your knowledge of what occurred at this crime scene that you can tell this jury that they did an excellent job in aggressively seeking out latent and/or nearly invisible footwear impressions at the Bundy crime scene? Do you feel comfortable with that?

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

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Nearly invisible.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Of course, Mr. Scheck, if there were any invisible imprints at the scene, certainly they could have missed them. The point is, they would not be invisible if they were in blood. You wouldn't have footwear impression--for instance, the one with parallel lines on tile 10 that was in blood 10 tiles down, there would be no other parallel line footwear impression before it. It's impossible unless the person that committed the crime can fly and there is no way for them to have walked through that blood and not leave other impressions, and with the tiles that they photographed with the general scene photographs, there's no evidence of any other footwear impressions.

MR. SCHECK: Agent Bodziak, you say "Walked through the blood," right?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: You are referring to the pool of blood that was on the walkway that appeared to have come from Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: In fact, when you were asked questions on redirect examination about whether or not there could be other imprints from shoes, you said no because they would have left dark impressions. Do you recall that on redirect?

MR. BODZIAK: Would have left darker blood impressions, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Darker blood impressions, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that again is based on the assumption that somebody would have to have walked through the crime scene, stepping through the pool of blood on the walkway that was left by Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And that is based further on the assumption, sir, that somebody who was involved or person or persons involved in this crime would necessarily have had to have walked through that pool of blood?

MR. BODZIAK: If they were at the scene of the murder, since I have been to the scene and I believe everyone else has, it's so small, so confined in line with the fact that people do not consciously think of what they're walking in on an every-day basis, much less under that kind of a stressful situation, they would not have been able to be at that scene involved in the murder without walking through that blood and leaving evidence of it.

MR. SCHECK: Agent Bodziak, I ask you to assume that a struggle occurred with more than one perpetrator with Ronald Goldman and that one or more of those perpetrators left the scene before Nicole Brown Simpson's throat was cut, causing that pool of blood on the walkway. Do you have that in mind?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection, your Honor. That's an improper hypothetical. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Do you have that in mind?

MR. BODZIAK: Are you asking me to isolate that thought for a moment?

MR. SCHECK: I'm asking you to keep that thought in mind.

MR. BODZIAK: I'll keep it in mind.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if that occurred, one or more perpetrators could have left the crime scene without walking through that pool of blood?

MR. BODZIAK: Are you suggesting there were two independent murders at the same place 10 minutes apart?

MR. SCHECK: Oh, is that necessary for this hypothetical?

MR. BODZIAK: It seems to me that's what you're suggesting, that there was one person that might have murdered Ron Goldman and then left the scene and then along comes somebody else and murders Nicole Brown two feet away. That's the way I understand it.

MR. SCHECK: Agent Bodziak, I'm only asking you to make this assumption, that the murder of Ron Goldman occurs and then as among the last things done at the crime scene, the throat of Nicole Brown Simpson is cut causing the pool of blood in the walkway. Can you keep that in mind?

MR. BODZIAK: I can keep it in mind, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Did you hear eight days of testimony from Dr. Lakshmanan which included that hypothetical?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if this were to occur, could a perpetrator or perpetrators have left the crime scene without walking through that pool of blood?

MR. BODZIAK: In this case, I don't believe that's what happened. But if you're to suggest that I consider it under your hypothetical where there was one murder and later another one, I suppose that it could, but I don't believe that's what happened.

MR. SCHECK: You don't believe that's what happened?

MR. BODZIAK: No, sir.

MR. SCHECK: You weren't there, were you?

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: The imprint evidence, the bloodstain imprint evidence that Dr. Lee discussed, that whole board, you don't recall that testimony?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Do you remember an analysis of the order of deposits on the envelope that Dr. Lee made in his testimony?

MR. BODZIAK: I previously testified that I did not see that part.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Well, would it not be consistent with the hypothetical I posed to you, that there were a set of imprints made at the crime scene that were partial based on less blood flow, somewhat less blood flow than the pool of blood?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't think that the sequence--the fact that there were--there may be an imprint and then later blood would flow on the envelope or may get moved and acquire other blood in one manner or another would have nothing to do with my exam of the imprint.

MR. SCHECK: But wouldn't it be a fair statement that your answers to my questions here and your statement on redirect examination that if there were other imprints from shoes, bloody imprints from shoes, that the impressions would have to be dark is based on your assumption that the perpetrator or perpetrators of this crime would of necessity have to have walked through the pool of blood on the walkway?

MR. BODZIAK: It's based on my visit twice to the crime scene, my view of volumes of notebooks of photographs of the crime scene, my examination of the quantity of blood on the walkway, the distance that a person would have to jump if they for some reason were conscious of footwear impressions, which they're not, and all of the other factors. In looking at crime scenes over the years, with that kind of scenario and that kind of confined area, a person that was in that area would leave bloody shoe impressions. They would be first dark and then get lighter as they walked away.

MR. SCHECK: Well, all of what you've just said is based on the assumption that somebody would have to walk through the pool of blood caused by the severing of the neck of Nicole Brown Simpson, right?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Of course it would. Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you were asked on redirect examination about the parallel line shoeprint impression that Dr. Lee identified as a shoeprint which he found on June 25th.

MR. BODZIAK: Is that the one on the 10th tile I believe?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, could we play 1011?

MS. CLARK: Can I see what counsel is proposing?

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall--I'll preface it this way. As part of the examination of Dr. Lee that you saw, do you recall a time when Mr. Goldberg played a tape of two police officers breaking down the Bundy crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I recall seeing that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Could I play that?

THE COURT: Yes. Which exhibit is this, Mr. Harris?

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: I think that it's 127.

(At 1:26 P.M., people's exhibit 127, a videotape, was played.)

MR. SCHECK: There's more? Okay.

(At 1:27 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, agent Bodziak, you collected the shoes of officers that were present at the crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: There were photographs of some of the officers sent to me to view with regard to what design shoes they had on.

MR. SCHECK: And this thing also included the photographer, Mr. Rokahr?

MR. BODZIAK: I believe so. It's been a while. I'd have to go back and look at the officers' names.

MR. SCHECK: And would it be your testimony that none of the shoes that you were given of people that were involved in the crime scene would match the parallel line imprint impressions of the shoeprint Dr. Lee identified on June 25th?

MR. BODZIAK: No. That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Have you been shown by the prosecutors a videotape of the inside of the Bundy residence where candles are lit?

MR. BODZIAK: I--not by the prosecutors. I think I saw something like that on the news one time.

MR. SCHECK: Have you been provided any other shoeprints from other people that might have been at the crime scene on June 13th for comparison to the imprints that dr.--the imprint that Dr. Lee identified as a shoeprint on June 25th?

MR. BODZIAK: None other than those of the officers that were submitted to me.

MR. SCHECK: And it's your testimony that they could not have accounted for those imprint--that imprint?

MR. BODZIAK: That is correct.

MR. SCHECK: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, briefly.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Mr. Bodziak, do you know whether or not the shoes of the officers depicted in that clip you were shown, defense 1011, were ever photographed and shown to you?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't know the identity of the officer in that clip. So I don't know if they were one of the officers whose shoes were submitted to me or not.

MS. CLARK: And you don't know whether all of the officers' who ever walked through the crime scene between June 13th and June 25th shoes were shown to you in photograph form either?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I do not.

MS. CLARK: Were you aware that the film clip you spoke of showing the candles burning through the window was taken by a cameraman from a tv station?

MR. BODZIAK: I believe when I saw the news clip, that the reference was made to that, yeah.

MS. CLARK: And so you would have to go and locate who that videographer was and see if he could--whose shoes he wore in order to determine whether or not his shoes made that imprint; would you not?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And do you know whether the family of Nicole Brown was present at that Bundy walk and walked on that Bundy walk between June 13th and June 25th?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't know that.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever see any film clips that showed a number of people crowded around, crowded around the 875 Bundy location on June 17th?

MR. BODZIAK: I'm not familiar with that, no.

MS. CLARK: So if there were a number of people that were walking up and down the walkway at Bundy between June 13th and June 25th, you would have no way of knowing whether it was one of their shoes that made that wavy line imprint that was on the 10th tile?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I would not.

MS. CLARK: And the wavy line imprint made on the 10th tile was photographed on--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike. Has nothing to do with wavy line imprint.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Parallel line imprint.

THE COURT: All right. So we're clear.

MS. CLARK: And the parallel line imprint, that was--that was the one photographed on June 25th by Dr. Lee, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you--and that was--was that a fairly faint imprint, sir?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it was.

MS. CLARK: Did you see any darker imprints of that type preceding it on the Bundy walkway?

MR. BODZIAK: No. Not on any of the other tiles or in any of the other close-up photographs or any photographs that were taken at that scene.

MS. CLARK: And what does that lead you to conclude about the appearance of that--about the materialization of that imprint on the 10th tile on June the 25th?

MR. BODZIAK: I would not be able to determine a scenario where a person after the fact or during the crime stepped in blood and left only a footprint--proposing it is blood, I'm just hypothetically saying in blood on the 10th tile and nowhere else, it's impossible.

MS. CLARK: Then in your opinion, sir, was that parallel line imprint on the 10th tile that was photographed by henry Lee on June 25th, was it even present on June the 13th?

MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion, it was not present.

MS. CLARK: Does it have any significance to the solution of this murder?

MR. BODZIAK: I don't believe so.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: With respect to those officers you saw in the videotape, in the ordinary course of your work, wouldn't it be the responsibility of the prosecutors to provide you with the footwear impressions of all police officers that were involved in the crime scene?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Were you--you were sent a whole series of footwear impressions from the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. BODZIAK: No. Pictures of shoes.

MR. SCHECK: Pictures of shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And the purpose of showing you the pictures of those shoes was to provide you with essentially a set of eliminations so that one could distinguish impressions made from people that were processing the crime scene versus other people that might have been there previously?

MR. BODZIAK: In this particular case, because of the large quantity of blood, they were sent for elimination to make sure that no one else had that bruno magli design.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you don't--you don't know whether those two officers were ever sent to you?

MR. BODZIAK: The ones in the videotape?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: No. I don't know the names of the individuals in the videotape.

MR. SCHECK: And the prosecutors never sent you any other footwear impressions of people that were at that crime scene between June 12th and June 25th?

MR. BODZIAK: No, they did not.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: One moment, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between the deputy district attorneys.)

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Sir, if police officers walked on the walkway after the photographs of the shoeprints were taken, then by definition, their shoes could not have made the bruno magli shoeprints that you identified, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: No. Their footwear impressions would be irrelevant to the crime.

MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Bodziak, again, thank you very much, sir. You are excused. All right. Anything else from the people?

MS. CLARK: Only the very brief matter that I mentioned to the court.

THE COURT: All right. You did ask the court to take judicial notice of one other matter regarding the phase of the moon.

MS. CLARK: Yes, I did, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you want me to do that at this time?

MS. CLARK: Certainly, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Any comment, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the phase of the moon?

THE COURT: Phase of the moon.

MR. COCHRAN: No, I don't think so. I think--

THE COURT: We discussed this earlier. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, the Prosecution has asked the court to take judicial notice of a certain fact. And what that means is that if I determine that it's appropriate, this is a fact that is not subject to dispute. And I have agreed to take judicial notice of the following fact: That on June the 12th, 1994, the moon was a waxing crescent with 12 percent of the moon's surface illuminated. All right. I'll read that one more time. On June the 12th, 1994, the moon was a waxing crescent with 12 percent of the moon's surface illuminated. All right. Miss Clark, anything else from the People?

MS. CLARK: We have one further request of the court that I think can be resolved quickly and then the People would like to conditionally rest their rebuttal case.

THE COURT: Let me ask the jury then to step back into the jury room. I'll have a legal discussion with the lawyers for a few moments, and hopefully we'll be able to conclude with the Prosecution's rebuttal case.

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

MS. CLARK: Do you have it, Judge?

THE COURT: All right. I have a request for--a permissive request for judicial notice. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. As we've indicated--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, if I may, just to maybe short-circuit this, we just received this. It contains transcript cites. We have to search the record to check the dates. We are not prepared to respond to this at this time.

THE COURT: When you say you've just received this--

MR. SCHECK: I mean, I just received this.

MR. COCHRAN: This afternoon, a short time ago.

THE COURT: Five minutes ago? 20 minutes ago?

MR. COCHRAN: I don't know when we first got it. It was today. He just got it now.

MR. SCHECK: I mean, this is--

THE COURT: Five minutes ago? 20 minutes ago?

MR. SCHECK: Well, I saw this two minutes ago.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: And it's my job to respond to it. I'm not prepared to do it and because it has citations that I have to check and there's a long record here, there's numerous applications going back and forth, I have to check the date of who had access to the socks, when and what the order was. I think Dr. Lee's testimony speaks for itself as to what he knew and what he did. If they want to call other witnesses about something else, they can. But the point is that I'm not prepared to argue this at this time and accurately cite to the record and it's not fair to ask me to do so.

THE COURT: When will you be prepared to do so?

MR. SCHECK: Tomorrow.

THE COURT: 9:00 o'clock. It does contain citations to the record.

MS. CLARK: It does, it's true. We have a lot else we can do anyway, so--

THE COURT: Indeed we do. All right. Mr. Cochran, assuming that the Prosecution rests their case at this point--and I've indicated to them that I'm going to allow them to conditionally rest because you have not concluded your Defense case. You know how that goes.

MR. COCHRAN: I do, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any other witnesses you're prepared to present this afternoon?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I would like to proceed right away and I would like the court's indulgence because some of the witnesses we can't get until tomorrow probably. So at this point, I'd like to call Dr. Herbert MacDonell. It might be better to characterize him as a surrebuttal witness, but we'd like to call him now. We'd like to proceed.

THE COURT: This is as to what issue?

MR. NEUFELD: Primarily as to the glove drying, glove shrinkage in light of the testimony of Mr. Rubin when he came back here in the rebuttal case.

THE COURT: What are we going to get into? Are we going to get into the glove experiment?

MR. NEUFELD: Glove experiment which you already passed on and authorized.

MS. CLARK: May I be heard? Obviously, this has got to be part of the Defense surrebuttal, correct? I don't know what it relates to in terms of dr.--excuse me--Mr. Rubin's testimony. How is it relevant?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Mr. Rubin testified that when he looked at the gloves that Mr. Simpson was wearing initially in 1990 and wearing up until December of 1993 I believe, he testified that--in fact, I think he testified that the gloves appeared in the pictures to be somewhat bigger even in 1993 than they were in 1990. That in conjunction with his earlier testimony back in June of this year, leads to the clear inference that the substantial shrinkage that occurred, which he said was about 15 percent, was due from the blood being soaked and smeared on the gloves during the night that these two people were killed. It had been somewhat suggested before that that could have been the result of weather. But since we saw Mr. Simpson wearing these gloves in a number of pictures where it's raining on them, where it's snowing on them, where it's sleeting on them--

THE COURT: I don't think we ever saw snow or sleet, but did see a lot of rain.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. A lot of rain and very cold rain and discussion of hand warmers and the like. But nonetheless, the gloves were at least as large at the end of `93 as they were in December of 1990, and the inference unmistakenly the Prosecution will be arguing is that 15 percent shrinkage occurred as a result of the event of June 12th, 1994. And so he will be testifying to his glove drying experiment which deals with substantial quantities of blood being smeared on the gloves to show that that's just not right.

THE COURT: My recollection is--did we have a videotape of this or was it still photos?

MR. NEUFELD: No. It was still photos and which were given to the People and given to the court. We had a hearing on the admissibility of this evidence and you ruled that it was admissible.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, who was the--was it Mr. Goldberg who was handling this?

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Clark.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I thought--okay. It was my recollection Mr. Rubin's testimony, your Honor, that he testified it was a combination of the weather conditions to which gloves would be subjected as well as perhaps the introduction of the blood with the freezing and the drying and the unfreezing, et cetera. But the issue is really not shrinkage as much as it is stretchability, and I don't think that anything Mr. Rubin testified to in the People's rebuttal case opens up that issue for Mr. MacDonell.

THE COURT: We did discuss, however, the issue of shrinkage during the course of Mr. Rubin's third appearance as a witness and we discussed it in terms of the weather conditions, in terms of rain and in terms of the heat generated by hand warmers if such were the case. So we did discuss the shrinkage during the course of--and if you recollect, the argument was that the Defense also withheld for tactical reasons presenting Dr. MacDonell on this shrinkage experiment so as to hope to preclude Mr. Rubin from coming back and testifying again with--

MS. CLARK: If that was their reason, I don't think it has--

THE COURT: I understand, but I'm just putting our discussions back into context.

MS. CLARK: And I understand that. But--and the court's characterization of course with respect to Mr. Rubin's testimony and it being subject to weather conditions, but it had nothing to do with shrinkage caused by the introduction of blood on the gloves, and that's the subject matter of the glove drying experiment that Mr. MacDonell performed. So it's not relevant surrebuttal because we are talking apples and oranges. Mr. Rubin talked about the weather conditions to which the gloves were subjected. Mr. MacDonell is supposed to talk about what happened to the gloves as a result of blood, and that's two different things.

THE COURT: But I think the point though that Mr. Neufeld is trying to make is that soaking in blood can account for the amount of shrinkage that we see here and that if it fits Mr. Simpson apparently as it does in the videotapes as well as it does, then it may not be the same pair of gloves now since the one that we have here in evidence, there appears to be shrinkage by 15 percent I think. I think that is the inference they're trying to draw here.

MS. CLARK: It is. But is it a fair inference and is it fair in terms of surrebuttal in view of what we introduced in our rebuttal case? It's not the same thing. If you talk about subjecting it to weather conditions, you might let Mr. MacDonell testify he's a glove expert and he knows what the fat liquor and all the other aspects of leather is going to do when they're subjected to weather conditions, but it certainly has nothing to do with introduction of blood. I mean, we are talking apples and oranges here. So I don't see the relevance here in addition to what kind of gloves did he test.

THE COURT: All right. My recollection though is that he did the glove experiment on one of the gloves that were from--

MR. NEUFELD: He did the experiment on the glove that Mr. Rubin provided, which are the Aris Isotoner lights, the same exact pair of gloves that Mr. Darden used for his second glove demonstration with new gloves.

THE COURT: All right. I am going to overrule the objection. Miss Clark, do you have your materials?

MS. CLARK: No, I don't.

THE COURT: Why don't we take a recess then until 2:00 o'clock. Get your materials and then we'll reconvene. I'll allow you to rest conditionally in front--rest the People's rebuttal case subject to application should it become necessary to reopen and proceed. Then we'll proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: I just want you to also know in light of--I've also had Professor MacDonell listen to Mr. Bodziak's testimony, and he may also be rebutting certain things he just heard Mr. Bodziak say this morning. I'm talking to him this moment about those things.

THE COURT: Before we launch into that, we'll have a hearing outside of the jury--outside the presence of the jury to see where we're going on that.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. 2:00 o'clock.

(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. Are we ready to proceed?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Yes. I'll be needing a slight break between cross, and thank you, your Honor.

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

MS. CLARK: And, your Honor, I apologize for the delay. It was difficult to locate all these materials because--

THE COURT: I understand. Not to worry today.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I'm sorry. Your Honor, I wanted to propose a brief 402 with Mr. MacDonell concerning the experiment he conducted here, and that would be with respect to the gloves that he performed the experiment on. The discovery I have pertains to an experiment done on Thinsulate gloves. None of my discovery shows the performance of the experiment on the Aris light gloves. All I have is a clear--

THE COURT: Deputy Trower, hold the jury. I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about Aris leather lights. Hold them for just a second. As my recollection--

MR. NEUFELD: Your recollection is 100 percent correct, no. 1. No. 2, they received complete discovery including photographs of the actual experiment conducted by Professor MacDonell. They received the notes of the experiment conducted by Professor MacDonell and the report of the experiment conducted by Professor MacDonell and it was absolutely unambiguous it was the Aris Isotoner light gloves furnished by Mr. Rubin.

THE COURT: Leather light.

MR. NEUFELD: Leather light.

THE COURT: I think as soon as you throw in Isotoner, you get into synthetic materials. The Aris leather lights were all natural materials with exception of the thread.

MR. NEUFELD: I will refer to them as that way.

THE COURT: Thinsulate is the synthetic insulation material.

MS. CLARK: Additionally, your Honor, I wanted to do a brief 402, question Professor MacDonell outside the presence of the jury to determine what other gloves for preparation of his testimony in this case he examined or tested and whether or not he tested the gloves depicted in the photographs that we've shown to Mr. Rubin during our rebuttal case--I'm sorry--the People's case.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, any other gloves he tested?

MR. NEUFELD: The only gloves experiments were conducted on are the gloves that were provided by Mr. Rubin period. That's it.

MS. CLARK: And does Mr. MacDonell intend to testify in any manner to the gloves that are depicted in the photographs shown to Mr. Rubin?

MR. NEUFELD: He hasn't done any experiment on that.

THE COURT: You mean the evidence gloves?

MS. CLARK: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. I don't think he's done--those have not been taken out of evidence for that purpose I believe.

MS. CLARK: No. I mean photographs shown Mr. Rubin as well as the ones that we presented most recently at the football games.

MR. NEUFELD: I think I've made it very clear the extent of his testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: I think so. I've already ruled on this--

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: --previously.

MS. CLARK: Is Mr. MacDonell going to testify in any manner to the location of the gloves shown in the football game photographs or their condition or their fit or anything like that?

THE COURT: No. I think the offer was the experiment.

MS. CLARK: If that's the indication, then may I ask that the court order Mr. MacDonell to offer no explanation or no testimony pertaining to the whereabouts of the gloves in the photographs?

THE COURT: Well--

MS. CLARK: Because it would be hearsay.

THE COURT: We are talking about experiment with regards to the Aris leather lights, correct?

MR. NEUFELD: He's providing expert testimony. He's not providing lay testimony about other matters.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Deputy Trower. And who do you have after MacDonell?

MR. COCHRAN: Police officer by the name of Sherry Ray.

MS. CLARK: We're going to need a hearing on that one, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor asked me a question.

THE COURT: I just asked a question.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm just responding to you.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Miss Clark, with regards to the People's rebuttal case, what is your position at this point?

MS. CLARK: At this point, your Honor, the People will conditionally rest rebuttal subject to the matters the court is aware of.

THE COURT: All right. People having rested their rebuttal case, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. We're ready to proceed, your Honor, with the balance of our case and some small surrebuttal.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor. At this time, the Defense calls Mr. Herbert MacDonell.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. MacDonell. Recall.

MR. NEUFELD: Recall.

THE COURT: Recall.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: Professor.

D E F E N S E C A S E (RESUMED)

Herbert Leon MacDonell, recalled as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

PROF. MACDONELL: I do.

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

PROF. MACDONELL: Herbert Leon, L-E-O-N, MacDonell, capital M-A-C capital D-O-N-E-L-L.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, did you have an opportunity to watch on television portions of the testimony of Mr. Rubin who testified about the Aris leather light gloves?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you have an opportunity to watch his testimony back in June of this year as well as more recently, perhaps a week ago?

PROF. MACDONELL: More recently. I don't recall it in June. I wasn't here in June. I was in Alaska.

MR. NEUFELD: But did you review some of his testimony though?

PROF. MACDONELL: I'm familiar with it. I did not review it in detail.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: Excuse me, gentlemen. Professor, would you allow Mr. Neufeld to finish asking you the question before you start your answer, as the court reporter is going to have a difficult time.

PROF. MACDONELL: I'll try.

THE COURT: Thank you, Professor.

MR. NEUFELD: As you sit here today, sir, are you aware that Mr. Rubin testified that both the Rockingham and Bundy gloves are approximately 15 percent smaller than our new standard extra large Aris leather light gloves?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I'm aware of that.

MR. NEUFELD: Remember that 15 percent figure?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I do.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, did you also watch on television last week when Mr. Rubin was shown photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing brown gloves at NFL football games?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you aware, sir, as you sit here today that Mr. Rubin testified that if anything, the brown gloves Mr. Simpson was wearing in December of 1993 appear to be somewhat bigger in the photographs than the brown gloves in 1991?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, sir, did you have a chance to actually look at those photos yourself?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I have.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that from the photographs, there is no evidence of any visible shrinking of those gloves?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, did you conduct an experiment to determine whether or not smearing Aris leather light extra large gloves with a considerable amount of blood would cause 15 percent shrinkage?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you also conduct an experiment to determine the approximate drying times of gloves that have been heavily smeared with blood?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Drying times. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Your Honor--

THE COURT: Shrinkage. No. Shrinkage.

MR. NEUFELD: May I please have a sidebar? I think there's a distinction. I just want to make it at sidebar if I may.

THE COURT: I thought we made this distinction very clear the last time we talked about this.

MR. NEUFELD: I think there's a slight difference, if I may.

THE COURT: With the court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We're over here at side bar. What's your inquiry, Mr. Neufeld?

MR. NEUFELD: My recollection is, I'm precluded from going into that business where drying the plastic bag, have that shown as if it was wet, but I think I have--I was allowed to elicit that it took approximately four hours for the gloves to dry because what he's going to testify to--and that has to do with a factually present condition for the shrinkage, that he replicated the temperature and humidity for the drying conditions. That's the whole point.

MS. CLARK: I thought the court was very specific. I went back over the ruling, that that was not substantially similar conditions and that's why the drying time was not, foundationally speaking, reliable and I thought that was--

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, what I'm allowing is an experiment regarding whether or not smearing of blood can cause this type of shrinkage. Drying time is something specifically excluded. All right.

MR. NEUFELD: I think, your Honor, you have found that the conditions he used were substantially the same. You made a specific finding.

THE COURT: And I'm telling you drying time is off limits. All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. NEUFELD: Can I just have one minute to--

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you very much, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, to conduct this experiment, did you receive from the Defense a pair of extra large Aris light gloves that had been provided to us by Mr. Rubin from the Isotoner company?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you aware of the fact that Mr. Rubin had stated that the gloves that you received for the experiment were identical in terms of make and model and size to the--to the gloves from Bundy and from Rockingham?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection. Misstates the size.

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: That is my understanding.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. In other words, sir, did you receive extra large gloves?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And were they Aris leather lights?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, were you aware--were you aware of the fact that the gloves that you received were identical to the gloves that Mr. Darden used in his second demonstration with new gloves involving Mr. Simpson?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Speculation.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, would you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you did as an experiment to determine the extent of shrinkage, if any, when gloves are heavily smeared with blood?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. I--I took the gloves one at a time and put, for example, the right glove on my right hand and a rubber latex glove on my left hand. I had a laboratory technician draw a vacutainer of blood and comparing that to a calibrated vacutainer, I knew how much blood was in that tube. I then poured the blood over the leather glove cupping the palm upward as I'm indicating so it would hold the blood as much as possible (Indicating). This was done very quickly so there would be no clotting involved. There was no anticoagulant in the tube. This was a tube that just drew blood. You must work rather quickly or it will clot. I then put the tube down and began smearing the blood with the rubber tips in my fingers. The reason for the rubber tips and the gloves in total, the rubber ones was because I was going to alternate and put that hand in the left glove next. So I didn't want it wet with blood or anything else. I just kept smearing it around until it was running through my fingers over the glove and around the back and I just kept doing that for approximately half a minute or more or less until I--I felt I was no longer working with wet fluid blood. This was over a very large funnel. The funnel emptied into a graduated cylinder so I could determine the amount of blood that was recovered. Through an independent experiment, I found the amount of blood on the funnel was approximately two drops. So I knew the volume that I started with, the volume I ended with, the volume that was on the funnel and, therefore, the approximate volume of what was on the glove, which was approximately 2 milliliters, and that was a very wet surface, glistening glove.

I immediately took it off and put one in a bag which I sealed up, a plastic Ziploc bag. This was then repeated with the same arm giving blood again. At this time, we had again approximately nine milliliters of blood or thereabouts in the vacutainer, poured it over the other hand, repeated the process, caught the blood that did not adhere to the glove and subtracting the amount of the blood on the fingertips and in the funnel, I concluded again it was 1.9 to 2 milliliters of blood in each case. The amount that was adhering made the gloves very glistening and bloody for one of more descriptive terms and this glove was also allowed to dry without being placed in a bag. These were both done very quickly so there was no clotting of the blood on the surface of the glove.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Professor MacDonell, while you were conducting this experiment, was someone taking photographs of the procedure?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, they were. And prior to actually doing the experiment, rather than measure the gloves, linear measurements with a ruler, I simply put the gloves on to a copy machine and made a one-to-one copy. I verified that by the log and width dimension of the copy machine using a transparent ruler, and the copies were accurately made, no reduction or no enlargement. So I had a record before I started, and then after the gloves were ultimately dry--before they were bloodied, I had my associate put on both gloves. He's a large man. They fit quite well. He thought they were a very nice fit for him. Then we did the blood experiment. After it was dry, I copied the gloves again, making no effort to smear them out or spread them out I should say, just laying them down flat. They were both dried in a flat configuration. They were not crumpled up. They were just laying flat. After the--after both gloves were dry, I put them on the copy machine again and copied them so I would be able to compare them before and after directly. I made an overlay, a transparency if you will of the second or the after phase. That way, we can put the before and after together and see through the after which I did with a red toner. That allows a very easy comparison, I feel much more easily understood than a series of numbers showing the length of each finger and a width at a certain point and so on. I felt that was a very easy way to see what shrinkage, if any, would occur or had occurred at that point, and that was what I did on the experiment.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, Professor MacDonell, before we get to the results of the experiment, you mentioned a moment ago that photographs were taken.

PROF. MACDONELL: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: During the course of the experiment?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: What is next in order, your Honor?

THE COURT: 137--

THE CLERK: 8.

THE COURT: --78.

MR. NEUFELD: I would ask each of these five photographs be marked 1378-A through E.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Deft's 1378-A through E, for id = photographs)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: I ask you to look at, professor, Defendant's 1378-A through E. Can you identify those five pictures, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. These are five of the pictures taken during the experiment.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it help to explain in narrative how the experiment was conducted for the jury to see these pictures?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I've explained it already. But with those, I might be able to point out more specifically what was accomplished at any given picture.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, with the court's permission--

THE COURT: On the elmo, yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what is shown in that picture?

PROF. MACDONELL: There is on the lower right a red top tube which has been calibrated in a milliliter each inch increment. So by drawing the tube of blood in the same kind of a vacutainer, a direct comparison could be made to see how much blood we started with. The large funnel is quite clearly evident in the center and going up to the top, and a graduated cylinder is underneath it to catch whatever spilled over from the glove and the rest is the background of my laboratory sink, which isn't too tidy.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would you take a look at what will be photograph B. And what does that photograph reflect?

PROF. MACDONELL: This shows the technician is drawing blood from the left arm, and I think right over her gloved hand, you can see the right-hand glove is on. That's the one that was sent to me and that's just the process of obtaining blood.

MR. NEUFELD: And now looking at photograph C, what's reflected in that photograph, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, that shows the final--no, I'm sorry--the beginning portion. I just tipped it up to pour the blood on the back of the hand to let it run over the back, and some is of course spilled on through and you can see the funnel is coated; and then after that, you can also see the cotton in my left arm where blood had been just drawn. Now, immediately after this, I turned it over and poured the rest of the blood into the palm.

MR. NEUFELD: I'll show you photograph D. And what is reflected in that photograph?

PROF. MACDONELL: It shows the rest of the blood in the palm of the hand and the blood on the fingers quite clearly. Unfortunately, we didn't take a picture or my associate, Mr. Kish, did not take a picture of my fingertips doing the smearing around. It was smeared after this picture was taken. This only reflects the blood that's poured into the back and on the palm. Then it was smeared around more which is reflected by the glove itself.

MR. NEUFELD: And for approximately how long did you continuously smear the blood into the right-hand glove before you then went on to do the experiment on the left-hand glove?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I spent approximately I would say 30 seconds during the actual smearing process, but we didn't do the left-hand glove immediately thereafter. We had a few things to clean up and more blood to draw. So it was not one, two. It was one in maybe five.

MR. NEUFELD: With the court's permission, could you please--because very often, people have different perception of 30 seconds or what a minute is, could you please demonstrate for the jury by using your fingers and showing the motion that you utilized during the experiment the approximate duration that you continuously rubbed blood into that glove. And you can begin whenever you'd like.

PROF. MACDONELL: All right. I won't look at the clock. I work in a dark room quite a bit and I think I have a more accurate estimation of the length of time than a lot of people. 30 seconds is quite a long time. And I just began smearing it. This is after it's already been poured. So there may have been several seconds, maybe as long as 10 in the pouring process. So I just--I just did it both sides and over the back and I did it until no more blood was running off of my glove or off of the glove into the funnel and I tried to wipe the blood off of the fingertips as completely as I could so I wouldn't have to account for that blood. But somewhere in a period of time, something like that would be in my estimation approximately half a minute, 25 seconds, even maybe slightly less or it could have been 40 seconds. I did not have a timer going because it was very difficult to do all these things at once and also keep a timing record.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, are the gloves that are shown in the photographs--are the gloves shown in this photograph, is that the actual Aris light glove that you received?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. That's the right one in the current elmo picture.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you said that the right glove was put into a plastic bag?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then did you repeat the same experiment with the left glove?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. The same experiment with the left glove. And again, I used the fingertip of a rubber latex glove to keep trying to get the blood to impregnate into the leather as much as I could. It wasn't just a light motion laterally. It was more or less pushing down and to try to saturate the external surface. Although it did not wet that well, it was certainly covered with blood and wet when I finished.

MR. NEUFELD: And you said you used approximately nine millimeters of blood?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's what I poured over it, but that's not how much remained on the glove. There was only approximately two milliliters.

MR. NEUFELD: And that would be the approximate amount for the second glove as well?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. They're--I think one was 1.9 and one was two. I have those figures, but it's really not--it's an estimate because I did measure the blood on the funnel and estimated the thin film of blood on the gloves and added that to the amount of blood or subtracted it from that which was used by adding it to what was recovered.

MR. NEUFELD: And by the way, sir, in your opinion, would the results have been any different had you poured twice as much blood on these gloves as you did?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have any basis for giving an opinion as to whether it would make a difference if you poured twice as much blood on the glove as you poured?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And what is the basis for that, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, the volume of blood I don't think is as crucial as the length of time. In other words, if I recycle it--

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Continue.

PROF. MACDONELL: If I kept recycling it, I don't know how long it would be, if that--I could do that before the blood had clotted into a glopnous mass, and then that would dry on the glove as well. So if it's wet, it's wet and it won't hold anymore.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection. That was all speculation, no foundation shown.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, with the second glove, after you conducted the experiment on the second glove, where did you place it for drying?

PROF. MACDONELL: I placed the second glove on filter paper in a humidity chamber.

MR. NEUFELD: Showing you photograph E, ask if you can identify that. Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what is in photograph e?

PROF. MACDONELL: It's a very large glass desiccator, and in the top part, you can see the glove. That is the center. Actually you can see the glove. You can actually see the red blood on the glove. That's resting on filter paper. The filter paper is on a wire mesh that supports it above the slurry of potassium chloride, which is a wet slurry, a slushy mixture is the best way to describe it.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you make any effort, sir, to replicate the temperature and humidity conditions as they existed on the night of June 12th, 1994, in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you--by the way, when you--in this special chamber, are you able to control the temperature and humidity?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And to determine what temperature and what humidity to set for that drying chamber, did you review the official United States Department of Commerce Weather Service reports for Los Angeles airport for the night of June 12th, 1994 and the morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation, no expertise, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: I show you, sir, what is already in evidence as Defendant's exhibit no. 1280.

MS. CLARK: May I see it?

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: There's no foundation for this witness to testify to. It requires extrapolation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. It's in evidence. I received this already.

MS. CLARK: That's not my--this is beyond the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, there's no statement about humidity in that.

MR. NEUFELD: That's not true.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: I ask you to take a look at Defendant's 1280, sir. Does the U.S. weather service report for the Los Angeles airport for the night of June 12th, 1994 and the morning hours of June 13th, 1994 from approximately 10:30 or 10;00 I think--I'm sorry--are estimates for time and temperature given at a certain portion of each hour at a certain point in each hour?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, they are.

MR. NEUFELD: Is it--and what time is that--is it given?

PROF. MACDONELL: It is usually given approximately 10 minutes to the hour, nine or 10 minutes to the hour, being like 10:50, 11:50 and so on.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, what do those official weather service records indicate was the range in temperature between approximately 10:50 P.M. on the evening of June 12th and 9:50 A.M. on the morning of June 13th, 1994?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Incomplete, Los Angeles airport.

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: The temperature range is 64 degrees Fahrenheit to 69 degrees Fahrenheit.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, did you--what was the temperature for your drying experiment that's depicted in that picture?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection, your Honor. 352.

THE COURT: Sustained. Shrinkage experiment.

MR. NEUFELD: No, no, no. But--

THE COURT: What was the temperature inside the chamber?

MR. NEUFELD: What was the temperature inside the chamber, professor?

PROF. MACDONELL: 69 degrees Fahrenheit.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, do the records indicate what the humidity range was from the--from 10:50 P.M. on the evening of June 12th until 9:50 A.M. on the morning of June 13th?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, they do.

MR. NEUFELD: And what was the humidity range?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Ask that the witness be taken on voir dire with respect to the interpretation of those records.

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

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MS. CLARK: The objection is, your Honor, again, we are trying to get this witness to testify to dew point. He's not a meteorologist. This is not a matter within his expertise. It requires extrapolation. Dew point does not tell the humidity factor. It doesn't tell it at Brentwood.

MR. NEUFELD: Humidity factor is a separate column.

THE COURT: Relative humidity.

MR. NEUFELD: Right.

MS. CLARK: How does he know what that means? How could it be qualified with respect to another area in Brentwood at that time of night, throughout the whole night, on the ground, underneath the overhang of trees? What are we talking about here, your Honor?

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, does the official U.S. weather service report that you have in front of you state what the relative humidity was at each of those different hourly readings?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, it does.

MR. NEUFELD: And what was the relative humidity range from 10:50 in the evening of June 12th until approximately 9:50 in the morning on June 13th?

PROF. MACDONELL: The total range was 72.7 to 81 percent. But I should point out, this doesn't mean it starts at the low value and goes to the high value any more than the temperature. That was the maximum range. It doesn't mean the lowest temperature was the first reading. So it ranged in those--between those figures I've given.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, what was the humidity that you set in your drying chamber?

PROF. MACDONELL: I set the humidity--you don't set it. You use a system of chemicals to establish a constant humidity by which hydrometers are calibrated, and the nearest mixture that I could produce was 85 percent, which was slightly higher than the percent listed, but not from what I was first informed, which was in error. It was 85 percent.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, on the official U.S. weather service report, is there a column which indicates whether or not there was any precipitation taken during each of those hours?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, at any time from 10:50 in the evening on June 12th through 9:50 in the morning on June 13th, was there any recorded precipitation?

PROF. MACDONELL: There's many columns here. I've got to find the right one. Pardon me. There was none. Zero.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, during that same period of 10:50 P.M. to 9:50 A.M., was there any dew on the ground?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. The dew point never got within six degrees--the temperature never got within 60 degrees of dew point, which is the point where you would see condensation or dew moisture.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, is there a column in the official weather service reports to indicate the presence of any obstruction, any visual obstruction such as fog or haze?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And do the reports indicate whether there was any ground fog at all that would obstruct one's view from 10:50 in the evening on June 12th to 9:20 in the morning on June 13th?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That's irrelevant, beyond the scope, your Honor, beyond the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Do the reports indicate, sir, what the visibility level was for each--

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: --hour from 10:50 in the evening to 9:50 the following morning?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Brentwood or lax?

THE COURT: Sustained. It's not relevant, lax.

MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, are you aware of the fact that the only official weather service readings throughout the entire night for the Los Angeles vicinity are those at lax?

PROF. MACDONELL: No, I wasn't aware of that. I wouldn't be aware of it in New York.

MR. NEUFELD: Is there any indication at all in those official weather service reports there was any fog that could create any moisture on the ground on the night of June 12th and the morning hours of June 13?

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. I think we have the basics. We have temperature and humidity. So let's move on.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, did you examine--visually examine the glove that was collected at Rockingham?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you have an opportunity to see the places where there is dry blood on the palm side of the glove and the backside of the glove?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, there's stains which has been testified to as being blood. I did not test them, but there's certainly staining consistent with what bloodstains look like.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, I now show you what is People's exhibit 68-D.

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, here's a picture that was taken by the police of the glove at Rockingham, a close-up in the area where it was collected. Do you see that picture?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Xerox copy, your Honor, just so the record is clear.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Xerox copy.

THE COURT: No. Is this a Xerox?

MR. NEUFELD: Photo Xerox because the original photograph is mounted on the board that is in the basement, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, based on your expertise in the area of bloodstains and bloodstain analysis, if this glove had been dropped at that location within 10 or 15 minutes after the wet blood was smeared on it, would you expect to see blood on the leaves or on the pavement that the glove is resting on?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, did you actually see the location of the bloodstains on the glove that was found at Rockingham?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I do.

MR. NEUFELD: And from looking at this photograph, would those areas that have bloodstains be in contact with the pavement and leaves directly beneath it?

MS. CLARK: Objection. No personal knowledge, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. We're here talking about shrinkage, counsel. That's a scope issue.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, are you aware of the fact that the criminalist in this case did not offer any testimony of seeing bloodstains either on pavement--

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, the scope is shrinkage. Move on.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that there came a time when the gloves were dry that you did this experiment on; is that right?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And after they were dry, what did you then do with the two gloves?

PROF. MACDONELL: I copied them on the copy machine that I'd used before when I copied them prior to the experiment, same copy machine.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you then compare the Xerox copy of the gloves taken before you did the experiment with the transparency Xerox of the gloves after they had dried, having had all of this blood smeared on them?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And what, if any, shrinkage did you observe as a result of your experiment on both the left glove and the right glove?

PROF. MACDONELL: I would have to say it's negligible. They're certainly not congruent because they were done at different times, but I put them down as fairly as possible. That is to say, without any lateral teasing around to stretch them one way or another. Just laid them flat, did the experiment, when they're dried, laid them flat again, and they are not congruent and that is, they're not the same copy. But when you place one over the other and move it around slightly, I could detect no shrinkage or no linear or vertical or horizontal shrinkage at all or change in shift.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, do you have the Xeroxes and the transparencies that you made when you conducted this experiment with you today?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I do.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you take them out, sir? Let's start with the left glove first if you have that handy or the right glove, whichever is easiest for you.

THE COURT: All right. You've given a copy of these to counsel?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Which glove do you have out?

PROF. MACDONELL: I don't have either glove, but I've got a transparent, a copy of one of the left gloves.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Let's start with the left glove. Now, we'll have to mark these for identification.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, we've never seen these. May I?

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, that's not true. They were given to the People in discovery.

MS. CLARK: No. We got Xeroxes.

THE COURT: Let her see the originals.

MR. NEUFELD: These are Xeroxes.

PROF. MACDONELL: That's a Xerox.

MS. CLARK: No. The transparency held by Mr. MacDonell we've never seen.

THE COURT: Let counsel--

MR. NEUFELD: Counsel did receive that as a Xerox as well.

THE COURT: Let her see the original, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Why don't you give the red one. Red one. Left too? Just the left glove?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yeah, that's the left glove.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that a hundred percent?

MS. CLARK: Can I see the others?

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Are these all the ones you are going to use?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to use the other one as well.

MS. CLARK: Can I see those?

MR. NEUFELD: You'll have to bring me those back first because I don't want to mix up the left hand and the right hand.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, can we approach?

THE COURT: Without the court reporter.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not sure which hand is which.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Don't mix those up, Mr. Neufeld. He noticed it. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine. Let's begin with the left hand. You have in front of you three different items.

MR. NEUFELD: And I guess next in order is?

THE COURT: This would be 1379.

MR. NEUFELD: Let's make this 1379-A, B and C and then make the other hand 1380 if that's all right.

THE COURT: It sounds good to me.

(Deft's 1379-A and B and 1380 for id =

Xerox copies of gloves)

MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, could you please explain to the jury what 1379-A, B and C are?

THE COURT: Do you want to mark them A, B and C, make the--which one do you want as the--

MR. NEUFELD: A will be the four-shot, the predrying--I'm sorry--the pre-shrinkage experiment, Xerox of the glove. The brown transparency can be--after the gloves are dried will be B.

PROF. MACDONELL: That's not after. That's before. There are two before and one after for clarification.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well--okay. You mean, there's one transparency and one on white that's before?

PROF. MACDONELL: Shall I explain this?

MR. NEUFELD: Please do.

PROF. MACDONELL: The one on paper is before. "Lb" stands for "Left glove before experiment." I then made a left glove before transparency because I felt by having "Left after" in red was perhaps not easy to hold up to a light. So I thought I'd make it what I call "Jury friendly" and have them both transparencies. That's all. So my label "1" is before the experiment. My label "Upper left 2" is the same thing. It's the same identical picture, and then "3" is after in red. And you can compare 3 to 1 or 2, whichever seems to be the easiest for your eyesight.

MR. NEUFELD: Then with the court's permission, perhaps it would be easier not to introduce at all the one on white paper and simply introduce the two transparencies. The brown one will be transparency of the condition of the glove prior to the shrinkage experiment and the red transparency will reflect the condition of the glove after the shrinkage experiment.

THE COURT: Not wanting to tell you how to try your case, but--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm willing to defer.

THE COURT: --my personal examination of the one on the paper with the red, that it's easier to make the overlay comparison. But you're the lawyer.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. At this point, I--really to move this along--do it that way then and simply introduce--the one on the paper then will be a and the red overlay will be B and we will not introduce the other transparency.

THE COURT: Fine.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And--so, Professor MacDonell, did you do the same thing for the right glove?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And could you please show the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what it appears to be, both the before photocopy and the post-shrinkage experiment transparency?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. In this instance, my no. 7 is the right glove before which is on paper. It's not a transparency. The red transparency is the right glove after. And again, they are not congruent because they're not exactly the same. They were done hours and hours apart.

MR. NEUFELD: But was the one in red done only after the gloves were dry?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. It says "RA," that's right after, and the other one says "RB," that's right before.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to--and by the way, I think the second set should be marked Defendant's 1380-A and B with a being--unfortunately, a is going to be before and B is after.

(Deft's 1380 remarked 1380-A and B for id = Xerox copies of glove experiment)

MR. NEUFELD: And at this time, with the court's permission, I would like to be able to pass them to the jury.

THE COURT: Yes. Would you hand the left glove to juror no. 1 and the right glove to juror no. 7.

(Defendant's exhibits 1379 and 1380 were examined by the jurors.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, would you collect those items, 1379 and 1380, from Deputy Bashmakian, please. All right. The record should reflect the jurors have had the opportunity to review both 1379 and 1380. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And remember when I asked you at the very beginning of your testimony, professor, whether or not you recall Mr. Rubin's testimony that the evidence gloves that he examined were 15 percent smaller than the--than new Aris light extra large gloves? Do you recall that?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: 15 percent, page--

PROF. MACDONELL: My recollection was 10 to 15.

MS. CLARK: Thanks.

PROF. MACDONELL: And on that basis, I prepared a way to show both 10 and 15 percent or 85 or 90 percent of the original.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did you prepare transparencies which reflect these gloves if they were 10 percent smaller and 15 percent smaller than they are in the new condition?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And how did you do that, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: I prepared yet another master of the left glove by putting a ruler next to it and then using a variable enlargement reducing copier, not my own. I do not have one of that nature yet. I'm expecting one shortly. I set it at 90 percent and simply made, again, a red transparency that I could first check the ruler, which is quite faint, and see that it is exactly 90 percent. In other words, 100 centimeters on the smaller one only is 90--I'm sorry. 100 millimeters is only 90 millimeters on the original, and so it is a right exactly 90 percent as I read it. And that was just to show the reduction by placing the red transparency over the original to see how much smaller it would be, and that is--that is the figure I would give to the evidence gloves because I've examined them. They're--the gloves on my pictures are 10 inches. The extra gloves I have--and 90 percent of that is nine inches and the evidence gloves are nine inches. So I think it's 90 percent and not 85. But I also have prepared the 85 which is, of course, 15 percent reduction. And I would say simply that it goes from a man's size to a lady's size. It's very much smaller. But either way, it's incredible shrinkage.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Can you--is it possible--the way you have done the transparencies on the photocopying machine, is it possible for the jurors to actually compare what the Aris light extra large glove looked like before it was--had blood put on it in this case and your experiment and what gloves that are 10 percent smaller would look like and what gloves that are 15 percent smaller would look like?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I'm sure they can. They just did it before. I watched them.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

PROF. MACDONELL: So this is 90 percent and this is 85 (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I would ask that the two reduced versions, the 10 percent, 15 percent be marked 1381-A and B and for--

MR. NEUFELD: Is that for the left hand that you have first?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I think for the purpose of this experiment, one hand should be adequate. So we'll do it just for the left hand. And I would ask, your Honor, at this time to be able to pass that around to the jurors as well.

(Deft's 1381-A and B for id = Xerox

Copies of glove experiment)

THE COURT: Have you shown those to Miss Clark?

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: With the court's permission. Which juror; 1?

THE COURT: Juror no. 1.

(Defendant's exhibits 1381-A and B were examined by the jury.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, can we have a sidebar while they're doing this?

THE COURT: Miss Moxham.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at sidebar. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: I thought we were done with this. You asked me before, you wanted a proffer, was there any other issue besides the glove shrinkage, and I said yes, there was one matter that he may respond to Bodziak, and there's one brief point I intend to use him for surrebuttal on Bodziak.

THE COURT: What's that?

MR. NEUFELD: That is, Bodziak said that heavy globs of blood will turn dark and turn black, that if the blood drop is light, it will get fainter and fainter, and he will rebut that based on his expertise in the area of bloodstains.

MS. CLARK: It's not relevant. Mr. Bodziak was testifying to shoeprints and to blood that was deposited by a shoe, and that's not his field of expertise. Whether a blood drop will get lighter or darker is different, is different, and agent Bodziak specifically limited his testimony to that. That's not relevant impeachment.

MR. NEUFELD: He will testify that a bloody instrument on--a bloody hand print, a bloody--any print, okay, whether it's faint or a ton of blood, it doesn't make a difference. It's the same biochemical properties and it goes red to dark brown to black period. It doesn't matter what--whether it's caused by a shoeprint or anything else.

THE COURT: Hold on. All right.

MR. NEUFELD: He's already laid a foundation about his expertise on bloodstains.

MS. CLARK: Blood spatter analysis is not the same as shoeprint analysis, your Honor.

MR. NEUFELD: He's not going to testify about blood. He's not going to get into specifics. I'm simply going to limit him to the point of rebutting the statements that Bodziak made, that it would make a difference if it was a very faint print. He said it would just get lighter, would not turn darker unless it was a glob of blood. And he's certainly qualified by everything we went through on his qualifications last time he was here to give that testimony, and that's it. It will only take 30 seconds.

MS. CLARK: That will not take only 30 seconds, I guarantee you, not on direct and not on cross.

MR. NEUFELD: Three questions.

MS. CLARK: That's not true.

MR. NEUFELD: I'll do it in three questions.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MS. CLARK: I don't really think he's qualified to testify to that. You know, talking about blood spatter analysis is one thing. That's what he's here for. We're already way beyond rebuttal. He testified to glove shrinkage, but now he's going to--we're talking about him testifying to age of bloody shoeprints, which is a whole different thing and we are going to have to lay a foundation for that because how they appear, how bloody shoeprints appear offer time is something that requires a great fund of experience to know.

THE COURT: Let me just ask you this. As a practical matter, is there any dispute that latent blood prints over time are going to eventually fade away? They go through some initial drying over the first day, they'll turn from red, you know, to brown to black.

MS. CLARK: Not to black.

MR. NEUFELD: No. He's going to testify--

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on.

MS. CLARK: One counsel, right? Can you stop heckling me, Johnnie?

THE COURT: And then once they hit the black or brown to a dark color, then they start to fade with age. That's not in dispute, is it?

MR. NEUFELD: Bodziak did not say that. Bodziak testified to the contrary. He says if you have a glob of blood--those were his words, glob, g-l-o-b--that that would go from red to dark brown to black, but it was his experience that if you have a light stain of blood, it never goes to dark brown or black. It simply fades, gets lighter and lighter. He will say that is absolutely wrong as a matter of science, and he will explain very briefly biochemical properties, which is actually the same whether a light stain or heavy stain. No difference.

MS. CLARK: You know what the problem we have here is a misinterpretation of Mr. Bodziak's testimony because what this goes to is the shoeprint photograph two weeks later. And if Mr. MacDonell is going to testify that the shoeprint viewed two weeks after it's been made in blood is going to be darker, you know, then we have a real problem. I can't believe he's going to say something like that, and what we're trying to infer from his testimony is totally the opposite of what the true point is, which is that a shoeprint two weeks later is going to be fainter than it was on the day it was made.

MR. NEUFELD: I think if you look at--you remember Bodziak's testimony, it is absolutely unambiguous. He said there's a different process that occurs with globs of blood as opposed to light stains. That's what he said.

THE COURT: Not a different process. He just said his experience was different.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine.

MS. CLARK: I think we are talking about some very misleading testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: He said different color globs turn dark brown.

THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection because there is a chemical process that it goes through, period.

MS. CLARK: He's not a serologist either, right?

MR. NEUFELD: No. He's an expert qualified on everything about blood after it leaves the body. That's what he testified--

MS. CLARK: I would also--while we are here, your Honor, I would like to ask that the jury be--I would like to ask that the jury be admonished as to Mr. Neufeld's bad faith attempts to get in testimony what was previously ruled inadmissible. There is repeated effort on the part of these lawyers to go against the court's ruling after the court rules.

THE COURT: We'll take that up in a bit.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: I am annoyed about that.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Bashmakian, would you hand that back to Professor MacDonell. Excuse me. Yeah. Professor, may I see that, please?

PROF. MACDONELL: Certainly.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: May I continue?

THE COURT: Two seconds.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Professor, thank you. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, in your experiment and based on the experiment that you conducted, could the Rockingham glove and the Bundy glove be smeared with--I'm sorry--could the smearing of the Bundy glove and the Rockingham glove with blood on the evening of June 12th, 1994 account for 10 to 15 percent shrinkage in those gloves?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: I can't imagine it's at all possible, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, let me ask you one other question not involving these gloves, sir. Did you hear FBI Agent Bodziak's testimony this morning and yesterday regarding the color changes that bloody shoeprint stains will undergo during the course of time?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you hear his testimony in which he said that whereas a glob of blood will turn from red to black or dark brown to black, a light bloodstain will not go through that color transformation, but instead will simply fade and get lighter and lighter? Do you recall that testimony?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I do.

MR. NEUFELD: Is agent Bodziak right scientifically, sir, when he says that?

PROF. MACDONELL: Scientifically, I wouldn't say so. Maybe that's what he observed. I don't know what he had his thin blood prints on. But that has not been my experience and I have them back in the 60's that are thin blood prints and they're still dark, they didn't fade.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you please explain very briefly to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what is the biochemical process that occurs that causes bloody prints, be they globs of blood or light bloody prints, to go from red to dark brown to black?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, the color portion of blood, the red portion is hemoglobin, and as it oxidizes, it gets darker. And it doesn't matter whether it's a thin film or a thick film. It will get darker. I do not know of an instance where it has disappeared except some of my cardboard, the silverfish have eaten it away. But just chemically, it doesn't disappear.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you very much. No further questions.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take a brief recess at this time just to change exhibits, and I'm going to ask you to step back in the jury room. It will take about 10 minutes. 15?

MS. CLARK: 10 minutes is fine, your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll take about 10 minutes. All right.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Jex, 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. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr.--Professor Herbert MacDonell is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Miss Clark. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Mr. MacDonell.

PROF. MACDONELL: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: Now, the gloves that you performed your experiment on were brand new gloves; is that right?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. The gloves that I received.

MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact--

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

MS. CLARK: Do you have 1378 there?

MS. CLARK: Showing you, sir, 1378-C--no. I'm not--yes, I am. There's a tag on that glove?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, there is.

MS. CLARK: That's a tag that would be like on a brand new glove; is that right?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. That is the way I kept the right and the left separated without having to open envelopes. This is the right glove.

MS. CLARK: And when you got the glove, was it still in its plastic packaging, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: I believe it was, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, the crime scene gloves that you examined were clearly not new gloves; isn't that right, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: Oh, that's true. They were well-worn.

MS. CLARK: And the gloves that you tested, being brand new, were never rained on, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: Not that I know of, no. They could have been repackaged. I'm not sure it was the original package. I've had them in and out of plastic--protecting plastic bags. So I don't honestly know if it was a brand new package I got them in when I received them, but they were wrapped up.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And they appeared to be brand new to you, didn't they, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: They were definitely brand new.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So they'd never been--as far as you could tell, they had never been rained on?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MS. CLARK: Snowed on?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MS. CLARK: Sleeted on?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MS. CLARK: All right. They appear to you to be pretty pristine. Would that be a fair statement, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: Very much so, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you picked a certain amount of blood to pour on the glove to do your experiment. Can you tell us why you picked that particular amount?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's what a vacutainer contains. I felt it would be adequate and I was giving the blood.

MS. CLARK: It was your blood?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. I didn't need 25 milliliters I didn't think.

MS. CLARK: All right. Do you know, sir, precisely how much blood was on the Bundy and Rockingham gloves?

PROF. MACDONELL: No, I do not.

MS. CLARK: So this was just kind of a random selection of an amount of blood to put on there?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. It was what I felt would be an adequate volume to smear all over a surface. And as it was, it only took two out of nine milliliters. So it was certainly more than adequate.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you smeared it on with your latex glove, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You don't have any reason to believe that blood was smeared in that fashion on the Rockingham or Bundy gloves, do you, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. I'm sure it was not.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you hold yourself out to be an expert in glove manufacturing?

PROF. MACDONELL: Certainly not.

MS. CLARK: Or in the process of leather treatment, leather of the type used to make gloves?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I tanned--caught a few hides when I used to hunt as a boy, but not in making gloves, no.

MS. CLARK: Did you hear Mr. Rubin's testimony concerning the preparation of the treatment of glove leather for the purpose of making it less water permeable?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I recall that. I think it was referred to as naked leather.

MS. CLARK: Yes. Do you recall his testimony concerning the treatment of leather for gloves with the--by emerging them in chromium formaldehyde and certain oils to prevent rot?

PROF. MACDONELL: No, but it sounds like a good procedure. I'm not familiar with it.

MS. CLARK: Are you familiar with the use of fat liquors and oils that are added to reduce the potential of shrinkage when the gloves get wet?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. Not at all.

MS. CLARK: Do you have experience, sir, in the weathering of gloves that strip the fat liquor and those treatments to prevent shrinkage?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence as to these gloves as opposed to other types of gloves.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And do you have personal knowledge and experience as an expert, sir, in the manner in which stretchability will be affected by the weathering of gloves in which the fat liquor is stripped by being subjected to weather such as rain, sleet or snow?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. No testimony on that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And do you have any expertise or knowledge, sir, in the properties, the resistance that a glove will have--strike that. Let me start again. Do you have any expertise or knowledge, sir, in the decreasing ability of weathered gloves to resist shrinkage due to the strip panel of the fat liquor and other treatment processes?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, the first part I understand, but the last part I don't.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

PROF. MACDONELL: Could you break it into two questions perhaps?

MS. CLARK: I'm going to try. Okay. Is it part of your fund of knowledge, experience and expertise as a forensic scientist, sir, that the--strike that. Do you have experience and knowledge and expertise in leather gloves and the properties of their ability to resist shrinkage after having been subjected to various weather conditions?

PROF. MACDONELL: Not in their ability to do it. I observe it, but I don't know what it is that causes leather--I don't know if it's to shrink or to return to its original size.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

PROF. MACDONELL: My experience with rawhide in leather is that if you wet it, you can stretch it and then it will shrink back to the original size. So that is not shrinkage. That's just returning to status quo. That's why I wondered about your previous question. I'm still not sure, but I'm not an expert on glove shrinkage.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And I think what I'm getting at, sir, is this. As a glove ages, the treatment that had been initially put on it, do you have expertise in the field to know whether that treatment will wear off to the point where it will resist shrinkage less when subjected to wetness or water?

PROF. MACDONELL: No, I don't have. Certainly if there's a treatment that's put on anything to prevent something, as the chemical, whatever it may be, is worn away or leached away for whatever reason, then the purpose it was put in there is going to be most achieved when it was fresh, if that comes close to the answer to your question.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Yeah. And that seems clear as a matter of common sense, doesn't it, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. Exactly.

MS. CLARK: Without even being a glove expert?

PROF. MACDONELL: Certainly.

MS. CLARK: Now, you do not know the history of the gloves that were found at Bundy and Rockingham. Would that be a fair statement, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: That is.

MS. CLARK: And the only pair of gloves that you tested were the brand new pair of gloves that were given to you as provided by Richard Rubin, the glove manufacturer expert?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. That's correct. They were not given to me directly by him, but indirectly.

MS. CLARK: And your knowledge is that they came from him; is that right, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct. That's my belief.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you know anything in particular about the properties of these Aris light gloves?

PROF. MACDONELL: I never heard of them before this case.

MS. CLARK: And can you name for us specifically any prior case in which you've come in to testify to a jury concerning the property--the shrinkage of gloves due to the application of blood?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. Counting this one, once.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And are you aware--not being a glove expert by your own admission, sir, are you aware of the variation in range of sizes of extra large? In other words, that there is variation in the size of extra large?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I don't know about extra large, but when I buy large, some of them fit, some don't and they both say large. So I'm sure there is a difference in extra large as well.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

PROF. MACDONELL: They're not all the same.

MS. CLARK: Now, the--do you have any gloves, sir, that are handmade?

PROF. MACDONELL: I think I do.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any gloves that retail for $77?

PROF. MACDONELL: Gross?

MS. CLARK: Retail price.

PROF. MACDONELL: A pair?

MS. CLARK: A pair.

PROF. MACDONELL: No. I'm Scottish. No.

MS. CLARK: Right. Are you--

PROF. MACDONELL: Work gloves is about what I buy.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

PROF. MACDONELL: Work gloves for stacking wood. That is the most leather gloves I have.

MS. CLARK: Are you aware, sir, that the--that there is testimony to the effect that this type of glove retailed back in 1990 for $77?

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. I think we're--remember, there was a discount--there was a manufacturer's--and these were two pairs, wasn't it, for 77?

MS. CLARK: So--I'm sorry. Thank you.

THE COURT: Manufacturer's retail price was what; 55?

MS. CLARK: 55.

THE COURT: Never buy retail.

MS. CLARK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Let me amend that statement, sir. Do you have any gloves that cost $55?

PROF. MACDONELL: I hope not. I don't know. My wife frequently buys gloves for Christmas and I hope she doesn't spend that much.

MS. CLARK: Does that impress you as a pretty expensive glove, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: I would say it's got to be very nice gloves and these are nice gloves. I'm not questioning the retail price of them or the sale price, but I would not ordinarily expect to have a glove like that myself.

MS. CLARK: Now, you, of course, did not measure the Rockingham and Bundy gloves before the murders, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MS. CLARK: And you don't know what the conditions of those gloves was with respect to the fat liquor and all of the chemicals applied to resist shrinkage prior to the murders, correct?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Chemicals applied to reduce shrinkage assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: Only to the extent because of wear, whatever was there originally wasn't there in the same amount that it was to begin with because if they were worn, certainly things were missing.

MS. CLARK: So then you would agree, sir, that prior to the murders, as worn as they appeared, there was some lesser degree of protection from shrinkage on those gloves?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: I don't know. I would assume so, but I really don't know. If a worn glove loses its ability to resist penetration by moisture or whatever it is that could cause shrinkage over a period of time, then yes. But I really don't know. It would be logical. So I'll say conditionally, it seems that it would be less likely to resist shrinkage or anything else, staining, whatever, if the chemicals that are put in to prevent that are no longer in the same concentration.

MS. CLARK: Which is a likely thing to occur over a period of time and to be found in worn gloves such as that, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: It would seem so, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you did not measure the gloves in their original size just before the murders occurred, did you, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. I think I've already said that.

MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, and you're aware that these were--these are extra large gloves, the Rockingham and Bundy gloves?

PROF. MACDONELL: They are so stated, yes.

MS. CLARK: Then presumably whoever wore them fit the size extra large. That would be a fair common sense inference, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. Next question.

MS. CLARK: Now, you do not know what conditions those crime scene gloves were subjected to before the murders, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you don't know what--precisely what conditions they were subjected to after the murders; is that correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: Are you referring to immediately after the crime and before they're collected or from the collection point on? Before they were collected, I have no idea. From collection on, I assume they would be preserved in some forensic manner that would not further alter them.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Then you don't have any personal knowledge of either aspect, of how the crime scene gloves were treated after the murder?

PROF. MACDONELL: That is correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. Then you do not--you are not aware of the fact that the crime scene gloves were frozen and unfrozen a number of times?

PROF. MACDONELL: I had heard that they were, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you do not know precisely how much blood was actually on them; is that true?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.

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

MS. CLARK: Now, you said you measured the crime scene gloves, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And you said they were nine inches?

PROF. MACDONELL: Approximately nine inches in length.

MS. CLARK: And the gloves, the brand new ones that you had were 10 inches in length?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Then you found that there was indeed a 10-percent difference between them, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you testified to temperature and humidity based on reports taken that were generated from the Los Angeles International airport?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you have much more?

MS. CLARK: Not much. Not much.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, how much more do you have left?

MR. NEUFELD: A minute.

THE COURT: Hurry.

MS. CLARK: Want to try?

THE COURT: Let's try.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: You attempted to duplicate the weather conditions stated for the Los Angeles International airport for the night of June the 12th, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Morning of June 13th.

MS. CLARK: Okay. June 13th.

MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 60, sir--People's 44. Showing you that photograph, sir, you did not place your glove, the experiment glove on soil, did you?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MS. CLARK: You did not place it underneath a plant, did you?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MS. CLARK: And showing you People's 169--People's 69, you didn't put your experiment glove on pavement on--on pavement that had leaves on it, did you, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: And you didn't put it on a pavement that had leaves on it with overhanging trees, did you, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. Well, actually, there were overhanging trees, but they were over the roof. So they were under overhanging trees. The laboratory's in the woods.

MS. CLARK: They were hanging over the glove though, were they, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: Not without the roof in-between, no.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Are you aware that the first time the crime scene gloves were ever measured was after they had been frozen on June the 21st, 1994? Were you aware of that?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. I didn't know when they were measured.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, you testified concerning bloody shoeprints. Let me just ask you a couple questions about that if I might. Sir, you're not testifying that shoeprints never fade, are you?

PROF. MACDONELL: No. There can be reasons that they will fade I'm sure.

MS. CLARK: And would you expect to find shoeprints that were not visible at the time of the murder to suddenly become visible in detail two weeks later?

PROF. MACDONELL: In blood you're referring?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

PROF. MACDONELL: Not without some enhancement procedure. I wouldn't think they would just appear suddenly. They might be more noticeable, but if you're talking about stark contrast, I couldn't see how they would suddenly appear very dark.

MS. CLARK: And let me ask you something else, sir. If after photographs are taken of a crime scene to depict all of the bloody shoeprints at a crime scene and people walk through the crime scene after that, that is after it's broken down, and subsequently pictures are taken--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, objection. Beyond the scope. He just talked about biochemical reaction.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --and subsequently pictures are taken that show the appearance of shoeprints that were not shown in the photographs before the crime scene was broken down, would those shoeprints have any significance to you as a forensic scientist--

MR. NEUFELD: Assuming facts not in evidence. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --in solution of the murders, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: I don't think I should generalize on that. I would certainly want to study it in as much detail as possible. But simply stated, shoeprints, heel prints do not appear unless somebody's been there.

MS. CLARK: Right. On a common sense basis, sir, if you see a somewhat faint shoeprint in a bloody crime scene, would you expect to see a similar shoeprint somewhere nearby?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

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

MS. CLARK: And the new gloves that you tested that were given to you initially by Richard Rubin, those were the only gloves that you tested in this case, correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And with your experiments, sir, you cannot tell us why the crime scene gloves are 10 percent smaller than your brand new gloves; isn't that correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: If they're the same size, they shrunk, yes. But other than that, no. I don't know what caused it.

MS. CLARK: Thank you very much, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: But you did give your opinion that whatever caused it wasn't the amount of blood that was smeared on it on the night of June 12th; isn't that correct, sir?

PROF. MACDONELL: No.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

PROF. MACDONELL: If I would have used 10 times as much blood, I could get 10 times as much shrinkage, which is 10 times. Nothing is still nothing. So I wouldn't use anymore.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. And, sir, do you remember when Miss Clark asked you some questions about shrinkage and new gloves versus old gloves, do you recall Mr. Rubin's testimony that these gloves were made with something known as naked leather?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And are you aware of the fact, sir, that these gloves did not have any scotch guard or other type of water repellent chemical sprayed on it?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates.

PROF. MACDONELL: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: That's it. And applied to it?

THE COURT: Sustained. I mean overruled. There's no testimony about spray treatment. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, are you aware of the fact that between June 21st, 1994 and June of 1995, a year later, that these gloves were frozen and thawed many times in the crime laboratory?

PROF. MACDONELL: I think I've been told that. I would not be surprised. If they keep them in a freezer, to examine them, they have to take them out.

MR. NEUFELD: And are you aware of the fact that notwithstanding that they were frozen and thawed and frozen and thawed and frozen and thawed repeatedly over that 12-month period of time, when the gloves were measured in June of this year, they were not any smaller than they were on June 21st of 1994?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: To your--did you have an opportunity to see a diagram that was made by Susan Brockbank of the gloves in question in this case at some point during your investigation of this matter?

PROF. MACDONELL: I may have. I do not honestly remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you recall that the measurements of Susan Brockbank testified to regarding the gloves in June of 1995 were not at all different--I'm sorry--were not at all more than one percent different in 1995 than they were in 1994?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Your Honor, objection. That's--

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I do remember that. I believe I saw that particular testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: And finally, sir, Miss Clark asked you a series of questions about whether you could replicate every condition that these gloves were in when they were recovered on the morning of June 13th and she showed you a picture before or asked you about when you did your experiment, did you put the glove in soil. Remember her asking you that?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would soil make the gloves any wetter than the blood did?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Would putting the--would--given the fact that there is no testimony at all in this case about any precipitation or any wetness at the Bundy location, would putting the glove under a plant or plant leaf make any difference in the amount of wetness that those gloves--I'm sorry--that those gloves had as a result of being soaked with blood?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: I cannot imagine how it would, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, she also showed you the photograph the way the glove appeared at Rockingham when it was collected on the morning of June 13th. Did you see that photograph?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you see anywhere in that photograph leaves glistening to indicate there was any moisture at all on those leaves?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Would the fact that there is no moisture on those leaves or on that pavement do anything--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates, no foundation.

THE COURT: Assumes facts not in evidence, counsel. We've already talked about the dew, we've talked about the humidity, we've talked about these other factors. The jury knows what he said.

MR. NEUFELD: Would the fact that the glove in your experiment is not on pavement but is in that glass contraption that you created, would that make any difference, any appreciable difference in the results you generated?

PROF. MACDONELL: I didn't create it. I got it from the research laboratory. No, I don't think that it would.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you very much.

MS. CLARK: One question.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Sir, you testified that you were aware of the gloves, the photographs of the Defendant in the gloves at the football games that were shown to the witnesses earlier or last week.

MR. NEUFELD: Beyond the scope of redirect, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. With some latitude, where are we going on this?

PROF. MACDONELL: I have seen the picture.

THE COURT: One question.

MS. CLARK: Pardon?

PROF. MACDONELL: I have seen the pictures.

MS. CLARK: Did you test those gloves, sir?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. Your Honor, she already asked him whether he tested any other gloves.

THE COURT: Sustained. He indicated no.

MS. CLARK: May I have one moment?

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

MS. CLARK: Nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. Professor, thank you very much, sir. You are excused. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon as far as the jury is concerned. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you. And what did I forget? I'm so sure I forgot something. In any event, have a pleasant evening except for those of you going to the dentist, and we'll see you all tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. All right.

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Earlier today, Mr. Cochran, you gave the court a list of witnesses that you anticipated upcoming.

MR. COCHRAN: I believe so, your Honor.

THE COURT: Where are we?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, I did give you a list and I asked, your Honor, in the interest of trying to move this case along to assist us with certain of the witnesses. Certainly Sherry Ray was, in fact, here and I think--I had spoke with your Honor before the break and I excused her. She'll be back tomorrow morning 9:00 clock. We do need Detective Vannatter. We do need Mr. Martz from the FBI.

THE COURT: All right. This is for testimony in front of the jury?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Yes. We have further cross-examination of each of those parties, and that will be still I believe in our case in chief. We expect to call--excuse me, your Honor. Excuse me.

MS. LEWIS: I just passed it along.

MR. COCHRAN: I got a note, threw me off momentarily. We're going to need to at some point after we deal with Detective Vannatter and Agent Martz--we wanted to have the Fiato brothers. I understand we--my office issued subpoenas for them today, FBI agent named Michael Wachs, W-A-C-H-S, Deputy District Attorney Dale Davidson. All those witnesses relate to the same thing, statements allegedly made by Detective Vannatter. We may not need all of them, but after Vannatter testifies, we may need some of them. And what I guess I'm indicating to the court is, I think we can pretty much wrap up the balance of our case and the surrebuttal, if not tomorrow, certainly by Wednesday morning. Given--and then there's the issue of Agent Whitehurst. And we think when you--I don't know when you plan to read the various sundry items, but we feel very strongly there's specific links to this case involving Mr. Simpson.

THE COURT: I'm not reading anything until somebody submits an offer as to--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, we had agreed, Miss Clark and I had agreed--basically we want to start with Martz anyway. A lot of it depends on how he responds. But we had agreed, Miss Clark and I had agreed I think that we weren't going to make a proffer in writing necessarily because of the time, we wanted to move the case along. But if you think--if you want that, we can do it. If it'll make it easier for your Honor, we'll do that.

THE COURT: Well, here's the problem. You're going to make a proffer, you're going to ask me to read things, review transcripts and that sort of thing. So--

MR. COCHRAN: I think what we want to do is make representations to you and we'll ask you to read certain things. We got more documents today from Washington. So you tell us what's most feasible that will save you the most time so we can get this matter over and to this jury as soon as possible.

THE COURT: Well, I see--here's the problem. I hear the name Whitehurst bandying about. I don't know what is going on. Frankly, I try to avoid the news media reports in all of these things.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand.

THE COURT: I have been successful at least as far as Mr. Whitehurst is concerned. So what are we dealing with here?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me have Mr. Blasier address that. He will be dealing with that witness, Agent Martz.

MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor. There's a lot of material that we've been accumulating just in the last couple of days.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, Mr. Blasier. If we're going to talk about this, may I get Mr. Kelberg here as well as Mr. Hodgman because I was not privy for these interviews?

THE COURT: Okay. Yes. I think we need to do that since we're talking about a proffer here and I sense a 402 coming.

MR. BLASIER: What I would suggest--we talked about this before and I think we talked about it with your Honor, that we would make a verbal presentation as to what we think is relevant, what we would like to call Agent Whitehurst for and they could respond, and then if we felt--either side felt you needed to read any of these materials, then we could direct your attention to whatever you'll need to read. There's no reason for you to read all of this.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Well, your Honor, I have to confess I have heard very little and I was not--

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, why don't you repeat your last 60 seconds' worth of comments for Mr. Kelberg.

MR. BLASIER: My suggestion is, we both make an oral, verbal presentation to what our offer is, and then if either side feels the need to have the court review any specific materials relating to what it is they're talking about, then we can direct the court's attention to that at that time.

MR. KELBERG: In general, I don't have a problem. No. 1 though, the court should be aware I talked to Mr. Eglash, who is an assistant U.S. attorney who was one of the lawyers present during the interview with Dr. Whitehurst. Apparently tomorrow, he anticipated receiving through overnight delivery a large number of documents apparently the Defense has subpoenaed with at least one, if not two additional subpoenas today, certain records out of D.C. the records are going to be provided, as I understand, to Mr. Eglash for tomorrow. I suggested that Mr. Eglash come here at 8:30 tomorrow so we could represent to the court what he represented to me, which is, he won't have the documents until about 10:30 and they believe the documents will be divided into three categories; 1, which of the documents they're willing to turn over to both sides as is. 2 I believe is a series of documents which they would ask the court to review in camera to see whether or not they are relevant, and if the court deems them relevant, to turn over to both sides in the redacted fashion suggested by the agency; and, 3, a series of documents which they believe under no circumstances should be turned over for reasons that Mr. Eglash could much better express than I. Now that I've made this representation to the court, it might save time to when--Mr. Eglash should be here tomorrow, if that becomes necessary for the court's consideration.

THE COURT: Well, here's the problem. If he's not going to have the documents until 10:00 o'clock in the morning, then obviously we won't get to it.

MR. KELBERG: And he indicated to me it's going to take some time just to sort them into the appropriate package and have whatever paperwork they feel is necessary. He was hoping for a 1:30 appearance here with whatever materials he has been provided from Washington.

MR. BLASIER: I don't have any problem with that. It may mean if we are going to call witnesses, it may be Wednesday morning.

MR. KELBERG: That's fine. No. 1, has the court read any of the materials on Dr. Whitehurst which were submitted I believe on Friday, the 26-page memo and there may have been other things?

THE COURT: No. I have not read anything yet. I have the original memo, I have a transcript excerpt and I think there's one other item I might have in my package. I'm not sure.

MR. KELBERG: Because I would ask--I think the court should read the 26-page memo. I don't think the court can get a flavor of Dr. Whitehurst without reading that memo irrespective of what additional things either side may feel is necessary for the court to read in assessing what relevancy, if any, Dr. Whitehurst has to these proceedings.

THE COURT: All right. Then I'll take that home if you don't object, Mr. Blasier, and read both items this evening.

MR. BLASIER: Only with the understanding we have a number of documents that relate directly to the Simpson case which we think you should also review. I don't know if--we may be able to make copies for you and you can take those with you too.

MR. KELBERG: I have no problem as long as I'm apprised which documents they are. I don't know if the Defense is aware--I've been upstairs. So we have been receiving documents, copies of which I have been told have simultaneously been provided to the Defense, not necessarily in the same mechanism because I believe the Defense has a lawyer back in Washington D.C. who may be getting physical possession immediately. Ours is through faxes through the United States attorney here or from a representative of the Department of Justice who is out from Washington and is receiving them I believe in an office in Westwood. The long and short is, there are a number of letters that Dr. Whitehurst sent to the inspector general's office. Much of the material has been redacted, just blacked out, but there are references in these letters to Simpson and Martz and so forth. If those are the letters--I don't know if you have them yet--I have no problem with the court reading those. We received some letters I think also from the FBI today. I have not had a chance to review those in detail. I have no problem with the court reading those. And if the court gets the second transcript, yesterday's transcript, what I'm going to ask the court to do is--I was the last lawyer to question. So my questioning primarily--I had the opportunity to ask for clarification during the course of the examination by other lawyers, primarily Mr. Blasier or Mr. Neufeld. But my questioning is the last questioning about the last 40 minutes. I ask the court to read that 40-minute segment of questions--I don't know how many pages it is--because that summarizes what I think the court needs to know about Dr. Whitehurst and his relevancy to these proceedings.

THE COURT: Well, let me get a running start with the items that Mr. Blasier suggests this evening. Believe it or not, I actually have other things to do with my life everyday.

MR. KELBERG: I'm shocked to hear that, your Honor.

THE COURT: My coy pond pump died on me this morning. If I don't get a new pump, I'm in trouble.

MR. BLASIER: I think you'll probably have one in an hour and a half.

THE COURT: No. It's a very special pump, believe me.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, when do you want us here?

THE COURT: Well, who are our next witnesses, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor--

THE COURT: Let's assume we won't get to the Whitehurst issue until tomorrow afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: I wouldn't expect that. I think we're going to have hopefully Miss Ray, Detective Vannatter. We are trying to have Mr. Douglas check to see if Agent Martz will be out here. Those will be our next witnesses it seems before we get to Whitehurst, then the Fiato brothers--I understand they're here--FBI Agent Wachs, Dale Davidson, D.A. we have enough witnesses in the morning to take care of, and then we can get to Whitehurst at the end.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, less we be considered to have waived anything, I'm here to--I am here to get a specific offer of proof--excuse me, Mr. Cochran--from the Defense with regard to Officer Sherry Ray, who we received discovery for just this morning and who I have had an opportunity to interview, and we have some vigorous objections to her testifying. So I don't want it to be assumed because the Defense wants to put her on that the court is going to allow her--

THE COURT: When do you want to do that?

MS. LEWIS: Well, I'd like to get a specific offer of proof from Mr. Cochran as to exactly what they would assume that Officer Ray is going to testify to because the notes with which we were provided have a lot of buzz words and inflammatory phrases that turned out not to be something that this witness could or would say that Mark Fuhrman said or did. So I would like to start with an offer of proof from Defense what they wish to call her for.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, I take it she is your next witness up?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, she would be.

THE COURT: What's your offer of proof regarding this witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor. May I say, one other witness we potentially want we mentioned this morning, Gary Sims also. The reason I keep mentioning these witnesses, Judge, is because if we don't, they're not here. We need to make some effort to get them here as soon as possible. Now, in responding to your Honor's question, LAPD officer Sherry Ray--as an offer of proof, we will proffer the following: That she was employed by the Los Angeles Police Department between the dates of January of 1982 and I think 1993. She's off on I think some sort of stress disability leave presently. She was working with and was a partner with--on various occasions from September 1985 through about December of 1988 with Detective Mark Fuhrman. She is the first--only police officer we expect to call in this regard. She worked with him in West Los Angeles Station and she has heard--

THE COURT: She was his partner officer?

MR. COCHRAN: She was his partner on occasions, but also worked--her partner most of the time was Thomas Vettraino. She would work another car, provide backup for those in the SPU unit. She has worked with him on occasion, but she was not his regular partner.

But she knows him very well. She knows and has information regarding his use of the "N" word repeatedly during this period of time. She has information regarding what she calls a code, conspiracy of silence among officers in protecting and covering for one another. She specifically uses the term--and I'm quoting so there will be no mistake about that--"It's time to pencil fuck a Nigger," which has to do with writing reports in a misleading way where they lie and change facts around to justify probable cause or to implicate someone who is otherwise innocent. She knows and can testify, as I said, about this major code of silence and something the officers routinely call "Testilying," that they use the "Testilying," and then finally, that in 1988, her last day in that particular division, she worked with this particular Officer Fuhrman who a couple of days before, that she and he had won some kind of an commendation for an arrest, grand theft arrest, and he pulled into the station at 5:00 o'clock A.M. on this date in December 1988 and said, "I've been authorized to tell you what all the male officers out here think about you." He then launches into a tirade where she feels very, very frightened and intimidated and gets out of the car, leaves her in the car, goes in the station and there's two more hours left on watch. In addition to that, when she heard him testify in February and said he never used the "N" word in 10 years, she knew he was lying then. But I asked her why didn't she come forward. She said because it would do no good, internal affairs would investigate it and do nothing about it, that in fact, she did in fact report it later on and they said, "We'll get back to you." And she gave me the name of the officer at I.A. so they never bothered calling her back. So she is off on some kind of stress disability leave now, but she was here today with a lawyer and also with her defense rep. I think, Judge, that with regard to her and anticipating the argument is cumulative, this is a lady specifically--and you'll recall that we had the two ladies, we had singer and we had Kathleen Bell and you said we could bring forward--we then had McKinny because of the tapes, we had Roderick Hodge, who is the suspect who dealt with the affront of Fuhrman. And this is an officer who worked with him on occasion, backed him up, dealt with him specifically and knows about the maneuver of that particular division and LAPD at that time. She knows a lot more, but obviously I want to limit it to make it more concise.

She could tell you a lot about the LAPD. And she doesn't make it just a few officers. She says many, more than everyone wants to admit, and I don't plan to go very far afield. I want to limit it to the things we talked about here.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Lewis.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, that made me smile, when Mr. Cochran said he wanted to limit it to what he had just discussed, which was everything in the book he could possibly hope to elicit from any officer. Your Honor, Sherry Ray was assigned to West L.A. Division for three years, 1985 to 1988. During that time, she told me today that she partnered at most--and she indicated that it was a generous estimate--at most 10 times with Mark Fuhrman because, according to her, he worked the SPU unit regularly and she did not work the SPU unit. During that time, she indicates she recalls him using the "N" word, but she doesn't recall any particular time that he did so. He specifically--she specifically told me that he did not say it's time to--excuse me--pencil fuck and the "N" word. She cannot say that Mark Fuhrman said that because she has no recollection of him individually saying that. She has a recollection, to her way of thinking, of various officers at West L.A. Division using racial epithets and she has no specific recollection of any particular occasion of Mark Fuhrman using them. So the Defense proffer is based on someone who admittedly has very shaky recollection with regard to Mark Fuhrman's particular use--and admittedly had very little contact with him during what is a remote time period. And we're talking again about the 1985 to 1988 period, which is--with regard to which the court has allowed abundant impeachment evidence. We have Laura McKinny's testimony that he used the "N" word 42 times from 1985 to 1988. We have him saying in his own voice the best impeachment evidence the Defense could ever hope to have admitted in the trial. The court admitted--we have Natalie Singer saying, "There's no good "N" like a dead "N," highly inflammatory and prejudicial to the People's case I submit, a statement of his that he made back in--apparently back in 1987, Roderick Hodge testifying he addressed him as an "N" in 19--January 1987. So we have all of these witnesses who have extensively impeached Mark Fuhrman on his use of the "N" word. This witness adds nothing to it. It does not matter she's a police officer.

What they've done is put extrinsic evidence that already impeaches him extensively on his use of the "N" word and now through Roderick Hodge is addressing someone of the word. There is nothing this person adds that is probative on the impeachment issue of the very narrow issue that this court ruled was relevant for impeachment to come in. Just because she's a police officer doesn't make her testimony any more probative on this issue. In fact, according to the Defense, it would be less probative on this issue because of this conspiracy thing of theirs. At any rate, this woman's knowledge of West L.A. Division of LAPD and Mark Fuhrman is 1985 to 1988. She's never seen him since then except she did indicate to me that she--because she's been out from the department on stress leave--has watched the trial coverage extensively including his preliminary hearing testimony last year, his trial testimony in March, the what I'll call Fuhrman-McKinny tapes, 402 hearing held before your Honor and all of the Fuhrman witnesses who testified during the Defense case. She's watched all of that. But her only personal knowledge as to anything said by Mark Fuhrman dates back to 1988 at the latest and she has very little recollection of it. There's nothing that her testimony can add at this point in time that isn't almost, as a matter of law, unduly prejudicial to the People, because it's--the cumulative effect of this stuff is geometrically increased with every witness, and the last ones who testified did give that extra inflammatory edge which could very well and indeed has at least caused some members of this jury to think far afield from the evidence in this case and to go far afield from the evidence in this case. We've demonstrated over and over again that no matter how many times this man used the "N" word, no matter how bad a racist he is, there is no evidence that he had any opportunity to plant any evidence in this case or to falsify anything in this case or to do anything wrong in this case. So for the Defense to attempt yet again to put on cumulative additional evidence on this point just to further inflame the jury now there's been a little period of time between the last witnesses and this witness they want to call now is simply not right, your Honor. This is what 352 was invited--was enacted for, for example, a type of prejudice. And here, it's clear there can be no additional probative value to be gained that could possibly outweigh the prejudicial effect. His--just a couple points. His--Mr. Cochran's offer of proof with regard to his speaking to her as a female officer, there's no relevance to Mark Fuhrman's attitude toward female officers in this case. There's just no probative value there whatsoever but to inflame the predominately female jury that we have. So, your Honor, that's it. Clearly her testimony would be cumulative to all the other witnesses that have already testified on this identical issue.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Two quick points, your Honor. Thank you, Miss Lewis. The statements--the reason why I mentioned the statement with regard to the cover-up and the treatment of female officers, it corroborates exactly what Miss McKinny said. The court will recall that question was asked Miss McKinny with regard to the cover-up issue, and the court limited us to cover up vis-à-vis women officers versus men officers. It's entirely corroborative. Although they say they gave up on McKinny, they didn't. They cross-examined her, they questioned her vigorously in that regard, and I think it becomes very relevant. I also neglected to mention that she indicated to me that he did harbor racial animus toward mixed couples. She does, in fact, buttress the other witnesses on various points.

So whether Kathleen Bell or Natalie Singer or whatever--it's not cumulative because--and the thing that's so relevant about this, this is a police officer, Judge. You know, how many times in a case are we going to get a police officer who comes in and tells us about this code of silence or these officers "Testilying" or that internal affairs doesn't do their job. There is a number of officers out there who are doing this thing over and over again. This is a police officer who is saying that. Now, I think that's very, very important in a case where we've said these things do in fact exist. There are many people who don't believe these things exist and you know the problem we have establishing this. Miss Cheri Lewis stands up here now and says there's no way he could have planted this glove. We are going to demonstrate to this jury he had plenty of time to plant this glove. We will demonstrate when and exactly when he could have done it and that he has the willingness to fabricate and not that he could have done it, he did it in this case. So that's not rhetoric. I'm telling you what we expect to prove to this jury. And so this is why this is so relevant to us.

I'm not telling you I want to call five or six other witnesses. This is a police officer in a different category that I think--and I told you everything she could possibly testify with regard to the racial animus, the use of the "N" word, the attitude toward female officers, the attitude of the cover-up. That incident in December 1989 was particularly chilling to her and buttresses exactly what McKinny says in her testimony here. So it's very relevant. It's not cumulative. This idea that this is so prejudicial to these jurors is an insult to these jurors. They've seen and heard everything in this case. They are going to be able to sift through this, and I think we have to also balance this with Mr. Simpson's right to a fair trial. The People have objected to every witness we've called during the course of our case. It's just another objection and I would ask the court to allow us to call this lady. There's one other aspect of her testimony I would like to bring to the court's attention with regard to a 402 that I would like to bring also at some point.

THE COURT: One other aspect? Well, we might as well deal with it now.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. There was--she has pending a matter in Orange County, your Honor. She has a lawyer and has no relevance at all to this case and it's a matter involving a child custody matter. And I don't see any basis for that at all. Also, Miss Lewis I understand in talking to her talked to her about a board of rights hearing. I don't think we can get into the board of rights or this other matter that's pending in Orange County. There's no convictions or anything of that nature. So I want a 402 with regard to that also.

THE COURT: Miss Lewis, those two last issues that Mr. Cochran raises.

MS. LEWIS: Okay. The last two--first, apparently she does have felony charges pending in Orange County. The trial, according to her counsel, is set as zero of 10 on October 16th. Clearly that's not a conviction yet. I don't believe we could impeach her with that though. Frankly, my cocounsel aren't aware of that and I'd like an opportunity to talk to them because there may be something that would be appropriate to bring up with regard to that, and I don't want to be foreclosed from that just because we've gotten discovery at the last second and had been forced to argue this at the last second before your Honor. With regard to one thing--

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

MS. LEWIS: In fact, I'm just getting advice that it could very well be relevant certainly towards bias and the reason for now saying these things when she did not come forth, you know, to anyone in March even though she heard Mark Fuhrman's testimony and claims that she knew that was not true.

THE COURT: What are the charges in Orange County?

MS. LEWIS: Conspiracy and aiding in child stealing, basically having to do with her grandson I believe, grandchild. They're serious felony charges. I am sure she doesn't consider them nothing and there is serious conduct at issue.

THE COURT: Having conducted jury trials as to those issues before, I'm quite well aware of how volatile those are.

MS. LEWIS: Yeah. A very volatile situation. In addition, Officer Ray cannot say, does not say and is not saying that Mark Fuhrman ever planted evidence, ever falsified reports, ever manufactured probable cause or ever heard anyone else--

THE COURT: No. Miss Lewis, the only thing I asked you to address were the pending charges and the board of rights issue. That's the only new issue that Mr. Cochran has brought up that I'm interested in ruling on.

MS. LEWIS: Well, your Honor, these are serious charges that are pending against her, and the department apparently has a--stuff for which they have disciplined her as well as additional stuff which is pending. I'm not sure of the nature of it. But that type of thing can certainly go to her bias. Whether or not we even would choose to attack her credibility is an issue that hasn't even been addressed yet. Only recently we got discovery on this woman, just, you know, have become aware, and none of us have had an opportunity to confer since the court has been in session with most of the lead trial lawyers on the case throughout the day. But it's clear there are issues that would be raised and we would not necessarily go without cross-examination. This is far afield, your Honor. And as far as corroboration of Miss McKinny's testimony, does the court even want to consider that? That is so far afield, the fact that she may have testified with regard to sexist or female attitude, to have her corroborate that when that had nothing to do with anything. We're not denying that he used the "N" word 42 times. It's on tape most of the time and it seems to be the truth and we're not seeking to dispute that that is the truth.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, could I ask the court to hear--

THE COURT: No. This is a 402 issue as to Sherry Ray.

MR. KELBERG: I just wanted to add one other thing when you have the opportunity on Mr. Martz as a witness.

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. KELBERG: And his availability.

THE COURT: No. You disrupted my chain of thought here. I was about to rule on an issue, Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Wasn't that apparent to you?

MR. KELBERG: I wasn't certain whether the court had heard the argument and was satisfied now that it will be in a position to rule or it was moving on to something else. I apologize to the court.

THE COURT: Let me think. Where was I? Do I need to hear the argument again? Never mind. No. All right. The objection is sustained for these reasons. I find the argument regarding the necessity of corroboration to have no merit. The racial animus of Detective Fuhrman was corroborated by multiple witnesses who testified to the same thing. Also, his voice is on the tape. That is abundantly apparent. There's no factual dispute that's even plausible at this point. It's a collateral issue. The proffer is remote, going to `85 to `88. It is clearly cumulative. The objection is sustained.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg, what was so important?

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, your Honor. It is only important if the Defense is contending that Mr. Martz should be called as a witness before the court rules on the admissibility of Dr. Whitehurst's testimony. The People say that that is an incorrect position, that in fact, no. 1, the court limited the Defense in their case in chief.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Kelberg, let's not even waste our time with this argument for this reason. If Detective--excuse me--if special Agent Martz is in Washington D.C. as we speak and if we're not even going to get to the Whitehurst documents in toto until sometime tomorrow afternoon and we won't even be able to go into that, what relevance might this have at this point?

MR. KELBERG: I agree, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm not interested in hearing about Agent Martz at this time, only that I would ask that you make arrangements to put him on call so that he's available.

MR. KELBERG: He already is.

THE COURT: All right. So he will be available on one day's notice?

MR. KELBERG: I assume one day. Obviously he comes from the east, and as long as we can make flight arrangements to get him in here in one day. But he is cooperative. The attorney for the FBI is cooperative. We just have to notify the attorney that he is needed on a particular day and he will be here. I'm sorry that I caused such a headache.

THE COURT: All right. Next issue. All right. For what purpose are we going to call Detective Vannatter?

MR. COCHRAN: I think that Mr. Shapiro is going to be handling that. We've got further questions based upon newly discovered evidence. He has further questions of Detective Vannatter on cross-examination.

MS. LEWIS: He was excused.

MR. COCHRAN: He's still a witness in this case and we have not rested. I think we can do this. Your Honor, in the so-called search for truth, I would think that we certainly would have the absolute right to do that. The court is aware of this information. We expect to use it. We can--I think it's our absolute right to recall him for that. He's the lead detective in this case. And are they saying they're not going to make him available to us? He's going to hide behind some kind of--

THE COURT: No. He's available. He will be available.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. I would--we'd like him tomorrow morning.

THE COURT: But I understand there's going to be--there will be a request for an offer of proof, et cetera, et cetera. So we'll go through this again.

MR. COCHRAN: So we don't waste any time, since I can no longer call Sherry Ray tomorrow morning, I would like to have him here.

MS. CLARK: That will necessitate a 402.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: That's been true with every witness.

THE COURT: Tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, I just wanted to point out, Defense indicated they wanted to recall Gary Sims, and we looked at each other and wondered as to what that was about. I believe he was just here.

THE COURT: Refresh my recollection. Why do we want to call Mr. Sims back?

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Scheck.

THE COURT: I recall he was released subject to recall.

MR. SCHECK: Yes, your Honor. As you recall, you reviewed this material in chambers. That Mr. Sims has notes that on July 17th and on prior occasions, he observed a wet transfer in the second sock that goes from surface 1 to surface 3 in areas where there is blood that he did DNA typing which is consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson. So once again, the absence--the wet transfer through from side 1 to--surface 1 to surface 3.

THE COURT: Are we talking on the second sock?

MR. SCHECK: Second sock.

THE COURT: Is there a reason we didn't do this when he was here the last time?

MR. SCHECK: Because on July 17th, when Dr. De forest and Gary Sims did their reexamination of the socks, they documented this. This was the Brady material that you reviewed and Mr. Hodgman showed you. I realize it was confusing because they gave you one labeled picture for the longest period of time, but I think that's pretty clear. Obviously, if the same transfer mechanisms existed on the second sock that did on the first, that goes substantially towards the Defense's theory as to how blood was planted on the socks.

THE COURT: All right. Here's the confusion that I have, Mr. Scheck, as to that issue. Wasn't Mr. Sims just here and wasn't that information already given to you prior to that?

MR. SCHECK: I asked to--if you recall, I asked to make him my own witness, and the People objected.

MR. COCHRAN: You said we'll bring him back, your Honor.

THE COURT: That's right. I recollect.

MR. COCHRAN: You said we have to recall him.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what I would do if they want, perhaps I will call Mr. Sims this evening at his home, and if we can work out a stipulation to the Prosecution as to what his testimony would be, then we can write that out. That might save us some time.

THE COURT: I do recollect at this time there was an objection to going into those areas on the scope objection. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes. If I could be heard on this one, your Honor. First of all, this would not, as I understand it, be proper surrebuttal because we presented nothing in rebuttal that goes to this issue. That's first of all. And I think that one's clearly factual as a matter of record. Secondly, that means that it should have been presented in their case in chief. And the stain that they're talking about was observed by Henry Lee and by Mr. MacDonell. Why they did not elicit the testimony from those people I do not know. But they indicated that they were going to rest conditionally upon the court's determination of the admissibility of the Whitehurst issue and nothing else. And I asked the court specifically if they were limited in their conditional reopening to that issue, and the court indicated that they were. Now, with respect to--

THE COURT: Hold on. Okay. What we'll do is, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld, put it in writing what it is you want to present and why it wasn't presented earlier. All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, there's one other item.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You may recall that when Mr.--

THE COURT: Is that a candy bar wrapper?

MR. NEUFELD: No. Actually it's a syringe wrapper. On April 11, 1994, when I in the company of Jo-Ellyn Demetrius and Bob Blasier interviewed the nurse, Mr. Peratis, at the infirmary at the police department headquarters, we asked him which syringe he used to draw blood from Mr. Simpson on June 13th, and he opened the drawer and he showed us a syringe and he even--and he gave us all the specs on the syringe, and it's a Beck and Dickerson 10-cc syringe with the calibration right on it. We went out and we purchased these with the hope obviously of introducing them when he took the witness stand. He's not taking the witness stand as you know. He had these same syringes with him when he did the demonstration for Mr. Goldberg. However, you can't see the actual syringe in the frame. I mean, you know, it's a needle, but you can't see the calibration because the syringe being held too far away.

THE COURT: Let me jump way ahead of you, Mr. Neufeld. What you want to do is interview--introduce that syringe in front of the jury. So we can do this one of two ways. Either the Prosecution can stipulate that that's the syringe that is in use at the Parker Center infirmary or you'll have to get somebody from Parker Center to come over to say "This is the syringe we use."

MR. NEUFELD: Just so you know where we stand on this already, I gave one of these to Mr. Goldberg with the hope he would agree to the stipulation. Otherwise, what I might have to do--I want to avoid calling either Mr. Goldberg or Mr. Blasier because they were the ones who were actually there and know what he said. Now, it may be that they're using different syringes now at Parker Center. I don't know the answer to that question. But the easiest thing is for someone to stipulate, and otherwise, we will have to call additional witnesses. You're right. I want to avoid that. That is all.

THE COURT: Let's see. Here's the problem. As a matter of evidence, how do you propose to do that by other people's statements?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. I can call--one thing I can do if we can't get a stipulation, I would call--first of all call Hank Goldberg as to what kind of syringe Mr. Peratis was using in that demonstration he did on July 27th at his house.

THE COURT: That's not necessary. You can call Oppler.

MR. NEUFELD: No. Oppler won't know the syringe I am afraid and I already asked Miss--I think her name was Ramirez, whether she remembered it, and she didn't. So they don't have the specs on it. Mr. Goldberg was the person who had frequent conversations with Mr. Peratis and would be the person who, you know, did this with him that day. Frankly he directed it.

THE COURT: As a matter of hearsay, I contemplate how you are going to do that. All right. I would suggest try to stipulate first. And if not, call somebody from the infirmary as to what's in stock because B&D is the standard medical supplier.

MR. NEUFELD: No. No. What I am explaining is that they actually--is that Mr. Peratis showed us the package. So we know which model and everything else, and this isn't the exact duplicate of the needle described by--of the needle described by Mr. Peratis.

THE COURT: All right. Maybe I'm not making myself clear at this point. Okay. We will be in recess. 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. Thank you all.

MR. COCHRAN: May I have those witnesses, your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. COCHRAN: May I have those witnesses, Fiato brothers, Dale Davidson, Wachs?

MS. CLARK: Their witnesses, your Honor. I can help out with dale maybe.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, check on Mr. Davidson, see if you can obtain his whereabouts. Get in touch with Mr. Sims to see if he's available and make Detective Vannatter available.

MR. COCHRAN: What about the Fiato brothers?

THE COURT: I have no jurisdiction to order them in.

MR. COCHRAN: They've been subpoenaed. I have a subpoena.

THE COURT: All right then.

MR. COCHRAN: Bring it tomorrow morning?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(At 5:00 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, September 19, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Monday, September 18, 1995 volume 225

Pages 46155 through 46436, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 225 pages 46155 - 46436

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Monday September 18, 1995 A.M. 46155 225 P.M. 46283 225

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S (Rebuttal) witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Bodziak, William J. 225 (Resumed) 46167bs 46264mc 46289bs (Further) 46304mc 46307bs (Further) 46309mc

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

MacDonell, Herbert Leon 225 (Recalled) 46327n 46377mc 46395n 46400mc

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.

Bodziak, William J. 225 (Resumed) 46167bs 46264mc 46289bs (Further) 46304mc 46307bs (Further) 46309mc

MacDonell, Herbert Leon 225 (Recalled) 46327n 46377mc 46395n 46400mc

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1377 - Two sheets of 46185 225 paper with test impressions

1377-A - 2-page document 46185 225 entitled "Investigator's report" by Stephen Oppler

1378-A thru 1378-E - 46337 225 photographs of experiments by Herbert MacDonell

1379-A - photograph 46358 225 of a left glove

1379-B - photograph 46358 225 of red transfer of a left glove

1380-A - photograph 46361 225 of a right glove

1380-B - photograph 46361 225 of red transfer of a right glove

1381-A - photograph 46365 225 of red transfer of a right glove - 90 percent

1381-B - photograph 46365 225 of red transfer of a right glove - 85 percent