P. Baker briefly recrosses FBI footwear expert Bodziak, attacking the limitations of his analysis. Baker gets Bodziak to concede that the impression on Exhibit 419 could have come from any sole with similar detail, and that the 23 ovals could not be definitively identified as Bruno Magli designs.
# 1 MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further, thank you.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:
# 2 Q: Mr. Bodziak, your analysis is only as good as the pictures you were provided, correct?
# 3 A: It's only as good as the evidence, in that case as the picture.
# 4 Q: You asked for a triangular piece of paper, you never got it?
# 6 Q: You asked for an envelope, you never got it?
# 7 A: Yes, I examined the envelope.
# 8 Q: You didn't get the piece of paper, right?
# 9 A: No, I don't believe that existed.
KEY QUOTE # 10 Q: Okay. Now, you said as to this impression it possibly could have come from a Silga sole, right?
# 11 (Indicating to Exhibit 419.) # 12 A: I said there were three areas that possibly could have come from that sole. It was insufficient detail to make that determination.
KEY QUOTE # 13 Q: Insufficient detail, could have come from anything?
# 14 A: If there was another sole that had the capability of leaving those marks, yes.
# 15 Q: Answer my question, it could have come from anything, right?
# 16 A: I answered that, yes.
# 18 A: If it was another sole that had the same -- similar detail I would believe those marks, yes.
# 19 Q: You talked about the 23 ovals, right, earlier, when Mr. Medvene asked you some questions on redirect?
# 21 Q: You couldn't possibly identify these as Bruno Magli designs, correct?
# 23 Q: They could have been another design shoe, correct?
# 24 A: It's unlikely, but if you take each one independently, that's correct.
KEY QUOTE # 25 Q: Thank you.
MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions.