(BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you explain to the jury why you took the picture that Mr. Baker was just discussing with you as you took it in.
I took the picture, which is large number 7 of the right Bruno Magli shoe, for purposes of demonstrating and recording my results.
The examination was made of the original shoe.
When you say "for demonstration purposes," would it have aided the demonstration in any way if a height of 5 feet were used, or was shot 25 yards away, or that the model in some way was 6 foot 1 inch? Would that have changed that?
Well, the examination is done from the originals, too.
In other words, I would take the photograph, the number 4, and actually have the shoe in my hand and make those comparisons. The only purpose in taking the photograph was for demonstrating those results, and in doing so, I took a series of photographs with a model wearing a shoe; each time they moved their foot a little, and I picked one which I thought was easy to place up there, and for whoever had to look at it, to easily see the comparison that I made.
And did it affect your conclusion that it was a Bruno Magli shoe in the detail you gave yesterday, as to why you felt that way, because of where you took the picture from?
No, the picture had nothing to do with my comparison. The comparison was from the original shoe. The picture is for demonstrative purposes and recording purposes.
KEY QUOTEFor use in note taking, for use in court display, for use in transmitting your results to someone else.
In your opinion, would you tell this jury whether the shoe shown on Mr. Simpson's foot prior to the football game is identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli shoe that's Exhibit 395, that's been introduced in evidence in this case?
As I testified yesterday, the right and left Bruno Magli shoes are -- excuse me. The right and left shoes on Mr. Simpson, depicted in photographs number 1 and 2 on this board, are, in fact, Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes, as is the shoes in the photographs, number 7 and 8, which were Exhibit 395.
During the -- you were asked about talking to folks during the criminal trial.
Did you spend hours speaking to Mr. Scheck, one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys?
Yes. There wasn't a single break down -- and even before I first testified on rebuttal in the criminal trial, I spoke to Scheck, Mr. Scheck, at length on many occasions.
Have you ever refused any request by any member of Mr. Simpson's defense team to talk with them and ask any -- answer any questions they wanted?
You were questioned during Mr. Baker's examination about identification of footwear and comparing that to fingerprints, and some quote was read to you?
Does that quote, in your opinion, have anything to do with your testimony about the objectivity of footwear identification?
No. The question I was asked, was about the similarity and the potential identification of shoes and identification of fingerprints.
And the portion of the transcript was read -- which was read to me, regarded the various disciplines or fields for which those examinations were conducted in various laboratories.
And when you spoke about the objectivity of footwear impressions and your ability to determine that the bloody footprints that were identifiable were size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, what did you mean by the fact that this was an objective determination and resembled prints in that regard?
Yeah. Objectivity is essentially leading and the evidence speaks for itself, where subjectivity is kind of approaching guessing or, you know, saying more than you should say, based on the evidence.
And in this case, there were many photographs. Some of these were very closely taken with a ruler and they were very distinct. I could make exact comparisons with the overlays of the shoes and with the shoe soles themselves, and I could give very objective answers.
There were many other photographs which were taken, such as were shown to me this morning that were as you could see something that might have been a footwear impression or may have been a pattern similar to the Bruno Magli design, we did not have the proper kind of photographs to make that objective kind of comparison.
Are you talking about the photos that were -- Exhibit 43 that you were questioned about earlier?
And with respect to that exhibit and the photos that were shown to you, were you able to make the kind of definitive objective analysis you've made with regard to the other footprints?
No, I was never given the proper type of photographs of those areas that would have enabled me to make the kind of comparisons that are detailed and asked and demonstrated -- excuse me, testified to yesterday. With the overlays with the direct overhead examination quality photographs.
In doing this type of comparison, each separate impression or alleged impression must be independently examined. And so any of those photographs, impressions, this morning or imprints or possible shoe prints or whatever you want to label them, each of those would have to be examined independently, not just examining them because there were other Bruno Magli prints at the scene, presuming they were also that same pattern, and that I did not have, nor were there taken adequate photographs to do that.
Did you examine every photograph that you understood was -- that you believed was adequate for the purpose of making a definitive objective determination?
I made every attempt to look at every photograph that the LAPD had taken. For instance, the photograph shown to me this morning with Nicole Brown Simpson's body lying there and being asked about questions of blood appearance on the steps and in front of her body; I asked for the envelope that was in that photograph, I asked for the triangular piece of paper that was in that photograph, I asked for her dress as potentially containing impressions, I asked for everything that I could, including any additional photographs taken in a proper manner, so I could make that type of examination.
Now, with respect to your examination of the walkway, all the footprints, all the physical evidence that was photographed, everything you were asked about this morning, do you have an opinion as to whether there is any evidence that more than one pair of Bruno Magli size 12 footprints were at the crime scene that night?
MR. P. BAKER: Beyond the scope, Judge.
I can only testify based on the photographs I examined, that were taken with rulers and close up, or showed adequate detail to make that comparison. Out of all of those where I could see a design and where the photograph was taken properly and I could make that type of comparison, I was not able to find any other impression other than the Bruno Magli size 12 design.
From your examination of the bloody footprint photos at the crime scene, do you see any indication that more than one person left the size 12 Bruno Magli footprints?
Based only on what I -- the examination I was able to make, there's no indication that more than one person left size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints.
Now, we've put on the board -- excuse me, put on the easel what's marked 419, the Bronco carpet.
And certain questions were asked you about differences in testimony, allegedly, and you were read certain testimony. I'll read you 32751.
MR. P. BAKER: I request that he read a question or ask him a question, Judge.
Reading to you from 32750.
MR. P. BAKER: I'd ask that he be asked a question, not read his testimony.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you previously state -- And you might go over to the board, and if you did state this, point out where you were talking about, if you wouldn't mind. (Reading.) I did notice --
And I'm reading from 32751, lines 1 through 7. I did notice that there was this area here which is -- could possibly have been a border of the shoe. And there also is some little, what I call squiggles or little S shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear enough or reliable enough to make any kind of positive determination.
MR. MR. MEDVENE: I'll read further, at line 1, the area here.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you -- Did you previously state in substance where you saw the S mark, the S squiggle and what appeared to be a border?
Yes. My testimony in the criminal trial in that transcript is exactly what I testified to yesterday, that there is an area here that's a possible border area here, that's a possible parallel line border circle which is marked by No. 3, the squiggle or change in direction which could have possibly been from the space between the design elements.
A question was asked about Exhibit 408 where you identified left and right footprints and Mr. Baker pointed out a number of blue ovals further down the walkway?
Was there sufficient detail for you to make a determination positively that those were Bruno Magli footprints?
No. The photographs of those footprints, which are marked with a blue oval area on the sidewalk, on the walkway, where you could see blood, you could see it was within the sides of the area of a shoe, but you couldn't see any sufficient detail, you couldn't see the design elements, you couldn't see anything which would enable you to compare that with any particular shoe design.
Based on your investigation, did you make a determination that after several years, stores that sold Bruno Magli shoes threw away their receipts or records?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, speculation, no foundation.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) Based on your investigation, did you make a determination whether the stores that sold Bruno Magli shoes did not retain receipts after several years.
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation, speculation.
You may inquire as to what he specifically found. He can't form an opinion as to what the practice was.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) What was specifically found in terms of record keeping after several years?
The investigation wasn't conducted by me. I initiated it but I didn't have any personal knowledge of the results.
Based on your investigation could you tell me whether or not it was determined that cash sales are not reflected in the receipts kept by stores?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
(BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect to the carpet and the blood found on the carpet, is it true that that was Nicole Brown Simpson's blood?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, no foundation.
MR. MEDVENE: Counsel asked you about Mr. Yamaguchi. Did you receive information that a PCR test was done for that particular area and that the Department of Justice matched that blood to Mr. Simpson's?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation.
I believe there was a Mr. Yamauchi that testified, but not a Mr. Yamaguchi.
They're two different names, you know.
KEY QUOTEI have no knowledge of the examination or examination results. I wasn't part of that.
The picture had nothing to do with my comparison. The comparison was from the original shoe. The picture is for demonstrative purposes and recording purposes.
Out of all of those where I could see a design and where the photograph was taken properly and I could make that type of comparison, I was not able to find any other impression other than the Bruno Magli size 12 design.
There wasn't a single break down — and even before I first testified on rebuttal in the criminal trial, I spoke to Scheck, Mr. Scheck, at length on many occasions.
I believe there was a Mr. Yamauchi that testified, but not a Mr. Yamaguchi. They're two different names, you know.