Defense attorney Philip Baker cross-examines FBI shoe print expert William Bodziak, focusing on three main areas: the roughly 38 hours Bodziak spent preparing with plaintiffs' attorneys (paid by taxpayers), the accuracy of his testimony about a shoe impression on the Bronco floor mat, and—most significantly—multiple crime scene photographs showing possible shoe prints near Nicole Brown Simpson's body that Bodziak never examined because the prosecution never sent them to him.
# 1 THE COURT: Any subsequent motions?
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
# 2 THE CLERK: You are still under oath.
Will you state your name again for the record.
# 3 WILLIAM BODZIAK: William J. Bodziak.
WILLIAM J. BODZIAK, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on Wednesday, November 21, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:
# 4 Q: Good morning, Mr. Bodziak.
# 8 Q: When did you come down to LA, Mr. Bodziak?
# 10 Q: How long did you spend with Mr. Medvene this week?
# 11 A: Approximately the balance of Monday after I get in, from like three or four o'clock, to maybe eight o'clock at night, and a larger portion of the day on Tuesday.
# 12 Q: Which means seven hours, eight hours?
# 13 A: Eight to ten hours, yeah.
# 14 Q: Spend any time preparing to testify with him on Wednesday?
# 15 A: Before I testified yesterday morning?
# 17 A: Maybe one or two questions in the morning, something like that, before walking over.
# 18 Q: Okay.
And I had the good fortune of meeting you on Tuesday, when Mr. Medvene brought you by to kind of give you a tour of this courtroom, didn't he?
# 19 A: No. We came over to check some pieces of evidence. And while we were here, we stuck our heads in from outside the hallway.
# 20 Q: Did he show you the lectern where he was going to be asking you some questions?
# 22 Q: Did he go over with you the questions he was going to ask you by the time you took that chair to testify?
# 23 A: We reviewed the matters that I would be testifying on, yes.
# 24 Q: He told you the questions he was going to ask you, didn't he?
# 25 A: I didn't know the specific wording; I knew generally what he was going to ask, yes.
# 26 Q: And you told him what your answers would be, didn't you?
# 27 A: That's normal to review in a pretrial; yes, sir.
# 28 Q: Answer the question.
# 30 Q: You told him the answers, didn't you?
# 31 A: That's what I stated; yes.
# 32 Q: And prior to this week, how much time did you spend with Mr. Medvene?
# 33 A: On a couple occasions, he traveled back to Washington. I think total, maybe two days.
# 34 Q: You spent about a day and a half with him in March?
# 35 A: I know he came on two occasions; one was lesser part of a day, one was a day, plus like another half a day. So I think a total of about two days.
# 36 Q: About two days.
About 16 more hours?
# 38 Q: You also met Mr. Petrocelli in Washington, D.C., didn't you?
# 39 A: At the deposition, yes.
# 40 Q: How many hours did you spend with Mr. Petrocelli prior to the time he took your deposition?
# 41 A: Five minutes, to get coffee.
# 42 Q: Okay.
Any other time you spent preparing to testify, with any representatives of the plaintiffs' attorneys other than which you've already testified -- other than we've already talked about?
# 43 A: There may have been a couple two-minute phone calls: I'm sending you something, or something like that, but not -- not what you're asking, not in terms of going over my testimony from the criminal trial.
# 44 Q: All right.
You spent about 38 hours, I'm told, with the plaintiffs' attorneys prior to the time you testified; is that right?
# 45 A: That's a close estimate, yes.
# 46 Q: How many civil cases have you ever testified to -- in?
# 47 A: Federal or nonfederal?
# 49 A: I've testified in one nonfederal civil case.
# 50 Q: That was about 15 years ago, wasn't it?
# 51 A: That was the last time the occasion arose, yes.
# 52 Q: Okay.
And who paid you for the 38 hours that you spent conversing with representatives of the plaintiffs prior to the time you took the stand?
# 53 A: I was just on my regular salary as an FBI agent.
# 54 Q: Okay.
So the taxpayers paid you for that time, correct?
# 55 A: That's one interpretation, yes.
# 57 A: I don't know how many taxes you pay or if you pay any.
KEY QUOTE # 60 A: I'll check into that when I get back.
# 62 Q: I'm sure you will.
O.J. Simpson paid you?
# 63 A: If he pays taxes, you could say that, yes.
# 64 Q: You try to remain as neutral as possible, don't you, when you're going to testify, don't you?
# 65 A: That's what's expected of me, yes.
# 66 Q: That's an oath you take as an FBI agent?
# 68 Q: You take an oath to tell the truth, correct?
# 70 Q: Now, you were first -- Strike that.
How much time did you prepare with representatives for the prosecution prior to the time you testified in the criminal case?
# 71 A: Well, I've never calculated the hours, but I -- I was in LA prior to the criminal case on four occasions, including going to the scene, reviewing photographs, talking with attorneys; and then on the last occasion, approximately two to two and a half days before my testimony.
# 72 Q: You conversed with representatives of the prosecution for about two to two and a half days?
# 73 A: In the criminal matter?
# 75 A: In the criminal matter, yes.
# 76 Q: You -- is there any other case where you have spent as much time as you have in the case involving O.J. Simpson?
# 77 A: Working the case or in talking to -- to attorneys?
# 78 Q: Talking to attorneys.
# 79 A: Probably some that come close, but this is probably the most because of the two trials; yes.
# 80 Q: You were first contacted by the prosecution in about early August of 1994?
# 82 Q: And you got to travel to Italy, right?
# 83 A: I actually canceled the first trip and rescheduled it later.
I think it was in February.
# 84 Q: Okay.
I wasn't really interested in your travel plans.
You traveled to Italy right?
# 86 Q: You visited two factories there?
# 88 Q: And you ascertained that the shoe-print impression that appeared at 875 South Bundy was similar to that of the Silga sole on the Bruno Magli -- Bruno Magli line, correct?
# 89 A: It was made by the Silga Sole, what Silga calls a U-2887 sole, which is a number marked on the back of those rubber soles that were in the court yesterday.
# 90 Q: Okay.
And as I understand it, you ascertained that these type of shoes were sold in 40 stores throughout the United States, correct?
# 92 Q: How many of these shoes were sold outside the United States?
# 93 A: There were some shoes sold in Italy and there was also some that were shipped to Ireland, and the exact number -- there's no way of determining what, in terms of the number of soles, that Silga shipped to those other suppliers. It was a very low number.
Probably in all total, based on the figures I got, 120,000 --
# 96 Q: Now, from what I understand, after you ascertained that this type of shoe was sold in 40 stores, the LAPD and the FBI conducted an investigation, did it not?
# 98 Q: And in that investigation, you are aware they went to representatives of -- the FBI and the LAPD went to all 40 of these stores, correct?
# 99 A: That was the intent.
I have no personal knowledge of exactly what came out of that request.
# 100 Q: You were aware of that, were you not?
# 101 A: I initiated the request, but I didn't have any follow-up after that.
# 102 Q: And you are aware, are you not, that not one receipt was ever found identifying that O.J. Simpson purchased a Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe, correct?
# 103 A: Not to my knowledge, no.
# 104 Q: And you're also aware that not one salesperson recalled selling a Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe to O.J. Simpson?
# 105 A: They weren't specifically asked that; but based on the end result, that's my impression, that none did.
# 106 Q: Well, he's kind of a celebrity, right?
# 107 A: They did not ask that question, though, in their leads.
# 108 Q: When they asked whether they recalled that they sold O.J. Simpson a shoe, the salesperson most likely knew who O.J. Simpson was; isn't that true?
# 109 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion.
# 110 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 111 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, let's talk about that -- that imprint you saw on the Bronco.
# 112 (Referring to Exhibit 416.) # 113 MR. BAKER: Why don't you put it up to the next notch, Phil.
MR. P. BAKER: Oh, I'm sorry.
# 114 MR. BAKER: Straight up.
MR. P. BAKER: Can you see that?
# 115 (Nod affirmatively.) # 116 THE COURT: Sir --
MR. P. BAKER: Can you see that?
# 117 THE COURT: -- I can't see that.
Nobody can see that. It's not that; it's this board.
MR. P. BAKER: All right.
# 118 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) You see it now?
# 120 Q: As I understand, you testified to this jury yesterday, that the imprint you observed on the Bronco was in a location where a person would normally first step into a vehicle; is that true?
# 121 A: I testified that it was my belief that most persons would step somewhere in that area with either the left or right foot, yes.
# 122 Q: You said first step, didn't you, Mr. Bodziak?
# 124 Q: In fact, you said this area here (indicating) would be where the first foot strike normally would be, for most people, in the vehicle?
# 125 A: Normally, that's correct.
# 126 Q: Okay.
And you also kind of implied to this jury that that imprint was similar to a Silga sole, didn't you?
# 127 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion. Also vague and ambiguous.
I'll withdraw it.
# 128 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) You put this overlay on this imprint in front of this jury of a Silga sole, didn't you?
# 129 A: Not the entire imprint.
# 130 Q: You put this imprint -- you put this overlay over that imprint, didn't you, Mr. Bodziak?
# 131 A: Over three separate, specific areas, not the entire imprint.
# 132 Q: You were trying to imply to this jury that that imprint was a Silga sole, weren't you?
# 133 A: No. I testified I couldn't determine that.
# 134 Q: Oh. Okay.
You went a little bit farther than what you testified to in the criminal case, didn't you?
# 135 A: No. I said exactly the same thing that I said in the criminal trial.
# 136 Q: All right.
Let's go to page 32842 of the criminal testimony, lines 12 through 17. 32842.
# 139 Q: And you weren't trying to imply to this jury that that was a Silga sole when you put the overlay over the board?
# 141 Q: Now, Mr. Bodziak --
# 142 THE REPORTER: Does this have a number?
# 144 MR. FOSTER: The overlay doesn't have a number.
# 145 MR. BAKER: Let's give it a number.
MR. P. BAKER: 2212.
# 146 (The instrument herein referred to as Overlay of an outsole was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2212.) # 147 Q: Mr. Bodziak, will you walk down to the board and turn the board as you did yesterday, in the way that that carpet would have appeared in the Bronco.
# 148 (Witness adjusts board.) # 150 Q: That's the way you think this floor mat appeared in the Bronco, the pedals being here?
# 151 A: No. The pedals would be along here (indicating).
This would be the door (indicating). This would be the side where the console was (indicating). This would be to the rear of the car.
# 152 Q: So the pedals would be right about here (indicating)?
# 154 Q: And looking to the left side of this exhibit?
# 155 A: When it's on its edge, yes.
# 156 Q: Okay.
And how far from the end of this rubber mat to the end of the seat, Mr. Bodziak?
# 157 A: Part of the seat was actually over this area (indicating); the seat came over part of this area?
# 158 Q: Part of the seat kind of went over on top of the floor mat?
# 159 A: Just a little bit.
# 160 Q: How far from the top of that floor mat to the brake pedal, exactly?
# 161 A: Well, I have -- there was no need for me to measure it. I can't answer your question.
# 162 Q: Well, Mr. Bodziak, you testified in the criminal case that this (indicating) is where a person would normally first step, didn't you?
# 163 A: This is the entrance, yes.
# 164 Q: Okay.
And this is the -- this is the metal side door, right (indicating)?
# 166 Q: And the door kind of opens somewhere over here to the left (indicating)?
# 167 A: It's kind of behind, would be over here (indicating).
# 168 Q: Right over here, right to the left (indicating)?
# 169 A: I don't know how far.
# 170 Q: Certainly at the edge?
# 171 A: But this (indicating) is the carpeting where the metal threshold plate is when you open the door.
# 172 Q: You're sure of that?
# 175 A: Absolutely positive.
# 176 Q: You testified in the criminal case, where Mr. Simpson faces life in prison, that's where a person would normally step?
# 177 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative. Move to strike. Form of the question.
# 178 THE COURT: I didn't quite hear you.
MR. P. BAKER: I will withdraw it.
# 179 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) How far was the left portion of this (indicating) rubber mat to the side rail, Mr. Bodziak?
# 180 A: This is a natural size photograph.
It's the exact distance you see here, and the metal rail would have come slightly over that carpeting.
# 181 Q: Okay.
So none of this cutting would run underneath the door panel, right?
# 182 A: Possibly enough to hold it down.
# 183 Q: Oh, so some of it would?
# 184 A: Well, quarter inch or whatever it took.
# 185 Q: Okay.
That's not a cut that goes all the way up, right?
# 187 Q: Okay.
And did you ask the prosecution, before you made that opinion, to look at the photograph of the floor mat in the Bronco before it was removed?
# 188 A: I have photographs of the floor mat before it -- it was, as it was taken out, but I can't recall -- I've looked at hundreds of photographs -- whether one of those had a picture of this area of the carpet actually in the Bronco. I don't recall.
# 189 Q: So as you sit here today, you don't recall seeing a photograph of the floor mat already in the Bronco, correct?
# 191 Q: Okay.
And by the way, there was a hat on that floor mat when it was opened; isn't that true?
# 193 Q: A hat, kind of an Irish hat?
# 194 A: I have no knowledge of a hat.
# 195 Q: Never seen that before?
# 197 Q: You don't know if there was any blood on that hat, do you?
# 198 A: That was not my area of examination.
# 199 Q: Okay.
I'm going to show you a photograph, Mr. Bodziak --
MR. P. BAKER: I'll have to mark it next in order.
# 201 (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of Ford Bronco with doors open was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2213.) # 202 MR. LEONARD: I don't even know which way is up.
MR. P. BAKER: Maybe not.
# 203 MR. BAKER: I wouldn't say that so loud.
# 204 MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have a number for the record?
MR. P. BAKER: 2213.
# 205 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) You ever see this photograph before, Mr. Bodziak?
# 206 A: I don't recall seeing it.
# 207 Q: You don't recall?
# 208 A: I may have seen it. I don't recall.
# 209 Q: Earlier, you testified that the chair went over the floor mat?
# 210 A: I think when it's moved up, it does.
# 211 Q: When the seat is moved up?
# 213 Q: You don't wait a second.
# 215 Q: Let me ask the question.
You don't know if that seat was moved up or not when they opened up that door, do you?
# 216 A: At the time the blood impression was left, or at the time the police opened the door?
# 217 Q: At the time that photograph was taken, Mr. Bodziak.
# 219 Q: You're guessing whether or not that seat was moved, aren't you?
# 222 A: No, I'm not. In regard to where this carpet is, whether the seat was moved at the time this was taken, no, I don't know.
# 223 Q: Okay. You don't know.
And that floor mat goes up underneath the parking brake, doesn't it?
# 225 Q: It doesn't.
And the door sill kind of ends about the middle of the floor mat, doesn't it?
# 227 Q: I thought you told the jury that it ended up here a little bit earlier.
# 228 A: That's the way it was represented to me.
# 229 Q: Okay.
So the photograph is different than what you were represented to, right?
# 230 A: Not -- not entirely, but in part, it is. It shifted a little more than I thought, yes.
# 231 Q: By the way, Mr. Bodziak, how much higher is this imprint over that floor mat, exactly?
# 232 A: I don't understand what you mean by "higher."
# 233 Q: Inches.
How much higher up on the floor mat is that imprint over the rubber mat?
# 234 A: Well, it -- that actually raises the corner of it, then extends towards the center of the vehicle.
# 235 Q: It goes five inches above the floor mat, doesn't it, from here (indicating) to the top of the rubber mat?
# 237 Q: And that imprint is underneath the parking brake, isn't it, Mr. Bodziak?
# 238 A: As it appears in this photograph, it would be further up, yes.
# 239 Q: Further up on the underside?
# 241 Q: That's nowhere a person normally steps into a vehicle, is it?
# 242 A: It's possibly not where I would, with my short legs.
KEY QUOTE # 243 Q: Okay.
So when you testified to this jury --
You're not a human-factors expert, are you?
# 245 Q: You've never heard that term before?
# 247 Q: You don't have a Ph.D. in human factors?
# 248 A: Thank goodness, no.
# 249 Q: So you were wrong when you said that that imprint is where a person normally steps into a vehicle, weren't you?
# 250 A: I think they can still put their foot there, but it may not be the first step.
# 251 Q: Well, you said the first step to this jury.
# 252 A: That was my impression, based on the way it was represented to me, yes.
# 253 Q: Do you give all your opinions based on other people's representations, Mr. Bodziak?
# 254 A: My opinion is regarding this impression. The other was just to orientate the jury as to where that carpet was.
# 255 Q: Oh, okay.
So you were orienting the jury as to where it was, based on someone else's representation, right?
# 256 A: Well, I think the orientation was pretty clear, except for a couple inches' difference in where the hat was, yes.
# 257 Q: You also put this impression up in front of the jury yesterday, didn't you?
# 260 MR. BAKER: 2212.
MR. P. BAKER: Which one?
# 261 MR. BAKER: That's 2212.
MR. P. BAKER: 2212.
# 262 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Would you put it up again.
# 264 Q: The position you put it up yesterday, where it looks similar to where the imprints were.
# 265 A: Starting with number 1, I drew the -- taken and drew a circle around it.
# 266 MR. BAKER: He asked you to put it up, Mr. Bodziak.
# 267 MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.
# 268 THE COURT: Mr. Baker, let this Mr. Baker handle the examination.
KEY QUOTE # 270 MR. BAKER: That's my boy.
# 271 THE COURT: I know it. But he's doing quite well, so let him do it himself.
# 272 WILLIAM BODZIAK: Number 1 referred to the border around the shoe here (indicating) and placed the overlay over that position.
MR. P. BAKER: Let's leave it up there. I want to leave it up there.
Okay.
# 273 WILLIAM BODZIAK: That's right where it was.
# 274 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) If you --
# 275 A: It was on that exactly.
# 276 Q: Okay. You do it for me.
# 277 (Witness places Exhibit 2212 on easel.) # 278 WILLIAM BODZIAK: It's actually to the right of the board.
# 279 THE COURT: Actually, it's not the bottom.
MR. P. BAKER: Yeah, yeah. I'm losing it.
# 280 THE COURT: It's to the bottom right of the chart -- board.
# 281 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Is that the left foot or the right foot?
# 282 A: You gave me the left foot.
# 283 Q: That's what you put in front of the jury?
# 284 A: I testified it could be left or right.
# 285 Q: Well, it could be left or right?
# 287 Q: And instead, it was the first foot strike -- normally would be for most people -- in the vehicle, right?
# 288 A: It would be, for most people, the normal foot strike, yes.
# 289 Q: When you open the door, Mr. Bodziak, and get into a car, you either go like this (indicating) to get in a car; is that how you do it?
# 290 A: I have cars; I don't have Broncos, so . . .
# 292 A: I've never driven one.
Yeah, I don't -- I slide in first because it's a car.
# 293 Q: And you put it -- you put your foot underneath the parking brake first?
# 295 Q: Okay.
And you certainly wouldn't do it with your right foot, would you?
# 296 A: In this type of vehicle, I don't. I would have to put a foot up there (indicating) and pull the wheel, and brace myself, and pull myself up.
In a passenger vehicle, like I normally do, because I don't have this vehicle, I would slide in, just sit down on the seat, and swing my feet around.
# 297 Q: You don't open the car, put your right foot in, and jump on the seat, do you?
# 298 A: I don't know what I'd do in this vehicle; I've never been in it.
# 299 Q: Okay. All right. Good enough.
And you can't tell this jury positively that this imprint is from a Silga sole, can you?
# 300 A: I testified I could not; that's right.
# 301 Q: All right.
And you are aware, are you not, that Mr. Yamauchi found no results when carpet 33 was first tested, aren't you?
# 302 A: With regard to the blood?
# 303 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor, lack --
# 304 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 305 MR. PETROCELLI: Outside the scope.
# 306 THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled. Goes to his testimony, expertise factors that went into it.
# 307 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) With regard to the carpet, were you aware of that?
# 308 A: I'm not sure if you're asking about blood results or shoe-print results.
# 309 Q: When carpet 33 was first tested by Mr. Yamauchi, you (sic) came up with no results. Were you aware of that, Mr. Bodziak?
# 310 A: Tested for what?
I don't understand your question.
# 312 A: Well, you haven't said that yet.
# 313 Q: Okay. I'm sorry.
# 314 MR. PETROCELLI: That misstates the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi.
# 315 THE COURT: Who's going to handle this part of testimony on your side?
# 316 MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry. Mr. Medvene had not -- might not have been there.
# 317 THE COURT: I know he's not your son.
# 319 MR. BAKER: You've got justification, Dan.
# 320 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) You weren't aware of that, were you, Mr. Bodziak?
# 321 A: Could you restate the question entirely.
# 322 Q: You weren't aware when Mr. Yamauchi first tested item number 33 for blood, he came up with no results?
# 323 A: I'm not aware of any blood results, no.
# 324 Q: Okay.
Now, normally, when you testify, Mr. Bodziak, you're comparing shoe prints -- normally, when you testify, you're comparing shoe prints with known shoes of a suspect; isn't that true?
# 325 A: In most cases, yes.
# 326 Q: And those shoes -- strike that.
When a -- after the crime, you were aware that the LAPD searched the sewers for shoes that matched the shoe prints at the crime scene; were you aware of that?
# 327 A: I was not aware of that, no.
# 328 Q: Were you aware they searched all around Mr. Simpson's residence for shoes that matched the impressions?
# 329 A: I have no personal knowledge what they looked for and whether --
# 330 Q: Were you aware of that?
# 331 A: No. I said I wasn't.
# 332 Q: And you weren't aware that they looked all around at the Chicago hotel for shoes?
# 333 A: I have no personal knowledge of what they did, looking for the shoes.
# 334 Q: Okay.
In fact, when you first came onto this case on September 21, 1994, you asked Mr. Lange and you asked Mr. Vannatter for the following. You asked:
In order to provide a more complete and accurate assessment of Mr. Simpson's shoe size for comparison with the shoe size of impressions at the crime scene, it would be of value to examine inventory and list the brand names, types, and sizes of all shoes belonging to Mr. Simpson, such as those he was wearing at the time of his arrest, and those which are currently at his residence.
That's what you asked for; is that not true?
# 335 A: That's correct.
You're reading a memo I wrote to them.
# 336 Q: You wrote that on September 21, 1994?
# 337 A: If that's the date on it, yes.
# 338 Q: And you never got that, did you?
# 339 A: No. I believe they had already served their warrant and they weren't able to ever search anymore.
# 340 Q: You later came to find out that Mr. Simpson had shoes ranging from 10 and a half to 13 in his closet, right?
# 341 A: I was never provided any information.
# 342 Q: You wouldn't be surprised by that?
# 343 A: About what I requested in that --
# 344 Q: You wouldn't be surprised that he wore shoes ranging from 10 and a half to size 13?
# 345 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for speculation, would he be surprised.
# 346 THE COURT: Sustained as whether he would be surprised or not.
# 347 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) You wear a size 8 to 10, don't you, Mr. Bodziak?
# 349 Q: You were given one pair of shoes, some Reeboks?
# 351 Q: And those doesn't match the impressions at the crime scene, correct?
# 352 A: No, they did not.
# 353 Q: Now, let's talk about the footprints at the crime scene.
# 354 (Counsel displays Exhibit 408, board entitled Shoe Prints at Bundy, June 13, 1994.) # 355 THE COURT: Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: This the board you talked about yesterday?
# 359 Q: Okay.
And from what I understand, the prosecution sent you photographs from the sidewalk up into the driveway; is that true?
# 361 Q: And you tried to document every shoe print you observed at the crime scene, from the sidewalk to the driveway, correct?
# 363 Q: Okay.
And the purple ones are right foot, correct?
# 364 A: Right and the pink are left.
# 365 Q: The blue dots, what are the blue dots, also?
# 366 A: Those are ones which do not contain enough detail in them to determine if they are right or left, or if they're Bruno Magli.
# 367 Q: You can't associate them with Bruno Magli?
# 369 Q: How many blue dots are on here?
# 370 A: I haven't counted them.
# 371 Q: There are 23 blue dots on there?
# 372 A: That's past what the --
# 373 Q: 23 footprints you couldn't possibly associate with Bruno Magli shoes?
# 375 Q: And by the way, did -- in the criminal case, you were asked some questions about your hypothesis of the actions of the assailant, were you not?
# 377 Q: Do you remember that?
# 379 Q: And you testified in the criminal case that you believed the assailant stepped in the blood around Nicole Brown Simpson, right?
# 381 Q: Walked up the walkway, right?
# 383 Q: At some point, turned around, right?
# 385 Q: Walked back into the crime scene, right?
# 387 Q: And then eventually walked all the way out to the driveway, correct?
# 388 A: That was one hypothesis.
# 389 Q: That was a hypothesis you put in front of the criminal jury, right?
# 390 A: That was what I stated as a possibility.
I made it clear I could not exactly determine the order of the shoe prints.
# 391 Q: Okay.
But you talked about L and M.
Do you remember talking about that? That's the left foot, M, the right foot, L, right about -- pretty close to her front doorway. Remember that?
# 393 Q: And you hypothesized, when Mr. Bailey was asking you some questions, that the assailant most likely stopped at that area and stepped back into the vegetation, correct?
# 395 Q: Okay.
And you don't know how long the assailant possibly could have stood outside the line of sight from any walker by on the sidewalk, do you?
# 397 Q: You can't tell that from the shoe prints?
# 399 Q: The assailant at L and M could have stood back outside the vegetation for a few minutes, for all you know?
# 401 Q: Okay.
And by the way, the assailant was walking, right?
# 403 Q: You could determine stride analysis, the gait analysis was that of a person walking, not running, from the shoe prints you could observe on Exhibit 40?
# 404 A: No. I don't examine stride analysis.
# 405 Q: Well, the shoe prints are pretty close together, right?
# 406 A: There's two sets of them.
Yes.
# 407 Q: They're pretty close together, as if the assailant is walking, right?
# 408 A: If there's two sets, there's going to be -- obviously, they're going to be more close together, because you have ones from one set so close to the ones of the other set.
# 409 Q: But the patterns are pretty firm; you could ascertain that there was weight put on it, as if the assailant was walking?
# 410 A: His foot was contacting the surface.
# 411 Q: That's what you testified to in the criminal case, that you believe the assailant was walking, doesn't you?
# 412 A: I don't believe I stated anything of that nature.
# 414 A: But there were hypotheses that were offered to me. I was answering questions under those hypotheses.
# 415 Q: The shoe-print patterns on 408 are consistent with an assailant walking, correct?
# 416 A: I don't profess to determine if the person was walking or running or walking fast or walking slow.
# 417 Q: Okay.
Well, you testified in the criminal case, blood dries relatively quickly?
# 418 A: Quickly?
It dries very quickly.
# 419 Q: Within five, ten minutes?
# 420 A: Depending on how much there is. There's a whole lot of variables there; you can't just answer that question yes or no.
# 421 Q: You're right. My question is poor.
A shoe impression -- a blood drop would be dry in five to ten minutes?
# 422 A: Just a simple drop of blood?
# 424 A: I would -- I would think that that would probably be dry in five to ten minutes at the earliest, yes, unless it was raining or very misty or something.
# 425 Q: Okay.
And a shoe impression would dry, I think you testified in the criminal case, similar to that, about five to ten minute?
# 426 A: If it was in a pool of blood, it wouldn't; but if it was well down the walkway, it would, yes.
# 427 Q: Okay.
And I think you said that a shoe print, the blood would dry in about six to eight steps?
# 428 A: I didn't say it would dry.
I said there would be sufficient blood removed from the raised areas of the sole, that you would fail to get the same representation of the raised area pattern.
# 430 A: There would be no blood left on those areas.
# 431 Q: So significantly dry or significantly come off the sole?
# 433 Q: Removed from the sole in six to eight steps, right?
# 435 Q: Okay.
By the way, did you see any footprints going east around the back gate?
# 437 Q: Okay.
You did see one shoe print going east, and that was up on -- let's see; the one, two, third step -- a faint shoe print which you believe was possibly going east on the third --
# 439 Q: All right.
And just to be clear, 408 was meant to document every shoe print you observed along this walkway?
# 440 A: Every one I had a photograph of, yes.
# 441 Q: You had photographs going from the sidewalk to the driveway?
# 443 Q: Correct?
Okay.
Mr. Goldman had pretty distinctive shoes on that night, doesn't he?
# 445 Q: Mr. Goldman, Ron Goldman.
# 446 A: Oh, yeah.
The make was Patauga, P-A-T-A-U-G-A, I believe.
MR. P. BAKER: I think it's Pataqua. P-A-T-A-Q-U-A.
Let's take Mr. Bodziak's; he's the shoe expert.
# 447 MR. BAKER: I think it's Q-U-A?
# 448 WILLIAM BODZIAK: I'd have to look it up; it's been a couple years.
# 449 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) And you didn't observe any Patagua shoe prints in this area around Nicole Brown's body?
# 451 Q: And you looked closely to see if there was anything around her body or going down the walkway which was similar in fashion to Mr. Goldman's boots, right?
# 453 Q: And the fact that there's no Patagua boot marks on her body or down the walkway is consistent with the fact that Mr. Goldman was already in the caged-in area before Nicole Brown Simpson's carotids were cut, true?
# 455 Q: And blood dries -- well, blood pools relatively quickly, doesn't it?
# 458 A: Pools.
Well, if there's a lot of blood and it spills onto the sidewalk, whether it's liquid or blood, it's going to form in pools. It can.
# 459 Q: How long would you estimate it would take for blood to flow down that walkway from Nicole Brown Simpson to the sidewalk?
# 460 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Foundation, and outside the scope.
MR. P. BAKER: You --
# 461 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 462 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) You looked at the walkway to determine the blood flow, doesn't you?
# 463 A: You're referring to the portion between the fenced-in area and the front of the street, Bundy Drive.
# 464 Q: Between Nicole Brown Simpson's body and the sidewalk.
# 465 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope.
# 466 THE COURT: I don't think this witness is qualified as a blood-flow expert. You want to qualify him, you may.
# 467 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Do you have any experience in ascertaining the lengths of time for blood flow?
# 469 Q: Never done anything like that?
# 471 Q: Now, I want to show you some photographs, Mr. Bodziak.
Well, first, you never saw any -- you were never made aware that there were any bloody impressions in Mr. Simpson's residence?
# 472 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor.
# 473 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 474 WILLIAM BODZIAK: No, I have no knowledge of any footwear impressions in Mr. Simpson's residence, no.
# 475 Q: And he had white carpet along his staircase and into his master bedroom?
# 476 A: I've never been in his residence; I don't have any idea what it looks like.
# 477 Q: Anyone ever showed you any pictures of that?
# 479 Q: And when you're talking about blood in the Bronco, you testified that carpet can pool blood from the grooves of the shoe, correct?
# 480 A: If there's some --
# 482 A: If there's some in the grooves, yes.
# 483 Q: You were not made aware that there were any shoe impressions along the southern walkway of Mr. Simpson's residence?
# 484 A: I was not provided any, no.
# 485 Q: And there was no bloody impressions, as far as you are aware, along the leaf -- down the southern walkway of the residence; is that true?
# 486 A: I'm not aware of any, no.
# 487 Q: Now, going back to the walkway at Bundy, I'm going to show you a copy of Exhibit 43, of -- this is a copy of Nicole Brown Simpson's back on the sidewalk and a couple stairs.
See that photograph, Mr. Bodziak?
# 489 Q: By the way, do you see a shoe print on the first step up there?
# 491 Q: That's not on your board, is it?
# 492 A: Which one are you pointing to?
You zoomed in now.
# 493 Q: I'm talking about the step.
# 494 A: There was one before you zoomed in.
# 495 Q: I'm talking about that step on Exhibit 43, the first step on the right side.
You see that?
# 496 A: Are you pointing to the one with the leaf across it?
# 498 A: No, I don't. That's not on the board, no.
# 499 Q: You forgot to put that one on the board, didn't you?
# 500 A: I don't believe I had received a picture of that, or determined it was a shoe print.
# 501 Q: I thought you said they --
# 502 A: I can't see the board from here. I don't know what you're --
# 503 Q: Well, come on down.
I feel like Bob Barker.
# 505 A: No, that's not -- whatever this is, if you're saying this is a shoe print, no, I did not examine that.
# 506 Q: You're a shoe-print analyst?
Isn't that a shoe print, Mr. Bodziak?
# 507 A: I can't tell from that photograph.
I wasn't supplied that photograph and I doesn't determine it was, so I presume it wouldn't be. But if you have the close-up photograph of that, I'd be happy to look at it.
# 508 Q: Sure.
You can't tell this jury whether or not that's a shoe print, correct?
# 509 A: Not if that -- no, I wouldn't -- wouldn't want to guess. This --
# 510 Q: Shoe-print analysis is kind of subjective, isn't it?
# 511 A: Not if you prevent it from being that way.
# 512 Q: Well, it's certainly not as subjective a science as fingerprint analysis, is it?
# 514 Q: It is as subjective as fingerprint analysis?
# 515 A: With regard to identification, yes.
# 516 Q: You testified differently in the criminal case?
# 517 A: No, I don't believe I was asked that in the criminal case.
# 518 Q: Okay.
While you're looking at that, I'll pull up your criminal testimony.
# 519 (Referring to a photo given to him by Mr. Phil Baker.) # 522 Q: Now, have you had a chance to look at Exhibit 43?
# 523 A: Yes.
Which question are you asking about, identification or about this?
# 524 Q: Upon closer scrutiny, Mr. Bodziak, is that a shoe print?
# 525 A: I can't tell from the photograph.
# 528 Q: Okay.
What else would it be, Mr. Bodziak?
# 529 A: I'm not in the habit of guessing.
If you can determine it positively is a shoe print because you received close-up photographs and it shows that detail, then you can determine that -- if you can't determine it is, then I wouldn't guess as to what it might be, whether it's a knee print, or if there are some other hand prints or some other marks. I don't know.
# 530 Q: That could possibly be a knee print; is that right?
# 531 A: I don't know what it is.
# 532 Q: You were able to identify that as a shoe print? (Indicating to photo.)
# 534 Q: Okay.
On exhibit 43, to the east of her body, there's another impression, is there not? (Indicating to Exhibit 43.)
# 535 A: I can't see that from here, no.
Do you have the original photograph?
# 536 Q: Yeah. I'll bring it back.
That looks pretty similar to a Bruno Magli impression, doesn't it?
# 537 A: I can't see it from here.
# 538 Q: Why don't you get up and look closer at the camera.
# 539 A: I can see the camera.
There's a lot less detail in that than what you're showing on the photograph.
I'd like to see the photograph.
# 540 Q: Here you go.
Here you go right here.
# 541 A: Are you asking me is that a Bruno Magli shoe print?
# 542 Q: That consistent with a print you identified as a Bruno Magli print?
# 543 A: I can't tell from this photograph; it's too small.
# 544 Q: Too small. Okay.
You ever try to make a determination whether that was a Bruno Magli print, Mr. Bodziak?
# 545 A: I never received an enlargement of that photograph.
No, I doesn't -- doesn't conclude that that was a Bruno Magli print.
# 546 Q: You didn't put a blue dot on Exhibit 408, did you, for that -- where that imprint was?
# 547 A: I wasn't sent a picture of that to make an examination in the criminal trial, sir.
# 548 Q: Okay.
So you weren't sent a picture of that one.
Let's throw up exhibit number -- on this -- next in order. This is a little --
# 550 (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson at crime scene was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2214.) # 551 Q: This is kind of a gruesome -- well, let me see if I can mark that next in order.
Is that a better photograph of it, Mr. Bodziak?
# 552 A: I wouldn't call either one of them very good.
# 553 Q: You can't positively identify that one?
# 554 A: I haven't examined this, and I was not submitted a shoe print of that, a picture of that.
# 555 Q: We're going to take a break.
Would you like to take a look at it at the break?
# 556 A: No.
That is not the proper place to do an examination.
When you need photographic work and you may -- you can see a pattern there. And it could be a Bruno Magli shoe print, from looking at it. That's as far as I could tell you.
Whether there was a break or not, you don't have a photograph directly over top with a ruler where you can enlarge it and make a physical comparison. You cannot determine that.
# 557 Q: You don't -- can't determine whether or not they're Bruno Magli shoe prints or not at a glance of the screen?
# 559 Q: Okay.
Now, let's go back to the exhibit.
How much time had you spent looking at photographs of the crime scene?
# 560 A: Well, if I were given that photograph and were asked that question in the criminal trial, I would have gotten the original negative; I would have made an attempt, with the triangular shape of the walkway, to rectify that, so I wasn't looking at it out of perspective.
Then I would have made a comparison with the overlays like I did and demonstrated yesterday.
# 561 Q: The prosecution never sent you this photograph, right?
# 563 Q: Now, let's look up in the right-hand corner.
Is -- does that look like a Bruno Magli foot print to you?
# 565 Q: Which one are we looking at?
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry. Top right corner.
# 566 THE COURT: No, no. I mean on the video screen.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 43.
# 567 THE COURT: 243?
MR. P. BAKER: No. 43.
# 569 WILLIAM BODZIAK: Top right corner of this photograph or what you have?
# 570 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Top right corner of the screen at about 2 o'clock.
# 571 A: That would be --
# 573 A: Here on the photograph (indicating).
# 574 Q: Here (indicating).
Is that consistent with the Bruno Magli prints?
# 575 A: It could be.
Again, I didn't examine that one for that purpose.
# 576 Q: No blue dot on the board as to that print, is there?
# 577 A: No, there isn't.
# 578 Q: Prosecution never sent you that photograph, right?
# 579 A: I was never asked to make a comparison of that area, no.
# 580 Q: Okay. My question was the prosecution never sent you that photograph, right?
# 583 A: The photograph, initially -- I'm trying to answer your question.
# 585 A: Initially they did not, no.
KEY QUOTE # 586 Q: You got it at a later date?
# 587 A: Later, I was given it as a general crime-scene photographs, not to examine the shoe prints.
# 588 Q: You never used it to examine whether or not there were Bruno Magli prints at the crime scene?
# 589 A: I'm not sure I understand your question.
# 590 Q: You were sent this photo as a general crime-scene photo, and you never looked at it to examine whether these prints on Exhibit 43 were Bruno Magli prints there. Yes or no?
# 592 Q: Okay.
Now, let's go up -- right there, see the upper impression, right there in the -- move it about in the middle of Exhibit 43.
See that?
# 593 A: Could you point to it.
# 595 (Counsel points to screen.) # 596 A: You're calling that an impression?
# 597 Q: That doesn't look like an impression to you?
# 598 A: There's a lot of blood in that area and some pattern, but I don't know if we could say that's a shoe impression.
Again, I didn't examine that for that reason.
# 599 Q: Consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe impression?
# 600 A: It could be. I didn't examine it.
KEY QUOTE # 601 Q: It's consistent with the Bruno Magli impression, is it not?
# 602 A: I didn't examine it.
KEY QUOTE # 603 Q: Those footprints, you'll agree they're shoe prints, are they not?
# 605 Q: Okay.
Those imprints, we can agree on that, are consistent with an assailant standing over the body of Nicole Brown after the carotids were cut, is that true?
# 607 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Speculative, outside the scope, Your Honor.
# 608 THE COURT: Outside the scope. Sustained.
# 609 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Well, Mr. Bodziak, you testified -- you testified in the criminal trial as to the appearance -- or your hypothesis as to how the assailant walked, did you not?
# 610 MR. MEDVENE: Objection, materiality, outside the scope.
# 611 THE COURT: I think this witness is offered for shoe prints and shoes, not as to analysis.
MR. P. BAKER: Can I approach, quickly?
# 612 THE COURT: No.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay. It goes to his credibility.
# 613 THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
# 614 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) I want to show you another photograph, Mr. Bodziak, and this is a photograph --
MR. P. BAKER: Which is exhibit -- we'll get it -- next in line --
Well, we won't give it a number yet. We'll go back and find the exact number.
# 615 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Seen that picture before, Mr. Bodziak?
# 616 A: Is this of the same --
# 619 THE CLERK: Well, 2215.
# 621 WILLIAM BODZIAK: Can you show me the original picture?
# 622 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Sure.
Have you seen that one?
# 624 Q: Okay.
Did you examine that photograph for shoe prints?
# 625 A: Yes. Just as a general -- general picture.
# 626 Q: How much time did you spend examining this photograph, Mr. Bodziak?
# 627 A: After I was sent the initial 30 photographs, subsequently, when I was in LA, I reviewed hundreds of photographs of the general scene such as you've -- you're showing, me for the purpose of seeing if there were any additional photographs taken with the ruler close up for comparison purposes, and that was one of them that was taken. It was in that book.
# 628 Q: It was in the first book or the second book?
# 629 A: There were -- was four or five books.
# 630 Q: How long did you spend examining this photograph?
# 631 A: I didn't make an examination of the photograph other than to look at it to see if there was anything I thought might be worthy of asking them about.
# 632 Q: Did you ask him --
# 633 A: Well, there was dog prints.
# 634 Q: Let me ask the question.
Did you ask him about this shoe print, Mr. Bodziak?
# 635 A: Which shoe print?
# 636 Q: Immediately to the left of the leaf, Mr. Bodziak.
# 637 A: Would you show me the picture again?
I can't answer it unless you show it to me.
# 638 Q: Okay. My fault. Right there?
# 639 A: I certainly couldn't look at this photograph and tell that was a shoe print.
# 640 Q: Let me put it up on the screen.
# 641 (Counsel displays Exhibit 2215 on TV screen.) # 642 Q: That pattern is similar to a Silga sole, is it not, right?
# 644 Q: Right here, Mr. Bodziak.
# 646 Q: You can't tell from that?
# 649 A: That's way out of perspective, what you're looking at.
# 650 Q: Never asked to get any closer photographs of that impression, did you?
# 651 A: Yes, I did ask. There weren't any.
# 652 Q: None closer.
Then that photograph shows a pattern similar in design to that photograph, does it not?
# 653 A: I can't determine that.
# 654 Q: It's consistent with that photograph?
# 655 (Referring to Exhibit 49.) # 656 A: I can't determine if it's in the --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. What number?
MR. P. BAKER: That is 49.
# 657 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Going back to --
# 659 Q: (MR. P. BAKER) -- 2215, how many tiles is that away from the body?
# 660 A: I have no idea. If you zoom back, you could count them.
# 661 Q: Five tiles from her neck, right?
# 662 A: Depending on which one you start counting, five or six, yes.
# 663 Q: It's a tile 11-1/2 inches long, 12 inches wide?
# 665 Q: So that impression, if it was an impression, was approximately five feet away from her neck, right?
# 666 MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor.
# 667 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 668 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Correct?
# 669 A: If that's your assertion here, yes.
# 670 Q: That's not my assertion; that's what the photo shows.
# 671 THE COURT: Don't argue.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay. All right.
# 672 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) You don't know how long a time it would have taken for the blood to go down in that tile?
# 673 MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope.
# 674 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 675 Q: (BY MR. P. BAKER) Want to take --
# 676 THE COURT: You want a break?
MR. P. BAKER: I would.
# 677 THE COURT: 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions.