📄 Redirect examination of William Bodziak (part 2) (2 of 2) — Thursday, November 21, 1996
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\21\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-WILLIA.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 20 of 57

Redirect examination of William Bodziak (part 2) (2 of 2)

Witness: William Bodziak
Examiner: Edward Medvene
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, November 21, 1996 • Utterances: 13
Medvene redirects FBI shoe print expert Bodziak on the blood trail pattern at the Bundy crime scene. Bodziak explains that a bloody shoe leaves progressively fainter prints as blood transfers off, meaning any other person with blood on their feet would have left visible impressions before the faint oval blue prints — and no such impressions were found, only Bruno Magli prints.
1 MR. MEDVENE:

Leave it up.

2 (Referring to Exhibit 408.)
3 A:

Because there's a classic pattern of when you step in blood with shoes and you walk down a walkway. First you're leaving more detailed impressions, then you're leaving ones that have insufficient detail to recognize their design or recognize their size. So I would expect that that is -- that is a classic pattern, based on the work I've done and my experience, where you will see most of them closer to the scene, and the further they get away, first you get one or two that are indistinct and then all of them are indistinct.

4 Q:

If there was a second person would he have to jump about 30 feet before he got to the blue area?

MR. P. BAKER: Speculation.

5 THE COURT:

Sustained.

6 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) In your opinion, from examining the photos and where the shoe prints were found, what would a person do if he didn't have a Bruno Magli shoe and left this blue imprint, how would he get from the cage area to the area where the first blue imprint is found?

MR. P. BAKER: Speculation, beyond his expertise.

7 THE COURT:

Overruled.

8 A:

That person would have to have left the heavier blood impressions that would be distinctly visible, prior to getting to the point where he left the oval blue impressions. In other words, there would be darker impressions that were recognizable before that person got to the oval blue areas.

KEY QUOTE
9 Q:

Why is that?

10 A:

Because that person, if he had blood on his feet or shoes, would be depositing that blood as he walked or ran down the walkway, and also only until he got to the point where enough blood had worn off of his shoes would he leave the indistinct impression.

11 Q:

Is there any indication of that from your examination of the photos?

12 A:

There was no indication from any photographs I examined in connection with the scene, that there was any other set of bloody footprints other than Bruno Magli.

KEY QUOTE
13 Q:

Thank you.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Witness
There was no indication from any photographs I examined in connection with the scene, that there was any other set of bloody footprints other than Bruno Magli.
Definitive expert conclusion ruling out a second perpetrator theory based on shoe print evidence.
Witness
That person would have to have left the heavier blood impressions that would be distinctly visible, prior to getting to the point where he left the oval blue impressions.
Scientific basis for eliminating the alternative-perpetrator scenario — any other person with blood on shoes would have left a visible trail first.

Evidence (1)

Exhibit 408
Photo(s) of shoe prints at the Bundy crime scene walkway
discussed

Notable Exchanges (1)

Edward MedveneWitness
Medvene walks Bodziak through the logic of blood transfer patterns to establish that no second-person shoe prints existed at the scene
strategic

Objections

2 objections (1 sustained, 1 overruled)
Proceeding 8375 • 13 utterances • Plaintiff witness
Civil Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 NOV 21, 1996 📄 Redirect examination of Willia
NOV 21, 1996 KRT DvH TD