📄 Direct examination of William Bodziak — Thursday, January 16, 1997
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\16\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-WILLIAM-.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 43 of 57

Direct examination of William Bodziak

Witness: William Bodziak
Examiner: Edward Medvene
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 • Utterances: 92
FBI shoe print expert William Bodziak, continuing his testimony from a prior session, analyzed eight photographs taken by E.J. Flammer at a September 26, 1993 football game and concluded the shoes worn by O.J. Simpson were Bruno Magli Lorenzo-style shoes. He detailed the unique sole contouring, stitching groove, heel angle, and upper construction features that led to his conclusion, noting the soles and uppers were made in separate Italian factories exclusively for Bruno Magli. The defense stipulated mid-testimony that the Flammer photos depicted Bruno Magli Lorenzo-style shoes, largely mooting the detailed demonstration.
1 A:

That's correct.

2 Q:

-- to reintroduce you to the jury, among other things, you're an expert shoe comparison analyst with the FBI?

3 A:

Yes.

4 Q:

You've been doing that work for 20-odd years?

5 A:

Since 1973.

6 Q:

Now, just to get your testimony in context, you previously testified, in your opinion, that the shoes being worn by Mr. Simpson in the photograph taken by Mr. Scull, September 26, 1993 -- we're putting up on the easel Exhibit 2061 -- were Bruno Magli shoes, Lorenzo style; is that correct?

7 A:

That's correct. (The instrument herein referred to as comparison board was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2061.)

8 Q:

And previously you explained to the jury why you reached that conclusion?

9 A:

Yes.

10 Q:

I want to place before you now, sir, certain exhibits -- Exhibit 395. And I ask you what that is, sir.

11 A:

This is a size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe.

12 Q:

I'm going to place before you eight photographs and ask you to look at the back of each and read the exhibit number, if you would. And while you're looking at those and identifying them, Mr. Foster is going to display those photos on the TV monitor for the jury. These are photos, we'll represent to you, were photos taken by E. J. Flammer on September 26, 1993, at the same game, or prior to the same game where Mr. Scull's photos were taken. First, you have in front of you what's been marked 2297; is that correct, sir?

13 A:

Yes, it is.

14 Q:

Could you tell the jury what that is?

15 A:

This is a photograph of Mr. Simpson and another individual. It's an 11-by-17-inch copy. It's what I examined in the laboratory. On the back of it, it says Exhibit 2297, reel 2, number 4.

16 Q:

The next exhibit, sir, is that 2298?

17 A:

2298. Yes. sir.

18 Q:

What is that?

19 A:

This is another 11-by-17-inch print depicting a close-up shot, or a crop shot of Exhibit 2297, focusing into the shoe and leg area. And it is from roll 28, number 4.

20 Q:

Same shot as the 2297, only a crop shot of 2297?

21 A:

That's correct.

22 Q:

Would you take a look at the next photo. Is that 2299, sir?

23 A:

Yes, it is. Exhibit 2299 is a picture of Mr. Simpson on a football field with another individual, from roll number 1, frame 22 -- 24-

A.

24 Q:

Is that another photo that you examined at the FBI lab?

25 A:

Yes, it is.

26 Q:

Next, sir, 2300.

27 A:

2300 is a crop shot, an enlarged shot of the feet from the same picture, 2299, and it is from roll 1, 24-

A.

28 Q:

The next photo in front of you, sir, is that 2301?

29 A:

Yes. Exhibit 2301 is a picture of Mr. Simpson with another individual on a football field, roll 1, number 27-

30 A:

And I also examined this. An enlarged area from 2301 is represented in the next picture, which is Exhibit 2302. That's also from roll 1, frame 27-

A.

31 Q:

Now, the next photo, sir, doesn't have a number in front of it. We're going to number it next in order, which I believe is 2407.

32 THE CLERK:

Correct.

33 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you be good enough to put 2407 on the back of it, sir.

34 (Witness complies.) (The instrument herein referred to as 11-by-17-inch print of five individuals, in addition to Mr. Simpson, on a football field, Marked roll 1, number 78-A, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2407.)
35 MR. MEDVENE:

Zoom in.

36 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes, sir?

37 A:

Exhibit 2407 is an 11-by-17-inch print of five individuals, in addition to Mr. Simpson, on a football field. And on the back it says roll 1, number 78-

A.

38 Q:

And 2408, sir?

39 A:

Do you me to mark it?

40 Q:

Excuse me. The next photo in order would be -- next in order would be 2408. Would you be good enough to mark that.

41 (The witness complies.) (The instrument herein referred to as 11-by-17-inch print of the same frame from roll 1, number 7-A, as Exhibit 2407, but zooming in on the legs and feet of the individuals in the center of that photograph, including Mr. Simpson, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2408.)
42 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell us what that is?

43 A:

Exhibit 2408 is an 11-by-17-inch print of the same frame from roll 1, number 7-A, as Exhibit 2407, but zooming in on the legs and feet of the individuals in the center of that photograph, including Mr. Simpson.

44 Q:

And did you use that, also, in the analysis that you made?

45 A:

Yes, I did.

46 Q:

Were you asked by me, sir, to perform an examination and an analysis?

47 A:

Yes, I was.

48 Q:

What was your understanding of the task you were to perform?

49 A:

I was requested to examine the shoes that Mr. Simpson is wearing as depicted in the eight photographs which I have just described and read the exhibit numbers of, and determine if they were Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes.

50 Q:

Did you make that examination, sir?

51 A:

Yes, I did.

52 Q:

Did you form an opinion?

53 A:

Yes, I did.

54 Q:

What is that opinion?

55 A:

My opinion is that the shoes depicted in those eight exhibits are Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes.

KEY QUOTE
56 Q:

What is the basis for your opinion, sir?

57 A:

Do you want me to --

58 Q:

I'd like you to --

59 A:

Can I use this shoe to demonstrate that?

60 Q:

I'd like you, with the Court's permission, to walk down so the jury can more easily see, and use your judgment with regards to any of the photos you want to use, or the shoe itself, in explaining the bases for your opinion.

61 THE COURT:

Didn't we go through this before?

62 MR. MEDVENE:

We went through it, Your Honor with respect to the Scull photograph, and that the Scull photograph was the Bruno Magli shoe. Now we're using a different photograph, the Flammer photograph, and going through the same analysis, Your Honor.

63 THE COURT:

Is there some difference between the two shoes that are in the photographs?

64 MR. PETROCELLI:

No.

65 THE COURT:

Then why are we going through the same motion twice?

KEY QUOTE
66 MR. MEDVENE:

We believe there is not, sir. And if Mr. Simpson's side is willing to agree that Bruno Magli shoes are depicted in the Flammer photos, there will be no need to go through this.

67 MR. LEONARD:

Stipulate. MS. BLUESTEIN: Stipulate.

68 MR. PETROCELLI:

They stipulate.

69 THE COURT:

Okay.

70 MR. MEDVENE:

So the defense stipulates that the shoes in the Flammer photos are Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes, the same shoes that are shown in the Scull photo as being worn by Mr. Simpson?

KEY QUOTE
71 MR. LEONARD:

Same style shoes, Your Honor.

72 THE COURT:

Well, that's kind of an unsafe stipulation. Go ahead.

KEY QUOTE
73 MR. MEDVENE:

No choice. We'll go ahead.

74 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you be good enough to come down, and let's go through why, in your opinion, the shoes depicted in the Flammer photos, in your opinion, are Bruno Magli Lorenzo-style shoes?

75 A:

This photo here.

76 Q:

Any photo you want, you can also --

77 A:

This is fine. I can use this.

78 Q:

Yes, sir.

79 A:

And you're using Exhibit 395?

80 Q:

Yes, sir.

THE COURT REPORTER: The exhibit on the Elmo is?

81 MR. PETROCELLI:

The exhibit on the Elmo is 2408. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2408 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

82 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Go ahead, sir.

83 WILLIAM BODZIAK:

No, bigger (indicating to Elmo). Just a little higher (indicating to Elmo). (Mr. Foster adjusts exhibit displayed on the Elmo screen.)

84 WILLIAM BODZIAK:

Okay. That's fine.

85 A:

Okay. I examined the shoes depicted in the eight photographs which I have just described, which depict shoes on a football field, on Mr. Simpson. And using this one to demonstrate, some of the observations I made to form my conclusion, I first observed the characteristics of the edge profile of the sole. As I had previously testified to, the sole has a lot of contouring, a lot of high and low spots, and it begins with a high ridge, and then a groove, which is a stitching groove. And then after that, there's another high ridge. This occupies a very small area right up in this area here (indicating). There's a high spot, then a groove where the stitching is, then another groove. Then there's a much wider area of the shoe which rolls out, contours out; then it goes into another groove. And then below that is another wide area. And that's the area which continues uninterrupted around the bottom of the shoe. In looking at the features of this Exhibit 395 shoe, and the sole in these photographs, these are consistent and are the same in those five regards. Looking also at the curvature of the sole at this particular point (indicating), and the angle of the heel, which is trimmed over, so you have a -- somewhat of an angle, because there's a point cut off that heel, as opposed to the other side, which is more than what you see. I observed these characteristics in these photographs. There's also the contouring that you can see here again, the heel which I had pointed out before in the Scull photographs. (Indicating.) Looking at the upper of the shoe, you can see various features, such as the seam which runs around the toe area. And you can see that on Exhibit 395. I observed that, as well as the seam here in the front portion of the area, which the lace holes go through. (Indicating.) You can see the lace holes here (indicating). One of those with a light spot reflecting the liner, that's layered under. You can see the bottom reference point of that area and the back reference point. So you can see these features of this area of the shoe. Based on these characteristics and the fact that Bruno Magli made these soles -- these soles are uniquely made for them by them exclusively for this shoe, as well as the dyes, which cut out the various shapes and components, which were then stitched together. The independent construction in one factory for Bruno Magli of this upper, combined with the independent design of this contoured sole with these features, in another factory combined, makes this unique.

86 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) You say in another factory. You're saying the soles were made in one factory and the tops were made in another?

87 A:

For Bruno Magli, and then assembled together.

88 Q:

Based on your -- you were at the factory, weren't you?

89 A:

Yes. The upper was made at the 4C factory; the sole was made at the Silga factory. And they were made by Bruno Magli through those factories and assembled in the 4C factory.

KEY QUOTE
90 Q:

As part of your opinion in your investigation, did you make a determination whether the dye used to make the upper was used in any other shoe?

91 A:

I was told these were not. These were specifically made -- the soles for the bottom of the shoe and the uppers were specifically made for that design and are no longer used.

92 Q:

By each separate factory?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (5)

Witness
My opinion is that the shoes depicted in those eight exhibits are Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes.
Core expert conclusion linking OJ Simpson to the Bruno Magli shoes associated with the crime scene footprints.
Judge Fujisaki
Then why are we going through the same motion twice?
Judge pushes back on repetitive testimony, prompting the defense stipulation that cut short Bodziak's demonstration.
Mr. Medvene
So the defense stipulates that the shoes in the Flammer photos are Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes, the same shoes that are shown in the Scull photo as being worn by Mr. Simpson?
Plaintiffs attempt to lock in the broadest possible interpretation of the stipulation; defense narrows it to 'same style shoes.'
Judge Fujisaki
Well, that's kind of an unsafe stipulation. Go ahead.
Judge signals skepticism about the defense's limited stipulation, noting it leaves room for argument.
Witness
The upper was made at the 4C factory; the sole was made at the Silga factory. And they were made by Bruno Magli through those factories and assembled in the 4C factory.
Establishes Bodziak's firsthand factory knowledge, bolstering the uniqueness claim that only Bruno Magli used this sole/upper combination.

Evidence (10)

Plaintiffs' 2061
Comparison board / Scull photograph showing OJ Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes, September 26, 1993
marked for identification, referenced as prior testimony context
Plaintiffs' 395
Size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe (physical exhibit)
used by witness for live comparison demonstration
Plaintiffs' 2297
11-by-17 print of OJ Simpson and another individual at football game, Flammer roll 2 number 4
introduced and identified by witness
Plaintiffs' 2298
Crop/close-up shot of Exhibit 2297 focusing on shoe and leg area
introduced and identified
Plaintiffs' 2299
Photo of OJ Simpson on football field with another individual, roll 1 frame 24
introduced and identified
Plaintiffs' 2300
Crop/enlarged shot of feet from Exhibit 2299
introduced and identified
+ 4 more

Notable Exchanges (1)

Judge FujisakiMr. MedveneMr. LeonardMr. Petrocelli
Judge questioned why plaintiffs were repeating the same shoe analysis for the Flammer photos already done for the Scull photos. Medvene offered to skip the demonstration if defense would stipulate; defense immediately stipulated, though limiting it to 'same style shoes' rather than the same shoes worn by Simpson.
strategic

Witness Demeanor

(Witness complies.) — marking exhibit numbers on photos as directed
(Indicating.) — repeated physical gestures pointing to shoe features during demonstration

Objections

None recorded
Proceeding 8819 • 92 utterances • Plaintiff witness
Civil Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 JAN 16, 1997 📄 Direct examination of William
JAN 16, 1997 KRT DvH TD