Mr. Bodziak, in your book, you indicate that in many law enforcement departments, footprint impression identification is often a poor orphan even in the document examiner's corner, fingerprint guy's corner and so forth.
I don't think I used the term "Poor orphan," but I think I understand what you mean.
All right. Have you worked directly with your counterpart at the LAPD in cases including this one?
Well, in an advisory capacity. How early in the game were you consulted in this matter? Can you tell me?
I was first--I first received the evidence I believe August 8th of 1994. I was advised that I would be receiving it a few days prior to that.
Now, would you tell the jury the difference between a patent and a latent foot impression?
Yes. A patent, p-a-t-e-n-t, foot impression is one which is visible to the naked eye, and a latent, l-a-t-e-n-t, foot impression is one which is invisible, cannot be seen by the naked eye.
Is it possible for an expert to expose, as you showed us with the infrared on the dress, a latent footprint so that it becomes visible and photographable?
And what about footprints that are made with the substance--leaving the impression on concrete as in this case being blood, are there ways to enhance the blood chemically with lighting, special photography in order to lift those prints as you might lift a latent fingerprint?
Primarily in this case, either through specialized photography or through chemical enhancement.
All right. Had you been called to the scene of the crime and seen what you have before you now?
Might you not have been able to enhance some of the footprints which you could not identify by use of special techniques?
Okay. Had you been called upon to do so, do you have the equipment and experience to have looked in the home of the victim, Nicole Brown Simpson, for any evidence of footprints going in and out or on the carpet and other places?
All right. And tell the jury, if you would, how these can be seen even though they may not be apparent to the naked eye.
Okay. Latent footprints--we're covering a large number of possibilities here, so let me list a few, and if you want--
If--if you have a latent footprint, it denotes, one, it's not visible. And very often, it's not visible because the contrast of the material that's deposited by the shoe is--is--it's essentially the same color as the background it's on. For example, if a person has some residue or dust on their shoe and steps onto a light color tile floor, both the--both the impression and the floor, being so close in color and the impression being so thin, it simply wouldn't be able to be seen. But with either specialized lighting or with special lifting techniques, that impression could be further visualized. It could be either discovered or transferred to a black surface, which would then give better contrast. So with regard to possible impressions, you could go through an interior scene and, using techniques such as that, look in areas for footwear impression.
Were you at any time furnished any footwear impressions of the interior of the Nicole Brown Simpson home to examine or compare?
Let me put this up, if I may. With the Court's permission, I'm going to leave it here because the jury's already seen it. It doesn't block us off.
The question refers to this area here. You told us this morning that soil varied from place to place in its ability to capture and hold footwear impression.
Did you make any examination of that soil on February 16th when you made your trip to 875 south Bundy?
I was aware of it. I purposely didn't look at it because it was several months afterwards and there were--could have potentially been tremendous differences in the characteristics of that soil at the time.
Not specifically for thoroughness in terms of looking at very aspect of it. It was an area where there were a lot of plants and vegetation and leaves and mulch and all, but I didn't actually look at every little area. I just generally glanced at it as I was doing my other business there.
Well, I didn't have any impressions or any reason to see it, and the only way in which I recall it is because it was right next to where I was working.
To your knowledge, were impressions or photographs ever attempted in the area of the soil where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
I asked if there were any other impressions in this case than what I examined including casts or impressions photographed in soil. That's a routine question which I ask in any case because for some reason, we very often don't get all of the photographs or a person may make a cast and not think it turned out well and not send it in when in fact it may be of some value. So as a matter of routine, I asked if there were any others, and I was told there was not.
All right. Now, you said at the close of your testimony that Mr. Simpson was a candidate for having worn the shoes whose impressions you found in the photograph.
Well, what do you know besides the fact that you have some size 12 Reeboks that are apparently his that would make him a candidate?
That would be what I was basing my statement on. I couldn't eliminate him. He certainly, with the size foot that would wear these shoes, could wear the Bruno Magli size 12, European size 46 shoes.
Okay. You're assuming that the perpetrator, whoever that may have been, wearing Bruno Magli shoes, size 46, was wearing his own shoes, aren't you?
Well, you can always get into the hypotheticals of could you have borrowed someone's shoes to commit a crime.
They usually steal a car and then they have a switch point at which they get out of the stolen car a few blocks or a few miles from the scene and they get into their own car and--
Their hope is, they can't be tied to the vehicle identified by one or more witnesses perhaps as being at the scene, right?
Uh-huh. Okay. Can we eliminate the Reeboks as having made any of the impressions you've testified to today?
I saw nothing to indicate these Reeboks left any impression that I was shown at this scene.
From the pictures that you have exhibited and explained to the jury and the Court--
Is it not possible to say they did not make--I'm sorry. There's a double negative. I'm not sure how you're--could you rephrase that?
Can you not say as you examined the Reeboks these shoes didn't make any of those prints?
I don't feel they did because they would of--there would have had to have been darker impressions. If you were being totally hypothetical about it and said could one of those impressions that were very, very faint somewhere down--further down the walkway in blood have left the impression, in theory, including unrealistic things like could somebody have carried that person wearing these shoes and then put them down or could they have walked along the soil and behind it and jumped over the wall and then stepped on the sidewalk, if you include those kind of things, then I couldn't eliminate them. But if that person were to walk through the blood down the Bundy walkway, there would be darker impressions before those light impressions.
They were represented to me as shoes that Mr. Simpson said that he wore the--either the day before the crime or the day of the crime.
All right. But in any event, it was represented to you that those were positively identified by Mr. Simpson as his shoes?
Now, on September 21, 1994, after you had gotten into this case apparently and before you had made a positive identification by going to the factory, did you write a letter to Detectives Lange and Vannatter requesting something?
I asked if it were possible to obtain any additional shoes of Mr. Simpson for comparison purposes for different reasons.
The response--I didn't get from them, but the response I got was that no further search warrants were possible, that it was too--I think it was just too late or I don't know. You'd have to ask them.
A search warrant is an order from a court allowing law enforcement to go into a private residence whether the owner likes it or not, right?
Well, I'm--I'm telling you that I don't have firsthand knowledge of the reason. I'm just speculating which I shouldn't have done.
Okay. Did you ever make any requests of the Defense that you be permitted to examine all of the shoes in the house?
Well, if the Defendant has been voluntarily assisting in giving his blood and giving his hair and other things to the police, do you have any reason to think that he would be otherwise?
Okay. What happens when officers who perhaps may be unaware of the phenomena of latent prints trample up the sidewalk before the technicians get there?
In this case, the only ones I'm familiar with are blood. With regard to blood, at the time they arrived, they could have marched a hundred people over them. It wouldn't make any difference.
Okay. Would not have disturbed it or otherwise changed the pattern because it had dried, right?
If, assume for a minute, someone were to walk down a narrow path partially covered with leaves and partially concrete, might it be that whoever was doing the walking would leave footwear impressions of some kind?
Okay. With--well, I don't know how many leaves and how much concrete you're talking about. But with regard to leaves, leaves--I've never had a case where I had a footwear impression on leaves. I've never in walking around--and believe--I've created a lot of cases for training. In walking around trying to make impressions, I've never had a case where I could make an impression on a leaf. As I explained earlier today, in theory, if you had a bloody shoe and you stepped on a leaf, aside from the fact it would have probably stuck to the shoe and may got--eventually got scraped off, it's conceivable you could find a leaf or two with some partial impressions on it. It's conceivable, but I've never seen one in over 20 years.
Yeah. I wouldn't think that you would get any reproduction on the leaf whatsoever. On the concrete--concrete's generally rough and porous, and you wouldn't get a residue impression on concrete because when it's concrete or the carpeting in this courtroom, as you're walking, you're picking up residue, but you're depositing the same residue onto a surface that has the equivalent. So you wouldn't be able to see a differentiation between what you deposit and what you picked up and you would not be able to visualize any footwear impressions whether it's carpet or concrete. So you wouldn't in those cases be able to--unless the person was picking up some type of residue and then stepped on an object like a--perhaps a piece of paper or a folder maybe the victim was holding or something that was around the scene and was relatively clean. If they then stepped on that relatively clean object, then they could leave a coating of that residue either in a patent or latent impression, and then that could be retrieved.
All right. Mr. Bodziak, would you allow the attorneys to complete asking the question before you start to answer.
When you walk on a surface, you never really know what evidence you may have left of your footwear until it is checked, true?
And certainly that would be true of a layman who does not have your expertise in this area, right?
If difficult or faint, non-bloody, non-greasy footwear impressions are left and then the area is trampled, what is the likelihood that any will remain that are distinguishable?
Presuming that the situation was different than the one I just described and there could be latent footwear impressions at a scene, it's possible that an unknowing person could walk over those and coincidentally happen to step on the same areas, and they probably wouldn't totally eradicate or eliminate them, but they might cause some damage to them.
All right. I wasn't meaning to ask you to assume a single person, but quite a number of people and quite a number of feet--
--walking back and forth over the exact same area. Doesn't that tend to obliterate whatever might have been there?
Okay. Fine. When you began to lay out all of the positive footprints that you've testified here today as to left and right--
--and see what appears to be movement of someone both down at the gate, on the steps and then in a fairly straight line out to the west as if making good one's escape, did you notice something very odd about the pattern?
Well, the person in those Bruno Magli shoes didn't just walk down the walkway once. They went back somehow and walked down again.
Because that's where the blood is and they're tracking the blood from east to west.
Uh-huh. And what about the stop and turn? I want to point specifically to I believe it's L and m.
I wouldn't purport to be able to reconstruct exactly what happened, but it appears likely that the person may have been standing over in that bush area where the tree was to get out of the line of sight perhaps and then came out of that area initially in the direction of the doorway and then proceeded back west again.
All right. If the set of prints that leads up to L and M were made by the same shoes as L and M, we have a person who's turned 90 degrees and standing like this; do we not (Indicating)?
Okay. So are you assuming that we have a right but no left and a left but no right standing next to one--each other and both facing south?
Well, I'm not assuming if that's what's there and I can't explain why that is happening.
All right. If a person were exiting the scene with some alacrity--and by the way, you talked about gait and stride. There's nothing that gives us much help on the speeds in these prints, is there?
Except that they seem close enough together as to suggest, if it's one set, no running, no leaping?
I--I think even if it's one or two sets, they're relatively close together for a person that's big enough to wear a size 12.
All right. You have identified a Bruno Magli or Magli 46/size 12 shoe as the only prints, left and right, that you are able to single out, correct?
And no other shoe of any manufacturer have you been able to pin to any of these impressions, true?
So if there was more than one person running, it would appear that they were both wearing Bruno Magli 46; is that right?
Or one person went back--after they have worn the blood off their shoe, they went back to the front gate area, reobtained blood on their shoe through whatever activity or walking through the blood they were doing, and then exited that area again. So it could be the same person. In fact, it's very likely that it's the same person.
In other words, having made good one's escape to the alley, you're assuming that somebody, a perpetrator then returned, stepped in more blood and made more prints?
If they encountered the second victim in this case or they forgot something or had some other reason to go back, yes.
In the event that someone had done as you suggest and left the alley and then come back for some reason and stepped in blood, would you not be likely to find at least two prints that overlap one other?
No. It looks like--it looks like two persons--two separate walkings of one person.
Okay. Is the southward facing set of prints, even though they appear to be reversed, that is to say L and m--and L is the right foot and M is the left foot, right?
Is that consistent with someone who is leaving and turns to look back for some reason?
--and tell me why that is not consistent with the prints we see? What mitigates against it?
But it would appear from those prints that L and M is like this; does it not (Indicating)?
Yes. For the record, your Honor, I'm standing with my legs crossed, my right foot on the left side and vice versa.
If those two were made by the same person at the same time, his legs are crossed, right?
All right. Now, if they weren't, then you're assuming somebody with the same shoes walking twice, having gotten a fresh supply of blood to lay on the--
--very possibly, because it's out of the line of sight of the front gate area, the person could have stepped back into the soil area to get out of the line of sight. They could have stepped forward and looked. They could have stepped back. They could have stepped forward, the left foot on the opposite side and gone down the sidewalk. So there's a very logical explanation for that. There's no way to absolutely reconstruct it.
Yeah. I don't have photographs of the soil at that time nor would I be able to tell the hardness or softness of the soil from photographs. When I was there in February, it was full of vegetation.
Well, I was just going to say, if it's very low vegetation, you would have no problem standing in it or walking back in it.
When you photographed or looked at the photographs of L and m--you didn't take any of these, did you?
When you examined those photographs, did you see any evidence of any soil in them?
All right. So when you speculate that the author of L and M may have stepped backward into the soil, that is just that, isn't it, speculation?
Well, it's speculation as much as I can't say that's absolutely what happened. But I would not necessarily expect there to be soil from stepping back in that area. If the soil was very hard or if it was covered with low-growing vegetation, there may be nothing on the shoe and they would still be depositing blood impressions.
All right. Now, you have said--and again, you're assuming that someone wants to get out of the line of sight. Line of sight of what?
Whatever they're trying to avoid. A person coming to the gate, a noise out on the front, a noise in the back, anything.
Did you attempt to do that yourself and see if you removed yourself at all from the line of sight of either end?
Just by standing on the edge of the sidewalk, you're out of the line of sight of the front. Yes, I did observe that, because when I was reconstructing the position of these, I was surprised to see them in this configuration and I was looking for an explanation of why these would be in this direction. And the one that I have given you is one of the better ones that I thought of.
All right. Assuming that a person is standing on those footprints, can you see in a straight line to the front gate?
You can with L. but as I had explained to you, this could be simply a stepping out and looking and coming back real quick. So in that case, under that hypothetical, which I hate to get into because they're not factual, the person would want to extend out far enough just to get into the line of sight (Demonstrating). So again, that's--we can't say if that's what happened or did happen, but it's certainly logical in my opinion.
And for the record, your Honor, when Mr. Bodziak was answering that, he stepped forward with his right foot and he turned to his left as if he were looking in the direction of a line parallel with his shoulders.
You can see the front gate if your head is centered over L. remember, your head is over l.
With M, you're starting to interfere with the corner there, but I believe you can see over that, at least part of it.
No. I don't mean just that edge. Go right to the middle of the front gate and see if you can draw a straight lane from both L and M to it.
That's--as I represented that as a hypothetical, that might be one plausible explanation of why L and M were heading out of that soil area.
Not very close to one another. However, O is fairly close to M. could that impression have been made by the right foot while M was being made with the left by a person standing like this, one food cocked at a 45, the other pointing south (Indicating)?
It could be or the person could have stepped out on M and then headed westward with O being the first step with the right foot. In other words, they could have stepped out of the soil with M and then at an angle stepped off toward the back gate.
Well, there's no way of knowing if S was the next one because you have some indistinct ones in here that may be intermediate steps.
I'm sorry. When I said "Next one," I meant the next one at a 45-degree angle to the track--
There is no footprint pointing in a similar direction close enough to it to have been made at the same time; is that true?
Just eyeballing that, Mr. Bodziak--by the way, do you prefer being called Mr. Or agent?
So having that in mind, would you say that O and M could have been made by the same person?
If your theory is correct and somebody, having committed one murder and created a lot of blood, got partway up the walkway and decided to turn around and head back, do you see the turning point anywhere in your reconstruction?
If--no, I do not see a point where footprints turn around, but I would not expect that that would eliminate the possibility that they did turn around.
Okay. Well, without any evidence of turn-around, supposing you had two people with the same brand and size of shoe.
Because in all of the cases I've worked, I can count on one hand the number of cases where a common shoe like this Reebok that's sold in many, many stores, both in size and design were shared by two persons simultaneously at the crime scene. It has occurred, but only on a couple of occasions and only with common shoes. You might, for instance, with regard to certain gangs that wear the same pattern of shoes find that type of a scenario. With regard to different suspects wearing different size shoes of the same brand, I've only had a couple cases like this. So in most instances, if they did have the same brand shoes, they would be different sizes, and only that has occurred to my knowledge a couple times over 20 years. Those are with common shoes. These shoes were very uncommon, and most of the shoe stores around the country only carried at one time one size 12. To conjecture with what I know about this, that two people independently bought size 12 Bruno Magli shoes at different points or over different months apart from the same store or at different stores--and they were only sold by 40 stores--and just happened to commit this crime together is impossible for me to believe.
You're making an assumption I didn't ask you to make and that is that the pairs were coincidentally similar.
Your Honor, at this point, it is an improper hypothetical and calls for speculation.
Would it be possible for two people to arrange--knowing that footwear, particularly if you're in the business of crime, can be almost as dangerous as a fingerprint, would it be possible for two people to arrange to arrive at a crime scene in the same footwear, make and model?
Do you mean to say it would be impossible to buy two pair of those shoes in the United States?
Okay. And the reason I'm saying no is because most people, even fairly knowledgeable people about evidence, would not have the degree of knowledge necessary to know where to find some kind of a rare shoe. I mean they would go for a common shoe like-- if, presuming that that could be done with a common shoe, they would do that with a common shoe. They would not be searching for a $160 to $180 Bruno Magli shoes where they had to go halfway--you know, to different states at the same time to buy them in the same size. Just--in my opinion, it wouldn't happen. It's--it's uncanny. I don't believe it happened and I don't believe it happens intentionally or otherwise.
All right. What you're saying is that two perpetrators who decided on this plan are totally incapable in the United States of America of finding two pair of Bruno Magli 12's; is that right?
What I'm saying is, they wouldn't have the knowledge to look for Bruno Magli shoes of this rare design. If they were going to commit a crime, why not just go out and buy shoes down at the store where you can walk in and find two of the same size and design? Why go to a situation where you would have to find rare shoes and probably have to make phone calls at one store to find out where you could buy the next pair at another store and spend that kind of money just to do that? People are not aware of footprint evidence to that degree. That would be more sophisticated that I could even envision if I were to--if you asked me how would I construct something like this. It's just uncanny.
Have not quite a number of those been solved by discreet footprint, foot impression?
--with this shoe and you recovered me with this shoe nearby, might you be able to match exactly my shoeprint to the impression on the counter?
Okay. Why is it that you feel that criminals are unaware of the fact that footwear can be a liability in detection?
We're having a hard time educating the police forces of all of the possibilities with shoes. Most people are totally unaware of the footprints they leave. And perhaps the best example I could give on this is, maybe 15 years ago, there was a fad called streaking, and I had a case involving some streaking in a hotel up in the northeast part of the country. And ironically, the only part of clothing that the person ever wore and what convicted the person was the shoes. So I use that as a good example of how persons are just unaware of the prints they leave, which we discussed earlier, and they are even more unaware of the kind of hypothetical that you're suggesting. And not only are they unaware of that evidence and how to use the evidence in the manner you suggested, but the possibility or the likelihood of them going to the extreme that they would have to find this shoe, I just--I don't believe in my opinion that that could possibly happen.
We conduct comparisons of evidence that are submitted to us by any law enforcement agency. We don't decide what's important or not.
Any idea of how many people since you have been involved have gone to jail because of their footprint impression?
How many cases can you think of just since you have been on the scene where footprint evidence has helped to put people in jail for various crimes?
Oh, I've worked, made thousands of comparisons in over--since 1973, and I've testified many, many times. But many, many more of those cases were adjudicated in other ways and I didn't have to offer testimony. So I--I can't count the number of cases I've influenced, if that's what you're asking.
It is. Now, in most of the cases where you testified or whether it's an adjudication that didn't need your testimony, namely a plea of guilty--
--or stipulation that this shoe made that print and we don't need Mr. Diedrich to tell us that, right?
Bodziak. I'm sorry. I believe your colleague is in a different specialty. You would assume that somewhere along the line, the Defendant who got caught because of his own shoeprints was made aware of that fact?
They are, yeah. I mean they would--they'll sit and watch my testimony, and I've even had one case where they came in the next day without their shoes on. So they certainly are aware of that, yes.
And most of them are acutely aware of what mistakes they made because then they get convicted. Wouldn't you say that's a fair statement?
Now, when you say criminals don't know or talk about certain aspects of their business, that's not based on any association you have with criminals, is it?
To the degree of elaboration that you are speculating on with regard to this case, it is far more sophisticated than I would ever envision any criminal no matter how long they've been in jail or how much they've talked of being able to pull off.
Well, of course, the criminals that you know about who left footwear impressions weren't so smart because they get caught, right?
In any event, have you ever heard of bank robbers that wears covers or masks, funny mask or something?
Have you heard of others who deliberately make themselves up with some degree of expertise to look like someone they are not?
Well, that would cause a victim/witness to look right at the perpetrator and say, "That's not the man"?
All right. Now, haven't you investigated crimes, Mr. Bodziak, where it was apparent that the perpetrators were trying to mislead detectives?
I've--I've had a couple cases where they have tried to plant evidence or create evidence to divert the attention from themselves, but that became known in the normal processing of the crime scene. There were things that didn't make sense and it was ultimately other evidence caused them to admit that they did these things, and they confessed, but they weren't very sophisticated.
Okay. And then there are any number of unsolved crimes where we don't know whether that happened or not, right?
Without a solution, you don't know whether the planted evidence has misled the officers?
Well, to bring to our conclusion our investigation of the possibilities that could have led to this evidence that you have compiled for us, my understanding is, your best explanation of the excess number of footprints that appears to be there is that one perpetrator wearing one pair of Bruno Magli shoes left the scene, went back, got some more blood and left the scene a second time.
Well, when I say "The scene," Mr. Bodziak, I mean the immediate vicinity of the killing where the bodies were found. I do not mean the general surround.
Yes. The--there--there would have to be one person with the Bruno Magli size shoes that did exactly what you described, left a set of impressions. The blood would have been worn off their shoes, so you wouldn't see a turnaround or a--footprints coming back, and then they would have new blood on the shoes for possible reasons, either a second victim or just walking back through the blood of the two victims and then leaving the scene again.
All right. You are making the assumption in that scenario that before the perpetrator turns and goes back to where the bodies are found, that all the blood is gone from the soles at least so much as is capable of leaving an impression?
The physical evidence at the scene which doesn't lie is making that assumption, sir.
KEY QUOTEThat's my point. There is none, and yet there are two sets of tracks of the same size and design shoe. And in my opinion, because of the scarcity and the--in some cases, stores carry one pair of size 12's and didn't get another till a year later. The scarcity of that design rules out any possibility that there were two people simultaneously with the same pairs of shoes on, Bruno Magli size 12. So that person would have had to have turned around, and obviously the blood is no longer on their feet, they didn't track backwards and they rebloodied the shoes and left again.
Okay. And is that the best you are able to make out of the evidence that's before us despite the fact that there is not one single overlapping step?
I wouldn't--that's a big area. I wouldn't expect an over-- when you say "Overlapping," you're talking about one step touching another.
Yeah. That--that is a large area. That wouldn't be unusual at all, for those two--two sets of tracks of one person not overlapping.
All right. What is inconsistent about that set of tracks with someone taking very small steps, about a foot at a time?
Well, if you look at those impressions and you try to--to reenact that as one set of impressions, stepping left and then right and covering every one of those, you would--I don't know how to describe it, but you would look like unlike anybody that normally walks or runs. You would be dancing around. So--
Because in that case, you're giving a consistent pattern of left, right, left, right.
Uh-huh. So you conclude that not only because they're close together, but because of the irregularity of the stepping pattern?
I'm looking at impressions that are-- where you have two lefts and two rights, you can say, if this left goes with this right, which is a couple feet later, and goes with this left, which goes a couple feet later, so on, then you're left these other ones. And even though you can't say for certain matching every footprint and sequence to others, I can see enough in those impressions that tells me there were two separate travelings of one person from that scene westward.
Okay. Can you identify any of the identified footprints and tell me which trip made them in your scenario?
I wasn't asked to do that. If given the proper time, I could go back and possibly show corresponding features of one with another. That gets into an area of-- as we mentioned or as I mentioned at the beginning of answering these questions, I don't purport to be able to reconstruct exactly what happened. But physical evidence can rule out certain possibilities, and my knowledge of these shoes and of what people do at crime scenes with shoes enables me to say certain things, and that's been our discussion. But to go back and say with certainty in every case, this impression preceded this impression and so forth, if asked to do that, I might be able to reconstruct some of that, but probably not all of it.
Okay. And in any event, would be unable to say whether a given footprint was from trip one or from trip two?
Okay. Now, let's talk about the shoes. You got what one might call a fair degree of cooperation from the company that made them; did you not?
All right. Now, as you traced the manufacturing and distribution of these shoes insofar as the United States is concerned, only this sole was on Bruno Maglis, correct, the two types?
No. There was the Lorenzo and the Lyon, l-y-o-n, which both had the same soles, and the only difference being the higher heel count or heel versus the cut-away one.
They're selling them again I believe as of this February or March. Not exactly like this, but I believe it is also called the Lorenzo and I think it's more in a pebble green--I haven't seen it, but I think it's a pebble green type shoe with the same sole to sole.
Yeah. It's from the same molds. I don't know if it's the same color, but it's the same--from the same mold.
But to the best of your knowledge, from 1992 to the date of the crime, June 12th, 1994, none were made or distributed, right?
Well, I confirmed that at Desoga factory and in fact, they provided me with their distribution of the soles to other companies in Europe who then sold the shoe in Europe, primarily Italy. And I contacted them to determine if any Lord shoes were sold in the United States. And as thorough as I could be--since a couple of factories did go out of business and there was no one to contact, as thorough as I could be, no one had any records of selling any Lord shoes in the United States.
All right. So you are pretty well satisfied that wherever those shoes may now be, they are Bruno Maglis?
Well, the likelihood is there. I certainly can't rule out the possibility that someone went to Europe and Italy and bought a pair of ones with Lord on it and came back to the United States, but there wouldn't be a great number of those.
If they were purchased in the United States by whomever, they would be Bruno Maglis, correct?
Okay. Now, by the way, you told us this morning when you showed us a certain table where you can give a range of heights for shoe sizes, that that's kind of an approximate situation.
Oh, certainly. The purpose of that--of the chart that I prepared was simply to show that the taller you get, there's a--the bigger your foot is, therefore, the bigger the shoe is. It's simply a correlation.
Can you estimate his height and weight and tell me what size you think his shoe ought to be?
They're pretty long and narrow. They're probably--well, can I walk up and look at them closely?
Well, I said that that was based on 399 males and it was just to show correlation, and I readily admit that there's exceptions, sure.
Okay. And you were working with a single size when you give that range; are you not? In other words, you said a 12 on this chart, so many inches and so many inches.
The purpose of the chart was just to show that a person--the general range of height of a person with a size 12.
Okay. As I understand it, you never did get a response to your request, a factual response with details to inventory Mr. Simpson's shoe arena?
Would it surprise you that in his shoe closet, there are sizes as small as ten and a half and as large as 13, all of which he wears?
Not at all. In fact, in my book, I cite that very example, where my shoes range from eight to 10 and I normally wear a nine.
Okay. So the fact that these Bruno Maglis happened to be a 12 might fit different people of different sizes because manufacturers are not precise in their sizing. Isn't that a fair statement?
They--what I was saying is that we could not eliminate Mr. Simpson. He is a candidate based on these shoes (Indicating) as the wearer of a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe and we're saying nothing more.
Okay. So that all that you say when you say someone's a candidate is, they could have worn those shoes that night?
Well, I'm saying that I believe they are the same as I--when I held them up together, the same size--
--and interior as well as exterior, and that if Mr. Simpson wore these shoes, then they would be shoes he would possibly wear a size 12 Bruno Magli.
Well, there--"Could fit," and you brought up the point earlier a person with a size nine could wear them. They certainly wouldn't fit good. They'd be stumbling all over the place. But could they put them on? Yes. So you--you're asking a question which I can't give a definitive answer to obviously. Even a size 12, over nine percent of the population is size 12. So a lot of people.
Okay. And are you saying that a person with a size eight or nine foot who tried those shoes on and laced them up would be necessarily stumbling all over himself?
I didn't fall on my face. But if I was trying to commit a crime, I'd never feel comfortable doing that. I wouldn't be running down a sidewalk or even trying to get somewhere in a hurry with that. I--again, I know of one possible case in over 20 years where this happened, and a person wore his brother's shoes. And I don't think it was to throw anybody off. I think he didn't have any shoes. So it became quite evident what happened because the brother was on a naval I think ship out in the Pacific and they knew it couldn't be him. So it's just a rare occasion. You can say hypothetically could it happen, but it doesn't happen as a matter of regular practice.
So your experience is that criminals just aren't smart enough to wear oversized shoes to mislead the police; is that right?
My experience is that shoes are a personal item of clothing and people generally wear shoes that are theirs except for social economic reasons or hand me downs of brothers and things of that nature. An adult who is affluent enough to purchase their own shoes generally regards their shoes as their own and those are the shoes they wear. I can't rule out the hypotheticals that you're postulating because common sense dictates there's no basis for ruling that out. As a practice of practice and my experience, this just doesn't happen except in rare, rare occasions.
In 40 percent of cases where no shoes were recovered for matching purposes as is the case here, then you have no information as to whether the perpetrator was wearing his correct size or a larger one, correct?
Only based on my experience of the other 60 percent, which is what I've just said.
All right. Uh, 60 percent you said were people who wore their own shoes to the crime.
Which is pretty representative over a 20-year period of time. It's--if you were to ask people in general whether they typically loan out their shoes, men's athletic shoes, men's casual shoes, they generally don't unless there's mitigating circumstances.
I'm not talking about loaning anything. I'm saying that in the 40 percent you didn't recover, for all you know, someone deliberately wore the wrong size--
I can't rule the possibility out. I'm just saying it is not something I normally encounter.
You know that killers who premeditate often disguise themselves, do you not, one way or another?
--then they are of footprints and they are much more aware of personal identification of a face and they wear masks. They are far, far less cognizant of hiding their feet. And the hands and face don't normally have personalized articles of clothing that they wear on them. The shoes are personalized articles of clothing. People like to wear their own shoes.
And so far as you know, despite the fact that long before you got on the scene, criminals were being identified by their footprints, you think it's not a subject of their concern; is that right?
All right. Now, let's get to the Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes were made in part by a company called Uma in Italy?
Bruno Magli makes them in Italy. I mean, there's a--I don't know the exact correct terminology for who owns what, but Bruno Magli in the United States purchases them through a Bruno Magli representative in Italy. I don't know exactly where the u-m-a initials come in, if that's a separate company and he owns them both or if it's related to the Bruno Magli.
Okay. But two different companies make two different parts of the shoe which are joined and the finished product is produced?
All right. And you attempted through the executives in the company to learn everything you could about these two styles of shoes, how many were made, when they were made, when they were shipped, et cetera, correct?
And particularly once you learned that 46 would fit the blood pattern which I assume was after you went to the factory and obtained all your exemplar soles?
Actually, the soles were shipped to me prior to that, and this--the trip was to confirm that and learn more about how the American size last, size 12 last was used and to assure that they didn't use other sizes, size last or put other sizes on. And that was the purpose of the trip.
And you learned that they did not ship Bruno Magli shoes of this type to any other country; is that correct?
Oh, no. They could have sold Bruno Magli shoes to other countries. I just couldn't find a tracing of it. In other words--
All right. The ones that came to America came through Mr. Grueterich in New Jersey?
His distribution as I understand it covers North America, South America, the Caribbean and the United States, and I believe these were the 40 stores he distributed to them. Whether Bruno Magli sold that sole in Europe through one of those other Italian factories, what names might have been on those shoes produced in Italy, I didn't pursue that. I was only inquiring as to those people as to whether or not any of their shoes, regardless of whether they were Bruno Magli or Lord or whatever, were shipped otherwise to the United States other than the ones that Peter Grueterich sold.
Okay. Did he, if you know, drop ship to other countries or did he physically get the shoes and reship them?
All I know is that he told me he was the owner of that design, that they were only on Bruno Maglis and that all of the shoes that were sold in the United States were distributed by him. As to how he did the distribution, drop ship or whatever, I didn't determine that.
All right. During the years `91 and `92, do you know how many pair of Bruno Magli shoes period were imported through Mr. Grueterich into the United States, forgetting Canada and South America?
I only know for size 12, there were a total of 299 size 12's only that were shipped in--that were distributed throughout the United States.
Well, obviously these two, one of these is a 12. So we're down to 298. And I would imagine that there were some which--I know there were some which were returned and like sold as reduced prices through stores like Sims, and whether there were any left after, I--I asked him about that, and I believe he told me about three percent is a typical average, but he didn't know the exact number in this case.
Okay. What did these shoes run at retail before they were devalued in the secondary stores?
Okay. How many different stores actually receive a shipment of a size 12 shoe according to the records of Mr. Grueterich?
How many stores? There were a total of 40 stores in the United States including one in Puerto Rico.
Well, I'd have to--there's a large list I have that breaks that down by date that goes through. But in most cases, the shipments were one pair at a time to these stores, and then maybe six months later, as they replenish their stock, they would order another size 12, and this happened three or four shipments over a two-year period to each store. So most stores didn't carry more than one size 12 at one time, although a few stores did.
Okay. Would you tell the Court and jury where these stores are located in the United States?
Okay. There's 40 four of them. Would you like me to just give the cities or the names of the stores or--
Want me to read down the list? Huntington, New York; New York, New York; West Orange, New Jersey; Highland Village--I'm sorry--Jackson, Mississippi; Chicago, Illinois; Dearborn, Michigan; Troy, Michigan; Chevy Chase, Maryland; Hackensack, New Jersey; Yonkers, New York; Charleston, West Virginia; Knudson Center, Massachusetts; Jacksonville, Florida; Madison, Wisconsin; Phoenix, Arizona; Costa Mesa, California; San Francisco, California; Norfolk, Connecticut, El Paso, Texas; Decatur, Illinois; North Miami Beach, Florida; Bellevue, Washington; Orlando, Florida; Denver, Colorado; Secaucus, New Jersey; a second store in Secaucus, New Jersey; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; New York, New York; Dallas, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; again, New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Frauntenack, Missouri; Westfield, New Jersey; again, New York, New York; Secaucus, New Jersey; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Burlington, Massachusetts; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Gurnee, Illinois.
Okay. So in California, in other words, one in Costa mesa and one in San Francisco--I thought I heard one other.
Oh, Saks, Bloomingdales were some of the bigger stores in New York. There's Saks all over the country.
Right. I think you told us on direct examination that an effort was made to find out whether there was any record of any sale to Mr. Simpson.
An effort was made by our FBI office in Los Angeles, was directed by the FBI office and the--in conjunction with the LAPD homicide unit.
Okay. And is it your understanding that each of the stores was visited and the records checked?
It's my understanding that was done, and I don't have firsthand knowledge of exactly how that was handled and what the results were. I just presumed that if we had located something, I would have known about that.
Now, was anything other than records checked in order to find out if Mr. Simpson was a fan of Bruno Maglis shoes?
I know there were efforts made to that. I don't have personal knowledge of that. So I may be erroneous if I were to speculate on what that might be.
Okay. Well, as against the ordinary purchase by Joe average, there's a little edge when trying to find out whether Mr. Simpson bought something; is there not?
I didn't--I wasn't actively participating in that effort. I just provided the information. So I don't know if there was or wasn't.
All right. You don't know if somebody went to the sales people who would have been working when the shoes were in stock and said, "Do you remember the juice"?
It's my understanding that when they covered this lead, that they were purposely not mentioning that, that there was no mention made of Mr. Simpson or that they were simply trying to reconstruct the records to find all of the shoes.
Wouldn't it have been helpful to find a witness who said, "I'll never forget the day I sold O.J. Simpson a pair of Bruno Maglis"?
All right. The long and the short of it is that no one has located any store where it is claimed that Mr. Simpson bought such shoes, true? Your understanding.
Based on their records that apparently aren't very good that many years later, that's correct.
Okay. Were there any marks that could have come from shoes at the scene of the crime--and once again, I'm referring to the rather specific area around the bodies--that could have represented the footprints of other soles, not the ones that we've been dealing with?
None that I'm aware of that were in blood and actually none of any other type that I'm aware of that I was given photographs of.
None which I saw other than, you know, back to the ones at the end of the walkway that were indistinct, I couldn't theoretically rule that out, but I don't believe that was the case.
Well, there's--there's some features in common between it. It's so partial, I can't link it to that specific--a specific size, but it does match the parallel border and the design element of that sole.
Well, it looks like that sole. If it was different design, it would have to be one just like the Silga sole with regard to that small part.
I'm saying that it's consistent with another shoe that has made impressions all over the sidewalk and in blood and it's also on that envelope, and in as much as the parallel border and that design element matched, I would say that that same shoe also made the impression on the envelope. I would see nothing there to draw attention to a different design of shoe.
All right. In other words, another piece of white paper, which I understand is missing, did you examine another piece of white paper with some kind of impression on it at some point?
No. There were two pieces of paper I think from the Bronco or Rockingham, but not from the Bundy scene.
There was a piece of paper that--it's hard for me to tell where--it's my understanding it was Rockingham. I saw photographs of a vehicle and there was a piece of paper next to it. I don't know where that photograph, from my personal knowledge, was taken, but it possibly was Rockingham. And I examined that piece of paper. And then there was a piece of paper that was in the Bronco of the Defendant. And of course, that Bronco was at times at Rockingham. So I don't know if you would want to call that from Rockingham or from wherever they found it at the time.
The answer is responsive, but I had more in mind, the walkway, the driveway, the interior of the house and so forth.
Mr. Bodziak, you're going to have to allow Mr. Bailey to finish asking the question.
Assume that someone who had worn the extrinsic blood off the lower part of the sole, that is the part that contacts the concrete as you've said would eventually happen--
--then walks on a carpeting, isn't there still some blood likely to be damp enough to transfer that the carpeting would catch by getting up inside the pattern of the sole? That is to say whereas a flat concrete surface just makes this contact (Indicating), as you pointed out before, you could get a reverse contact if a bunch of hairs went up in between the pattern.
I don't--I couldn't answer that question. I don't have personal knowledge of what people were doing at the crime scene.
Okay. Were you ever asked to view any photographs of impressions lifted from his driveway, the street near his home, his walkway, et cetera?
Okay. Is it fair to say that most of the impressions that you examined are on that board today, either identifiable or not identifiable?
With respect to your examination of the photographs of the Bronco which you enhanced in two ways I believe, but the second time you photographed in daylight inchoata?
My understanding is, there was insufficient detail present to call it one way or the other as to those marks, whether they're a footprint or not, in the Bronco?
Now, Mr. Bodziak, you made a statement in response to a question of Mr. Goldberg's that one kind of criminal who was attached to his shoes is likely to take them home and sometimes they're recovered and sometimes they help capture him?
Well, you had a 60/40 breakdown, and the 40 were the more likely to destroy their shoes. That's what captured my interest.
What I said previously about the bloody impressions was, of the shoes, of the cases involving shoes where the suspect purposely got rid of the clothing and bloody shoes were and in fact in most--overwhelmingly most cases, those where they saw the blood on their shoes, they saw the blood on their clothing, and anybody would know that that was incriminating and they, therefore, would very quickly get rid of the clothing. Even then, in some cases, we have people who go back, throw the clothes in the wash, wash the shoes and we've actually recovered shoes from people that were still wet. But in most cases with bloody clothing, it's very obvious that they have to get rid of the clothes and the shoes because it's incriminating evidence.
Okay. And in order to be able to dispose of the accoutrements of murder, that is bloody shoes, clothes and maybe a weapon, there must be an opportunity; must there not?
The physical evidence at the scene which doesn't lie is making that assumption, sir.
In my opinion, it's not even possible because it's so ridiculous.
To conjecture with what I know about this, that two people independently bought size 12 Bruno Magli shoes at different points or over different months apart from the same store or at different stores — and they were only sold by 40 stores — and just happened to commit this crime together is impossible for me to believe.
So the FBI investigates streaking.
I can count on one hand the number of cases where a common shoe like this Reebok that's sold in many, many stores, both in size and design were shared by two persons simultaneously at the crime scene.