Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Mr. Bodziak, could you resume the witness stand, please.

William J. Bodziak, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Bodziak.

Good afternoon.

Mr. Bodziak, you are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.

Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG

Will Bodziak, I think when we left off we were talking about the Bundy board and we had gotten up to exhibit Y. with the Court's permission can I put the board back up?

You may. Proceed.

If you would like to step off the witness stand again.

Okay. Showing you 390-Y, LAPD photograph Y, can you tell us what analysis you did on that and what conclusions that you reached?

Yes. Y is a full heel and some of the sole impression of a right shoe and I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles, both left and right, and found that was made in a right size 46 European Silga sole. I orientated the Y at the Bundy scene as a right impression heading in a westerly direction.

Thank you. Now, I would like to change to the other half of the Bundy board. It is exhibit 387-B for identification. And Mr. Bodziak, does that have some more footprints on which you were able to make a comparison?

Yes, sir.

Now, directing your attention to the exhibit that has been marked as People's 394 for identification and it says, "Q116" on it. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you rendered?

Yes. Q116 was an impression in the rear driveway area and it consisted only of the right border area of a shoe. In this case there are two parallel lines that curve for three or four inches, as well as an area up at the toe that would be associated normally through my comparisons as a toe-off, in other words, why the shoe would tilt forward and perhaps some blood up around the toe of the shoe might then be left. And in making a comparison I determined that the right size 46 test impression, particularly the inner and outer border along that area, were the same relative size and same contour, and when put in that position, this little toe-off area corresponded with the toe, so there is a strong indication that this is a right size 46 Silga sole as well.

Okay. So is this one in which you did not come to a definitive opinion?

I came to a definitive opinion that it was a right sole and that the characteristics which are evident there, namely, the two parallel lines, the inner and outer border along the right edge and the toe point up here, (Indicating), correspond, but there was not any of the remnants of the pattern as there were in the other impressions.

Was there anything on this one that was inconsistent with the Silga sole?

No, there was not, and the orientation of that was in a westerly direction.

Now, sir, if you take a look at this diagram, is there anything to account for why, given what you've told us about how footprints are generally deposited at a crime scene, you would have this Q116 footprint, but no other footprints represented on this half of the chart?

Yes. May I take one of the soles to answer that?

Sure.

(Witness complies.) As I had mentioned before, there is this raised perimeter which goes around the design area and there is also an outer perimeter which is a smoother corner and it is raised a little bit above the surface, but it is a very close to the surface. The blood could have accumulated in between this raised line and also be around just above what would normally touch the ground, this outer border, as well as around the toe, and if a person were to go along here and essentially there would not be enough blood, normal steps, to be deposited, but then came down this step or steps here, just that little bit of decline, a little bit more weight on that foot, perhaps at an angle like this as you would be coming down the step, could cause a few remnants of blood to then be deposited there. So this would not be unexpected to see that.

Okay. And can we go back to the other half of the board, 395-B, but I'm going to want to come back to this again in a little while.

Now, I would like to show you the exhibit that we have previously marked as 395 and will you tell us whether you did any analysis on those two shoeprints and, if so, what conclusions you rendered?

Yes. This particular photograph was one which was not taken with a scale in it. It is representative of the area of the two impressions, one which is left heading westward and one which is a right impression heading eastward which are on the same step as impression number B, but on the opposite side of the step. And this can be seen in a general scene photograph, but none were taken with a scale in it from directly over top. These impressions are both very, very light and fragmented.

Maybe you can walk up in front of the jury so that they can see these because these are a little harder.

Because there was no scale in the photograph and because it was taken at a slight angle, the best that I could do was to have an enlargement of approximately the size of the step made, and of course even if it was exactly the size of the step, because it would be at an angle, it would not be accurate, but just close enough to show--to demonstrate that where I've put the arrows there are some design features with regard to the Silga sole and both of these impressions. The one that is heading eastward, which is the left impression, has the double border and I've pointed arrows to that and it also has some slight angles from where the design intersects the perimeter at those angles, and there is also a corner which corresponds with the heel of the left shoe. And so you can see some design similarities between this very partial impression and the Silga sole.

So it was your view that it was consistent with being a Silga sole or that it was the Silga sole?

All of the features that I just mentioned, and which I saw in this impression, were consistent with the Silga sole and I did not see anything different about the shoe that would indicate it was a different design.

Okay.

On the bottom of this chart, that represents the left impression heading westward on the same step as B, and I've also pointed some arrows to that impression showing various fragments of the design elements that are associated with the Silga sole. And even though I have attached overlays to these, because the picture was taken at a angle and we have no way of knowing the accurate scale, these are merely to help assist for demonstration purposes the design elements on the Silga sole such as the parallel border and the angle of the design when it intersects the border.

What was your opinion then with respect to the lower shoeprint, the one that is pointed in the westerly direction?

That the features that I saw in that corresponded with the Silga sole, but because there was no scale or no angle, I cannot associate it with a particular size Silga sole, but I don't see any crevasses that would be indicative of a different design.

Okay. Now, in addition to the photographs that we've specifically discussed this morning and this afternoon, were there some other photographs that you did see of some indistinct prints that we didn't specifically go over?

Yes, there was.

And a couple indistincts we discussed this morning; is that correct?

Yes.

Now, with respect to the--the items that we just discussed, if you saw some crime scene photographs, do you think you could give us an indication of where in relation to the chart those crime scene photographs show?

Yes.

Your Honor, I would like to show some photos that have already been marked as exhibits for identification. And some of them were fairly graphic, about three of them. Do you want me to let you know when we get to those? All right.

Sir, I would first like to--do we have these on the--

I would first like to direct your attention--this is the photograph that has the part of the shoe of Mr. Goldman in it. I don't know whether that was one that the Court--okay.

I'm sensitive to that picture.

Okay. That is exhibit 566 for identification.

566?

56-G, I'm sorry. We haven't gotten there yet.

Yet.

I have a few more.

We don't have the Court's operator for our elmo so Mr. Fairtlough is going to step back and turn that on.

Okay. Mr. Bodziak, maybe you can look back at the display behind you of People's exhibit 56-G and tell us if there are any footwear impressions in that exhibit that you can correlate back to our chart on the Bundy drive?

Yes. In the lower right-hand corner of the display there is a heel impression and that heel impression is the same heel impression which was at the corner of the front gate which I had called Q68 on the chart, on the Bundy board.

And on the Bundy board you had that oriented in a south--southerly direction but so it points to the west?

That's correct.

Okay. Now, directing your attention to the next exhibit which is People's--this is also a graphic photograph, your Honor--60 for identification. Are there any shoe wear impressions in that photograph that you can see and correlate back to our exhibit?

There are, but they are very hard to see in this photograph. The same impression that I just mentioned, is that the center of the screen about--just above the midline, and it is actually, if you were to extend the finger of the person pointing outward, it would point pretty close to it.

And that would be q--

That would be Q68.

And can you tell us the general area? If you can't see Q67, just tell us the area.

Yeah. Q67 is located over near the envelope, again pretty much in the center of the screen. But a little bit to the left of the corner of the envelope, which is closest to the bottom of the screen, you can see some pattern and that is the area of the Q67 impression and it is oriented in such a manner that the front portion of the shoe would be over into the soil area.

And the third photograph, your Honor, is also a graphic photograph. It is People's 45-B for identification. Do we have that?

No. We have Mr. Fairtlough doing double duty today.

Okay, yes. They changed it while I wasn't looking.

Mr. Bodziak, on 45-B, can you point out any other footwear impressions and correlate them to the Bundy drive chart?

Yes. On the second step in front of the area where you can see the toe of a white shoe, there is the impression which was called impression A, which was a sole of a left shoe, which was headed in the westerly direction. That would be on the second step.

And now taking a look at 45-C for identification.

Okay. In 45-C again first looking at the second step where the toe of the white shoe is, again you can see impression A, and then going up one more step, more toward the top of the picture where the leaf is, you can see what I have marked impression B, which is more to the other side of the step. And then coming toward this side, down toward the bottom of the screen, very, very lightly, you can see one of the--it is a right impression heading back down the step, very light, which is one of the last ones that I demonstrated. That is the photograph which I called Q122, which both contained both the left and right very light impressions and it was taken at an angle, not with the ruler.

Okay. Now, looking at People's 45-F for identification, can you tell us, generally speaking, what shoeprints or shoe impressions are indicated in this photograph with respect to the chart?

Well, we skipped a few feet since those steps, but it is basically down this walkway that impressions E, F, G, H, I, so forth as you look away off into the distance heading in a westerly direction.

And there was a part of your testimony this morning where you were testifying about L and M and where they were in relationship to some shrubbery that you saw in photographs that were taken on June the 13th. Can you tell us where that shrubbery is?

Yeah. The shrubbery is the shrubbed area to the right of the picture, beyond the railing, and in about the center area of that shrub area is a tall, thin tree and that is the tree I was referring to that at the time I went was leaning across the sidewalk, but as you can see in pictures that I checked, it was in a normal position, and that area is a couple feet deep, and it is that area where that taller tree is kind of in the center of the shrubbed area on the right that the impressions L and M come out of.

And were those impressions oriented so as to be west or toward the alley of the shrub or east toward Bundy drive?

The L and M were oriented, as you look at this picture, to your left which would be a southerly direction.

South of the shrub?

Yes.

But were they directly in line with it or were they east or west?

Of which part of the shrub?

Of the, let's say, the center where the trunk of it would be.

They are pretty much in the center area.

Okay. And there is a series of three steps that we can see in this photograph. There appears to be some sort of a metallic object up there. Where is that in relationship to our chart?

That would be up here beginning with S and T and u.

Okay. And then further back on that second plane of tiles would be where X and Y were as well?

That's correct.

All right. Thank you. You can resume the witness stand if you would like, Mr. Bodziak, at this time.

Do we need the board?

Yes. I'm going to return to it in a little while, but we can take it down for a few minutes. Is it okay if we leave it there?

That's fine.

Now, when you were examining these various shoeprints that we have discussed at the Bundy location, did you take a look to see whether there were any wear characteristics on the shoes?

Yes, I did.

And what is a wear characteristic?

A wear characteristic is a general term for wear. It is the frictional forces acting against the sole of the shoe that cause that shoe, the rubber of the shoe, to wear away and in doing so the design or pattern of course will eventually change, and that change can also be noticed in the footwear impression. In other words, you can distinguish a new shoe of a particular design with ones which now have wear and which the design is beginning to change.

What, if any, conclusions did you come along these lines in your analysis in this case?

All of the impressions that I examined from the Bundy scene which you could see the design clearly reflected a shoe that was in a relatively unworn condition. Umm, unworn to the extent that the design had not yet started to change.

So was it either new or relatively new then, in your judgment?

It could be anywhere from new to moderate wear to where the shoe design was still pretty much intact and hadn't begun the change.

By "New" I should probably clarify, are you talking about when it was purchased or just the wear, how frequently or often it was worn?

Well, when you are talking new, to me that means the shoe is relatively unworn. It could be a shoe that is several years old that just was never worn.

Okay. All right. Now, of any of the shoeprints that we've discussed that are distinct shoeprints, in other words, where you were able to label them as either a right or left with the pink or purple colors that we used to signify those, were any of those inconsistent with the Silga sole?

No, none of them were. Everyone where you could recognize the design corresponded with the size 46 Silga sole, or in the case of those last two which were not--of which the photograph did not have a scale in it and it was taken at an angle and they were very faint, they I could associate with a Silga sole but not a particular size.

And with respect to the distinct shoeprints, was there anything inconsistent in any of them with being European size 46 or American 12?

With regard to the distinct impressions where I could make a determination of size, all of them were either a left or a right European size 46 and I could exclude sizes 42 through 45 and 47.

Now, with respect to the indistinct shoeprints, was there anything to indicate that the indistinct shoeprints were made by a size of shoe other than 46?

Umm, well, I couldn't determine size from the indistinct prints. There was nothing to indicate that they were a different design. In other words, I could not see any design in those prints because they were so--there was such little blood, they were so faint, that I couldn't say it was or was not the design. I couldn't say anything with regard to your question.

All right. Now, I would like to go back to the first part of the Bundy chart, which is People's 387-A for identification and direct your attention to a few of these indistinct shoeprints. Let's start with the one that was labeled K which you previously discussed. If you need to step down to--

Yes. (Witness complies.)

Now, Mr. Bodziak, keeping in mind what you previously told us about how shoeprints are deposited at a crime scene, when you were talking about how they become fainter and fainter--

Yes.

--is there anything to indicate whether shoeprint K indistinct was from a design other than the Silga sole?

There is nothing to positively indicate that because you can't see the design that is in that, it is too indistinct, but there could be inferences that it was not another design simply because in order to have a light impression from footwear in blood, out in this area, there would have to be some impressions preceding it that were sharper, because they had more blood on them, and so it would not be possible for a person to step in blood, leave no distinct impressions and then out in the middle here, (Indicating), which is somewhat away from anything, just leave one indistinct impression, unless it was the same shoe that was going down the sidewalk, the Silga sole, and leaving that faint--just a faint mark that you couldn't really examine.

Would your answer be similar with respect to the other indistinct shoeprints, for example, the ones that generally occur between O and A on this diagram?

Generally, yes. With regard to AH through AO, those are impressions where, if I might get the sole again, as you go down the step, the foot is just rolling over the corner of the step and it is squeezing out a little remnant of blood, and there is no real impression so to say those are just blood that are on the edges of the step, and so these I wouldn't really be able to comment upon, because they are not a typical impression. But nevertheless, since all of these preceding it are indistinct until you get back to the Silga soles, the deduction from that would be a strong inference that this was the Silga sole and the reason why these become indistinct was simply the blood had worn off insufficiently to where you could no longer see this kind of detail.

So would it be a fair summary of what you just said--just going back to K for a moment for illustration purposes, that if that were of a different design, you would have expected to see a distinguishable or distinct impression prior to that time of that different design?

There would have to be other impressions that were darker, yes.

Okay. Thank you. You may resume the witness stand.

All right. Mr. Goldman, do we need--

No, I can take this down.

Now, sir, in performing the analysis that you did in this case, did you also have occasion to look at some photographs of police officer--of the shoes of police officers?

Yes, I did.

And I would like to direct your attention to what we've previously marked as People's 73 for identification.

And I would like to mark as People's next in order, that would be People's 296 for identification--

How about 396.

396, what appears to be several photographs that were D.A. discovery no. 4381 and they are similar to 63--73.

Sir, I'm going to show you what we've marked as 73 for identification. Can you take a look at that to see whether you looked at the pictures of those shoes?

(Witness complies.) Yes, I did.

And now will showing you a series of six photographs that we have just marked as People's 396 for identification, did you also look at those prior to taking the witness stand today?

Yes, I did.

All right. And with respect to these two exhibits, were you able to include or exclude the officer's shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location?

And just for the record, the package of six photographs that I sent--just showed you, included Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts?

That's correct.

Let me just put them on the elmo quickly.

Can we just take a quick look at those.

And Mr. Bodziak, can you confirm whether those are the ones that you saw and excluded. Can you just move those around so that we can see all four of them up front.

That's fine.

Mr. Bodziak, are those four photographs, the ones that say "Phillips" up at the top and then "Fuhrman" and "Fuhrman" again at the bottom?

Yes, they are.

And can you turn that over just so we can see the reverse side.

And the "Roberts" and "Roberts" photographs?

Yes, that's correct.

And look at those. I'm not going to ask you about all the ones in 73, but let's just look at Officer Riske's shoes. Can you pull back so we can see the name. Thanks. Did you look at these officers, the ones of Officer Terrazas--the pictures, and the pictures of Officer Riske?

Yes. There was far more detail in what I looked at than what I could see here, but those are the same photographs.

All right. And you excluded those?

Yes, I did.

All right. Thank you.

Now, in your experience have you learned about something or heard about something called stride or gait analysis?

Yes, I have.

And what is that?

Stride or gait analysis is--a person's gait is the distance between their left and right and left and right footprints as they walk in a straight normal fashion. It takes into account not only the distance between each footstep, but the--if I might use these, the angle the toes are out when they walk. Some people walk like this, some people walk fairly straight, some--a few even walk toed-in, and so all of those characteristics, the angle of the toe in and toe out and the distance between the footsteps is what is generally referred to as stride analysis or gait analysis. This is not a tool which is used forensically for crime scene photographs, but one which is used by trackers, such as the border patrol, that track people from point a to point B, and they use this or have knowledge of this because when they first see the--the first few footprints that they want to then track, they will take a step and measure the angle and the arc and the distance that approximately falls between each of these footprints, and they will use that as an indicator of where they might find the next mark, whether it be a crushed leaf or a broken twig or something and that is how they track and they use that as an assistance in tracking a person from point a to point B. in a crime scene where there is close encounters and abnormal movement of people and struggles and other things going on, you don't have this normal walking from one point to another, so it is not useful as a forensic tool for personal identification of a person.

In terms of figuring out how tall they were or how fast they might have been moving?

That's correct.

In your experience is it in fact difficult, in the crime scene context, to try to use the stride or gait analysis to figure out exactly how they were moving or leaving the crime scene?

Yeah. It--it is--I have never had an indication or known of a case where for a close encounter at a crime scene, because of the erratic behavior and other factors, that could be useful, but it is only used for tracking purposes.

When you say "Tracking," that is something is used to try to find someone?

If a child is lost in a state park, they may get a tracker to try to follow their footprints or if a person is coming across the border, or just I've had cases where trackers have tracked people from point a to point B, that--in other aspects of the case but not related to the close-in crime scene comparison.

Now, shifting to another topic, in addition to the footwear impressions that you talked about at the Bundy location, did you also look at some footwear impressions on items of evidence?

Yes, I did.

And starting with the Bronco carpet, did you have occasion to see the Bronco carpet, LAPD item no. 33 for identification?

Yes, I did.

And where was it that you saw that?

I saw that at the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory.

On what date?

I believe it was September 1st, 1994.

Was anyone present when you saw it?

Yes. Present initially were Greg Matheson of the Los Angeles Police Department. There was two representatives from my laboratory to assist in the photography. Do you want the names of everyone?

No, that is okay.

Okay. There were two representatives of the Defense that were present and there were two other observers from the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory who stood in the background just to observe the procedure.

And did you see Mr. Matheson take any cuttings or samples from that item in your presence?

Yes, I did.

All right. Now, before getting into the photography of the item, just if we can put up the tail end of the Bundy board again--

Yes.

Sir, if we were to assume that there were a Bronco parked at the tail end in the alley area of the crime scene, given that we don't have any shoe impressions on this part of the board, other than 116, what would account for or explain how impressions could get on the Bronco carpet?

Could you--you are saying that the Bronco would be at the end of the driveway in the alley area?

Right.

Okay. And the blood would have been picked up back at the front gate area where the--the majority of the blood was? Okay. If I might use a sole again, as I have previously gone over, I believe before, the surface areas of the shoe that commonly come into contact with whether it be a tile walkway or the driveway, by that time the blood would have been worn off of those areas, and there also could be blood, though, up in the crevasses and grooves of this which had not yet dried or worn off. And so that if a person were to get into a vehicle with an item of carpeting, when they stepped on the carpeting you could have a situation where the blood, as the carpeting was pushed up into these grooves, the blood was pulled out and left on the carpeting, but it would not be the same kind of impression that you would get with a lot of blood on a shoe leaving a track such as we have discussed earlier today.

Mr. Goldberg, excuse me for interrupting you. The jury has asked for a brief break.

Okay.