Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please. Mr. Bill Bodziak is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
Mr. Bodziak, were you provided with any item in order to determine what the Defendant's shoe size was?
Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, it would be 384 for identification. And I'm going to write a 384 on the exterior of the package, the package and its contents of what appear to be Reebok tennis shoes.
Sir, showing you People's 384 for identification, can you remove the item from that package and tell us what you're doing?
(The witness complies.) 384 is a pair of Reebok shoes, white in color, what I would call a low profile that were represented to me as the shoes of the Defendant.
I made measurements of the exterior length of the sole as best I could without cutting the tops off. I made measurements of the inner length of the insole and I made a direct physical comparison between them and a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.
Now, sir, in making a determination of the Defendant's shoe size, could the--why not just measure the Defendant's feet instead of doing this?
Because of the factors of personal preference of fit and other factors which come into consideration, measuring the feet would not be the most accurate way of determining shoe size.
In terms of getting an idea of personal preference and fit, did you write a letter to Detective Lange and Vannatter about wanting another search to take place in order to inventory all of the Defendant's shoes?
Well, I thought it would be more thorough to look at all of the shoes. But the shoes I had I did make a comparison of.
Do you need to have the complete inventory in order to render certain opinions as to whether or not the Defendant would be a candidate for having left the shoeprints at the Bundy crime scene?
Do you need to have additional information other than what you have right now in order to be able to render an opinion as to whether the Defendant could have deposited the shoeprints at Bundy?
All right. Now, can you show us in terms of a demonstration here what you did to compare the Reeboks to the Bruno Magli shoes that you had?
Yes. I had a size 12 right Bruno Magli shoe, the one which was from the original shipment from Bruno Magli in New Jersey that Mr. Peter Grueterich had provided to me, and that is marked 12 in--U.S. 12 and was the shoe that was made on the American 12 last with the 46 sole. And I took this shoe and made the same linear measurements of the outer sole and inner sole and found that they were within a couple millimeters of one another. Essentially they were the same. And I took the shoes and, matching the heel and the toes, compared the dimensions of those shoes and found that they were of similar construction and were for all practical purposes identical in the size and shape features. In other words, the person wearing one certainly would be a candidate for wearing the other. When I say the construction is similar, I had mentioned that the Bruno Magli shoe was what's called a cup sole. In other words, it's a--I guess because it could hold water, it comes up around the edge, and you--that particular type of shoe construction in this case was compression molded, and with regard to the Reebok shoe, there's also a cup sole. In this case, it's cut down in the midline of the shoe on the medial and lateral portion of it. And that's referred to in the industry as a half cup sole, but the construction is the same. And this also would be compression molded and it would--the sole would be molded separately and the upper would be lasted and lowered down and glued and stitched to the out sole. So these shoes are viable for a comparison in terms of the dimensions and the shapes of them.
All right. And for the record, your Honor, when he was doing his demonstration in court, he held the Bruno Magli size 12 which--shoe which comes from the box 375 up against the Reeboks which comes from the bag and its contents, which was 384 for identification, held them together with the soles, and they appeared to be the same dimension.
Now, sir, in your book, footwear impression evidence, did you discuss any materials relating shoe size to height?
I did a study which was concerning the bare feet impressions and bare foot dimensions of people, and part of that study reflected a chart which related the size of a person's foot to their height.
Your Honor, I'd like to mark as People's 385 for identification a page out of Mr. Bodziak's book, just the chart portion. It says "Height calculation chart."
Let me double-check because I cut it off on the Xerox. It was in chapter 6, Mr. Bodziak?
Sir, I would like to show you People's 385-A and have you identify that for us. We're going to project it up on the screen. I think you have a--
That's supposed to be a 385-A, your Honor, that I wrote on there. Looks more like a 383.
This is a chart entitled, "Height calculation chart." It reflects a study conducted by inspector Mike Cassidy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and it was first published in his book in 1980.
This particular chart was to relate the range of height of people in his study to a shoe size; and for the size 12 shoe, he has the range of height as six feet to six foot four inches.
Okay. And that's indicated on the chart where he has six feet to 6/4 and then right underneath, there's a 12. It's the third item down from the right?
Okay. Now, if we could mark as People's 385-B for identification Mr. Bodziak's chart which is on page 174 of his book.
Sir, showing you what we've just marked as People's 385-B for identification, do you recognize this?
This is a chart which I prepared as part of the survey of a total of 500 people, 399 which were males, and it reflects the correlation between the shoe size of a person and the height of that person.
And can we zoom in on that perhaps? All right. Well, now we don't really have any reference point.
But with respect to your study, sir, what findings did you make with respect to the height of men that wear size 12 shoes?
Sir, have there also been studies that have been done related to what percentage of the American population wears a size 12 shoe?
There's a group called footwear market insights which publishes their study of approximately 260 to 300 million pairs of shoes sold in this country, and they break down the various shoe sizes and widths of the shoes sold, and this is produced for the footwear industry for their use.
Counting all of the shoes sold, a general percentage is slightly over 9 percent for size 12.
Yes. There was like .1 to maybe .4 percent depending on whether it was an athletic shoe or formal dress shoe or a woman's shoe or something.
Okay. Now, with respect to the items that you looked at from the Bundy location, did you actually see footprints at Bundy or did you look at them and analyze them through photographs?
There can be problems with photographs if the photographs aren't taken properly. If the photograph is out of focus, if there's no scale in the photograph, if the photographs are taken at a sharp angle, then of course, the ability to interpret and make a direct physical comparison is hindered. And so in that respect, photographs, if not taken properly, can be a problem.
How common is it for you to have difficulties in trying to make interpretations from photographs that are submitted to you by a variety of law enforcement agencies?
It's not uncommon at all for us to get photographs that are far from what we would like to have.
And in terms of the photographs that you were provided by the Los Angeles Police Department that were taken for comparison purposes, what was the quality of those photographs in terms of being able to do a comparison?
Yeah. I--the photographs that were taken of the footwear impressions at this scene were taken in a prescribed method in as much as they were taken from directly over top with the film plane parallel to the ground. They were taken with a linear scale such as a ruler with a finely divided scale on it, and that would be for use to enlarge those photographs back up to the natural size, the exact size that those appeared at at the crime scene. And they were taken all in focus. All of the ones which I saw were in focus, and they also used both color and black and white with--which in regard to blood impressions, is often very useful to have both because in some instances, the color will assist the interpretation of the photograph.
Were there any photographs that captured footprints that were not taken in that manner? In other words, that were not for comparison purposes, but just happened to capture a footprint?
Yes. There was one--there was one photograph which I had enlargements made of which was on the step, one of the steps near the front gate, and that was taken at an angle with a--without a ruler next to the impressions. And I don't think the intention when that photograph was taken was necessarily for those impressions, but it's the only photograph I saw those depicted in. And then there were some other impressions which were photographed going down steps near the back of the walkway, and those were not really full impressions of any comparison value, but rather just rubbings of blood over the corner of the steps. And so it wasn't essential to have them taken in that method.
I went there to take the photographs, the natural size photographs I had of those footwear impressions to confirm the orientation. In other words, the direction, east versus west or north, direction they were heading and determine for preparation purposes of a chart the tiles that they were on or the various steps that they were on.
And what did you do when you were at the crime scene in terms of looking at the photograph and the crime scene in order to determine that relationship? Were you looking at tiles or--
Because of the irregularity of the tiles, the concrete tiles and cracks and blemishes in the surface of the concrete and the steps of the tiles, it was very easy to confirm precisely which photograph came from which portion of the sidewalk.
Now, before getting into the Bundy crime scene in a little more detail, do you also have a chart that's been prepared to show generally speaking how footprints can be deposited at a crime scene?
And I'd like to mark as People's next in order a chart that's entitled "Footwear impressions after stepping in liquid." That is going to be People's 386 for identification, your Honor?
Sir, directing your attention to the chart that we've just marked as People's 386 for identification, the top portion, can you describe for us what that's showing?
Yes. The top portion is an artist's rendering of what occurs when a person tracks or walks through liquid. And liquid could be water, liquid could be blood, liquid could be grease or any--oil or any other type of opaque material which would adhere to the shoe and then be laid down as the person took the next succession of steps. And what this depicts and what actually happens is, the first step after leaving this liquid, the impression is very dark because it has a fresh coating of this material on it. And as the foot presses down, it presses that liquid out to the different edges of each design element and therefore removing some of that liquid from the surface. So the next step that would be taken with that foot would be lighter. It would not be--would not have as much material in it, so it would be lighter. And eventually as you continue the walk, there will no longer be any impressions being left because all of that material will be off the flat surface. The surface that normally touches the ground will no longer have that material on it. There may be--in the case of blood or water or any other lipid liquid, there may be other material up in the cracks and crevices and the little edges, but not on the surface that typically leaves the impression.
Now, in terms of the impressions that we have here under where it says, "The detail--the degree of detail retained in the impression varies," did you create those test impressions?
All right. Now, on occasions, have you made impressions that were actually in blood, test impressions?
Yes. I make them all of the time for classes which I teach where we then enhance those impressions in blood and also to demonstrate what I've just described where the impressions get slightly lighter and eventually disappear.
Now, on these three test impressions that you made, were these consecutive? In other words, was the one on the left-hand side of diagram no. 1, the one in the middle, 2, and the one on the right, 3, or were there ones in-between?
No. This particular chart, this is a computer scanning of the actual--of a photograph, black and white photograph of the actual impressions, the low one on the left being no. 1 for the right foot, the one in the middle being the second time the right foot struck the ground and the one on the right being the third time the right foot struck the ground.
Can you give us an estimation as to how quickly footprints in blood may disappear to the point where you wouldn't see anything that you could recognize as a shoeprint, you might just see lines or squiggles or whatever?
There will be things that cause variables, that is the porosity of the surface, the amount of blood that's initially stepped on, whether it's a pool of blood or whether it's blood that has already been coating the surfaces, is rather flat, which wouldn't be as three dimensional. But if there's a heavy coating of blood, it normally disappears in approximately six to 10 steps.
The amount of absorption and pores in the surface. This countertop would be nonporous. It would be very smooth, and a very porous object, of course, would be a sponge, and concrete or concrete tiles are very porous and they would absorb the liquid and therefore cause it to dry quicker.
When you were making the test impressions, is this on a porous surface or a relatively non-porous--
It was on a rough--a rough piece of paper, not a smooth finish paper, but a piece of brown craft paper that you would use for wrapping.
Now, can you indicate for us using this chart the kinds of problems that you can confront in terms of patterns appearing different than they really would on the shoe as a result of the blood bleeding over or other kinds of problems that you might have along those lines?
Okay. If I can use the sole as well as the picture. I mentioned before the individual design elements, which are these little designs that together make up the total pattern on the shoe (Indicating), and I also mentioned the slightly raised perimeter, which confines the design elements in the sole as well as that slightly raised perimeter which confines the design elements in the heel. And that perimeter and these design elements, if you look at the shoe from the side, will both touch the surface if the surface is flat. The outer perimeter is raised. It's actually above the level of the ground, but it's very, very close. So if there's a lot of liquid such as blood on this outer perimeter, depending on the amount of blood and depending on the pressure exerted in a particular shoe impression, you may get this secondary perimeter, which on the first impression here is almost complete around the heel and is also in other portions of the sole, the top left corner. You also--because there's a lot of material on the shoe with the first step, there's also more of a printing of the flat surface of the design element. In other words, the actual pattern of design element. But you can see darkened edges which represent that material being squeezed out. And this is known as a squeegee effect where the pressure is causing this material, whether it be blood or paint, to squeeze out to the edge of the design element. And the same would also be true where there's excess blood in other areas such as the perimeter. This would squeeze out. In the second step, there's now going to be less material on the sole, and most of the material on the flatter surfaces of the design element has been squeezed away. So it is very thin.
But where the edges are where that material has been squeezed out to it, your surface tension will remain. You will get more of a printing of the edge characteristics of the design element, and except in areas where--for instance, there are a couple here where you do see a filling in of the design--you're basically getting the edge characteristics and you're getting less of the perimeter because there's less material on that secondary outer edge. The third step, again, you're getting some partial outer edge, but now you're really getting just the perimeter of the design element. And in areas now where I'm now pointing to now down in the sole area, but on the heel side, you're starting to get just little speckles and portions, perhaps little corners or edges of that design element. And then the succeeding steps, you would get less and less until eventually you would not be able to recognize this as this pattern.
Okay. Is that why, when you're looking at an impression at a crime scene, certain features of the design characteristics might not be apparent or might look a little bit different?
Yes. If you were looking at this impression or perhaps the next impression that would be made, it might not look to you--if you weren't--if you weren't trained and experienced in looking at this, it may superficially look like a different pattern initially.
Okay. Perhaps we could pass around that sole--I think it's the 46 sole that he has, your Honor, which was 379--while this chart is up so they can get a better idea--
Your Honor, I could mark some exhibits while we are waiting. I don't know whether the Court wants to do that.
Well, we're just about done. I would like the jury to have their undivided attention.
Now, you were talking about how when you went to the Bundy location, you were going out to compare the photographs to the tiles at the location. Do you recall that testimony?
Now, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, that would be 387 for identification. It's actually a two-part board, your Honor. So maybe we should mark it 388--387-A as the first section and B as the second.
Your Honor, perhaps with the Court's permission, we could use this chart closer to the jury because--
While they're doing that, maybe I can mark as People's next in order a series of photographs of what appear to be shoeprints from the Bundy location as 388, a photograph that's Q68, as 389, a photograph that's Q67. And then, your Honor, there are a series of photographs that are a through P. they already have the letters a through P on them I would like to mark as 390-A through 390-P, photograph that has the letter S on it as 391, X would be 392, Y would be 393, Q116, 394. And there's only one unlettered item, and I'd like that to be 395.
Mr. Bodziak, directing your attention to the chart that we've just put up of what appears to be the Bundy location that's been marked as 387-A for identification, do you recognize what this shows?
All right. And the legend of this is on the other side of the chart; is that correct?
Can you tell us what the color codes mean and starting with the purple shoeprints?
The purple shoeprints such as is indicated here in B (Indicating) represent the right foot, the right foot impression, and the pink or red, whichever you choose to call it, as represented by D as an example, are the left footprints, and the medium color blue sort of without a footprint shape to them, those represent ones which were too indistinct. In other words, the impression had worn down to the point where they were too indistinct to attribute to either that design of shoe or to a particular left or right.
And, Mr. Bodziak, is this the chart that you were referring to when you were talking about how you went out to the crime scene with Mr. Fung?
All right. Your Honor, I'm going to pause for a moment just to let counsel--they want to get a closer look at the chart.
Now, sir, when we were previously talking about the shoeprint comparison chart, were some of the items that you referred to on that chart represented on this Bundy chart as well?
They were 268, which was that left heel impression and the impression which is depicted with the letter E, which was also a left impression and which is further up the walkway.
Okay. Maybe we can start then just very briefly with the Q68, if you'd like to, perhaps you can show us, showing you People's 388 for identification, what you did in terms of comparing that footprint. And since we've covered it, maybe you can just indicate for us how it was--in brief how you did it.
Yes. Q68 is the same heel impression which I've previously demonstrated with an overlay, and this just shows the natural size rendition of that with--which is what I would have compared with what I did compare with the actual original impressions that I made of the left and right soles from size 42 from 47.
And was this the area of the scene that's--where you would enter into the gated-off or fenced-off area?
Yes. This is the front gate which is running across the walkway, and Q68 is pretty close in the corner and it is headed in the direction of the arrow which is on the tip of Q68. So if I were to hold this up, it would be headed in this direction (Indicating).
Now, perhaps we can move to People's 389 for identification which is your number Q67?
Q67 was compared in the same manner using the original natural size enlargement and original overlays of test impressions of all of the shoe sizes. And with regard to this, I determined that although there was a tremendous amount of indistinction in here, there were some features which correlated with the size 46 left heel impression, and then the sole impression of that would be running off into a soil area, and there's no evidence of any detail in that area on the soil. And adjacent to that is a white envelope.
Q67 corresponded also with the heel of the size 46 or American size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.
Sir, what kinds of variables are involved in determining whether you're going to get an impression on the dirt?
Well, any surface has to have--well, when we talk about the 3-dimensional surfaces such as soil and sand and snow, any of those surfaces will have to have--be fine enough in terms of, we all know that sand is a very fine material, and if you step in sand, you will depress it; and if it's dry, it will flow back together, it won't leave a very good impression, and if it's wet, it's a fine enough granulated material to in most cases leave an impression. With regard to soil, there is a more mixture of material that can be anything from rocks and mulch to hard clay soil to muddy soil to dry soil, and the fine particular material that's in any piece of soil may allow for the reproduction of the sole or it may not. It may--it may show some compression, but absolutely no detail of the shoe that made it or you may get a very good impression as well.
Okay. And in this case, you're saying that there doesn't appear to be any recognizable footprint in the soil area?
There's an area which looks just to be a little flat, more flattened out, but there's no detail that can be seen in this area of the soil that's on the photograph that corresponds with any design at all, much less this design.
Okay. Now, directing your attention to People's 390-A for identification, your letter--excuse me--LAPD letter A, can you tell us what you did with respect to that comparison and show that to the jury?
Yes. Again, using the natural size photographs and the--I mean, the original overlays, test impressions of the shoe as depicted in this demonstrative display, I found the characteristics in this impression corresponded only with the sole of the left size 46 shoe. And this is marked a and the orientation of that is west slightly angled toward the south, but--but in a somewhat westerly direction on the step as denoted here by a.
Okay. Maybe you can just walk down here a little bit and show the jurors that item and then with the overlay removed and back--and flip the overlay back and forth.
Now, Mr. Bodziak, incidentally, on some of these photographs, I've noticed little tiny red arrows that are on the photograph itself as opposed to the overlay.
Yes. I put a few of those on each one because it shows the variety of characteristics that are reference points I used. Some of the impressions, as in the case of the first impression I showed, actually show the entire shape of the design element whereas others, you just have a slight fragment of a corner or an edge because it's--it's an impression where the blood has been squeezed out on prior steps; and I put a few red arrows in each of these to help show the variety of these reference points that I used.
Okay. Is that so if someone wants to look at later on a couple of the route key, some of the reference points will be sort of highlighted?
Okay. Now, directing your attention to People's next in order, it was 390-B for identification, LAPD photograph B, can you tell us what analysis you did on that footprint and what determinations you came to?
I used the same type of analysis. I compared the original impressions with natural size, a natural size photograph of this impression of size 42 through size 47, and I found the only sole which fit was the right size 46, European 46, and the orientation of this impression is as denoted with the arrow, and it is a B, is a right sole impression.
Now, handing you People's 190-C for identification, LAPD C, can you tell us what comparison you did on that and what opinion you rendered?
Yes. C is a right sole impression. It is--I also compared the original impressions of size 42 through 47 soles and determined that the only sole which could have made this was the right size 46 European sole. Attached to C is a transparency to demonstrate this. I marked the chart with a right foot labeled C, and that is headed in a westerly direction.
Thank you. And now, directing your attention to 390-D for identification, LAPD D, can you tell us what comparison you did and what opinion you rendered on that?
Yes. Again, the same type of examination with original impressions from soles 42 through size 47 against natural size picture of this sole, and I determined that the only sole which would superimpose over and fit this impression was a left size 46 sole. The orientation of the left impression D is also in a westerly direction.
And now showing you what we've marked as 390-E for identification. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinion you rendered on that?
E is the same item which was part of the two-time enlargement chart which I previously demonstrated with a much larger overlay because it would be easier to see and that--in the original examination, I used the original impressions of size 42 through 47 soles and determined that E was a left heel and sole and orientation-wise, I marked it as a left sole and heel on this board, labeled it E, and it is headed in a westerly direction.
Your Honor, I don't want to pass all of these around, but perhaps just one so the jury can get a closer look with the Court's permission.
If you're going to use more than one, perhaps you should start them going at the same time.
Maybe I'll, just so the jury can just get a sense of what different impressions look like, pass F around at the same time, and then I'll ask him with regard to--
the only sole which could have made this was the right size 46 European sole
I found that they were within a couple millimeters of one another. Essentially they were the same.
No. What I have is sufficient.
if there's a heavy coating of blood, it normally disappears in approximately six to 10 steps