All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you collect those two items.

And for the record, would you give me the number and letter identification of both of those?

Yes. It was D and e.

All right. Thank you.

Now, we already asked you about e; is that correct?

Yes.

With respect to--

Again, for the record, it was C and f.

Sir, directing your attention to photograph F, can you tell us what analysis you did on that and what opinions you rendered?

Yes. F is a right foot impression. I examined all of the sole impressions, 42 through 47, with it and determined that only the right size 46, American 12 Bruno Magli shoe would have made it with that sole.

Now, if you're looking at that impression, Mr. Bodziak, you can see down towards the heel, there's a portion where the blood appears to go over the overlay that you have.

Yes.

What accounts for that?

The--two things can account for it. One is the angle of the heel strike and the other is the amount of blood in that area may be sufficient that at the point of that heel strike, it's squeezed out that distance from the actual strike of the heel.

So is the fact that that doesn't exactly match up mean that it's not the shoe or in some way undermine the opinion--

No. This is a normal thing which I observe in impressions of this type, and what's important is that the various edges of the elements in the reference points match the European 46 right sole and are distinctly different from all the other soles which I compared.

And thinking back to the chart that we had where we were shown how shoeprints are deposited at a crime scene and how successive shoeprints look different from the first to the third--

Yes.

--does that chart help to explain any of the phenomena that you just pointed out here in terms of why certain of the elements appear to bleed over if you will the--

Yes. Well, there's a lot of other things going on in this impression. There's a lot of blood still in this area of the heel (Indicating) and something has caused the left portion of the sole and heel not to print. And what that can be caused by is just the blood would not be picked up by that part of the shoe. In other words, the shoe would step in blood and only the right portion of the shoe would be stepping in. And then as that-- in this area, there's still stifling in the heel which you get typically when you have a lot of blood, and as the heel pulls away, it's--there's surface tension pulling it out and it interferes some with the pattern. And then over on the edges, you do get the borders and some of the edge detail and you get the perimeter and some of the other fragments of design up in the front. You also have the grout line which, as it runs through the--dissects the right sole print, because that grout line is recessed in the concrete walkway, the shoe did not contact that surface and, therefore, did not leave a print in that area.

And incidentally, when a shoe--bloody shoeprint goes over leaves, does it tend to leave a shoeprint on the leaves?

If a bloody impression steps on a leaf?

Yeah.

If everything was perfect, if there was--if there was blood on the design element in sufficient quantity and the leaf was laying flat and the person stepped on it, it would more likely stick to the shoe. I guess it could come off and leave some impression or fragment of an impression, but it is not a particularly good medium. I cannot think of hardly any cases where I have been submitted pictures of leaves that had shoeprints on it. In theory, I guess you could get some fragments, but it's not a good medium.

Are some surfaces better than others for receiving shoeprints?

Yes. A firm smooth surface would be the best, and any time you start to get grout lines or unevenness of the concrete tiles or real porous surfaces or other blemishes, all of those things would interfere with the impression-making process.

Going back to E for a second, since the jurors had a chance to look at that up close, some of the items that you have the red arrows near seem to line up almost perfectly or perfectly and then there are other little areas that you can see where maybe the blood goes over where the pattern is. Can you explain that for us?

Are you referring to the front and rear of the heel?

Well, not so much that. But on some of the design elements in the middle, you can see that some of the design elements appear to be bigger on the impression that was left at the scene than the design element on the overlay although a slightly different shape.

That would be--that specific thing would be because of the squeezing out of the blood. So the design element--if the piece of paper which I'm holding in my hand, exhibit E, was the design element and had blood on it, it would squeeze blood out beyond that edge and then the blood would stay on the surface. So if you consider that on both edges, top and bottom and left and right, the overall element size would be reflected as larger than the actual shoe element that made it.

Was that one of the things that you were showing us on the shoeprint chart where we had how shoeprints are deposited at crime scene and show how they fade out?

Okay. Now, directing your attention to 390-G for identification, can you show us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at on that?

Okay. The exhibit marked G is a left sole impression. In the rear of it, the heel is much more limited detailed than the sole portion and the heel crosses over the grout line. I compared that to the original impressions of size 42 through 47 and found that it only fit the European size 46 left sole. The item G is marked as a left impression and is heading west on the chart.

Now, so I don't have to ask this question over again, on a lot of the other photographs that we're going to discuss, are there also ones that have the squeegee effect that you've referred to and some of the other phenomena cause certain of the design elements or characterizations not to line up perfectly?

Yes. That is typically what you find in blood impressions almost all of the time. The only way that you could in theory get a blood impression that printed like the test impressions I've showed is if you took a roller like a paint roller and very thinly coded shoe and made one impression. Then you might have such a thin coating that you wouldn't have that squeeze out. But, of course, that doesn't happen at crime scenes. And so whenever a shoe has to step in a large amount of blood to then leave a track, there is that excess blood which squeezes out and these types of things are normal.

Okay. Now directing your attention to 390-H for identification, LAPD photograph number H, can you tell us what you did to analyze that and what opinion you arrived at?

S is a left heel and sole impression and it is also dissected by a grout line and it is--I compared the natural size photographs of H with all of the soles, size 42 through 47, and found that only the left size 46 sole matched this impression. H is depicted on the chart as a left impression also headed in a westerly direction.

And now directing your attention to 390-I for identification, can you tell us what analysis you performed and what opinions you arrived at?

Okay. I is a right shoe impression, both the heel and the sole. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles and found that the size 46 characteristics, the European size 46, were the only ones which corresponded with this. This particular heel impression has a lot of excess squeeze out around the back of it and there is a very, very fine line that you can see from the edge of the heel, and this excess area which is void of any pattern is a squeeze-out effect due again to the amount of blood on the shoe and the angle of the heel at that point. So based on this, the size right 46 is the only sole that could have made it on the chart, I is a right shoe impression and it is heading in a westerly direction.

Now, directing your attention to 390-J for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions if any you arrived at on this?

J is an impression, is a left sole impression. There is no heel depicted other than a slight staining here, but it's not enough to confirm as a heel. So looking at just the sole pattern alone of this impression with the size 42 through 47 left soles, I determined that the left size 46 contains characteristics which--some of which I've pointed to, indicating that the 46 sole of a left shoe left that. J is marked with a left sole shape and is headed in a westerly direction.

So does that mean that this was the Silga sole or just that it's consistent with--

No. It was the Silga sole, size 46.

Okay. Now, looking at 190-K for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at on k?

Yes. 190-K, the chart that is marked K, was an area of blood which you could clearly see the blood, but in looking for features that I have looked for in the comparisons that I have demonstrated that would be associated with this sole, there was insufficient detail in this impression to make any correlation. In other words, the impression is now becoming--this way down the side--the walkway is becoming light enough to where there is no longer enough detail in this particular one with all of the variables considered that would enable me to associate it positively with a left or right Silga sole.

Okay. And that's why it's in blue on our--

That's why it's in blue and because I could not associate it with a particular sole as would be the case with some of the other ones marked blue, I can not orientate its direction. In other words, I cannot tell what direction it's going in.

Okay. Is there anything about this that was inconsistent, in other words, that would allow you to illuminate the Silga sole as having deposited--

There is no pattern or evidence of design or anything in that impression which would have been different or of another shoe. It simply did not have enough detail to make any association with the Silga sole.

And incidentally, are there occasions where you can look at a shoeprint I take it and say this did not create the impression that--

Oh, absolutely. Yes. The obvious one is, if it's a different design, it could not have been made by a different designed shoe.

Now, directing your attention to 390-L labeled as LAPD L, can you describe for us what analysis you did on that and what conclusions you reached?

L is a--both a heel and sole impression. I made a comparison with the size 42 through 47 soles and determined that only the right size 46 heel and sole could have made that. When I orientated with the direction of this impression--and this L is a right sole marked so. The direction of this was in a--let's see--was in a southerly direction actually coming out of an area of soil that parallels that sidewalk.

Is that like a soil planter over there or place for shrubs?

There's two or three feet of area as depicted on this diagram that contains some plants and soil.

And in that particular area right around where we have L, is there any object in the planter area in terms of shrubbery that you took note of when you were out at the scene?

The only thing I noted at the scene, and you couldn't help but note it, at the time I was there, which was several months after this took place, there was a tree which was hanging well over the sidewalk at that point, and I made it a point to check the photographs which were taken after the crime--

On the 13th?

--on the 13th of June. And at that time, that tree was standing normally and straight up, and, therefore, this was something that occurred afterwards and was insignificant.

And based upon your observations when you were out at the crime scene, if someone were to stand in that area facing in a southerly direction as indicated, would the shoeprints--are they visible from the street?

Where they're standing here, they are because they would be in line of somebody standing out on the street. But back in the soil area, if they were just to step back into this area, even though there's no real cover there in terms of bushes, because of this high wall and the other obstructions, a person standing back here would not be able to see them (Indicating). They would be out of the line of sight.

In other words, if they were standing a little bit back of--in the--of M where the soil areas is?

Yes.

And if you're facing--if you're standing in that location and you're facing a southerly direction, where is this tree that you referred to? Is it--would it be to your left or to your right?

No. It's pretty much in the center around M and L. somewhere right in there. But it's a very thin tree. I mean, it's not going to obstruct a person from standing in there.

Okay. Now, direct your attention to 190-M for identification--

390.

Excuse me?

390.

390.

390--sorry--m for identification, LAPD M, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinion you arrived at?

Yes. M is a sole print. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles. I am of the opinion that the size 46, European size 46 sole, which would be the American 12, was the only sole that could have made that and those features matched. I orientated this at the Bundy location and found that M was also orientated in a southerly direction. So this is a left foot impression in the same approximate area as the right L foot impression headed in a southerly direction as if it were coming out of this area of soil.

And direct your attention to 390-N for identification. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinion you rendered on that?

N is a heel impression. And at the top of the photograph, there is a part of the sole in that picture as well, and that is a heel impression which I compared with 42 through 47 soles and heels and found that the left size 46 or American size 12 made that impression. In orientating it at the scene, N is orientated as a left impression heading west along the Bundy sidewalk.

And then 390-O for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at?

O is a portion of the heel and the sole impression. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles and found that it corresponded only with the European right 46 Silga sole. I oriented it at the Bundy scene and found it was heading in a southwesterly direction at an angle a little bit further west of L and M, but also as if it were exiting that soil area along the walkway.

And then P would be another indistinct I take it from the--

Yes, it would.

Let's just take a quick look at that. Can you just tell us with respect to 390-P, why you concluded that that was indistinct?

Yeah. 390-P does reflect blood, and it was in all probability made by an item of footwear as common sense would dictate, but it does not contain any of the detail necessary to compare with the Silga sole, but at the same time, it does not contain any differences that would indicate it was a different design than the Silga sole, simply getting to the point where there is insufficient blood on the shoe to make an impression that's discernible.

Or is there anything to indicate whether it would be a size European 46, American 12--

No.

--as opposed to something else?

No. I couldn't make any determination from that.

Now, let's go to footprint S for identification. That starts with another series of exhibit numbers. That's 391. Did you do an analysis on 391?

Yes, I did.

What opinions did you conclude on that?

Okay. S is a heel print--let me hold it this way--is a heel print that I compared to the 42 through 47 soles and found that it corresponded with the left European size 46 heel and did not correspond with any others and, therefore, was made by a shoe from the Silga left size 46 mold. I oriented that on the walkway and found that that heel was heading in a southwesterly direction.

Okay. Now, directing your attention to People's 392-X--excuse me--392, which is LAPD X for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you came up with on those?

Yes. S--I'm sorry. X is the heel and part of a sole impression, and in comparing it to size 42 through 47, I determined that only the left size 46 Silga sole could have made this impression. I oriented it on the walkway and found that X was heading in a due westerly direction.