Mr. Bodziak, you were asked some questions about crime scene processing type issues. Can you just briefly indicate for us what additional experience you have in the area of crime scene processing, exclusively as it relates to collection of shoeprint evidence?
Well, the function of the laboratory that I work in, the FBI lab, is not primarily to respond to crime scenes, but I have on occasion responded to crime scenes. In addition, perhaps the biggest summary of crime scene efforts that I see is in the casework that's submitted to me; namely, the photographs, the casts, lifts and other evidence which relates to shoes and then talking to the investigators, seeing general photographs of the scene, reading about the circumstances of the scene. So to that effort, I have a great deal of experience in understanding what is normally retrieved and normally found at crime scenes and what efforts are normally successful and what efforts are not.
Have you also taught people how to do crime scene investigation in the area of shoeprint analysis?
That's one of the most common requests which I get, and I've been doing it steadily since 1982.
And have you tested various techniques for searching for shoeprints and also recovering shoeprints?
Yes. Any materials or methods which are new, we immediately obtain to see if they're better than what might have been existing before and to see if they work.
Okay. Now, breaking down the Bundy drive location into some discreet components, I want to ask you some questions about searching and retrieving shoeprints.
Directing your attention to what we have referred to in this case as being the caged-off area, the area north of where Q67 and Q68 was located, if you arrived at the crime scene at night, what kind of technique would be used in order to search for shoeprints in the soil in this area?
The technique would be to use what we call an oblique light source. And the word "Oblique" simply refers to the light being held low to the ground and grazing the ground. And that helps in determining the depressed areas versus the nondepressed areas and it basically visualizes the shoeprints better.
An oblique light source could be anything from a sophisticated high-intensity light source that, you know, generates a lot of light and you'd have to plug in somewhere, and on the other hand, you would probably see just natural sunlight in the morning grazing the ground or a flashlight grazing the grounds. And any of these would be suitable for finding these impressions. Obviously, the ones with more light intensity would show them up better, but you could also see them with the other methods.
And that--by properly, you mean by shining it at an oblique angle across the area?
So if detectives did a search of this area with the flashlight, would that qualify as a competent search for shoe impressions in that area?
If they were using the flashlights specifically in that manner and were carefully looking, that light would be adequate for finding them, yes.
Okay. Now, let's talk about shoeprint impressions on the walkway at a nighttime search. What would be done for locating shoe impressions on a nighttime search on the walkway?
I'm sorry. You wouldn't use an oblique light source on the concrete. You would just want to illuminate it. The concrete is not an area where you're likely to find dust impressions because it has so much residual dust to begin with. So--and because it's very rough and porous and uneven. So to look at that surface with a light surface is unlikely to produce anything. But just looking for opaque impressions such as the blood impressions, just the high-intensity light. You could use a flashlight, but the brighter the light, the easier it would be.
Okay. Now, switching to a daytime search, what kind of search would you do in the area of the, what we've called the caged-off area in the soil during the day?
Well, in the daytime, the amount of light around you is so much more intense than these portable light sources, that basically at that point, you're just looking for any depressions in the soil with just your naked eye and the existing light.
And if that was done, would that be a competent search of that area during the day?
Actually, the light source, oblique light source at night would make it easier to see those depressions than trying to look at them on a bright sunny day.
Now, with respect to a daytime search of the area that we've been referring to as the walk, which is made of the tiles and the concrete, what would constitute a competent search of this area for bloody shoeprints and also possible latent shoeprints during the day?
Well, the bloody shoeprints of course would--for just searching for them or for recovering them?
Okay. Searching for them, again, just a light source that would enable you to adequately see the sidewalk area. Daylight would be better. If you were looking at night, any light source that was adequate enough to illuminate the sidewalk so you could see the sidewalk would be adequate. The brighter the light, obviously, it would make it easier.
What about using--we've heard testimony about oblique light and alternate light and all these fancy things. What about using those on the surface that we're referring to as the walkway, the concrete and the tile for the purposes of trying to look for latent shoeprints? Shouldn't that have been done?
Well, I--I have never seen a latent shoeprint except in one occasion, which was a rarity, in Florida. I haven't seen a latent shoeprint on a concrete surface in all of the other cases I worked because concrete is inherently dusty and dirty and rough and porous. And for a flat surface, in order to see those minute residue impressions, you have to literally skim the surface, and you can't do that with an oblique light source on concrete or concrete walkway such as this because magnified, it's going look this (Indicating) in the light which has cast a lot of shadows and irregularities. Secondly, a residue impression would not occur on this sidewalk because--residue meaning dust or dirt, because, as I had mentioned before, whether you're walking across the carpeting here or concrete, you're picking up the same and redepositing the same residue and you wouldn't see any differentiation. Only have one case where I saw someone walk across wet sand in Florida, and then the sand was deposited on the concrete and gave adequate differentiation to leave impressions. Other than that, I've never seen one on concrete.
KEY QUOTEOkay. Well, what about using some other technique like an electrostatic dust print lifter in order to look for latent prints that might have existed on the walkway area--
It wouldn't be applicable for residue impressions because you're picking up the same residue and putting it turn. The only time the electrostatic lifting device is of use is when you step on something relatively clean. So if there was an object that was clean laying across the walkway and you were picking the residue up from the normal concrete and then stepped on that clean object, then you could make a lift of that object and you may recover a footwear impression. But you wouldn't recover it from the walkway itself.
So in your view, if a visual search was made for shoeprints at night using flashlight on the surfaces that we've referred to as the walkway and then also a visual daytime search was made for shoeprints on that walkway, would that be a competent way of processing this crime scene as far as shoeprints are concerned?
Well, it would be--let me say that you wouldn't find any other prints on a concrete walkway like that other than something like blood or grease or water, which of course would evaporate very quickly. You're not going to find any other kind of--you're not going to find 3-dimensional impressions. You're not going to find dry residue impressions. You're only going to fine opaque type of impressions on concrete. So looking at it with a light source, just a white light source of visual situation, daytime or light source at night is what you would need just to visualize those impressions.
Okay. Now, we've heard a lot of testimony in this case about booties and trampling over latent footprints. What do you feel about wearing--should the officers in this case that searched the crime scene initially and walked through what we've referred to as the walkway area that's concrete and tile, should they have worn booties?
Actually, the impressions would have been dry probably within five to 10 minutes with the exception of the large quantities of blood around the victim and perhaps underneath the victim. And so those impressions wouldn't be affected whether the person had booties on or was just wearing their regular shoes. In the areas immediately adjacent to the victims where there was larger quantities of blood that were perhaps shielded from the air, the tackiness of the blood might last a little longer. And in looking at crime scene material that's sent to me, the only occasion with regard to blood impressions that we ever get secondary impressions from police officers or paramedics are those which result when they come to the scene and maybe turn the body over to see if they--to verify they're deceased or to give them the necessary, you know, attention and uncover those previously shielded areas that might still be tacky. So with regard to the ones down the walkway from the--from a on, it wouldn't matter if they were wearing booties or just their shoes. They would not affect those impressions.
What is your position on wearing booties? And I'm referring strictly to not health issues, but the question of preserving footprints at a crime scene.
Well, I think the purpose of wearing booties might extend into other areas of forensic science where they're perhaps trying to preserve other types of evidence as well. Simply with regard to footwear impressions, the booties--actually, I have seen some bootie prints more often around the body, as I previously described, than I have shoeprints. So they seem to have more of an affinity for tracking the pattern of the bootie than a person's shoes do in themselves just tracking their shoeprint.
So does that mean that you are recommending or not recommending the wearing of booties when the health issue is not a concern in terms of footprint recovery?
Except for the area like I mentioned right around the body, it doesn't make any difference. It's just that it's cloth, and cloth tends to pick up stuff more than leather or rubber. So--
Now, sir, with respect to what you understand of the crime scene processing, of the shoeprints from your conversations that you presumably--well, let me ask you this first. When you went to the scene with Mr. Fung, did you have some conversations with him relating to the shoeprints in this case?
Well, where they were, how they were recovered and so on, how they were photographed and the like?
I had conversations with him and other people prior to coming out here to ascertain whether there were any other photographs of any other footwear impressions that I had not been given. And in coming out here, I reviewed many photographs of the general crime scene to make sure that there wasn't anything overlooked with regard to footwear impression evidence. So I was pretty familiar with that prior to coming out to the Bundy scene.
All right. And based upon that as well as your reviewing of the evidence in this case that you've previously discussed and your understanding of how that scene was processed, was the scene insofar as shoeprints are concerned processed in a competent manner when you're comparing it to what you've grown to understand as the national standard in the forensic community?
The photographs were adequate. They are better than most that we receive in the laboratory.
KEY QUOTEWell, I would have, as I previously stated, tried a protein stain or some other chemical enhancement on the impressions. In cases of bloody impressions on a light colored surface such as this walkway, in most cases, the chemical enhancement gives very little additional enhancement. But I would have tried it as a practice. If we had a pair of shoes to compare with these tracks, then perhaps that fine difference of what we might have achieved with chemical enhancement versus what we have with good photographs might have made a difference. For purposes of determining what size shoe it was and what pattern it was, which you can see already with the photographs, it wouldn't have made any difference.
So in terms of what you're used to getting at the FBI for purposes of analysis in the area of shoeprints, was the quality of the work that was done here in terms of shoeprints pretty high?
Well, I can only Judge by what I received; and what I received was good quality for comparison purposes.
Now, you were asked some questions about various hypotheticals in terms of how these two shoeprints--how the shoeprints, the left and right shoeprints and the indistinct ones could have been deposited at the crime scene. Do you recall that series of questions?
And, sir, is there anything that you observed in your analysis in addition to what you've already told us in terms of the wear characteristics of the shoes which would be helpful to us in resolving this scenario that you were given in which two individuals purchased two size 12 Bruno Magli shoes in 1991 or `92 and then saved them for a special occasion where they wanted to dress up in their nice Italian loafers for the purpose of committing a murder? Is there anything you can tell us about the wear characteristics that would help us resolve that hypothetical?
Only in general terms that none of the impressions showed any great degree of wear. As I've mentioned before, they were either unworn or of very little wear. And so, again, to the hypothetical, which I don't agree with, that two people did this, that would also mean that they didn't wear their shoes very much until they committed this crime, which is not what I agree with.
May I just have one moment, your Honor? I just want to look at the rest of my notes.
Now, sir, in terms of the hypotheticals that you were given, is there anything that would rule out the possibility that a suspect went down the walkway and then at some point realized that he had left a hat and also a glove behind and came back for the purposes of trying to find them could not do so or became alarmed and then fled the crime scene?
Well, as I've stated before, I believe the same person left both sets of footprints, which means that they had to have turned back and come back to that scene. So that certainly is one of many possibilities.
Now, you were asked whether there were any footprints that were facing in the other direction, meaning in an easterly direction on this diagram, in the area of the stairs. Was there such a footprint?
There's a very light footprint coming down the stairs on the same step as impression number B. that was the enlarged photograph which I had said did not have a scale or a--it was taken at a slight angle, and to which I had two overlays taped to, one going in one direction and one in the other. One of those was coming back down the step and it--it was just a very fragment of the edge of the shoe. So because it was coming down the step, it's possible that, again, with that weight being emphasized on that foot, there might be a little bit of blood squeezed out that wasn't coming out before and you could have had that light impression. So that's possible that that was a representation of the return of the person after the first walking down the sidewalk.
Yes. The blue or purple right footwear impression, which is the center impression on the step which is marked B, is very, very light and coming back down in an easterly direction toward the original crime scene (Indicating).
Okay. Thank you. And, sir, in your experience with the Federal Bureau of Investigation analyzing footprints, footprint cases, have you ever heard of a case where two suspects bought two shoes of the same size with the same lack of wear characteristics on them and then walked at a crime scene in such a way so as to replicate only one person having been at the crime scene?
No, I haven't.
The photographs were adequate. They are better than most that we receive in the laboratory.
I have never seen a latent shoeprint except in one occasion, which was a rarity, in Florida... I haven't seen a latent shoeprint on a concrete surface in all of the other cases I worked.
I have seen some bootie prints more often around the body... than I have shoeprints. So they seem to have more of an affinity for tracking the pattern of the bootie than a person's shoes do.