Yes, your Honor. Thank you. Mr. Bill Bodziak.
William J. Bodziak, recalled as a witness by the People in rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:
Please raise your right hand to be sworn. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Sir, you have previously testified as a qualified expert in shoeprint analysis, correct?
Now, as a shoeprint examiner, sir, is it one of your duties to be able to distinguish between impressions that are from shoes versus impressions that are not from shoes?
And when you--in the course of that training do you test them in any way to cause them to make the distinction between what is a shoeprint and what is not a shoeprint?
There is one. Occasionally in a class I will give a pre-prepared test along with other comparison test type materials where I have two impressions of shoes which are obviously shoe impressions, they are the entire full shoeprint and are recognizable as such, and I will make a third impression with something that is not a shoe, such as it may be the rung of a ladder with some ribbed patterns or some other material, and I will give them questions that don't tell them it is shoeprints, but kind of infer that it is, and just to see what their answers are, and a lot of them mistakenly assume it is a shoe impression.
Now, has it ever happened to you, sir, that an impression has been shown to you in which you cannot say for sure that it is a shoe impression or not?
In--if I am questioned specifically about a particular mark or pattern or imprint or impression or whatever that person calls it, on an item, and I cannot determine that it is or isn't a shoe impression because it is so small or partial or faint, I will say it is of too limited a value to make a positive determination.
Okay. If it is obviously something that has enough detail where I can say positively what it is, then depending if it is a shoe impression or not, I will proceed in the appropriate fashion.
Why do you not make a determination regarding the possibilities of whether something is a shoeprint when you are not sure?
Okay. Because impressions of all objects, whether they are fingerprints, ears, noses, shoes, fabric, rungs of a ladder, no matter what they are, there are impressions of varying quality and varying density, and so if you have an impression that you can hardly see that is very partial, it is very faint where you can't see reliable detail, then more than likely you are not going able to make a valid comparison of it. You might be guessing to try to presume what it is and it just does not contain enough detail for sufficient comparison or a meaningful comparison and it would be best not to go beyond what information that you can see in that impression. On the other spectrum you may have a very, very clear impression and all of the detail is very crisp and clear and you can make a very valid impression.
When there is insufficient detail to characterize an imprint as a shoeprint, in your opinion, sir, is it scientifically inappropriate to say it could be consistent with a shoeprint or might be a shoeprint?
If I were asked to make a comparison of an imprint, I would either be asked to compare it with a shoe, in which case I may be able to make a comparison if there is enough detail. If there were no shoe, was just an imprint by itself, then I would render what opinion I could, but I would only render it based on what I could see with absolute certainty. If it was too faint, I wouldn't render an opinion because it could be misleading.
Now, after your testimony, sir, in this case, did you see more photographs, one of which was of a paper found at the crime scene at Bundy?
Now, after Dr. Lee's testimony did you go back and look more closely at the photograph of that paper found at the crime scene for the first time?
Without telling us what your opinion is, sir, did you form an opinion whether the impressions on the envelope and paper found at the crime scene were created by footwear?
All right, sir. Maybe you need to step down to demonstrate to the jury what you are going to testify--what you are going to tell them.
Why don't we start--well, where would you like to start, sir? The paper or the envelope?
All right. On my side for the record, your Honor, as you face this board, there are two photographs to the left that are the envelope and on the right is one photograph of a piece of paper.
Sir, if you would indicate to us, does this appear to be the envelope found at the crime scene at Bundy which you examined?
And could you point to the area--you recall Dr. Lee's testimony concerning this item, do you not, sir?
Okay. Do you remember the portion of his testimony where he indicated that parallel lines in the upper right-hand corner of this envelope that I'm designating here with my finger were consistent with a shoeprint?
I recall him not stating it was a shoeprint, but that he couldn't eliminate the possibility that it could be.
Okay. Now, can you tell us, sir, what you see in that--in those imprints that caused you to form an opinion concerning what might have been the source of those imprints?
Sure. On the left side of this exhibit at the top is a picture of the envelope which contained the glasses. And this picture is as the envelope was observed at the scene and below it is a picture of the envelope which is enlarged to a natural size, an actual true size. This was taken by me in the LAPD laboratory, and these are orientated in the same fashion so that on the right top corner of the envelope is a very small impression. And looking at the natural size, if I put my thumb next to it is actually about half the size of my thumb impression. It is that small. Within that impression are several parallel lines which have sort of a zigzag to them. In other words, the lines themselves don't zigzag, but it is like if you drew a straight line and there are little motions going left and right as you go down that line.
When you say half the size of your thumb imprint, can you estimate for the jury, sir, how big that is in terms of inches or something?
The area here is perhaps a half-inch by--well, maybe a three-quarter inch square area, about three-quarters of an inch in each direction would encompass this impression.
Thank you, sir. One moment. I'm going to ask to put this picture on the elmo so that the jury can see it better. I think it is difficult to see on the board.
All right. Can you see the area that you have been discussing with us in this photograph, sir, on the screen?
And can you describe for the jury the location of those parallel lines you are talking about?
Yes. It is at the top right of the envelope. I will wait until it gets back in focus so you can see it.
Okay. I think it is still a little out of focus. Okay. That is still not in focus. It is very--can we bring it into focus.
Okay. Well, just in the area of the arrow, that the arrow is pointing to, there are several very close lines. You can't really see the detail I would like to show in this particular picture, but those lines in general are parallel, and there is about six to eight of them, and they encompass an area about one--three-quarters of an inch long by three-quarters of an inch wide, which is less than the surface of most fingerprints or thumbprints. And within each line, even though each line runs in a straight line, there is some interruption in the line, a different pattern within that line itself. And you can't see that in this particular enlargement, but if you were to view this picture you could see that very clearly, or better yet, we could use the enlargement from Mr. Lee's chart perhaps which was enlarged tremendously and I think that might be the best way to see it.
I pulled out Defense exhibit no. 1338-B, your Honor, and I'm going to put it up on the easel.
Yes, I do. Now, this--this exhibit is an extremely enlarged area. It is enlarged so much it is also starting to get out of focus, which is what happens when you take a picture of an object and then try to really make it big, but this area that is circled represents this thumbprint size area of the envelope, the top right corner, (Indicating).
And you can see there is a number of parallel lines, but those lines aren't straight narrow lines. They have a little misdirections in them which are characteristic of that line. In other words, they all have that same characteristic. It is not just an accident. It is reflective to some degree of the item which caused that to come in--which came into contact with that envelope.
Now, is there something about the features that you have just described of those parallel lines that is significant to you in terms of your determination as to whether or not it is a shoeprint?
Yes. In my opinion it is not a shoeprint for a number of reasons. First of all, this has a non-printing area completely surrounding it, so in order for a shoe to make that print, it would have to have--it could only be a situation where there was perhaps one drop of blood on the bottom of the shoe and that is why it was limited and didn't make a print around it. In other words, if the shoe was totally bloody or the surface of the bottom of the shoe was totally bloody, there would be prints extending out, because a shoeprint isn't that small, it is much bigger, so there would only be one scenario when you could have a shoe make an isolated, literally, an island of an impression by itself. Secondly--
KEY QUOTEAnd the shoeprint that you saw going down the walkway at Bundy, did you see basically all of the features--but most of the features of the heel and sole in many of those shoeprints?
There were heels and soles of a lot of shoeprints at that scene, yes, the Bruno Magli design.
Does that indicate to you that those shoes picked up a fair amount of blood at the crime scene?
The pictures that I saw of the crime scene were so covered with blood on the walking areas that you could not physically cross them without getting blood fully on the bottoms of your shoes.
KEY QUOTESo the scenario you've just depicted for us of one drop of blood on a small portion of the shoe creating that imprint on the envelope, based on your knowledge of the crime scene and the photographs you have seen, would that be possible in this case?
Based on what you have seen in the crime scene photographs in this case, sir, can you--
And having reviewed those volumes of the Bundy crime scene photographs, can you tell us, based on what you saw, whether it was possible for someone to step in that crime scene committing the murders and come away with one drop of blood on one discreet area of the shoe to create the imprint you see in Defense 1338-B?
The only possible way that could happen would be at the very onset of the crime, the first drops of blood that were spilled, where one of those drops may have fallen to the ground, whatever contacted this--that blood at that point was limited in size because there was only one drop in that area and then it was transferred to this paper. I still don't, for other reasons we haven't gotten into yet, believe it is a shoeprint. In my opinion it is not. But whatever made this isolated island of an impression could have done it under that particular scenario. After there was more blood at the scene it would not be possible to have a shoe or any object make contact with that ground surface and then leave this isolated impression.
All right. So this opinion so far is based solely on the features of the parallel lines that you have seen in that pattern?
So far just on the size of it and the fact that the impression does not extend outward, it is isolated just like an island, so the blood on whatever object touched it would also have to be restricted to that size.
Okay. Now, those parallel lines, sir, are they typical features that you would expect to see in a shoeprint?
No, they are not. The--there is three basic ways that the bottom of a shoe can have a design implanted into it and that design is always implanted through a molding process, but the mold has to be made and in making the mold the--and again I'm pointing to this for demonstration purposes, but I would like to point out that this very, very tiny print where the lines are extremely close together is what in reality I am talking about. The lines, the design of these lines would have to be put in there, one of three ways: Either through a routing device, something that would actually chew up the metal where they have a metal block before they make the mold and they chew it out into the design of a shoe and that would have to be an extremely fine tool. And you typically don't see them using fine metal bits that way because when they get too small they break and they just--it is not a productive way of trying to make a shoe. There is other ways to implant small designs like this on a shoe. The second way would be through stippling. Stippling would involve a metal dye that is about the size of this wooden piece on the top of the pointer, and actually in most cases maybe half the diameter of this pointer, the wooden piece and on the tip of it it will have a design that they want to implant in the mold and they will take a hammer and put this dye on the mold and strike real hard with the hammer and that will transfer the pattern into the mold which in turn becomes part of the shoe when it is molded. And what happens is when they use these dyes they on purpose turn them each time they strike and they wind up with more of a texture and there would be no way that they would either try or could accomplish to get these perfectly parallel lines by making it that way. The third method is through chemical etching and that is more for texturing, like the texture on the face of this elmo projector or the dashboard of your car, and that is a very, very small pattern, it would not have parallel lines at all. So understanding those three ways that designs are implanted into molds, I don't see this as a shoe design. There are very fine patterns that may be this fine, but not--they will have a texturing or stippling type--type or siping, but not of a premolded routed out type where they would be parallel.
Is there any other reason, other than the features of those parallel lines themselves and the type of design it is that causes you to conclude that this is not a shoeprint?
Well, based on all of those things, particularly the little misdirections in each of those parallel lines, I'm of the opinion that because of all of those things that this is not and could not be a shoe impression.
You have testified previously as to the identification of this as a size 12 Bruno Magli at Bundy?
Do you see that there is a distinct line around the area that is the heel and the area that is the sole?
Yes, there is, and I testified to the borders and those characteristics in my prior testimony.
Okay. Do you see any such border in the imprint shown on People's 622 or on Defendant's 1338-B?
Well, it goes along the same lines as to what I was explaining, that this is actually an isolated mark or print where there is nothing around it, so it is isolated in itself and would not be typical of a shoe that has picked up blood on its entire surface.
Now, the Defense 1338-B, can you tell us how much magnification there is to create that enlargement?
This isn't my enlargement, so I don't know the magnification. I'm guessing that it is probably four or five times at least, but again, I--it is hard for me to do that here without making measurements and so forth and it is not my enlargement, but it is a very enlarged area.
Now, is there a problem, sir, in your opinion, in using enlarged photographs without using them next to the natural size photograph of the object?
As long as they are represented properly, enlargements are very good for conveying smaller images to groups of people such as in the courtroom to show things that they otherwise won't see. However, that shouldn't--should be qualified as being an enlargement and in this case either a scale should be used or--and I believe it was--a natural size photograph with the understanding that this is being used for illustrative purposes, but the actual impression is this small.
Okay. And in that regard, sir, if you look only at the enlargement without any discussion about how much enlarged it is, do the parallel lines appear to be farther apart in the enlargement on 1338-B than they do in People's 622 which is the natural size of the item?
Objection, irrelevant. This does not rebut the way the display was given to the jury.
If in fact a person viewing this were to mistakenly look at this and believe this was the natural size of the print, then of course it would look more like a shoe impression with parallel lines or some type of design because the size has now been enlarged and it comes into a whole different class of shoes and shoe designs. However, as long as it is represented properly, that wouldn't be a problem for demonstration purposes.
Now, you spoke a little bit about the fact that this is not--this imprint does not appear to you to be anything like a shoe design that you have seen in the past. Have you seen many shoe designs, sir?
Yes. I have--since about 1986 I have mentioned the shoe reference collection. I have been to many shoe manufacturers, I have been to shoe fairs and conventions where they sell the equipment that makes the shoes and molds. And I have never seen a shoe design this fine that was intentionally--I mean that was routed out in parallel lines with these little designs within it. Anything that would be of that size would be done with either etching or stippling.
Okay. Does the FBI have some kind of a computer that references all different kind of shoes?
Do you attend any conventions where you learn about new kinds of ways of making shoes and different shoe patterns?
I've gone to many manufacturers and every three years there is a Footwear International Convention. I've also been to shoe shows where they will maybe have 1600 booths from these shoes all over the world been distributed explicitly for the purpose of seeing if there was any way we could expand our reference material in shoe design.
Now, if you would, sir, would you address your comments to the piece of paper and let me get the Defense exhibit.
Showing you, sir, Defendant's 1338-A. Do you see the area that is circled in that photograph?
And do you recall what he said with respect to the area circled in blue in Defense 1338-A?
I'm not sure--I may have seen it on a news clip and didn't hear his voice, so I'm not--I don't remember what he specifically said about it, other than--
My recollection is that in the bits and pieces of his testimony he was referring to this as an imprint, I believe is the terminology he used, and that he couldn't say it was definitely a shoe impression.
For many of the same reasons which I mentioned on the envelope, this pattern is very, very small, and as well as the area that that pattern encompasses, and it is not something I recognize or believe to be a shoe impression. If I could further explain it, the Defense exhibit--I'm sorry, I don't remember the number.
1338-A, is enlarged above the natural size of the piece of paper. On the right side of this chart--
Yes.--is an approximate natural size, and when I say approximate, the photograph was taken at a slight angle, as opposed to directly overhead, but we measured the distance from the concrete barrier that the railing is on, and this intersection, and this is actually about the width of a half a tile, which are 11 and a half to 12 inches square, and so looking at this is a pretty close estimate of the size of this actual piece of paper. As a secondary reference of size, I looked at the toe of this shoe and even in a very big foot, being gracious, this would maybe be at this point three to three and a half inches across up near the toe, so this piece of paper is approximately five--five, four inches, it is not a rectangle, but it is somewhere in that size. The area that contains the impression, when transferred over to this will now only be a couple inches wide, and if this were a shoe that stepped on it, it would have to either be a tiny shoe or something would have had to interfere with the reproduction of part of that design, but because of the other reasons I mentioned, I do not believe this is a shoe imprint either.
A kid shoe, a very tiny shoe, because it would only be a couple inches wide, if you are confining it to the area that has been drawn on this exhibit.
And then again, with respect to this little piece of paper as well, is it your opinion, sir, that it was not a shoeprint?
All right. Since you determined, sir, that shoes were not responsible for making this imprint, was your work done?
Yes, it was. I was requested to make comparisons of these various items for the purpose of examining shoeprints. And in fact on the envelope there was, which I testified to before, a partial impression that was consistent with the Bruno Magli design and the edge of that shoe. Even though I may see other marks, whether they be spatter or streaks or wavy lines that I don't think are shoe impressions, once I determined it wasn't a shoe impression, I wouldn't pursue it any further.
And by contrast, by way of contrast, sir, on People's 622, on the upper photograph on the left-hand side, there is an area that you designated that did appear to you to be a shoeprint?
It did and that was one I testified to before in my prior testimony and it was consistent with the Bruno Magli design.
And do you see a border in that shoe--in the area that you did indicate was a shoeprint?
Yes. As you face this chart, (Indicating), along the top edge is the border of the edge of that shoe.
Now, after you determined, sir, that the imprint circled on the Defense exhibits in the 1338-A and B, that is on the envelope and on the piece of paper, were not shoeprints, did you turn them over to someone else for examination?
Because I wouldn't normally think there was any other examination to be conducted. There was no other material or requests to which to conduct an additional exam. It was out of my area of expertise.
Well, whatever other marks or splatter might be on this, if there were other questions that the submitter of these items had, then they would direct those questions to people in areas of expertise that they believed were able to answer those questions.
And so you eventually did, though, send the photographs of the envelope and the piece of paper to someone else in the FBI?
After learning that this very small fingerprint-sized impression that I first testified to today--
On the envelope--was possibly going to be referred to as a shoe impression, I took another look at it and thought there is a possibility it might be a fabric impression. The other possibility which I recognized when I first examined it in the laboratory here was that it might also be some marks from the irregular surface of the concrete tiles at the Bundy location, but because I did not believe it is a shoe impression, I didn't pursue it at that point. But when the issue came back up again I referred it to Douglas Deedrick.
While we are talking about the envelope and the paper, sir, do you recall some testimony by Dr. Lee concerning a blood drop that he claimed was not present in the June 13th photographs but did appear in later photographs that he examined?
Do you recall the testimony of Dr. Lee in which he testified that there was a blood drop he observed in later photographs that he did not observe in the June 13th photographs of the envelope?
And directing your attention, sir, to People's 622, first of all, the lower photograph of the envelope, do you see a blood drop that I'm pointing to that has initials next to it?
Can you locate that blood drop in the photograph taken on June the 13th that is right above this one?
Thank you. Can you tell us, sir, if you see a difference in the blood drop on the envelope in the photograph taken June 13th from the appearance of that blood drop on the envelope from a later dated photograph?
Well, of course the--the coloring is different and that is just a variable of photography, of different film and processing, this is a little redder than this is. And also blood, as it dries, if there are thick areas of blood, it will darken in the thick areas initially. But this particular spot here, (Indicating), also has something else that is interfering with the ability to see it in its entirety, and that is what is known as flashbacks.
Sir, what experience do you have in the area of photography and the interpretation of crime scene photographs?
I've had extensive training at the FBI laboratory in that area, both in general photography and forensic photography. I use photography on a daily basis in my work and work with our specialized photographic unit.
In that book do you describe various methods and procedures that should be used to take the best crime scene photographs?
Do you yourself, when you to go crime scenes, take photographs in order to capture the image of shoeprints?
In some instances I do and in some instances there may already be a photographer assigned.
Flashbacks is something that we are all familiar with, because if you take pictures of people at different occasions, particularly if you are standing--they are standing in front of a mirror, you get that bright reflection of the flash and you get your film back and it kind of ruins the picture, or perhaps a person is wearing glasses, and if you were to take a photograph straight on at me and the light were to hit the glass perfectly straight, it would reflect back into the lens perfectly straight and this would be what is known as a hot spot and that is--that is caused by the light bouncing back off of this particular glove which is somewhat glossy and coming back into the camera lens in a straight angle and actually overexposing the film at that point and causing it to wash out and becoming so light that it is hard to see. in addition, this is also sometimes encountered if you just had natural light hitting it at the right angle, where it would bounce back into the lens of the camera and do the same thing, such as sunlight, bright sunlight.
So when you use a flash, sir, and you are using it outside in maybe a dark area, if you don't capture part of the sky, can you tell whether it is night or day, based on just looking at the photograph?
Yes. If you are standing outside taking a photograph with a flash and you are taking it in an area where it is dark, if you do not capture part of the sky in your photograph, all you capture is that dark area that you are taking a picture of with a flash, when you just look at only the photograph, can you tell if it is night or day?
In some instances you would be probably able to show a number of reasons why it was night, and in other cases, particularly if you are like at twilight or as the sun is beginning to come up in between dark and light, other factors were existing, light, the aperture of the camera, the speed of the film, there is a lot of variables. I think you would have to Judge that on a case by case basis.
So you may or may not be able to tell if it is day or night if you just looked at the photograph under the conditions I described?
You might be able to, yes, but I wouldn't want to venture a general answer that would hold true in all cases. There wouldn't be one.
I show you People's 618. Did you, sir, examine photographs of Ronald Goldman's jeans to determine whether you saw any--anything that looked like a shoeprint impression on those jeans?
Yes. I examined the original jeans in our laboratory in Washington D.C. and I caused all of these photographs to be taken in my presence and under my direction in October of `94. This one is what is known as a copy shot, it is a color shot where you are attempting to show the actual color and general features of the pair of jeans and it is more for record keeping purposes just to see its general appearance. To the right are two photographs, (Indicating), which are enlarged to a natural natural size. They are overlapping. In other words, the top of the one on the bottom actually overlaps with the bottom portion of the top. And they are representative of the front side of the right leg of the jeans of Ron Goldman. And the reason they don't have the blue appearance is because a filter was used when taking these and that filter was used specifically to drop the blue color, the blue background of the jeans, and to show the red coloring of the blood impressions on there with much greater detail. You can see all of these same markings on the color copy, but they are much easier in a natural size enlargement with the filter dropping the blue color to look at for purposes of discussion and examination.
Now, when you examined the areas in the circles shown on this chart, sir, did you form some opinion as to whether or not they were shoeprints?
There were two impressions which I referred to in my prior reports which stemmed out of my examination in October of 1994 that refer to a heel print on the lower left leg and a partial footwear impression on the right leg, and they were consistent with the Bruno Magli design. But they really, because of the absorbability of the cotton fabric and the fact that there was obviously--this wasn't made on a flat surface, but with a leg inside of the jeans, it wouldn't be an even strike. Because of those factors the detail is very limited and I wasn't able to make any more of a detailed comparison. I did examine the jeans, front and back, both legs, for other markings which might be shoe impressions. I observed a number of markings of almost every describable size and shape along the front and back of these jeans, some of the best ones which are depicted in the right pants leg here on this chart, but none of them, in my opinion, were footwear impressions. If they were, I would have pursued looking for that design of shoe, as I did with the case of the Bruno Magli.
Now, you said you saw a partial shoeprint that you testified to earlier and characterized as a Bruno Magli. Do you see that area of the right leg depicted in the photograph in People's 619?
Yes. It is down here, (Indicating), in the lower portion. It is actually intersecting the circle.
It is actually crossing the lower circle on the right pants leg and then the heel impression is just into the edge of the lower portion of the left pants leg.
All right. For the record the witness was referring to the color photograph of the jeans overall.
Now, other than those two areas, sir, when you examined these pants, did you examine them with the thought in mind of looking for any shoeprints; not just those that would be Bruno Magli?
Other than the two you have indicated to us just now on the lower right and left leg, did you find any other imprints that you would characterize as shoeprint impressions?
The areas that are circled on these overall of the jeans and indicated on the black and white photographs next to the picture--the color picture of the jeans, did you examine those?
Yes. I examined--well, these circles were made by agent Deedrick and I--I examined the entire surface of the front and back of the jeans, which included the areas within these circles.
And you passed them on to agent Deedrick, as you have testified, because you found they were not shoeprints?
No. At the time, because they weren't shoeprints and I didn't think they were shoeprints, I did not pursue it because there was nothing more relevant to my examination. However, when the testimony of Dr. Lee came to my attention that these--and I believe he referred to them again as he did everything, as imprints--could have been shoe impressions, then I referred that at that point to agent Deedrick.
Well, they--they don't have a border. That is the most primary reason with regard to the ones on the jeans. If--I don't know if--is it permissible for me to demonstrate by taking my shoe off?
Taking my left shoe which has a nice sharp heel to it and it is a raised heel, as did the Bruno Magli and as do many shoes, and even if it didn't have a raised heel, it would also have an edge on the sole, but I will just use the heel for demonstration purposes. And using my left arm as a representative, although it is not nearly as big, of the pants legs that would have a leg or an arm in them, if this heel was covered with blood and as shoes walk through blood the blood--excess blood gets squeezed out to the side, so the areas along the edge are typically the ones which have more blood than the interior areas, and this shoe was contacted ever so lightly with this cloth, it is impossible not to get the edge design somewhere, particularly if there were weight where there was now 150, 200 pounds on it or there were kicks, that edge would be very crisp and clear, very dominant and would show up in these impressions. In addition, looking within these impressions, the lines that are parallel do not always run parallel to one another. For instance, in this particular one here there is a few lines that are parallel at this point, (Indicating), very small area, maybe an inch and a half square, and now there is some going in a different direction and now there is some crossing over here, (Indicating), going back in another direction. There is some going this way, (Indicating), and they are all very little partial impressions. Here is two lines that just kind of go out from one another and that is more typical. The indistinct nature of this imprint, the changing of directions of the parallel lines, the very partial nature of the impressions, the lack of a border, these are typical of imprints of fabric or material and not imprints of shoes.
For the record the witness was referring to the upper right-hand photograph as you face the board.
But, sir, doesn't it appear that there is a sharp line here in the lower circle, and I'm gesturing to the arc that seems to be toward the right side of that circle inside it?
There is--there is that line, there is a line here, (Indicating). There is a line over here, (Indicating), with another one next to it. There is some curved lines of all different shapes and sizes around this. In my opinion this has nothing to do with these parallel lines and is not the edge of a heel. It would be much more than--in fact, the parallel lines within--if this were hypothetically a heel, the parallel lines within it are not running straight across it as any shoe design manufacturer would have. They wouldn't have the heel with the lines running crooked. It is just not esthetically something that they would do in the design and manufacture of that shoe. And these do not even run true to this hypothetical border, but we see this kind of a line all around the jeans. And not being there, I can't account for what that is, but I do not believe--do not recognize it as a shoe impression or the edge of a heel.
Okay. Now, the parallel lines that you see in the circles on this exhibit, People's 619, did you compare those to the parallel lines shown on the envelope and paper?
The size of these lanes and the broadness of them are just totally different in size and features than the very, very small lines which have almost a zigzag to them that were on the fingerprint size impression on the envelope and the wavy pattern in the piece of--triangular piece of paper.
So however, sir, would you--what would you say about the similarity of the parallel lines in the envelope and the piece of paper?
They were consistent with one other within the range of detail that I could see, and then in the assessment of them as far as it goes to--with regard to shoe impressions. They were both totally different and without any doubt totally different than these parallel lines that crop up on various places on the right leg of Ron Goldman's jeans.
So the source of the imprint on the jeans is different from the source of the imprint on the paper and envelope?
I think you mentioned something about kicking. If you were just kicking someone, maybe, you know, with the bottom of your foot, you indicated that you would still leave a border that would be indicative of a shoeprint?
Absolutely. More so than just standing on a person or lightly touching your foot against the person.
Sir, did you hear testimony that Dr. Lee, in forming his opinions concerning the impressions on the jeans and on the envelope and paper, did not make any test impressions of the jeans or Ron Goldman's shirt?
Do you have an opinion as to whether it is scientifically correct or appropriate to form an opinion concerning the source of an imprint without having made any test impressions?
Yes. The--and I wrote about this extensively and teach about it in the lectures I give. To examiners, with regard to shoe impressions or sock impressions, the print that is made by a shoe or any object cannot be perceived by looking at that object itself. In other words, you could look at the fabric on my sleeve and you could look at it with a magnifying glass, but because of its three-dimensional qualities, you could not determine what the exact pattern would look like in a test impression, particularly when you get to light fabrics or light shoe designs. There is no way to perceive that three-dimensional very, very minute difference and the variations that occur from shoes or fabrics of similar designs. For that reason, even in the preliminary examination stages, it is absolutely essential to make test impressions of shoes or fabric or any other impression materials for comparison purposes. It is the only way that you can make a valid comparison.
Okay. Now, the test impressions you are talking about making, are they made with the Identicator?
The Identicator is one of many materials that I use in making test impressions of known shoes. It initially started as a source of inkless fingerprints and there are a lot of places in the country use inkless fingerprints, so if you apply for a job and have to be fingerprinted, you don't have to be through the messy ink that you used to go through. I found out about it many years ago. I found out that the air force was using it for, if you will, bare footprints of their pilots, because if their pilots were killed in an accident, they would have to sometimes resort to the ridge detail on their feet because sometimes being in boots they were the only preserved parts of their body and they would find that they had to take prints of their full feet, in addition to their hands, so they made a much larger pad, bigger than fingerprint size. And we started ordering it, and it is very good for making preliminary comparisons, and in some cases for actually the examination quality, the final product. It actually surfaces other materials in a lot of cases, depends on the shoe or the material.
In order to make a valid test impression to compare to a bloody imprint, do you need to make that test impression in blood?
And I might also point that out. That is a fallacy that you have to reproduce the exact set of circumstances. What you are trying to do, when you make a test impression, is to reproduce with as much quality as you can all of the features of the shoe or fabric or whatever you are trying to compare, and that is your standard. That is the idealistically best detail that you can get with all of the features exhibited in that known standard that you are comparing. Then you look to the crime scene impressions, and whether they are shoes or fabrics or whatever, those always--almost always have far less detail and do not reproduce as well because they are not being made as test impressions; they are being made under adverse conditions where the receiving material may be absorbent, like these cotton jeans or the sidewalk may be very rough and coarse, and so you don't expect to see all of the detail in those kind of impressions. But you can take the maximum amount of detail in the standard test impression and then compare the respective parts to see if there is any likenesses or differences. If you went and tried to use blood in the exact materials, you would have inferior standards for comparison. You would wind up with a whole `nother set of problems in that comparison which had nothing to do with your original intended examination.
Now, when you determined that these were not shoeprints, you actually gave them to Mr. Deedrick for examination?
I believe we had one at one time, I think we had two, and I think one of them transferred back out to the field.
You did not give those impressions that you eliminated that as being shoeprint, you--the imprints that you determined were not shoeprints, you gave them to Mr. Deedrick, you did not give them to the blood spatter analyst?
I had observed the pictures of--I had examined the jeans and I also had pictures of the jeans that you see here and I had also seen enlarged photographs of Ron Goldman's shirt. It was very bloodied and the blood in the picture caused the ribbed design on the shirt to show up very vividly. And so when looking at that I noticed a striking similarity between that design, even in that smaller photograph, when looking at this, and for that reason thought the first person that should look at it is Doug Deedrick for doing a fabric analysis.
Umm, they are like apples and oranges. Imprints or impressions are physical contact between one object and another and in that physical contact there is a transfer of both class characteristics with regard to a shoe, the characteristics that all shoes of that size and design would share, as well as wear characteristics and accidental characteristics. The same would apply for any other imprint, whether it be clothing or whatever, those general characteristics would be class characteristics that all of those share. And they will, if there were tears or something on a fabric, you can also have accidental characteristics. With regard to blood spatter, there is actually--I'm not a--I work with blood spatter in the sense that I see it on evidence and the--there is--as I understand it from my training in the area, this area, there is two--
Then would you--is it your opinion, sir, based on what you've told us thus far, that a blood spatter analyst would not be the one to compare a fabric impression in blood to determine what the source of that impression was?
Not unless they had had training in fabric impressions or shoeprints or whatever they were comparing.
Okay. And training in blood spatter analysis is not required or even helpful in being able to determine the source of an imprint made in blood?
Would blood spatter analysis training assist someone in being able to determine whether a--a particular mechanism--a particular item made an imprint in blood?
The pictures that I saw of the crime scene were so covered with blood on the walking areas that you could not physically cross them without getting blood fully on the bottoms of your shoes.
In my opinion it is not a shoeprint for a number of reasons. First of all, this has a non-printing area completely surrounding it, so in order for a shoe to make that print, it would have to have--it could only be a situation where there was perhaps one drop of blood on the bottom of the shoe.
To examiners, with regard to shoe impressions or sock impressions, the print that is made by a shoe or any object cannot be perceived by looking at that object itself... even in the preliminary examination stages, it is absolutely essential to make test impressions of shoes or fabric or any other impression materials for comparison purposes. It is the only way that you can make a valid comparison.
I will give him a shoe. Do you want my shoe?
I have never seen a shoe design this fine that was intentionally--I mean that was routed out in parallel lines with these little designs within it. Anything that would be of that size would be done with either etching or stippling.