All right. Mr. Woodin, would you take these items down unless, Mr. Scheck, you're going to start with these.
Good morning. I'll try. Mr. Bodziak, you've testified here that you were familiar with the majority of Dr. Lee's testimony. You said that today.
I haven't read his testimony. I videotaped or saw on TV approximately 90 to 95 percent of his testimony.
I said that I had seen the majority of it on tapes of his testimony, continuous tapes, and I had seen some other recordings and news clips of parts that I didn't see.
Now, you feel confident that you fully reviewed and studied his testimony in a way that gives you confidence that you can criticize what he said?
I'm not here to criticize what Dr. Lee said, but to clarify it so it's not misleading, that the term "imprints" was not a shoeprint in my opinion.
And with respect to testifying as to a shoeprint, the only full shoeprint in pattern that he testified to was the one that had been labeled 1337-A, correct?
Yes. I believe he was questioned several times throughout his testimony to clarify whether what he referred to as "imprints" he could positively say were shoeprints, and he qualified his opinion that he could not positively say they were shoeprints with the exception of that one that you're just referring to.
Well, do you recall the distinction that Dr. Lee made--well, would it be misleading to come in here and try to rebut testimony and statements that weren't even given?
I was miss--I was confused myself in watching his testimony whether he was referring to shoeprints when he used the term "imprint" on many occasions. If I were confused, I'm sure that other people could be misled in his explanation of certain things.
Well, throughout your examination of his direct testimony and the boards, were not everything labeled clearly as imprints and throughout the course of his direct testimony, clear distinctions were made?
That was part of the problem, sir. If you say "imprint," it includes fabric, ears, noses, shoes, fingerprints, everything that could actually press against logic. And if you use that term that way, as the flow of the questioning of both direct and cross of Dr. Lee went through, there were many occasions when I was not sure as a footwear examiner if he were referring to that as a shoeprint or some other object that made contact and left that mark. And if I could continue, the--
The term "shoeprint" or "footwear impression," as we discussed yesterday in our meetings prior to my testimony I thought was a much clearer term because it leaves no doubt as to what you're talking about. And if you're not sure if it's a shoeprint and you call it an imprint, then it should be a possible footwear impression or something, and that would leave total clarity as to what the discussion was about.
Well, when Dr. Lee was talking about--he talked about nose prints, ear prints and fabric prints; did he not?
Now, just to make this distinction clear, Dr. Lee made a distinction between the term "imprint" and "impression"?
An "imprint" he called a two-dimensional marking and an "impression" three-dimensional?
No. As I previously stated, around the world and I think I mentioned yesterday, the British use the term "mark" in lieu of what Dr. Lee is saying he uses "imprint," and I recognize that when I read their literature and go to their meetings, that they're talking about a two-dimensional shoeprint or fingerprint, and they use the term "depressed mark" or "impression" if they're talking about three-dimensional. I found when talking--particularly in teaching classes, if you try to restrict yourself always to talking about "mark," "print," "depressed mark," depressed"--or "depression" or "impression" for different things, a lot of times, you were talking about all of them and other times you're talking about part of them. It became very confusing. So I just like to use the term "footwear impression" myself to cover everything. I think it tells the people you're talking about footwear impressions, either two-dimensional or three-dimensional.
Well, the answer to my question then, you see no scientific problem in making the distinction between "imprint" and "impression," the answer to that is yes?
All right. Now, you have testified here that you think there is something misleading about communicating that an imprint cannot be eliminated as a full shoeprint pattern.
I don't understand the question to what you're asking. Could you please rephrase it?
Okay. Do you think it is fair for an expert to testify that an imprint cannot be eliminated as coming from a shoe and can not be positively associated either?
All right. And didn't Dr. Lee in the course of his testimony about imprints indicate as to various different imprints, that some of them--one of them he could say was a shoeprint and others he said he could not eliminate as having come from a shoe?
And in fact, you offered very similar testimony, almost precisely the same kind of testimony in talking about certain imprints and impressions in this case; did you not?
There were shoeprints I talked about today as well as other marks which were not shoeprints, yes.
When you were talking about the Bronco carpet fiber, you reached the opinion that you couldn't eliminate it, you couldn't possibly associate it with the Bruno Magli?
And you went on to answer a question where you were asked to take a rubber shoe and describe for us how it is possibly consistent with the Bruno Magli and you then began playing with the overlays and lining things up?
And you went on to talk about possibilities even though in your opinion, you could not either eliminate or positively associate?
Now, you said these are--do you recognize these as three different pictures of the envelope?
Now, in terms of identifying the differences between the picture in the middle, which you recognize to be the first picture taken of the envelope; do you not?
Well, you remember that there was a picture taken with Mark Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove and then close-ups were made of the envelope as it was at that position at that time?
I don't know what sequence they were in. I know what photographs you are talking about. I just don't know what sequence they were in.
Well, do you recall the testimony that the sequence was, the middle picture was the envelope from the Fuhrman photograph and the one to the left was a subsequent photograph taken at the crime scene with the evidence marker as you can see in the top here?
I see they're different photographs. Again, I don't remember the exact sequence of it.
Now, in regard to this board, do you think that a flash bounce moved the hair, fiber and trace that you see in the middle picture that we now see in the left-hand picture?
All right. You see that there's hair and fiber, the trace evidence in the middle picture.
Yes. Hair, fiber and trace at the top of the envelope here, do you see it in this picture here (Indicating)?
You're referring to all this material which appears black on the center of the envelope (Indicating)?
All right. And could flash bounce be responsible for the differences in these two photographs with respect to the hair and trace?
I would not attribute flash bounce to eliminating all of this. There may be differences in exposures in lighting that would account for minor things, but not for a large quantity of material.
So flash bounce couldn't have moved that material off of the envelope in your opinion?
And you are aware of testimony in this case that these two pictures represent the envelope being moved from one place to the other?
You don't recall Dr. Lee putting up boards and showing the movement of the envelope from one place to the other?
All right. But you would agree that flash bounce can't move an envelope from one place to another?
Now, you--in terms of including something as possibly coming from a shoeprint and excluding something as possibly coming from a shoeprint, would it be fair to say that before you can make a definitive exclusion, you have to have an adequate amount of information?
Are we talking about shoeprint comparisons with known shoes or just looking at the--could you be more specific, sir?
All right. Before one can conclude that it could not have been left by a shoe, eliminating that possibility definitively, is it necessary to have an adequate factual basis to do so?
You would need to have an imprint which had sufficient detail so that you could recognize the characteristics in that what you're calling an imprint, whether it be from fabric or shoes or other material, and you would have to have that sufficient detail and clarity to make a determination as to whether you, based on your expert experience, experience and expertise in that area, could say it was a fabric or shoe or something, and there may be a point in time where you have insufficient detail to make any determination.
And would it be fair to say that the imprint itself is a scientific fact, it's there?
I'm sorry? Are you familiar with the distinction Dr. Lee made between scientific fact and interpretation?
Okay. But do you recall his distinction between scientific fact and interpretation?
It's hard sometimes to understand the way he--when he words things exactly--I believe he was saying the same thing I believe in, that a scientific fact is in fact something that you can prove beyond any doubt at all at least in your opinion. This notebook is sitting on this desk. That's a scientific fact. The interpretation in this case would be very easy, and anybody that looked at it would agree in that interpretation, that if there is a notebook in front of me on this desk. If you had something that was less obvious, then interpretation becomes a more important factor, and you must be fair in that interpretation and you must always only refer to something that you can see as clearly as this book on the table before you make a determination in the case of an imprint whether--or what it was.
So you would say that the imprint or the physical object would be a scientific fact and then there is interpretation of scientific fact based on lots of different factors and other observations a scientist can make?
Well, if you're--if you're referring to the imprints that Dr.--are you referring to the imprints that Dr. Lee pointed to in his testimony?
Well, I'm trying to define some terms with you at the beginning. I'm just asking you very simply, Mr. Bodziak, you heard Dr. Lee testify that there is a distinction between scientific facts and interpretation?
All right. And that different experts can have different interpretations of scientific facts?
If they're properly trained and they're--they limit their conclusions to only what they can see with absolute certainty, they should reach the same opinion.
As I just stated, if there's sufficient information in detail to make their determination, they should reach the same conclusion.
Okay. And do you have--you're aware of Dr. Lee's reputation in the forensic community?
If that expert is adequately trained and experienced in that area and the material, the information which they're basing their opinion on is clear, they should not differ. They do in real life, but they should not.
Okay. Now, are you telling us that you think Dr. Lee is not adequately trained in the area of imprints and footwear impressions?
I have only some information regarding his training in that area, and I would believe that it's far less than mine. I don't--I've never had the opportunity to check any casework of his. He's never--I know he's checked cases of mine and I know of no instance in which he's disagreed, but I don't have any personal knowledge firsthand of his work in shoeprint analysis.
So without reading his books and without having reviewed his cases, you feel confident that you can say that his knowledge of this area of imprints and footwear impressions is inadequate?
The only recent books that I'm aware of that were edited--and I don't believe the areas within--regarding footwear impressions were written by Dr. Lee, but they were edited by him--were in fact prepared in large by--to the best of my knowledge, by Mr. Kenneth Zercie, who is the senior footwear impression examiner in Connecticut and who has taken my class and received training from me in that area. I have looked in his book to skim over it and it seemed very, very general and basically very small part of what I teach and have taught to Mr. Zercie and other people throughout the years.
There were a series of I think--I don't know if they're laboratory manuals from his--that someone showed to me once and I briefly skimmed through them, and then there was a book that was written in 1994 and I think it was published in the republic of china that was very, very general with regard to shoe impressions.
So you feel that you were sufficiently familiar with his work in this--all his work in this area and all he's written?
I believe he's been the director of a laboratory for a considerable number of years and that he doesn't conduct on a normal basis in that laboratory bench experience--bench-type examinations of shoe impressions, but rather directs the laboratory. He may oversee it and he may occasionally take an interest in it, but I don't think he gets out casework and I don't--and as I previously stated, I don't have a lot of personal knowledge. That's why it's hard for me to answer your question.
KEY QUOTEYou're asking me to answer you and I'm trying to give you the best, you know, information that I can on what I do or don't know about Dr. Lee.
Wait a second. Mr. Bodziak, you just told us that you don't have any direct personal knowledge or about what Dr. Lee does with respect to casework or his--what he's published in these areas, yet you're telling us that you think that he doesn't do much bench laboratory comparisons of imprints and shoe imprints.
Well, you just--didn't you just say that you think that Dr. Lee doesn't do much comparison of imprints and shoe imprints at crime scenes at the laboratory bench?
Let me make it perfectly clear. I thought I did. He is the director of a laboratory.
He attends many, many meetings as he testified to. He's very active in many, many aspects of forensic science from a management level. He has people under him who I have trained who told me they are the senior footwear examiner, meaning they do the footwear casework. I don't know personally what amount of casework Dr. Lee does. The facts I've just stated are what I know.
And are you familiar with the fact that Dr. Lee testified that when he--that he goes to crime scenes on a regular basis?
And cites many, many cases where he actually went out and did that and continues to do that?
I believe he stated in general cases he's worked on. I don't know if he referred specifically to footwear impressions in what you would call many, many cases.
Well, isn't it true--withdrawn, the form. Are you aware of Dr. Lee's reputation in the community as someone who actually goes out to crime scenes and examines evidence and comes in to court and testifies about it as opposed to being a manager that oversees?
Now, let's talk about the parallel line imprints on the envelope and the eyeglasses. You had said that--you gave us a number of reasons that you thought that you could definitively eliminate that as having come from a shoe.
And I believe the first reason that you talked about is that on the imprint of the envelope, you detected non-printing areas around the imprint itself.
I thought a good way of describing that print was that it was isolated and I thought the word "island" would be something that the jury could relate to in understanding what I meant.
And I believe that you testified that--withdrawn. Now, you would agree--and I think we had--we had some brief discussion before you came in here and testified, correct?
All right. And you would agree, would you not, that if blood gets on to a portion of the sole of the shoe, that it would leave an imprint without a border?
Now, did you not testify on direct examination that the only possible way that this could have happened with respect to the parallel line imprint on the envelope is if the imprint occurred at the very onset of the crime? Were those your words?
I was trying to make a case for that happening, and it would be likely that if that kind of occurrence did in fact happen, it would be before the whole walkway was covered with blood.
Well, did you not say the only possible way that could happen is, it would--if it was at the very outset of the crime, the first drops of blood that was spilled were one of those drops that may have fallen to the ground, whatever contact that blood at that point had was limited in size because there is only one drop in that area and then items transferred to the paper?
Now, and you gave this opinion after a discussion of the volumes of photographs that you would look at at the crime scene, right?
All right. Now, you said that the parallel line imprint could have been made without a border and without a non-printing area around it if that came from some blood drops that were shed at the onset of the struggles?
All right. But you were dubious about that because there was a whole pool of blood that you saw at the crime scene?
Now, do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony that the parallel line imprint, because of the bloodstain patterns, had to be left first and there were other blood imprints over it later, thereby indicating that there could be some--you could time the deposits by way of an interpretation of the bloodstains?
Must have missed it. And--well, do you think that before you come in and testify about when you think bloodstains were deposited, it would have been useful to study Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to the bloodstain evidence?
Do you think that bloodstain analysis in terms of spatter and the times of deposit has some significance in terms of figuring out when imprints were made?
I understand. But these are imprints made in blood, aren't they, that we're talking about?
Are we talking about shoeprints or fabric impressions or other markings in blood?
The--one of the reasons that I'm here is to dispel this mysterious word "imprint" as including anything that you want it to be and refer specifically to shoeprints, which is what I examined.
No. It's not a scientific fact that an imprint is an imprint. You mean, imprint of a number of objects we've talked about and if you would be--
I just would like to talk specifically about shoeprints or know in your questions if you're asking me about shoeprints or fabric impressions or specifically what you're asking about.
Well, don't you believe that it is important to consider all the evidence in reaching an interpretation of an imprint found at a crime scene?
And wasn't one of the reasons that you were ruling out the parallel line imprints as could have possibly coming from his shoe was the lack of a border and the non-printing area around it?
And before you came and testified, yesterday you gave us a board that you didn't use listing your reasons for eliminating the parallel line imprint patterns as being--possibly coming from a shoe. Do you recall that?
I didn't prepare those boards and when I reviewed them upon arriving in Los Angeles, I did not think they could explain it as well as I could just talking. So I chose not to use them.
All right. But in those boards, there were four different reasons that you stated?
Now, if there were evidence based on bloodstain interpretation that the parallel line imprint on the envelope happened before the other bloodstains on the envelope, would you not agree that that was scientific facts to support the position that that imprint was left before a greater amount of blood shed occurred at the scene?
I totally concur that that imprint was left at that point, but by fabric where another object, not a shoe.
My question, sir, is that if through the--you understand that Dr. Lee--do you--dr. Lee testified that the parallel line imprint pattern was then covered over with a greater amount of blood from another imprinting source.
All right. And that would you concur, looking at the middle photograph labeled bloodstain pattern no. 2, that in the upper right-hand corner of that is the parallel line imprints that we're talking about?
This is very hard to discuss because you can't see the parallel lines very well and it's way out of scale. But yes, I know what you're talking about.
And this particular board, do you know, was the one where the discussion of when things were deposited occurred in Dr. Lee's testimony?
--with regard to the imprint or the small mark which he referred to as "imprint" with the wavy lines.
Okay. Now, would you not agree that this depiction of the order of deposits of blood supports the position that the parallel line imprint on the envelope occurred earlier in the struggle rather than later when there was more blood shed?
Are you asking that in the context of how it would influence my determination regarding whether or not that was a shoeprint?
I'm asking you just to concede that that is a fact that relates to when that imprint was made, when the blood deposits occurred.
In my testimony yesterday, I conceded there was hypothetical ways which could have in fact occurred that that small print could have been put on there in a way--and I gave one example, at the onset of the crime--with--before the other blood or, you know, that would be the reason that it would be a small isolated print, which I think is what you're asking. If I could continue. That in no way influences my whole interpretation of it as to whether or not it's a shoeprint.
Well, wait. Please, if you can, I'll try to make my questions as clear as possible and maybe you could--
Now, all I'm asking is that you said yesterday you were answering in response to hypotheticals, right?
I gave a hypothetical of how that impression could occur without surrounding features in an island configuration.
Right. And what you were saying is, if it occurred earlier in the struggle where there were just a few blood drops that might have gotten on the sole of the shoe, you would get an imprint without non-printing area around it and without a border, right?
I never mentioned anything about blood drops on a shoe in this case. But in the hypothetical context, I said it could be a drop of blood on any object hypothetically, including a shoe, and that is how you could get the isolated island impression.
Right. Yes. And you said that would be the only possible way it could happen, right?
Well, but you were unaware of this board and testimony that Dr. Lee gave supporting his contention that that imprint--
--earlier in the struggle before subsequent deposits of blood were on the envelope?
The sequence of the events with regard to the blood deposition on the envelope has no influence on my interpretation of those parallel lines. Whether they came before or after would have no bearing on my overall interpretation and opinion that that is not a shoeprint.
Would it have bearing on at least two of the factors that you raised, the lack of a border and the lack of non-printing area around it?
No. Because if we had a picture of the entire envelope here, which I would like to use or explain if I could in my answer--
Do we have one of the entire envelope, because this doesn't show what I would like to point to in my answer.
You are talking about what kind of picture would you like? Picture of the entire envelope in any size?
Okay. If I can answer your question, if you look at the envelope, there are many areas around this parallel pattern which don't have a continuation of that pattern. Some of them are obstructed by additional blood, and if you are stating that that came afterward and I--that wouldn't have any bearing on my example. There are other areas that still do not contain blood which still are isolated. And, for instance, over here, there's no continuation of that pattern, but there's no border like you may get on a shoe. So on this side, there's very little blood, almost no blood right here (Indicating) on the corner of the envelope. Yet, there's no contamination of the pattern (Indicating). Over here, of course, it's obstructed by other bloodstains. This in no way--what you're stating then to Dr. Lee's testimony has no influence on my opinion regarding whether this is a shoeprint or not.
Well, I really don't want to be repetitive about this, but are you conceding that from the deposition of the blood, that the other blood that you say was obstructing the pattern came after?
I'm not rendering an opinion whether it came before or after. I'm stating that with regard to the examination of these parallel lines and their features, which are dissimilar in the entire--looking at this examination, dissimilar to a footwear impression, have no bearing on my opinion.
Well, so in other words, even if, as you said on direct examination yesterday, this imprint was made at the onset of the struggle and it came from an early blood drop and thereby accounted for the fact that there's no border and no impression, nothing in a non-printing area around it, that wouldn't affect your opinion?
It had--what I'm examining is the characteristics of this imprint or impression, whatever made it, I'll use a general term "impression," whether it's fabric or shoes or whatever, I'm saying that my examination of that is totally independent of the other blood around it, which obviously is not related to it and has no bearing whether that other blood came before or after on my opinion with regard to this impression.
When you look at a shoe impression, you don't consider anything else. You're looking at the shoe impressions.
Okay. Now, there--I think even in your own report, you indicate that there are--you observed creases and folds in this area of the envelope.
Well, there's obviously normal--this envelope has been creased and folded or crumpled in many places.
But I'm referring particularly to the area of the parallel line imprint was an area that was creased and folded.
Yeah. Right here, along here, along here, here, this mark along here was actually a result of the eyeglass curvature inside the envelope (Indicating). There's just a number of those features that you're describing along the envelope, yes.
I don't know if, when this mark was made, it was or not. But it has no influence on the examination of these characteristics.
The receiving surface could have been as varied as a drop of blood on the envelope and Ron Goldman's jeans making contact and making that print. It could be a drop on his jeans and him with the envelope in his hand coming down and responding to that and putting this mark on it. There's no way to look at this and tell how that happened. That is why you rely on your examination of the physical features here and you're not influenced by other factors that you don't know for certain what occurred. I'm looking at the physical characteristics of this impression or imprint. Based on those features, in my opinion, for the reasons I stated yesterday, it is not a shoeprint.
Did you hear Agent Deedrick say that he thought it was unlikely that the imprint there could have been made by the envelope coming into contact with Ron Goldman's jeans in the fashion that you just described and then falling to the ground?
I believe he stated there had to be some pressure involved of some sort. It couldn't fall through the air and just touch his jeans and fall off, but it could with pressure make contact with his jeans.
Are you--you don't recall Agent Deedrick saying that he thought the most likely and reasonable interpretation of how that imprint occurred is that the envelope was flat on the ground and something or some object--
I recall his testimony that there had to be pressure, and common sense would dictate that the envelope being on the ground would be a more likely scenario than what I described with grabbing a leg where there might be a drop of blood.
He did say it was his opinion that both the envelope and the piece of paper being on the ground was the most likely and reasonable way that the envelope and the paper would be when the imprint was made. Didn't he say that?
I think his most definitive explanation was that you had to have pressure between the envelope and the blood. It could not just be something that bounced off of it or grazed it. There had to be pressure. I don't think he rendered an opinion as to exactly what happened.
Counsel, we're arguing now. Counsel, we're arguing now. The jury heard the testimony.
Now, in terms of, as a general proposition, when a shoe makes contact with the surface that is not flat or uneven surfaces, it can leave an imprint made in blood of part of the shoe and not the borders, for example, that wouldn't come in contact with it?
Could you give a specific example of what you're stating? I believe I know what you are, but could you define it?
That's where it was photographed. I don't know where it was when the impression was put on it.
Uh-huh. In fact, when you made your notes, you were investigating the possibility that this envelope had been turned over, there was blood on the corner of the envelope and that somebody or something stepped on it and the imprint came from what you call troweling marks on the edge of the tile.
Okay. In my notes, when I examined this envelope, the first time I examined it at the Los Angeles Police Department lab, I observed these marks and I was interested what could have accounted for them. And so I made some notes. During the time I had to examine this and photographing was limited. I made some notes possibly troweling marks on the concrete because I had some photographs which showed blood marked areas of the tile and various striations again from these finishing marks that whoever finished the concrete put on there. So I noted "possible trowel marks."
I also noted that in looking at Ron Goldman's Pataqua boots, that there was a certain cleat formation, design to those boots, and I was looking at some of the different shapes of the blood deposited here and I was trying in my mind to see if those boots may have either directly or with the envelope turned over on a blood-soaked walkway and then stepping on the back of it and then flipped over again have caused or if I could associate those boots with any of those marks. Upon final examination of the photographs, Pataqua boots and all the other things I had, I was never able to fully explain this and subsequently referred it to Douglas Deedrick because it was not a shoe impression with parallel lines; and with regard to these, I was never able to associate it definitely with Ron Goldman's Pataqua boots or any other item of footwear.
All right. So you were investigating that first in your reports, you indicated more than one shoe impressions on this envelope?
And would that scenario not include the fact that you thought that the envelope might have been on the edge of the tile and that's how you got the troweling marks?
At that point, when I made those notes, I wasn't eliminating anything. I was making exactly what notes are, "notes," to refer to later and to follow up with additional examination which I did and to which I've testified.
Is part of your scenario, that possibility you were pursuing, that you thought that the envelope might have been on the curved edge of the tile?
No. I know--I made no reference of a curved edge of the tile. Simply the troweling marks.
Now, with respect to the piece of paper, you have indicated that you saw the parallel line imprint impressions on that piece of paper?
Now, did you recall parts of Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to the bloodstain patterns and the orders of deposit on this piece of paper?
Uh, I just re--my memory just recollects that he was referring to wavy lines that he referred to as imprints and that he could not state definitively that they were made by shoes.
Mr. Scheck, excuse me. I'm sorry, counsel. You're referring to a new exhibit for the record, please?
And in terms of, did you--so you did not focus on his testimony as to the order of deposit of blood on the piece of paper?
All right. And would it make a difference to you that Dr. Lee indicated from the best that could be said, looking at the photograph, that it appeared that the parallel line imprints were first and there was other blood covering them based on the bloodstain pattern?
Again, as for reasons I stated before, if he said that, it would have no influence on my interpretation of the portions of the wavy lines that you could see that was the imprint.
But it would go towards at least two of the reasons that you gave us, the absence of a border and the absence of non-printing area around the imprint. It would be relevant to that, wouldn't it?
Well, the detail in this particular impression is a lot less than the detail of the envelope for which we had the original item, and the area that it covers and the adjacent areas don't have a border. But as far as it being an island, I don't think that you could definitively rule where it began or ended on this photograph.
Well, I simply was asking you whether or not the order of deposit had some relevance in terms of at least two factors, the border and the absence of a non-printing area. Does it have relevance to that?
There's--the only relevance--the answer is no because the only relevance is what remains there. What remains there is what an examiner can examine, not what they want to hypothesize or say was there and is no longer there.
Yes. On this--I'm sorry. On this triangular piece of paper, do you see bloodstain patterns?
Well, there's a lot of blood on it. Whether or not that blood was whipped up because it was lying in blood or whether blood fell on it and was whipped or absorbed into it or whether it's a result of contact with an object that all of these other points or if it's actually blood spatter flying through the air and striking it, that's not my area of expertise. I'm comparing the footwear impression.
Uh-huh. Well, I understand that what you're basically telling us is that you don't have--you feel you don't have an area of expertise in bloodstain interpretation.
With regard to shoe imprints, I have a very good base of experience and expertise in that area.
But is it--you're saying that you can--you look at the imprint, but as far as the rest of the stains are concerned, that's not your area?
You can not reconstruct--well, let me say this. All of these stains which are not part of the wavy lines have no bearing on my examination.
Just one more question then. Do you recall Dr. Lee offering any testimony about the effect of the blood surrounding this parallel line pattern and its obscuring borders?
Yes. And I can see that. I can see where there are wavy lines that blood has either before or after come over it and partially obscured it.
So you would agree then with Dr. Lee that because of the subsequent deposit that obscures some of the area with the wavy lines, that that could obscure some pattern of a border?
I believe he's been the director of a laboratory for a considerable number of years and that he doesn't conduct on a normal basis in that laboratory bench experience--bench-type examinations of shoe impressions, but rather directs the laboratory.
I thought you just told us that you hadn't read Dr. Lee's books.
It's limited, yes. But-- it's what I know.
No. That's correct.
I don't recall this board. I must have missed that part.