All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
Thank you, your Honor.
William J. Bodziak, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
All right. The record should reflect that Mr. William Bodziak is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Miss Clark. Good morning again, Mr. Bodziak.
You are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And, Miss Clark, you may continue with your examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK
All right, sir. Now, did you also make an examination on a number of occasions of the Bundy walkway?
You've testified previously to your findings of one set of bloody shoeprints, the type you determined to be Bruno Magli and size 12, if you recall.
Now, you indicated to us that you did hear some portions of Dr. Lee's testimony, correct?
And in that, he was pointing out various marks that he thought could be imprints. Do you recall that portion of his testimony?
Sir, do you have an opinion as to whether it is appropriate to point out marks or things that could be imprints, but cannot definitely be characterized one way or another?
I was first a little confused by the term "imprint" that was used so loosely to describe so many different things. I had no problem with the term "imprint" because in the area of impression marks, it's a well known fact that around the world, different terminology is used to describe shoe impressions. For instance, in England and much of Europe, a two-dimensional impression would be a mark, a three-dimensional would be a depressed mark. I like to use the term "impression" to cover everything because I think it's less confusing or "shoeprint." I think the term "imprint" is probably more of a general term, and so I had a hard time understanding when Dr. Lee pointed to many different things and referred to them all as "imprints" exactly what in his mind he was inferring, although he seemed to, when questioned about it, admit that he couldn't say it was a shoeprint. So I was a little confused by some of his testimony.
I look at a photograph and I can't really see imprints. You think you may see something. Under those circumstances, do you think it's appropriate to render an opinion concerning the possibility of the existence of imprints that may have forensic significance?
You might want to make a statement about it, but it should be a qualified statement so that it's understood that there are limitations. Perhaps you can't exclude it as having been made by an object, whether it be a shoe or fabric, but not to infer that it is if there is less than optimal detail.
Okay. In other words, if we can't all see it, is it appropriate to say I as an expert can see maybe there might be something? In other words, if we can't all see it, is it appropriate to characterize it?
No. If--being an expert in an area doesn't give you any better than 20/20 vision. If as an expert you see something, everyone should be able to see that clearly. You should never point to something and say, "I can see this," knowing that no one else can see it.
KEY QUOTEI'd like to show you a couple of photographs I think that have not previously been marked.
For the record, your Honor, I believe this exhibit has previously been marked as People's exhibit 598 and--
All right. We have a minor problem. Do you want Mr. Bodziak to testify to this since he can't see it and he's being shielded by the jury?
Yes. What I would like to do is actually put it in the middle if I can, but it's really heavy. It's a magnetic board.
There are magnetic overlays on them now. I'm going to remove them for the moment and put them back on.
All right. Mr. Bodziak, you're probably going to have to step down so you can look at this.
For the record, at this moment, your Honor, there are only two photographs on this board, one labeled B, one labeled C that appear to be overalls of the walkway at Bundy.
I would like now to attach to this board two other overalls. I'm going to ask that they be labeled as part of this exhibit. The first one shows letters E through K. Actually--yes, E through K, and ask that this be labeled D.
This is a photograph of the Bundy walkway. The view is towards the west and it begins with the third row of tiles that start after you come up the steps of the front gate.
I have another overall photograph that shows letters H through N as--and may I have that labeled as E, your Honor?
This is also a photograph of the Bundy walkway looking toward the west, and it's taken just a little bit further down the walkway and it therefore begins with row 7, actually part of row 6 of tiles row 7 and then row 8 of which H and I are, and then you can see the steps going up to the next tier as you head west down the Bundy walkway.
All right. Miss Clark, Mrs. Robertson--forgive me for interrupting you, but Mrs. Robertson indicates that on 598, you already have a through I.
This was based on my previous comparison of the tiles and the Bruno Magli design shoes and the comparisons I made and the letters that were in the photographs that were taken by the LAPD as they took the photographs at the crime scene of each individual footwear impression.
In these overall photographs, sir, do you see other than the items you have labeled--well, let me back up. The labels are affixed to what? They're showing what?
The labels which begin with E on one photograph, they go E, F, G, H, I, J, K, it becomes very hard to see much after that. So we added this additional photograph, which is a little bit further down the sidewalk, and that continues with H and I, J, K, L, M and N, and these letters represent the letters that were taken in the photographs of the Bruno Magli shoe impressions.
Would it be more clear if I were to place J lower and place K above it so that it's a continuation of the walkway?
Do you actually see the rear gate of the Bundy location at the top of the photograph that's labeled k?
You see a gate. I don't believe it's the most rear. The most rear is down the next tier and up again and further back, but you do see another gate, yes.
Now, so the items that are labeled with letters, those were all the Bruno Magli shoeprints that you found?
They were some of them. There were many others, but these were some of them with those respective letters.
Other than the Bruno Magli shoeprints, some of which you have labeled with letters on these overalls, did you see anything else recognizable as a shoeprint on the Bundy walkway?
Looking at these two photographs, I could not see any other footwear impressions in these photographs other than what I have already marked here with the letters and I previously examined, testified to.
Now, are you aware that the date on which these pictures were taken, these overalls, was June the 13th?
Now, the photographs that you examined, sir, were they original photographs developed from the negative?
Did you hear Dr. Lee's testimony that the photographs he examined were second generation, that is a photograph of a photograph?
In some instances, did you hear Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to some of the Bundy walkway photographs, that what he examined were photographs of photographs?
What is your opinion of the practice of forming an opinion based on the appearance of a photograph of a photograph?
In some instances, you could reach a conclusion with the photograph of a photograph, particularly eliminations. If there was a design, even though the photograph--poor design was definitely a different design, you could still see that, you could reach an opinion. You might also be able to reach certain qualified opinions. But using a second-generation photograph is generally not what you strive to do in your examinations because there always is the possibility that the original full-framed picture from the original negatives contains much more information. It might even contain other areas that you don't see on a copy of that first photograph. So as a general rule, it's dangerous to work with that kind of material. It's limited.
Have you spoken with Mr. Scheck at some length, sir, prior to your testimony here today?
And have you seen original, that is first-generation photographs, in the possession of Mr. Scheck?
Most of the photographs that we went over were photographs that I generated or the LAPD had generated from the original negatives.
And did you discuss with him providing to Mr. Lee of second-generation photographs in lieu of original photographs?
I don't recall any specific discussion about that. There may have been a reference to it, but I don't recall it as a discussion.
Let me put it to you this way, sir. If the Prosecution had sent to you photographs of photographs, second-generation photographs, and asked for you to render an opinion characterizing or forming a conclusion based on those photographs, would you do so?
That happens quite frequently because a lot of departments don't want to give up their original photographs or negatives, and I pick up the phone and call them and explain to them for various reasons why I have to have the best evidence, and I usually won't do the examination, even a qualified one, if I don't have that.
All right, sir. I just put up the Defense exhibit labeled as Defendant's 1337. Have you previously examined this board, sir?
Let me--I first want to direct your attention to the photograph on the lower--lower left, lower left-hand side.
And perhaps we could put that one photograph on the elmo, and that's People's 45-I.
Appears to be oriented differently than the--Miss Martinez, I think we need to turn it upside down. Thank you.
Until we get that, let me ask you a couple questions, sir. First of all, do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony, sir, that there were lines in this area that I'm pointing to here (Indicating)?
And for the record, I'm pointing to, as you face it, to the right of the grouting that appeared to him to possibly be an imprint.
Since that time, sir, have you gone back to the Bundy walkway to examine that particular tile?
And when you went back to look at that--ah, good. We have the photograph. And that's People's what? Showing you People's 45-I on the elmo, sir, if you could explain to the jury and use the laser pointer and circle the area that we're talking about.
Yes. The area that you're referring to that I went back and examined is this area in here, and within that area, there are some parallel lines which I'm following with the laser pointer (Indicating).
Now, first of all, sir, before you ever testified, did you go to Bundy and locate the exact location of where each shoeprint that had been photographed was?
And those notes that you made, they were made before you testified here for the first time?
When you testified previously, sir, did you indicate and specify exactly where each footprint was on the walkway?
Now, since your testimony, you indicated that you went back to Bundy to locate that precise tile shown in People's 45-I again?
Uh, it was very easy. I knew exactly where that imprint was since I had already been to the Bundy scene and had mapped each of these by the letter and by the photograph numbers and in order to create the long Bundy chart which was used during my original testimony. So I already knew exactly which tile to go to. And even though the impression is no longer there, the impression of blood is no longer there, the many imperfections in the tile and the grouting make it easy to confirm that I was looking at the exact tile.
So by various distinctive defects in the tile that were innate to the tile, you were able to locate each shoeprint?
Yes. Well, they're all walkway markings on the walkway. I should describe it for the record. Thank you, your Honor.
This board contains seven photo--actually eight photographs. In the lower right-hand corner are two photographs put together because they are part of one tile, a continuous part of the tiling, and they have numbers 15 and 19 on them. In the lower left-hand corner is a photograph, black and white, with two rulers that seems to show an imprint in cement. Above that is another black and white photograph with two rulers. Another above that is a color photograph with what appears to be a shoeprint and two rulers. In the middle is an overall photograph with what appears to be--it's a color photograph with what appears to be white labels in it. To the right of that is a black and white photograph with two rulers. Next to it is a color photograph with a tape measure in it.
All right. Sir, directing your attention specifically now to the photographs that--
I'm going to start labeling them, your Honor, for the record. The upper photograph labeled color photograph with the shoeprint a and the black and white below it B.
Directing your attention to photograph B, sir, that appears to be a black and white photograph?
That particular photograph I didn't take. To the best of my knowledge, I believe it was September 1st, 1995.
I gave general directions to how to take the photograph of the tile using an oblique light source and a camera on a tripod and a scale and everything in the photograph.
Yes. "oblique light" is when the light skims the surface as opposed to light just coming down from overhead as it would if you were to walk outside or in a room such as this where the lighting is coming from overhead. And when the light comes from overhead, it is very even and does not give you a lot of contrast regarding surface detail. If you were to bring--turn these lights off and bring a bright light in here and skim the surface of different objects, you would see the texture, the carpeting texture, shoeprints that might be depressed, other tool marks or marks from objects, you would see them much better because the low light would be creating shadows in the low areas of these uneven things and would highlight the upper areas and it would give you better contrast. So you would be able to, by skimming the light on the surface, see those defects much better in the walkway.
It doesn't create features. It enables you to see them much better than you might be able to see with photographs taken without other lighting sources.
Now, what was the purpose in this particular case of asking that these black and white photographs be taken with oblique lighting in September of 1995?
After Dr. Lee's testimony regarding this particular imprint, which is the original photograph of which is depicted in photograph a on this board, in order to obtain a picture that shows more clearly that mark, I directed them to take this different type of photograph.
Now, the parallel lines that appear in People's 45-I and on the Defendant's exhibit 1337 that you've circled with the laser light--
--can you tell us whether you were able to locate that particular tile, that location on the Bundy walkway after Dr. Lee's testimony?
Yes. That was the edge--this particular edge here in this photograph a on this board is the same as the area I just circled. This edge is the border between the second and third row of tiles and it is in the area of the impression, this particular impression which we labeled E on the original--with the Bruno Magli design on the original Bundy walkway board (Indicating).
Now, directing your attention to photograph B, the photograph taken September of 1995, can you tell us, sir, whether that is the exact location depicted in photograph a which was taken on June 13th, 1994?
Yes, it is. The grout line, which is running up and down, this corresponds with this grout line, and this tile to the right of the photograph on the right side of the photograph B as you face it corresponds with the heel portion or the part of the tile on the heal area which is actually a second row of tiles on the photograph a (Indicating).
Now, the parallel lines that were testified to by Dr. Lee, do you see them in the photograph taken in September of 1995 labeled on this exhibit as b?
Yes. The same lines are right in this area, and they are the same lines that you can--you can still see it in photograph a as you can up when I pointed to it with the laser, but you can see it much more clearly in photograph B (Indicating).
Then with respect to the parallel lines in--that were pointed out during Dr. Lee's testimony in photograph a and what's shown on the screen, People's 45-I, in your opinion, sir, is that an imprint?
It's a result of the making, the finishing of the concrete tiles. Much of the discussion including my own of the Bundy walkway has referred to the individual squares as tiles. In fact, they are not actually tiles in the sense that they could be picked up, maybe an inch or a quarter-inch thick and would be laid down and filled in with concrete. On the other hand, they are actually poured concrete and they are grouted to make it look like individual tiles. So this was actually a walkway that was poured with concrete and certain tools were used to finish that concrete just as it would have been if it had been a plain concrete walkway.
So when you were there, did you notice many marks or defects inherent in the concrete itself?
I'm going to place the label C on the photograph that appears to have what looks like a shoeprint in the cement and ask you if you had seen that particular feature, sir.
Yes. On this particular photograph, which is on the second tier, the seventh row of tiles, there was actually almost an entire well-defined shoeprint of a left shoe that was made by stepping in the concrete tile before it was dry, and it was there since the day this tile was poured and I imagine it will always be there.
All right. Directing your attention to the photographs to the right of that that I'm going to place the label D above, describe for the jury what is shown in this photograph.
This photograph is--looking at it from the left, the two photographs which I had taken, one Thursday this week, yesterday--no. Wednesday. Wednesday--and they are depicting the edges of the tile between tiles 11 and 12 and 12 and 13 on the first tier, and west would be in the direction to your right as you look at D. So the crime scene would be on your side and as you walk away would be going down the walkway. And this was taken to just show how on many, many of these tiles, the same types of marks from finishing the concrete were present, and these are the same type of tool marks used by the concrete workers as you do see in B and A and that were previously referred to as an imprint, and in fact, they are actually tool marks from the finishing of the concrete.
Directing your attention to the color photograph above D which I'm going to place--label as E, placing a label on, your Honor, can you tell us--first of all, have you seen this photograph before?
After I went out to the Bundy walkway to document the various shoe impressions in concrete and marks, imperfections in the various tiles that were a result of the concrete work as you can see in--on the bottom edge of B and also in two spots on D, there are some labels, and you can see these labels down the walkway. And these just are general scene photographs just to give it a reference point to show where some of these pictures were taken.
This is facing--this is actually facing back toward the east. So the victims were down at the top of the photograph, and as you come down the photograph, you're actually heading west.
Okay. So as you go from the bottom of the photograph to the top, you're going towards Bundy?
Well, every tile has many finishing marks from trowels, and--I mean, that's normal in concrete, and you can see--if you were to look on D, you can see many different lines and scratches and things which will cause shadows and which will appear as various shapes and marks. Even next to the shoeprint, you can see another line here, you can see some trowel marks along the edges of these trowels, you can see indentations here. And when you use the oblique light source, it shows these up very well, and every tile along the walkway had it and it's normal for this type of concrete finishing to have those marks. It's impossible not to have it.
And did you hear Dr. Lee testify when looking at one of the overall shots, perspective shot looking from Bundy towards the back of the location that was taken on June the 13th, that he thought he could see possibly other imprints?
--based on what you saw--based on what you saw in the defects in the tiles that you testified to, sir, do you have an opinion with respect to those possible other imprints that Dr. Lee testified to?
Given the defects in the tiles to which you have testified, sir, if you look--take a long shot, a perspective shot of the overall Bundy walkway, could those defects create the appearance of imprints that are not in fact--
Based on what you saw at the Bundy walkway, sir, the defects that you've testified to, did that create an appearance of imprints when you examined them that were not in fact imprints?
When you look at the general scene photographs that we took of the--that were taken on June 13th of the walkway looking in a westerly direction that I believe are on the board behind this one--
When you look at these photographs which are marked B and C and the ones on which I put the letters from E through M or N, you can see because of the imperfections in the walkway as well as the unevenness of the color and various stains and weathering of those concrete tiles since the walkway was put there, which is all normal, you can see various lighter or darker areas or imperfections and it's impossible to tell what they are. So in that very loose sense, you could look at it if you were asked--if I were asked or anyone including Dr. Lee to look at this and say you see these various dark splotchy areas and different imperfections, can you exclude a possibility that there are other footwear impressions, of course, you couldn't. But these are--from my inspection of the scene and these photographs, there is nothing that you can look at that in my opinion looks like a shoe impression other than the ones that I previously testified to.
Let me label the remaining photographs while I'm at it, a black and white photograph next to E as F and the color photograph next to that as G. And I put the labels on, your Honor.
Directing your attention, sir, to photograph G on People's 623, that is a photograph testified to by Dr. Lee during the course of his testimony. Do you recall that, sir?
And that is a photograph taken by him on June 25th, two weeks after the murders, 1994?
Your Honor, I think that G is actually their copy of 1337-D, which is also the middle photograph on the imprint board at Bundy, and I'd suggest we use those instead of the other copy.
Directing your attention, sir, to 1337, do you see the photograph on the board that's labeled as walkway 6-25-94?
And I'm showing you now Defendant's 1337-B, sir. Can you tell us if that appears to be the same photograph as shown that on 1337 that I just indicated?
And is that the same photograph that's shown on the People's exhibit 623 as labeled g?
Yes, it is. It--this actually includes a larger area, but it shows the same content. But they both center around the same tile and reveal the same information.
Thank you. I'm going to put that 1337-B on the easel. All right. First, let me direct your attention to the area in this photograph to the left of the tile. And by that, I mean, sir, this what appears to be kind of wavy lines here and a few other lines above it.
And for the record, I'm indicating lines to the left of what appears to be a heel print.
Yes. Appears to be approximately on the tape measure the area to the right of the inch marking 9.
Okay. Looking first at G, there is a wavy line pattern that is evident next to the bloody Bruno Magli heel print which I previously testified to. That is also depicted in--this is 13--
--1337-B. If I could turn it this way to orientate it the same. This would be--in this area here, there's a wavy print. I don't know if that can be seen by everyone, but it is in this area here (Indicating). It's also in this area here, which is the same photograph next to the bloody Bruno Magli heel print, and the wavy pattern is over here in this area.
Your Honor, perhaps I could pass this photograph to the jury so they--this is pretty faint stuff.
Yes. Again, for the record, the area we're pointing to is to the left with the lines and what appears to be kind of a wavy pattern to the left as you face it of the heel print.
All right, sir. Now, do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony in which he testified and characterized this area--oops--as a possible shoeprint?
And did you go back and locate that exact location and that exact tile on Bundy after his testimony?
And is there a photograph that depicts that location of that exact tile on this board, People's 623?
Yes. It's upside down as it's mounted here. Might be confusing, but it's the same area.
How were you able to locate again the exact tile that is depicted in Defendant's 1337-B?
Well, that's--first looking at this particular photograph with a bloody Bruno Magli print which is right next to it, which was imprint number I or letter I on the walkway, it was on the eighth tile, and then going to the Bundy scene in September `95, through the imperfections in the tile, reconfirming that that in fact is the tile in question and then making oblique-like photographs showing the wavy-line impression on that tile.
Now, the photograph that is labeled as F on People's 623 was taken in September of 1995?
Did you see the same features characterized by Dr. Lee as an imprint that still existed in the tile in September of 1995?
This wavy line imprint referred to by Dr. Lee is in fact another impression in concrete that was there when the walkway was poured and which is still there and will probably be there as long as the walkway.
KEY QUOTEIf I may, your Honor, rather than ask that the jury pass by and look at it, if we could hold the board close and let Mr. Bodziak point that out.
being an expert in an area doesn't give you any better than 20/20 vision. If as an expert you see something, everyone should be able to see that clearly. You should never point to something and say, 'I can see this,' knowing that no one else can see it.
This wavy line imprint referred to by Dr. Lee is in fact another impression in concrete that was there when the walkway was poured and which is still there and will probably be there as long as the walkway.
using a second-generation photograph is generally not what you strive to do in your examinations because there always is the possibility that the original full-framed picture from the original negatives contains much more information.
I never had any contact with Dr. Lee about any facet of this case.