Thank you, your Honor. For the record, your Honor, we're moving 623 closer to the jury so they can get up and look.
I'm directing your attention, Mr. Bodziak--can you get over to the side there? Thank you, sir--to photograph F. And if you would, sir, demonstrate to the jury what you see in photograph F identified as the same item you found in September of `95 to which Dr. Lee testified was a shoeprint or a possible shoeprint found in his photograph on June 25th.
Yes. The--looking at F, which is what I have the laser pointer on now, there is this wavy pattern, which is actually permanent depressions in the concrete that would have had to have been made when the concrete was still wet in the finishing process, and there are--this as well as many other footwear impressions in concrete, one of which is depicted in C, and that is the same mark or impression or imprint or however you want to characterize it as is depicted in the Defense exhibit that Dr. Lee testified to which is next to the bloody Bruno Magli heel print (Indicating).
Based on that testimony, I renew my objection from the sidebar. He just said "test shoe impression."
Okay. Pointing again to the photograph F which was taken in September `95, there is a wavy pattern. This is a shoeprint made in the finishing process of the concrete before it was dry. It's permanent and it is also depicted and was testified to by Dr. Lee as an imprint in the photograph which is part of the Defense exhibit to which I'm now pointing (Indicating). This is the same exact impression on the same tile that was next to the bloody Bruno Magli heel print and this is the eighth tile in the Bundy walkway, and this Bruno Magli heel print was number or letter I which I previously testified.
Thank you, sir. All right, sir. I'd now like to direct your attention to Defense 1337-A. I don't know if that's depicted on 1337. Is that the last photograph? All right. And Mr. Scheck indicates to me that this photograph that is enlarged as Defendant's 1337-A is depicted on the board 1337 labeled as "walkway 6-25-94" prior to the far-most right as you face this board. Have you seen these photographs before, sir?
And do you recall that it was Dr. Lee's testimony that he detected this what he characterized as a shoeprint on June 25th, two weeks after the murders, 1994?
Now, sir, are you aware that the crime scene was broken down at Bundy on--at 3:00 P.M. on June the 13th, 1994?
And are you also aware, sir, that people were walking through that crime scene after it was broken down at 3:00 P.M. on June 13th?
Directing your attention to People's board 598, the color photographs that are labeled B, C and then the two color photographs next to that, you've seen these photographs before, sir, correct?
Now, in your visits to Bundy, were you able to locate the exact tile on which Dr. Lee testified he found this print depicted in Defendant's 1337-A?
Through the imperfections in the tile first going by his testimony as to where approximately it was and then looking at the various tiles, the cracks and imperfections in them, which are unique to each of the square pieces of concrete, and confirming that that impression or that imprint in the Defense exhibit was from the tenth row of tiles as you face the photographs in this board. In the tenth row, it would be the second tile to the right, and on the top corner of each of those is the letter K and J. So it's right below that, tenth row, the second tile I guess on the north side, second in from the north side (Indicating).
Now, in the photograph that you're pointing to, which is the lower unlabeled color photograph where you have labels in the photograph, can you see actual shoeprints next to those labels?
Yes. E and F, G, H, I, J and K are all bloody Bruno Magli shoeprints which I previously testified to.
And the tile that you've indicated you located which was where Dr. Lee testified he sees an imprint two weeks later, you say that was located between K and J here in the 10th row of tile?
It's right in-between or surrounded by K and J on the west side just inches away and to the east side of H and I.
Now, sir, do you see that photograph--do you see a--anything indicative of a shoeprint in the area where Dr. Lee testified he found one on June 25th?
Do you see the imprint shown in Dr. Lee's June 25th photograph in the location where it was in the June 13th photograph?
Yes. The question is vague. Direct us to which photograph we're talking about, counsel.
Okay. The lower overall photograph to which you've been testifying, sir, do you see the imprint on--
Your Honor, I think we need a more precise one. These are the magnetic boards coming on and off. We probably need to identify them.
Second one, K. Mrs. Robertson says K. See, that's why we're supposed to mark these things.
I think the upper one we made D, J and E, K, and the upper one is J and the lower one is K.
Wait, wait, wait. Your Honor, the lower one were the earlier letters, and I think that was J.
All right. I'm going to put a J here--it's not worth it--and the upper photograph is K.
The photograph that Dr. Lee referred to as 1337-A was taken on June the 25th, two weeks later, correct?
The location of this imprint that he testified to from the photograph taken on June 25th you indicated earlier would be between K and J where I'm indicating in the tenth row of tile?
Do you see any imprint in that location, sir, in the photograph taken on June the 13th?
No. In looking at photograph J as well as the same respective area in photograph K, which represent a closer view of that tile, and in looking very closely, I cannot see any evidence or indication of this particular impression at that point.
Now, were there direct blow-up photographs taken--let me rephrase that. Were there close-up photographs taken of each of the shoeprints you have labeled in H, I, J and K that would surround the imprint seen on June 25th by Dr. Lee?
And what is your opinion of the quality of the photography done by LAPD with respect to the shoeprints on the Bundy walkway?
The photography of these impressions which were taken with both black and white photography are excellent. An example of those is in the Bundy walk photo chart labeled A, and they were taken with a tripod with correct lighting and they depicted very accurately with a scale very minute details of those impressions in the tile area around those impressions.
Now, then given the fact that close-up photographs were taken of all of the shoeprints surrounding that tile, what is your opinion, if any, as to whether the imprint identified by Dr. Lee that he found on June the 25th was actually even there on June the 13th?
Based on my observation and examination of these photographs J and K as well as the fact that H, I, K and--j and K were photographed meticulously by the LAPD on June 13th and the fact that if there were another impression right next to them, that also would have been photographed, I'm of the opinion that that imprint that Dr. Lee referred to on the Defense exhibit was not there at that time or it would have been photographed.
KEY QUOTEDo you see any other imprints like that shown in 1337-A near the tile where this imprint was located?
On the June 13th photograph, sir, did you see any other imprint like that shown in Dr. Lee's June 25th photograph near the tile where you located it?
I've seen no other imprints like the parallel line imprints on Dr. Lee's--or the Defense exhibit--I'm sorry. I keep forgetting the number--1337-A.
I've seen no other imprints or shoeprints having this design on any of the other photographs that were taken by the LAPD on June 13th or in any of the general crime scene photographs such as J and K, none whatsoever.
Now, the parallel lines that you see in this imprint on the photograph marked as Defendant's 1337-A, are these consistent with the parallel lines that you saw on the envelope and the piece of paper at the Bundy crime scene?
And on the jeans, are they consistent with any of the parallel lines testified to on the jeans?
No. They are--the lines on the jeans are parallel lines, but they're much broader lines. If we could hold this up again.
The lines on here are very, very thin lines, and even though they're both parallel lines, there's a lot of different types of parallel lines, designs on shoes, and these are very, very narrow. The ones on the jeans, if you were to accept hypothetically that they were made by a shoe, they would not be the same as these (Indicating).
So these parallel lines that you see here are not consistent with the parallel lines on the envelope, the paper or the jeans?
Now, I'd like to direct your attention, sir, to I think it's photograph G on People's 623--on People's 623. And do you see this photograph duplicated on the Defendant's board 1337, sir?
Yes. It's at the bottom center, the bottom center photograph that's labeled "walkway 6-25-94."
Now, do you--there's an area that's in the corner of that photograph to which Dr. Lee directed some testimony. Do you recall that, sir?
Could you locate for the jury the area to which he directed his testimony that we're now referring to.
We're now referring--I believe you're asking me to point to this corner of the tile which would be to the right of the bloody Bruno Magli heal print and actually bordered in the corner by the grout lines. It would be--another way to describe it would be above the numbers "89" on the ruler (Indicating).
Yes. That area is located in photograph G at the very top and, again, between the grout lines or bordered by the grout lines, and in this particular photograph, the way it's oriented, above the Bruno Magli heel print.
All right. Now, are there some features of that particular corner that could be a shoeprint, sir?
Okay. Showing you Defendant's 1337-B, can you point to that area you're talking about?
Yes. The area which has been previously circled and with a blue marker is up in this corner; and in this whole corner area, there are many discolorations. In this area, which I'm pointing to now, particularly a very dark area here--and of course, these would appear to be parallel marks of some type along the corner of the tile and just various discolorations here (Indicating). These were not all made at the same time and I cannot exclude the possibility that part of all this discoloration represents in some way an item of footwear. But all of these do not--would not be in totality from an item of footwear and some of these I think are from berry stains and other things.
All right. Now, do you have photographs taken that were taken on June the 13th, 1994 of that very same area shown in Dr. Lee's June 25th photograph?
The area that we're--if I can use the enlargement K because I think that's the easiest to see the area that we're talking about--is down in this area (Indicating). If I can have the Defense exhibit oriented the same way.
Right. This area (Indicating), if you're looking at the heal from the back as if you were walking in that direction, looking at the Defense exhibit, then to the lower left corner are the marks that we were talking about and oriented in the same way on photograph K, this would be in the corner of the tile which has the impression marked I. It's also very close to the impression marked H. So it is actually in the corner between H and I.
All right. Now, were there photographs of close-ups of that location that were taken on June the 13th blown up for the purpose of display to the jury?
I'm going to ask you to actually put these up here, Mr. Bodziak. Do we need to move one of these photographs?
All right. For the record, the witness has placed a magnetized color photograph which we will label--this one's already been labeled I'm informed, your Honor.
The witness has replaced I, and now the witness is placing on 598 H. I'm going to ask to restructure these photographs so they all fit on the board later, your Honor, but for the time being, the witness has placed H and I on them.
Now, what is the area--what area is depicted in these two photographs, sir, if you can explain with reference to the overall photograph in J.
Okay. The two photographs that I just placed on the magnetic board represent--the black and white one represents the impression which was referred to as impression H in my prior testimony as photographed on June 13th by the LAPD, and it's now overlapping with a color photograph photographed on June 13th, 1994 by the LAPD of the impression which was marked I. And these are--these correspond with the letters H and I which are on photograph K on the same magnetic board.
Now, where is the area where Dr. Lee found--testified to the imprint in Defendant's 1337-B, the photograph taken on June 25th? Where is that area in People's H and I?
Okay. That area--to orientate you to these impressions, the bloody heel mark in the Defense exhibit correspond with the bloody heel mark in the impression I in the color photograph on the magnetic board, and then looking in the corner of the tile where the discolorations and the parallel marks are, that area would be on the black and white photograph in the area next to the numeral 8 and mounted on the sides by the grout and the ruler in this corner (Indicating).
The only possible remnant of anything on the June 13th photographs are a possible mark that might be the same as this discoloration, which is possibly from a berry or something, something natural.
And for the record, you're referring to a dark brown spot that is to the left of the no. 8?
Yes. To this discoloration in the corner (Indicating). But there is no evidence of any of the other parallel line markings or other discolorations which I was previously asked about and to which Dr. Lee testified. None of those existed in this very good photograph taken on June 13th, 1994.
And for the record, when the witness for the second time referred to "this," he pointed to the Defendant's 1337-B and another dark brown spot in that photograph. And if I may, I'd like to put up on this board photograph labeled F that appears to be another print of the Defendant's 1337-B.
All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid morning recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Bodziak, you may step down. We'll be in recess for 15. Thank you.
there is this wavy pattern, which is actually permanent depressions in the concrete that would have had to have been made when the concrete was still wet in the finishing process
I cannot see any evidence or indication of this particular impression at that point.
based on my observation and examination of these photographs J and K as well as the fact that H, I, K and--j and K were photographed meticulously by the LAPD on June 13th and the fact that if there were another impression right next to them, that also would have been photographed, I'm of the opinion that that imprint that Dr. Lee referred to on the Defense exhibit was not there at that time or it would have been photographed.
No. They're totally different in size and characteristics.
The jury says you're right.