All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please. Miss Clark.
All right. Sir, directing your attention to People's 598, have we repositioned the photographs?
All right. Do they accurately reflect the manner in which they were detected on the walkway and the location specifically referred to in the June 25th photograph of Dr. Lee labeled on this chart as f?
And for the record now, your Honor, the photographs that are on the board are labeled A, B, C, F, H, I, J, K. So there were duplicate photographs in D and E and they've been withdrawn.
All right, sir. Let me just ask you this. The area in which Dr. Lee testified to the discovery of imprints on the June 25th photograph shown in F, can you point out the area on the June 13th photograph labeled as h?
Yes. That would be this area next to the numeral 8 and between the two rulers in the corner of the tile (Indicating).
Is the imprint shown on June 25th photograph of Dr. Lee shown on the June 13th photograph labeled h?
Shoeprints that are the normal shoeprints we encounter which are of the lighter variety; in other words, as you track blood on your shoes--let me go back. If you step in a quantity of blood, the first track will be fairly dark and the next one will be lighter and so forth until they disappear. The--so shoeprints are generally very thin layers of blood because of the pressure of the shoe with the person wearing it, and even if it's heavy, it's usually--the excess blood is squeezed out to the sides, and so most of the tracks are very, very light. The only exception would be if you stepped in a pool of blood. With regard to those shoeprints, which I encounter daily and have for my entire time in the FBI laboratory, they become lighter with time. With regard to whole blood or big glops of blood that are very thick, they tend to appear darker with time.
Now, the shoeprints that--excuse me. Strike that. The imprints identified by Dr. Lee in photograph F and some of the previous ones that we've referred to--and when I said F, I meant People's 598--were any of those imprints made in those glops of blood that you referred to?
In a natural pool of blood where you're--there's so much blood, when you step in it, it would cover up that particular impression.
And do any of those imprints identified by Dr. Lee such as the one in photograph F have that appearance?
In that case, sir, based on your experience, would such imprints as those identified by Dr. Lee become darker over time or lighter?
Those imprints identified by Dr. Lee in 1337 on the board behind you, the three lower photographs, okay, with the exception of the one that you have identified, the photograph to the far left in which the imprints that Dr. Lee testified to you have determined were trowel marks, other than that, the other two imprints that Dr. Lee testified to in the photographs dated 6-25-94, do either of those have the appearance of having been made as a result of stepping in a pool of blood?
Well, I'd like to answer those separately. First, the center photograph, which is the parallel marks in the corner that we've just been talking about as well as the other discolorations which, looking to that area on photograph H on the magnetized board, those areas just simply didn't exist. There was no impression there on June 13th, 1970--or 1994, and, therefore, whatever these marks are here now on June 25th are not related to the crime. With regard to these parallel impressions, the very thin parallel lines, they may be a shoe impression, but there is no evidence of them in photographs J and K on the magnetized board which depict that second--in the tenth row of tiles, the second tile adjacent to K and H and also in-between H and I, they do not appear there in any of the general crime scene photographs. And I would believe that based on the fact they don't appear there and they were not photographed at that time, I see no reason why they would have been there on June 13th.
Then with respect to People's 598, sir, in photographs H, I and F, do these constitute clear photographic proof that the imprints shown in the June 25th photograph of Dr. Lee labeled F was not there on June the 13th, 1994?
And would that tend to indicate then, sir, that it was deposited at some time after the murders occurred and after the murderer left the scene?
Whatever--whatever occurrence or occurrences caused these discolorations in this area and these lines would have had to have occurred after June 13th, 1994. And these are not trowel marks. These are other discolorations (Indicating).
KEY QUOTEAnd, sir, based on your analysis of all of the evidence including Dr. Lee's photographs, is there any evidence that more than one set of bloody shoeprints were left at the scene at the time of the murders?
And all those shoeprints you identified at Bundy, were they made by size 12 Bruno Magli shoes?
All of the bloody shoe impressions which I previously testified to were made by size 12 Bruno Magli designs and there is no other shoe impressions that I examined or saw in any of the evidence that I've seen in this case that were there on June 13th, 1994.
KEY QUOTEHas anything you've seen or heard since your testimony in this case when you previously appeared that causes you to waver at all in your opinion that there was one set of shoeprints on June the 13th, 1994 at Bundy, all of which were size 12 Bruno Magli prints?
And has anything you've seen or heard caused you to change your opinion that the Defendant is included as a candidate for wearing those size 12 Bruno Magli shoes?
This is absolute proof that it did not exist on June 13th, 1994.
All of the bloody shoe impressions which I previously testified to were made by size 12 Bruno Magli designs and there is no other shoe impressions that I examined or saw in any of the evidence that I've seen in this case that were there on June 13th, 1994.
Nothing has changed my opinion, no.
Whatever occurrence or occurrences caused these discolorations in this area and these lines would have had to have occurred after June 13th, 1994. And these are not trowel marks.