Your Honor, I'd like these next two documents to be marked Defendant's 1337. It's two LAPD reports.
Agent Bodziak, I show you two documents marked 1377. Now, in your work as an expert witness, is it your practice generally to rely upon descriptions of procedures used by other laboratory personnel in preparing items that you will inspect for purposes of making comparisons?
Sure. In the course of rendering an expert opinion on the basis of making comparisons of imprints, is it your general practice to rely upon the documents and laboratory procedures of other police personnel or scientific personnel who you direct to do certain work?
With regard to impressions? You mean if they take impressions and then send them to us to make an examination?
And if--when you receive both impressions and police reports or scientific memorandum indicating how they were prepared, it's your general practice to rely upon the scientific personnel's records of how they were prepared?
All right. And in this instance, the two documents I showed you, do they reflect the reports of the LAPD personnel with respect to how they created the test impressions for the jeans?
And based on these documents as a basis for your expert opinion, would you rely on the fact that--
Would you regard these reports as reports that would ordinarily be relied upon by an expert such as yourself as a basis for rendering an expert opinion?
Objection. That calls for speculation. There's no foundation. People would ask to take the witness on voir dire concerning it.
In most cases, if we were sent test impressions--and I can only speak for shoes because I don't do fabric exams, which is what you're asking about. But with regards to shoes, we are many times sent test impressions of shoes and we--we may be able to do a comparison like an elimination-type comparison with those. If it was the same design of the shoe impressions in question, of course we would expect that they would send in the shoes, and we would not do any exam at that point except a preliminary exam perhaps on class characteristics. And I think that's what's done in this case. I've never seen anyone so thorough as to write a report attached with those impressions as to how they were taken. So I can't reference any other instance.
Well, you saw the boards created with respect to the test impressions of Mr. Goldman's jeans?
And you looked at those and compared them with the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper?
Well, the exhibits that Agent Deedrick prepared, the actual envelope yourself, you yourself made a visual comparison between the test impressions created by the LAPD that were used for the boards and the actual imprints on the envelope?
No. The sequence of events is this. I had the envelope with the impression on it. I had a picture of the triangular piece of paper with an impression on it. I had the jeans which were photographed which I had previously examined for footwear impressions and determined that there were only two possible ones, and none of those are the parallel lines you're referring to. In looking at the characteristics of the small little fingerprint size or smaller fingerprint size parallel lines on the envelope and the piece of triangular paper, I referred that to Mr. Deedrick because I believed they might be fabric impressions.
I'm asking him if he saw the test impressions. He's telling me everything before that.
Mr. Bodziak, I'm simply asking you, sir, did you visually examine the test impressions created by the LAPD and used by Mr. Deedrick for his boards to the parallel line imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper? Did you do that?
I did not conduct an examination. They passed through my hands, but I did not conduct an examination.
I looked at them, but it was a fabric examination. Mr. Deedrick does that. I don't.
Well, in the course of your testimony on Friday, did you not express a view that you thought that the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper were likely to have come from Mr. Goldman's jeans?
I expressed that as a possibility through common sense and what I have seen in the case, yes.
KEY QUOTEBut you're telling us that you expressed that opinion without yourself actually having compared the test impression, looked at them, the test impressions that were created and then looked at the parallel line imprints on the envelope and the paper?
I'm not an expert in the area of fabric comparisons and I did not conduct a final comparison, but I did see certain characteristics both in the photographs of the jeans, the jeans themselves and in those items which passed through my hands and referred them to Agent Deedrick.
So the answer is yes, you looked at the test impressions and compared them to the imprints?
And was that visual comparison, sir, part of the basis for the expert opinion that you rendered on Friday?
It's part of many things I saw in this case which was, of course, the foundation for which I stated my opinion on Friday.
And in rendering that expert opinion, would you not rely upon the documents created by the Los Angeles Police Department as documents that would be reliable and something that an expert such as yourself would rely upon in forming--
Let me ask you this then. Ask you to assume that the test impressions were created by laying the jeans out flat, putting the yellow pad upon it and rolling the yellow pad with a roller, putting a roller over the yellow pad, and then placing a piece of paper on top of it.
Now, if that were to occur, would you not expect that the ridges creating the imprint, all right, on the paper, the ridges from the jeans would be stretched out because the jeans were flat and there was a rolling of them?
Are you telling us that because you're a shoeprint expert, not a fabric expert, you would not be able to express an opinion about whether or not rolling the palm print pad on the jeans would tend to expand the distance between the ridges on the jeans, tend to spread them out?
I don't make test impressions of fabrics except socks which would be worn with some kind of protection in-between. So I couldn't answer that question based on my expertise and experience.
Now, agent Bodziak, did you ever measure the distance between the ridges on the envelope and compare the distance between the ridges on the envelope to the distance between the ridges on the jeans in the test impressions?
Not with a measuring device. Just with a side-by-side look at them in a preliminary sense prior to referring it to Agent Deedrick.
When you do shoeprint comparisons, do you perform measurements on the distance between imprints that you see?
No. There's two things we do. We use a divider which you would apply the points of the divider to one measurement, transfer that divider which remains at a fixed point to the other; but more commonly, we use an overlay technique where we would make a test impression of the shoe with a clear material and superimpose that over the questioned impression. That reduces any possibility of error in measurement and you have a more direct impression.
Well, the first method that you described is, you would take some kind--what are those devices called? Calibers or--
Well, a caliber is a divider with a measuring scale on it. You only need the divider. You don't actually need a caliber.
Caliber would be one of those devices where it has two points on it, you stick it between two things and there's a little device that shows you how far the distance is between the two points?
Not the ones I use. It just holds that position. You can lock it into no measurement.
And then the ones you use don't have measurement on it, but you basically take the distance on one shoe imprint and then using the same measure, you go over and look at the other one?
And that's a form, would you not agree, of measurement even though you don't write down a precise number?
Okay. And so that--and the use of overlays to try to show that the imprints are reasonably similar are techniques you use to demonstrate that one shoe imprint corresponds to the other?
In the comparison, it would be if they're similar or different. You can use that technique, yes.
--1376, one sees at different points that this so-called inkless fingerprinting chemical, right, when pressed on to the jeans, there was ink so to speak that would go between the ridges of the jeans and show up on the imprint?
Okay. And would you not agree that the media used to do this test impression is not as thick as blood?
And would you agree from your examination of Mr. Goldman's jeans that many areas of his jeans were saturated with blood?
And I take it that you have never conducted experiments of imprints of fabric in blood?
Now, you said on direct examination that imprints made in big globs of blood get darker with time, but most tracks that are blood imprints that are light get lighter with time. Do you recall that testimony?
Well, let me read you this and see if it refreshes your recollection. "So most of the tracks are very, very light. The only exception would be if you actually stepped into a pool of blood. With regard to those shoeprints which I encountered daily and have from my entire time in the FBI laboratory, they become lighter with time. With regard to whole blood or big globs of bloods that are very thick, they tend to appear darker with time."
Okay. Now, so you were making a distinction here between imprints made with big globs of blood and imprints in blood that are thinner?
I'm making a distinction between a thick quantity of blood and a very thin pressed-out quantity of blood and what the differences are that occur over time.
Okay. And you're saying that the ones that are thinner and pressed out will get lighter over time?
The footwear impressions that I--that I incur daily, the typical scenario of what I get in a case is a crime occurs anywhere from two to three months away. And I have a case right now from 1980. I will get crime scene pictures taken the day of or the day after the murder showing these footwear impressions. I will also in many cases get scatter rugs, cut-out pieces of carpet, tile floors or linoleum floors that are rolled up and sent in with the actual impressions. I receive those and examine those, on the average, months later. In every instance, the thin shoeprints have all but disappeared. The real thick blooded areas that are now flaking and crusting are darker.
Well, so now you're saying that these are imprints that you're looking at months later?
Impression evidence. And I was looking over the weekend and I was trying to find some passage in your book that discussed this phenomena. Do you recall, do you discuss this phenomena anywhere in that book?
I don't know if there was an appropriate part where I actually said that. I talk about enhancement of the blood impressions that are very faint. Obviously, if they were all darker with time, you wouldn't have to enhance them. But I don't know if I actually stated what you're asking specifically that way.
So there's--to the best of your knowledge, there's nothing in your book that corresponds with the testimony that you gave the jury on Friday about faint imprints in blood not getting darker, but lighter over time?
I don't know if there was a reason why I should state that. I was talking--I spent a whole chapter talking on enhancement of faint impressions. Wouldn't be a reason to try to give reasons why they may be faint, but just that they are faint.
Well, you have chapters in here about awareness, detection and treatment of footwear impression evidence.
And you are writing with the purpose of informing crime scene personnel as to what they can expect to encounter when they look at bloody imprints perhaps from shoes at a crime scene.
I was addressing what they should do to retrieve those impressions and enhance those impressions and to locate those impressions, to be aware that they could be light, they may miss them and that those light ones have as much value as darker ones.
Well, you do devote considerable time in this book to identifying impressions made in blood.
You mean--in other words, when I mean identify, I mean criminalists going to the scene and actually recognizing the impressions.
The first chapter basically is generally on the detection and awareness and potential of footwear impression evidence, the fact that it occurs in many different ways and for many reasons both in blood and other materials. Then the next three chapters go on how to retrieve it photographically through casting and lifting and the fifth chapter is on the chemical enhancement, part of which is in blood.
Okay. We'll review that just a minute. Just on this one point so we're very clear with the jury, you were saying then on Friday that when you have globs of blood--
Yeah. When you make an imprint in blood, whether it's a glob or a thin imprint, the imprint is made in blood?
Well, you wouldn't have a--you may have misunderstood what I meant by "Glob." I'm talking about a body at a scene which a lot of blood has been spilled, there will be pools of blood, and as they go through the changes before they become hard, they can get it to be rather gelatinous, you know, in different consistencies, particularly if the body is rolled over on--that the bleeding is under the body. And in fact when the remainder of the area where the blood is thinner has dried, if the body is rolled over, the areas under will still in many instances be tacky; and that pooling of blood, that thick blood is what I'm talking about with--what I meant when I said "Globs."
But what I'm directing your attention, sir, is to your assertion that faint imprints made in blood that get lighter over time. Do you recall that?
And when protein breaks down in blood and bacterial degradation occurs, blood turns darker?
If it's in a thick quantity, you will see it turn color and darker. If it's thin, as I've stated, it will fade away due to I guess ultraviolet radiation and other things. But that's what I've seen in every case for 20 years.
All right. So you're saying that that's--you're talking about seeing--getting something months later?
We don't keep statistics on that. I haven't averaged every case I worked, but I'm trying to give you a ballpark figure.
And imprints made on June 13th or June 12th I should say and then looked at 13 days later on June 25th, that's not two to three months?
No. It's going to get lighter though. I mean, I've gotten cases the same day when I was at the crime scene.
Now, is there any serological reason in terms of the properties of blood that you know of that would not--that would prevent a thin, by your definition, imprint in blood being darker 13 days later than when it was left?
I can only--no. The answer to your question, I am not a serologist. I can't give you the chemistry of blood. I can only testify to my experience.
Right. And your experience is, we've now clarified is with faint impressions that you're seeing two or three months later.
Seeing them any--everything from the same day to, like I said, I have a case now from 1980. That's quite a distance. And in every case, they only get lighter with time.
And you agree, do you not, that the location of footwear impression evidence primarily on ground surfaces makes it sometimes difficult or inconvenient to find particularly if the impressions are latent or nearly invisible. Specialized lighting and enhancement techniques are often required along with an aggressive effort to find the impression?
And do you agree that before beginning the crime scene search, careful thought should be given to what occurred at the crime scene, how footwear impression evidence could contribute to the proof of facts and what areas of the crime scene might contain footwear impression evidence, then the footwear impression should be looked for aggressively and carefully, what is not looked for will not be found? Do you agree with that?
And you agree that lack of success in finding footwear impressions at a crime scene is often due to the investigators not believing that latent footwear impressions will be found and not aggressively looking for them?
Now, the close-up pictures that you received from the Los Angeles Police Department of the Bundy walkway area close-ups now were directed at the clearly visible bloody imprints that you later identified to be from Bruno Magli shoes?
Now, do you agree that chemicals used for enhancement are very sensitive to small traces of blood?
Therefore, in areas where blood impressions are very thin and faint or where the suspect has tracked through blood and left a series of blood impressions, enhancement methods can develop a latent or nearly invisible blood impression into a highly valuable impression. In fact, faint impressions once enhanced are normally more valuable in detail than those containing larger quantity of blood?
Now, have you ever recommended using as an enhancement technique dusting with a magnibrush and fingerprint pattern?
Have you cited in your book Dr. Lee's work with the TMB enhancement technique as a very sensitive technique that will reveal faint and otherwise invisible traces of blood that works particularly well on light-colored surfaces where bluish green color would often offer sufficient contrast?
Now, to your knowledge, was--did the LAPD make an effort to do enhancement of impressions following the trailing of the Bruno Magli when the clearly visible footprints disappeared?
And do you not recommend in your book or do you not say in your book that very often, the blood impressions containing the best detail are those made after excess blood is off the shoe?
Now, to your knowledge, did the LAPD attempt to use enhancement techniques in other areas of the Bundy walkway looking for footwear impression evidence on June 12th?
You--page 158 and 159 of your book, do you not show three photographs there that demonstrate how enhancement techniques can be used to bring out impressions made in blood that were either latent or nearly invisible and make very clear patterns?
Did you review Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to whether or not--withdrawn. Do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony that when he went to the Bundy crime scene and was examining for footwear impressions on June 25th, that he had about 20 minutes and he was not allowed to use enhancement techniques?
I really don't remember exactly what was said about that. I was more looking at the visuals of the footwear impressions.
So that's another part of the five percent of his testimony that you don't recall hearing?
Now, I've taken out the board 1337 entitled "Imprint evidence at Bundy." Do you see that, sir?
Now, I believe you testified on Friday or Thursday, I can't recall which, that you were confused in watching Dr. Lee's testimony and you were sure other people were confused whether he was referring to shoeprints when he used the word term "Imprint" on many occasions?
And you indicated that you were here to clarify Dr. Lee's testimony so it's not misleading.
Now, do you remember Dr. Lee's testimony on direct examination with respect to the photograph at the far left-hand bottom corner of 1337 that was taken on June 13th by the Los Angeles Police Department?
Do you recall seeing or hearing Dr. Lee testify on direct examination to the following?
"Question: And incidentally, Dr. Lee, with respect to the parallel line imprint pattern that you identified for us on this June 12th, June 13th walkway photograph, in theory, isn't it possible that the imprint pattern could arise from an imperfection in the tile? "Answer: It could be because I only look at a picture. I myself did not have an opportunity to go there, identify the tile. It could be anything. What I don't want to mislead people and, ladies and gentlemen, say that is a shoeprint. By no means I did not say that is a shoeprint, just a partial imprint with some parallel lines." Do you recall him saying that?
In this one, I think he clarified it that if he had inferred before by saying it was an imprint, that he meant it was a shoeprint, he was saying later on that it wasn't a shoeprint with regard to this particular one.
Direct examination, the section I just read you with respect to that picture, do you recall that testimony--my question to you very simply is, do you regard that answer on direct examination as an effort to confuse or mislead this jury in any way?
Overruled. Restate the question. The way the question is stated, it's argumentative.
Okay. With respect to the section I just read you from Dr. Lee's direct examination with respect to that picture, do you believe that in this question and answer, Dr. Lee was misleading or confusing anyone?
Now, do you recall that when this issue then arose on cross-examination what Dr. Lee said about it?
No. I don't have this committed to memory. You know, I saw most of this, but I don't have his quotes committed to memory, sir.
Well, I'm not asking you about quotes. I'm asking you about substance. Do you recall the substance of what he said on this?
It's my opinion from what I saw that he admitted that these could be trowel marks on the sidewalk or imperfections in the sidewalk, but I don't remember his quote exactly.
To save some time, do you recall that Mr. Goldberg showed Dr. Lee an enlarged picture of that tile?
Do you recall that Mr. Goldberg showed Dr. Lee a picture which Dr. Lee remarked was a better picture than one that had been available to him?
I don't remember that part exactly. Again, maybe because it wasn't part I saw or I just don't recollect that far back.
And do you recall that when Dr. Lee was shown that photograph, he immediately told Mr. Goldberg, "Yes, this is a better picture than I had, and looking at that tile, I now agree the most reasonable interpretation is that those parallel line imprints came from the etchings in the tile"?
I'll get back to this after the break. Now, with respect to--this is 1337-B, and that is, you agree a blow-up of the middle photograph entitled "Walkway 6-25-94" on 1337?
And he indicated that by way of tests and observations that he'd made on June 15th, that this was an imprint in blood?
But consistent with an imprint in blood based on his tests and observations at the scene?
Let me ask you this question. Very simply, yes or no. Do you agree that this parallel line imprint pattern identified by Dr. Lee is consistent with having come from footwear?
I don't believe, as I've previously stated, that you can look at that area and say that any of that has positively come from footwear. It could, but it wasn't there on June 13th.
But did you not state on direct that in your opinion, that this parallel line imprint pattern could come from footwear?
He--as I recall, he referred to that area as a parallel line imprint and he was asked many times about it from both sides and said it could have come from a shoe. I don't believe he conclusively said it came from a shoe.
Now, with respect to this wiggly line that one sees above the Bruno Magli--you see that?
Well, did not on direct examination Dr. Lee simply refer to that as wiggly-line pattern?
And Mr. Goldberg asked him some extensive questions about that on cross-examination. Do you recall that?
Did he ask Dr. Lee some questions about this wavy-line pattern on cross-examination?
All right. And when he was questioned about it on cross-examination, did Dr. Lee indicate that he had performed tests on the parallel line pattern, but did not recall any tests being performed on the wavy lines?
Again, I'm not able to memorize all of that testimony. I saw parts of it. Parts on the east coast were cut out and a lot of it I don't recollect because it's been sometime. So I'm not going to get into the quote game. I'm sorry. I just can't remember that.
You on direct examination indicated that this wiggly-line pattern was an imperfection in the sidewalk.
All right. And this was passed out to the jury and this was all pointed out to them, right, as a shoeprint in concrete?
And when you did that or when that was done, were you in any way trying to represent to the jury that Dr. Lee had maintained that this wavy-line pattern was an imprint made in blood?
Are you asking me my intent of explaining all of these or just this one specific?
When you did that, were you aware that Dr. Lee had never represented to this jury that this wavy-line pattern was an imprint made in blood?
I don't recall him saying--anything that I saw, I don't recall him saying it was made in blood, no.
And, in fact, to the best of your recollection, his testimony was directed just to the parallel line pattern as an imprint made in blood that could be consistent with a shoe just as he drew it in this picture?
You're--you're asking me about quotes about him talking about things conclusively made in blood. I don't remember that part of it. I remember the parallel lines as possibly being a shoeprint. I don't remember the blood portion.
And the parallel lines possibly coming from a shoeprint that he drew, Dr. Lee said with respect to that exactly what you've said here today?
Except that I also determined that that impression was not present on the June 13th photographs which were very detailed photographs.
All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our midmorning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We'll stand in recess for 15.
It's not the basis of an opinion if he has never seen it before.
I expressed that as a possibility through common sense and what I have seen in the case, yes.
Oh, absolutely. I wrote it.
I am not a serologist. I can't give you the chemistry of blood. I can only testify to my experience.
Right. He said just what you just said.