All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Scheck, you may resume your cross-examination.

And hopefully conclude, your Honor.

Amen.

Now, agent Bodziak, there--the picture to the far right on 1337 and the blow-up which is marked 1337-A, do you recall this one?

Yes, I do.

And, Mr. Scheck, would you just give me the labeling on the 1337?

It's called "Walkway 6-25-94," but it's the one on the lower right-hand corner, and 1337-B is the blow-up that's labeled with the circle "PLP SP" standing for shoeprint.

Yes.

All right. Now, you recall Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to this particular imprint pattern?

Yes.

And you recall that he testified that in his opinion, this parallel line imprint pattern was a shoeprint?

Yes.

Do you agree that this is a shoe print?

It's more than likely a shoeprint. I mean, it looks very much like a shoeprint, but it's again partial.

Well, in your opinion then, it's more than likely a shoeprint?

Yes. Yes.

So you would agree in that respect with Dr. Lee, that this is a parallel line imprint that's more than likely a shoeprint?

Yes.

Now, is this one of the kinds of imprint patterns that you believe would get lighter over time as opposed to darker?

What is it composed of?

Well, Dr. Lee testified that based on his tests and observations at the scene--

Objection, your Honor. Objection.

What's the objection?

Tests, your Honor.

Well, if they're going to imply it's not--

Objection.

Objection sustained. Rephrase the question.

All right. Dr. Lee testified based on the work he did at the crime scene and his observations that he believed that that parallel line imprint was made in blood. Are you aware of that?

Same objection, what he did.

Overruled.

Yes.

Now, if we assume that that is indeed made in blood, would you believe that that imprint pattern is the kind that would get lighter over time? And here I'm talking about a period of 13 days. Would it get lighter over 13 days or darker?

And--and do you have any--and it's your testimony that this would get lighter?

Absolutely.

And you're saying that these--assuming that there was an imprint pattern made on June 12th in blood with this configuration--

Yes.

--is it your testimony that the lines in blood would not break down in terms of the proteins and the bacterial degradation and those lines get darker?

Well, the first part I would agree with. They would degrade as any blood would when exposed to the weathering and time, particularly over that time period. But based on my experience in casework as well as blood impressions which I prepare for classes, then maybe don't use for nine months later purposely to make them light for chemical enhancement in those classes, they always turn lighter without exception.

Well, you just mentioned nine months.

They gradually get lighter with time, sir. It doesn't matter what the time frame is. As more time goes by, they will get lighter.

And can you--now, we're talking now 13 days. You realize that?

Yes.

And can you tell us what scientific chemical serological properties is the basis for your opinion that an imprint that size made in blood would get lighter within 13 days as opposed to darker?

Objection. This is irrelevant.

Sustained.

Asked and answered. Beyond the scope.

We've already asked this question. We've already asked this question.

Well, this is on a different imprint of a different size.

But we asked the same question. We've already been through the lighter and darker.

Okay. So your answer would be the same that we went through before, that you're not a serologist.

May I answer that?

Yes.

Yes, my answer would be the same. It's from experience.

All right. But you're not a serologist?

No.

Objection. Asked and answered.

You're aware of the fact that Dr. Lee is regarded as one of the foremost--

Objection. Argumentative.

--serologists?

Overruled.

Again, I've stated my knowledge of his qualifications. I don't work with Dr. Lee and I don't have very extensive knowledge of exactly what his strong points are in terms of experience.

Well, in--you indicated--I think first you said you hadn't read any of his books, and then you indicated--

Counsel, we went through this last week.

Well, any of the books that you skimmed of Dr. Lee--

Counsel, move on.

Now, you do not have a close-up direct picture of this tile from June 13th?

Not that part of it, no.

And basically what you told this jury before is that you were looking at some overall shots, and looking at those overall shots, in your opinion, you could not see this imprint?

The large photographs which I have labeled starting with "E" on one and going through I think "L," "M" and "O," which were general scene shots, but you could see the tiles fairly well, I could not see that impression on the 10th row of tiles, which is where that's from.

Now, these--

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Excuse me, counsel. When we say "That," we're talking about 1337-A; is that correct?

Yes.

All right.

Now, these pictures that were labeled "H"--that you used on your direct examination, those blown-up pictures of the scene, do you recall those?

Yes. The ones you just showed me at break.

Yes. I think that--

Now--

All right. Mr. Harris, which exhibit is this?

598.

This is 598.

And we were making reference before to the pictures labeled "A," "B," "C" and then we had some labeling problems, "J" and "K." Do you recall those?

Yes.

Now, those pictures were created by you sometime in August?

These particular prints were created by me in August, yes.

All right. And that was in anticipation of Dr. Lee's testimony?

I was requested to print those, yes, for that reason.

And you have never received contact sheets of the pictures taken from the crime scene from the Los Angeles Police Department?

No.

And are you aware that the Defense has repeatedly asked for contact sheets in this case?

Objection.

Sustained. Sustained.

May I approach?

No. Proceed.

You were sent in August the negatives; were you not?

Yes, I was.

And you then from these negatives were able to prepare enlarged contact sheets?

That's correct.

And from those contact sheets, you could then select out photos and do enlargements?

No. From the original negatives, not from contact sheets.

The contact sheets directed your attention to the picture.

Right.

You were then able to select it and do enlargements.

It saves time rather than enlarge everything to that size, which would be very costly and time consuming.

And would you not agree that these pictures that you created in August were of a better quality than the ones that had previously been provided to you by the Los Angeles Police Department?

Which ones are you referring to?

A, B, C, J, K.

Objection. Vague.

Overruled.

The--I had seen smaller pictures of those. I had--I had not requested larger pictures at that time because my examination was about the close-up photographs. But I did have an opportunity to look at the pictures they had available of those other frames.

And you also prepared a picture from the original negative of the socks that were found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

I don't recall enlarging a picture of the socks in his bedroom, no, sir.

To your knowledge, during this period, did someone else do that?

They may have. I don't recall that.

Now, you went out to the crime scene and you took recently and you took a series of black and white photographs of what you found to be imprints in the concrete of these tiles?

That's correct.

Some of which were footwear imprints?

That's correct.

Now, with respect to--

We can take that one down for a moment. Thank you.

And with respect to 1337-B, the three parallel line imprints, and 1337-A, okay. Have these in mind?

Yes.

You are not telling the jury that any of those imprints in concrete that you took pictures of recently formed these parallel line imprints in 1337-A and 1337-B?

No. Not--just the wavy line and the one in your right hand, whichever that is.

Just the wavy line.

Yes.

Okay. So as far as 1337-A, those imprints labeled by Dr. Lee "PLP SP" and 337-B, the one labeled "PLP," those were not made from the indentations in the concrete.

That's correct.

And from the indentations in the concrete, you were asked--withdrawn. You were asked on direct examination whether or not those indentations you found and photographed in the concrete could have caused the imperfections and the unevenness in color of the various tiles that one sees in the overall pictures that you recently blew up.

That certainly could be a part of it, but by no means is it all of it.

And did you not tell us that the dark splotchy areas that you saw in the overall pictures and various imperfections, that no one could exclude the possibility that there are other footwear impressions there from just looking at the overall shots?

Are we talking about on June 13th in blood?

We're talking about the overall--do you recall that there was one point in Dr. Lee's testimony when he saw these new pictures that you created, that he testified that he saw impressions, dark impressions in the tiles that could be imprints?

I recall strongly one area which I believe at the end of his testimony on recross by Mr. Goldberg, that he just all of a sudden made a general statement pointing to those photographs which were just up here, those enlarged ones that I had made, that there were imprints everywhere. I think he might have even called them shoeprints. I don't recall the exact quote, but I know he certainly referred to them as imprints, and the implication were that the walkway--there was many things on the walkway and he made a very general statement about you could see things everywhere. So I--you'd have to get the exact quote out. I can't remember. But I was concerned about that statement.

Well, if you're concerned about that statement, would it behoove you to be very specific about it do you think?

I'm being as specific as I can without being inside of Dr. Lee's mind.

Well, in anywhere, did he say that when he looked down that walkway, that he could see a shoeprint?

There was an open inference. I don't know what he meant.

I only asked did he say that.

And I'm answering you, I don't know what he meant. He said imprints or shoeprints. There were many of them on that walkway and he pointed to those photographs in answer to Mr. Goldberg.

So you think that he said that one of the dark splotchy areas was a shoeprint?

I don't know what in his mind he was specifically pointing to. He referred to those general photographs.

I'm only asking you about what he said.

Objection. It's argumentative, your Honor.

Sustained.

Now, in your testimony here, did you not state that in the overall shot, looking at the unevenness color and various stains and weathering of the concrete tile since the walkway was put there, that you can see various lighter or darker areas of imperfections and it's impossible to tell what they are?

Yes. I'll be happy to show those if you can put that chart back up.

No. But is that what you said?

Yes, it is.

And did you also say that in a very loose sense, if I were asked or anyone including Dr. Lee to look at this and you see these various dark splotchy areas and imperfections, that you cannot exclude the possibility that there are other footwear impressions of course, but you can't say that there are footwear impressions there either?

There--that's a whole lot different than what he stated in his testimony.

That's what you think.

Can I exclude the possibility that--

I'm only asking about what you said.

I'm trying to explain that.

Is that what you said?

Objection, your Honor.

No. The question is, is that what you said.

Would you read it back again?

Sure. "So in a 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, do you see these various dark splotchy areas and various imperfections, can you exclude the possibility that there are other footwear impressions, of course, you couldn't. But these are from my inspection of the scene in these photographs, there's nothing that you can look at in my opinion that looks like a shoe impression other the ones I had previously testified to."

In a very loose sense, yes. That's exactly what I said.

All right. Now, I understand it's your position that the parallel line imprints reflected on 1337 and identified by Dr. Lee in your opinion, based on your previous testimony, you don't believe could have been present on June 12th?

That's correct.

However, based on the previous discussion we had this morning, you would agree that as far as you know, people from the Los Angeles Police Department did not use enhancement techniques on other areas of that walkway on June 12th?

Objection. Asked and answered, speculation, irrelevant.

Overruled.

Am I aware if they used enhancement techniques? No.

Okay. Now, with respect, however, to the imprints on the envelope, the piece of paper and Mr. Goldman's jeans, would you agree based on the photographic evidence you've seen that those were present on June 12th and June 13th?

What was present? The parallel--

The parallel line imprints on the envelope, the piece of paper and the imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans.

In contrast to the exhibit you just showed me on tile 10?

I'm asking you a very simple question.

Yeah.

And perhaps--

Sustained. Counsel, it's a compound question.

All right. I'll take it one by one. Would you agree that the parallel line imprint impressions on the envelope from the photographic evidence you've seen were there on June 12th?

Yes.

Would you agree that the parallel line imprint impressions on the piece of paper were there on June 12?

Yes.

Would you agree that the imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans identified by Dr. Lee were there on June 12th?

12th or 13th I believe is the correct date. Yes.

Now, as part of the 95 percent of Dr. Lee's testimony that you recall hearing and seeing, do you recall what he said about the so-called accordion effect that made imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans?

With regard to--

Objection. This is beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Well, you recall Dr. Lee's testimony--

Maybe we could put up a board, if I may, your Honor.

Actually--I request that we actually--Mr. Harris, if we could pull that one out and place it in front of the podium, I think that might be--I'm sorry.

This is 1339, your Honor, imprint evidence and Bundy imprint evidence on Goldman's blue jeans.

Do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to this board?

Yes, I do.

Do you recall him testifying with respect to certain imprints on Mr. Goldman's jeans that he detected something that he characterized as an accordion effect?

Same objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Well, did you testify on direct examination with respect to how an imprint imprints on these jeans?

Objection. Beyond the scope as well.

Overruled.

Yes, I did.

And would it be important in your evaluation of imprint patterns on the jeans to consider all of Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to how various imprints were formed on the jeans?

Objection. This is beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Goes to agent--

Yes.

And you have no recollection of what Dr. Lee said with respect to an accordion effect?

Not specifically, no. Are you referring to the accordion of a fabric or a shoe? I don't recall--I don't believe what he said.

Does it refresh your recollection that Dr. Lee pointed out certain imprint patterns on the jeans that he characterized as an accordion effect that occurs when the jeans are folded and bunched together?

Objection. Irrelevant.

Does that refresh your recollection?

Objection.

Overruled.

I'm familiar with that phenomena.

You're familiar with that phenomena?

Yes.

But you don't recall Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to identifying various imprints on the jeans?

In general, I just can't remember his exact quote.

Okay. Now, we've discussed before and without going into specifics of it, it's your understanding that--withdrawn. Would you agree that the pictures taken of the blue jeans here are when the blue jeans are flat and they are two-dimensional representations?

Yes.

And would you agree that nobody except perhaps a very peculiar thin individual would, when wearing jeans, have those jeans flat?

That's correct.

That it's a very important factor in considering how imprints were made on these jeans to recognize that there had to be a leg inside the jeans that would affect imprints made upon it?

That's correct.

And as I recall your direct testimony, you recognized the significance of this when you were talking about your arm and slapping your arm to indicate how imprints might be made on your arm?

I believe I had a heel over my arm and I was showing how hard it would be because of the cloth conforming to the shoe so readily with hardly any pressure to make an imprint of just the interior of the heel over and over with no perimeter of the shoe showing.

So you would agree that the fact that the jeans are on the leg and the receiving surface is three-dimensional would have an effect on how imprints are made on the jeans by another object that comes into contact with it?

Can have a minor bearing on it, yes.

Minor?

Yes. Minor.

Well, if the jeans are folded and bunched and there is contact from a flat surface with ridges and that surface has blood on it, could that not affect folds in the bunches, the kind of imprint one sees on the jeans?

Objection. Improper hypothetical, irrelevant.

Overruled.

I can only speak with regard to the shoes and shoes, if the material is bunched like you're suggesting and the shoe comes down on top of it and compresses on it with pressure leaving a shoeprint on it in blood when it's bunched, then when it's flattened out, it will separate and those lines--there will be evidence of that, evidence that you can recognize as a person that's experienced that, made test impressions that way and recognizes what you're looking at.

Well, do you recall Dr. Lee testifying with respect to how these imprints were made on the jeans, that he considered the fact that it was three-dimensional and the jeans would be folded and bunched was a significant factor in evaluating these imprints?

Yes. But I don't understand how he could have known exactly what the scenario was since he wasn't there. You could have that scenario and many others and you have many areas on the jeans and I would--they would not be the same.

Do you recall him testifying to any particular scenario as opposed to simply testifying that when a leg is inside the jeans and the jeans become folded and bunched, that's going to affect the way imprints look?

Which type of imprint? Again, are we talking of shoeprints or--or fabric imprints?

Well, Dr. Lee testified about imprints made in blood whether from shoes or other objects, didn't he?

Well, there's a distinction between them though. That's the whole point, is that shoeprints are not like fabric impressions and the dynamics of what you're hypothesizing here is different for shoes as it is for fabric because one's a soft material and the other is a very rigid material.

Well, let me ask you this. As I understand the way you have been testifying, you're telling us that you're not an expert in the way imprints are made by fabrics.

That's correct.

You're only an expert you say on the way imprints are made by shoes?

That's correct.

Well, in your last answer, you were just telling us about what imprints one could expect from fabrics as opposed to what imprints could be expected from shoes.

I have made fabric impressions and it's mostly common sense.

So in other words, you're saying that you don't need any particular expertise about how imprints are made by fabrics; you can do it from common sense?

What I'm saying is, you don't need any particular expertise to know that the scenario you're giving is one of many, many, many that could have occurred and that you would see evidence of that and that they would not--you have impressions on many different areas of the jeans which were made at different points. You're suggestions they were all made exactly alike with this compressed fabric. It simply doesn't happen that way, Mr. Scheck.

Did I say that all of them were made exactly alike with some compressed fabric now? Did I say that?

That was the inference I understood, yeah.

I understand that's the inference. I'm only asking you, is that what I said?

Not specifically, no.

And isn't it important, agent Bodziak, to carefully review what another expert says if you are going to come into court and criticize exactly what that expert says?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained. Sustained.

Do you think it would help to read a transcript--

Excuse me, counsel. Counsel?

Objection. Argumentative.

Now, you have stated--and I would ask you to come down and look with respect to imprint no. 2 over here.

Do you recall on direct examination that your attention was directed to the area of the parallel line imprint on imprint no. 2 on board 1339?

Yes.

And this is in fact I think where you had--had a discussion about your arm.

Yes.

And your direction was drawn to what I'm indicating here within the larger red line, a curved imprint (Indicating)?

That's correct.

Now, you have indicated that you believe that that is consistent in your opinion with an elbow from fabric as opposed to a heel from a shoe.

That's not what I said, Mr. Scheck.

Okay.

The--I had a discussion with Mr. Deedrick where he suggested could that possibly be an elbow, and that was something for him to pursue, not for me to base on my experience.

Okay. So you're not going to venture an opinion about whether it could come from an elbow?

No. My opinion is that it's not a shoe impression.

Right. And you don't want to say anything about a elbow because you don't feel qualified to state that?

That's correct.

Okay. Now, did you not say that looking within these impressions--and I'm now directing your attention to imprint no. 2--the lines that are parallel do not always run parallel to one another?

That's correct.

And could you tell us which ones in particular you're pointing to?

Sure. May I get the pointer?

Okay. Well, there's many lines in this--in this area and there's two right here (Indicating), which are a little bit offset of what appears might be a continuation, but they're actually two that go in this direction and then the two that are--well, these two on this side are about like that and these are just slightly turned. These down here are angled up a little bit or in contrast to those. Maybe I can get the other pointer. If I put this over one of these lines and this one over this line, you can see that they're not perfectly parallel (Indicating).

Okay. Just hold it right there for a second if you may. Okay. Just so we're very clear on what you're saying--

All right.

--is that you're referring to within that heel impression, you see two parallel lines?

I don't see a heel impression.

Objection.

Withdrawn. Let me state it differently. Within this curved impression that you would agree is about three inches?

There's no scale on this photograph.

Well, you did a blow up.

Would be approximately.

Approximately three inches. In the top pointer, you're indicating that there are two parallel lines that are in the direction you've indicated here; is that right?

Yes.

And now you're pointing to three other parallel lines below and to the right at the bottom of the picture, correct (Indicating)?

Well, there's more than three. It's hard to count because they're--but you can see--again, we're running with the fabric.

Uh-huh.

And you're getting blood on a garment that's kind of on its own just gathering up within that weave. This is right along the parallel lines of the fabric, and so a lot of these lines, you can't look at them and tell whether they just happened to soak that way or whether they were actually from a contact of something. But there's more than three down here if you're going to count everything that looks like a parallel line (Indicating).

Okay. There's a series below to the right and then there's the two that you've indicated that are directly touching the curved line?

Well, there's two here which appear to be different from two more. This I wouldn't count as really anything because it's all run together, and then there's several down here which, again, they kind of deteriorate into just being blood which is in the weave of the fabric (Indicating). So it's very unreliable to say what all of these are.

Well, when you on direct examination said looking within these impressions, the lines that are parallel do not always run parallel to one another, you were referring to the two sets of lines you've just indicated?

Well, I was referring to the most obvious, the ones up here, the two and two and the ones down here (Indicating). You've got some that go outside of this perimeter as well.

I'm only asking to the ones you referred to on direct examination.

Yes.

And the part of the testimony I just quoted, those are the ones you just indicated to the jury?

Well, I don't think I pointed every one out, but all of these lines have inconsistencies in the angulation.

Right. And it's your testimony that the bunching or folding of the jeans could not have created the difference in the way those lines are pointed?

I can answer that question, but, again, I want to premise it with, I'm not a fabric examiner. But I--

Objection. Beyond the scope of his expertise.

Overruled.

It would be more than likely that the inconsistencies of the direction of these lines would be of the inconsistency of Ron Goldman's shirt than it would be of jeans which would be more like taut over the leg of him, be tighter.

Now, these--so the answer to my question is no, it couldn't be from the folding of the jeans. That's what you're saying?

Have you not seen parallel line imprints on the jeans that are against the grain of the fabric?

Yes.

And do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony that he believed that the parallel line imprints that ran with some of them and some of them that ran against the grain were made by a flat thin surface coming into contact with the jeans? Do you recall him saying that?

I don't recall him saying precisely that.

Now, you're saying that you don't have expertise in the area of fabric impressions?

In terms of comparison, yes.

But you do concede I take it that there are a series of parallel line imprints on the jeans, some of them running with the grain and some of them running against the grain?

Yes, there are.

And if the hypothesis that you just put forward, that these imprints were caused by Mr. Goldman's shirt coming into contact with the jeans, would you not agree that that would require his arm or the shirt coming into contact in a series of imprints with the jeans to cause those lines?

Well, there's a series of--

Objection. This is beyond the scope of his expertise.

Sustained.

Do you believe--agent Bodziak, you said I believe that you do not regard yourself as an expert in bloodstain interpretation?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Overruled.

That's true.

And the bloodstain interpretation at crime scenes would include an evaluation of imprints on garments or fabrics such as blue jeans?

Objection. Speculation, irrelevant.

Overruled.

My interpretation of bloodstain analysis is blood pattern or blood spatter, that it would be limited to the passing of the blood through the air and landing on a surface and the physics of what happened to that blood. In other words, you would look at a drop of blood, and if it was totally circular, you could determine it was approximately 90 degrees to the surface, and if it was at an angle, the elliptical nature of it would enable you to measure really science of physics or the approximate angle in that you could use this in part to reconstruct, but more importantly to corroborate or discorroborate statements that might be made by witnesses. As far as when it gets into shoe impressions or fabric impressions of blood, I don't believe that's within the area of blood spatter analysis.

Well, do you think that it's within the scope of bloodstain interpretation at crime scenes that analysts will investigate how various different kinds of imprints are made by objects on different receiving surfaces?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Sustained. Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.

Mrs. Robertson, would you call the clerk over at San Bernardino for Miss Moxham, tell them she cannot report to jury duty. In a week maybe. You may find this amusing, Miss Clark, but I also got mine today too.

What did you do?

I think we've concluded this area. Thank you, your Honor.

All right.

My last series of questions, agent Bodziak, have to do with the extent you're familiar with Dr. Lee's testimony and whether you feel--what parts you feel qualified to comment on and which time, okay?

Okay.

Did you hear Dr. Lee's testimony about the multiple contacts of bloodstains on the fence and closed-in area that were indicative of a struggle?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Some of it.

Do you feel qualified to comment on any of that?

No, I don't.

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Just finishing up, trying to get through this.

Proceed.

Now, you heard Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to Ron Goldman's shoes. It was a board that contained Ron Goldman's shoes, keys, a pager, buttons missing, a beeper and disturbance of soil, all that were directed towards his testimony concerning struggle. Do you recall that?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Yes, I do.

Any of that testimony that you feel that you are qualified to comment on?

Objection. Irrelevant.

Sustained. If you want to narrow it down to footprint.

Well, I'm trying to see what he--

Did you examine Ron Goldman's shoes?

Yes, I did.

Did you see a cut on the toe of one of Ron Goldman's shoes?

I examined the shoes for the sole pattern and the foxing strip around the side of it, not anything else. So I didn't see any other features on the shoes.

So in other words, you're telling us you did not see that area that Dr. Lee identified as a fresh cut that would have come from a sharp instrument when the shoe was in the air?

I--

Objection. That misstates the testimony.

Sustained.

Did you see Dr. Lee's testimony with regard to the cut which he characterized as fresh from a sharp instrument?

On the shoe?

Yeah.

Yes. But that's not what I examined.

And you never saw that on the shoe?

I never examined the shoe--that part of the shoe for that type of evidence.

To your knowledge, did anyone?

I would have no idea of who examined the shoe beside myself and for what reasons.

Now, in this part of Dr. Lee's testimony, there was reference to soil being disturbed in the closed-in area. Do you recall that?

Again, my interest in his testimony was concentrated on the shoes. I saw a little bit of the others. I don't remember that discussion.

Well, would not impressions made in soil be relevant in terms of your expertise with respect to footwear?

If he stated shoe impressions, that's a lot different than disturbance of soil.

Well, do you know what he said?

To my knowledge, he did not testify to anything about shoe impressions in soil.

Can shoe impressions be taken from soil?

You mean can they be made in soil?

Yeah.

If the soil conditions are right, yes.

Now, do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony about the envelope in different positions?

I think that's what we discussed the other day, yes.

All right. You saw that?

Part of it, yes.

Did you see his testimony about the--with respect to the envelope again about the missing lens from the glass and blood material on the eyeglass frame?

Objection. This is beyond the scope, irrelevant.

Sustained.

Did you see Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to bloodstains found in the foyer of the Rockingham home and his examination of the carpet?

Objection. Beyond the scope, your Honor.

Sustained.

Did you see Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to what transfers on the sock--

Objection, your Honor. Beyond the scope.

Sustained. Sustained.

Well, is socks an area of your expertise?

With regard to what examination?

Blood.

Objection. Vague.

Sustained. This goes way beyond the scope, counsel.

Well, are you confident that you actually saw 95 percent of Dr. Lee's testimony?

With regard to the--

Objection. Asked and answered.

Overruled.

With regard to the shoe impression evidence, yes.

Oh. So if I understand your testimony now, what you're saying is that you saw 95 percent of Dr. Lee's testimony with respect to shoe impressions, but not necessarily with respect to all of what he testified to?

No.

No further questions.