All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And, Mr. Bodziak, would you resume the witness stand, please.
William Bodziak, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Good afternoon. Just a few questions, agent Bodziak. Miss Clark asked you on redirect examination about--she asked you can anyone examine what's obscured. Do you recall that?
And she asked you if you based your opinion about the parallel line imprints on what you could see and not on what you couldn't see.
Now, was not part of your opinion concerning the parallel line imprint evidence on the envelope and the piece of paper based on the fact that you did not see a border?
Well, you said just a second ago you based your opinion based on what you could see, not on what you can't see, didn't you?
Now, would you not agree that there are bloodstain impressions over the parallel line imprint on the piece of paper?
And, Mr. Scheck, you're making reference to a particular exhibit that's before the jury?
And there are also bloodstain impressions over the area of the parallel imprint on the envelope?
And with respect to--now, you gave testimony or redirect testimony that you based your conclusion that the imprints on the jeans did not come from shoes based on the manner in which the imprints appeared on the shoes.
I don't recall the exact quote. My answer is, it is based on many things. If you ask me was it in part based on that, I would have said yes.
Okay. Now, you indicated on redirect examination that the use of the Identicator kit to make test impressions and to draw conclusions about imprints on the jeans from fabric was Agent Deedrick's area?
He would do it independently. I wouldn't rely on it. I mean, he doesn't come back to me and report to me and that is the basis for my opinion. He does that independently and reports that independently.
But I think that Miss Clark's question to you on redirect examination, that's not your area, that's his area?
And are you aware that Agent Deedrick testified that as far as he could remember, he had never done such an analysis before of bloody imprints on fabrics?
Are you aware of what Agent Deedrick said about the amount of experience he had in terms of doing analysis of bloody instruments in imprint fabric on fabric?
Okay. Now, on redirect examination, you complemented the Los Angeles Police Department saying that they had done an excellent job photographing imprints at the crime scene.
And the manner in which they took them and the quality of the subsequent photographs that they developed.
But, agent Bodziak, in your book, you emphasized 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 fact and what area of the crime scene might contain impression evidence, then footwear impressions should be looked for and aggressively and carefully, what is not looked for will not be found. Do you agree with that?
Now, based on--have you reviewed the testimony of Dennis Fung, Andrea Mazzola, Detective Lange as to how the Bundy crime scene was processed?
Do you feel that you're in a position to say that they did an excellent job in giving thought before they began the crime scene search to what could have occurred and how footprint impression evidence could contribute to the proof of fact and aggressively searching out footwear impressions?
Yes. They knew what the crime was. It was quite obvious. They could see bloody shoeprints leading from an area which was totally, almost totally covered in blood. They, as far as I remember from their testimonies, looked for other evidence of shoe marks and they did their best to preserve it and they ordered that it be photographed and recorded it, which it was. As to anything else that went through their minds that they didn't state, I wouldn't be able to testify to that. But from what I've heard, that's exactly what they did. They made a point of looking for footwear impressions. There were those that were obvious, and they also looked all the way down the walkway, documented them all the way to the end in the back of the residence and photographed everything that they could see.
And what percentage of the testimony of Fung or Mazzola or Detective Lange with respect to how they sought out and examined footwear impressions do you think you heard?
Do you feel comfortable based on your knowledge of what occurred at this crime scene that you can tell this jury that they did an excellent job in aggressively seeking out latent and/or nearly invisible footwear impressions at the Bundy crime scene? Do you feel comfortable with that?
Of course, Mr. Scheck, if there were any invisible imprints at the scene, certainly they could have missed them. The point is, they would not be invisible if they were in blood. You wouldn't have footwear impression--for instance, the one with parallel lines on tile 10 that was in blood 10 tiles down, there would be no other parallel line footwear impression before it. It's impossible unless the person that committed the crime can fly and there is no way for them to have walked through that blood and not leave other impressions, and with the tiles that they photographed with the general scene photographs, there's no evidence of any other footwear impressions.
You are referring to the pool of blood that was on the walkway that appeared to have come from Nicole Brown Simpson?
In fact, when you were asked questions on redirect examination about whether or not there could be other imprints from shoes, you said no because they would have left dark impressions. Do you recall that on redirect?
And that again is based on the assumption that somebody would have to have walked through the crime scene, stepping through the pool of blood on the walkway that was left by Nicole Brown Simpson?
And that is based further on the assumption, sir, that somebody who was involved or person or persons involved in this crime would necessarily have had to have walked through that pool of blood?
If they were at the scene of the murder, since I have been to the scene and I believe everyone else has, it's so small, so confined in line with the fact that people do not consciously think of what they're walking in on an every-day basis, much less under that kind of a stressful situation, they would not have been able to be at that scene involved in the murder without walking through that blood and leaving evidence of it.
Agent Bodziak, I ask you to assume that a struggle occurred with more than one perpetrator with Ronald Goldman and that one or more of those perpetrators left the scene before Nicole Brown Simpson's throat was cut, causing that pool of blood on the walkway. Do you have that in mind?
Objection. Objection, your Honor. That's an improper hypothetical. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Now, if that occurred, one or more perpetrators could have left the crime scene without walking through that pool of blood?
Are you suggesting there were two independent murders at the same place 10 minutes apart?
KEY QUOTEIt seems to me that's what you're suggesting, that there was one person that might have murdered Ron Goldman and then left the scene and then along comes somebody else and murders Nicole Brown two feet away. That's the way I understand it.
Agent Bodziak, I'm only asking you to make this assumption, that the murder of Ron Goldman occurs and then as among the last things done at the crime scene, the throat of Nicole Brown Simpson is cut causing the pool of blood in the walkway. Can you keep that in mind?
Did you hear eight days of testimony from Dr. Lakshmanan which included that hypothetical?
Now, if this were to occur, could a perpetrator or perpetrators have left the crime scene without walking through that pool of blood?
In this case, I don't believe that's what happened. But if you're to suggest that I consider it under your hypothetical where there was one murder and later another one, I suppose that it could, but I don't believe that's what happened.
The imprint evidence, the bloodstain imprint evidence that Dr. Lee discussed, that whole board, you don't recall that testimony?
Do you remember an analysis of the order of deposits on the envelope that Dr. Lee made in his testimony?
All right. Well, would it not be consistent with the hypothetical I posed to you, that there were a set of imprints made at the crime scene that were partial based on less blood flow, somewhat less blood flow than the pool of blood?
I don't think that the sequence--the fact that there were--there may be an imprint and then later blood would flow on the envelope or may get moved and acquire other blood in one manner or another would have nothing to do with my exam of the imprint.
But wouldn't it be a fair statement that your answers to my questions here and your statement on redirect examination that if there were other imprints from shoes, bloody imprints from shoes, that the impressions would have to be dark is based on your assumption that the perpetrator or perpetrators of this crime would of necessity have to have walked through the pool of blood on the walkway?
It's based on my visit twice to the crime scene, my view of volumes of notebooks of photographs of the crime scene, my examination of the quantity of blood on the walkway, the distance that a person would have to jump if they for some reason were conscious of footwear impressions, which they're not, and all of the other factors. In looking at crime scenes over the years, with that kind of scenario and that kind of confined area, a person that was in that area would leave bloody shoe impressions. They would be first dark and then get lighter as they walked away.
Well, all of what you've just said is based on the assumption that somebody would have to walk through the pool of blood caused by the severing of the neck of Nicole Brown Simpson, right?
KEY QUOTEAll right. Now, you were asked on redirect examination about the parallel line shoeprint impression that Dr. Lee identified as a shoeprint which he found on June 25th.
Do you recall--I'll preface it this way. As part of the examination of Dr. Lee that you saw, do you recall a time when Mr. Goldberg played a tape of two police officers breaking down the Bundy crime scene?
Now, agent Bodziak, you collected the shoes of officers that were present at the crime scene?
There were photographs of some of the officers sent to me to view with regard to what design shoes they had on.
I believe so. It's been a while. I'd have to go back and look at the officers' names.
And would it be your testimony that none of the shoes that you were given of people that were involved in the crime scene would match the parallel line imprint impressions of the shoeprint Dr. Lee identified on June 25th?
Have you been shown by the prosecutors a videotape of the inside of the Bundy residence where candles are lit?
I--not by the prosecutors. I think I saw something like that on the news one time.
Have you been provided any other shoeprints from other people that might have been at the crime scene on June 13th for comparison to the imprints that dr.--the imprint that Dr. Lee identified as a shoeprint on June 25th?
And it's your testimony that they could not have accounted for those imprint--that imprint?
Absence of characteristics is the significance here.
Are you suggesting there were two independent murders at the same place 10 minutes apart?
It's so small, so confined in line with the fact that people do not consciously think of what they're walking in on an every-day basis, much less under that kind of a stressful situation, they would not have been able to be at that scene involved in the murder without walking through that blood and leaving evidence of it.
Well, all of what you've just said is based on the assumption that somebody would have to walk through the pool of blood caused by the severing of the neck of Nicole Brown Simpson, right?