Redirect examination of William Bodziak (part 2)

📄 Redirect examination of William Bodziak (part 2) — Monday, September 18, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\18\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-WILLIA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 156 of 167

◀ Recross-examination of William Bodziak Recross-examination of William Bodziak (part 2) ▶

Witness: William Bodziak
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, September 18, 1995 • Utterances: 32

Marcia Clark conducts brief redirect to rehabilitate Bodziak after defense cross-examination raised questions about an unidentified parallel line imprint on the 10th tile of the Bundy walkway. Clark establishes that countless unidentified people — officers, TV cameramen, Nicole Brown's family — walked the scene between June 13th and June 25th, making attribution of the imprint impossible. Bodziak delivers his key conclusion: the parallel line imprint photographed by Dr. Henry Lee on June 25th was not present on June 13th and has no significance to the murder.

# 1 MS. CLARK:

Yes, briefly.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

# 2 MS. CLARK:

Mr. Bodziak, do you know whether or not the shoes of the officers depicted in that clip you were shown, defense 1011, were ever photographed and shown to you?

# 3 MR. BODZIAK:

I don't know the identity of the officer in that clip. So I don't know if they were one of the officers whose shoes were submitted to me or not.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

And you don't know whether all of the officers' who ever walked through the crime scene between June 13th and June 25th shoes were shown to you in photograph form either?

# 5 MR. BODZIAK:

No, I do not.

# 6 MS. CLARK:

Were you aware that the film clip you spoke of showing the candles burning through the window was taken by a cameraman from a tv station?

# 7 MR. BODZIAK:

I believe when I saw the news clip, that the reference was made to that, yeah.

# 8 MS. CLARK:

And so you would have to go and locate who that videographer was and see if he could--whose shoes he wore in order to determine whether or not his shoes made that imprint; would you not?

# 9 MR. BODZIAK:

That's correct.

# 10 MS. CLARK:

And do you know whether the family of Nicole Brown was present at that Bundy walk and walked on that Bundy walk between June 13th and June 25th?

# 11 MR. BODZIAK:

I don't know that.

# 12 MS. CLARK:

Did you ever see any film clips that showed a number of people crowded around, crowded around the 875 Bundy location on June 17th?

# 13 MR. BODZIAK:

I'm not familiar with that, no.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

So if there were a number of people that were walking up and down the walkway at Bundy between June 13th and June 25th, you would have no way of knowing whether it was one of their shoes that made that wavy line imprint that was on the 10th tile?

# 15 MR. BODZIAK:

No, I would not.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

And the wavy line imprint made on the 10th tile was photographed on--

# 17 MR. SCHECK:

Objection. Move to strike. Has nothing to do with wavy line imprint.

# 18 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 19 MS. CLARK:

Parallel line imprint.

# 20 THE COURT:

All right. So we're clear.

# 21 MS. CLARK:

And the parallel line imprint, that was--that was the one photographed on June 25th by Dr. Lee, correct?

# 22 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes.

# 23 MS. CLARK:

Did you--and that was--was that a fairly faint imprint, sir?

# 24 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes, it was.

# 25 MS. CLARK:

Did you see any darker imprints of that type preceding it on the Bundy walkway?

# 26 MR. BODZIAK:

No. Not on any of the other tiles or in any of the other close-up photographs or any photographs that were taken at that scene.

# 27 MS. CLARK:

And what does that lead you to conclude about the appearance of that--about the materialization of that imprint on the 10th tile on June the 25th?

# 28 MR. BODZIAK:

I would not be able to determine a scenario where a person after the fact or during the crime stepped in blood and left only a footprint--proposing it is blood, I'm just hypothetically saying in blood on the 10th tile and nowhere else, it's impossible.

KEY QUOTE

# 29 MS. CLARK:

Then in your opinion, sir, was that parallel line imprint on the 10th tile that was photographed by henry Lee on June 25th, was it even present on June the 13th?

# 30 MR. BODZIAK:

In my opinion, it was not present.

KEY QUOTE

# 31 MS. CLARK:

Does it have any significance to the solution of this murder?

# 32 MR. BODZIAK:

I don't believe so.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

William Bodziak

I would not be able to determine a scenario where a person after the fact or during the crime stepped in blood and left only a footprint--proposing it is blood, I'm just hypothetically saying in blood on the 10th tile and nowhere else, it's impossible.

Bodziak dismisses the defense's implication that the parallel line imprint could be a bloody shoe print from the murder, calling a single-tile scenario impossible.

William Bodziak

In my opinion, it was not present.

Direct expert conclusion that the imprint photographed by Dr. Lee on June 25th did not exist on June 13th — undermining any defense theory that it relates to the crime.

William Bodziak

I don't believe so.

Bodziak's final answer — the imprint has no significance to the murder — is the capstone of Clark's rehabilitation effort.

Evidence (2)

Defense 1011

Video clip showing officers at the Bundy scene, used by defense to raise questions about unidentified shoe imprints

discussed

Informal

Parallel line imprint on the 10th tile of the Bundy walkway, photographed by Dr. Henry Lee on June 25th

discussed, concluded to be insignificant

Notable Exchanges (2)

Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito•Marcia Clark

Scheck objected that Clark's question referred to a 'wavy line imprint' rather than a 'parallel line imprint.' Ito overruled but prompted Clark to correct her terminology, which she did.

procedural

Marcia Clark•William Bodziak

Clark systematically catalogs all the unidentified people who could have made the imprint — unknown officers, TV cameraman, Nicole's family — and Bodziak confirms he has no way to account for any of them, neutralizing the defense's chain-of-custody attack on the imprint.

strategic

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 7715 • 32 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103