Very briefly. Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
Sir, you indicated at one point that when you look at a shoeprint, you don't consider anything else. Can you explain that answer? I believe it was an answer you gave to Mr. Scheck on cross-examination when we broke on Friday.
Yeah. I think that was with regard to the envelope in specific. But in general, when we're looking at a shoe impressions, very often there is other excessive blood that interferes or obscures that or there may be other things which interfere with that impression. If it's in soil, it may be leaves that are fallen in or sticks or rocks that were in the bottom that prevent reproduction of that shoe detail at that point. And, of course, no one can examine things that are obscured or interfered with. So the examination would be limited to the part, in the case of the envelope, that was the parallel line pattern, and any other interferences or secondary or primary blood spatter or stain or absorption on the envelope would be irrelevant. I would only examine what I could--the part of the pattern that I could see.
Now, you indicated you did not look in your database, in your computer database for the parallel line imprints that were found on the jeans, the envelope, the paper, correct?
Well, there are a lot of shoes with parallel line imprints and I'm sure some of them would become very close to spacing on those jeans. But it's the manner in which the imprint is made on the jean and the absence of characteristics that I, based on my experience, would respect to see in that many impressions. And because I don't believe it's a shoeprint, I wouldn't search for something that I didn't believe existed.
And did Mr. Scheck show you imprints made by a shoe that did have parallel lines this morning?
And did he ask you for your opinion concerning whether or not those parallel lines bore any resemblance to the ones on the jeans, the paper and the envelope?
I told him they were totally different. Upon looking at that, it's impressive because they're are very, very fine parallel lines on the shoeprint he showed me. When comparing it side by side, those on the envelope, they're still twice as big, which shows that it would be very--well, in my opinion, impossible to manufacture a mold that would implant that minute a design on a shoe.
KEY QUOTESo the shoe impression with parallel lines that he showed you you indicated to him were not at all similar to the parallel lines on the envelope in this case?
Only in a sense that they both ran parallel. But the size of the one that Mr. Scheck showed me was twice as big, twice as wide as the ones on the envelope.
Okay. And you had that conversation with him this morning before you took the witness stand, correct?
And the Xerox pieces of paper that you were shown by Mr. Scheck today of the test impressions taken by the jeans were 8-1/2 by 11?
I saw them on the screen here and briefly when he showed them, and they weren't as large as the Identicator pieces, yes.
Now, are you aware, sir, that Agent Deedrick made his own test impressions of the jeans with the Identicator?
Okay. Do you know whether LAPD took impressions of the jeans in many different ways?
Again, I wasn't involved in that aspect of it. If he has any--if Agent Deedrick had any information about that, I'm not aware of it.
Do you have any information about the methods used by Agent Deedrick to make his test impressions of the jeans?
Sir, would he be the appropriate person to ask about the way the test impressions of the fabric of these jeans were made?
With regard to the fabric impressions, Agent Deedrick would be the one that's qualified to know how impressions, known impressions should be taken and what is adequate or not adequate within the context of that examination.
So he would be the one to pose the questions to about whether the ribbing would have been spread out by rolling the impression or not, for example?
Sir, if the impressions--test impressions of the jeans were made by merely pressing the paper on the jeans with your hand, would that make the space between the ribbing seem larger?
Again, I have not made all of these different types of fabric impressions because it's not my area with the Identicator; only sock impressions that I use for a footwear-related type exam. So I wouldn't be able to answer that question. I haven't done a study or had experience in those different ways to know if there's a variation.
Based on what experience you do have, sir, do you have any reason to believe that the rolling of impressions of a paper on top of the jeans would cause the ribbing to spread and appear more widely spaced?
Sir, do you have experience with cases where bloody shoeprints faded on just the day after they were made?
Uh, you know, with--it's hard to answer that. I would say no because--I mean, I've seen impressions the day after they were made, but I don't go around comparing with a densitometer or something the exact fading of shoe impressions. I know they fade because I see that in my daily work, but I don't try to measure the amount of fade per day. So I wouldn't be able to tell that.
Well, have you seen impressions made in blood with shoes the day after they were made?
So your experience and your opinion rendered in this case about the fading of bloody shoeprints is that based on cases in which you've seen impressions the day after as well as years after?
Now, you were asked a series of questions by counsel concerning the conditions under which Dr. Lee did his examination of the Bundy crime scene. Do you recall that, sir?
Do you know whether it's true that Dr. Lee had a time limit when he made his investigation at the Bundy crime scene?
Do you have any idea whether the Defense asked to allow him in the Bundy crime scene to complete his investigation?
Sir, you indicated--you were asked a question--read a portion of your book about doing careful investigation in order to make sure that all shoeprints are properly detected. Do you recall that?
With regard to the photography, they did an excellent job. It's almost hard to recall many other cases over the year where both color and black and white photographs with that type of clarity were taken and with that many exposures taken.
The only thing that they might have done in addition would be to have sprayed a chemical enhancement on those impressions. They may have darkened up some of the lighter ones slightly. The surface was very light to begin with. You don't get the amount of contrast change when it's already a light surface because you have dark blood or blood color on a light surface. It might have helped a little. And if in this case, we had a pair of shoes from the suspect where we were looking for minute detail from cuts or scratches or wear, then it might have been critical to enhance those impressions. But in this case, we didn't. We were only looking for shoe size and manufacturer, and the darker impressions were more than adequate and any lighter impressions would not have made any difference.
As a matter of common sense, sir, if you have a series of shoeprints in blood, would they tend to get lighter as they go on in location, as they get farther and farther?
Yes. One of the things we do for preparation in classes is to, as bad as it sounds, it has to be done, is to step in blood and take steps down a tile flooring. And with each, we number them. And with each step, the track, of course, becomes lighter and lighter. Normally, the imprint starts breaking up around between six and eight steps, and usually after it gets to about 10 to 12, it's all but disappeared. And that would vary with the surface, the weight of the person and the amount of the blood, but they disappear, become lighter with each step as they go along.
Now, you said it varies with the surface. For example, on concrete--that's a hard surface obviously, correct?
Has it ever happened in your experience, sir, that shoeprints will fade out to the point where they're not detectable on concrete, but then appear on a softer surface that might mold into the shoe itself?
Yes. In this case, sir, with respect to these fading shoeprints, did you make an observation as to whether the shoeprints faded out at some point along the Bundy walk?
And approximately how far along the Bundy walk had they gotten by the time they faded out?
Well, when they got up to what I had labeled "L," "M" and "O," they were starting to just become pretty much non-existent. There were a couple thereafter, particularly if we went--and that could vary just with the weight. You could go a step and step lighter and not leave anything, and then the next step, if you really came down heavy, you might have a little evidence of it, and there were a couple beyond that. But pretty much around L, M and O, they started to lose their--you know, their appearance.
--in which there was--in that situation, sir, where concrete no longer picks up the details of a bloody shoeprint, might you still find some transfer of blood from that shoe on a softer surface?
Does the nonenhancement of any of the shoeprints in this case have any effect on the reliability of your opinion that only one pair of shoes, the Bruno Magli size 12, was found on the walkway on June the 13th?
If there were any other shoes that were at the scene, they would have left dark impressions which became, you know, lighter and lighter as they also left the scene.
Now, sir, you were directed to testimony by Dr. Lee concerning the lines, parallel lines that you testified were actually not imprints, but trowel marks. Do you recall that, sir?
I believe the photograph you were directed to by Mr. Scheck is on the Defense board 1337. Now, Mr. Scheck read you testimony of Dr. Lee from August 23rd, Wednesday. I'm going to read you the testimony from August 22nd.
Well, Miss Clark, we're within a couple minutes. But it ought to be the actual transcript since--so that the reference to the record can be made.
And with respect to this imprint, sir, there was an aspect of the imprint shown--of the lines shown to you here that you determined was made in concrete?
Yes. This is the wavy lines up between the ruler and the obvious heel mark (Indicating).
And do you recall Dr. Lee's testimony, sir, discussing that particular set of lines as an imprint?
In your opinion, sir, is it misleading to discuss something as an imprint that is made in concrete?
The only thing misleading is--as I perceive the discussion, in some context, Dr. Lee--this is over his testimony, was pointing to things that--
I move to strike, generally is not responsive. Should be directed towards a specific testimony.
Let me ask you this, sir. Do you recall that on one day of his testimony, August 22nd, on Tuesday, Dr. Lee referred to the photograph taken and shown on the far left as you face the photograph entitled "Walkway 6-12," referred to lines in that tile as possible imprint?
And do you recall that he did not correct or qualify that conclusion until he returned to court the next day, August 23rd?
And in your opinion, sir--and then at that point, he qualified it as being possibly the result of a trowel mark in the tile, correct?
But until that next day, he left the jury with the impression that that might be an imprint?
And your opinion is, sir, with respect to the lines on that tile, is it a possible trowel mark or possible imprint?
There's no doubt about it. I felt it with my bare hands and photographed it.
KEY QUOTESir, with respect to the parallel lines on the jeans and on the paper and envelope and on the walkway, are the parallel lines in those three areas--and I group the envelope and the paper together, then the jeans and then the walkway.
In differences of spacing and breath of the lines and other features, of course, the biggest obvious difference is on the walkway. It's probably a shoeprint. On the--on the jeans and on the envelope and the paper, in my opinion, it's not even a shoeprint. So that's the biggest difference. But if you were just to compare the features of the parallel lines, they are also different.
And is it important in your opinion to point that out to the jury, that there's a different mechanism for the imprint that was made on those three areas?
So they have a full and clear understanding of what caused those items or what features in those items were significant.
Now, you agreed with Mr. Scheck that you did not say 1337-A and B, the lines that are outlined--that are circled by Dr. Lee were in concrete?
And your testimony with respect to those impressions as to whether or not they were there on June the 13th at all was?
In my opinion--well, with regard to the parallel lines in the corner of the tile that we have very good photographs of, in my opinion, they absolutely were not there. With regard to the other shoe impression, my opinion is also, they were not there before for several reasons, not for just one like a photograph.
Now, you indicated in response to Mr. Scheck's question that in a very loose sense, you can look at it, if you were asked to say that various imperfections in tile could not be excluded as other footwear impressions. Do you recall that answer, sir, in the loose sense.
You gave an answer in a very loose sense you could look at it, and I believe you were referring to the walkway, if you were asked or anyone, including Dr. Lee to look at this and say there are various other imperfections in the tile that could not be excluded as possible footwear impressions, and you indicated, of course, you couldn't. Could you explain to us what you meant by "In the very loose sense"?
In looking at the overall photographs of the walkway as well as the various respective tiles that we have of the close-ups and looking at all of the evidence with regard to footwear impression evidence, you can see, particularly on the overalls, many discolorations and different shadowing and marks. You can just take every tile and see something that's ununiformed about it. But none of them in my opinion have any shape or caused by shoeprints other than the bloody Bruno Magli prints to which I've testified and which are much clearer to see. So the fact that the tile has numerous trowel markings and miscolorations on it, that's basically what I see. I don't see any evidence from these photographs of other shoe impressions.
I told him they were totally different. Upon looking at that, it's impressive because they're are very, very fine parallel lines on the shoeprint he showed me. When comparing it side by side, those on the envelope, they're still twice as big, which shows that it would be very--well, in my opinion, impossible to manufacture a mold that would implant that minute a design on a shoe.
There's no doubt about it. I felt it with my bare hands and photographed it.
With regard to photography, they did an excellent job. It's almost hard to recall many other cases over the year where both color and black and white photographs with that type of clarity were taken and with that many exposures taken.
You can just take every tile and see something that's ununiformed about it. But none of them in my opinion have any shape or caused by shoeprints other than the bloody Bruno Magli prints to which I've testified and which are much clearer to see.