MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, what is your occupation and assignment?

 MR. BODZIAK: I'm a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I'm currently assigned in the FBI laboratory as an examiner of questioned documents, footwear and tire tread evidence.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to what's marked as People's 373 for identification, the section that says "If covered shoes of a suspect may be identified or eliminated," can you describe for us--if you need to step down you may do so--what kind of analysis you've performed that is signified by this portion of the chart.


 MR. BODZIAK: Directing the attention to the top portion of the chart, one of the primary purposes of footwear comparison is ultimately to examine the footwear impressions from the crime scene, which is depicted here on the right side, (Indicating), with shoes of suspects that might be obtained during the investigation. In this particular chart I've shown, as an example on the right, an impression from a crime scene, a test impression made from the shoe of the suspect, and on the left side a reverse photograph of the shoe of the suspect. This comparison involves the class characteristics first of the shoe, that is, the physical shape and size, the design or pattern on the bottom of the shoe, which leaves its print in the impression, and then subsequently we will draw its attention to wear characteristics. Maybe the heel may begin to wear on the edge and other wear that might be evident and would change the pattern of the shoe. The fourth area of comparison, after the size design and wear, would be things such as accidental characteristics, such as a cut mark that would also show up in the impression and would be found on both the test impression and the known shoe. These cut marks or changes to the pattern of the shoe are what makes a shoe unique and would possibly enable, if there was an adequate number of these, the positive identification of this shoe having made the impression at the crime scene.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you do that kind of analysis in this case?

 MR. BODZIAK: No, I did not.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that?

 MR. BODZIAK: There was no shoes that were given to me of the suspects.

 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in cases that are submitted to you for analysis at the FBI, since 1973 when you've been working there, can you give us an estimate as to what percent, where they are submitted to you, they do not have shoes of a suspect?

 MR. BODZIAK: Approximately forty percent of the case work that is submitted to us initially does not have the shoes of the suspect. A few of those may be submitted later after we provide them additional information.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And are there some where the shoes are never recovered?

 MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely, yes.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in cases where the shoes are not recovered, is it, nevertheless, possible to do other kind of analysis on the shoes?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, on the--

 MR. GOLDBERG: Is that indicated on the chart?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The second and third portions of the chart draw the attention to those kind of requests we get in situations where we do not have the shoes of a suspect, and we are asked to provide the brand name and manufacturer of the shoe and we do this by accumulating, in a reference collection, thousands of designs of shoes and searching a particular pattern from the crime scene print through that reference collection, and hopefully we will be able to determine the manufacturer and brand name of that shoe. After that, depending on the quality of the impression and the completeness of the impression at the crime scene, as well as the kind of manufacturer of the shoe in question, we may be asked to give either a general estimate of the size and that would be just through a linear measurement, or an actual specific sizing of the shoe by directly working with the manufacturer.

 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And these last two portions of the chart where you have discussed where it says "Brand name, manufacturer and size of the shoe," did you perform that kind of analysis in this particular case?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I did.


 MR. GOLDBERG: After you were unable to locate the design based upon your own resources, did you take some additional steps?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

 MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do?

 MR. BODZIAK: In looking at the detail in the shoe impressions in the thirty photographs which I was submitted which were the impressions from the Bundy location, I observed that there were certain features about that shoe that strongly suggested that it was a high end--that is a very expensive Italian brand shoe. So I looked through our written reference material and I identified approximately 75 to 80 manufacturers and importers of high end Italian shoes and some south American shoes or Brazilian shoes, and I prepared a sketch and a--one of the photographs, a composite photograph--excuse me--a composite sketch and three photographs of heel impressions from the Bundy scene, along with a letter, and contacted those manufacturers and importers to see if they recognized or knew the origin of that particular design.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Did you get any information back as a result of that?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On August 17th I received a reply from a Mr. Peter Grueterich of the Bruno Magli Uma Shoe Store in New Jersey.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And did he send you anything?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. He sent me two shoes that were left over from a Bruno Magli distribution of his in 1991 and 1992. These were both right shoes. One was a size 9 and a half and one was a size 12. And I believe from looking at them they were probably samples that were just left over.


 MR. BODZIAK: These are enlarged photographs on the right side of the Lorenzo at the top and the Lyon or Lyon at the bottom. The differences between those two shoes is the Lorenzo has a higher heel collar to it and the Lyon or Lyon has a lower cut as a conventional shoe would have, and those shoes were sent to me by Mr. Grueterich. The retail of those was approximately $160.00, and they were Bruno Magli shoes distributed in 1991 and `92 in six different colors. The colors were white, black, brown, blue, brandy and olive.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 375 for identification, can you tell us what that is?

 MR. BODZIAK: Exhibit 375 are the two shoes, the Lyon or Lyon and the Lorenzo, which were submitted to me by Mr. Peter Grueterich and which were left over from the shipment or distribution of those shoes in 1991 and 1992.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as a result of the information that you have just talked to us about, did you determine who the manufacturer was of the Bruno Magli shoe?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, if I could comment on the bottom of the shoe, which has the manufacturer's name on it?


 MR. BODZIAK: The bottom of the shoe has design elements--may I step down?

 THE COURT: You may.

 MR. BODZIAK: The bottom of the shoe has design elements which are repeated across the entire sole area, as well as the heel, and these design elements, which repeat after one another across the width and length of the shoe, are identical in size in both the heel and the sole, and they are surrounded by a perimeter, a little raised line, and then there is an outer perimeter which does not actually touch the surface of the ground, but which is a little bit raised but can touch it if there is enough weight or other factors. The same is true of the heel. And the leading edge of the heel is curved and has the notch cut off of the medial side, the inner side. This is a reverse photograph so this is actually the left--an enlargement of the left shoe, and this would be the outside of the body and this would be the inside to the right as you look at it, (Indicating). And in the center arch area also is the name "Bruno Magli," that is b-r-u-n-o m-a-g-l-I, as well as the capital "M" for Bruno Magli, their logo in the middle of that, and at the very bottom in the shadow here, which is probably hard to see, is the words "Made in Italy" and up in the top corner here is the word "Silga," s-I-l-g-a, which to answer your question, this is the manufacturer in Italy of this outsole.


 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, based upon all of the information that you had from your visit to Italy from the lasts and the soles and the photographs of the Bundy crime scene location, were you able to form an opinion regarding the size of the shoe--the size of the shoes that caused the shoeprints at Bundy location?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

 MR. GOLDBERG: What is that opinion?

 MR. BODZIAK: That size was an American size 12 with the European size 46 sole attached to it.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to this chart that is entitled "Shoeprint comparison," can you illustrate for us how it was you were able to make your comparison? Maybe you can start with one of the two shoeprints.

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, may I step down?

 MR. GOLDBERG: And move on to the other. Yes, please.

 MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) Okay. The chart entitled "Shoeprint" comparison on the left side has one of the photographs which I examined which is a bloody shoeprint from the Bundy location. At the crime scene it was marked shoeprint E, the Los Angeles Police Department called it shoeprint E and the FBI--in my report I referred to it as Q107. It is an impression of both the sole and heel. On the right side is another shoeprint which I marked FBI Q68 and which was down in the lower walkway area at the very entrance, inside the gate, and that is of a heel impression. And if whatever impression would have been up here, (Indicating), would have been--if an impression had been laid down up here, it would have been interfered with by the other blood in that area, so you can really only see the heel impression on FBI Q68. In the middle is an approximate two-time enlargement of one of the test impressions I made of the left shoe using the European sole size 46, and attached to shoeprints E and the shoeprint on the right and the left of the chart, are transparencies that are made from the same test impression that is in the center, and this allows, in the comparison and demonstration process of superimposing the features that are left in test impressions of the size 46 and other size soles, over top of the impressions that are examined at the crime scene. And by putting these over these impressions, the precise configuration of the design elements, as I had mentioned before, and how they meet the borders where they are visible in this print, as well as the design element and fragments of the border which were up in this area and made from respective areas of the shoe, correspond, and also FBI Q68, the heel impression, the overlay demonstrates that as well. You can place this overlay back and forth and see the corresponding pattern agrees. Using this method I was able to take the size 42 through 47 shoes of both left and right and I was able to make test impressions through direct physical contact in a transparency form. I was able to place these over the crime scene impressions and determine which size of the European soles made that impression and eliminate the others. And in doing so, with regard to these two, I determined the left size 46 sole positively made the impressions and the 42 through 45 and 47 soles could positively be eliminated.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the print on the right that says "Shoeprints FBI Q68" even though only a heel of that is visible, you were able to determine that was a 46 European sole?



 MR. BODZIAK: Because the heels, like the rest of the shoe, are distinctly different and so no other heel in the other sizes could have made that impression.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, were you provided with any item in order to determine what the Defendant's shoe size was?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And what were you provided with?

 MR. BODZIAK: I was provided with a pair of Reebok shoes that the Defendant wore.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, it would be 384 for identification. And I'm going to write a 384 on the exterior of the package, the package and its contents of what appear to be Reebok tennis shoes.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 384 for identification, can you remove the item from that package and tell us what you're doing?

 MR. BODZIAK: (The witness complies.) 384 is a pair of Reebok shoes, white in color, what I would call a low profile that were represented to me as the shoes of the Defendant.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And what did you do with those Reebok shoes?

 MR. BODZIAK: I made measurements of the exterior length of the sole as best I could without cutting the tops off. I made measurements of the inner length of the insole and I made a direct physical comparison between them and a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.

 MR. GOLDBERG: What size did you determine the Reebok shoes to be?

 MR. BODZIAK: Oh, the Reeboks are labeled U.S. size 12.


 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And for the record, your Honor, when he was doing his demonstration in court, he held the Bruno Magli size 12 which--shoe which comes from the box 375 up against the Reeboks which comes from the bag and its contents, which was 384 for identification, held them together with the soles, and they appeared to be the same dimension.

 THE COURT: So noted.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you what we've just marked as People's 385-B for identification, do you recognize this?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

 MR. GOLDBERG: What is it?

 MR. BODZIAK: This is a chart which I prepared as part of the survey of a total of 500 people, 399 which were males, and it reflects the correlation between the shoe size of a person and the height of that person.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And does one of the lines on this chart pertain to an American size 12 shoe?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it does.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And can we zoom in on that perhaps? All right. Well, now we don't really have any reference point.

 MR. GOLDBERG: But with respect to your study, sir, what findings did you make with respect to the height of men that wear size 12 shoes?

 MR. BODZIAK: The height range was 71 to 77 inches.

 MR. GOLDBERG: 71 being 5/11?

 MR. BODZIAK: 5/11 to six foot five.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an estimation as to how quickly footprints in blood may disappear to the point where you wouldn't see anything that you could recognize as a shoeprint, you might just see lines or squiggles or whatever?

 MR. BODZIAK: There will be things that cause variables, that is the porosity of the surface, the amount of blood that's initially stepped on, whether it's a pool of blood or whether it's blood that has already been coating the surfaces, is rather flat, which wouldn't be as three dimensional. But if there's a heavy coating of blood, it normally disappears in approximately six to 10 steps.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you indicate for us using this chart the kinds of problems that you can confront in terms of patterns appearing different than they really would on the shoe as a result of the blood bleeding over or other kinds of problems that you might have along those lines?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. May I step down?


 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. If I can use the sole as well as the picture. I mentioned before the individual design elements, which are these little designs that together make up the total pattern on the shoe (Indicating), and I also mentioned the slightly raised perimeter, which confines the design elements in the sole as well as that slightly raised perimeter which confines the design elements in the heel. And that perimeter and these design elements, if you look at the shoe from the side, will both touch the surface if the surface is flat. The outer perimeter is raised. It's actually above the level of the ground, but it's very, very close. So if there's a lot of liquid such as blood on this outer perimeter, depending on the amount of blood and depending on the pressure exerted in a particular shoe impression, you may get this secondary perimeter, which on the first impression here is almost complete around the heel and is also in other portions of the sole, the top left corner. You also--because there's a lot of material on the shoe with the first step, there's also more of a printing of the flat surface of the design element. In other words, the actual pattern of design element. But you can see darkened edges which represent that material being squeezed out. And this is known as a squeegee effect where the pressure is causing this material, whether it be blood or paint, to squeeze out to the edge of the design element. And the same would also be true where there's excess blood in other areas such as the perimeter. This would squeeze out. In the second step, there's now going to be less material on the sole, and most of the material on the flatter surfaces of the design element has been squeezed away. So it is very thin.

 But where the edges are where that material has been squeezed out to it, your surface tension will remain. You will get more of a printing of the edge characteristics of the design element, and except in areas where--for instance, there are a couple here where you do see a filling in of the design--you're basically getting the edge characteristics and you're getting less of the perimeter because there's less material on that secondary outer edge. The third step, again, you're getting some partial outer edge, but now you're really getting just the perimeter of the design element. And in areas now where I'm now pointing to now down in the sole area, but on the heel side, you're starting to get just little speckles and portions, perhaps little corners or edges of that design element. And then the succeeding steps, you would get less and less until eventually you would not be able to recognize this as this pattern.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that why, when you're looking at an impression at a crime scene, certain features of the design characteristics might not be apparent or might look a little bit different?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. If you were looking at this impression or perhaps the next impression that would be made, it might not look to you--if you weren't--if you weren't trained and experienced in looking at this, it may superficially look like a different pattern initially.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, when we were previously talking about the shoeprint comparison chart, were some of the items that you referred to on that chart represented on this Bundy chart as well?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they were.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And which items were those?

 MR. BODZIAK: They were 268, which was that left heel impression and the impression which is depicted with the letter E, which was also a left impression and which is further up the walkway.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe we can start then just very briefly with the Q68, if you'd like to, perhaps you can show us, showing you People's 388 for identification, what you did in terms of comparing that footprint. And since we've covered it, maybe you can just indicate for us how it was--in brief how you did it.

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Q68 is the same heel impression which I've previously demonstrated with an overlay, and this just shows the natural size rendition of that with--which is what I would have compared with what I did compare with the actual original impressions that I made of the left and right soles from size 42 from 47.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And was this the area of the scene that's--where you would enter into the gated-off or fenced-off area?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is the front gate which is running across the walkway, and Q68 is pretty close in the corner and it is headed in the direction of the arrow which is on the tip of Q68. So if I were to hold this up, it would be headed in this direction (Indicating).

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And actually the print was you said just a heel print; is that correct?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, perhaps we can move to People's 389 for identification which is your number Q67?


 MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what you did in terms of comparing that print?

 MR. BODZIAK: Q67 was compared in the same manner using the original natural size enlargement and original overlays of test impressions of all of the shoe sizes. And with regard to this, I determined that although there was a tremendous amount of indistinction in here, there were some features which correlated with the size 46 left heel impression, and then the sole impression of that would be running off into a soil area, and there's no evidence of any detail in that area on the soil. And adjacent to that is a white envelope.

 MR. GOLDBERG: So what was the opinion that you rendered with respect to this item, this Q67?

 MR. BODZIAK: Q67 corresponded also with the heel of the size 46 or American size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to photograph F, can you tell us what analysis you did on that and what opinions you rendered?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. F is a right foot impression. I examined all of the sole impressions, 42 through 47, with it and determined that only the right size 46, American 12 Bruno Magli shoe would have made it with that sole.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you're looking at that impression, Mr. Bodziak, you can see down towards the heel, there's a portion where the blood appears to go over the overlay that you have.


 MR. GOLDBERG: What accounts for that?

 MR. BODZIAK: The--two things can account for it. One is the angle of the heel strike and the other is the amount of blood in that area may be sufficient that at the point of that heel strike, it's squeezed out that distance from the actual strike of the heel.

 MR. GOLDBERG: So is the fact that that doesn't exactly match up mean that it's not the shoe or in some way undermine the opinion--

 MR. BODZIAK: No. This is a normal thing which I observe in impressions of this type, and what's important is that the various edges of the elements in the reference points match the European 46 right sole and are distinctly different from all the other soles which I compared.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And thinking back to the chart that we had where we were shown how shoeprints are deposited at a crime scene and how successive shoeprints look different from the first to the third--


 MR. GOLDBERG: --does that chart help to explain any of the phenomena that you just pointed out here in terms of why certain of the elements appear to bleed over if you will the--

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, there's a lot of other things going on in this impression. There's a lot of blood still in this area of the heel (Indicating) and something has caused the left portion of the sole and heel not to print. And what that can be caused by is just the blood would not be picked up by that part of the shoe. In other words, the shoe would step in blood and only the right portion of the shoe would be stepping in. And then as that-- in this area, there's still stifling in the heel which you get typically when you have a lot of blood, and as the heel pulls away, it's--there's surface tension pulling it out and it interferes some with the pattern. And then over on the edges, you do get the borders and some of the edge detail and you get the perimeter and some of the other fragments of design up in the front. You also have the grout line which, as it runs through the--dissects the right sole print, because that grout line is recessed in the concrete walkway, the shoe did not contact that surface and, therefore, did not leave a print in that area.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And incidentally, when a shoe--bloody shoeprint goes over leaves, does it tend to leave a shoeprint on the leaves?

 MR. BODZIAK: If a bloody impression steps on a leaf?


 MR. BODZIAK: If everything was perfect, if there was--if there was blood on the design element in sufficient quantity and the leaf was laying flat and the person stepped on it, it would more likely stick to the shoe. I guess it could come off and leave some impression or fragment of an impression, but it is not a particularly good medium. I cannot think of hardly any cases where I have been submitted pictures of leaves that had shoeprints on it. In theory, I guess you could get some fragments, but it's not a good medium.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Are some surfaces better than others for receiving shoeprints?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. A firm smooth surface would be the best, and any time you start to get grout lines or unevenness of the concrete tiles or real porous surfaces or other blemishes, all of those things would interfere with the impression-making process.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Going back to E for a second, since the jurors had a chance to look at that up close, some of the items that you have the red arrows near seem to line up almost perfectly or perfectly and then there are other little areas that you can see where maybe the blood goes over where the pattern is. Can you explain that for us?

 MR. BODZIAK: Are you referring to the front and rear of the heel?

 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, not so much that. But on some of the design elements in the middle, you can see that some of the design elements appear to be bigger on the impression that was left at the scene than the design element on the overlay although a slightly different shape.

 MR. BODZIAK: That would be--that specific thing would be because of the squeezing out of the blood. So the design element--if the piece of paper which I'm holding in my hand, exhibit E, was the design element and had blood on it, it would squeeze blood out beyond that edge and then the blood would stay on the surface. So if you consider that on both edges, top and bottom and left and right, the overall element size would be reflected as larger than the actual shoe element that made it.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Was that one of the things that you were showing us on the shoeprint chart where we had how shoeprints are deposited at crime scene and show how they fade out?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I refer to that as a squeegee effect which is actually a printing term which we use in documents from the older printing process.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to 390-G for identification, can you show us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at on that?

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. The exhibit marked G is a left sole impression. In the rear of it, the heel is much more limited detailed than the sole portion and the heel crosses over the grout line. I compared that to the original impressions of size 42 through 47 and found that it only fit the European size 46 left sole. The item G is marked as a left impression and is heading west on the chart.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, so I don't have to ask this question over again, on a lot of the other photographs that we're going to discuss, are there also ones that have the squeegee effect that you've referred to and some of the other phenomena cause certain of the design elements or characterizations not to line up perfectly?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That is typically what you find in blood impressions almost all of the time. The only way that you could in theory get a blood impression that printed like the test impressions I've showed is if you took a roller like a paint roller and very thinly coded shoe and made one impression. Then you might have such a thin coating that you wouldn't have that squeeze out. But, of course, that doesn't happen at crime scenes. And so whenever a shoe has to step in a large amount of blood to then leave a track, there is that excess blood which squeezes out and these types of things are normal.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now directing your attention to 390-H for identification, LAPD photograph number H, can you tell us what you did to analyze that and what opinion you arrived at?

 MR. BODZIAK: S is a left heel and sole impression and it is also dissected by a grout line and it is--I compared the natural size photographs of H with all of the soles, size 42 through 47, and found that only the left size 46 sole matched this impression. H is depicted on the chart as a left impression also headed in a westerly direction.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And now directing your attention to 390-I for identification, can you tell us what analysis you performed and what opinions you arrived at?

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I is a right shoe impression, both the heel and the sole. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles and found that the size 46 characteristics, the European size 46, were the only ones which corresponded with this. This particular heel impression has a lot of excess squeeze out around the back of it and there is a very, very fine line that you can see from the edge of the heel, and this excess area which is void of any pattern is a squeeze-out effect due again to the amount of blood on the shoe and the angle of the heel at that point. So based on this, the size right 46 is the only sole that could have made it on the chart, I is a right shoe impression and it is heading in a westerly direction.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to 390-J for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions if any you arrived at on this?

 MR. BODZIAK: J is an impression, is a left sole impression. There is no heel depicted other than a slight staining here, but it's not enough to confirm as a heel. So looking at just the sole pattern alone of this impression with the size 42 through 47 left soles, I determined that the left size 46 contains characteristics which--some of which I've pointed to, indicating that the 46 sole of a left shoe left that. J is marked with a left sole shape and is headed in a westerly direction.


MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, looking at 190-K for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at on k?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. 190-K, the chart that is marked K, was an area of blood which you could clearly see the blood, but in looking for features that I have looked for in the comparisons that I have demonstrated that would be associated with this sole, there was insufficient detail in this impression to make any correlation. In other words, the impression is now becoming--this way down the side--the walkway is becoming light enough to where there is no longer enough detail in this particular one with all of the variables considered that would enable me to associate it positively with a left or right Silga sole.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to 390-L labeled as LAPD L, can you describe for us what analysis you did on that and what conclusions you reached?

 MR. BODZIAK: L is a--both a heel and sole impression. I made a comparison with the size 42 through 47 soles and determined that only the right size 46 heel and sole could have made that. When I orientated with the direction of this impression--and this L is a right sole marked so. The direction of this was in a--let's see--was in a southerly direction actually coming out of an area of soil that parallels that sidewalk.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Is that like a soil planter over there or place for shrubs?

 MR. BODZIAK: There's two or three feet of area as depicted on this diagram that contains some plants and soil.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And in that particular area right around where we have L, is there any object in the planter area in terms of shrubbery that you took note of when you were out at the scene?

 MR. BODZIAK: The only thing I noted at the scene, and you couldn't help but note it, at the time I was there, which was several months after this took place, there was a tree which was hanging well over the sidewalk at that point, and I made it a point to check the photographs which were taken after the crime--

 MR. GOLDBERG: On the 13th?

 MR. BODZIAK: --on the 13th of June. And at that time, that tree was standing normally and straight up, and, therefore, this was something that occurred afterwards and was insignificant.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your observations when you were out at the crime scene, if someone were to stand in that area facing in a southerly direction as indicated, would the shoeprints--are they visible from the street?

 MR. BODZIAK: Where they're standing here, they are because they would be in line of somebody standing out on the street. But back in the soil area, if they were just to step back into this area, even though there's no real cover there in terms of bushes, because of this high wall and the other obstructions, a person standing back here would not be able to see them (Indicating). They would be out of the line of sight.

 MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, if they were standing a little bit back of--in the--of M where the soil areas is?


 MR. GOLDBERG: And if you're facing--if you're standing in that location and you're facing a southerly direction, where is this tree that you referred to? Is it--would it be to your left or to your right?

 MR. BODZIAK: No. It's pretty much in the center around M and L. somewhere right in there. But it's a very thin tree. I mean, it's not going to obstruct a person from standing in there.


 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. M is a sole print. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles. I am of the opinion that the size 46, European size 46 sole, which would be the American 12, was the only sole that could have made that and those features matched. I orientated this at the Bundy location and found that M was also orientated in a southerly direction. So this is a left foot impression in the same approximate area as the right L foot impression headed in a southerly direction as if it were coming out of this area of soil.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And direct your attention to 390-N for identification. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinion you rendered on that?

 MR. BODZIAK: N is a heel impression. And at the top of the photograph, there is a part of the sole in that picture as well, and that is a heel impression which I compared with 42 through 47 soles and heels and found that the left size 46 or American size 12 made that impression. In orientating it at the scene, N is orientated as a left impression heading west along the Bundy sidewalk.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And then 390-O for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at?

 MR. BODZIAK: O is a portion of the heel and the sole impression. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles and found that it corresponded only with the European right 46 Silga sole. I oriented it at the Bundy scene and found it was heading in a southwesterly direction at an angle a little bit further west of L and M, but also as if it were exiting that soil area along the walkway.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And then P would be another indistinct I take it from the--

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it would.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just take a quick look at that. Can you just tell us with respect to 390-P, why you concluded that that was indistinct?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. 390-P does reflect blood, and it was in all probability made by an item of footwear as common sense would dictate, but it does not contain any of the detail necessary to compare with the Silga sole, but at the same time, it does not contain any differences that would indicate it was a different design than the Silga sole, simply getting to the point where there is insufficient blood on the shoe to make an impression that's discernible.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Or is there anything to indicate whether it would be a size European 46, American 12--


 MR. GOLDBERG: --as opposed to something else?

 MR. BODZIAK: No. I couldn't make any determination from that.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's go to footprint S for identification. That starts with another series of exhibit numbers. That's 391. Did you do an analysis on 391?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

 MR. GOLDBERG: What opinions did you conclude on that?

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. S is a heel print--let me hold it this way--is a heel print that I compared to the 42 through 47 soles and found that it corresponded with the left European size 46 heel and did not correspond with any others and, therefore, was made by a shoe from the Silga left size 46 mold. I oriented that on the walkway and found that that heel was heading in a southwesterly direction.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to People's 392-X--excuse me--392, which is LAPD X for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you came up with on those?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. S--I'm sorry. X is the heel and part of a sole impression, and in comparing it to size 42 through 47, I determined that only the left size 46 Silga sole could have made this impression. I oriented it on the walkway and found that X was heading in a due westerly direction.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Showing you 390-Y, LAPD photograph Y, can you tell us what analysis you did on that and what conclusions that you reached?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Y is a full heel and some of the sole impression of a right shoe and I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles, both left and right, and found that was made in a right size 46 European Silga sole. I orientated the Y at the Bundy scene as a right impression heading in a westerly direction.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, I would like to change to the other half of the Bundy board. It is exhibit 387-B for identification. And Mr. Bodziak, does that have some more footprints on which you were able to make a comparison?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to the exhibit that has been marked as People's 394 for identification and it says, "Q116" on it. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you rendered?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Q116 was an impression in the rear driveway area and it consisted only of the right border area of a shoe. In this case there are two parallel lines that curve for three or four inches, as well as an area up at the toe that would be associated normally through my comparisons as a toe-off, in other words, why the shoe would tilt forward and perhaps some blood up around the toe of the shoe might then be left. And in making a comparison I determined that the right size 46 test impression, particularly the inner and outer border along that area, were the same relative size and same contour, and when put in that position, this little toe-off area corresponded with the toe, so there is a strong indication that this is a right size 46 Silga sole as well.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So is this one in which you did not come to a definitive opinion?

 MR. BODZIAK: I came to a definitive opinion that it was a right sole and that the characteristics which are evident there, namely, the two parallel lines, the inner and outer border along the right edge and the toe point up here, (Indicating), correspond, but there was not any of the remnants of the pattern as there were in the other impressions.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Was there anything on this one that was inconsistent with the Silga sole?

 MR. BODZIAK: No, there was not, and the orientation of that was in a westerly direction.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Mr. Bodziak, maybe you can look back at the display behind you of People's exhibit 56-G and tell us if there are any footwear impressions in that exhibit that you can correlate back to our chart on the Bundy drive?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. In the lower right-hand corner of the display there is a heel impression and that heel impression is the same heel impression which was at the corner of the front gate which I had called Q68 on the chart, on the Bundy board.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And on the Bundy board you had that oriented in a south--southerly direction but so it points to the west?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to the next exhibit which is People's--this is also a graphic photograph, your Honor--60 for identification. Are there any shoe wear impressions in that photograph that you can see and correlate back to our exhibit?

 MR. BODZIAK: There are, but they are very hard to see in this photograph. The same impression that I just mentioned, is that the center of the screen about--just above the midline, and it is actually, if you were to extend the finger of the person pointing outward, it would point pretty close to it.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be q--

 MR. BODZIAK: That would be Q68.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us the general area? If you can't see Q67, just tell us the area.

 MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. Q67 is located over near the envelope, again pretty much in the center of the screen. But a little bit to the left of the corner of the envelope, which is closest to the bottom of the screen, you can see some pattern and that is the area of the Q67 impression and it is oriented in such a manner that the front portion of the shoe would be over into the soil area.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, on 45-B, can you point out any other footwear impressions and correlate them to the Bundy drive chart?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On the second step in front of the area where you can see the toe of a white shoe, there is the impression which was called impression A, which was a sole of a left shoe, which was headed in the westerly direction. That would be on the second step.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And now taking a look at 45-C for identification.

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. In 45-C again first looking at the second step where the toe of the white shoe is, again you can see impression A, and then going up one more step, more toward the top of the picture where the leaf is, you can see what I have marked impression B, which is more to the other side of the step. And then coming toward this side, down toward the bottom of the screen, very, very lightly, you can see one of the--it is a right impression heading back down the step, very light, which is one of the last ones that I demonstrated. That is the photograph which I called Q122, which both contained both the left and right very light impressions and it was taken at an angle, not with the ruler.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, looking at People's 45-F for identification, can you tell us, generally speaking, what shoeprints or shoe impressions are indicated in this photograph with respect to the chart?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, we skipped a few feet since those steps, but it is basically down this walkway that impressions E, F, G, H, I, so forth as you look away off into the distance heading in a westerly direction.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And there was a part of your testimony this morning where you were testifying about L and M and where they were in relationship to some shrubbery that you saw in photographs that were taken on June the 13th. Can you tell us where that shrubbery is?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. The shrubbery is the shrubbed area to the right of the picture, beyond the railing, and in about the center area of that shrub area is a tall, thin tree and that is the tree I was referring to that at the time I went was leaning across the sidewalk, but as you can see in pictures that I checked, it was in a normal position, and that area is a couple feet deep, and it is that area where that taller tree is kind of in the center of the shrubbed area on the right that the impressions L and M come out of.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And were those impressions oriented so as to be west or toward the alley of the shrub or east toward Bundy drive?

 MR. BODZIAK: The L and M were oriented, as you look at this picture, to your left which would be a southerly direction.


 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to go back to the first part of the Bundy chart, which is People's 387-A for identification and direct your attention to a few of these indistinct shoeprints. Let's start with the one that was labeled K which you previously discussed. If you need to step down to--

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. (Witness complies.)

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, keeping in mind what you previously told us about how shoeprints are deposited at a crime scene, when you were talking about how they become fainter and fainter--


 MR. GOLDBERG: --is there anything to indicate whether shoeprint K indistinct was from a design other than the Silga sole?

 MR. BODZIAK: There is nothing to positively indicate that because you can't see the design that is in that, it is too indistinct, but there could be inferences that it was not another design simply because in order to have a light impression from footwear in blood, out in this area, there would have to be some impressions preceding it that were sharper, because they had more blood on them, and so it would not be possible for a person to step in blood, leave no distinct impressions and then out in the middle here, (Indicating), which is somewhat away from anything, just leave one indistinct impression, unless it was the same shoe that was going down the sidewalk, the Silga sole, and leaving that faint--just a faint mark that you couldn't really examine.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Would your answer be similar with respect to the other indistinct shoeprints, for example, the ones that generally occur between O and A on this diagram?

 MR. BODZIAK: Generally, yes. With regard to AH through AO, those are impressions where, if I might get the sole again, as you go down the step, the foot is just rolling over the corner of the step and it is squeezing out a little remnant of blood, and there is no real impression so to say those are just blood that are on the edges of the step, and so these I wouldn't really be able to comment upon, because they are not a typical impression. But nevertheless, since all of these preceding it are indistinct until you get back to the Silga soles, the deduction from that would be a strong inference that this was the Silga sole and the reason why these become indistinct was simply the blood had worn off insufficiently to where you could no longer see this kind of detail.


 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to these two exhibits, were you able to include or exclude the officer's shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location?

 MR. BODZIAK: I was able to exclude those officer's footprints as having made any of the distinguishable, you know, the Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning. That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officer's shoes.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And just for the record, the package of six photographs that I sent--just showed you, included Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.


 MR. GOLDBERG: And starting with the Bronco carpet, did you have occasion to see the Bronco carpet, LAPD item no. 33 for identification?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And where was it that you saw that?

 MR. BODZIAK: I saw that at the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory.

 MR. GOLDBERG: On what date?

 MR. BODZIAK: I believe it was September 1st, 1994.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Was anyone present when you saw it?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Present initially were Greg Matheson of the Los Angeles Police Department. There was two representatives from my laboratory to assist in the photography. Do you want the names of everyone?

 MR. GOLDBERG: No, that is okay.

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. There were two representatives of the Defense that were present and there were two other observers from the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory who stood in the background just to observe the procedure.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And did you see Mr. Matheson take any cuttings or samples from that item in your presence?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.


MR. GOLDBERG: [Are the shoe prints on the Bronco carpet consistent with the Bruno Magli Silga soles?]

 MR. BODZIAK: No. I think that these--these in here, (Indicating), probably show it as well as any, and actually there is--there isn't enough clarity throughout this whole thing to really point to it and say positively that is what it represents, but rather you are seeing a change of direction and that is what you would expect if there was some blood here and the carpet tuffed up. But there is also the phenomena of when you get into a Bronco that is up rather high and you step up into it with your shoe, there is going to be some movement in getting into a vehicle, and because of the thick nature of this carpeting, I wouldn't expect to see, necessarily, a clear rendition of--at that point of the shoe.


 MR. BODZIAK: So I couldn't eliminate and I couldn't positively associate it with the Silga sole.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Did you make any effort to assist law enforcement in trying to locate someone that might have sold the shoe to the Defendant, a Bruno Magli shoe?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

 MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do in terms of that?

 MR. BODZIAK: Initially I obtained the distribution records from Mr. Peter Grueterich, who is the owner of the Bruno Magli store in New Jersey that distributed the shoes in this case, and that listed all of the shoes in size 12 and 13 which were sent out or distributed in 1991 and 1992. The reason included size 13 was this request was made before I ever had any samples of the soles from Silga, and I was just, as I had mentioned earlier, making that general specific determination of shoe size, just with the measurement, whereas later on I would have only needed to ask him about the size 12. But I went and requested those and I also requested a list of 40 locations in the United States and Puerto Rico which sold these shoes, and I provided that information, along with photographs of the Bruno Magli shoes which he had sent me, and provided them to the Los Angeles Police Department and to the FBI office in Los Angeles for the purposes of looking for sales records at those stores of those shoes.

 MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge was a salesperson located who could recall having sold a Bruno Magli shoe of either the Lorenzo or Lyon type to the Defendant?

 MR. BODZIAK: No. To the best of my knowledge that was never done, because every store had a problem searching their records back that far.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge was any determination made whether or not these shoes were given to the Defendant as a gift?

 MR. BODZIAK: That is a possibility.

 MR. GOLDBERG: In the cases that you have analyzed you said many of the shoes are not recovered; is that correct?


 MR. GOLDBERG: Specifically limiting yourself to the cases that you have analyzed where the shoe impressions are in blood, is it uncommon not to recover shoes?

 MR. BODZIAK: Shoes are an article of clothing which are very personal to most people, and they--after we wear our shoes for a while they become comfortable and we do not like to give them up, and in most of the cases I receive which do not have a lot of blood in that case, either because it is a burglary or a shooting and the person wasn't near the victim, we find the shoes, because the person sees no reason to get rid of them and they are really not conscious of the shoes. In homicides where a lot of blood is shed and the subject steps in the blood and leaves bloody shoeprints, it is very common to not only not retrieve the shoes, but the bloody clothing as well, because it is obvious to the person who committed the crime that the clothing and the shoes are well covered with blood and that that would be incriminating and they usually discard them. In some of those cases we will recover that material from a dumpster or something, if someone sees them place it there, and then of course we would make comparisons to associate it with any suspect, but in a lot of the cases we never recover the clothing.


 MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to item no. 86, which you first saw on September the 1st at the Los Angeles Police Department, did you have the opportunity to look at that in more detail at your laboratory?

 MR. BODZIAK: I'm sorry, which item?

 MR. GOLDBERG: 86, the dress?


 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I found three areas of a heel print on the front of the dress and those areas were the top left corner of a heel, the curved border, and the flat edge on the right of the heel, and I prepared an overlay over this to show those three features, because those features are also found on the left Silga sole that I have previously been describing this morning. Namely, because the cut-off nature of the medial side of the heel, the pointed nature of the left side, and the curve in between, those same features appear on the dress. The impression was too limited to make any further comparison, so I cannot say that it was made by a Silga sole, but I can say that there was an impression which did share those three features. Even though that is limited, they are there.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And is this a shoe impression?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That is a heel impression.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, based upon your analysis of all of the items that we've discussed today, was there any indication that more than one pair of shoes was involved in this crime?

 MR. BODZIAK: No, there was not.

 MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your comparison of the Bruno Magli shoe with the Defendant's Reeboks, can you include him as a candidate who could have worn the shoes that created the impressions in this case?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I could include him as a candidate for possibly having worn those shoes.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further.




 MR. BAILEY: All right. Have you worked directly with your counterpart at the LAPD in cases including this one?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have in the past.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what about in this case?

 MR. BODZIAK: Worked in what capacity?

 MR. BAILEY: Well, in an advisory capacity. How early in the game were you consulted in this matter? Can you tell me?

 MR. BODZIAK: I was first--I first received the evidence I believe August 8th of 1994. I was advised that I would be receiving it a few days prior to that.

 MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. So you had no input at all in the handling of the crime scene, et cetera?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.


 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Had you been called upon to do so, do you have the equipment and experience to have looked in the home of the victim, Nicole Brown Simpson, for any evidence of footprints going in and out or on the carpet and other places?

 MR. BODZIAK: Bloody foot--

 MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant and beyond the scope of direct.

 THE COURT: Overruled.

 MR. BODZIAK: Bloody footprints or any footprints?

 MR. BAILEY: Any footprints.

 MR. BODZIAK: Would I have the ability to look in the home? Of course.


 MR. BAILEY: Were you at any time furnished any footwear impressions of the interior of the Nicole Brown Simpson home to examine or compare?



 MR. BAILEY: To your knowledge, were impressions or photographs ever attempted in the area of the soil where Mr. Goldman's body was found?

 MR. BODZIAK: I asked if there were any other impressions in this case than what I examined including casts or impressions photographed in soil. That's a routine question which I ask in any case because for some reason, we very often don't get all of the photographs or a person may make a cast and not think it turned out well and not send it in when in fact it may be of some value. So as a matter of routine, I asked if there were any others, and I was told there was not.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. So so far as you know, you have everything?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you said at the close of your testimony that Mr. Simpson was a candidate for having worn the shoes whose impressions you found in the photograph.

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: Well, what do you know besides the fact that you have some size 12 Reeboks that are apparently his that would make him a candidate?

 MR. BODZIAK: That would be what I was basing my statement on. I couldn't eliminate him. He certainly, with the size foot that would wear these shoes, could wear the Bruno Magli size 12, European size 46 shoes.

 MR. BAILEY: That size foot or any smaller foot within limits, correct?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. You're assuming that the perpetrator, whoever that may have been, wearing Bruno Magli shoes, size 46, was wearing his own shoes, aren't you?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, you can always get into the hypotheticals of could you have borrowed someone's shoes to commit a crime.

 MR. BAILEY: Or steal?

 MR. BODZIAK: Or steal them or whatever, sure. There's always those possibilities.


 MR. BAILEY: Can you not say as you examined the Reeboks these shoes didn't make any of those prints?

 MR. BODZIAK: I don't feel they did because they would of--there would have had to have been darker impressions. If you were being totally hypothetical about it and said could one of those impressions that were very, very faint somewhere down--further down the walkway in blood have left the impression, in theory, including unrealistic things like could somebody have carried that person wearing these shoes and then put them down or could they have walked along the soil and behind it and jumped over the wall and then stepped on the sidewalk, if you include those kind of things, then I couldn't eliminate them. But if that person were to walk through the blood down the Bundy walkway, there would be darker impressions before those light impressions.

 MR. BAILEY: Do you know where these came from, Mr. Bodziak?

 MR. BODZIAK: Do I know where they came from?

 MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

 MR. BODZIAK: They were represented to me as shoes that Mr. Simpson said that he wore the--either the day before the crime or the day of the crime.


 MR. BAILEY: Okay. What happens when officers who perhaps may be unaware of the phenomena of latent prints trample up the sidewalk before the technicians get there?

 MR. BODZIAK: Latent prints of what type, sir?

 MR. BAILEY: Footprints.

 MR. BODZIAK: I know. But in dust, in blood, in--

 MR. BAILEY: In the general circumstances in this case.

 MR. BODZIAK: In this case, the only ones I'm familiar with are blood. With regard to blood, at the time they arrived, they could have marched a hundred people over them. It wouldn't make any difference.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would not have disturbed it or otherwise changed the pattern because it had dried, right?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: Blood dries rather rapidly; does it not?

 MR. BODZIAK: Very rapidly.

 MR. BAILEY: If, assume for a minute, someone were to walk down a narrow path partially covered with leaves and partially concrete, might it be that whoever was doing the walking would leave footwear impressions of some kind?

 MR. BODZIAK: On the leaves or the concrete?

 MR. BAILEY: I'm not talking about bloody feet now. I'm just talking about street shoes.

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. With--well, I don't know how many leaves and how much concrete you're talking about. But with regard to leaves, leaves--I've never had a case where I had a footwear impression on leaves. I've never in walking around--and believe--I've created a lot of cases for training. In walking around trying to make impressions, I've never had a case where I could make an impression on a leaf. As I explained earlier today, in theory, if you had a bloody shoe and you stepped on a leaf, aside from the fact it would have probably stuck to the shoe and may got--eventually got scraped off, it's conceivable you could find a leaf or two with some partial impressions on it. It's conceivable, but I've never seen one in over 20 years.


 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Fine. When you began to lay out all of the positive footprints that you've testified here today as to left and right--


 MR. BAILEY: --and see what appears to be movement of someone both down at the gate, on the steps and then in a fairly straight line out to the west as if making good one's escape, did you notice something very odd about the pattern?

 MR. BODZIAK: About the ones that I have labeled left or right?


 MR. BODZIAK: There's two many of them.

 MR. BAILEY: What do you mean by "Too many"?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, the person in those Bruno Magli shoes didn't just walk down the walkway once. They went back somehow and walked down again.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, why are your impressions generally going to the west?

 MR. BODZIAK: Because that's where the blood is and they're tracking the blood from east to west.

 MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. And what about the stop and turn? I want to point specifically to I believe it's L and m.


 MR. BAILEY: These two here both facing directly into the house (Indicating).


 MR. BAILEY: You notice by the way that the left and right are on the wrong side?


 MR. BAILEY: And do you have any explanation as to how those were made?

 MR. BODZIAK: I wouldn't purport to be able to reconstruct exactly what happened, but it appears likely that the person may have been standing over in that bush area where the tree was to get out of the line of sight perhaps and then came out of that area initially in the direction of the doorway and then proceeded back west again.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. If the set of prints that leads up to L and M were made by the same shoes as L and M, we have a person who's turned 90 degrees and standing like this; do we not (Indicating)?

 MR. BODZIAK: Not if they're two different sets of tracks.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So are you assuming that we have a right but no left and a left but no right standing next to one--each other and both facing south?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'm not assuming if that's what's there and I can't explain why that is happening.


 MR. BAILEY: All right. You have identified a Bruno Magli or Magli 46/size 12 shoe as the only prints, left and right, that you are able to single out, correct?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: And no other shoe of any manufacturer have you been able to pin to any of these impressions, true?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: So if there was more than one person running, it would appear that they were both wearing Bruno Magli 46; is that right?

 MR. BODZIAK: Or one person went back--after they have worn the blood off their shoe, they went back to the front gate area, reobtained blood on their shoe through whatever activity or walking through the blood they were doing, and then exited that area again. So it could be the same person. In fact, it's very likely that it's the same person.

 MR. BAILEY: In other words, having made good one's escape to the alley, you're assuming that somebody, a perpetrator then returned, stepped in more blood and made more prints?

 MR. BODZIAK: If they encountered the second victim in this case or they forgot something or had some other reason to go back, yes.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you show me any two prints that overlap?


 MR. BAILEY: In the event that someone had done as you suggest and left the alley and then come back for some reason and stepped in blood, would you not be likely to find at least two prints that overlap one other?

 MR. BODZIAK: Not in an area that big, not necessarily.

 MR. BAILEY: Well, it looks like a walking pattern on that diagram; does it not?

 MR. BODZIAK: No. It looks like--it looks like two persons--two separate walkings of one person.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is the southward facing set of prints, even though they appear to be reversed, that is to say L and m--and L is the right foot and M is the left foot, right?


 MR. BAILEY: Is that consistent with someone who is leaving and turns to look back for some reason?

 MR. BODZIAK: No. I mean it could be, but I would think--

 MR. BAILEY: Would you step up to the board--


 MR. BAILEY: --and tell me why that is not consistent with the prints we see? What mitigates against it?

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. You're referring to L and m.

 MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

 MR. BODZIAK: And you're saying could that person--I'm not sure your enactment of that--

 MR. BAILEY: Assume that I'm running or walking west out of the alley.

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. This direction (Indicating).

 MR. BAILEY: And then turn in some fashion.


 MR. BAILEY: 90 degrees in order to look back 180 degrees.

 MR. BODZIAK: Right.

 MR. BAILEY: Might that have caused those impressions?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, it would be on the opposite side.


 MR. BAILEY: When you photographed or looked at the photographs of L and m--you didn't take any of these, did you?


 MR. BAILEY: When you examined those photographs, did you see any evidence of any soil in them?

 MR. BODZIAK: In the photograph--of the impressions? No.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. So when you speculate that the author of L and M may have stepped backward into the soil, that is just that, isn't it, speculation?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, it's speculation as much as I can't say that's absolutely what happened. But I would not necessarily expect there to be soil from stepping back in that area. If the soil was very hard or if it was covered with low-growing vegetation, there may be nothing on the shoe and they would still be depositing blood impressions.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you have said--and again, you're assuming that someone wants to get out of the line of sight. Line of sight of what?

 MR. BODZIAK: Whatever they're trying to avoid. A person coming to the gate, a noise out on the front, a noise in the back, anything.

 MR. BAILEY: Did you attempt to do that yourself and see if you removed yourself at all from the line of sight of either end?

 MR. BODZIAK: Just by standing on the edge of the sidewalk, you're out of the line of sight of the front. Yes, I did observe that, because when I was reconstructing the position of these, I was surprised to see them in this configuration and I was looking for an explanation of why these would be in this direction. And the one that I have given you is one of the better ones that I thought of.


 MR. BAILEY: But your theory is that somebody was trying to hide from someone; is that right?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's--as I represented that as a hypothetical, that might be one plausible explanation of why L and M were heading out of that soil area.


 MR. BAILEY: If your theory is correct and somebody, having committed one murder and created a lot of blood, got partway up the walkway and decided to turn around and head back, do you see the turning point anywhere in your reconstruction?

 MR. BODZIAK: If--no, I do not see a point where footprints turn around, but I would not expect that that would eliminate the possibility that they did turn around.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, without any evidence of turn-around, supposing you had two people with the same brand and size of shoe.

 MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion, that would not occur in this case.

 MR. BAILEY: Why not?

 MR. BODZIAK: Because in all of the cases I've worked, I can count on one hand the number of cases where a common shoe like this Reebok that's sold in many, many stores, both in size and design were shared by two persons simultaneously at the crime scene. It has occurred, but only on a couple of occasions and only with common shoes. You might, for instance, with regard to certain gangs that wear the same pattern of shoes find that type of a scenario. With regard to different suspects wearing different size shoes of the same brand, I've only had a couple cases like this. So in most instances, if they did have the same brand shoes, they would be different sizes, and only that has occurred to my knowledge a couple times over 20 years. Those are with common shoes. These shoes were very uncommon, and most of the shoe stores around the country only carried at one time one size 12. To conjecture with what I know about this, that two people independently bought size 12 Bruno Magli shoes at different points or over different months apart from the same store or at different stores--and they were only sold by 40 stores--and just happened to commit this crime together is impossible for me to believe.


 MR. BAILEY: Would it be possible for two people to arrange--knowing that footwear, particularly if you're in the business of crime, can be almost as dangerous as a fingerprint, would it be possible for two people to arrange to arrive at a crime scene in the same footwear, make and model?

 MR. BODZIAK: Of this type, Bruno Magli size 12?

 MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

 MR. BODZIAK: Sole to soles?


 MR. BODZIAK: As I stated in my opinion, no.

 MR. BAILEY: Do you mean to say it would be impossible to buy two pair of those shoes in the United States?

 MR. BODZIAK: You're suggesting that they intentionally did it, right?

 MR. BAILEY: Absolutely.

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. And the reason I'm saying no is because most people, even fairly knowledgeable people about evidence, would not have the degree of knowledge necessary to know where to find some kind of a rare shoe. I mean they would go for a common shoe like-- if, presuming that that could be done with a common shoe, they would do that with a common shoe. They would not be searching for a $160 to $180 Bruno Magli shoes where they had to go halfway--you know, to different states at the same time to buy them in the same size. Just--in my opinion, it wouldn't happen. It's--it's uncanny. I don't believe it happened and I don't believe it happens intentionally or otherwise.

 MR. BAILEY: But it's possible?

 MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion--

 MR. GOLDBERG: That's argumentative, your Honor.

 THE COURT: Overruled.

 MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion, it's not even possible because it's so ridiculous.


 MR. BAILEY: Well, of course, the criminals that you know about who left footwear impressions weren't so smart because they get caught, right?

 MR. BODZIAK: And often they get caught a second time with foot impressions.


 MR. BAILEY: In any event, have you ever heard of bank robbers that wears covers or masks, funny mask or something?

 MR. BODZIAK: All the time, yes.

 MR. BAILEY: And that's so that no one can testify, "I saw that face," right?

 MR. BODZIAK: Or that the bank camera will not pick up their face.

 MR. BAILEY: Have you heard of others who deliberately make themselves up with some degree of expertise to look like someone they are not?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, that's rare, but I've heard of it, yes.

 MR. BAILEY: A higher level of profession; wouldn't you say?

 MR. BODZIAK: Or a different approach, yes.

 MR. BAILEY: Well, that would cause a victim/witness to look right at the perpetrator and say, "That's not the man"?

 MR. GOLDBERG: That is not relevant.

 THE COURT: Overruled.

 MR. BODZIAK: I guess you could make that argument, yes.

 MR. BAILEY: Well, that would be the purpose of it; wouldn't you think?

 MR. BODZIAK: It certainly would be.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, haven't you investigated crimes, Mr. Bodziak, where it was apparent that the perpetrators were trying to mislead detectives?

 MR. BODZIAK: I've--I've had a couple cases where they have tried to plant evidence or create evidence to divert the attention from themselves, but that became known in the normal processing of the crime scene. There were things that didn't make sense and it was ultimately other evidence caused them to admit that they did these things, and they confessed, but they weren't very sophisticated.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. And then there are any number of unsolved crimes where we don't know whether that happened or not, right?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's possible, yes.

 MR. BAILEY: Without a solution, you don't know whether the planted evidence has misled the officers?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's right. Sure.

 MR. BAILEY: Well, to bring to our conclusion our investigation of the possibilities that could have led to this evidence that you have compiled for us, my understanding is, your best explanation of the excess number of footprints that appears to be there is that one perpetrator wearing one pair of Bruno Magli shoes left the scene, went back, got some more blood and left the scene a second time.


 MR. BAILEY: Well, when I say "The scene," Mr. Bodziak, I mean the immediate vicinity of the killing where the bodies were found. I do not mean the general surround.

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The--there--there would have to be one person with the Bruno Magli size shoes that did exactly what you described, left a set of impressions. The blood would have been worn off their shoes, so you wouldn't see a turnaround or a--footprints coming back, and then they would have new blood on the shoes for possible reasons, either a second victim or just walking back through the blood of the two victims and then leaving the scene again.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. You are making the assumption in that scenario that before the perpetrator turns and goes back to where the bodies are found, that all the blood is gone from the soles at least so much as is capable of leaving an impression?

 MR. BODZIAK: The physical evidence at the scene which doesn't lie is making that assumption, sir.

 MR. BAILEY: Show me a single print going the other way.

 MR. BODZIAK: That's my point. There is none, and yet there are two sets of tracks of the same size and design shoe. And in my opinion, because of the scarcity and the--in some cases, stores carry one pair of size 12's and didn't get another till a year later. The scarcity of that design rules out any possibility that there were two people simultaneously with the same pairs of shoes on, Bruno Magli size 12. So that person would have had to have turned around, and obviously the blood is no longer on their feet, they didn't track backwards and they rebloodied the shoes and left again.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. And is that the best you are able to make out of the evidence that's before us despite the fact that there is not one single overlapping step?

 MR. BODZIAK: I wouldn't--that's a big area. I wouldn't expect an over-- when you say "Overlapping," you're talking about one step touching another.

 MR. BAILEY: One part of an impression overlapping--

 MR. BODZIAK: Overlapping another.

 MR. BAILEY: --preexisting impression from trip no. 1 in your scenario.

 MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. That--that is a large area. That wouldn't be unusual at all, for those two--two sets of tracks of one person not overlapping.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. What is inconsistent about that set of tracks with someone taking very small steps, about a foot at a time?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, if you look at those impressions and you try to--to reenact that as one set of impressions, stepping left and then right and covering every one of those, you would--I don't know how to describe it, but you would look like unlike anybody that normally walks or runs. You would be dancing around. So--


 MR. BAILEY: But to the best of your knowledge, from 1992 to the date of the crime, June 12th, 1994, [no Bruno Magli shoes] were made or distributed, right?

 MR. BODZIAK: They--not in this country.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, there was a European version called Lord was it?

 MR. BODZIAK: Lord, l-o-r-d, yes.

 MR. BAILEY: And that's what you learned by confirming with your colleagues in Tokyo, correct?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, I confirmed that at Desoga factory and in fact, they provided me with their distribution of the soles to other companies in Europe who then sold the shoe in Europe, primarily Italy. And I contacted them to determine if any Lord shoes were sold in the United States. And as thorough as I could be--since a couple of factories did go out of business and there was no one to contact, as thorough as I could be, no one had any records of selling any Lord shoes in the United States.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. So you are pretty well satisfied that wherever those shoes may now be, they are Bruno Maglis?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, the likelihood is there. I certainly can't rule out the possibility that someone went to Europe and Italy and bought a pair of ones with Lord on it and came back to the United States, but there wouldn't be a great number of those.

 MR. BAILEY: If they were purchased in the United States by whomever, they would be Bruno Maglis, correct?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, by the way, you told us this morning when you showed us a certain table where you can give a range of heights for shoe sizes, that that's kind of an approximate situation.

 MR. BODZIAK: Oh, certainly. The purpose of that--of the chart that I prepared was simply to show that the taller you get, there's a--the bigger your foot is, therefore, the bigger the shoe is. It's simply a correlation.

 MR. BAILEY: Generally speaking?


 MR. BAILEY: There are prominent exceptions all the time; are there not?

 MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

 MR. BAILEY: Mr. Douglas, could you stand up, please?

 (Mr. Douglas complies.)

 MR. BAILEY: Can you estimate his height and weight and tell me what size you think his shoe ought to be?

 MR. BODZIAK: I can't estimate his weight from up here, no.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, would you assume that he's about 5/10, 170 pounds?

 MR. BODZIAK: How tall are you?

 MR. BAILEY: 5/9.

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, he looks like he's probably about at least 5/10, maybe 5/11.

 MR. BAILEY: Well, that's just his hair.

 MR. BODZIAK: You've got--you've got raised heels on. So I don't know if you--

 MR. BAILEY: I hadn't asked you. Take a look at Mr. Douglas' feet, tell me what size they are.

 MR. BODZIAK: They're pretty long and narrow. They're probably--well, can I walk up and look at them closely?

 MR. BAILEY: Sure. You can meet halfway.

 MR. BODZIAK: They're pretty long. They're probably 12 or 13's.

 MR. BAILEY: That's a little off the chart, isn't it?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, I said that that was based on 399 males and it was just to show correlation, and I readily admit that there's exceptions, sure.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. And you were working with a single size when you give that range; are you not? In other words, you said a 12 on this chart, so many inches and so many inches.

 MR. BODZIAK: The purpose of the chart was just to show that a person--the general range of height of a person with a size 12.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. As I understand it, you never did get a response to your request, a factual response with details to inventory Mr. Simpson's shoe arena?


 MR. BODZIAK: I never received any additional shoes, no.

 MR. BAILEY: Would it surprise you that in his shoe closet, there are sizes as small as ten and a half and as large as 13, all of which he wears?

 MR. BODZIAK: Not at all. In fact, in my book, I cite that very example, where my shoes range from eight to 10 and I normally wear a nine.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So the fact that these Bruno Maglis happened to be a 12 might fit different people of different sizes because manufacturers are not precise in their sizing. Isn't that a fair statement?

 MR. BODZIAK: They--what I was saying is that we could not eliminate Mr. Simpson. He is a candidate based on these shoes (Indicating) as the wearer of a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe and we're saying nothing more.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay.

 MR. GOLDBERG: For the record--

 MR. BAILEY: Excuse me.

 MR. GOLDBERG: --when he said "These shoes," he gestured towards the Reeboks.



 MR. BAILEY: None of your impressions gave any indication as to weight?

 MR. BODZIAK: There's no valid way to do that, sir.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So that all that you say when you say someone's a candidate is, they could have worn those shoes that night?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: Even if they were much too big?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'm saying that I believe they are the same as I--when I held them up together, the same size--

 MR. BAILEY: Size 12.

 MR. BODZIAK: --and interior as well as exterior, and that if Mr. Simpson wore these shoes, then they would be shoes he would possibly wear a size 12 Bruno Magli.

 MR. BAILEY: Well, how many people statistically could fit into those shoes?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, there--"Could fit," and you brought up the point earlier a person with a size nine could wear them. They certainly wouldn't fit good. They'd be stumbling all over the place. But could they put them on? Yes. So you--you're asking a question which I can't give a definitive answer to obviously. Even a size 12, over nine percent of the population is size 12. So a lot of people.

 MR. BAILEY: How many 11's and 13's?

 MR. BODZIAK: I don't know the exact percentages for those.

 MR. BAILEY: Many more people, right?

 MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. And are you saying that a person with a size eight or nine foot who tried those shoes on and laced them up would be necessarily stumbling all over himself?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yeah, because I've tried that.

 MR. BAILEY: With these shoes?


 MR. BAILEY: And you fell on your face?

 MR. BODZIAK: I didn't fall on my face. But if I was trying to commit a crime, I'd never feel comfortable doing that. I wouldn't be running down a sidewalk or even trying to get somewhere in a hurry with that. I--again, I know of one possible case in over 20 years where this happened, and a person wore his brother's shoes. And I don't think it was to throw anybody off. I think he didn't have any shoes. So it became quite evident what happened because the brother was on a naval I think ship out in the Pacific and they knew it couldn't be him. So it's just a rare occasion. You can say hypothetically could it happen, but it doesn't happen as a matter of regular practice.

 MR. BAILEY: So your experience is that criminals just aren't smart enough to wear oversized shoes to mislead the police; is that right?

 MR. BODZIAK: My experience is that shoes are a personal item of clothing and people generally wear shoes that are theirs except for social economic reasons or hand me downs of brothers and things of that nature. An adult who is affluent enough to purchase their own shoes generally regards their shoes as their own and those are the shoes they wear. I can't rule out the hypotheticals that you're postulating because common sense dictates there's no basis for ruling that out. As a practice of practice and my experience, this just doesn't happen except in rare, rare occasions.

 MR. BAILEY: In 40 percent of cases where no shoes were recovered for matching purposes as is the case here, then you have no information as to whether the perpetrator was wearing his correct size or a larger one, correct?

 MR. BODZIAK: Only based on my experience of the other 60 percent, which is what I've just said.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. Uh, 60 percent you said were people who wore their own shoes to the crime.

 MR. BODZIAK: Which is pretty representative over a 20-year period of time. It's--if you were to ask people in general whether they typically loan out their shoes, men's athletic shoes, men's casual shoes, they generally don't unless there's mitigating circumstances.

 MR. BAILEY: I'm not talking about loaning anything. I'm saying that in the 40 percent you didn't recover, for all you know, someone deliberately wore the wrong size--

 MR. BODZIAK: I can't rule the possibility out. I'm just saying it is not something I normally encounter.

 MR. BAILEY: You know that killers who premeditate often disguise themselves, do you not, one way or another?

 MR. BODZIAK: Who--I'm sorry? Who meditates?

 MR. BAILEY: Premeditated.

 MR. BODZIAK: Premeditated?

 MR. BAILEY: People planning a murder--


 MR. BAILEY: --will often try to disguise themselves, will wear gloves?

 MR. BODZIAK: People are much more aware of fingerprints--

 MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

 MR. BODZIAK: --then they are of footprints and they are much more aware of personal identification of a face and they wear masks. They are far, far less cognizant of hiding their feet. And the hands and face don't normally have personalized articles of clothing that they wear on them. The shoes are personalized articles of clothing. People like to wear their own shoes.

 MR. BAILEY: And so far as you know, despite the fact that long before you got on the scene, criminals were being identified by their footprints, you think it's not a subject of their concern; is that right?

 MR. BODZIAK: I'm surprised it's not--

 MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

 THE COURT: Overruled.

 MR. BODZIAK: I'm surprised it's not, but it isn't.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, let's get to the Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes were made in part by a company called Uma in Italy?

 MR. BODZIAK: U-m-a--

 MR. BAILEY: U-m-a, whatever.

 MR. BODZIAK: Bruno Magli makes them in Italy. I mean, there's a--I don't know the exact correct terminology for who owns what, but Bruno Magli in the United States purchases them through a Bruno Magli representative in Italy. I don't know exactly where the u-m-a initials come in, if that's a separate company and he owns them both or if it's related to the Bruno Magli.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. But two different companies make two different parts of the shoe which are joined and the finished product is produced?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. And you attempted through the executives in the company to learn everything you could about these two styles of shoes, how many were made, when they were made, when they were shipped, et cetera, correct?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: And particularly once you learned that 46 would fit the blood pattern which I assume was after you went to the factory and obtained all your exemplar soles?

 MR. BODZIAK: Actually, the soles were shipped to me prior to that, and this--the trip was to confirm that and learn more about how the American size last, size 12 last was used and to assure that they didn't use other sizes, size last or put other sizes on. And that was the purpose of the trip.

 MR. BAILEY: And you satisfied yourself that they did not?


 MR. BAILEY: And you learned that they did not ship Bruno Magli shoes of this type to any other country; is that correct?

 MR. BODZIAK: Oh, no. They could have sold Bruno Magli shoes to other countries. I just couldn't find a tracing of it. In other words--

 MR. BAILEY: All right. The ones that came to America came through Mr. Grueterich in New Jersey?


 MR. BAILEY: That was the sole distribution point for the U.S.?

 MR. BODZIAK: His distribution as I understand it covers North America, South America, the Caribbean and the United States, and I believe these were the 40 stores he distributed to them. Whether Bruno Magli sold that sole in Europe through one of those other Italian factories, what names might have been on those shoes produced in Italy, I didn't pursue that. I was only inquiring as to those people as to whether or not any of their shoes, regardless of whether they were Bruno Magli or Lord or whatever, were shipped otherwise to the United States other than the ones that Peter Grueterich sold.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did he, if you know, drop ship to other countries or did he physically get the shoes and reship them?

 MR. BODZIAK: All I know is that he told me he was the owner of that design, that they were only on Bruno Maglis and that all of the shoes that were sold in the United States were distributed by him. As to how he did the distribution, drop ship or whatever, I didn't determine that.

 MR. BAILEY: All right. During the years `91 and `92, do you know how many pair of Bruno Magli shoes period were imported through Mr. Grueterich into the United States, forgetting Canada and South America?

 MR. BODZIAK: Of any design?

 MR. BAILEY: No. These two.

 MR. BODZIAK: Of this design?

 MR. BAILEY: These two.

 MR. BODZIAK: I only know for size 12, there were a total of 299 size 12's only that were shipped in--that were distributed throughout the United States.

 MR. BAILEY: Were any returned, if you know?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, obviously these two, one of these is a 12. So we're down to 298. And I would imagine that there were some which--I know there were some which were returned and like sold as reduced prices through stores like Sims, and whether there were any left after, I--I asked him about that, and I believe he told me about three percent is a typical average, but he didn't know the exact number in this case.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. What did these shoes run at retail before they were devalued in the secondary stores?

 MR. BODZIAK: The price tag that's still in one of these shoes says $160.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. That's fairly expensive for a fair of shoes; wouldn't you say?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. How many different stores actually receive a shipment of a size 12 shoe according to the records of Mr. Grueterich?

 MR. BODZIAK: How many stores? There were a total of 40 stores in the United States including one in Puerto Rico.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. And how many did each one receive, if you know?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'd have to--there's a large list I have that breaks that down by date that goes through. But in most cases, the shipments were one pair at a time to these stores, and then maybe six months later, as they replenish their stock, they would order another size 12, and this happened three or four shipments over a two-year period to each store. So most stores didn't carry more than one size 12 at one time, although a few stores did.

 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would you tell the Court and jury where these stores are located in the United States?


 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So in California, in other words, one in Costa mesa and one in San Francisco--I thought I heard one other.

 MR. BODZIAK: Two in California.

 MR. BAILEY: Two in California. Many in New York, fair statement?

 MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

 MR. BAILEY: Now, are these big chains mostly or are they small individual--

 MR. BODZIAK: Oh, Saks, Bloomingdales were some of the bigger stores in New York. There's Saks all over the country.

 MR. BAILEY: Right. I think you told us on direct examination that an effort was made to find out whether there was any record of any sale to Mr. Simpson.

 MR. BODZIAK: An effort was made by our FBI office in Los Angeles, was directed by the FBI office and the--in conjunction with the LAPD homicide unit.


 MR. BAILEY: So far as you know, it's all negative, right?

 MR. BODZIAK: At this point, yes, sir.




 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, breaking down the Bundy drive location into some discreet components, I want to ask you some questions about searching and retrieving shoeprints.


 MR. GOLDBERG: So if detectives did a search of this area with the flashlight, would that qualify as a competent search for shoe impressions in that area?

 MR. BODZIAK: If they were using the flashlights specifically in that manner and were carefully looking, that light would be adequate for finding them, yes.


 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to a daytime search of the area that we've been referring to as the walk, which is made of the tiles and the concrete, what would constitute a competent search of this area for bloody shoeprints and also possible latent shoeprints during the day?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, the bloody shoeprints of course would--for just searching for them or for recovering them?

 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let's start with searching for them.

 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Searching for them, again, just a light source that would enable you to adequately see the sidewalk area. Daylight would be better. If you were looking at night, any light source that was adequate enough to illuminate the sidewalk so you could see the sidewalk would be adequate. The brighter the light, obviously, it would make it easier.

 MR. GOLDBERG: What about using--we've heard testimony about oblique light and alternate light and all these fancy things. What about using those on the surface that we're referring to as the walkway, the concrete and the tile for the purposes of trying to look for latent shoeprints? Shouldn't that have been done?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, I--I have never seen a latent shoeprint except in one occasion, which was a rarity, in Florida. I haven't seen a latent shoeprint on a concrete surface in all of the other cases I worked because concrete is inherently dusty and dirty and rough and porous. And for a flat surface, in order to see those minute residue impressions, you have to literally skim the surface, and you can't do that with an oblique light source on concrete or concrete walkway such as this because magnified, it's going look this (Indicating) in the light which has cast a lot of shadows and irregularities. Secondly, a residue impression would not occur on this sidewalk because--residue meaning dust or dirt, because, as I had mentioned before, whether you're walking across the carpeting here or concrete, you're picking up the same and redepositing the same residue and you wouldn't see any differentiation. Only have one case where I saw someone walk across wet sand in Florida, and then the sand was deposited on the concrete and gave adequate differentiation to leave impressions. Other than that, I've never seen one on concrete.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, what about using some other technique like an electrostatic dust print lifter in order to look for latent prints that might have existed on the walkway area--

 MR. BODZIAK: It wouldn't--

 MR. GOLDBERG: --during the daytime search?

 MR. BODZIAK: It wouldn't be applicable for residue impressions because you're picking up the same residue and putting it turn. The only time the electrostatic lifting device is of use is when you step on something relatively clean. So if there was an object that was clean laying across the walkway and you were picking the residue up from the normal concrete and then stepped on that clean object, then you could make a lift of that object and you may recover a footwear impression. But you wouldn't recover it from the walkway itself.


 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And based upon that as well as your reviewing of the evidence in this case that you've previously discussed and your understanding of how that scene was processed, was the scene insofar as shoeprints are concerned processed in a competent manner when you're comparing it to what you've grown to understand as the national standard in the forensic community?

 MR. BODZIAK: With regard just to the photographs or the whole scene?

 MR. GOLDBERG: The photographs and the scene.

 MR. BODZIAK: The photographs were adequate. They are better than most that we receive in the laboratory.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what about the rest of the processing?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, I would have, as I previously stated, tried a protein stain or some other chemical enhancement on the impressions. In cases of bloody impressions on a light colored surface such as this walkway, in most cases, the chemical enhancement gives very little additional enhancement. But I would have tried it as a practice. If we had a pair of shoes to compare with these tracks, then perhaps that fine difference of what we might have achieved with chemical enhancement versus what we have with good photographs might have made a difference. For purposes of determining what size shoe it was and what pattern it was, which you can see already with the photographs, it wouldn't have made any difference.

 MR. GOLDBERG: So in terms of what you're used to getting at the FBI for purposes of analysis in the area of shoeprints, was the quality of the work that was done here in terms of shoeprints pretty high?

 MR. BODZIAK: Well, I can only Judge by what I received; and what I received was good quality for comparison purposes.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked some questions about various hypotheticals in terms of how these two shoeprints--how the shoeprints, the left and right shoeprints and the indistinct ones could have been deposited at the crime scene. Do you recall that series of questions?

 MR. BODZIAK: With regard to-- Mr. Bailey.

 MR. BODZIAK: --by M and N and O?



 MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, is there anything that you observed in your analysis in addition to what you've already told us in terms of the wear characteristics of the shoes which would be helpful to us in resolving this scenario that you were given in which two individuals purchased two size 12 Bruno Magli shoes in 1991 or `92 and then saved them for a special occasion where they wanted to dress up in their nice Italian loafers for the purpose of committing a murder? Is there anything you can tell us about the wear characteristics that would help us resolve that hypothetical?

 MR. BODZIAK: Only in general terms that none of the impressions showed any great degree of wear. As I've mentioned before, they were either unworn or of very little wear. And so, again, to the hypothetical, which I don't agree with, that two people did this, that would also mean that they didn't wear their shoes very much until they committed this crime, which is not what I agree with.


MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in terms of the hypotheticals that you were given, is there anything that would rule out the possibility that a suspect went down the walkway and then at some point realized that he had left a hat and also a glove behind and came back for the purposes of trying to find them could not do so or became alarmed and then fled the crime scene?

 MR. BODZIAK: I'm not sure what you're asking me.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything that would tell you that that did not happen or did happen?

 MR. BODZIAK: Based on the footprints?


 MR. BODZIAK: Well, as I've stated before, I believe the same person left both sets of footprints, which means that they had to have turned back and come back to that scene. So that certainly is one of many possibilities.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked whether there were any footprints that were facing in the other direction, meaning in an easterly direction on this diagram, in the area of the stairs. Was there such a footprint?

 MR. BODZIAK: There's a very light footprint coming down the stairs on the same step as impression number B. that was the enlarged photograph which I had said did not have a scale or a--it was taken at a slight angle, and to which I had two overlays taped to, one going in one direction and one in the other. One of those was coming back down the step and it--it was just a very fragment of the edge of the shoe. So because it was coming down the step, it's possible that, again, with that weight being emphasized on that foot, there might be a little bit of blood squeezed out that wasn't coming out before and you could have had that light impression. So that's possible that that was a representation of the return of the person after the first walking down the sidewalk.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Can you show us where that is on the Bundy chart?

 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The blue or purple right footwear impression, which is the center impression on the step which is marked B, is very, very light and coming back down in an easterly direction toward the original crime scene (Indicating).

 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. And, sir, in your experience with the Federal Bureau of Investigation analyzing footprints, footprint cases, have you ever heard of a case where two suspects bought two shoes of the same size with the same lack of wear characteristics on them and then walked at a crime scene in such a way so as to replicate only one person having been at the crime scene?

 MR. BODZIAK: No, I haven't.

 MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

 MR. GOLDBERG: I have nothing further.

 THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

 MR. BAILEY: Nothing further, your Honor.

 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bodziak, thank you very much, sir. You are excused.

O. J. Simpson Trial Homepage