Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:394
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: TRANSCRIPT - 9/14/95
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:01:33 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 4921
Sender:
[email protected]
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995
9:25 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(PAGES 45745 THROUGH 45785,
VOLUME 222A, TRANSCRIBED AND
SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
MR. SIMPSON IS PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR.
COCHRAN, MR. BLASIER, MR. SCHECK, MR. NEUFELD, PEOPLE REPRESENTED
BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN.
GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
MS. CLARK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AS FAR AS SCHEDULING IS CONCERNED TODAY, I UNDERSTAND
WE'RE GOING TO CONCLUDE WITH MISS RAMIREZ AND THEN I UNDERSTAND
THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION OF MR.
DEEDRICK AND MR. BODZIAK; IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. CLARK: YES, WITH ONE ADDITION, YOUR HONOR. I
UNDERSTAND THAT -- I THINK -- WE HAVE INFORMED COUNSEL WE FORGOT
TO PUT ON THE LIST A PHOTOGRAPHER.
THE COURT: MR. ADKINS?
MS. CLARK: RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT, IT WOULD
VIOLATE THE THREE-DAY RULE. BUT SINCE THE PEOPLE HAVE ONLY TWO
OTHER WITNESSES, WE NEED SOME TIME TO INTERVIEW MR. ADKINS. SO
WE'LL NEED SOME TIME ON THAT AND PROBABLY WE'LL BE READY AFTER
THAT.
I SPOKE BRIEFLY WITH MR. DARDEN ABOUT THE SCOPE OF
THIS. WE CAN TALK TO MR. ADKINS. WE MAY BE ABLE -- I BELIEVE
THAT'S MR. NEUFELD'S WITNESS. WE MAY BE ABLE TO PROCEED ON THAT,
BUT WE'LL NEED SOME TIME.
MS. CLARK: HE SHOULD BE VERY BRIEF.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE AN ORAL ESTIMATE? DO THE PEOPLE
EXPECT TO FINISH THEIR CASE EITHER -- DEPENDING ON MY
CROSS-EXAMINATION, BY TOMORROW AT THE LATEST?
MS. CLARK: WELL THAT'S WHAT I THINK. I MEAN, CROSS IS
UNPREDICTABLE, BUT MY PROPOSED DIRECT IS NOT THAT EXTENSIVE. I
THINK WE SHOULD FINISH TOMORROW.
THE COURT: MY GUESS IS MONDAY.
MS. CLARK: YOU MAY BE RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN, I'M
OPTIMISTIC BECAUSE THERE IS GOING TO BE DOWN TIME TODAY BEFORE WE
GET TO THE WITNESSES. EVERYBODY WANTS TO TALK TO EVERYBODY, SO
THAT MAY BE TRUE. BUT, YOU KNOW, HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL.
MR. COCHRAN: IS TODAY A 6:00 O'CLOCK DAY? SO SEE, WE MAY
BE ABLE TO FINISH.
MS. CLARK: IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY GOING PAST NOON
TOMORROW TO FINISH?
THE COURT: IT'S POSSIBLE.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. IF WE CAN.
THE COURT: LET ME CHECK BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER --
I MEAN, I'M GOING TO BE HERE. SO --
MS. CLARK: RIGHT. I KNOW. BUT IT'S A JUROR THING.
THE COURT: RIGHT. LET ME SEE WHAT PLANS WE MADE. I'LL
CHECK WITH DEPUTY JEX TO SEE WHAT OTHER PLANS, BECAUSE WE MAY
HAVE MADE DOCTORS' APPOINTMENTS --
MS. CLARK: RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: WITH THAT THOUGHT IN MIND, YOUR HONOR, WE
WILL THEN PROCEED TO TRY TO LINE UP OUR -- THE BALANCE OF OUR
WITNESSES STARTING MONDAY. SO WE'LL TRY NOT TO HAVE TOO MUCH
DOWNTIME.
THE COURT: THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL DO THAT.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S ONE OTHER THING. TWO OTHER
THINGS.
NO. 1, WE HAD MADE A MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ON
THE PHASE OF THE MOON ON JUNE THE 12TH, AND THE COURT GRANTED
THAT MOTION. SO I'D ASK THAT THE COURT -- I DON'T KNOW IF THE
COURT HAS IT. I HAVE IT WITH ME. IF THE COURT WOULD READ THAT
TO THE JURY PRIOR TO THE PEOPLE CONDITIONALLY RESTING ON
REBUTTAL.
AND ALSO, THE PEOPLE HAVE MADE --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I THINK WHAT YOU NEED TO DO THEN IS MAKE A FORMAL
REQUEST IN FRONT OF THE JURY THAT THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
OF THAT PARTICULAR PHASE OF THE MOON.
MS. CLARK: YES. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE --
THE COURT: IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? THAT WAS A REQUEST
THAT WAS MADE QUITE SOME TIME AGO.
MR. COCHRAN: I MISSED PART OF IT.
MS. CLARK: JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE PHASE OF THE MOON ON
JUNE 12TH.
THE COURT: SUBMITTED?
MR. COCHRAN: PHASE OF THE MOON? WHAT'S THE WORD?
"INCREASING"? THERE WAS "WANING," "WAXING," REMEMBER THAT WORD?
THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO ABOUT
"WANING" AND "WAXING."
THE COURT: I WAS GOING TO TELL THEM WHAT THE APPROPRIATE
TERM IS, "WANING" AND "WAXING," AND I ASSUME, SINCE THAT IS A
COMMON TERM, THE JURORS WILL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
MS. CLARK: ANYWAY, THE PROPOSED SENTENCE IS HERE YOUR
HONOR; ON JUNE 12TH, 1994, THE MOON WAS A CRES -- WE HAVE AS A
CRESCENT MOON WITH 12 PERCENT. WHY NOT JUST SAY THEN ON JUNE THE
12TH, 1994, THE MOON WAS A WAXING CRESCENT MOON WITH 12 PERCENT
OF THE MOON SURFACE ILLUMINATED? AND THAT WILL SATISFY BOTH
SIDES I THINK.
THE COURT: FINE.
MS. CLARK: AND I'LL SUBMIT THAT TO THE COURT SO YOU HAVE
YOUR SCRIPT IN FRONT OF YOU.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: YOU'RE WELCOME.
ALSO, THE PEOPLE HAVE --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME.
MR. COCHRAN, IS THAT ISSUE SUBMITTED?
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM IS WITH THAT, IF YOU
RECALL -- I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON IT -- INSTEAD OF
USING THE WORD "WAXING," I THOUGHT WE TALKED "INCREASING" BECAUSE
YOU SEE --
THE COURT: NO. THE TERMINOLOGY FOR THE PHASE OF THE MOON,
INCREASING AND DECREASING ILLUMINATION IS "WAXING" AND "WANING."
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
MR. COCHRAN: NOT EVERYBODY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. WHO IN THIS COURTROOM
DOESN'T KNOW THAT?
MR. COCHRAN: YES. WE JUST HAD OUR FOCUS MOVED, JUDGE. SO
MY POINT IS PROVEN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
IS THE MATTER SUBMITTED, MR. COCHRAN?
MR. COCHRAN: IF YOU'LL TAKE THE SURVEY.
THE COURT: IS THE MATTER SUBMITTED?
MR. COCHRAN: SUBMITTED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: LASTLY, YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE HAVE MADE
REPEATED REQUESTS FOR THE STOCKDALE TAPE. WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO GET
IT FROM THE -- FROM THE ANSWERING MACHINE COMPANY AS DIRECTED BY
THE COURT.
WE SUBMITTED A LETTER, I THINK A COPY OF IT CAME TO
THE COURT WITH A DECLARATION FROM THE PERSON TOLD TO US BY MISS
STOCKDALE WHO INDICATED THEY DO NOT KEEP COPIES, THEY DO NOT ANY
LONGER HAVE A COPY OF THE TAPE, WHICH MEANS THAT UNDER MEREDITH,
WE'RE BACK AT OUR INITIAL STARTING POINT, WHICH IS THAT THE
DEFENSE HAS ALTERED EVIDENCE TO A POINT THAT WE CAN NO LONGER
OBTAIN IT BY OUR OWN MEANS, AND WE REQUESTED OF THE DEFENSE BY A
LETTER I THINK SENT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO TO PRESENT THAT TAPE TO
US. WE WOULD LIKE NOW TO HAVE THAT TAPE PRODUCED IN COURT.
THE COURT: WHO WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT FOR THE DEFENSE?
MR. COCHRAN: I CAN JUST ADDRESS IT GENERALLY.
I THINK THAT IF I RECALL CORRECTLY -- AND WE'LL HAVE
TO GET BACK TO THIS LATER PERHAPS. I THINK WE SUBMITTED SOME
DECLARATIONS TO THE COURT UNDER SEAL REGARDING THIS, AND I'D LIKE
THE COURT TO PULL THOSE UP. I DON'T HAVE COPIES OF THAT HERE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THAT WAS DURING A 1054.7. WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT
BECAUSE I NEED TO CHECK MY NOTES.
MS. CLARK: CAN WE DO THAT TODAY, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: MAYBE DURING THE BREAKS IN-BETWEEN WITNESSES I
CAN LOOK THAT UP.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: JUST FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE JUST RECEIVED A
LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 13TH TO MR. COCHRAN FROM JAMES MICHAEL
MADDOCK, DEPUTY COUNSEL OF THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. AND AS I PREVIOUSLY INFORMED
THE COURT, THIS LETTER INDICATES THAT THE BUREAU DOES NOT OBJECT
TO SPECIAL AGENT FREDERICK WHITEHURST TESTIFYING IN THIS MATTER.
THEREFORE, A SUBPOENA FOR HIS PRESENCE IS
UNNECESSARY. I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD JUST MARK THIS LETTER
AND MAKE A COPY FOR -- SO THAT THAT'S BEFORE THE COURT.
AND ALSO, I SHOULD PUT ON THE RECORD WHAT I THINK
I'VE PREVIOUSLY INFORMED THE COURT. IN THIS LETTER, MR. MADDOCK
INDICATES THAT THE SUBPOENA THAT WE SERVED FOR RECORDS TO THE FBI
-- WELL, IT WAS A SUBPOENA THAT WE SERVED ON MR. WHITEHURST'S
COUNSEL. IT WAS THEN FORWARDED TO THE FBI -- WAS NOT
JURISDICTIONALLY VALID IN SO FAR AS IT HAD TO GO THROUGH THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT -- WE'VE TAKEN MEASURES TO DO THAT, AND
THAT HE HAS ALSO -- IT'S NOT REFLECTED IN THE LETTER, BUT HE'S
ALSO AGREED AND MR. WHITEHURST -- DR. WHITEHURST HAS AGREED TO AN
INTERVIEW WITH BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE WITH THE COURT REPORTER
PRESENT.
AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN ARRANGE THAT BY SATURDAY AND
THEN FURTHER DISCOVERY CAN ENSUE FROM THAT. BUT FOR PURPOSES OF
THE RECORD, I THOUGHT WE SHOULD JUST MAKE THIS PART OF THE RECORD
SO IT'S CLEAR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
YESTERDAY, THE DEFENSE FILED AND THEN WITHDREW THAT
OUT-OF-STATE SUBPOENA REQUEST.
AND, MRS. ROBERTSON, DID YOU SEND THAT DOWN TO THE
MAIN FILE?
THE CLERK: NO YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
IT'S UP HERE? OKAY.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED
BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS RAMIREZ, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS
STAND.
TERESA RAMIREZ,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT,
RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT MISS TERESA RAMIREZ IS
ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD.
GOOD MORNING, MISS RAMIREZ.
THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED, MA'AM, THAT YOU ARE STILL
UNDER OATH.
AND, MR. NEUFELD, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
MR. NEUFELD: THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MISS RAMIREZ.
THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.
MR. NEUFELD: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. NEUFELD:
Q MISS RAMIREZ, I'LL TRY AND MAKE THIS BRIEF SO YOU CAN
GET ON TO THE DENTIST WHERE YOU STARTED TO HEAD FOR YESTERDAY
AFTERNOON.
DO YOU RECALL THAT BEFORE WE BROKE YESTERDAY, MA'AM,
THAT I ASKED YOU IF YOU WERE AWARE WHETHER MR. GOLDBERG HAD HAD
PRIOR CONVERSATIONS, THAT IS PRIOR TO THE JULY 27TH, 1995 TAPING
SESSION WITH MR. PERATIS? DO YOU RECALL ME ASKING YOU THAT OR
THAT SUBJECT COMING UP?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND AFTER WE BROKE YESTERDAY, DID YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY AND THIS MORNING AS WELL TO REVIEW PORTIONS OF THAT
VIDEOTAPE, THE COMPLETE VIDEOTAPE THAT YOU MADE ON JULY 27TH TO
REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A I SAW A PORTION OF THE TAPE.
Q OKAY.
AND LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
NOW THAT -- LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, DID YOU BECOME
AWARE DURING THE JULY 27TH TAPING SESSION AT MR. PERATIS' HOME
THAT IN FACT ON A PRIOR OCCASION, MR. GOLDBERG HAD MET WITH MR.
PERATIS AT THE DISPENSARY WHERE MR. PERATIS WORKS AT THE JAIL?
A YES.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: AND DID YOU ALSO BECOME AWARE DURING
THAT JULY 27TH TAPING THAT MR. -- EXCUSE ME -- THAT MR. GOLDBERG
HAD ALSO SPOKEN TO MR. PERATIS SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY AND GIVEN MR.
PERATIS A SUBPOENA TO APPEAR IN COURT DURING THIS TRIAL AS A
PROSECUTION WITNESS?
A YES.
Q NOW, I'D LIKE TO --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISLEADING.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE NEED TO HAVE THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE
THE ANSWER COMES IN.
MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO PLAY TWO BRIEF
SEGMENTS, AND I REVIEWED IT FIRST WITH MISS CLARK BEFORE WE
STARTED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS
SEGMENT AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO AUTHENTICATE IT, OKAY?
A OKAY.
(AT 9:36 A.M., A VIDEOTAPE WAS
PLAYED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HOLD THAT.
IS THAT THE PORTION OF THE TAPE THAT YOU WANTED, MR.
NEUFELD?
MR. NEUFELD: YEAH. BUT YOU'RE MISSING THE --
THE COURT: NO. THE QUESTION IS YES OR NO. IS THAT THE
TAPE THAT YOU WANTED TO SHOW?
MR. NEUFELD: YES. THAT'S THE PORTION OF THE TAPE.
COULD WE JUST PLAY THAT PORTION ONE MORE TIME AGAIN
VERY QUICKLY? I'M SORRY. IT HAPPENED SO QUICKLY THAT I MISSED
IT.
(AT 9:38 A.M., A VIDEOTAPE WAS
PLAYED.)
THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDEBAR WITHOUT THE
COURT REPORTER.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THOUGH THAT THE PORTION --
HOLD THE TAPE. HOLD THE TAPE. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE
PORTION THAT WE'VE JUST VIEWED, THE COUNTER IS AT 350 AND 351.
LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE REPORTER.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
MR. NEUFELD: I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. IT WILL TAKE ONE
MINUTE. WE JUST HAVE TO SWITCH THE TAPES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(AT 9:41 A.M., A VIDEOTAPE
WAS PLAYED.)
THE COURT: THAT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE RIGHT SPOT.
(AT 9:42 A.M., A VIDEOTAPE WAS
PLAYED.)
MS. CLARK: CAN WE COMPLETE THE SENTENCE?
THE COURT: LET'S JUST SEE THAT IN ITS -- LET'S GO BACK
ABOUT 20 SECONDS.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. NEUFELD: THAT'S THE END OF THAT SEGMENT.
(AT 9:44 A.M., A VIDEOTAPE WAS
PLAYED.)
(AT 9:45, THE PLAYING OF THE
VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDED.)
MR. NEUFELD: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: BY THE WAY, THERE'S A REFERENCE
THERE TO PATTI JO. DO YOU KNOW WHO PATTI JO IS?
A YES.
Q AND WHO IS THAT?
A SHE'S SECRETARY FOR THE LAWYERS.
Q YOU MEAN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS?
A DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YES. YES.
Q OKAY.
AND ON THAT TAPE -- I'M SORRY.
AND ON THAT OCCASION WHEN THERE'S THAT REFERENCE TO
MR. GOLDBERG -- IS THAT MR. GOLDBERG'S VOICE YOU HEAR ON THE
TAPE?
A YES.
Q AND --
THE COURT: MISS RAMIREZ, WHY DON'T YOU JUST PULL THE
MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP LEANING OVER.
THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: NOW, DURING THAT SESSION, APPARENTLY
-- NOT APPARENTLY. DURING THAT SESSION, THEY WERE DISCUSSING A
PROSECUTION SUBPOENA THAT WAS GIVEN TO MR. PERATIS IN EARLY
FEBRUARY OF 1995? DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q DURING THE JULY 27TH, 1995 TAPING SESSION, MA'AM, DID
THE TOPIC COME UP AT ALL AS TO WHY DURING THE FOUR MONTHS, MR.
PERATIS WAS NEVER BROUGHT IN AS A PROSECUTION WITNESS?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE TAPE
SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE,
COUNSEL.
MR. NEUFELD: OKAY.
ONE SECOND.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: NOW THAT YOU'VE SEEN THE TAPE AGAIN
TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, MISS RAMIREZ, WHEN MR. GOLDBERG
ASKED MR. PERATIS ABOUT HIS VISIT, ABOUT MR. GOLDBERG'S VISIT TO
THE DISPENSARY WHERE MR. PERATIS WORKED AND YOU SAW MR. PERATIS
MOUTH THE WORDS -- DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A YES.
Q WAS MR. PERATIS, AS YOU RECALL, HAVING BEEN THERE,
WAS HE MOUTHING THE WORDS, "I DON'T REMEMBER"?
A I COULDN'T TELL.
Q BUT WHAT MR. -- BUT WHAT MR. PERATIS WAS DOING WAS
RESPONDING TO MR. GOLDBERG TRYING TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT MR.
GOLDBERG'S EARLIER VISIT WITH MR. PERATIS AT THE DISPENSARY.
THAT'S WHEN IT CAME UP, DIDN'T IT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. SUSTAINED.
MR. NEUFELD: GOOD LUCK AT THE DENTIST, MA'AM.
THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. NEUFELD: THERE'S SUCH A THING AS POSSIBLE.
THE COURT: NOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET ALL THE DENTISTS MAD AT
US.
MISS CLARK.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q ALL RIGHT.
MISS RAMIREZ, SO IT'S CLEAR, DURING THE 14 MINUTES
THAT THE VIDEOTAPE WAS OFF, DID ANYONE QUESTION MR. PERATIS ABOUT
THE CASE?
A NO.
Q AT ANY TIME, DID MR. GOLDBERG SUGGEST TO MR. PERATIS
WHAT HE SHOULD SAY?
A NO.
MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, BEYOND THE SCOPE OF REDIRECT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND --
THE COURT: RECROSS. ACTUALLY CROSS.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ACTUALLY CROSS.
AND MR. PERATIS INDICATED TO MR. GOLDBERG THAT HE
CALLED HANK GOLDBERG, HE WAS THE ONE WHO CALLED HANK?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I THINK THE TAPE -- WE'VE HEARD THE
TAPE. WE'VE HEARD MR. PERATIS' WORDS.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
IT WAS JUST FOUNDATIONAL.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DID THE DEFENSE EVER ASK YOU TO GO AND
VIDEOTAPE MR. PERATIS FOR THEM?
A NO.
Q WOULD YOU HAVE DONE SO IF THEY HAD ASKED YOU?
MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT'S IRRELEVANT.
MS. CLARK: NOTHING FURTHER.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. NEUFELD:
Q MISS RAMIREZ, YOU WORK FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, DON'T YOU?
A YES.
Q YOU DON'T WORK FOR THE DEFENSE, DO YOU?
A NO.
MR. NEUFELD: THANK YOU.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q DID YOU SIT AND SPEAK WITH THE DEFENSE THIS MORNING
AT THEIR REQUEST?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU WATCH ALL THE TAPE THEY WANTED YOU TO
WATCH?
A YES.
Q AND WOULD YOU HAVE REFUSED A REASONABLE REQUEST TO
HELP THEM IF THEY HAD MADE IT?
MR. NEUFELD: OH, OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MISS RAMIREZ, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE
EXCUSED.
MR. NEUFELD: ONE SECOND.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. NEUFELD: SHE'S EXCUSED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS RAMIREZ.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS IS WHO?
MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS SHOULD BE MR. DEEDRICK
AND THE DEFENSE WANTS TO TALK TO HIM. SO --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE NEXT WITNESS IS -- THE
PROSECUTION IS GOING TO RECALL MR. DEEDRICK. IF YOU RECOLLECT,
MR. DEEDRICK TESTIFIED EARLIER IN THE CASE.
YESTERDAY, THE COURT RECEIVED A NUMBER OF EXHIBITS
>FROM VARIOUS SOURCES FROM OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THE ATTORNEYS HAVE ASKED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THESE
ITEMS BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH MR. DEEDRICK'S TESTIMONY.
THEY'VE ASKED ME FOR A ONE-HOUR RECESS BETWEEN THIS
WITNESS AND THE NEXT WITNESS SO THAT THEY CAN EXAMINE THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS AND EXHIBITS THAT WILL PROBABLY BE USED IN THE
EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS. SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A
ONE-HOUR RECESS AT THIS TIME.
I'M GOING TO KEEP YOU -- I'M GOING TO PUT YOU UP IN
THE LARGER LOUNGE UPSTAIRS. BUT I'M HOPING TO COMPLETE THE
PRESENTATION OF THE PROSECUTION'S REBUTTAL CASE BY EITHER
TOMORROW OR MONDAY.
ALL RIGHT.
SO THESE WILL BE PROBABLY THE LAST THREE OR FOUR
WITNESSES THAT WE'LL BE PRESENTING FOR THE PROSECUTIONS' CASE IN
REBUTTAL, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS. AND
THE REASON I'M KEEPING YOU HERE IS BECAUSE I WANT TO USE AS MUCH
TIME WITH YOU AS POSSIBLE.
SO AS SOON AS THE ATTORNEYS TELL ME THEY'VE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THESE ITEMS, WE'LL RECONVENE WITH YOU HERE
IN COURT.
ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE A RECESS.
COUNSEL, I'D LIKE YOU TO LET ME KNOW AS SOON AS YOU
ARE READY TO PROCEED. IF YOU NEED THE COURT'S ASSISTANCE ON ANY
OF THESE MATTERS, LET ME NOW. AND I'LL REVIEW THE STOCKDALE
MATTERS WHILE WE'RE IN RECESS.
ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE IN RECESS.
LET ME SEE MR. SCHECK AND MISS CLARK.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(RECESS.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995
1:05 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT
PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT.
ARE THE PEOPLE PREPARED TO CALL THEIR NEXT WITNESS?
MR. DARDEN? MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHO IS YOUR NEXT WITNESS?
MS. CLARK: MR. DEEDRICK.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. NEUFELD: MR. SCHECK, WHO'S BACK IN THE BACK ROOM NOW,
STILL WORKING WITH MR. BODZIAK, WAS UNDER THE EXPECTATION THEY
WERE GOING TO CALL MR. ADKINS FIRST, WHICH I THINK WAS THE
COURT'S EXPECTATION ALSO AND ALL OF OUR EXPECTATION. SO HE WAS
GOING TO USE THIS ADDITIONAL 15, 20 MINUTES TO KEEP WORKING WITH
BODZIAK. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND IT'S UP TO THEM. BUT THEY DID
TELL US THAT, AND ALL I'M SIMPLY SAYING IS, IF THEY STILL INTEND
TO CALL ADKINS, IT SHOULD BE DONE RIGHT NOW TO GIVE US THAT
ADDITIONAL 15 MINUTES.
THE COURT: IF YOU PROMISE ME IT'S ONLY GOING TO TAKE 15
MINUTES.
MR. NEUFELD: WELL, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO
TAKE, YOUR HONOR. I'M MUST TELLING YOU THAT THAT'S WHAT MR.
SCHECK IS DOING RIGHT NOW.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, ARE YOU WILLING TO CALL MR. ADKINS AT
THIS TIME?
MS. CLARK: NO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL HIM PERIOD.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: IF I WAS GOING TO CALL HIM NOW, OF COURSE I
WOULD CALL HIM NOW. WE WANT TO GET THIS DONE. WE MEAN IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO CALL --
MS. CLARK: MR. DEEDRICK.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WHO IS GOING TO HANDLE MR. DEEDRICK?
MR. NEUFELD: BARRY SCHECK IS AND HE'S ALSO GOING TO BE
HANDLING MR. BODZIAK. THAT'S WHY HE'S BEEN SEEING BOTH OF THEM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NO ADKINS. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH MR. DEEDRICK.
MR. SCHECK: I JUST HAVE A FEW MORE MINUTES WITH MR.
BODZIAK. WE MIGHT AS WELL START WITH MR. DEEDRICK, AND THEN I
CAN GET THAT TIME LATER. HOW'S THAT?
THE COURT: PERFECT.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO.
MR. SCHECK: JUST GIVE ME A SECOND.
THE COURT: LET'S GO.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE IT QUIET, PLEASE. COUNSEL, WHY
DON'T YOU BE SEATED.
(AN INTERRUPTION WAS HAD IN
THIS MATTER.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE NOW HAVE MR. SCHECK PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. YOU MAY BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE
MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: SORRY FOR THE DELAY, BUT WE'RE READY TO GET UP
AND RUNNING NOW.
MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
PEOPLE CALL MR. DEEDRICK.
DOUGLAS W. DEEDRICK,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE ON REBUTTAL, WAS SWORN AND
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DEEDRICK, YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE
TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS
COURT SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
HAVE A SEAT, SIR.
AND WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR
THE RECORD AGAIN, PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS DOUGLAS W. DEEDRICK. DEEDRICK IS
SPELLED D-E-E-D-R-I-C-K.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q AGENT DEEDRICK, YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED IN THIS
CASE AS AN EXPERT WITH REGARD TO HAIR AND FIBER COMPARISONS THAT
YOU MADE IN THIS CASE, CORRECT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q NOW, YOU ALSO TESTIFIED REGARDING THE FABRIC SAMPLES
YOU RECEIVED FROM THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE, CORRECT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE OR HAVE THERE BEEN MANY
CASES IN WHICH YOU'VE EXAMINED -- YOU'VE -- THERE HAVE BEEN MANY
CASES THAT YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, SIR, THAT CAUSE YOU TO DO
FABRIC ANALYSIS IN THE FBI LABORATORY IN THE PAST?
A RIGHT.
FABRIC ANALYSIS IS VERY COMMON BECAUSE IT'S THE TYPE
OF MATERIAL THAT IS SUBMITTED FOR EXAMINATION MOST OF THE TIME,
WHETHER IT'S FABRIC DAMAGE WHERE YOU HAVE TO RECONSTRUCT PIECES
OF FABRIC OR DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF MATERIAL, A KNIFE OR A BULLET
OR A CLUB OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF INSTRUMENT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE
DAMAGE TO THE FABRIC. FABRIC IS EXAMINED FOR THE PRESENCE OF
FIBER COMPOSITION AND ALSO DESIGN CONSTRUCTION. SO FABRIC IS
COMMONLY EXAMINED IN OUR UNIT.
Q HAVE YOU DONE ANY WORK TO ESTABLISH -- TO DO FABRIC
MATCHING?
A WELL, FABRIC MATCHING IS ANOTHER TYPE OF EXAM THAT'S
DONE WHERE FABRIC MAY BE RECOVERED FROM A VICTIM SUCH AS THE
BINDINGS OR WRAPPINGS AROUND THE HANDS OF A VICTIM FOUND AT A
CRIME SCENE, AND THAT FABRIC MIGHT NEED TO BE COMPARED WITH
PIECES OF FABRIC LEFT IN THE SUSPECT'S CAR OR FOUND IN THE
SUSPECT'S RESIDENCE.
HE MAY HAVE STRIPPED OFF PIECES OF A BED SHEET OR A
PILLOW CASE SO THAT HE COULD PREPARE BINDINGS FOR THE VICTIM. IN
SO DOING, IN TEARING THAT FABRIC, EACH TEAR IS UNIQUE SO THAT
IT'S POSSIBLE TO PHYSICALLY MATCH THE PIECE OF FABRIC FROM THE
VICTIM OR FROM THE CRIME SCENE WITH THE PIECE OF FABRIC TAKEN
>FROM HIS OWN RESIDENCE.
Q HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANY WORK TO DETERMINE FABRIC
DAMAGE TO DETERMINE THE KIND OF WEAPON THAT MADE THE DAMAGE?
A WELL, FABRIC DAMAGE IS IMPORTANT AS WELL. WHEN THE
QUESTION IS, COULD THIS PARTICULAR KNIFE HAVE CAUSED OR THIS
PARTICULAR WEAPON HAVE CAUSED THE DAMAGE IN THE FABRIC, AGAIN, IT
MAY BE USED -- THIS TYPE OF WORK MAY BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE FIBER COMPARISON.
THAT IS, IF YOU FIND FIBERS ON THE KNIFE THAT EXHIBIT
THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS AS THE FIBERS FROM THE VICTIM'S OWN
CLOTHING, THEN YOU CAN USE THAT INFORMATION COUPLED WITH THE
TYPE OF DAMAGE THAT THAT FABRIC HAS INCURRED. YOU CAN DETERMINE
IF IT'S A SINGLE BLADED KNIFE, DOUBLE-EDGED KNIFE, THE SIZE OF
THE KNIFE. THESE ARE DETERMINATIONS THAT CAN BE MADE.
AND, AGAIN, THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE BECAUSE
THERE'S ACTIONS INVOLVED IN STABBINGS FOR INSTANCE.
MS. CLARK: COULD WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, ALREADY?
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE ANSWER IS AND I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL HAS -- COUNSEL HAS BEEN
SPEAKING TO MR. DEEDRICK, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ASKED HIM
ABOUT THIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM -- WELL, HE OBVIOUSLY
EXAMINED THE SHIRT IN THIS CASE. HE ALREADY SAID THAT. I'D LIKE
TO KNOW IF IN EXAMINING THE SHIRT AND JEANS, HE MADE ANY EFFORT
TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF WEAPON WAS USED IN THIS CASE BASED ON
THE DAMAGE TO THE FABRIC.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, BEYOND THE SCOPE OF REBUTTAL. NOBODY'S
TESTIFIED TO THAT.
MS. CLARK: WELL, IT'S NOT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF REBUTTAL
BECAUSE WE HAD TESTIMONY FROM DR. BADEN ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE
WOUNDS AND WHETHER IT WAS A SINGLE OR DOUBLE-EDGED KNIFE. SO
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT BEYOND THE SCOPE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
ANSWER IS.
MR. SCHECK: IT DOESN'T REBUT ANYTHING THAT DR. BADEN SAID.
MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW --
THE COURT: WELL, WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING A RECESS SOON.
SO WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM THAT AND SEE.
MS. CLARK: ASK HIM? CAN I ASK HIM?
THE COURT: ASK HIM WHEN WE TAKE A BREAK.
OKAY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR.
HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANY WORK IN CASES INVOLVING FABRIC
PATTERN IN COMPARISONS?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THAT MEANS?
A WELL, FABRIC IMPRINT COMPARISONS ARE WHERE AN
INCIDENT MAY OCCUR OR CONTACT MAY OCCUR BETWEEN A FABRIC AND
ANOTHER SURFACE, AND THIS CONTACT MAY RESULT IN LEAVING AN
INDICATION THAT THE CONTACT OCCURRED SUCH AS AN IMPRINT PATTERN.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME MATERIAL THAT'S ON THE SURFACE OF
THE FABRIC LIKE BLOOD OR SOME OTHER -- GREASE, AND THEN WHEN THE
FABRIC COMES IN CONTACT WITH A SURFACE, IT MAY LEAVE AN
INDICATION OF HOW THAT SURFACE OF THE FABRIC LOOKS. ANOTHER TYPE
OF IMPRINT TRANSFER MAY BE WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL LEANS UP AGAINST A
SURFACE LIKE SIDING ON A HOUSE AND MAY PICK UP SOME OF THE DUST
>FROM THE SURFACE AND AN IMPRESSION MAY BE LEFT AS WELL IN THE
DUST.
MOST OF THE CASES THAT I'VE LOOKED AT OVER THE YEARS
HAVE BEEN RELATING TO HIT AND RUN CASES WHERE VICTIMS HAVE BEEN
STRUCK WITH VEHICLES AND THE CLOTHING HAS ACTUALLY MADE AN
IMPRESSION OF SOME TYPE IN THE VEHICLE, WHETHER IT'S ON THE
BUMPER, ON THE FENDER, ON THE WINDSHIELD.
BUT THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES THAT
COULD INVOLVE IMPRINT EXAMINATION, BURGLARIES, SOMEONE CRAWLING
THROUGH A WINDOW LEAVING AN IMPRINT PATTERN FROM THE CLOTHING OF
THE PANTS OR THE SHIRT IN THE PUTTY AROUND THE WINDOW OR ON THE
WINDOW SILL. BULLETS AS THEY PASS THROUGH FABRIC MAY ACTUALLY
PICK UP THE FABRIC IMPRINT PATTERN ON THE NOSE OF THE BULLET IN
THE LEAD. TAPE THAT'S OFTEN USED TO BIND VICTIMS OR FOR
DISGUISES MAY HAVE AN IMPRINT PATTERN, NOT JUST FINGERPRINTS.
THEY MAY USE GLOVES, BUT THEY MAY ALSO LEAVE IMPRINT PATTERNS ON
THE TAPE OR ON THE ADHESIVE SURFACE.
SO THIS IS JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF THIS PUZZLE THAT WE
WORK WITH IN A FORENSIC LABORATORY TO TRY TO GET THE INFORMATION
FOR A CASE.
Q NOW, HAVE YOU EVER EXAMINED FABRIC IMPRINTS WHERE
BLOOD WAS THE MECHANISM -- WAS THE LIQUID THAT WAS IMPRINTED?
A I CAN'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY IF I WORKED A CASE WHERE
BLOOD WAS IMPRINTED. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE I HAVEN'T.
MOST OF THE IMPRINT PATTERNS THAT I'VE LOOKED AT HAVE
BEEN INVOLVED WITH TRANSFERS LIKE ON VEHICLES. AND IN THOSE
INSTANCES, THEY OFTEN BLEED QUITE A BIT AND THEY MAY EVEN BLEED
ON IMPACT. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT I HAVE, YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAY "BLEED ON IMPACT," ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT HIT AND RUN CASES?
A ON A HIT AND RUN CASE, YES.
I'VE -- I'VE LOOKED AT SITUATIONS WHERE WEAPONS MAY
HAVE BEEN CONCEALED IN FABRIC ITEMS LIKE A BAG OR A PILLOWCASE OR
WRAPPED UP IN CLOTHING. AND SO THERE YOU HAVE AN IMPRINT OF THE
WEAPON ON THAT CLOTHING, BUT THERE ALSO MAY BE AN IMPRINT BACK ON
TO THAT PARTICULAR WEAPON FROM THE BLOOD, FROM -- ORIGINALLY CAME
>FROM THE KNIFE OR SOME WEAPON.
Q OKAY.
NOW, HAVE YOU EVER EXAMINED CLOTHING OR FABRIC ITEMS
WHERE IMPRINT PATTERNS HAVE BEEN FORMED FROM OTHER CLOTHING
ITEMS; IN OTHER WORDS, AN IMPRINT MADE ON A SHIRT FROM A PAIR OF
PANTS BEING IMPRESSED ON THEM OR AN IMPRINT FROM A PAIR OF PANTS
ON TO A SHIRT?
A I'VE SEEN IT ON SHEETS. NOT SO MUCH ON CLOTHING.
THAT'S -- IT'S NOT COMMON FOR ME TO LOOK AT CASEWORK AND EVEN
CONCERN MYSELF WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT IS GENERALLY NOT AN ISSUE.
MOST OF THE -- THE CONCERNS OF THIS TYPE OF
EXAMINATION INVOLVE LIKE BREAKING AND ENTERING, HIT AND RUN. YOU
MAY HAVE SOME TAPE EXAMS. BUT I HAVE SEEN FABRIC IMPRESSIONS ON
SHEETS IN MURDER CASES I BELIEVE AND ALSO ON RAPE CASES.
Q UH-HUH.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU USUALLY DON'T SEE OR
GET INVOLVED IN ANALYSES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ONE PIECE OF
CLOTHING IMPRESSED ON ANOTHER PIECE OF CLOTHING?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW THAT EXACTLY.
Q BY MS. CLARK: OKAY.
YOU INDICATED THAT USUALLY IT'S WHEN YOU HAVE FABRIC
ON FABRIC IMPRESSIONS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO IDENTIFY, IT'S
BECAUSE YOU HAVE A FABRIC IMPRESSION ON A SHEET OR MAYBE IT
INVOLVES FABRIC TAPE THAT'S USED TO BIND A VICTIM OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT IF NOT USUALLY AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING ON ANOTHER
ARTICLE OF CLOTHING.
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. TESTIFYING, LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO. USUALLY IT'S NOT -- WE'RE NOT CONCERNED
SO MUCH WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE FABRICS MADE CONTACT BY LOOKING
FOR FABRIC TYPE IMPRINTS OR IMPRESSIONS. IF THEY'RE GOING TO
MAKE CONTACT, WE'RE EITHER GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR THE HAIR OR
THE FIBER EVIDENCE AND MAYBE SOME BLOOD EVIDENCE, AND THAT'S
GOING TO BE THE MAIN FOCUS OF THE LABORATORY, NOT SO MUCH LOOKING
TO SEE IF A PIECE OF FABRIC MAY HAVE SCRAPED ACROSS IT BECAUSE
MANY OF THESE ARE NOT AS DEFINITIVE BECAUSE FABRIC ON FABRIC
OFTEN LEAVES A VERY LIMITING TYPE INDICATION OR LIMITING MARKS.
Q BY MS. CLARK: IN OTHER WORDS, IF -- EVEN IF YOU HAD
A SUSPECT'S CLOTHING WORN AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, IF YOU FOUND
AN IMPRINT THAT MAY BE CONSISTENT, YOU STILL COULDN'T IDENTIFY --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. LEADING, CALLS FOR CONCLUSION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.
EVEN IF YOU FOUND A SUSPECT'S CLOTHING AT THE TIME OF
THE CRIME, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SAY IN MOST CASES WHETHER IT CAME
>FROM THAT CLOTHING TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO TAKE MOST FABRIC
CASES, FABRIC TYPE EXAMINATIONS AND SAY ABSOLUTELY THIS FABRIC
MADE THIS IMPRINT ON A SHEET OR ON ANOTHER -- EVEN ON A BUMPER OF
A CAR. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY ABSOLUTELY.
WHERE YOU MAY BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH MORE DEFINITIVE
CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE WHERE THERE'S BEEN SOME DEFECT IN THE FABRIC
OR THERE'S SOME UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTIC, SOME DESIGN, SOME UNUSUAL
DESIGN OR PERHAPS AN EMBLEM OR AN EMBOSSED LABEL OR SOMETHING
THAT IS VERY UNUSUAL AND THIS MADE AN IMPRINT ON A SURFACE, THEN
IT COMES A LITTLE MORE UNIQUE. BUT MOST FABRICS DON'T LEAVE
IMPRINTS THAT ARE THAT SIGNIFICANT. WHERE FABRICS MAY BE -- MAY
HAVE SOME VALUE IS WHERE YOU HAVE SOME RAISED SURFACE, SOMETHING
THAT MAY -- MAY GIVE YOU AN IMPRINT PATTERN.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WOULD YOU SAY, SIR, THAT THE FABRIC
IMPRINT EXAMINATIONS IN A FORENSIC LABORATORY ARE RELATIVELY
COMMON?
A VERY COMMON. VERY COMMON.
Q IN THAT RESPECT, SIR, ARE IMPRINT -- ARE FABRIC
IMPRESSION COMPARISONS PART OF THE LARGER FAMILY OF IMPRINT
EXAMINATIONS?
A YES, THEY ARE.
Q CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS, WHAT YOU MEAN BY
THAT?
A WELL, IMPRINT EXAMINATIONS, AS I SAID, ARE VERY
COMMON IN A LABORATORY. IN OUR LABORATORY, WE HAVE DIFFERENT
UNITS THAT DO DIFFERENT THINGS.
TOOL MARKS AT A POINT OF ENTRY, THEY MAY LEAVE AN
IMPRINT OR AN IMPRESSION OF THAT TOOL IN A WINDOW OR ON A LOCK.
IN SHOOTING CASES, YOU MAY HAVE THE IMPRESSIONS, LANDS AND
GROOVES THAT ARE IMPRESSED ON THE SURFACE OF THE BULLET AS IT
PASSES OUT THE BARREL. YOU MAY HAVE FINGERPRINTS OBVIOUSLY.
THAT'S ONE. SHOEPRINTS, TIRE TREADS, SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE
BEEN LEFT BEHIND THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO LINK BACK UP TO THAT
PARTICULAR CRIME.
FABRIC IS JUST ANOTHER ONE. IF THE SURFACE OF THE
FABRIC COMES IN CONTACT WITH ANOTHER SURFACE AND IT IS IN A
CONDITION THAT IT CAN LEAVE SOMETHING BEHIND, THEN WE COMPARE IT.
AND SINCE WE DO HAIR AND FIBER FABRIC EXAMINATIONS IN OUR UNIT,
WE'RE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR MOST OF THOSE TYPES OF EXAMS.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A MAN BY
THE NAME OF BILL BODZIAK?
A I AM, YES.
Q AND WHO IS HE, SIR?
A HE'S AN AGENT IN THE SHOEPRINT UNIT OF THE DOCUMENT
SECTION.
Q AND ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT HIS JOB DESCRIPTION IS,
WHAT HE DOES?
A WELL, HE'S A SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT. HE'S
RESPONSIBLE FOR LOOKING AT SHOEPRINTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES, AND I
THINK HE'S DONE SOME TIRES AND SOME OTHER MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT
WORK OVER THE YEARS.
Q IF A -- IF AN IMPRESSION IS DETERMINED TO BE A
SHOEPRINT, DO YOU EXAMINE IT?
A NO.
Q DOES HE EXAMINE IT?
A YES. AND WE HAVE CASES THAT COME INTO OUR UNIT WHERE
NO REQUEST IS MADE, THAT A SHOEPRINT IS VISIBLE, AND I TAKE IT
RIGHT TO HIM.
Q SO IF YOU THINK THAT A SHOEPRINT MAY BE INVOLVED, YOU
PASS IT TO HIM, CORRECT?
A I PASS IT ALONG, AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS A REQUESTED
EXAM.
MR. SCHECK: MOVE TO STRIKE AS TO HIS QUALIFICATIONS TO
DETERMINE THIS ISSUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND, SIR, CONVERSELY, IF SOMETHING --
IF THERE'S AN IMPRINT THAT APPEARS TO BE A FABRIC IMPRESSION, WHO
DOES IT GO TO FOR EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS?
A WELL, THEY GENERALLY ASK ME TO DO IT BECAUSE I'VE
BEEN THERE A WHILE.
Q HOW MANY CASES HAVE YOU DONE THAT INVOLVED THE
COMPARISON OF FABRIC IMPRESSIONS?
A PROBABLY A HUNDRED OR MORE CASES. EITHER WORKING BY
ME DIRECTLY OR AS A CONSULTING WITH OTHER EXAMINERS. EVERY TIME
AN EXAMINER HAS A CASE LIKE THIS, THEY CONSULT ME ON IT.
Q IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, HAVE YOU FOUND THAT
DIFFERENT KINDS OF FABRIC HAVE DIFFERENT DISTINCTIVE FEATURES TO
THEM?
A YES. THEY CAN BE VERY DISTINCTIVE.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT YOU LOOK
FOR IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT AN IMPRESSION IS LEFT BY A
PARTICULAR TYPE OF FABRIC?
A WELL, DIFFERENT TYPES OF FABRICS, WHETHER THEY'RE
WOVEN OR KNITTED, MAY LEAVE A PATTERN, DEPENDING ON THE SURFACE
CHARACTERISTICS. THAT IS THE DESIGN OF THE FABRIC MAY BE SUCH
THAT THERE MAY BE RAISED AREAS THAT MAY ABSORB A CERTAIN MATERIAL
AND MAY LEAVE THAT UPON CONTACT WITH ANOTHER SURFACE.
TWILL SLACKS, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE BLUE JEANS, THEY'RE
PRETTY -- THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE BLUE-JEAN TYPE IMPRESSIONS
OR IMPRINT PATTERNS ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT ITEMS BECAUSE IT'S A
RAISED RIBBED FABRIC AND IT'S A COMMON FABRIC. AND IN
HIT-AND-RUN CASES THAT I'VE WORKED, A LOT OF BLUE JEANS HAVE
STRUCK BUMPERS.
Q DID YOU PREPARE A BOARD TO ALLOW THE JURY TO SEE SOME
EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF FABRIC IMPRESSIONS?
A I DID.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE A BOARD HERE, YOUR HONOR, THAT HAS BEEN
SHOWN TO EVERYONE, ASK TO BE MARKED PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PEOPLE'S 618.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: IS THAT CORRECT, MRS. ROBERTSON?
THE CLERK: YES.
(PEO'S 618 FOR ID = BOARD)
Q BY MS. CLARK: SIR, WHY DON'T YOU STEP DOWN. YOU
WANT TO TAKE THE POINTER?
THE COURT: 618.
MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
FOR THE RECORD, ON THIS BOARD ARE SIX PHOTOGRAPHS.
EACH OF THEM IS LABELED WITH THE KIND OF FABRIC THAT IT IS SO WE
WILL NOT HAVE TO USE A, B, C, D.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: IF YOU WOULD, SIR, PLEASE POINT TO
WHICHEVER PHOTOGRAPH YOU CHOOSE TO BEGIN WITH TO EXPLAIN TO THE
JURY WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DEPICT WITH THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.
WHEN YOU DO THAT, WOULD YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PHOTOGRAPH BY THE
NAME OF THE FABRIC THAT YOU PUT ON THERE.
A ALL RIGHT.
THE FIRST THING RIGHT OFF YOU SEE IS THIS FRONT PORCH
DOWN HERE, AND THAT'S NOT A FABRIC. I HAVE BRUSHED SURFACE AREA
ON THE FRONT PORCH, AND I WANTED TO SEE WHAT KIND OF IMPRINT
PATTERN THAT MIGHT LEAVE. SO I JUST PUT A LITTLE FOOD COLORING
DOWN AND WIPED IT ACROSS WITH SOME TACKING PAPER JUST TO GIVE YOU
AN IDEA OF HOW THIS MIGHT LOOK IF IT LEFT AN IMPRINT PATTERN,
SOMETHING CAME UPON IT.
THE OTHER FABRICS INCLUDE A GABARDINE UP IN THE UPPER
LEFT. THE PATTERN IT LEAVES, IT LOOKS LIKE A BUNCH OF DOTS. BUT
IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, IT ALMOST HAS A DIAGONAL TYPE OF ROPE
PATTERN TO IT.
THE CORDUROY IS AGAIN A RAISED TYPE FABRIC WITH RIBS.
IT WILL LEAVE THIS PARTICULAR PATTERN.
TWILL PANTS JUST BENEATH IT HERE, DOCKERS ARE GOOD
EXAMPLES. THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF MANUFACTURER LABELS
THAT USE TWILL PANTS.
THIS DIFFERS FROM BLUE JEANS ON THE LEFT SIMPLY BY
THE FINENESS OF THE ROWS. THAT IS, THESE RIBS ARE CLOSER
TOGETHER. AND YOU SEE THAT ON BLUE JEANS. THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT
COARSER AND THEY TEND TO HAVE THESE RIBS A LITTLE FURTHER APART.
I TOOK ONE OF THE LAB TOWELS THAT WE HAVE IN THE UNIT
AND DID AN IMPRINT PATTERN OF IT, AND YOU CAN SEE A KIND OF
UNIQUE, A DIFFERENT APPEARANCE (INDICATING). AND THAT'S JUST THE
DESIGN OF THE SURFACE OF THE TOWEL.
AND ALL THIS WAS -- I DID THIS FOR WAS JUST TO GIVE
YOU AN IDEA OF THE VARYING TYPE OF PATTERNS THAT YOU MAY HAVE
BETWEEN FIVE FABRICS AND A FRONT PORCH.
Q NOW, I FORGOT TO ASK YOU ONE CRITICAL THING HERE,
SIR.
WERE THERE SOME ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU EXAMINED
IN THIS CASE THAT ARE -- TO WHICH YOUR EXAMINATIONS ARE RELEVANT
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF FABRIC IMPRESSION?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS IT YOU EXAMINED FROM THE EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE CONCERNING FABRIC IMPRESSIONS?
A WELL, I EXAMINED RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS, SHIRT. THERE
WAS AN ENVELOPE THAT ORIGINALLY CONTAINED SOME GLASSES, WAS FOUND
AT THE CRIME SCENE, AND A PHOTOGRAPH OF A PIECE OF PAPER THAT WAS
>FROM THE CRIME SCENE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ARE YOU DONE WITH THE EXHIBIT?
MS. CLARK: YES. I'M GOING TO TAKE IT DOWN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU LOOKED AT RON GOLDMAN'S
JEANS AND HIS SHIRT IN THIS CASE, CORRECT?
A I DID.
Q NOW, DID YOU ALSO LOOK AT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THOSE TWO
ITEMS, SIR?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THERE
PHOTOGRAPHS OF DIFFERENT MAGNIFICATIONS MADE OF THE JEANS AND THE
SHIRT?
A YES.
Q LET'S FOCUS ON THE JEANS FOR A MOMENT.
DID YOU PREPARE A CHART SHOWING THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF
RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS AT DIFFERENT MAGNIFICATION LEVELS?
A RIGHT.
THE CHART HAS A COMPLETE IMAGE OF THE JEANS AND IT'S
ACTUALLY LESS THAN ONE TO ONE. IT WAS REDUCED JUST TO FIT ONTO
THE DEVELOPING PAPER, AND THEN THERE ARE TWO OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS
THAT ARE ONE TO ONE FROM ABOUT THE POCKET AREA DOWN TO THE
BOTTOM.
MS. CLARK: MAYBE I'LL JUST SHOW THAT CHART NOW.
PEOPLE'S 619, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PEOPLE'S 619.
(PEO'S 619 FOR ID = CHART)
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR.
BECAUSE I THINK A PICTURE IS GOING TO MAKE IT EASIER,
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STEPPING DOWN TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY WHAT
YOU'RE SHOWING IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.
A OKAY.
AS I SAID, THIS ONE ON THE LEFT, THIS PHOTOGRAPH
SHOWS YOU THE BLUE JEANS HERE IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE
VICTIM RON GOLDMAN. WHAT I DID WAS, I CIRCLED -- AND IT MIGHT
BE DIFFICULT TO SEE HERE (INDICATING).
THERE'S TWO PHOTOGRAPHS -- TWO CIRCLES THAT I MADE ON
THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE RIGHT LEG THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN BECAUSE
THERE APPEARED TO BE SOME TYPE OF PATTERN IMPRINT. THESE WERE --
THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE RIGHT, IT'S ABOUT ONE TO ONE. IT'S ABOUT
THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE RIGHT LEG.
AND THESE CIRCLED AREAS -- THIS ONE CIRCLE ON THE TOP
IS BROKEN DOWN INTO TWO AREAS AND THE CIRCLE AT THE BOTTOM IS
DEPICTED ON THE BOTTOM PHOTOGRAPH.
Q NOW, SO THE AREAS THAT YOU HAVE CIRCLED HERE ARE THE
AREAS OF INTEREST TO YOU?
A RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE SOME TYPE OF
PATTERN IMPRINT PRESENT ON THE LEG.
Q NOW, WAS -- WAS YOUR ATTENTION DIRECTED TO THOSE
AREAS BY SOMEONE?
A YES.
Q AND BY WHOM?
A BY MR. BODZIAK.
Q AND SO HE HAD ALREADY EXAMINED IT BY THE TIME HE GAVE
IT TO YOU?
A YES. HE'S THE ONE THAT INITIATED THE PHOTOGRAPHS. I
DIDN'T -- I HAD NOT SEEN THE BLUE JEANS EXCEPT FOR VERY EARLY ON
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND I HAD NOT SEEN THEM SINCE. SO HE
SHOWED ME THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.
Q NOW, WHEN HE PASSED THEM ON TO YOU, DID YOU, AFTER
EXAMINING THEM, MAKE SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING
WHAT YOU THOUGHT THEY DEPICTED?
A WELL, I WASN'T -- I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHAT THEY
DEPICTED INITIALLY. IT DID APPEAR TO BE SOME -- SOME PARALLEL
TYPE LINES GOING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS IN THE TOP CIRCLE, IN
THE MIDDLE CIRCLE AND GOING DOWN FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AND ALSO DOWN
-- VERTICAL TYPE LINES THAT WERE PRESENT DOWN JUST BELOW THE KNEE
AREA. WASN'T QUITE SURE WHAT THEY WERE.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU HAVE SOME TEST IMPRESSIONS SUBMITTED TO YOU
FOR COMPARISON TO THESE IMPRESSIONS THAT YOU SEE ON THESE JEANS?
A YES. I HAD TEST IMPRINT PATTERNS SUBMITTED FROM THE
BLUE JEANS AS WELL AS FROM RON GOLDMAN'S SHOE AND RON GOLDMAN'S
SHIRT.
Q AND WHEN WE SAY "TEST IMPRESSIONS," COULD YOU EXPLAIN
TO THE JURY WHAT THAT IS AND HOW IT'S DONE?
A WELL, A TEST PATTERN CAN BE PREPARED A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT WAYS. YEARS AGO, INK, INK PADS WERE VERY COMMON,
COMMONLY USED AND THEY STILL ARE. I MEAN, INK PADS DO WORK PRETTY
WELL. SO THAT MANY OF THE ORIGINAL IMPRINT TESTS THAT WERE
PREPARED FROM FABRIC WERE DONE WITH INK. AND, AGAIN, AS I SAY,
YOU CAN STILL USE THAT.
THERE'S ANOTHER SYSTEM THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE
MARKET. IT'S CALLED THE IDENTICATOR, AND IT'S A CHEMICAL THAT
HAS A PAD AND THE FABRIC IS BLOTTED INTO IT AND THEN IT'S PRESSED
ONTO SOME TREATED PAPER, AND THE TREATED PAPER REACTS WITH THE
CHEMICAL REAL QUICK AND IT WILL LEAVE THE IMPRINT PATTERN OF THAT
FABRIC.
THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM CAN BE USED FOR SHOES, IT CAN
BE USED FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. IT'S THE CHEMICAL THAT
REACTS WITH THE PAPER BASED UPON THE PRESSURE.
Q OKAY.
SO WHEN YOU MAKE THAT IMPRESSION OF A PIECE OF
FABRIC, DO YOU WIND UP WITH KIND OF LIKE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A
FINGERPRINT OF THE FABRIC?
A RIGHT. YOU'LL GET AN EXACT KIND OF A MIRROR IMAGE OF
IT OR NEGATIVE OF THE SURFACE OF THAT MATERIAL THAT YOU'RE
LOOKING AT.
FOR INSTANCE, THE RIBBED BLUE JEANS, THE RIBS THAT
SET OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THE FABRIC, THEY WILL APPEAR TO
BE DARK ON THE IDENTICATOR.
Q NOW, ONCE YOU'VE PERFORMED THAT, ONCE YOU HAVE A TEST
IMPRESSION, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE AREA THAT -- THE IMPRINT THAT
IS QUESTIONED THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE THE SOURCE OF?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION TO THE WORD --
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DO YOU DO? DIDN'T I SAY THAT? I
DIDN'T SAY THAT? OKAY.
WHAT DO YOU DO AFTER YOU HAVE THE TEST IMPRESSION
CREATED IN ORDER TO COMPARE IT TO THE QUESTIONED IMPRINT ON THE
EVIDENCE?
A WELL, THESE ARE COMPARED VISUALLY SIDE BY SIDE,
AGAIN, MAKING SURE THAT YOU START WITH 1X, THAT IS ONE TO ONE,
AND YOU CAN DO A VISUAL COMPARISON. SOMETIMES IT'S NOT POSSIBLE
TO SEE AS MUCH ONE TO ONE, SO YOU MAY HAVE TO PHOTOGRAPH IT,
ENLARGE IT TO WHERE IT'S CLEAR AND THEN DO A COMPARISON THAT WAY.
YOU MAY NEED TO MAKE OVERLAYS IF YOU THINK IT'S NECESSARY.
BUT MOST OF THESE ARE JUST VISUAL COMPARISONS AND
ALSO MAKING SOME MEASUREMENTS.
Q NOW, DID YOU ALSO MAKE YOUR OWN TEST IMPRESSIONS OF
THE JEANS IN THIS CASE?
A I DID.
Q BEFORE I GET TO THAT, SIR, IF I MAY ASK YOU, AFTER
YOU DID THE TEST -- YOU COMPARED THE TEST IMPRESSIONS OF RON
GOLDMAN'S JEANS TO THE QUESTIONED IMPRINT AREAS ON HIS JEANS, DID
YOU FORM SOME OPINION CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE SOURCE OF THAT
IMPRINT?
A OKAY. THE JEANS AND THE JEANS I DIDN'T DO. I
COMPARED THE SHIRT WITH THE JEANS.
Q I'M SORRY. LET ME BACK UP.
IN THIS CASE, YOU COMPARED -- DID YOU ALSO PREPARE
TEST IMPRESSIONS OF RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT?
A YES, I DID.
Q BEFORE YOU PREPARED YOUR OWN TEST IMPRESSIONS OF HIS
SHIRT, DID YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION TEST IMPRESSIONS OF THE
SHIRT PREPARED BY SOMEONE ELSE?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND DID YOU COMPARE THOSE TEST IMPRESSIONS TO THE
QUESTIONED AREA OF IMPRINT ON THE JEANS?
A I DID.
Q AND DID YOU FORM SOME OPINION AT THAT TIME CONCERNING
THE POSSIBLE SOURCE OF THE IMPRINT YOU SAW ON THE JEANS WHICH
YOU'VE CIRCLED ON PEOPLE'S 618?
A YES, I DID.
Q LATER AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT, DID YOU ALSO MAKE
YOUR OWN TEST IMPRESSIONS USING THE IDENTICATOR OF RON GOLDMAN'S
SHIRT?
A I DID, YES.
Q AND DID YOU THEN COMPARE THOSE TEST IMPRESSIONS ALSO
TO THE QUESTIONED IMPRINT AREAS ON RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS CIRCLED ON
PEOPLE'S 618?
A I DID. I COMPARED BOTH -- THE TEST THAT I MADE, I
COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL TEST PLUS I COMPARED THEM WITH THE
IMPRINT PATTERNS THAT WERE PRESENT ON THE JEANS.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I THINK YOU MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN
YOURSELF. I THINK THIS IS 619, IS THE JEAN EXHIBIT.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 619.
MAY I ASK THAT THAT -- WHEN I SAID 618 THESE LAST TWO
QUESTIONS, I MEANT 619.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, AFTER THOSE COMPARISONS WERE DONE -- AND WERE
THESE ONE ON ONE COMPARISONS BY THE WAY?
A WELL, THEY WERE, YES. THE LATEST ONES WERE ONE ON
ONE.
Q AND THE MORE -- THE EARLIER ONES WERE?
A THEY WERE UP TO 4X, FOUR TIMES.
Q AND WHAT OPINION DID YOU FORM, SIR?
A WELL, THAT THE PATTERN THAT WAS PREPARED FROM THE
TEST IMPRINT OF THE SHIRT COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE IMPRINT
PATTERNS OR THE PARALLEL LINES THAT ARE PRESENT ON THE JEANS
LOCATED MAINLY IN THIS TOP CIRCLE. DOWN IN THE MIDDLE CIRCLE
HERE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, LINES THAT ARE
ALSO VERY SIMILAR AND DOWN HERE AT THE KNEE AREA. BUT BY FAR, THE
BEST ONES WERE RIGHT ABOVE THE KNEE AREA ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE
PANTS (INDICATING).
Q CAN YOU -- DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION, SIR, AS TO THE
TYPE OF MOVEMENT THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE IMPRINT THAT YOU'VE
CIRCLED ON PEOPLE'S 619 ON RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS?
A WELL, IT COULD BE A SWIPING TYPE MOVEMENT, VERY
EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN THAT, OR A FLAT IMPRINT. BUT I BELIEVE
MORE LIKELY, IT PROBABLY WAS A SWIPING TYPE IN THE DIRECTION OF
THE RIB ON THE SHIRT.
Q NOW, I WANT TO ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION, SIR, AND FOR
THAT, YOU CAN RETAKE THE WITNESS STAND.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU SEE COMMONLY VARIATIONS BETWEEN
THE TEST IMPRESSION TAKEN FROM AN ARTICLE OF FABRIC AND THE
QUESTIONED IMPRINT TO WHICH YOU MAY FIND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
THAT FABRIC?
A YES. YOU'LL ALWAYS FIND SOME VARIATION.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A WELL, BECAUSE THE ACTIVE TRANSFERRING AND IMPRINT
ONTO A SURFACE DURING AN ACTUAL LIVING EVENT IS AFFECTED BY THE
AMOUNT OF FORCE, THE MOVEMENT OF THE INDIVIDUALS, THE DURATION OF
THE CONTACT, THE FORCE OF THE CONTACT, DIRECTIONALITY OF IT, IF
IT'S TWISTED OR SLID.
AND WHEN YOU MAKE A TEST IMPRINT, IT'S -- YOU'RE
TRYING TO RECREATE IT AS BEST YOU CAN, BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE INITIAL EVENT OR WHEN A CRIME
HAS BEEN COMMITTED. IT'S -- WITHOUT HAVING A VIDEOTAPE AND
ACTUALLY SEEING IT OCCUR, YOU DON'T KNOW. SO YOU TRY TO DO YOUR
BEST TO RECREATE VARIOUS MOVEMENTS OR PRESSURES THAT YOU PUT ONTO
THAT TREATED PAPER.
Q OKAY.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, SIR.
FABRIC TYPICALLY IS STRETCHY. IT BENDS, CORRECT?
A FABRIC IS FLEXIBLE, YES.
Q WHEN FABRIC IS WORN ON A PERSON'S BODY, A PERSON'S
BODY IS GENERALLY NOT FLAT LIKE A BOARD OR TABLE OR PIECE OF
PAPER?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT'S RIGHT. COMMON SENSE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: RIGHT.
WHEN YOU MAKE A TEST IMPRESSION WITH FABRIC, WHAT DO
YOU -- DO YOU IMPRESS IT ON A ROUNDED SURFACE?
A NO. IT'S FLAT.
Q LIKE A LEG OR SOMETHING?
A NO. IT'S FLAT. IT'S ON A FLAT SURFACE.
Q AND THE SURFACE THAT YOU MAKE THE IMPRESSION ON, IS
THAT ANOTHER FABRIC, PIECE OF FABRIC?
A NO. IT'S ON A PIECE OF PAPER OR ON A TABLE.
Q OKAY.
SO IT'S -- SO USING THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT'S FLAT ON
A PAPER, CAN YOU SAY, FIRST OF ALL, WHETHER OR NOT THE PAPER HAS
THE SAME KIND OF ABSORBANCY AS FABRIC?
A NO, YOU CAN'T.
Q AND SO IT'S FLAT AND IT'S A DIFFERENT ABSORBANCY.
ALSO, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN MAKE -- THAT YOU
TRY TO STRETCH THE FABRIC OR PULL IT TO SHOW HOW IT'S GOING TO
LOOK DIFFERENT IF BENT OR STRETCHED IN ANY PARTICULAR MANNER WHEN
YOU MAKE THE IMPRESSION?
A WELL, SOMETIMES YOU CAN PLACE A FINGER IN ONE AREA
AND STRETCH THE FABRIC AND MAKE AN IMPRINT PATTERN THAT WAY.
THAT MAY BE MORE CHARACTERISTIC OF FABRIC THAT'S AT THE ELBOW OR
IF IT'S ON GLOVES AT THE KNUCKLES OR IF IT'S ON PANTS AT THE KNEE
AREA BECAUSE THESE ARE THE AREAS THAT OFTEN GET WORN AND THEY
ALSO OFTEN ARE FLEXED A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO AN IMPRINT THAT'S TAKEN IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT
ON A TWILL FABRIC OR BLUE-JEAN TYPE FABRIC, OFTEN YOU'LL SEE THAT
THE RIBS ARE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER APART WHEREAS IF YOU PRESS IT
FLAT, TURN THE FABRIC IN A LITTLE BIT, IT CAN MAKE THESE RIBS A
LITTLE BIT CLOSER TOGETHER.
SO IT'S KIND OF -- IT'S A TEST THAT YOU'RE CONDUCTING
AND YOU DO YOUR BEST TO TRY TO RECREATE AN ACTUAL EVENT, BUT YOU
NEVER REALLY CAN.
Q DO YOU KNOW NECESSARILY HOW MUCH FORCE WAS APPLIED
DURING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME TO CAUSE A FABRIC IMPRINT TO BE
MADE?
A IN SOME INSTANCE, IF YOU KNOW HOW FAST A CAR IS
GOING, I MEAN, YOU COULD KNOW THEN.
Q COULD YOU EVER DUPLICATE THAT FORCE IN MAKING YOUR
TEST IMPRESSION?
A WELL, YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO FIND SOME DUMMY WEARING
SOME CLOTHES STANDING OUT THERE WAITING TO BE HIT. MAYBE THAT
WOULD BE ONE WAY TO DO IT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME
RESISTANCE AND THE RESISTANCE TO THAT IMPACT WOULD HAVE TO BE
SOME MANNEQUIN OR DUMMY THAT --
AND I DON'T THINK YOU COULD EVEN DO IT THEN BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY THE VICTIM OF A HIT AND RUN CASE MAY BE AWARE, MAY NOT
BE AWARE, MAY BE RUNNING, MAY BE DUCKING, MAY BE JUMPING. SO I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD EVEN RECREATE IT THEN.
Q BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, SIR, THAT, ARE THERE A NUMBER
OF VARIABLES THAT OCCUR WHEN AN ACTUAL IMPRINT IS MADE ON FABRIC
DURING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME THAT CANNOT BE COMPLETELY
DUPLICATED IN MAKING YOUR TEST IMPRESSION?
A RIGHT. THERE'S MANY VARIABLES.
Q NEVERTHELESS, WOULD YOU EVER RENDER AN OPINION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT A SPECIFIC KIND OF ARTICLE OF CLOTHING MADE A
QUESTIONED IMPRINT ON A PIECE OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT HAVING A TEST
IMPRESSION?
A NO. I WOULD NEVER ATTEMPT TO DO THAT. I WOULD TRY
MY BEST TO RECREATE WHAT TYPE OF PATTERN A FABRIC MAY HAVE OR AN
OBJECT MAY HAVE BEFORE I CONDUCTED AN COMPARISON.
Q WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY THAT
ANY PARTICULAR ITEM OF CLOTHING MAY HAVE MADE AN IMPRINT ON A
PIECE OF EVIDENCE AT A CRIME SCENE WITHOUT HAVING SEEN A TEST
IMPRESSION OF THAT ITEM TO COMPARE IT TO THE QUESTIONED IMPRINT?
A I THINK IN SOME INSTANCES, IF YOU HAVE AN UNUSUAL
ENOUGH PATTERN, I THINK YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. I'D REALLY
WANT TO DO IT. JUST TO BE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE, YOU'D WANT TO SHOW PEOPLE THAT IN FACT THESE DO MAKE
DIFFERENT TEST PATTERNS.
BUT WITH BLUE JEANS AND SOME OTHER FABRICS, I WOULD
WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE -- LIKE TWILL PANTS, BLUE-JEAN PANTS, YOU
MAY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RIBS AND SO FORTH ARE SIMILAR. SO
I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE I DID A TEST PATTERN.
Q NOW, ARE YOU AWARE, SIR, THAT DR. LEE TESTIFIED
DURING THE DEFENSE CASE TO CERTAIN IMPRINTS ON RON GOLDMAN'S BLUE
JEANS?
A I HEARD SOME OF THAT TESTIMONY, YES.
Q ARE YOU AWARE, SIR, THAT HE IN HIS TESTIMONY EXCLUDED
THE POSSIBILITY THAT RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT COULD HAVE MADE ANY OF
THOSE IMPRINTS?
A I REMEMBER THAT, YES.
Q ARE YOU ALSO AWARE, SIR, THAT HE MADE NO TEST
IMPRESSIONS PRIOR TO -- AND MADE NO COMPARISONS BETWEEN TEST
IMPRESSIONS AND THE QUESTIONED IMPRINT PRIOR TO ARRIVING AT HIS
CONCLUSIONS?
A I'M NOT SURE IF I RECALL HEARING THAT.
Q HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, SIR, IF UNDER THOSE FACTS,
THAT IS, A QUESTIONED IMPRINT ON A PAIR OF JEANS AND A VICTIM'S
SHIRT OF THE TYPE THAT RON GOLDMAN WORE, IF THAT SHIRT WERE TO BE
EXCLUDED BY AN EXPERT AS HAVING MADE THE IMPRINT ON THE JEANS,
WITHOUT HAVING ANY TEST IMPRESSIONS TO COMPARE TO THE QUESTIONED
IMPRINT FROM RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT, WHAT WOULD YOUR OPINION BE OF
THAT SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE?
A WELL, I THINK IT'S INADEQUATE. I THINK YOU REALLY
NEED TO DO AS MUCH AS YOU CAN AS FAR AS TRYING TO RECREATE A
PATTERN TO COMPARE IT TO. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN MAKE A
STATEMENT LIKE THAT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT KIND OF PATTERN THE
SHIRT ACTUALLY MAKES. I THINK YOU NEED TO DO IT.
Q NOW, DID YOU EXAMINE THE BOARD CREATED BY THE DEFENSE
KNOWN AS 1339?
A YES, I DID.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, I THINK THEY MAY NEED AN
EXHIBIT.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH, THIS IS DEFENSE 1339?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MRS. ROBERTSON, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT -- I'M
SORRY.
MISS CLARK, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE
ON THIS EXHIBIT?
MS. CLARK: NO. IT'S FINE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO CUT THE FEED
ON THIS ONE I DON'T THINK. BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH THE
JEANS WITHOUT ANY --
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MISS CLARK.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SIR, WE HAVE HERE DEFENDANT'S 1339.
HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q YOU PROBABLY NEED TO STEP DOWN WITH THE POINTER.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, THE AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED WITH THE RED NUMBERS
1, 2 AND 3, THE AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED, HAVE YOU EXAMINED
THOSE AREAS ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH ON DEFENSE 1339?
A I HAVE, YES.
Q HAVE YOU ALSO THEN EXAMINED THE PULLOUTS 1, 2 AND 3
IN THE BLOW-UP PHOTOGRAPHS ON THIS BOARD THAT PURPORT TO BE THE
LOCATIONS DESIGNATED BY THE RED ARROWS AND NUMBERS ON THIS
OVERALL SHOT OF THE JEANS?
A YES. I EXAMINED ALL OF THESE IMPRINT PHOTOGRAPHS.
Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO IMPRINT NO. 1, DO YOU HAVE ANY
OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THAT DESIGNATED AREA?
A NO. IT SEEMS TO BE ACCURATE. I MEAN, YOU'D HAVE TO
TURN THIS PHOTOGRAPH ON ITS SIDE BECAUSE THIS AREA HERE AT THE
BOTTOM, THIS DARK AREA REPRESENTS THE DARK AREA ON THE RIGHT SIDE
OF THE JEANS (INDICATING). BUT IT REPRESENTS THE AREA THAT'S
DEPICTED.
Q WITH RESPECT TO IMPRINT NO. 2, THE PULLOUT OVER HERE,
IT'S REPRESENTED TO BE THE UPPER RIGHT KNEE AREA ON THE OVERALL
PICTURE OF THE JEANS, DO YOU HAVE AN OBSERVATION WITH RESPECT TO
THAT IMPRINT?
A WELL, IT'S NOT QUITE POSITIONED BY THE ARROW. IT'S
IN THE GENERAL AREA, BUT THIS PARTICULAR PATTERN HERE IS ACTUALLY
LOCATED RIGHT IN THIS AREA (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: AND FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING TO
A LOCATION THAT IS APPROXIMATELY ONE INCH DOWN AND MAYBE
QUARTER-INCH IN THAT IS TOWARDS THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE AS YOU FACE
IT MORE TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE KNEE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SO WHERE THE ARROW IS POINTING TO AS
NO. 2 IS NOT REALLY WHERE THAT PATTERN IS?
A IT'S --
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. THE PICTURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT'S POINTING TOWARDS IT, BUT THE ARROW
DOESN'T LAND ON IT. I MEAN, IT'S -- IT'S IN THE GENERAL AREA.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND WITH RESPECT TO NO. 3, IMPRINT NO.
3, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBSERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT IMPRINT,
SIR?
A WELL, NO. 3 IS JUST NOT RIGHT AT ALL. 3 IS LOCATED
RIGHT UP IN THIS AREA (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: AND FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS POINTED TO
WHAT WOULD -- WHAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE NUMBER --
RED NO. 2 AND UP ABOUT TWO INCHES WHERE THERE SEEMS TO BE A
BLOTCH OF DARK SUBSTANCE ON WHAT WOULD --
THE COURT: APPEARS TO BE ADJACENT FROM THE LABEL ON THE
RULER THAT IS TO THE LEFT.
MS. CLARK: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MS. CLARK: THEN BASED ON YOUR EXAMINATION, SIR,
IMPRINT NO. 3 AS DESIGNATED ON THE INSIDE OF THE JEAN WAS NOT
THERE AT ALL?
A NO. THIS PARTICULAR PATTERN, IF YOU SUPERIMPOSED IT,
YOU WOULD SEE THAT THIS IS THE AREA OF INTEREST (INDICATING).
AND THAT'S THE AREA THAT I WAS FOCUSING ON, SO I RECOGNIZED IT
RIGHT OFF.
MS. CLARK: AND WHEN THE WITNESS SAID, "THIS IS THE AREA OF
INTEREST," FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, HE POINTED AGAIN TO THE
AREA ADJACENT TO THE LABEL ON THE RULER THAT'S ON THE LEFT-HAND
SIDE OF THE JEANS AS YOU FACE THEM.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO IMPRINT NO. 2 AND
IMPRINT NO. 3, SIR, ARE THEY THE SAME LEVEL OF MAGNIFICATION?
A THEY DON'T APPEAR TO BE. NO.
IMPRINT NO. 2 APPEARS TO BE A HIGHER MAGNIFICATION,
AND THIS IS JUST BASED UPON THE SIZE OF THE RIBS.
THE RIBS ON IMPRINT NO. 3 ARE SMALLER AND IMPRINT NO.
2, THEY'RE MUCH LARGER. OF COURSE, THE EXPOSURE, AS YOU CAN SEE,
THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE WASHED OUT ON IMPRINT NO. 2.
Q IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
A WELL, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPARE PATTERNS OR COMPARE
TWO THINGS, YOU'D WANT TO HAVE THEM MAGNIFIED ABOUT THE SAME.
IT'S LIKE A PAIR OF HAIRS, FIBERS OR ANYTHING. IF YOU'RE
COMPARING THEM, YOU SHOULD BE COMPARING THEM USING THE SAME
PERIMETERS. AND IMPRINT PATTERNS WOULD BE ONE WAY TO DO THAT.
Q WHY SHOULD YOU USE -- WHY SHOULD YOU BE COMPARING
THEM AT THE SAME LEVEL OF MAGNIFICATION?
A WELL, JUST SO YOU'RE CORRECT. I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T
WANT TO GIVE SOMEONE THE IDEA THAT IT'S SOMETHING WHEN IT
ACTUALLY ISN'T. YOU WANT TO REPRESENT THE EVIDENCE AS ACCURATELY
AS POSSIBLE.
Q WHEN YOU MAGNI -- THE MORE YOU MAGNIFY, DOES IT MAKE
THE -- WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE ON HOW MUCH SPACE THERE APPEARS
TO BE BETWEEN THE RIBBING?
A WELL, IF YOU MAGNIFY -- AS YOU MAGNIFY AN IMAGE,
YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN -- BETWEEN OBJECTS
OBVIOUSLY. THE OBJECT WILL GET LARGER, THE SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS
WILL GET LARGER.
THE RIBBED PATTERN, THE LINES THAT ARE PRESENT ON
IMPRINT NO. 2 ON THE LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER WILL INCREASE IN SIZE
BETWEEN THEM. THAT IS, IF YOU'RE COMPARING IT TO SOMETHING THAT
PERHAPS -- LIKE IMPRINT NO. 3, THESE LINES APPEAR CLOSER
TOGETHER. YET, IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE THAT BOTH OF THEM WERE
PRODUCED PERHAPS BY A SIMILAR TYPE MATERIAL.
Q SO BY PUTTING IN DIFFERENT -- PHOTOGRAPHS OF
DIFFERENT AREAS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF MAGNIFICATION, MIGHT IT
OCCUR THAT AN IMPRINT, A QUESTIONED IMPRINT MIGHT APPEAR TO LOOK
SIMILAR -- TWO QUESTIONED IMPRINTS MIGHT APPEAR TO LOOK SIMILAR
WHEN THEY REALLY AREN'T BECAUSE THE SPACING IS MISREPRESENTED BY
THE MAGNIFICATION?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: CAN THE USE OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
MAGNIFICATION ON TWO DIFFERENT IMPRINTS HAVE SOME IMPACT ON --
STRIKE THAT. LET ME TRY IT AGAIN.
CAN THE USE OF TWO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF MAGNIFICATION
ON TWO DIFFERENT IMPRINTS CREATE A MISIMPRESSION WITH RESPECT TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE MADE BY THE SAME SOURCE OR SAME ITEM?
A I THINK IT GOES TO WHAT MESSAGE OR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO SAY, WHAT POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE.
IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SHOW TWO THINGS ARE FROM THE SAME
SOURCE, THEN YOU WOULD WANT TO REPRESENT IT UNDER THE SAME
CONDITIONS, THE SAME MAGNIFICATION.
IT'S MISLEADING TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT'S VERY SMALL
AND MAGNIFY IT UP TO SOMETHING THAT'S VERY BIG IF THAT'S WHAT
YOU'RE INTERESTED IN COMPARING IT TO. BECAUSE YOU REALLY DON'T
KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, YOU MIGHT THINK THAT THE SMALL THING
LOOKS LIKE THE BIG THING, AND IN REALITY, THEY COULD NEVER BE THE
SAME.
Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPRINT THAT YOU IDENTIFIED
ON THE JEANS AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT, CAN
YOU SHOW US WHERE ON THE OVERALL PHOTOGRAPH THAT IMPRINT WAS?
A THE IMPRINT PATTERN ON THE FULL PHOTOGRAPH ON THE
LEFT OF THE BLUE JEANS THAT I THOUGHT WAS BY FAR THE BEST -- AND
THERE WERE SEVERAL IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS -- WERE
LOCATED ON THE -- JUST ABOVE THE KNEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE ON
THE OUTSIDE OF THE JEANS.
Q WOULD THAT BE THE AREA WHERE IMPRINT 3 SHOULD BE
DESIGNATED ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A RIGHT. YOU WOULD TAKE IMPRINT 3, TURN IT UP AND MOVE
IT RIGHT OVER HERE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE AREA, WHICH IS JUST
ABOVE THE KNEE RIGHT ABOVE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PANTS
(INDICATING).
Q AND THAT WAS THE AREA THAT YOU FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE SHIRT OF RON GOLDMAN?
A THAT'S RIGHT. I DID.
Q WOULD THAT -- WOULD THE APPEARANCE OF THAT IMPRINT BE
CONSISTENT WITH HIS BRUSHING HIS SLEEVE OVER THAT AREA OF THE
JEANS?
MR. SCHECK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I ANSWERED THAT, BUT YES, IN MY OPINION, THAT
WOULD BE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, DID YOU ALSO SIR -- WHY DON'T YOU
HAVE A SEAT.
A THANK YOU.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
DID MR. BODZIAK ALSO GIVE TO YOU PHOTOGRAPHS OF AN
ENVELOPE FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE AND A PIECE OF PAPER THAT WAS
FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A YES, HE DID.
Q AND HAD HE ALREADY EXAMINED THEM HIMSELF WHEN HE GAVE
THEM TO YOU?
A YES.
Q HAVING ALREADY EXAMINED THEM, HE ASKED YOU A
QUESTION? HE ASKED YOU TO PERFORM SOME WORK?
MR. SCHECK: CALLS FOR --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: HE GAVE YOU THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS; IS THAT
CORRECT, SIR?
A HE DID.
Q DID HE GIVE YOU THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS EVERYDAY AS A GIFT,
SIR?
A I HAVE ENOUGH WORK, BUT NO, HE DOESN'T.
Q WHEN HE GAVE YOU THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU
UNDERSTAND YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO?
A WELL, I WAS TO LOOK AT THE PATTERN ON THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS TO DETERMINE IF FABRIC MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE OF
THE IMPRINT PATTERN.
Q AND DID YOU CAUSE A BOARD TO BE PREPARED OF THE
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THOSE ITEMS, SIR?
A I DID.
MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S 620, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: 620. AND I'M SORRY. MAY I SEE THAT BRIEFLY?
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: THREE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THIS.
(PEO'S 620 FOR ID = BOARD)
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
IS THIS THE BOARD YOU PREPARED TO DEPICT THE
ENVELOPE, THE PAPER AND TEST IMPRESSIONS?
A YES, IT IS.
Q DID YOU IDENTIFY ANY PATTERNS ON EITHER THE PAPER,
WHICH YOU HAVE LABELED ON THIS BOARD AS "PAPER," OR THE ENVELOPE
FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE, WHICH IS LABELED ON THIS BOARD AS
"ENVELOPE"?
A YES. THERE WERE VERY FINE PARALLEL LINES ON THE
PIECE OF PAPER AT THE BOTTOM PHOTOGRAPH AND ALSO ON THE UPPER
RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THE BACKSIDE OF THAT ENVELOPE THAT WAS
RECOVERED FROM THE CRIME SCENE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO STEP DOWN, SIR, SO YOU COULD SHOW
THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY?
A I'D BE GLAD TO.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
OKAY.
THE TOP PHOTOGRAPH IS THE ENVELOPE, THE AREA IS UPPER
RIGHT-HAND CORNER ON THE BACKSIDE, JUST REAL SMALL AREA, SMALL
PARALLEL LINES GOING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
THE BOTTOM PHOTOGRAPH IS OF THE PAPER. THESE LINES
ARE MUCH FAINTER, BUT THEY'RE LOCATED IN THIS GENERAL AREA GOING
>FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AGAIN. THEY'RE IN THIS AREA IN THE CENTER OF
THE PHOTOGRAPH AS WELL AS IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S SOME A LITTLE
BIT FURTHER INTO THAT MORE STAINED AREA (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
FOR THE RECORD, WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVELOPE, THE
WITNESS POINTED TO THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER AS YOU FACE IT OF
THE ENVELOPE, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE PAPER, THE WITNESS POINTED
TO THE AREA THAT IS ALONG THE LOWER EDGE AND APPROXIMATELY ONE
INCH UP IN THE APPROXIMATE MIDDLE OF THE PAPER.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, IF THOSE LINES ON THE PAPER, SIR,
ARE SO FAINT, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SIMPLY MAGNIFY THE PHOTOGRAPH
TO BE VERY BIG SO THAT YOU COULD MORE EASILY VISUALIZE IT?
A WELL, YOU CAN DO THAT. OFTEN WHEN YOU MAGNIFY
SOMETHING THIS FAINT, YOU'RE GOING TO START LOSING DEFINITION TO
IT. AND OFTEN, MANY IMPRINT PATTERNS ARE MORE EASILY SEEN AT THE
LOWER -- A REAL LOW MAGNIFICATION, NOT HIGHER MAGNIFICATION.
YOU CAN ALTER THE CONTRAST BY PHOTOGRAPHIC
TECHNIQUES. YOU MAY ADD CHEMICALS TO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD
ALSO DARKEN IT.
BUT TO LEAVE IT IN ITS EXISTING CONDITION, I DID NOT
ENLARGE THIS. I FELT YOU WOULD LOSE DEFINITION.
Q WELL, THEN WHY NOT ADD CHEMICALS TO THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SO THAT YOU COULD EASILY -- MORE EASILY
SEE THE LINES?
A I THINK YOU -- AGAIN, IN MAYBE A TECHNIQUE WHERE --
AGAIN, I'M NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER, BUT YOU MAY -- YOU MAY ALSO
INCREASE THE CONTRAST BY WASHING OUT SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS AND
MAYBE FOCUSING IN ON THE -- ON JUST THE FINE LINES. BUT I THINK
YOU'D BETTER SPEAK TO A PHOTOGRAPHER ON THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
BUT IF YOU DID THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF YOUR
SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON, WOULD THERE BE A PROBLEM WITH THE VALIDITY
OF MAKING A COMPARISON WITH A PHOTOGRAPH IN WHICH THE CONTRAST
AND THE LINES HAVE BEEN ALTERED IN COLOR TO YOUR TEST IMPRESSION?
A WELL, OBVIOUSLY IT CHANGES THE APPEARANCE OF IT.
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN JUST THE IMAGE OF THE IMPRINT
PATTERN, IT MAY NOT BE THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE. BUT TRYING TO KEEP
IT IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SEE IN ITS REAL STATE, PROBABLY
YOU MAY WANT TO DO THAT. JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT ANGLE YOU WANT TO
APPROACH IT FROM.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU EXAMINED THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER,
DID YOU HAVE ANY TEST IMPRESSION TO COMPARE THOSE PATTERNS TO ON
THOSE TWO ITEMS?
A I DID, YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS THE TEST IMPRESSION YOU HAD?
A WELL, THERE WAS A TEST PATTERN THAT WAS PREPARED AND
SUBMITTED TAKEN OF THE JEANS AND I ALSO HAD ONE THAT I PREPARED
MYSELF.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAY "THE JEANS," YOU MEAN RON GOLDMAN'S
JEANS?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q SO YOU COMPARED THE IMPRESSIONS YOU FOUND ON THE
ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER TO TEST IMPRESSIONS TAKEN OF RON GOLDMAN'S
JEANS?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND WHEN YOU DID SO, SIR, DID YOU FORM AN OPINION?
A WELL, MY OPINION IS THAT THE IMPRINT PATTERN ON THE
BACK OF THE ENVELOPE AND ALSO ON THE PIECE OF PAPER COULD HAVE
BEEN CAUSED BY THE JEANS, WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THE IMPRINT
PATTERNS IN THE CENTER PHOTOGRAPH. ALL OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE
ONE TO ONE.
Q NOW, IS THAT AN IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW AND TO TELL
THE JURY, THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ALL ONE TO ONE?
A SURE. I MEAN, THAT'S TRUTH. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'M
HERE TO TELL YOU, THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SEEING. IT'S
A VERY FINE PATTERN THAT'S EXHIBITED, AND YOU SEE THE SAME FINE
TYPE PATTERNS THAT ARE FOUND ON THE ENVELOPE.
YOU WANT TO REPRESENT THE EVIDENCE -- REPRESENT THE
IDENTIFICATION AS IT IS.
Q AND IN HAVING A TEST IMPRESSION THAT IS NOT MAGNIFIED
COMPARED TO AN UNMAGNIFIED IMPRESSION SHOWN ON THE ENVELOPE AND
THE PAPER, DOES THAT GIVE YOU ANY GREATER DEGREE OF SCIENTIFIC
CERTAINTY AS TO THE CONSISTENCY OF THOSE PATTERNS WITH RON
GOLDMAN'S JEANS THAN IF YOU HAD A MAGNIFIED TEST IMPRESSION OR
MAGNIFIED IMPRESSION OF THE ENVELOPE OR PAPER TO COMPARE?
A AGAIN -- AND WE'VE GONE OVER THIS -- THAT WHENEVER
YOU'RE COMPARING TWO THINGS, WHETHER IT'S ONE TO ONE, TWO TO ONE,
THREE TO ONE, FOUR TO ONE OR A HUNDRED TO ONE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
COMPARING THEM, YOU COMPARE THEM AT THE SAME MAGNIFICATION, OR
YOU CAN COMPARE THEM ONE ON ONE, AND YOU MAY USE A HAND MAGNIFIER
WITH LOW MAGNIFICATION TO DO THAT COMPARISON.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DID THE IMPRESSION ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER
APPEAR TO YOU TO HAVE COME FROM THE SAME SOURCE?
A YES.
Q THEY LOOKED SIMILAR, DID THEY?
A THEY LOOKED THE SAME TO ME.
Q OKAY.
AND THE IMPRESSIONS ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER,
DID THEY LOOK SIMILAR TO THE IMPRESSION YOU SAW AND IDENTIFIED ON
RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS?
A THE IMPRINT PATTERN THAT WAS ON HIS JEANS?
Q CORRECT.
A OH, NO. IT'S DIFFERENT. NO. THE SHIRT MAKES A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PATTERN THAN THE JEANS.
Q OKAY.
AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT
OR NOT, THE IMPRINT THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS,
DID IT APPEAR SIMILAR TO YOU TO THE IMPRINT PATTERNS YOU FOUND ON
THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER?
A NO.
Q THEN IN YOUR OPINION, SIR, THE IMPRINTS ON THE
ENVELOPE AND PAPER, WERE THEY MADE BY A DIFFERENT OBJECT THAN THE
IMPRINT ON RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED?
A THEY'RE MADE BY DIFFERENT SOURCES.
THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER APPEARED TO HAVE COME FROM
A SINGLE SOURCE OR A COUPLE SOURCES THAT MAY HAVE SAME PATTERN,
AND THE ONE FABRIC IMPRINT THAT WAS FOUND ON HIS HANDS WHILE
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE JEANS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN
CAUSED BY THE SHIRT OR ANOTHER FABRIC THAT HAS THE SAME PATTERN.
Q OKAY.
SO BETWEEN THE ENVELOPE, PAPER AND THE JEANS, YOU
HAVE AT LEAST TWO POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR THE IMPRINTS, MAYBE THREE?
A WELL, AT LEAST TWO, YEAH, AT LEAST FOR THESE AND ONE
OR MORE FOR THE IMPRINT PATTERN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PANTS.
Q NOW, DID YOU ALSO PREPARE A CHART, SIR, SHOWING THE
JEANS, THE SHIRT AND THE ENVELOPE?
A YES, I DID.
MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S?
THE COURT: 621.
(PEO'S 621 FOR ID = BOARD)
THE COURT: MAY I SEE THAT BRIEFLY?
MS. CLARK: SURE.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS CHART WAS SO
SMALL, MR. GOLDBERG POINTED OUT THAT PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BETTER
TO PASS IT AROUND TO THE JURORS OR AT LEAST HAVE SOMEBODY HOLD IT
UP AND SHOW IT TO THEM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU HAND THAT TO JUROR NO. 7,
PLEASE.
THANK YOU.
(PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 620 WAS
EXAMINED BY THE JURORS.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, 2:30.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, WOULD YOU COLLECT THAT FROM DEPUTY SMITH,
PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
AND PEOPLE'S --
THE COURT: 621.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, ON THIS BOARD, I SEE THAT YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF
THE BLUE JEANS AND A TEST IMPRINT OF THE SHIRT, AN IMPRINT OF THE
ENVELOPE AND A TEST IMPRINT OF THE BLUE JEANS. I DON'T SEE THE
PIECE OF --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: I DON'T SEE A PICTURE OF THE LITTLE
PAPER THAT WAS PHOTOGRAPHED AT THE CRIME SCENE THAT WAS SHOWN ON
THE PREVIOUS EXHIBIT. IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT, SIR?
A THESE WERE ALL MAGNIFIED. AND, AGAIN, I STATED I
DIDN'T INCREASE THE MAGNIFICATION ON THE PAPER.
Q SO -- WHAT? BECAUSE IT WAS SO FAINT?
A NO. AGAIN, YOU HAVE A LOT OF DIFFICULTY IN SEEING
IT.
Q TELL US WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SHOW US HERE ON THIS
BOARD.
A WELL, THE IMPRINT PATTERNS ON THIS PARTICULAR --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. COUNSEL, REMEMBER OUR RULE
ON DISCUSSIONS?
MR. NEUFELD: SORRY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. JUST REMINDER.
THE WITNESS: THE IMPRINT -- TEST IMPRINT PATTERNS ON THIS
PARTICULAR CHART ARE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, IMPRINT OF THE
SHIRT, OF THE BLUE JEANS AND HERE'S ANOTHER FAINT OR LIGHTER TEST
IMPRINT TAKEN UNDER A LITTLE DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHY SITUATION.
THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE LEFT WERE EITHER COLOR OR
BLACK AND WHITE AT ABOUT 4X FOR THE TOP FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS HERE,
BOTH TEST IMPRINTS AND IMPRINTS ON THE BLUE JEANS AND ENVELOPE.
THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE BOTTOM ARE A LITTLE BIT
LARGER. THEY'RE CLOSER TO 8 MAGNIFICATION, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY
THAT IS.
UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER, THE IMPRINT PATTERNS THAT I
POINTED OUT BEFORE ON THE RIGHT SIDE ON THE BLUE JEANS ON THE
RIGHT LEG, THERE'S THAT BLOB AGAIN. THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE
MARKER THAT I WENT BY.
THE PATTERNS APPEAR GOING ACROSS THE TWILL. THEY'RE
GOING ACROSS THE RIBS, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T
EXPECT TO SEE LINES GOING IN THAT DIRECTION UNLESS THERE WAS
SOMETHING ACTUALLY CUTTING ACROSS IT (INDICATING).
THE PATTERN THAT THE SHIRT LEAVES IS ON THE RIGHT AND
IT'S MAGNIFIED ABOUT THE SAME. SO THE SPACING AND THE APPEARANCE
OF THESE WAS COMPARED WITH THE SPACING AND APPEARANCE OF THOSE
PATTERNS FOUND ON THE BLUE JEANS.
THE IMPRINT ON THE ENVELOPE, UPPER RIGHT-HAND SIDE,
IT'S ABOUT 4X AGAIN. THIS WAS A LITTLE BIT DARKER. THIS IS A
HEAVY IMPRINT. IT'S A LOT OF IDENTICATOR OR SOLUTION PRESSED IN.
THE BETTER -- I OFTEN FIND THAT THE BETTER IMPRINTS
ARE REPRESENTED BY THE ONES THAT YOU SEE ON THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND
SIDE, AND THAT'S A POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH OF AN IMPRINT PATTERN.
THIS WAS TAKEN FROM THE SAME SHEET THAT THIS ONE CAME FROM, BUT
IT WAS FROM A LITTLE BIT -- A LITTLE DIFFERENT AREA.
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, WHEN THE WITNESS SAID, "THIS
WAS TAKEN FROM THIS," THE WITNESS WAS POINTING TO THE LOWER
RIGHT-HAND PHOTOGRAPH AS BEING "THIS" AND THEN "WAS TAKEN FROM
THIS," HE POINTED TO THE MIDDLE RIGHT SIDE PHOTOGRAPH.
THE COURT: AS "THAT."
MS. CLARK: AS "THAT."
THANK YOU.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
THE WITNESS: AND THE REASON I SAY THIS IS BECAUSE MANY OF
THE IMPRINT PATTERNS THAT ARE LEFT ARE NOT REAL DARK. THEY'RE
OFTEN VERY LIGHT, ESPECIALLY DUST IMPRINTS THAT ARE ALMOST --
THEY'RE VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE.
BUT THIS SPACING HERE WAS COMPARED WITH THE SPACING
AND SO FORTH IN APPEARANCE OF THE IMPRINT THAT WAS ON THE
ENVELOPE. AND THESE ARE MAGNIFIED AGAIN ABOUT THE SAME, ABOUT
EIGHT TIMES OR SO.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SO ON THESE TWO LOWER -- LOWEST
PHOTOGRAPHS, SIR, THEY'RE BOTH EIGHT TIMES MAGNIFICATION?
A THEY'RE ABOUT EIGHT. THEY'RE ABOUT EIGHT.
Q SO IN THE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN, THOSE ARE ALL THE TEST
IMPRESSIONS?
A ON THE RIGHT -- ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THESE ARE ALL TEST
IMPRINTS FROM THE SHIRT ON THE UPPER RIGHT, TEST IMPRINT FROM THE
BLUE JEANS, THEY'RE THE SECOND AND THE THIRD ON THE RIGHT-HAND
SIDE.
Q BUT IN EACH CASE, WHEN YOU COMPARE A TEST IMPRESSION
TO THE QUESTIONED IMPRINT ON THIS BOARD, EACH PAIR IS OF THE SAME
MAGNIFICATION; IS THAT RIGHT?
A SAME -- SAME CONDITIONS STRAIGHT ACROSS, AND IT'S
SIMILAR TO WHEN I DID HAIRS OR FIBERS. SAME THING.
Q NOW, DID YOU NOTICE ON DR. LEE'S BOARDS WHETHER THERE
WAS ANY INDICATION AS TO WHAT THE MAGNIFICATION WAS THAT WAS USED
FOR ANY PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH?
A WELL, SOME OF THE ONES THAT I SAW, I DIDN'T SEE ANY
INDICATION OF MAGNIFICATION.
Q AND WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT YOU COULD SEE ON
THOSE BOARDS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ITEMS COMPARED WERE OF THE
SAME MAGNIFICATION OR NOT?
A IF YOU HAD TWO ITEMS AND YOU KNOW THEY WERE THE SAME,
YOU COULD DO A COMPARISON THAT WAY AND SEE IF THEY'RE
PROPORTIONED -- PROPORTIONATELY THE SAME. OTHERWISE, YOU MAY
HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REFERENCE POINT TO WORK
>FROM TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE THE SAME OR THEY AREN'T
THE SAME.
Q WAS THERE ANY INDICATION ON THE BOARDS THAT YOU COULD
READ TO SEE WHETHER THE MAGNIFICATION WAS THE SAME? WERE THEY
LABELED AS SUCH?
A NO. NO. BUT I DIDN'T LABEL THESE BOTTOM PHOTOGRAPHS
EITHER.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER
THEM TO BE. BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ON HIS BOARDS THERE TO
INDICATE THAT.
Q AND IN ANY CASE, YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THOSE ARE THE
SAME MAGNIFICATION?
A THEY'RE THE SAME, SAME PHOTOGRAPHIC SETTINGS ON THE
MICROSCOPE THAT I USED AND SAME SIZE FRAME, SAME SIZE PICTURE IN
EACH CASE.
Q YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT, SIR.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: SO, MR. DEEDRICK, BASED ON ALL OF THE
EXAMINATIONS THAT YOU CONDUCTED ON THE -- WITH RESPECT TO THE
QUESTIONED IMPRINT ON THE JEANS OF RON GOLDMAN AND THE IMPRINT
PATTERNS THAT WERE QUESTIONED ON THE ENVELOPE AND PIECE OF PAPER
AT THE CRIME SCENE, WHAT CONCLUSION DID YOU COME TO?
A I PLACED THE VICTIM RON GOLDMAN AT THE CRIME SCENE.
Q THAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT YOU FOUND?
A THAT'S WHAT I DID.
Q WHICH IS WHERE HE WAS FOUND, CORRECT?
A THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: BREAK AT 2:30? SO COULD WE TAKE IT A LITTLE
EARLIER, COME BACK --
THE COURT: YOU WANT TO GET YOUR EXHIBITS.
MR. SCHECK: REORGANIZE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL TAKE OUR MID-AFTERNOON
RECESS AT THIS TIME.
REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT.
AND, MR. SCHECK, I'LL HAVE MRS. ROBERTSON ASSIST YOU
WITH THE EXHIBITS.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MR. DEEDRICK, FIFTEEN.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
MR. DEEDRICK, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY
ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL, THAT MR. DOUGLAS DEEDRICK IS
ON THE WITNESS STAND, AND THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS COMPLETED
THEIR DIRECT EXAMINATION ON THE RECALL OF MR. DEEDRICK.
AND MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY COMMENCE YOUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SCHECK:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENT DEEDRICK.
A GOOD AFTERNOON.
Q AGENT DEEDRICK, I THINK I DIDN'T HAVE THE PLEASURE OF
BEING IN THE COURTROOM THE LAST TIME YOU TESTIFIED, BUT I DID
WATCH IT ON TELEVISION.
YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT HAIR AND FIBER?
A PRIMARILY, YES.
Q AND I RECALL YOU TELLING THE JURY THAT YOU HAD DONE
500,000 OR ABOUT A HALF MILLION COMPARISONS UNDER A MICROSCOPE OF
HAIRS AND FIBER?
A THAT IS PROBABLY REASONABLE.
Q AND YOU INDICATED THAT THAT WAS ABOUT 3000 CASES PER
YEAR?
A NO. IT IS ABOUT 300 SOME CASES PER YEAR PROBABLY.
Q 300 CASES PER YEAR.
WELL, YOU -- YOU HAVE BEEN WITH THE BUREAU FROM,
WHAT, 1977, '78 WAS YOUR INITIAL TRAINING PERIOD?
A RIGHT. '77 IS WHEN I CAME.
Q AND WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT MOST OF THE TIME
THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING AT THE BUREAU YOU'VE BEEN AT THAT
MICROSCOPE DOING THOSE HALF MILLION COMPARISONS OF HAIRS AND
FIBERS?
A RIGHT. MOST OF THE WORK PROBABLY HAS BEEN
SURROUNDING THE MICROSCOPE.
THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU ARE NOT EXPERT IN BLOOD PATTERN
INTERPRETATION?
A I AM NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT INVOLVES THE EXAMINATION OF BLOODY IMPRINTS?
A I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT I ASSUME THAT THAT IS
REASONABLE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU USED A TERM BEFORE "SWIPE."
A RIGHT.
Q DO YOU KNOW IF THAT HAS ANY PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE
IN THE DISCIPLINE OF BLOOD SPATTER INTERPRETATION?
A WELL, I'VE HEARD IT USED BEFORE.
Q WELL, WERE YOU JUST SORT OF THROWING THAT TERM OUT,
SWIPE?
A THAT IS THE TERM THAT CAME TO MIND. IT HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH A BLOOD ANALYSIS, BECAUSE I'M NOT EXPERT IN THAT.
Q OKAY. WE WILL GET BACK TO THAT.
SO YOU ARE NOT -- YOU DON'T HOLD YOURSELF OUT AS AN
EXPERT IN BLOOD PATTERN INTERPRETATION?
FAIR ENOUGH?
A I WOULD SAY THAT IN GENERAL THAT IS ACCURATE.
Q AND YOU ARE NOT TRAINED IN SEROLOGY?
A WELL, I HAVE SOME BASIC TRAINING, BUT I'M NOT A
SEROLOGIST.
Q WOULDN'T HOLD YOURSELF AS HAVING EXPERTISE IN
SEROLOGY?
A NO, I WOULDN'T DARE TESTIFY IN THAT AREA.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU RARELY GO TO CRIME SCENES IN YOUR -- WAS IT
-- HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE BUREAU? 28 YEARS?
A 23, 23 ABOUT.
Q 1977/1995?
A '72, THAT IS ABOUT RIGHT, 23 YEARS.
Q 23 YEARS.
IN YOUR 23 YEARS YOU HAVE RARELY GONE TO CRIME
SCENES?
A WELL, RARELY, YES. I WOULD SAY THAT IS A GOOD TERM.
Q AND YOU JUST TOLD ME BEFORE THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR
RECOLLECTION YOU CAN RECALL BEING AT BETWEEN 20 TO 25 CRIME
SCENES?
A THAT IS PROBABLY A GOOD NUMBER.
Q AND TO YOUR RECOLLECTION YOU HAD NEVER BEEN AT A
CRIME SCENE AT THE POINT WHERE A BODY WAS STILL THERE?
MOST OF THESE WERE HOMICIDES, RIGHT?
A MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN HOMICIDES AND I COME IN
GENERALLY -- IN FACT, IN ALMOST ALL OF THOSE CASES THE BODY HAS
BEEN REMOVED.
Q UH-HUH.
NOW, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE ANALYSIS OF ITEMS AT A
CRIME SCENE IS A MUCH MORE DYNAMIC AND FLUID SITUATION THAN AN
ANALYSIS CONDUCTED IN THE LABORATORY?
A WELL, THERE IS MANY CONSIDERATIONS AT A CRIME SCENE
THAT YOU ALSO MAY THINK ABOUT AS A LABORATORY EXAMINER BECAUSE
YOU MAY NEED TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL MATERIALS OR REQUEST A CERTAIN
OTHER COLLECTIONS BE MADE.
BUT THE CRIME ITSELF IS A DYNAMIC EVENT, THERE IS
MANY THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON, AND YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO
RECONSTRUCT SOME OF THAT THROUGH THE LAB. YOU MAY NEED ALSO TO BE
AT THE CRIME SCENE TO HELP.
Q ALL RIGHT.
BUT WE'VE DISCUSSED BLOOD SPATTER INTERPRETATION,
SEROLOGY, AND NOW WHAT I'M GETTING TO, AS WE DISCUSSED BEFORE, IS
THE DISCIPLINE OF CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION.
YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT?
A I AM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU WOULD NOT HOLD YOURSELF OUT AS AN EXPERT IN
CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION, THAT IS A PERSON THAT GOES TO THE
CRIME SCENE, AND TAKING ACCOUNT OF ALL THE DIFFERENT
DISCIPLINES, TRIES TO DO A RECONSTRUCTION?
A NO. I WOULDN'T DO THAT, NO.
Q OKAY.
NOW, HAVE YOU EVER -- YOU WERE ASKED
TO -- YOU EXAMINED THE JEANS AND THE SHIRT AT SOME POINT MUCH
EARLIER IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE, DID YOU NOT?
A I DID, YES.
Q CAME TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH SUSAN
BROCKBANK FROM THE LAPD, YOU LOOKED AT THE JEANS AND THE SHIRT?
A RIGHT.
Q AND AT THAT TIME YOU DID NOT TAKE NOTE OF ANY IMPRINT
PATTERNS ON THE JEANS THAT YOU THOUGHT HAD ANY FORENSIC
SIGNIFICANCE?
A NO. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THOSE CLOTHING ITEMS WITH THAT
INTENT.
Q AND THE FIRST TIME YOU BEGAN TO LOOK AT PHOTOGRAPHS
OF THE JEANS AND OF THE SHIRT WAS WHEN YOU WERE IN YOUR OFFICE AT
THE FBI SOMETIME PRIOR TO DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY WHEN YOU AND AGENT
BODZIAK GOT A TELEPHONE CALL?
A WELL, I BELIEVE HE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE PHONE AT THE
TIME AND HE ALSO HAD A REPORT THAT I SAW.
Q THAT WAS A REPORT FROM DR. LEE?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q SO YOU AND AGENT BODZIAK BEGAN A RECONSIDERATION OF
IMPRINTS PATTERNS AFTER SEEING DR. LEE'S REPORT BEFORE HE
TESTIFIED?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, A LOT OF MY WORK INITIATED WITH THAT
DAY AS TO CONSIDERATION OF FABRIC IMPRINTS OR -- IT STARTED ON
THAT DAY.
I DON'T RECALL HOW IT -- NEGOTIATIONS WENT ON OR WHAT
DISCUSSIONS WERE HELD.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU REFER TO TEST IMPRESSIONS
THAT WERE THE BASIS OF YOUR TESTIMONY HERE?
A RIGHT.
Q AND THESE TEST IMPRESSIONS WERE CONDUCTED AT THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT STARTING ON AUGUST 21ST?
A OF THIS YEAR.
Q YEAH.
AND DID YOU EVEN DIRECT ANYBODY ON BEGINNING THOSE
TEST IMPRESSIONS AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE DONE FOR PURPOSES AFTER
FABRIC COMPARISON?
A NO, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH
ANYBODY FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THAT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, MISS CLARK ASKED YOU A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT
YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS TO GIVE A JURY AN OPINION
ABOUT IMPRINTS ON FABRICS.
YOU RECALL THOSE?
A I DO.
Q AND YOU AND I HAD HAD A DISCUSSION JUST A FEW MINUTES
AGO, BEFORE YOU GOT ON THE WITNESS STAND, ABOUT YOUR
QUALIFICATIONS IN THIS AREA?
A RIGHT.
Q AND AFTER YOU AND I DISCUSSED THAT MATTER, YOU WENT
AND HAD SOME FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS CLARK?
A UMM, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK I WENT UPSTAIRS AND
THEN CAME BACK DOWN AND ATE SOME LASAGNA AND CAME RIGHT BACK IN.
Q DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYBODY IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE ABOUT ANYTHING THAT YOU AND I HAD DISCUSSED?
A NO, I JUST HAD A SEAT.
Q GOOD.
NOW, IN TERMS OF THE FABRIC IMPRESSION WORK THAT YOU
DO, YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT ABOUT A HUNDRED CASES YOU'VE BEEN
INVOLVED IN YOUR 23 YEARS AS AN AGENT WHERE YOU DID ANYTHING WITH
FABRIC IMPRINTS?
A THAT IS ABOUT A HUNDRED, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND MOST OF THESE INVOLVE DUST IMPRINTS?
A MOST OF THEM DID, YES.
Q AND MOST OF THESE WERE INVOLVED IN HIT AND RUN
ACCIDENTS?
A THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE.
Q NOW, IN REVIEWING DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY DO YOU RECALL
HE MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC FACT AND INTERPRETATION?
A I DON'T RECALL THAT.
Q NO?
A THERE IS A DISTINCTION I'M SURE.
Q DID YOU READ HIS TESTIMONY?
A NO.
Q DID YOU WATCH HIS TESTIMONY?
A WELL, ONLY PART OF IT. I HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO.
Q DO YOU THINK THAT DR. LEE WAS INTENTIONALLY
MISREPRESENTING FACTS TO THIS JURY?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH HIS
HEAD.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY.
NOW, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
SCIENTIFIC FACT AND INTERPRETATION?
A SURE.
Q AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE
ADEQUATE QUALIFICATIONS TO GET UP ON THE WITNESS STAND AND
TESTIFY ABOUT SOMETHING AS AN EXPERT?
A IT WOULD BE NICE TO DO IT A FEW TIMES BEFORE YOU TALK
ABOUT IT.
Q OKAY.
WOULD YOU AGREE IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT THE
IMPRINTS THAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED ABOUT ARE BLOODY IMPRINTS?
A WELL, I'M NOT CERTAIN OF THAT, BUT I MEAN I ASSUME
THAT IS BLOOD. IT LOOKS RED AND IT IS A BLOODY CRIME SCENE, SO I
SUSPECT THAT IS BLOOD.
THAT IS A FACT.
Q WELL, DO YOU IN ANY WAY DISPUTE THAT THE IMPRINT ON
THE ENVELOPE IS AN IMPRINT MADE IN BLOOD?
A NO, I HAD NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
Q THE IMPRINT ON THE PIECE OF PAPER IS AN IMPRINT MADE
IN BLOOD?
A LOOKS LIKE BLOOD.
Q THE IMPRINTS -- PARALLEL LINE IMPRINTS ON MR.
GOLDMAN'S JEANS ARE IMPRINTS MADE IN BLOOD?
A THEY ARE PRETTY DARK. I COULDN'T TELL. BLACK AND
WHITE ALMOST -- MOST OF MY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I LOOKED AT.
Q WELL, YOU SAW SOME COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS?
A YEAH, BUT THAT WAS -- THE COLOR PHOTOGRAPH WAS LESS
THAN ONE-TO-ONE. I LOOKED AT THE JEANS LAST NIGHT. IT COULD BE
DRIED BLOOD.
Q WELL, YOU DON'T FEEL QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WHAT YOU WERE EXAMINING HERE WAS -- IN TERMS
OF THOSE PARALLEL LINE IMPRINTS WERE BLOOD?
A WELL, I THINK I HAVE ALREADY NOT QUALIFIED MYSELF AS
A SEROLOGIST.
Q OKAY.
A I DIDN'T DO ANY TESTS ON THEM, BUT IT IS REASONABLE
THAT THEY WERE BLOOD.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN -- YOU JUST INDICATED THE FIRST TIME THAT
YOU LOOKED AT THE JEANS WITH THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THE
IMPRINTS WAS LAST NIGHT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND BASICALLY WHAT YOU WERE DOING WAS A COMPARISON OF
THESE TEST IMPRESSIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS, CORRECT?
A LAST NIGHT IT WAS TEST --
Q NO, NO. PRIOR TO THAT, YES?
A I'M SORRY, THAT'S RIGHT. IT WAS BASED ON
PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS.
Q AND YOU HAD ALREADY WRITTEN A REPORT STATING YOUR
CONCLUSIONS BEFORE YOU EVER WENT TO THE LABORATORY AND LOOKED AT
THE JEANS?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q NOW, ISN'T IT A FACT, AGENT DEEDRICK, THAT IN THESE
FABRIC ANALYSIS CASES THAT YOU'VE DONE BEFORE YOU CANNOT RECALL
EVEN ONE TIME BEFORE THIS CASE THAT YOU DID AN ANALYSIS OF
BLOODY IMPRINTS ON FABRIC THAT WERE LEFT BY OTHER FABRIC?
A WELL, AS I STATED TO YOU, THAT I CANNOT RECALL A
SPECIFIC CASE WHERE THAT SITUATION EXISTED.
Q SO -- AND YOU WERE -- DIDN'T YOU TELL ME BEFORE, IF I
UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, THAT IN THE 100 FABRIC IMPRESSION CASES
THAT YOU HAD DONE BEFORE THAT MOST OF THEM WERE DUST PRINTS?
A MOST OF THEM WERE.
MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: SOME OF THEM YOU INDICATED --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. WHEN THERE IS AN OBJECTION
--
MR. SCHECK: I THOUGHT IT WAS OVERRULED. NO?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: TOLD ME THAT -- AND I THINK YOU
REPEATED IT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, THAT THERE WERE SOME INSTANCES
WHERE WHEN YOU WERE INVESTIGATING A BURGLARY YOU WOULD TAKE PUTTY
IMPRINTS OF SOME KIND TO RELATE IT TO FABRIC?
A RIGHT. I'VE HAD IMPRESSION EXAMS PLUS IMPRINT EXAMS
BOTH.
Q BUT THIS CASE AND DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY CONCERNED
IMPRINTS MADE IN BLOOD, CORRECT?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q AND YOU CANNOT TELL THIS JURY THAT YOU HAVE EVER DONE
SUCH AN IMPRINT COMPARISON BEFORE?
A I CAN'T -- AS I SAID, I CAN'T RECALL A SPECIFIC CASE
WHERE THAT HAS OCCURRED.
Q NOW, BASICALLY WOULD THIS BE A FAIR STATEMENT? THAT
WHEN THE CALL CAME IN TO YOU AND AGENT BODZIAK TO EXAMINE DR.
LEE'S REPORT AND THE IMPRINT EVIDENCE, THAT AGENT BODZIAK SAID
THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT HE DID NOT FEEL QUALIFIED TO EXAMINE THE
IMPRINTS ON THE JEANS?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WAS THERE DISCUSSION BETWEEN
YOU AND AGENT BODZIAK AS TO QUALIFICATIONS -- RESPECTIVE
QUALIFICATIONS TO EVALUATE THE IMPRINT EVIDENCE?
MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WAS ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO
YOUR QUALIFICATIONS AND AGENT DEEDRICK -- AGENT BODZIAK'S
QUALIFICATIONS TO EVALUATE THE IMPRINT EVIDENCE?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT UNITS?
A IS THAT A QUESTION?
Q YES.
HAIR AND TRIES?
A THAT IS ONE.
Q THAT IS YOUR UNIT?
A RIGHT.
Q AND THERE IS TOOL MARKS, CORRECT?
A TOOL MARK -- FIREARM TOOL MARKS UNIT.
Q AND THERE IS A DOCUMENT SECTION, BUT AGENT BODZIAK IS
WITHIN THE DOCUMENT SECTION?
A RIGHT. HE IS IN THE SHOEPRINT TIRE TREAD UNIT, I
BELIEVE.
Q SO THERE ARE VARIOUS DIFFERENT AREAS AND DIFFERENT
PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERTISE?
A RIGHT.
Q AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT OUT OF EVERYBODY AT THE FBI
YOU WERE THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS THE MOST EXPERIENCE IN
EVALUATING BLOODY IMPRINT EVIDENCE ON FABRIC?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY;
ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU TELL US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION
THAT YOU WERE THE PERSON PEOPLE WENT TO BECAUSE YOU HAD THE MOST
EXPERIENCE IN INTERPRETING BLOODY IMPRINT EVIDENCE ON FABRIC?
A NO, I NEVER SAID THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU DID OFFER SOME TESTIMONY -- IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE
THAT HAS MORE QUALIFICATIONS THAN YOU AT THE FBI IN THIS AREA?
A WITH FABRIC IMPRINT COMPARISONS?
Q YEAH.
A NO.
Q SO YOU ARE THE MOST QUALIFIED AND
NOBODY -- AND YOU HAVE NOT, TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, EVER DONE A
BLOODY FABRIC IMPRINT BEFORE?
A NO, I SAID I CAN'T RECALL A SPECIFIC CASE WHERE I'VE
DONE THAT.
Q NOW, A DECISION HAD BEEN MADE TO DO THE COMPARISONS
BY MAKING THIS TEST IMPRESSION BEFORE YOU WERE EVEN CALLED INTO
THIS?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU JUST TOLD US?
THE COURT: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: I THOUGHT BEFORE YOU RECEIVED -- DID
YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DECISION TO HAVE SOMEBODY FROM
THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 25TH DO THIS TEST
IMPRESSION?
A I WASN'T CONSULTED ABOUT THAT BY THEM
OR -- NOR DID I HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ABOUT THAT.
Q BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE TEST IMPRESSION WAS TO MAKE
THE COMPARISON OF THE IMPRINT EVIDENCE
ON THE -- ON THE JEANS, ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE PIECE OF PAPER?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE TEST
IMPRESSION TO MAKE COMPARISONS OF THE IMPRINT EVIDENCE ON THE
ENVELOPE, THE PIECE OF PAPER AND THE JEANS?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
HE IS NOT THE PERSON WHO MADE THE DECISION TO DO
THAT; HE WASN'T THERE. THAT IS WHAT HE HAS TESTIFIED TO.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU WERE ASKED TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE
IMPRINT -- BLOODY IMPRINT EVIDENCE, HAD THE DECISION ALREADY BEEN
MADE, AS FAR AS YOU KNEW, AS TO WHAT THE MOTIVE COMPARISON SHOULD
BE?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: IRRELEVANT.
THE WITNESS: I'M KIND OF MISSING SOMETHING HERE ON THIS
QUESTION. MAYBE IF YOU COULD REPEAT IT FOR ME.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
Q BEFORE YOU UNDERTOOK TO DO THE IMPRINT -- BLOODY
IMPRINT ANALYSIS IN THIS CASE ON THE FABRIC, PIECE OF PAPER AND
THE ENVELOPE, HAD THE DECISION ALREADY BEEN MADE THAT THE WAY TO
GO ABOUT DOING THIS WAS TO USE THIS IDENTICATOR KIT TO DO A TEST
IMPRESSION?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED, THE WAY IT IS PHRASED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE
DECISION TO USE THE IDENTICATOR KIT?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THE IDENTICATOR KIT IS
WHAT IS SOMETIMES KNOWN AS INKLESS FINGERPRINT?
A IT IS INKLESS, YES, AND IT IS USED FOR FINGERPRINTS.
Q AND THAT IS HOW IT'S INVOLVED INITIALLY?
A I'M SURE IT DID.
Q THIS IS SORT OF A YELLOW -- LONG YELLOW PAD THAT IS
PRESSED ONTO THE JEANS IN THIS CASE THAT WERE LYING FLAT ON A
TABLE?
A RIGHT. I GENERALLY DO IT THE OTHER WAY, I PRESS THE
FABRIC INTO THE PAD, BUT YOU COULD DO IT EITHER WAY.
Q WELL, DO YOU KNOW HOW IT WAS DONE HERE?
A WELL, I KNOW THE WAY I DID IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE
WAY THEY DID IT.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU GOT UP AND TESTIFIED HERE ABOUT
PEOPLE'S --
THE COURT: IS THAT 621?
MR. SCHECK: 621.
Q -- YOU WERE WORKING FROM IMPRINTS THAT WERE MADE AT
THE LAPD?
A THAT'S RIGHT, YES.
Q MADE BY SOMEBODY ELSE?
A MADE BY SOMEBODY ELSE.
Q AND DID YOU ENDEAVOR TO FIND OUT EXACTLY HOW THEY
MADE THOSE IMPRINTS?
A NO, I DIDN'T DISCUSS THAT WITH ANYBODY THERE.
Q WELL, DID YOU EVER REVIEW ANY DATA TO FIGURE OUT HOW
THEY MADE THOSE IMPRINTS?
A NO.
Q NOW, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THE MEDIA INVOLVED IN
TAKING IMPRESSIONS IS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF IMPRINTS?
A WELL, YES, THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN MEDIA.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND AS WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS BEFORE, YOU TOLD ME
THAT WHEN YOU WERE FIRST APPROACHED TO DO THIS ANALYSIS OF THE
BLOODY IMPRINTS, THE THOUGHT CROSSED YOUR MIND THAT THE MOST
APPROPRIATE TEST AND EXPERIMENT TO PERFORM WAS TO TAKE BLOOD AND
USE THAT AS THE MEDIA TO CREATE IMPRINTS?
A NO, YOU MISSTATE. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I DIDN'T
USE THE TERM "MOST APPROPRIATE MEDIA."
Q WELL --
A I SAID IT DID CROSS MY MIND TO USE BLOOD.
Q FAIR ENOUGH.
IT CROSSED YOUR MIND THAT DOING THIS IMPRINT
IMPRESSION FOR WHICH YOU WERE MAKING COMPARISONS, THAT IT WOULD
BE MAYBE A GOOD IDEA TO USE BLOOD?
A WELL, I -- I THOUGHT OF USING BLOOD, BUT THAT IS NOT
THE PROTOCOL THAT WE HAVE IN THE UNIT. I DON'T BELIEVE
NECESSARILY IF IT WOULD MAKE A BETTER REPRESENTATION OR NOT.
Q WELL, THESE ARE BLOODY IMPRINTS?
A WELL, THAT IS TRUE.
Q ARE THESE BLOODY IMPRINTS?
A WE HAVE AGREED ON THAT, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND BLOOD IS THICKER OR MORE VISCOUS I THINK THE TERM
IS THAN THE INKLESS CHEMICALS THAT YOU ARE USING TO MAKE YOUR
TEST IMPRESSIONS HERE?
A YES.
Q AND BLOOD COAGULATES QUICKLY?
A I'M NOT A SEROLOGIST. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RATE OF
COAGULATION IS.
Q BUT IN TERMS OF DESIGNING A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT TO
DO COMPARISONS, ISN'T IT DESIRABLE TO BE USING LIKE MEDIA TO MAKE
COMPARISONS WHEN DEALING WITH IMPRINTS?
A YEAH. I MEAN IF YOU WANT TO NITPICK THIS DOWN TO
THIS LEVEL, IF THE RESULTS THAT YOU GET ARE SO DEFINITIVE, THEN
MAYBE YOU WANT TO DO THAT, BUT YOU WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT IS THAT DEFINITIVE. WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A
LITTLE LINE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF CHARACTERISTICS.
Q WELL, IS YOUR ANSWER THEN YOU DON'T THINK IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN DESIRABLE TO CREATE AN EXPERIMENT WHERE THE IMPRINTS
WERE DONE WITH BLOOD?
A UMM, I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE OR NOT.
Q WELL, BASICALLY I THINK BY YOUR ANSWER YOU SAID THE
REASON THAT YOU DECIDED NOT TO DO THE IMPRINTS IN BLOOD OR
PERFORM EXPERIMENTS ALONG THOSE LINES IS THAT IT WASN'T PART OF
YOUR STANDARD PROTOCOL IN THE LABORATORY?
A YEAH. THAT IS NOT THE STANDARD PROTOCOL THAT WE HAVE
TO TAKE WHOLE BLOOD AND DO THINGS LIKE THAT.
Q SO IS THIS STANDARD PROTOCOL WRITTEN DOWN SOMEPLACE
IN YOUR LABORATORY?
A WELL, IT WOULD BE IN THE PROTOCOL MANUAL.
Q IN THE PROTOCOL MANUAL DO YOU ADDRESS THE ANALYSIS OF
BLOODY IMPRINTS ANY PLACE?
A I BELIEVE SO. I THINK THEY DO DISCUSS THAT, BUT I
CAN'T RECALL.
Q BLOODY IMPRINTS ON FABRIC?
A I DON'T RECALL THAT, BUT I KNOW BLOODY TYPE IMPRINTS
ARE DISCUSSED.
Q WELL, IS THERE ANYPLACE IN YOUR PROTOCOL WHERE IT
SAYS THE STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR DOING A COMPARISON OF BLOODY
IMPRINTS, PARTICULARLY FABRIC ON FABRIC, IS TO USE THIS
IDENTICATOR KIT?
A NO. I THINK THE USE OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS LIKE
IDENTICATOR OR INK OR WHATEVER, THAT KIND OF FLEXES A LITTLE BIT.
Q NOW, YOU SAID THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION
YOU'VE NEVER DONE A BLOODY IMPRINT COMPARISON BEFORE, I THINK YOU
TOLD US THAT?
THE COURT: I THINK WE HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION.
MR. SCHECK: JUST A FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION.
THE COURT: ABOUT FIVE TIMES.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL A SPECIFIC CASE WHERE I HAVE
DONE THAT TYPE OF COMPARISON, BLOODY IMPRINT ON FABRIC.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND YET YOU SAY THAT YOU DECIDED NOT
TO CREATE IMPRINTS FOR PURPOSES OF COMPARISON WITH BLOOD BECAUSE
THERE WAS SOME KIND OF STANDARD PROCEDURE AS TO HOW TO DO THIS?
A NO, I MEAN IT IS JUST NOT -- NO, THERE
IS NO -- IN THE PROTOCOL I DON'T BELIEVE IT INDICATES WHAT KIND
OF MEDIUM TO USE. WE HAVE BEEN USING IDENTICATOR AND WE HAVE
BEEN USING INK PADS OVER
THE YEARS, BUT TO TAKE WHOLE BLOOD IS NOT SOMETHING THAT -- THAT
WE ROUTINELY DO.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT BLOOD ON FABRIC CAN
SATURATE THE FABRIC?
A YES.
Q AND THAT OFTEN WHEN FABRIC IS SATURATED AND YOU MAKE
AN IMPRINT THAT THAT CAN, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, SMUSH THE
RIDGES SO YOU CAN'T SEE THE IMPRINT?
A RIGHT. TOO MUCH -- TOO MUCH FLUID WILL RUIN THE
IMPRINTS.
THE COURT: THAT IS ANOTHER WORD FOR OBSCURE.
MR. SCHECK: OBSCURE, THANK YOU.
Q AND ON MR. GOLDMAN'S JEANS YOU SAW AREAS WHERE IT WAS
SATURATED?
A IT APPEARED TO BE.
Q NOW, ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC FACT -- WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE
THAT ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC FACT ABOUT THESE IMPRINTS IS THAT THEY
ARE IN BLOOD, BUT ALSO THAT THE IMPRINT ON THE ENVELOPE, THE
PIECE OF PAPER AND THE JEANS, ACTUALLY, ARE STATIC, THAT IS, THEY
SHOW EVIDENCE OF LITTLE MOVEMENT?
A WELL, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY WITH THE JEANS, BUT I
THINK I'VE ALREADY TESTIFIED IT MIGHT BE A SWIPING TYPE OR A
MOVING TYPE MOTION THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THAT, BUT THE PAPER IS
PROBABLY STATIC.
I THINK THE PAPERS WERE SITTING AND SOMETHING LANDED
ON IT.
Q SO YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IN TERMS OF THE OBSERVATIONS
THAT IT WOULD -- WE COULD AGREE IT IS SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT THE
BLOODY IMPRINTS WERE MADE AND IMPRESSED WITH RELATIVELY LITTLE
MOVEMENT?
A YEAH, I -- THAT IS REASONABLE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW
THE DYNAMICS, NOR COULD I SAY WITH HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY WHAT
THE DYNAMICS WERE OF THIS, BUT IT PROBABLY WAS LAYING DOWN AND
SOMETHING LANDED ON THAT ONE AREA.
Q AND YOU WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MOST REASONABLE
INTERPRETATION OF HOW THE IMPRINT GOT ON THE PAPER AND HOW IT GOT
ON THE ENVELOPE?
A YEAH. THAT IS MORE LOGICAL THAN HAVING THE PAPER
FLOAT DOWN AND LAND ON SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS MORE
REASONABLE.
Q AND WOULD YOU -- IS YOUR RELUCTANCE TO OPINE ON THIS
A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE YOU FEEL A BIT INSECURE ABOUT MAKING
COMMENTS IN THE AREA OF BLOODSTAIN INTERPRETATION?
A I'M NOT RELUCTANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. I DON'T
FEEL I'M NECESSARILY LACKING ABILITIES IN DOING THIS TYPE OF
COMPARISON.
I THINK BLOOD COMPARISONS ON FABRIC, AS FAR AS
IMPRINT, CAN BE DONE IN A SIMILAR WAY TO OTHER TYPES OF
MATERIALS.
Q BUT I GUESS WHAT I WAS REALLY ASKING YOU, YOU DON'T
FEEL IN ANY WAY UNEASY ABOUT OFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT THESE BLOODY
IMPRINTS, BECAUSE AS I THINK YOU'VE TOLD US, YOU DON'T REGARD
YOURSELF AS HAVING EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF BLOODSTAIN OR BLOOD
PATTERN INTERPRETATION?
A NO. IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT TRANSFER MEDIA. THAT IS
ALL. IT IS A DIFFERENT ONE THAN WHAT WE USE.
Q NOW -- BUT IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR OPINION CORRECTLY,
YOU ARE INDICATING THAT THERE WAS A BLOODY IMPRINT MADE ON THE
ENVELOPE AND A BLOODY IMPRINT MADE ON THE PAPER, CORRECT?
A RIGHT.
Q AND YOU SAY IT IS CONSISTENT WITH HAVING COME FROM A
PAIR OF BLUE JEANS?
A COULD HAVE.
Q SO BASED ON THAT INTERPRETATION THAT
SOME PERSON WEARING BLUE JEANS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE COME INTO
DIRECT CONTACT WITH THAT PAPER AND WITH THAT ENVELOPE ON SEPARATE
OCCASIONS?
A MAY HAVE BEEN THE SAME -- SAME CONTACT. MAYBE IT WAS
JUST A DIFFERENT PORTION OF THE SAME BLOODY SURFACE, WHATEVER IT
MAY BE.
I MEAN, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A LEG, IT COULD BE
THAT LONG, AND I DON'T KNOW THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PAPER WITH
THE ENVELOPE, SO IF THEY ARE IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA, A PIECE OF
THE -- THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE JEANS MAY HIT, IF THAT IS JEANS,
AND A PORTION OF THE KNEE MAY HIT, FOR INSTANCE.
I DON'T KNOW. IT COULD BE TWO SEPARATE INCIDENTS OR
ONE.
Q WELL, YOU SAID YOU DON'T KNOW THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN WHERE THE ENVELOPE WAS AND WHERE THE PAPER WAS?
A NO, I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL THAT.
Q YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
POINTING TO THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE WITH THE ENVELOPE NEAR HIS FOOT
AND THE PIECE OF PAPER OUT ON THE WALKWAY?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU ARE MISSTATING THE EVIDENCE.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
Q WELL, HAVE YOU SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
POINTING -- OH, I SAID ROCKINGHAM GLOVE. I'M SO TIRED. I'M
SORRY.
POINTING AT THE BUNDY GLOVE, ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SEEN
THAT PICTURE?
A I THINK I HAVE, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT -- DOES THAT PICTURE ORIENT YOU AS TO WHERE
THE ENVELOPE AND THE PIECE OF PAPER WERE IN RELATION TO EACH
OTHER?
A I JUST DON'T RECALL. I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE TO REALLY
SEE THE PICTURES. OBVIOUSLY IT IS A PRETTY SMALL AREA, SO IT HAD
TO BE PRETTY CLOSE.
Q SO WHEN YOU SAID IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE IMPRINTS
THAT YOU ARE ASSERTING CAME -- COULD HAVE COME FROM A PAIR OF
BLUE JEANS, IF IT WERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BLUE JEANS AND IT WERE ONE
CONTACT, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS
CONFIGURED IN SUCH A WAY THAT HIS JEANS WERE HITTING THE ENVELOPE
AND HITTING THAT PIECE OF PAPER AT THE WALKWAY AT ABOUT THE SAME
TIME?
A WELL, IF THAT IS A SINGLE EVENT, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
SAYING, OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN TWO EVENTS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO IN TERMS OF YOUR RECONSTRUCTION THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN ONE EVENT THAT HE -- WOULDN'T YOU EXPECT THAT THAT WOULD
HAVE MEANT THAT HE HAD FALLEN IN THE WALKWAY?
A I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE SO.
Q IF YOUR INTERPRETATION --
A IF THAT IS WHERE THE IMPRINT WAS APPLIED, IF IT WAS
ON THE SOIL OR SOMEWHERE ELSE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IN RELATIONSHIP
TO THE BODY THAT IMPRINT PATTERN WAS DEPOSITED.
Q BUT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO RULE OUT, IN TERMS OF YOUR
INTERPRETATION, THAT THE IMPRINT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE ENVELOPE OR
THE PIECE OF PAPER, COULD HAVE COME ABOUT WITH THE ENVELOPE OR
THE PIECE OF PAPER HITTING JEANS AND THEN FALLING TO THE GROUND?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND IT IS
BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. I THINK -- I
THINK I HAVE SAID THAT IT SEEMS REASONABLE THAT THE PAPER --
PAPERS WERE LAYING FLAT AND THEN CONTACT OCCURRED CAUSING THE
IMPRINT PATTERN. THAT SEEMS TO ME LOGICAL.
BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME FORCE, SOME RESISTANCE TO
THAT CONTACT, SO THE PAPER, IF IT WERE NOT ON THE GROUND, WOULD
HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN AGAINST SOMETHING, SO THAT THAT IMPRINT
OCCURRED.
IT WOULDN'T BE FLOATING; IT WOULD HAVE TO BE EITHER
HELD OR ON SOMETHING ELSE.
Q WHEN YOU AND I WERE TALKING BEFORE AND WE WERE
OPERATING ON YOUR PREMISE THAT THIS COULD HAVE COME FROM MR.
GOLDMAN'S JEANS, THESE TWO IMPRINTS, THAT DIDN'T YOU INDICATE OR
AREN'T YOU SAYING THAT YOU FELT IT UNLIKELY THAT EITHER THE PIECE
OF PAPER OR THE ENVELOPE COULD HAVE GOTTEN THESE IMPRINTS IF THEY
HAD JUST TOUCHED THE JEANS AND FALLEN TO THE GROUND?
A YEAH. I THINK I'VE ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THAT, TOO,
YES.
Q OKAY. JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR.
AND YOU ARE INDICATING AND ASSUMING -- JUST GOING
ALONG WITH A PRESUMPTION THAT YOU'VE MADE THAT COULD IT HAVE BEEN
IMPRINTS CAUSED BY MR. GOLDMAN'S JEANS AND THERE WERE TWO
CONTACTS, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO SEPARATE CONTACTS OF MR.
GOLDMAN'S JEANS, ONE ON THE ENVELOPE, AND ONE ON THE PIECE OF
PAPER?
A OR ANOTHER PAIR OF JEANS OR MAYBE TWO DIFFERENT PAIRS
OF JEANS.
Q NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHOSE BLOOD OR ANY GENETIC
TYPINGS ARE ON THE BLOOD ON THE ENVELOPE?
A NO.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. SCHECK: I'M JUST ASKING IF HE KNOWS.
MS. CLARK: BEYOND THE SCOPE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE SAID NO.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: CERTAINLY THAT PIECE OF PAPER, TO
YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS NEVER COLLECTED, RIGHT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE, CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I DON'T HAVE THE
GREATEST UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THE EVENTS OF THIS CASE, THEY
DON'T HAVE THAT PIECE OF PAPER.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
I MEAN CERTAINLY IF THAT PIECE OF PAPER WERE
AVAILABLE, AT SOME POINT YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT IT FOR
PURPOSES OF COMING IN AND TESTIFYING ABOUT COMPARISONS.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT AND CALLS FOR
SPECULATION, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YEAH, IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE THE ACTUAL
EVIDENCE, YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALTHOUGH YOU RENDERED YOUR OPINION
WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPRINTS ON THE BLUE JEANS JUST FROM PHOTOS?
MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YEAH, I DID THAT WITH JUST THE PHOTOGRAPHS,
RIGHT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU THOUGHT
THAT DR. LEE'S BOARD WITH THE JEANS WAS MISLEADING; IS THAT
RIGHT?
A WELL, I SAID THAT -- TWO THINGS I SAID.
I SAID THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE ARROWS AS TO WHERE
THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN WERE NOT -- WERE NOT CORRECT. I
DON'T THINK THAT NECESSARILY REPRESENTS MISLEADING ANYBODY, BUT
THE MAGNIFICATIONS DO APPEAR TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK, IS THIS 1339?
MR. SCHECK: YES, AND MY APOLOGIES TO THE JURORS IN THE
BACK, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO DO A QUICK GENERAL ONE.
THE COURT: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS 1339.
MR. SCHECK: YES, IT IS.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, JUST IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR
TESTIMONY CORRECTLY, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IMPRINT 1 AND IMPRINT 2
ARE, WHEN YOU EXAMINED THEM, ABOUT THE SAME MAGNIFICATION, RIGHT?
A THEY APPEAR TO BE, YES.
Q AND YOUR CRITICISM HERE IS THAT IMPRINT 3 IS OF A
DIFFERENT MAGNIFICATION?
A WELL, I WOULDN'T CALL IT A CRITICISM. IT IS JUST AN
OBSERVATION THAT IT APPEARS TO BE A LITTLE LESS MAGNIFIED.
Q WELL, ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVEY THE IMPRESSION TO THE
JURY THAT SOMEHOW BY BREAKING
OUT THESE LARGER MAGNIFICATIONS OF THE JEANS THAT DR. LEE, IN
CREATING THIS BOARD, WAS IN SOME FASHION TRYING TO MISLEAD?
A NO. WHAT I WAS SAYING HERE WAS THAT THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME MAGNIFICATION, SO IF YOU
ARE GOING TO DO A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO, IT WOULDN'T BE AS
ACCURATE AS IF THEY WERE THE SAME MAGNIFICATION.
Q SO JUST SO WE AGREE, THESE TWO, WHEN YOU MEASURED --
A THEY LOOK THE SAME.
Q THIS ONE SEEMS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, IS THAT WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING?
A A LITTLE SMALLER.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: INCIDENTALLY, JUST ON THIS ISSUE, I
THINK YOU WERE SAYING THAT THE WAY ONE MAGNIFIES LINES OF THESE
IMPRESSIONS CAN AFFECT THE WAY THAT ONE VIEWS THE COMPARISONS?
A YES.
Q AND I THINK AS YOU CONCEDED, YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN THE
BOTTOM ONES HERE EITHER?
A I DIDN'T, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND WITH RESPECT TO DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY, DO YOU KNOW
IF DR. LEE EVER TOLD THIS JURY THAT ALL THREE OF THESE PICTURES
WERE EXACTLY THE SAME MAGNIFICATION?
A I DON'T KNOW THAT, NO.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, YOU ARE REFERRING TO 621 NOW; IS
THAT CORRECT?
MR. SCHECK: YEAH, I JUST BRIEFLY -- THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, ORDINARILY WHEN MAGNIFICATIONS
ARE DONE, ISN'T IT THE STANDARD FORENSIC PRACTICE, IF ONE IS
TRYING TO DO PRECISE ENLARGEMENTS TO SCALE, IS TO PUT A RULER IN
THE PICTURE?
A WELL, YOU COULD DO THAT, YES.
Q AND THE REASON THAT ONE PUTS A RULER IN THE PICTURE
IS THEN IF SOMEBODY ACTUALLY WANTS TO GO AND DO A PRECISE
COMPARISON, YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE RULER, MAKE A MEASUREMENT,
TAKE A LOOK AT THE LINES, MAKE A MEASUREMENT AND DO PRECISE
COMPARISONS?
A RIGHT. WELL, I HAD RULERS IN THESE, BUT THE PICTURES
WERE PRETTY BIG, SO IN ORDER TO CUT THEM DOWN FOR THE CHART SO I
COULD SHIP THEM, I CUT THE RULERS OFF.
SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME PORTIONS OF THE RULERS
UNDERNEATH THE BORDER, OKAY?
Q WERE THERE RULERS IN THE POLAROID?
A I DIDN'T PUT THOSE IN THE POLAROIDS, BUT THEY WERE IN
THE OTHER FOUR SHOTS.
Q SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE TWO BOTTOM PICTURES ARE
POLAROID?
A THOSE WERE ENLARGEMENTS OF POLAROIDS, YES.
Q THERE WERE NO RULERS THERE?
A I DIDN'T, NO.
Q BASICALLY I THINK YOU HAVE INDICATED TO ME, AND
CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, THAT YOU JUST BASICALLY HAD THESE TAKEN
AND THEN YOU SENT THEM TO THE LAB AND YOU SAID MAKE THEM
8-BY-10'S?
A I TOOK THEM AT ABOUT FOUR TIMES MAGNIFICATION. I
ASKED THAT THEY BE ENLARGED 8-BY-10 SO COULD YOU SEE THEM BETTER
AND IT COMES OUT TO BE ABOUT EIGHT TIMES OR SO.
Q OKAY.
NOW, I BELIEVE IN -- WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WITH
RESPECT TO AN IMPRINT MADE IN BLOOD, THAT IF A SHOE HAD A CERTAIN
PORTION OF THE SOLE BLOOD ON IT, AND -- BUT NOT THE ENTIRE SOLE,
AND A PORTION OF IT HIT THE SIDE OF AN ENVELOPE, IT COULD MAKE AN
IMPRINT SUCH AS IS DEPICTED ON THE ENVELOPE HERE.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS EXPERTISE;
NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, IT COULD IF THE PATTERN ON THE BASE OF
THAT SHOE EXHIBITED OR LEFT A PATTERN JUST LIKE LEVI JEANS AND IT
WOULD LOOK LIKE THAT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU SAY A PATTERN LIKE LEVI
JEANS.
IF THE PATTERN ON THE SOLE OF THE SHOE HAD PARALLEL
LINE IMPRINTS THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SEE ON THE
ENVELOPE, THEN IN TERMS OF THE IMPRINT YOU SEE, THIS WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH A PORTION OF THE SHOE TOUCHING AN ENVELOPE?
A RIGHT. I MEAN, I COULDN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE, IF
ALL THE OTHER THINGS WERE THE SAME.
MR. SCHECK: UH-HUH.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, WOULD YOU STEP AROUND TO THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE EXHIBIT, PLEASE.
I'M SORRY.
MR. SCHECK: OH, I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.
I CAN TAKE THIS DOWN.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SCHECK: 3:30?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MR. SCHECK: 3:30?
THE COURT: NO, FOUR O'CLOCK.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS THE CHART YOU CREATED
WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPRINTS ON THE JEANS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THIS 619?
MR. SCHECK: I BELIEVE IT IS.
Q NOW, YOU SAID THAT YOU CREATED PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE
RIGHT SIDE OF THIS EXHIBIT THAT WERE ABOUT ONE-TO-ONE?
A WELL, THEY WERE CREATED IN THE PHOTO LAB, YES, FROM
THE NEGATIVE.
Q UH-HUH.
AND YOU AND I DISCUSSED EARLIER THIS MORNING THE --
IF YOU COULD GET DOWN FOR JUST ONE SECOND, PLEASE.
A SURE.
(WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q THE -- ON THE TOP -- THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE UPPER
RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THIS CHART, THE SECOND PHOTOGRAPH DOWN,
(INDICATING), THERE IS A CIRCLE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A RIGHT. THERE IS A CIRCLE -- THERE IS A CIRCLE
BENEATH A CIRCLE, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT IS A PATTERN THAT HAS A CONTOUR OF ABOUT
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY, THREE INCHES?
A THAT IS PRETTY CLOSE, YES.
Q AND ALSO YOU CAN SEE WITHIN IT PARALLEL LINE
IMPRINTS?
A LOOKS TO BE, YES.
Q AND WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THAT COULD BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE HEEL OF A SHOE?
A YOU ARE GETTING INTO MR. BODZIAK'S AREA. I CAN ONLY
SPEAK AS A LAY PERSON.
Q AND WHEN YOU AND I WERE DISCUSSING THIS BEFORE WHAT
DID YOU TELL ME?
A IT -- THIS MAY BE THE EDGE OF A SHOE.
Q AND THE BEST YOU COULD DO IN ASSUMING THAT THESE
PARALLEL LINE IMPRINTS CAME FROM MR. GOLDMAN'S SHIRT WAS RAISE
THE POSSIBILITY THAT THAT REPRESENTED HIS ELBOW?
A I SUGGESTED THAT, YES, THAT IT MIGHT BE, BUT I DON'T
KNOW.
Q NOW, A SWIPE --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SCHECK: NOW, DID YOU -- IF I COULD PUT THIS UP ON THE
ELMO, YOUR HONOR. IT IS DEFENSE 1340.
THE COURT: 1340.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT.
MR. SCHECK: I THINK YOU WERE THERE.
MS. CLARK: NO, I WASN'T.
THE WITNESS: MAY I SIT DOWN?
THE COURT: YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: THERE WOULD BE AN OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, BEYOND
THE SCOPE; NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: HAS THE COURT SEEN IT?
THE COURT: YES. I KNOW WHAT IT IS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SCHECK: YOU KNOW WHAT, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A FEELING
THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE THE BEST MEDIA.
OH, THERE IT IS. OKAY.
Q NOW, CAN YOU SEE THE MONITOR THERE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WAS PART OF THE TESTIMONY OF DR. LEE THAT YOU
WATCHED THE DEMONSTRATION THAT HE PERFORMED WITH RESPECT TO BLOOD
PATTERNS?
A I MISSED A LOT OF THAT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, IN TERMS OF -- YOU SAID YOU HAD SOME TRAINING OR
FAMILIARITY WITH BLOOD PATTERN ANALYSIS?
A NO, I SAID I HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH SEROLOGY AND
SEROLOGY TESTING PROCEDURES, BUT BLOOD PATTERN ANALYSIS HAS BEEN
-- WAS LEFT UP TO ONE OTHER EXAMINER PRIMARILY IN THE LABORATORY.
I DIDN'T DO MUCH OF THAT.
Q OKAY.
WELL, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DOES THE -- DO YOU KNOW THAT
IN TERMS OF BLOOD PATTERN ANALYSIS, WHEN EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD
REFER TO SWIPES, THEY ARE REFERRING TO SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF
THAT PATTERN?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS
EXPERTISE; NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN YOU USED THE WORD "SWIPE"
IN YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION, YOU WERE INDICATING THAT IT CAUSED A
-- MR. GOLDMAN'S SHIRT COULD HAVE SWIPED THE JEANS IN A CERTAIN
AREA AND CAUSED AN IMPRINT? DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT?
A WELL, I USED THE WORD "SWIPE," YES. COULD HAVE BEEN
MOVING IN ONE CORRECTION.
Q COULD YOU SHOW THE JURY WHERE ON THIS DIAGRAM YOU ARE
REFERRING TO, THE PLACE WHERE THE IMPRINTS THAT WERE A SWIPE?
MS. CLARK: COULD WE HAVE THE EXHIBIT TAKEN DOWN, IN VIEW
OF THE WITNESS' ANSWER?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: NO RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE.
MR. SCHECK: WHAT?
THE COURT: HE IS NOT A BLOOD PATTERN PERSON, BUT YOU CAN
ASK HIM DESCRIBE THE PORTION ON THIS EXHIBIT.
MR. SCHECK: I'M ONLY GOING INTO NOW WHAT HE SAID.
THE COURT: I KNOW. TAKE IT DOWN.
MR. SCHECK: OH, TAKE THAT DOWN? SURE.
Q WHAT AREA DID YOU SAY WAS -- WHAT IMPRINT WAS CREATED
BY A SWIPE ON THIS EXHIBIT?
A I INDICATED IT MAY BE SOME TYPE OF SWIPING MOTION IN
THE DIRECTION OF THE RIBS. THERE IS ONE DIRECTION GOING THIS
WAY, (INDICATING), ONE GOING THIS WAY, (INDICATING) ANOTHER DOWN
HERE IN THIS AREA, (INDICATING), SO ESSENTIALLY IT LOOKS TO BE
SLIGHTLY MAYBE THREE DIFFERENT MOTIONS.
AND IF YOU ARE ASSUMING HERE THAT THIS IS THE SHIRT,
THE SHIRT COULD HAVE BRUSHED BACK AND FORTH IN PERHAPS A COUPLE
DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
Q AND WHERE IS THAT ON THE -- IS THAT HERE ON THE
PANTS?
A YES. IT STARTS ESSENTIALLY NEAR WHERE THIS BLOB IS,
(INDICATING), DOWN -- STARTS --
THE COURT: JUROR 7, CAN YOU SEE THAT?
JUROR NO 7: NO.
MR. SCHECK: I DON'T THINK THAT --
THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY. IT STARTS, THIS BLOB AREA HERE,
(INDICATING), WHICH IS THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING).
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, AGENT DEEDRICK, LOOKING AT THE
-- YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE CIRCLE
NOW -- LET'S BE STRAIGHT FOR THE RECORD.
ON THE PICTURE OF THE BLUE JEANS ON THIS DIAGRAM, THE
UPPER CIRCLE IS THE AREA THAT YOU'VE BLOWN UP ON THE UPPER
RIGHT-HAND PHOTOGRAPH?
A RIGHT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- I THINK IT IS GENERALLY
BOTH -- IT MAY INCORPORATE -- I GUESS IT IS, RIGHT, IT IS THE TOP
CIRCLE PRIMARILY.
Q IT IS THE TOP CIRCLE PRIMARILY?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND THE SECTION THAT YOU'VE DRAWN THE SECOND CIRCLE
AROUND IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND PHOTOGRAPH, RIGHT, THAT IS JUST
BELOW THE CIRCLE?
A RIGHT. IT IS JUST BELOW THIS TOP CIRCLE,
(INDICATING), THAT'S RIGHT ON THE JEANS.
Q AS YOU SAID BEFORE, I DON'T MEAN TO BE NITPICKY, BUT
MAYBE IS THIS A SMALL ERROR IN TERMS
OF BREAKING OUT?
A YOU GOT ME ON THAT, MR. SCHECK.
Q NO BIG DEAL. I AGREE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND PHOTOGRAPH IN
THE TOP CIRCLE.
I THINK YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU SEE A DIFFERENT
SET OF IMPRINTS GOING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS AGAINST THE GRAIN?
A YES, IT DOES APPEAR THAT WAY.
Q NOW, I REALIZE THAT YOU WERE USING THE TERM "SWIPE"
WITHOUT ANY PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO AN EXPERTISE IN BLOOD PATTERN
ANALYSIS, RIGHT?
A RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT.
Q BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS THAT YOU
WERE SUGGESTING THAT THOSE IMPRINT PATTERNS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE,
AND I THINK YOUR MOTION WAS, BY A MOVEMENT OF THE ARM OR THE
SLEEVE AGAINST THE SIDE OF THE JEANS?
A IT MAY HAVE BEEN, YES.
Q NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC BASIS, AS A BLOOD
PATTERN ANALYST, TO TELL US WHAT KIND OF IMPRINT WOULD BE LEFT BY
THE SHIRT COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE JEANS WITH MOVEMENT?
A NO.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY THAT THE
IMPRINTS IN THIS AREA OF THE JEAN REPRESENTED MULTIPLE IMPRINTS
ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, THAT THAT WAS HIS INTERPRETATION?
A I DON'T RECALL HIS TESTIMONY.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL HIS TESTIMONY THAT THE REASON HE
REACHED THAT CONCLUSION IS HE HAD THOSE DISTINCT IMPRINT LINES
THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH A FLAT SURFACE COVERED BY BLOOD HITTING
THE SIDE OF
THE JEANS?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT IS JUST A SUGGESTION, AN IDEA THAT I
CAME UP WITH HERE THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A BRUSHING TYPE
MOVEMENT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU WERE KIND OF IMPROVISING?
A I WAS JUST SAYING -- OFFERING THAT AS A POSSIBILITY.
Q WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY, AGENT DEEDRICK, FROM WHAT
YOU KNOW OF DR. LEE, THAT HIS EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE IN THE
AREA OF BLOODSTAIN INTERPRETATION AND THE INTERPRETATION OF
BLOODY IMPRINTS IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO YOURS?
A I CAN'T EVEN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
Q YOU CAN'T -- WELL, LET'S ESTABLISH THAT YOU HAVE
CONCEDED THAT YOU HAVE NEXT TO NO EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE. WHAT AREA?
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THE AREA OF BLOODSTAIN
INTERPRETATION. YOU DON'T HOLD YOURSELF OUT AS AN EXPERT IN
THAT, DO YOU?
A I'M NOT CLAIMING TO BE ONE.
Q I UNDERSTAND.
NOW, BY REPUTATION ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT IS DR. LEE'S
REPUTATION IN THIS AREA, IF YOU KNOW.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: I THINK HE HAS A BACKGROUND IN BLOOD, BLOOD
SEROLOGY TYPE TESTIMONY.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF HIM
HAVING WRITTEN ANY TEXTS OR GIVEN ANY LECTURES EVEN AT THE FBI ON
BLOODSTAIN PATTERN INTERPRETATION?
A I'VE NEVER ATTENDED ANY. I KNOW I READ HIS BOOK.
Q I'M SORRY?
A I READ THE BOOK THAT HE WROTE.
Q ON SEROLOGY?
A NO, IT WAS A BOOK BY DE FOREST. I BELIEVE GAENSSLEN
ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THAT.
Q INTRODUCTION OF FORENSIC --
A THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT.
Q HAD A CHAPTER ON BLOODSTAIN BLOOD PATTERN
INTERPRETATION?
A I CAN'T RECALL ALL THE CHAPTERS.
Q DOES IT BOTHER YOU A LITTLE BIT,
AGENT DEEDRICK, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN HERE TO THIS
COURTROOM AT THE END OF THE TRIAL TO RENDER AN OPINION ABOUT --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU ARE TESTIFYING HERE ABOUT A
BLOODY IMPRINT AND YOU READILY CONCEDE THAT YOU HAVE NO EXPERTISE
OR TRAINING IN BLOODSTAIN PATTERN INTERPRETATION?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT AND ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MS. CLARK: THAT IS NOT WHAT HE IS TESTIFYING ABOUT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU BELIEVE
THAT THE IMPRINTS ON THE JEANS COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE
IMPACT OF MR. GOLDMAN'S SLEEVE AGAINST THE JEANS?
A COULD HAVE BEEN, YES.
Q ACTUALLY I SHOULD SAY -- I MISSTATED THAT.
OR THE SWIPING AGAINST THE SIDE OF THE JACKET?
A I SAID SWIPING, YES, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.
Q NOW, DID YOU SEE ANY TWO-WAY TRANSFER HERE? THAT IS,
AN IMPRINT ON MR. GOLDMAN'S SHIRT THAT REFLECTED THE PATTERN OF
THE JEANS?
A NO, I DIDN'T EVEN LOOK FOR ONE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.
I'M JUST TAKING SOME TIME. IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, ONE POINT I FORGOT.
AGENT DEEDRICK, WHEN YOU WERE SUGGESTING BEFORE THAT
YOU THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE THAT THERE WAS -- OH, WITHDRAWN.
IF I COULD SUMMARIZE THEN WHAT YOU'VE SAID IN YOUR
REPORT AND YOUR OPINION, YOU SAY THAT THE IMPRINT ON THE ENVELOPE
AND THE IMPRINT ON THE PIECE OF PAPER ARE, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, LIKE
THE TEST IMPRESSIONS DONE IN INKLESS FINGERPRINT CHEMICALS, FOR
LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THAT YOU MADE?
A YES.
MS. CLARK: THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THAT WAS YOUR REPORT.
IN YOUR REPORT YOU USED THE WORD "LIKE"?
A ALL THOSE WORDS AREN'T IN THE REPORT, BUT IT MEANS
THAT, ESSENTIALLY.
Q WELL, IN YOUR REPORT DON'T YOU USE THE WORD "LIKE"?
A YEAH, I DO, BUT I DIDN'T SAY INKLESS STUFF. I DIDN'T
INCLUDE THAT.
Q RIGHT. BUT WHEN YOU ARE REFERRING TO IT, YOU ARE
REFERRING TO THESE TEST IMPRESSIONS THAT YOU MADE, RIGHT?
A RIGHT.
Q AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE WERE, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM
THE JEAN, SEVEN TEST IMPRESSIONS MADE?
A AT LEAST, YES.
Q BY THE LAPD?
A RIGHT.
Q TWO ON AUGUST 21ST?
A RIGHT.
Q FIVE ON AUGUST 31ST?
A I BELIEVE THERE WERE DIFFERENT DATES FOR THOSE, YES.
Q THEN YOU CAME BACK HERE YESTERDAY?
A RIGHT.
Q AND THEN YOU WENT TO THE JEANS?
A RIGHT.
Q AND YOU DID YOUR OWN IMPRINTS?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND YOU LOOKED AT THE JEANS FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR
PURPOSES OF IMPRINT EXAMINATION?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND YOU HAD ALREADY WRITTEN YOUR REPORT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND DID YOU SEE ANY PURPOSE IN DOING THAT, OTHER THAN
BEING ABLE TO COME IN HERE AND TELL THE JURY THAT YOU HAD
ACTUALLY DONE IT YOURSELF?
A I WANTED TO SEE JUST -- JUST TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM
TO SEE THAT IN FACT THERE WERE YELLOW MARKINGS ON THE LEGS. I
WANTED TO SEE THE IMPRINT PATTERNS PERSONALLY THAT I HAD
INDICATED WERE LIKE THE SHIRT.
OTHER THAN JUST TO SHOW THAT THE IMPRINT PATTERNS
THAT I MADE ARE JUST LIKE THE IMPRINT PATTERNS THAT THEY MADE,
THAT IS BASICALLY IT.
Q UH-HUH.
NOW, YOU ARE NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN POSITIVELY
IDENTIFY THOSE PATTERNS AS BEING FROM RONALD GOLDMAN'S JEANS?
A THAT'S RIGHT, I CAN'T.
Q AND YOU ARE NOT EVEN SAYING THAT IT COULDN'T HAVE
COME FROM JEANS WORN BY ANOTHER PERSON?
A I'M NOT SAYING THAT, YES.
Q YOU ARE NOT EVEN SAYING THAT IT COULD
BE JEANS OR THAT IT -- IT COULD HAVE -- IT IS NECESSARILY AN
IMPRINT MADE FROM JEANS?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q NOW, AT THE END OF YOUR TESTIMONY FROM MISS CLARK YOU
SAID THAT THE BOTTOM LINE OR THE CONCLUSION YOU DREW FROM YOUR
ANALYSIS OF ALL THESE IMPRINTS IS THAT ALL YOU COULD SAY IS THAT
RON GOLDMAN WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A WELL, BASED ON THE COULD HAVE ASSOCIATIONS, THAT IS
ONE INTERPRETATION, YES.
Q WELL, DIDN'T YOU SAY AT THE END OF YOUR TESTIMONY
THAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU CAN TELL US YOUR CONCLUSION IS
RON GOLDMAN WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A RIGHT. WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT --
Q THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID?
A ESSENTIALLY THAT, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID.
BUT WHEN YOU SAY AT THE END WITH THAT CONCLUSION THAT
YOU'VE NOW REACHED THE JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS RON GOLDMAN AT THE
CRIME SCENE, AREN'T YOU INDICATING BY THAT ANSWER THAT YOU HAVE
CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE IMPRINTS ON THE ENVELOPE AND
THE PIECE OF PAPER CAME FROM RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS AND NO OTHER
JEANS?
A WELL, IN A WAY.
Q AND NO OTHER OBJECT?
A IN A WAY YOU ARE CORRECT, THAT'S RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q MR. DEEDRICK, YOU FORMED YOUR OPINIONS CONCERNING THE
SOURCE OF THE IMPRESSIONS ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER INITIALLY
BASED ON THE TEST IMPRESSIONS DONE AT LAPD, CORRECT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q YOU THEN DID YOUR OWN TEST IMPRESSIONS MORE RECENTLY
ON THE JEANS, CORRECT?
A RIGHT.
Q DID YOU THEN COMPARE THE TEST IMPRESSIONS YOU MADE
OFF THE JEANS TO THE IMPRINTS ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER?
A NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I HAD THOSE -- I DIDN'T HAVE
THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR THAT.
BASICALLY I WAS COMPARING THE IMPRINT PATTERNS TO SEE
IF THE DESIGN WAS THE SAME, TO SEE IF THE SPACING WAS THE SAME,
AND I DIDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DOUBT THAT IT WOULD BE.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A WELL, I GUESS THERE IS -- I TRUSTED THEM TO DO WHAT
THEY SAID THEY WERE DOING AND IT LOOKED LIKE THEY DID THAT.
Q DID YOUR TEST IMPRESSIONS LOOK LIKE THE TEST
IMPRESSIONS EARLIER DONE BY LAPD?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY -- ANY -- ANY DISTINCTIONS THAT
CAUSED YOU TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION AS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
PATTERN -- THE IMPRINT ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER WAS
CONSISTENT WITH RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS?
A I HAD NO REASON TO EXCLUDE BASED UPON THE SECOND ONE
AND THEY WERE ALL THE SAME.
Q OKAY.
A NO REASON TO BELIEVE MY IMPRESSIONS OR MY IMPRINT
PATTERNS WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT IN A COMPARISON SIDE-BY-SIDE THAN
THE FIRST SET.
Q SO THE LAPD IMPRESSIONS THAT WERE DONE AND THE TEST
IMPRESSIONS YOU THAT DID YOURSELF WERE THE SAME?
A FROM THE SAME PAIR OF JEANS, RIGHT.
Q AND DOING YOUR OWN TEST IMPRESSION, DOES THAT CAUSE
YOU TO CHANGE ANY OF YOUR OPINIONS PREVIOUSLY FORMED ABOUT THE
JEANS HAVING BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THE SOURCE OF THE IMPRINT ON
THE ENVELOPE AND THE PAPER?
A NO.
Q NOW, SIR, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLOOD SPATTER
PATTERN ANALYSIS AND THE INTERPRETATION OF A BLOODY IMPRINT?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. NO BASIS FOR THE WITNESS TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, SURE. YEAH, I THINK YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT AN IMPRINT PATTERN ANALYSIS.
IF IT IS ON FABRIC IT WOULD FALL INTO MY AREA NO
MATTER WHAT THE MEDIUM WAS THAT WAS ON THAT FABRIC, BUT BLOOD
SPATTER IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC ALTOGETHER.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND HOW IS IT DIFFERENT, SIR?
A WELL, IT DEALS WITH THE MOVEMENT, THE PROJECTING OF
BLOOD, AND WHAT HAPPENS TO IT AFTER IT STRIKES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DID YOU HEAR DR. LEE STATE AT ANY TIME ANY
QUALIFICATIONS HE HAD TO COMPARE AND IDENTIFY BLOODY FABRIC
IMPRESSIONS?
A I DON'T RECALL --
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. HE DID NOT HEAR DR. LEE'S COMPLETE
TESTIMONY. IMPROPER QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
THE ANSWER WILL STAND.
HE SAID NO. NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT DR. LEE GAVE NO
INDICATION THAT HE HAD ANY QUALIFICATIONS --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU THINK -- SIR, THE FACT THAT YOU
CANNOT RECALL A SPECIFIC CASE IN WHICH YOU COMPARED OR IDENTIFIED
BLOODY IMPRINTS ON FABRIC, DOES THAT INHIBIT YOUR ABILITY TO
DETERMINE THE SOURCE OF THE IMPRINTS FOUND IN BLOOD IN THIS CASE?
A NO, BUT -- NO. I MEAN, THERE IS A LOT OF CASES I
DON'T REMEMBER.
Q THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT RECALL A SPECIFIC CASE, DOES
THAT INDICATE IN ANY WAY THAT YOU HAVE NEVER COMPARED OR
ATTEMPTED TO IDENTIFY A BLOODY IMPRINT ON FABRIC IN YOUR PAST
EXPERIENCE?
A NO. I MEAN, I'VE HAD BLOOD IMPRINTS ON SHEETS, I
MENTIONED THAT, BUT I CAN'T RECALL A SPECIFIC CASE. MANY OF
THOSE HAVE BEEN SHOEPRINTS.
Q AND WHEN YOU HAVE DETERMINED THAT YOU SEE AN IMPRINT
THAT YOU THINK IS A SHOEPRINT, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH IT?
A GIVE IT TO MR. BILL BODZIAK.
Q YOU INDICATED A -- I THINK YOU INDICATED AN
OBSERVATION, SIR, AND I'M SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 619.
YOU INDICATED AN OBSERVATION OF AN AREA ON THE JEANS
THAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT BE CAUSED BY RONALD GOLDMAN'S BLOODY
ELBOW?
A RIGHT. YES, I BELIEVE IT IS THE SECOND CIRCLE.
WELL, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE -- RIGHT.
Q THE UPPER CIRCLE?
A JUST BELOW THAT -- THAT TOP CIRCLE. IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN THE SECOND CIRCLE ON THE BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE
RIGHT.
Q THE UPPER CIRCLE?
A NO, THE SECOND ONE.
Q THANK YOU.
AND -- OKAY. IS THAT THE CURVED LINE YOU SEE HERE,
(INDICATING)?
A NO. I THINK IT IS IN -- IT IS IN A LITTLE FURTHER.
Q CAN YOU POINT THAT OUT?
A (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD THE WITNESS HAS POINTED TO A
CURVED LINE THAT APPEARS MORE TOWARD THE RIGHT OF THE CIRCLE AS
YOU FACE THE PHOTOGRAPH.
THE COURT: THE RIGHT, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU WERE ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER
ABOUT WHETHER THAT MIGHT BE A SHOEPRINT, CORRECT?
A I WAS ASKED THAT QUESTION, YES.
Q IS THAT YOUR FIELD OF EXPERTISE, SIR?
A I'VE ALREADY STATED I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN SHOEPRINTS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU EARLIER
LOOKED AT THESE ITEMS OF CLOTHING, THE SHIRT AND THE JEANS
EARLIER IN THE CASE, CORRECT?
A I DID.
Q AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
A MAINLY TO -- JUST TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AFTER SOME
DRYING TIME, AND ALSO I WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM TO SEE
COMPOSITION, APPEARANCE, TYPE OF FABRIC.
AND THERE WAS SOME DAMAGE. I WAS INTERESTED IN
DETERMINING POSSIBLY SOME DAMAGE TO THE FABRICS.
Q WHAT DAMAGE WAS THAT?
A WELL, TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY -- ANY WAY THAT I MIGHT
BE ABLE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE TYPE OF WEAPON THAT MAY
HAVE BEEN USED.
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU?
A WELL, IT LOOKED TO BE A SINGLE-EDGED KNIFE ABOUT
THREE-QUARTERS INCH OR MORE --
Q DID YOU MAKE ANY OBSERVATION --
A -- OR MORE, AT LEAST ONE CUT THAT I SAW, VERY SHARP.
Q DID YOU MAKE ANY SUCH OBSERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
THE SHIRT?
A THAT WAS ON THE SHIRT AND ON THE JEANS, BOTH.
Q SINGLE-EDGED WEAPON AS TO BOTH?
A WELL, THE ONES THAT WERE CLEAR. SOME WERE GAPING
TYPE CUTS, BUT THE ONES THAT WERE CLEAR, ABOUT THREE-QUARTERS
INCH, IT APPEARED THAT THAT WAS THE SIZE OF THE WEAPON, AND IT
WAS A SINGLE-EDGED --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING AFIELD OF THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
THE COURT: WE DID DISCUSS THE OTHER PURPOSE FOR WHICH MR.
DEEDRICK LOOKED AT THE LEVIS.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
Q SO THAT WAS THE OTHER PURPOSE THAT YOU LOOKED AT IT
FOR EARLIER IN THE CASE, CORRECT, SIR?
A RIGHT. A COUPLE THINGS:
ONE, TO SEE IT AFTER IT HAS DRIED A LITTLE BIT AND
SEE IF THERE IS ANY MORE PARTICULATE THAT I COULD REMOVE, AND FOR
DAMAGE.
Q AT THAT TIME DID YOU MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING
ANY IMPRINTS OF SIGNIFICANCE?
A NO, I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT FOR THAT REASON.
Q NOW THAT YOU HAVE -- I TAKE IT YOU HAVE NOW?
A I HAVE, YES.
Q FIRST OF ALL, NOW THAT YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THE JEANS
AND THE SHIRT FOR IMPRINTS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE TO THE SOLUTION
OF THE CASE, DID YOU FIND ANY IMPRINTS THAT YOU FOUND WERE OF
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE MURDERER OR THE MANNER
IN WHICH THE CRIME OCCURRED?
A NO.
Q AND IN SAYING THAT YOUR -- THE CONCLUSIONS YOU FORMED
PLACED RON GOLDMAN AT THE CRIME SCENE, WERE YOU ATTEMPTING TO
CONVEY THAT YOU FOUND NO SIGNIFICANCE IN THE IMPRINTS YOU HAD
IDENTIFIED?
A WELL, THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO ME THAT SIGNIFICANT.
Q I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DID NOT DO ANY TEST
IMPRESSIONS IN BLOOD ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, CORRECT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR FAILURE TO HAVE DONE THAT IN
ANY WAY HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE VALIDITY OF YOUR OPINIONS?
A I DON'T THINK IT HAS THAT -- AGAIN, I HAVEN'T DONE
TEST IMPRINTS IN BLOOD. I'VE DONE THEM IN A MORE VISCOUS
MATERIAL, THAT IS INK, WITH INK PADS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT
DETRACTS FROM THE CONCLUSION AT ALL, JUST BECAUSE I DIDN'T USE
BLOOD.
Q WHY NOT?
A WELL, WE ARE LOOKING AT TEST IMPRINTS, JUST AN
IMPRINT PATTERN OF A MEDIUM THAT IS ON THE SURFACE OF A FABRIC
AND WITH BLOOD, I DON'T THINK
IT -- I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS, BUT AGAIN, I HAVEN'T DONE THAT,
SO PERHAPS THAT IS ANOTHER STORY.
Q SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT DO LATER?
A WELL, MAYBE SOMEBODY WHO IS INTERESTED IN THAT
PERHAPS.
Q IN ANY CASE, SIR, THE CONCLUSIONS THAT YOU DREW IN
THIS CASE, AFTER COMPARISON WITH TEST IMPRESSIONS, ARE YOU -- DO
YOU FEEL CONFIDENT IN THOSE CONCLUSIONS OF CONSISTENCY WITH JEANS
AND SHIRT?
MR. SCHECK: ASKED AND ANSWERED. IMPROPER FORM, THIS
QUESTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND THE FACT THAT YOU USED INITIAL
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE JEANS AND SHIRT TO MAKE YOUR COMPARISONS, DOES
THAT IN ANY WAY UNDERMINE THE VALIDITY OF YOUR OPINIONS
CONCERNING THE CONSISTENCY OF THE JEANS WITH THE IMPRINT ON THE
ENVELOPE AND PAPER AND THE CONSISTENCY OF THE SHIRT WITH THE
IMPRINT ON THE JEANS?
A NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I MEAN, WITH -- WITH SOME OF
THOSE PATTERNS, THEY ARE PRETTY SIMULTANEOUS AND YOU HAVE TO
ENLARGE THEM, AND THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHY,
SO IT ACTUALLY HELPS YOU.
Q ALL RIGHT.
FINAL QUESTION, SIR:
WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPRINT ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE
PAPER, CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER -- AND YOU CONCLUDED THAT THAT WAS
CONSISTENT WITH RONALD GOLDMAN'S JEANS, CORRECT?
A RIGHT.
Q WOULD THAT -- WERE THOSE IMPRINTS ON THE PAPER AND
THE ENVELOPE CONSISTENT WITH RON GOLDMAN HAVING FALLEN AND
WRITHING ON THE GROUND ON TOP OF THAT PAPER AND ENVELOPE AT SOME
POINT DURING THE MURDER?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE, AND THERE IS NOTHING
IN MY QUESTIONS ABOUT WRITHING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I MEAN THAT IS POSSIBLE.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: IT IS FOUR O'CLOCK.
THE COURT: HOW MUCH DO YOU HAVE?
MR. SCHECK: WELL, ACTUALLY I BELIEVE THAT SOME QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS OPENED UP SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WILL TAKE OUR RECESS AT THIS
TIME.
REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. WE WILL BE IN
RECESS FOR ABOUT 15.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
MR. SCHECK: I WAS INFORMED THEY HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK IS NOT HERE. I THINK THAT IS
KIND OF THE END OF IT, ISN'T IT?
MR. COCHRAN: NEITHER IS THE WITNESS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL
THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
MR. DEEDRICK, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
AND GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. DEEDRICK.
MISS CLARK, YOU HAD A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS?
MS. CLARK: YES.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. VERY BRIEFLY.
Q MR. DEEDRICK, WE ASKED YOU -- YOU WERE ASKED A LITTLE
BIT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT WHETHER AN IMPRINT COULD HAVE BEEN
A SHOEPRINT ON THE JEANS.
YOU RECALL THAT QUESTION?
A I DO, YES.
Q I TAKE IT BY SOME OF YOUR ANSWERS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN
SHOEPRINTS BEFORE?
A I HAVE, PLENTY.
Q IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE, BASED
ON WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST, BETWEEN THE NATURE OF A FABRIC
IMPRESSION AND A SHOEPRINT IMPRESSION?
A WELL, FABRIC IMPRESSIONS ARE OFTEN A LITTLE MORE
HAZY, BECAUSE IT IS SOFT, IT DOESN'T LEAVE A VERY SHARP LINE,
SHARP INDICATION, LIKE A HARD SURFACE WOULD.
Q OKAY.
SUCH AS A SHOE?
A SHOE IMPRINT, OUTLINE OF ANY HARD ITEM, BUT SHOES IN
PARTICULAR.
Q NOW, IS THE SCIENCE -- YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
VARIOUS KIND OF IMPRINT ANALYSIS, YOU TALKED ABOUT FIREARMS
IDENTIFICATION, STRIATIONS ON A BULLET AND FINGERPRINTS.
IS THE SCIENCE OF IMPRINT ANALYSIS AN OLD SCIENCE,
SIR?
A WELL, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AS LONG AS FINGERPRINTING
AND THAT HAS BEEN A WHILE.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU FIND, FOR EXAMPLE, A BLOODY FINGERPRINT
AT A CRIME SCENE, YOU HAVE A SUSPECT, DO YOU REQUIRE THE SUSPECT
TO MAKE HIS FINGERPRINT IN BLOOD BEFORE YOU COMPARE THOSE
FINGERPRINTS?
A NO, THEY ARE MADE IN INK. THEY ARE INKED PRINTS.
Q SO EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE A BLOODY FINGERPRINT, YOU
COMPARE THAT FINGERPRINT IN BLOOD TO A PRINT TAKEN FROM THE
SUSPECT?
A RIGHT. THAT IS STANDARD PRACTICE.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SCHECK:
Q MISS CLARK ASKED YOU ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION WHETHER
IT IN ANY WAY UNDERMINED YOUR OPINIONS THAT YOU LACKED BACKGROUND
IN BLOOD
SPATTER ANALYSIS.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YEAH. I DON'T -- I DON'T HAVE ANY EXPERTISE IN BLOOD
SPATTER ANALYSIS.
Q BUT SHE ASKED YOU WHETHER THAT LACK OF EXPERTISE IN
ANY WAY UNDERMINED, IN YOUR OPINION, THE VALIDITY OF ANY OF YOUR
CONCLUSIONS?
A UMM --
Q DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YEAH. I DON'T BELIEVE IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE
IMPRINT PATTERN COMPARISONS.
Q THE BLOODY IMPRINT PATTERN COMPARISONS?
A RIGHT, RIGHT.
Q AND YOU SAID THAT BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS, AS YOU
UNDERSTOOD IT, CONCERNED THE MOVEMENT, PROJECTION OF BLOOD AND
WHAT HAPPENS TO IT WHEN IT STRIKES SURFACES?
A WELL, THAT IS MY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
Q AND BASED ON YOUR LIMITING UNDERSTANDING OF IT, DO
YOU THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH AN ANALYSIS OF
BLOODY IMPRINTS?
A I DON'T SEE IT IN THE SAME VEIN.
Q WELL, I AM HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE WITH THIS.
AGENT DEEDRICK, IF YOU DON'T KNOW SOMETHING, HOW DO
YOU KNOW THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT?
THE COURT: ARGUMENTATIVE, COUNSEL.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS
FIELD, HOW CAN YOU STATE WITH SUCH ASSURANCE TO THE JURY THAT IT
HAS NO RELEVANCE TO AN ANALYSIS OF BLOODY IMPRINTS?
A WELL, I -- I REALLY CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT.
Q RIGHT.
AND AGENT DEEDRICK, JUST TAKE THAT EXPLANATION YOU
GAVE ABOUT SWIPE.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q UPON REFLECTION, DO YOU THINK THAT AN ANALYSIS -- AN
UNDERSTANDING OF BLOOD PATTERN ANALYSIS MIGHT BE OF SOME
USEFULNESS IN INTERPRETING THE MULTIPLE IMPRINT IMPRESSIONS IN
THE AREA OF THE JEANS THAT YOU ARE TELLING US WAS CAUSED BY A
SWIPE?
A WELL, I SAID IT MAY HAVE. THAT WAS A POSSIBLE
EXPLANATION FOR IT.
Q WELL, YOU THINK BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS MIGHT HAVE
SOME RELEVANCE TO THAT POINT?
A WELL, IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
EVERYTHING OR MAYBE A LOT ABOUT EVERYTHING, BUT I DON'T KNOW
EVERYTHING.
Q WELL, BEFORE YOU HOLD YOURSELF OUT AS AN EXPERT ON
BLOODY IMPRINTS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS TRIAL, DO YOU THINK IT
MIGHT BE IMPORTANT, EVEN TO CONSULT SOMEBODY WHO HAD EXPERTISE
ABOUT THAT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD LOOKED AT
THE SHIRT AND THE JEANS AT SOME POINT ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A I DO.
Q AND YOU OBSERVED IMPRINTS AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I DON'T RECALL SEEING IMPRINTS AT THAT TIME.
Q DIDN'T YOU SAY ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU SAW
IMPRINTS WHEN YOU OBSERVED THE JEANS?
A NO, I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOTHING ITEMS AT THAT TIME
EARLY ON FOR THAT PURPOSE, NOR DID I NOTICE ANY.
Q DID YOU EVER INSPECT THE CLOTHING
ITEMS -- WELL, WHEN WAS THIS FIRST TIME YOU
INSPECTED THE JEANS OR THE SHIRT?
A I'M THINKING AUGUST OF '94.
Q AND WAS THERE A SUBSEQUENT TIME YOU EXAMINED THE
JEANS?
A WELL, I LOOKED AT THEM FOR THE SECOND TIME LAST
NIGHT.
Q OKAY.
SO IN AUGUST OF '94 YOU LOOKED UP AND DOWN THE JEANS
AND YOU WERE LOOKING FOR DAMAGE?
A WELL, I DID EXAMINE THE JEANS AND THE SHIRT FOR
POSSIBLE DAMAGE.
Q AND WAS IT AT THAT TIME THAT YOU MADE THE
OBSERVATIONS THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION WITH
RESPECT TO KNIVES?
A RIGHT. IT WAS BASICALLY AN OBSERVATION OF BOTH THE
JEANS AND THE SHIRT.
Q SO THAT IS ALL OF 1991 THAT YOU MADE THIS INSPECTION
-- '94?
A '94.
Q '94, RIGHT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THAT INSPECTION IN
AUGUST OF '94, DID YOU OBSERVE THE IMPRINT WITH THE CIRCULAR
RIDGE AND THE PARALLEL LINES THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED IN PEOPLE'S
619 AS AN IMPRINT THAT YOU THOUGHT, BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS,
COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE IMPRINT OF A HEEL?
A NO, I DIDN'T MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS REGARDING IMPRINT
PATTERNS OF WHATEVER TYPE AT
THAT POINT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THAT IS 619, UPPER PHOTOGRAPH, LOWER CIRCLE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IF YOU HAD NOTICED THAT, WOULD YOU
HAVE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED AGENT BODZIAK OR SOMEONE ELSE TO GO
EXAMINE THAT BECAUSE IT COULD BE AN IMPRINT PATTERN CONSISTENT
WITH A SHOE?
A I DON'T KNOW QUITE HOW TO ANSWER THAT. I ASSUMED AT
ONE POINT IT WOULD BE COMING IN, BUT THEN IT MAY NOT HAVE. I
JUST DIDN'T MAKE THIS OBSERVATION.
Q WELL, YOU SAID YOU WERE -- DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING, I
THINK ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, OF SIGNIFICANCE?
A FROM AN IMPRINT PATTERN STANDPOINT I DIDN'T LOOK FOR
ANYTHING REGARDING THAT.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT SOMETIMES SIGNIFICANCE -- THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPRINT PATTERNS OR ANY OTHER OBSERVATIONS ARE
AFFECTED BY THE POINT OF VIEW ONE HAS TOWARDS THE EXAMINATION OF
THE EVIDENCE?
A PERHAPS.
Q NOW, YOU SAID, I GUESS -- WELL, WE'VE NOW ESTABLISHED
THAT WAS ON YOUR AUGUST 31ST OR AUGUST -- IS IT AUGUST 31ST,
1994, THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE SHIRT?
A IT WAS IN AUGUST, I REMEMBER. I CAN'T RECALL THE
EXACT DATE.
Q AUGUST OF 1994 YOU EXAMINED THE SHIRT FOR DAMAGE?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND THAT IS -- MISS CLARK ASKED YOU ON REDIRECT
EXAMINATION ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DAMAGE CAUSED
PERHAPS BY KNIVES?
A RIGHT. I DID OBSERVE SOME CUTTING MARKS.
Q AND BEFORE SHE ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION THE TWO OF YOU
HADN'T DISCUSSED IT AT ALL?
A NO.
Q JUST A QUESTION SHE HAPPENED TO ASK YOU OUT OF THE
BLUE AT THE END OF THIS TRIAL ABOUT DAMAGE TO THE SHIRT?
A YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q NO DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU WHATSOEVER ABOUT
WHAT ANSWER YOU MIGHT GIVE?
A NO.
Q IS THAT TYPICAL, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL.
I DID CUT OFF THE REDIRECT EXAMINATION AS TO THIS
ISSUE.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, I UNDERSTAND, BUT SUBSTANTIVE THINGS
WERE SAID AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST EXPLORE THEM BRIEFLY, YOUR
HONOR, BECAUSE THE JURY HEARD THEM.
THE COURT: BRIEFLY, BRIEFLY.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU TOLD THIS JURY THAT YOU SAW
DAMAGE TO THE BACK OF MR. GOLDMAN'S SHIRT, CORRECT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AND THAT YOU NOW RECALL THAT YOU SAW ONE AREA WHERE
THERE WAS A THREE-QUARTER OF AN INCH, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT,
INCISION OR ENTRY?
A LOOKED LIKE A STAB CUT.
Q STAB CUT AND THAT YOU HAD CONCLUDED IT WAS FROM A
SHARP INSTRUMENT?
A YES.
Q AND A SINGLE-EDGED KNIFE?
A YES.
Q AND YOU SO MADE SUCH -- AND YOU MADE SUCH
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN AUGUST OF 1994?
A THAT WAS AN OBSERVATION I MADE THEN, YES.
Q DID YOU WRITE IT DOWN?
A NO.
Q DID YOU MAKE A REPORT ABOUT IT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF IT?
A NO.
Q WHEN YOU INSPECTED THE SHIRT LAST NIGHT, THE GAPING
AREA WAS NOT IN THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN YOU OBSERVED IT?
A WELL, IT -- IT LOOKED TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT,
PROBABLY BECAUSE OF HANDLING.
Q IS THE REASON THAT YOU DID NOT BOTHER WRITING DOWN,
DOCUMENTING, TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS DAMAGE YOU SAW WITH
RESPECT TO AN ENTRY THAT YOU SAID COMES FROM A SINGLE-EDGED
KNIFE, IS YOU THOUGHT SOMEBODY ELSE WILL DO IT; NOT MY
DEPARTMENT?
A WELL, IT WAS NOT A REQUESTED EXAMINATION. I DIDN'T
HAVE A WEAPON TO COMPARE IT TO.
Q AND DIDN'T YOU TELL ME BEFORE YOU THOUGHT SOMEBODY
ELSE WOULD DEAL WITH IT?
A I DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT, BUT --
Q IS THAT --
A I WASN'T INVOLVED WITH EXAMINING THE ITEMS OF
EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR LOOKING FOR HAIR AND FIBER.
Q BUT DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE
SHIRT FOR DAMAGE?
A RIGHT. I DID -- THAT IS BECAUSE I WAS IN THE LAB,
BUT THE MAIN PURPOSE WAS TO LOOK AT THE SHIRT TO -- JUST TO SEE
IT, JUST TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE STRUCTURE OF IT, THE COMPOSITION
OF IT, THE TEXTURE OF IT, TRANSFERABILITY OF IT.
AND ALSO DAMAGE IS PART OF IT, BUT ALSO THE ITEMS
WILL DRY. EARLY PROCESSING OF ITEMS FOR HAIR AND FIBER EVIDENCE
OFTEN WILL NOT RECOVER AS MUCH AS SECONDARY PROCESSING.
Q BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID -- SO ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF
OBSERVING THE SHIRT IN AUGUST OF 1994 WAS DAMAGE?
A THAT WAS PART OF IT, RIGHT.
Q AND DAMAGE WOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH A KNIFE WOUND?
A IT WAS AT THE TIME LIKE SCIENTIFIC CURIOSITY, JUST TO
SEE WHAT TYPE OF DAMAGE WAS PRESENT IN THE SHIRT.
Q NEVER TOLD ANYBODY ABOUT IT?
A NO.
Q AND AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY YOU CAN ACTUALLY REMEMBER,
WITHOUT ANY NOTES, THAT WAS A THREE-QUARTER OF AN INCH INCISION
IN ITS WIDEST PART?
A RIGHT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MAXIMUM BLADE WIDTH,
THREE-QUARTERS INCH.
Q DID YOU MEASURE IT?
A SURE.
Q AND DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN?
A NO.
Q JUST REMEMBER IT NOW?
A WELL, I REMEMBERED IT ALL ALONG.
Q UH-HUH.
AND JUST SHARED IT WITH EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW TODAY?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASKED AND
ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION YOU WERE
ASKED ABOUT -- YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE
YOU DID FABRIC COMPARISONS.
DO YOU RECALL THAT, MISS CLARK WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT
THAT?
A I TALKED ABOUT FABRIC, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TYPE OF
COMPARISON YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT.
Q WELL, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION I HAD ASKED YOU, I THOUGHT
WE HAD ESTABLISHED -- WE HAD AGREED THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR
KNOWLEDGE YOU HAD NEVER DONE A CASE INVOLVING BLOODY IMPRINTS ON
FABRIC, FABRIC TO FABRIC?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION ARE YOU
NOW SAYING THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE DONE SUCH A CASE, BUT YOU FORGOT
IT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU JUST SAY ON REDIRECT
EXAMINATION THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE SUCH A BLOODY IMPRINT CASE
BUT YOU SIMPLY DON'T REMEMBER?
A NO. I SAID THAT I COULDN'T RECALL A SPECIFIC CASE.
I'VE WORKED A LOT OF CASES INVOLVING IMPRINT PATTERNS, ESPECIALLY
ON SHEETS, ON HOMICIDE VICTIMS, PEOPLE STANDING OVER THE BODY.
YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF THOSE IMPRINT PATTERNS, BUT I CAN'T RECALL
WHAT CASE IT WAS.
Q WELL, WHEN WE WERE -- I ASKED YOU A VERY SPECIFIC
QUESTION ABOUT BLOODY IMPRINTS MADE BY ONE FABRIC TO ANOTHER.
NOW ARE YOU SAYING NOW THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE DONE SUCH
A CASE BUT YOU JUST CAN'T REMEMBER IT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. IT
IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: ARGUMENTATIVE.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU COULD HAVE
DONE SUCH AN ANALYSIS, BUT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN IT?
A WELL, AS I SAID, I DON'T REMEMBER ALL MY CASES AND I
DO RECALL GETTING CASES SIMILAR TO THAT OVER THE YEARS, BUT THERE
IS AN AWFUL LOT OF CASES THAT WE GET IN.
Q BUT THE GROUP OF IMPRINT CASES THAT YOU SAY YOU
WORKED ON ARE PRIMARILY DUST IMPRINT? YOU SAID ABOUT A HUNDRED?
A ABOUT A HUNDRED CASES, THAT'S RIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, THIS IS REALLY GETTING REDUNDANT.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, SHE ASKED.
THE COURT: IT IS REDUNDANT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: BUT YOU CAN REMEMBER THAT ONE-QUARTER
OF AN INCH ENTRY OF A NIGHT IN AUGUST THAT YOU NEVER WROTE DOWN
AND YOU NEVER TOOK A PICTURE OF?
THE COURT: MISSTATING.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH, THAT ONE
YOU GOT?
A THAT ONE I GOT. I STILL REMEMBER IT.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. DEEDRICK, THANK YOU AGAIN, SIR.
ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE EXCUSED.
NEXT WITNESS.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE PEOPLE CALL MR. BILL BODZIAK.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAY I GO OUT HERE TO GET SOME OF
THE EXHIBITS?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
MR. BILL BODZIAK.
WILLIAM J. BODZIAK,
RECALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE IN REBUTTAL, WAS SWORN AND
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE WITNESS: WILLIAM J. BODZIAK, B-O-D-Z-I-A-K.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. BODZIAK.
A GOOD AFTERNOON.
Q SIR, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED AS A QUALIFIED
EXPERT IN SHOEPRINT ANALYSIS, CORRECT?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q AND IS THAT YOUR SPECIALTY, SIR?
A YES, IT IS.
Q HAVE YOU WRITTEN A BOOK ABOUT THAT SUBJECT?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q NOW, AS A SHOEPRINT EXAMINER, SIR, IS IT ONE OF YOUR
DUTIES TO BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN IMPRESSIONS THAT ARE
>FROM SHOES VERSUS IMPRESSIONS THAT ARE NOT FROM SHOES?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WHEN YOU -- YOU TRAIN OTHER FOOTPRINT EXAMINERS, DO
YOU, SIR?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHEN YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF THAT TRAINING DO YOU
TEST THEM IN ANY WAY TO CAUSE THEM TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN WHAT IS A SHOEPRINT AND WHAT IS NOT A SHOEPRINT?
A THERE IS ONE. OCCASIONALLY IN A CLASS I WILL GIVE A
PRE-PREPARED TEST ALONG WITH OTHER COMPARISON TEST TYPE MATERIALS
WHERE I HAVE TWO IMPRESSIONS OF SHOES WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY SHOE
IMPRESSIONS, THEY ARE THE ENTIRE FULL SHOEPRINT AND ARE
RECOGNIZABLE AS SUCH, AND I WILL MAKE A THIRD IMPRESSION WITH
SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A SHOE, SUCH AS IT MAY BE THE RUNG OF A
LADDER WITH SOME RIBBED PATTERNS OR SOME OTHER MATERIAL, AND I
WILL GIVE THEM QUESTIONS THAT DON'T TELL THEM IT IS SHOEPRINTS,
BUT KIND OF INFER THAT IT IS, AND JUST TO SEE WHAT THEIR ANSWERS
ARE, AND A LOT OF THEM MISTAKENLY ASSUME IT IS A SHOE IMPRESSION.
Q NOW, HAS IT EVER HAPPENED TO YOU, SIR, THAT AN
IMPRESSION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO YOU IN WHICH YOU CANNOT SAY FOR SURE
THAT IT IS A SHOE IMPRESSION OR NOT?
A ALL OF THE TIME, YES.
Q IN THAT SITUATION, SIR, WHAT OPINION, IF ANY, DO YOU
RENDER?
A IN -- IF I AM QUESTIONED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A
PARTICULAR MARK OR PATTERN OR IMPRINT OR IMPRESSION OR WHATEVER
THAT PERSON CALLS IT, ON AN ITEM, AND I CANNOT DETERMINE THAT IT
IS OR ISN'T A SHOE IMPRESSION BECAUSE IT IS SO SMALL OR PARTIAL
OR FAINT, I WILL SAY IT IS OF TOO LIMITED A VALUE TO MAKE A
POSITIVE DETERMINATION.
Q AND WHY IS -- I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
A OKAY.
IF IT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT HAS ENOUGH DETAIL
WHERE I CAN SAY POSITIVELY WHAT IT IS, THEN DEPENDING IF IT IS A
SHOE IMPRESSION OR NOT, I WILL PROCEED IN THE APPROPRIATE
FASHION.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A WHY --
Q WHY DO YOU NOT MAKE A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE
POSSIBILITIES OF WHETHER SOMETHING IS A SHOEPRINT WHEN YOU ARE
NOT SURE?
A OKAY.
BECAUSE IMPRESSIONS OF ALL OBJECTS, WHETHER THEY ARE
FINGERPRINTS, EARS, NOSES, SHOES, FABRIC, RUNGS OF A LADDER, NO
MATTER WHAT THEY ARE, THERE ARE IMPRESSIONS OF VARYING QUALITY
AND VARYING DENSITY, AND SO IF YOU HAVE AN IMPRESSION THAT YOU
CAN HARDLY SEE THAT IS VERY PARTIAL, IT IS VERY FAINT WHERE YOU
CAN'T SEE RELIABLE DETAIL, THEN MORE THAN LIKELY YOU ARE NOT
GOING ABLE TO MAKE A VALID COMPARISON OF IT.
YOU MIGHT BE GUESSING TO TRY TO PRESUME WHAT IT IS
AND IT JUST DOES NOT CONTAIN ENOUGH DETAIL FOR SUFFICIENT
COMPARISON OR A MEANINGFUL COMPARISON AND IT WOULD BE BEST NOT TO
GO BEYOND WHAT INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THAT IMPRESSION.
ON THE OTHER SPECTRUM YOU MAY HAVE A VERY, VERY CLEAR
IMPRESSION AND ALL OF THE DETAIL IS VERY CRISP AND CLEAR AND YOU
CAN MAKE A VERY VALID IMPRESSION.
Q WHEN THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DETAIL TO CHARACTERIZE AN
IMPRINT AS A SHOEPRINT, IN YOUR OPINION, SIR, IS IT
SCIENTIFICALLY INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY IT COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH A
SHOEPRINT OR MIGHT BE A SHOEPRINT?
A IF I WERE ASKED TO MAKE A COMPARISON OF AN IMPRINT, I
WOULD EITHER BE ASKED TO COMPARE IT WITH A SHOE, IN WHICH CASE I
MAY BE ABLE TO MAKE A COMPARISON IF THERE IS ENOUGH DETAIL.
IF THERE WERE NO SHOE, WAS JUST AN IMPRINT BY ITSELF,
THEN I WOULD RENDER WHAT OPINION I COULD, BUT I WOULD ONLY RENDER
IT BASED ON WHAT I COULD SEE WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
IF IT WAS TOO FAINT, I WOULDN'T RENDER AN OPINION
BECAUSE IT COULD BE MISLEADING.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID AN
ANALYSIS ON AN ENVELOPE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT ENVELOPE WAS FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE,
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU SAW PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT ENVELOPE AS IT WAS
FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A I SAW PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE ENVELOPE ITSELF.
Q NOW, AFTER YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, IN THIS CASE, DID YOU
SEE MORE PHOTOGRAPHS, ONE OF WHICH WAS OF A PAPER FOUND AT THE
CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY?
A YES, I DID.
Q NOW, AFTER DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY DID YOU GO BACK AND
LOOK MORE CLOSELY AT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT PAPER FOUND AT THE
CRIME SCENE FOR THE FIRST TIME?
A YES, I DID.
Q WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT YOUR OPINION IS, SIR, DID YOU
FORM AN OPINION WHETHER THE IMPRESSIONS ON THE ENVELOPE AND PAPER
FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE WERE CREATED BY FOOTWEAR?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND DID WE PREPARE A GRAPHIC DISPLAY TO DEMONSTRATE
THE BASIS FOR THAT OPINION?
A YES, MA'AM.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, 622?
THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: IS THIS NEW?
MS. CLARK: YES.
THE COURT: 622.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(PEO'S 622 FOR ID = POSTERBOARD)
THE COURT: MR. FAIRTLOUGH, CAN I SEE THAT REAL BRIEFLY?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: 622, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: 622.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
MAYBE YOU NEED TO STEP DOWN TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE
JURY WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO
TESTIFY -- WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO TELL THEM.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q WHY DON'T WE START -- WELL, WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO
START, SIR? THE PAPER OR THE ENVELOPE?
A ON YOUR SIDE IS FINE.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
ON MY SIDE FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, AS YOU FACE
THIS BOARD, THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE LEFT THAT ARE THE
ENVELOPE AND ON THE RIGHT IS ONE PHOTOGRAPH OF A PIECE OF PAPER.
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SIR, IF YOU WOULD INDICATE TO US, DOES
THIS APPEAR TO BE THE ENVELOPE FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY
WHICH YOU EXAMINED?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND COULD YOU POINT TO THE AREA -- YOU RECALL DR.
LEE'S TESTIMONY CONCERNING THIS ITEM, DO YOU NOT, SIR?
A I SAW PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY; NOT THE COMPLETE
TESTIMONY.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU REMEMBER THE PORTION OF HIS TESTIMONY WHERE HE
INDICATED THAT PARALLEL LINES IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF
THIS ENVELOPE THAT I'M DESIGNATING HERE WITH MY FINGER WERE
CONSISTENT WITH A SHOEPRINT?
A I RECALL HIM NOT STATING IT WAS A SHOEPRINT, BUT THAT
HE COULDN'T ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD BE.
Q OKAY.
NOW, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT -- IN
THOSE IMPRINTS THAT CAUSED YOU TO FORM AN OPINION CONCERNING WHAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE OF THOSE IMPRINTS?
A SURE.
ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS EXHIBIT AT THE TOP IS A
PICTURE OF THE ENVELOPE WHICH CONTAINED THE GLASSES.
AND THIS PICTURE IS AS THE ENVELOPE WAS OBSERVED AT
THE SCENE AND BELOW IT IS A PICTURE OF THE ENVELOPE WHICH IS
ENLARGED TO A NATURAL SIZE, AN ACTUAL TRUE SIZE. THIS WAS TAKEN
BY ME IN THE LAPD LABORATORY, AND THESE ARE ORIENTATED IN THE
SAME FASHION SO THAT ON THE RIGHT TOP CORNER OF THE ENVELOPE IS
A VERY SMALL IMPRESSION.
AND LOOKING AT THE NATURAL SIZE, IF I PUT MY THUMB
NEXT TO IT IS ACTUALLY ABOUT HALF THE SIZE OF MY THUMB
IMPRESSION. IT IS THAT SMALL.
WITHIN THAT IMPRESSION ARE SEVERAL PARALLEL LINES
WHICH HAVE SORT OF A ZIGZAG TO THEM. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LINES
THEMSELVES DON'T ZIGZAG, BUT IT IS LIKE IF YOU DREW A STRAIGHT
LINE AND THERE ARE LITTLE MOTIONS GOING LEFT AND RIGHT AS YOU GO
DOWN THAT LINE.
Q WHEN YOU SAY HALF THE SIZE OF YOUR THUMB IMPRINT, CAN
YOU ESTIMATE FOR THE JURY, SIR, HOW BIG THAT IS IN TERMS OF
INCHES OR SOMETHING?
A THE AREA HERE IS PERHAPS A HALF-INCH
BY -- WELL, MAYBE A THREE-QUARTER INCH SQUARE AREA, ABOUT
THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH IN EACH DIRECTION WOULD ENCOMPASS THIS
IMPRESSION.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, SIR.
ONE MOMENT.
I'M GOING TO ASK TO PUT THIS PICTURE ON THE ELMO SO
THAT THE JURY CAN SEE IT BETTER.
I THINK IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE ON THE BOARD.
THE COURT: IS THAT THE SAME -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT --
NEVER MIND.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
CAN YOU SEE THE AREA THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING
WITH US IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, ON THE SCREEN?
A YES, I CAN.
Q AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY THE LOCATION OF
THOSE PARALLEL LINES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
A YES. IT IS AT THE TOP RIGHT OF THE ENVELOPE. I WILL
WAIT UNTIL IT GETS BACK IN FOCUS SO YOU CAN SEE IT.
Q THERE YOU GO.
A OKAY. I THINK IT IS STILL A LITTLE OUT OF FOCUS.
OKAY.
THAT IS STILL NOT IN FOCUS. IT IS
VERY -- CAN WE BRING IT INTO FOCUS.
MS. CLARK: CAN YOU FOCUS A LITTLE BETTER, MR. FAIRTLOUGH?
MS. CLARK: THAT IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS ON THE ELMO.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
WELL, JUST IN THE AREA OF THE ARROW, THAT THE ARROW
IS POINTING TO, THERE ARE SEVERAL VERY CLOSE LINES. YOU CAN'T
REALLY SEE THE DETAIL I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW IN THIS PARTICULAR
PICTURE, BUT THOSE LINES IN GENERAL ARE PARALLEL, AND THERE IS
ABOUT SIX TO EIGHT OF THEM, AND THEY ENCOMPASS AN AREA ABOUT ONE
-- THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH LONG BY THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH
WIDE, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE SURFACE OF MOST FINGERPRINTS OR
THUMBPRINTS.
AND WITHIN EACH LINE, EVEN THOUGH EACH LINE RUNS IN A
STRAIGHT LINE, THERE IS SOME INTERRUPTION IN THE LINE, A
DIFFERENT PATTERN WITHIN THAT LINE ITSELF.
AND YOU CAN'T SEE THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR
ENLARGEMENT, BUT IF YOU WERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE YOU COULD SEE
THAT VERY CLEARLY, OR BETTER YET, WE COULD USE THE ENLARGEMENT
>FROM MR. LEE'S CHART PERHAPS WHICH WAS ENLARGED TREMENDOUSLY AND
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST WAY TO SEE IT.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
I WILL GET THAT, SIR.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: I PULLED OUT DEFENSE EXHIBIT
NO. 1338-B, YOUR HONOR, AND I'M GOING TO PUT IT UP ON THE EASEL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 1338-B.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
Q DO YOU SEE THE AREA CIRCLED ON THIS EXHIBIT?
A YES, I DO.
NOW, THIS -- THIS EXHIBIT IS AN EXTREMELY ENLARGED
AREA. IT IS ENLARGED SO MUCH IT IS ALSO STARTING TO GET OUT OF
FOCUS, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF AN OBJECT
AND THEN TRY TO REALLY MAKE IT BIG, BUT THIS AREA THAT IS CIRCLED
REPRESENTS THIS THUMBPRINT SIZE AREA OF THE ENVELOPE, THE TOP
RIGHT CORNER, (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 622.
THE WITNESS: AND YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A NUMBER OF PARALLEL
LINES, BUT THOSE LINES AREN'T STRAIGHT NARROW LINES. THEY HAVE A
LITTLE MISDIRECTIONS IN THEM WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF THAT
LINE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ALL HAVE THAT SAME
CHARACTERISTIC. IT IS NOT JUST AN ACCIDENT. IT IS REFLECTIVE TO
SOME DEGREE OF THE ITEM WHICH CAUSED THAT TO COME IN -- WHICH
CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THAT ENVELOPE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THE
FEATURES THAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED OF THOSE PARALLEL LINES
THAT IS SIGNIFICANT TO YOU IN TERMS OF YOUR DETERMINATION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A SHOEPRINT?
A YES. IN MY OPINION IT IS NOT A SHOEPRINT FOR A
NUMBER OF REASONS.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS HAS A NON-PRINTING AREA COMPLETELY
SURROUNDING IT, SO IN ORDER FOR A SHOE TO MAKE THAT PRINT, IT
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE -- IT COULD ONLY BE A SITUATION WHERE THERE
WAS PERHAPS ONE DROP OF BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SHOE AND THAT
IS WHY IT WAS LIMITED AND DIDN'T MAKE A PRINT AROUND IT.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE SHOE WAS TOTALLY BLOODY OR THE
SURFACE OF THE BOTTOM OF THE SHOE WAS TOTALLY BLOODY, THERE WOULD
BE PRINTS EXTENDING OUT, BECAUSE A SHOEPRINT ISN'T THAT SMALL, IT
IS MUCH BIGGER, SO THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE SCENARIO WHEN YOU
COULD HAVE A SHOE MAKE AN ISOLATED, LITERALLY, AN ISLAND OF AN
IMPRESSION BY ITSELF.
SECONDLY --
Q LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE AND ASK YOU A COUPLE
QUESTIONS IF I MAY, SIR.
A SURE.
Q YOU HAVE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS CRIME SCENE, HAVE
YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE IT AS A VERY BLOODY CRIME
SCENE?
A VERY BLOODY.
Q AND THE SHOEPRINT THAT YOU SAW GOING DOWN THE WALKWAY
AT BUNDY, DID YOU SEE BASICALLY ALL OF THE FEATURES -- BUT MOST
OF THE FEATURES OF THE HEEL AND SOLE IN MANY OF THOSE SHOEPRINTS?
A THERE WERE HEELS AND SOLES OF A LOT OF SHOEPRINTS AT
THAT SCENE, YES, THE BRUNO MAGLI DESIGN.
Q DOES THAT INDICATE TO YOU THAT THOSE SHOES PICKED UP
A FAIR AMOUNT OF BLOOD AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A THE PICTURES THAT I SAW OF THE CRIME SCENE WERE SO
COVERED WITH BLOOD ON THE WALKING AREAS THAT YOU COULD NOT
PHYSICALLY CROSS THEM WITHOUT GETTING BLOOD FULLY ON THE BOTTOMS
OF YOUR SHOES.
Q SO THE SCENARIO YOU'VE JUST DEPICTED FOR US OF ONE
DROP OF BLOOD ON A SMALL PORTION OF THE SHOE CREATING THAT
IMPRINT ON THE ENVELOPE, BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIME
SCENE AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU HAVE SEEN, WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE
IN THIS CASE?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION; NO
FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE
CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THIS CASE, SIR, CAN YOU --
THE COURT: FOUNDATION REGARDING CRIME SCENES, COUNSEL.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: FOUNDATION FOR CRIME SCENES.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
BUNDY CRIME SCENE, SIR?
A I REVIEWED SEVERAL VOLUMES OF THEM, YES.
Q AND HAVING REVIEWED THOSE VOLUMES OF THE BUNDY CRIME
SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS, CAN YOU TELL US, BASED ON WHAT YOU SAW,
WHETHER IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO STEP IN THAT CRIME SCENE
COMMITTING THE MURDERS AND COME AWAY WITH ONE DROP OF BLOOD ON
ONE DISCREET AREA OF THE SHOE TO CREATE THE IMPRINT YOU SEE IN
DEFENSE 1338-B?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION; VAGUE AS TO
TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY THAT COULD HAPPEN WOULD
BE AT THE VERY ONSET OF THE CRIME, THE FIRST DROPS OF BLOOD THAT
WERE SPILLED, WHERE ONE OF THOSE DROPS MAY HAVE FALLEN TO THE
GROUND, WHATEVER CONTACTED THIS -- THAT BLOOD AT THAT POINT WAS
LIMITED IN SIZE BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE DROP IN THAT AREA AND
THEN IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THIS PAPER.
I STILL DON'T, FOR OTHER REASONS WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN
INTO YET, BELIEVE IT IS A SHOEPRINT. IN MY OPINION IT IS NOT.
BUT WHATEVER MADE THIS ISOLATED ISLAND OF AN
IMPRESSION COULD HAVE DONE IT UNDER THAT PARTICULAR SCENARIO.
AFTER THERE WAS MORE BLOOD AT THE SCENE IT WOULD NOT
BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A SHOE OR ANY OBJECT MAKE CONTACT WITH THAT
GROUND SURFACE AND THEN LEAVE THIS ISOLATED IMPRESSION.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THIS OPINION SO FAR IS BASED SOLELY ON THE
FEATURES OF THE PARALLEL LINES THAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN THAT
PATTERN?
A SO FAR JUST ON THE SIZE OF IT AND THE FACT THAT THE
IMPRESSION DOES NOT EXTEND OUTWARD, IT IS ISOLATED JUST LIKE AN
ISLAND, SO THE BLOOD ON WHATEVER OBJECT TOUCHED IT WOULD ALSO
HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED TO THAT SIZE.
Q OKAY.
NOW, THOSE PARALLEL LINES, SIR, ARE THEY TYPICAL
FEATURES THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN A SHOEPRINT?
A NO, THEY ARE NOT. THE -- THERE IS THREE BASIC WAYS
THAT THE BOTTOM OF A SHOE CAN HAVE A DESIGN IMPLANTED INTO IT AND
THAT DESIGN IS ALWAYS IMPLANTED THROUGH A MOLDING PROCESS, BUT
THE MOLD HAS TO BE MADE AND IN MAKING THE MOLD THE -- AND AGAIN
I'M POINTING TO THIS FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES, BUT I WOULD LIKE
TO POINT OUT THAT THIS VERY, VERY TINY PRINT WHERE THE LINES ARE
EXTREMELY CLOSE TOGETHER IS WHAT IN REALITY I AM TALKING ABOUT.
THE LINES, THE DESIGN OF THESE LINES WOULD HAVE TO BE
PUT IN THERE, ONE OF THREE WAYS:
EITHER THROUGH A ROUTING DEVICE, SOMETHING THAT WOULD
ACTUALLY CHEW UP THE METAL WHERE THEY HAVE A METAL BLOCK BEFORE
THEY MAKE THE MOLD AND THEY CHEW IT OUT INTO THE DESIGN OF A SHOE
AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN EXTREMELY FINE TOOL.
AND YOU TYPICALLY DON'T SEE THEM USING FINE METAL
BITS THAT WAY BECAUSE WHEN THEY GET TOO SMALL THEY BREAK AND
THEY JUST -- IT IS NOT A PRODUCTIVE WAY OF TRYING TO MAKE A SHOE.
THERE IS OTHER WAYS TO IMPLANT SMALL DESIGNS LIKE
THIS ON A SHOE. THE SECOND WAY WOULD BE THROUGH STIPPLING.
STIPPLING WOULD INVOLVE A METAL DYE THAT IS ABOUT THE SIZE OF
THIS WOODEN PIECE ON THE TOP OF THE POINTER, AND ACTUALLY IN MOST
CASES MAYBE HALF THE DIAMETER OF THIS POINTER, THE WOODEN PIECE
AND ON THE TIP OF IT IT WILL HAVE A DESIGN THAT THEY WANT TO
IMPLANT IN THE MOLD AND THEY WILL TAKE A HAMMER AND PUT THIS DYE
ON THE MOLD AND STRIKE REAL HARD WITH THE HAMMER AND THAT WILL
TRANSFER THE PATTERN INTO THE MOLD WHICH IN TURN BECOMES PART OF
THE SHOE WHEN IT IS MOLDED.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN THEY USE THESE DYES THEY ON
PURPOSE TURN THEM EACH TIME THEY STRIKE AND THEY WIND UP WITH
MORE OF A TEXTURE AND THERE WOULD BE NO WAY THAT THEY WOULD
EITHER TRY OR COULD ACCOMPLISH TO GET THESE PERFECTLY PARALLEL
LINES BY MAKING IT THAT WAY.
THE THIRD METHOD IS THROUGH CHEMICAL ETCHING AND THAT
IS MORE FOR TEXTURING, LIKE THE TEXTURE ON THE FACE OF THIS ELMO
PROJECTOR OR THE DASHBOARD OF YOUR CAR, AND THAT IS A VERY, VERY
SMALL PATTERN, IT WOULD NOT HAVE PARALLEL LINES AT ALL.
SO UNDERSTANDING THOSE THREE WAYS THAT DESIGNS ARE
IMPLANTED INTO MOLDS, I DON'T SEE THIS
AS A SHOE DESIGN.
THERE ARE VERY FINE PATTERNS THAT MAY BE THIS FINE,
BUT NOT -- THEY WILL HAVE A TEXTURING OR STIPPLING TYPE -- TYPE
OR SIPING, BUT NOT OF A PREMOLDED ROUTED OUT TYPE WHERE THEY
WOULD BE PARALLEL.
Q IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON, OTHER THAN THE FEATURES OF
THOSE PARALLEL LINES THEMSELVES AND THE TYPE OF DESIGN IT IS THAT
CAUSES YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS NOT A SHOEPRINT?
A WELL, BASED ON ALL OF THOSE THINGS, PARTICULARLY THE
LITTLE MISDIRECTIONS IN EACH OF THOSE PARALLEL LINES, I'M OF THE
OPINION THAT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT THIS IS NOT AND
COULD NOT BE A SHOE IMPRESSION.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND LET ME SHOW YOU A SHOEPRINT FROM BUNDY?
A SURE.
MS. CLARK: THIS IS WHAT, PEOPLE'S 45-I.
ALL RIGHT. UP ON THE ELMO NOW IS PEOPLE'S 45-I.
Q YOU HAVE TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY AS TO THE
IDENTIFICATION OF THIS AS A SIZE 12 BRUNO MAGLI AT BUNDY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q DO YOU SEE THAT THERE IS A DISTINCT LINE AROUND THE
AREA THAT IS THE HEEL AND THE AREA THAT IS THE SOLE?
A YES, THERE IS, AND I TESTIFIED TO THE BORDERS AND
THOSE CHARACTERISTICS IN MY PRIOR TESTIMONY.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU SEE ANY SUCH BORDER IN THE IMPRINT SHOWN ON
PEOPLE'S 622 OR ON DEFENDANT'S 1338-B?
A NO, THERE IS NONE.
Q DOES THAT PLAY ANY PART IN YOUR DETERMINATION THAT
THIS IS NOT A SHOEPRINT?
A WELL, IT GOES ALONG THE SAME LINES AS TO WHAT I WAS
EXPLAINING, THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY AN ISOLATED MARK OR PRINT WHERE
THERE IS NOTHING AROUND IT, SO IT IS ISOLATED IN ITSELF AND WOULD
NOT BE TYPICAL OF A SHOE THAT HAS PICKED UP BLOOD ON ITS ENTIRE
SURFACE.
Q NOW, THE DEFENSE 1338-B, CAN YOU TELL US HOW MUCH
MAGNIFICATION THERE IS TO CREATE THAT ENLARGEMENT?
A THIS ISN'T MY ENLARGEMENT, SO I DON'T KNOW THE
MAGNIFICATION. I'M GUESSING THAT IT IS PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE
TIMES AT LEAST, BUT AGAIN, I -- IT IS HARD FOR ME TO DO THAT HERE
WITHOUT MAKING MEASUREMENTS AND SO FORTH AND IT IS NOT MY
ENLARGEMENT, BUT IT IS A VERY ENLARGED AREA.
Q NOW, IS THERE A PROBLEM, SIR, IN YOUR OPINION, IN
USING ENLARGED PHOTOGRAPHS WITHOUT USING THEM NEXT TO THE NATURAL
SIZE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE OBJECT?
A AS LONG AS THEY ARE REPRESENTED PROPERLY,
ENLARGEMENTS ARE VERY GOOD FOR CONVEYING SMALLER IMAGES TO GROUPS
OF PEOPLE SUCH AS IN THE COURTROOM TO SHOW THINGS THAT THEY
OTHERWISE WON'T SEE.
HOWEVER, THAT SHOULDN'T -- SHOULD BE QUALIFIED AS
BEING AN ENLARGEMENT AND IN THIS CASE EITHER A SCALE SHOULD BE
USED OR -- AND I BELIEVE IT WAS -- A NATURAL SIZE PHOTOGRAPH WITH
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS BEING USED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE
PURPOSES, BUT THE ACTUAL IMPRESSION IS THIS SMALL.
Q OKAY.
AND IN THAT REGARD, SIR, IF YOU LOOK ONLY AT THE
ENLARGEMENT WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW MUCH ENLARGED IT IS,
DO THE PARALLEL LINES APPEAR TO BE FARTHER APART IN THE
ENLARGEMENT ON 1338-B THAN THEY DO IN PEOPLE'S 622 WHICH IS THE
NATURAL SIZE OF THE ITEM?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THIS DOES NOT REBUT
THE WAY THE DISPLAY WAS GIVEN TO THE JURY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IF IN FACT A PERSON VIEWING THIS WERE TO
MISTAKENLY LOOK AT THIS AND BELIEVE THIS WAS THE NATURAL SIZE OF
THE PRINT, THEN OF COURSE IT WOULD LOOK MORE LIKE A SHOE
IMPRESSION WITH PARALLEL LINES OR SOME TYPE OF DESIGN BECAUSE THE
SIZE HAS NOW BEEN ENLARGED AND IT COMES INTO A WHOLE DIFFERENT
CLASS OF SHOES AND SHOE DESIGNS.
HOWEVER, AS LONG AS IT IS REPRESENTED PROPERLY, THAT
WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU SPOKE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
FACT THAT THIS IS NOT -- THIS IMPRINT DOES NOT APPEAR TO YOU TO
BE ANYTHING LIKE A SHOE DESIGN THAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST.
HAVE YOU SEEN MANY SHOE DESIGNS, SIR?
A YES. I HAVE -- SINCE ABOUT 1986 I HAVE MENTIONED THE
SHOE REFERENCE COLLECTION. I HAVE BEEN TO MANY SHOE
MANUFACTURERS, I HAVE BEEN TO SHOE FAIRS AND CONVENTIONS WHERE
THEY SELL THE EQUIPMENT THAT MAKES THE SHOES AND MOLDS.
AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN A SHOE DESIGN THIS FINE THAT
WAS INTENTIONALLY -- I MEAN THAT WAS ROUTED OUT IN PARALLEL LINES
WITH THESE LITTLE DESIGNS WITHIN IT.
ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE OF THAT SIZE WOULD BE DONE
WITH EITHER ETCHING OR STIPPLING.
Q OKAY.
DOES THE FBI HAVE SOME KIND OF A COMPUTER THAT
REFERENCES ALL DIFFERENT KIND OF SHOES?
A WE HAVE A COMPUTER AND A HARD COPY REFERENCE
COLLECTION OF SHOE DESIGNS.
Q DO YOU ATTEND ANY CONVENTIONS WHERE YOU LEARN ABOUT
NEW KINDS OF WAYS OF MAKING SHOES AND DIFFERENT SHOE PATTERNS?
A I'VE GONE TO MANY MANUFACTURERS AND EVERY THREE YEARS
THERE IS A FOOTWEAR INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION. I'VE ALSO BEEN TO
SHOE SHOWS WHERE THEY WILL MAYBE HAVE 1600 BOOTHS FROM THESE
SHOES ALL OVER THE WORLD BEEN DISTRIBUTED EXPLICITLY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SEEING IF THERE WAS ANY WAY WE COULD EXPAND OUR
REFERENCE MATERIAL IN SHOE DESIGN.
Q NOW, IF YOU WOULD, SIR, WOULD YOU ADDRESS YOUR
COMMENTS TO THE PIECE OF PAPER AND LET ME GET THE DEFENSE
EXHIBIT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU, SIR, DEFENDANT'S 1338-A.
DO YOU SEE THE AREA THAT IS CIRCLED IN THAT
PHOTOGRAPH?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL OBSERVING DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY
CONCERNING THIS ITEM?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT HE SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE
AREA CIRCLED IN BLUE IN DEFENSE 1338-A?
A I'M NOT SURE -- I MAY HAVE SEEN IT ON A NEWS CLIP AND
DIDN'T HEAR HIS VOICE, SO I'M NOT -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT HE
SPECIFICALLY SAID ABOUT IT, OTHER THAN --
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL HIM CHARACTERIZING THIS
AS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A SHOEPRINT?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IN THE BITS AND
PIECES OF HIS TESTIMONY HE WAS REFERRING TO THIS AS AN IMPRINT, I
BELIEVE IS THE TERMINOLOGY HE USED, AND THAT HE COULDN'T SAY IT
WAS DEFINITELY A SHOE IMPRESSION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND WHAT IS YOUR OPINION CONCERNING
THIS AREA CIRCLED IN BLUE ON DEFENSE 1338-A?
A FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS WHICH I MENTIONED ON THE
ENVELOPE, THIS PATTERN IS VERY, VERY SMALL, AND AS WELL AS THE
AREA THAT THAT PATTERN ENCOMPASSES, AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING I
RECOGNIZE OR BELIEVE TO BE A SHOE IMPRESSION.
IF I COULD FURTHER EXPLAIN IT, THE DEFENSE EXHIBIT --
I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER.
Q 1338-A?
A 1338-A, IS ENLARGED ABOVE THE NATURAL SIZE OF THE
PIECE OF PAPER.
ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS CHART --
Q PEOPLE'S 622?
A YES.
-- IS AN APPROXIMATE NATURAL SIZE, AND WHEN I SAY
APPROXIMATE, THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN AT A SLIGHT ANGLE, AS
OPPOSED TO DIRECTLY OVERHEAD, BUT WE MEASURED THE DISTANCE FROM
THE CONCRETE BARRIER THAT THE RAILING IS ON, AND THIS
INTERSECTION, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE WIDTH OF A HALF A
TILE, WHICH ARE 11 AND A HALF TO 12 INCHES SQUARE, AND SO LOOKING
AT THIS IS A PRETTY CLOSE ESTIMATE OF THE SIZE OF THIS ACTUAL
PIECE OF PAPER.
AS A SECONDARY REFERENCE OF SIZE, I LOOKED AT THE TOE
OF THIS SHOE AND EVEN IN A VERY BIG FOOT, BEING GRACIOUS, THIS
WOULD MAYBE BE AT THIS POINT THREE TO THREE AND A HALF INCHES
ACROSS UP NEAR THE TOE, SO THIS PIECE OF PAPER IS APPROXIMATELY
FIVE -- FIVE, FOUR INCHES, IT IS NOT A RECTANGLE, BUT IT IS
SOMEWHERE IN THAT SIZE.
THE AREA THAT CONTAINS THE IMPRESSION, WHEN
TRANSFERRED OVER TO THIS WILL NOW ONLY BE A COUPLE INCHES WIDE,
AND IF THIS WERE A SHOE THAT STEPPED ON IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO
EITHER BE A TINY SHOE OR SOMETHING WOULD HAVE HAD TO INTERFERE
WITH THE REPRODUCTION OF PART OF THAT DESIGN, BUT BECAUSE OF THE
OTHER REASONS I MENTIONED, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A SHOE
IMPRINT EITHER.
Q WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY TINY SHOE?
A A KID SHOE, A VERY TINY SHOE, BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY
BE A COUPLE INCHES WIDE, IF YOU ARE CONFINING IT TO THE AREA THAT
HAS BEEN DRAWN ON THIS EXHIBIT.
Q AND THEN AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO THIS LITTLE PIECE OF
PAPER AS WELL, IS IT YOUR OPINION, SIR, THAT IT WAS NOT A
SHOEPRINT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. NO TESTIMONY THAT IT REPRESENTS A
SHOEPRINT. IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
SINCE YOU DETERMINED, SIR, THAT SHOES WERE NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THIS IMPRINT, WAS YOUR WORK DONE?
A YES, IT WAS. I WAS REQUESTED TO MAKE COMPARISONS OF
THESE VARIOUS ITEMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING SHOEPRINTS.
AND IN FACT ON THE ENVELOPE THERE WAS, WHICH I
TESTIFIED TO BEFORE, A PARTIAL IMPRESSION THAT WAS CONSISTENT
WITH THE BRUNO MAGLI DESIGN AND THE EDGE OF THAT SHOE.
EVEN THOUGH I MAY SEE OTHER MARKS, WHETHER THEY BE
SPATTER OR STREAKS OR WAVY LINES THAT I DON'T THINK ARE SHOE
IMPRESSIONS, ONCE I DETERMINED IT WASN'T A SHOE IMPRESSION, I
WOULDN'T PURSUE IT ANY FURTHER.
Q AND BY CONTRAST, BY WAY OF CONTRAST, SIR, ON PEOPLE'S
622, ON THE UPPER PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, THERE IS AN
AREA THAT YOU DESIGNATED THAT DID APPEAR TO YOU TO BE A
SHOEPRINT?
A IT DID AND THAT WAS ONE I TESTIFIED TO BEFORE IN MY
PRIOR TESTIMONY AND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE BRUNO MAGLI
DESIGN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND DO YOU SEE A BORDER IN THAT SHOE
-- IN THE AREA THAT YOU DID INDICATE WAS A SHOEPRINT?
A YES. AS YOU FACE THIS CHART, (INDICATING), ALONG THE
TOP EDGE IS THE BORDER OF THE EDGE OF THAT SHOE.
Q NOW, AFTER YOU DETERMINED, SIR, THAT THE IMPRINT
CIRCLED ON THE DEFENSE EXHIBITS IN THE 1338-A AND B, THAT IS ON
THE ENVELOPE AND ON THE PIECE OF PAPER, WERE NOT SHOEPRINTS, DID
YOU TURN THEM OVER TO SOMEONE ELSE FOR EXAMINATION?
A NOT IMMEDIATELY.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A BECAUSE I WOULDN'T NORMALLY THINK THERE WAS ANY OTHER
EXAMINATION TO BE CONDUCTED. THERE WAS NO OTHER MATERIAL OR
REQUESTS TO WHICH TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL EXAM. IT WAS OUT OF
MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.
Q WHEN YOU SAY OUT OF YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE, WHAT DO
YOU MEAN?
A WELL, WHATEVER OTHER MARKS OR SPLATTER MIGHT BE ON
THIS, IF THERE WERE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE SUBMITTER OF THESE
ITEMS HAD, THEN THEY WOULD DIRECT THOSE QUESTIONS TO PEOPLE IN
AREAS OF EXPERTISE THAT THEY BELIEVED WERE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE
QUESTIONS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A BUT IT WOULDN'T BE THE AREA OF SHOE IMPRESSION.
Q BECAUSE YOU FOUND NONE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND SO YOU EVENTUALLY DID, THOUGH, SEND THE
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ENVELOPE AND THE PIECE OF PAPER TO SOMEONE
ELSE IN THE FBI?
A AFTER LEARNING THAT THIS VERY SMALL FINGERPRINT-SIZED
IMPRESSION THAT I FIRST TESTIFIED TO TODAY --
Q ON THE ENVELOPE?
A ON THE ENVELOPE -- WAS POSSIBLY GOING TO BE REFERRED
TO AS A SHOE IMPRESSION, I TOOK ANOTHER LOOK AT IT AND THOUGHT
THERE IS A POSSIBILITY IT MIGHT BE A FABRIC IMPRESSION.
THE OTHER POSSIBILITY WHICH I RECOGNIZED WHEN I FIRST
EXAMINED IT IN THE LABORATORY HERE WAS THAT IT MIGHT ALSO BE SOME
MARKS FROM THE IRREGULAR SURFACE OF THE CONCRETE TILES AT THE
BUNDY LOCATION, BUT BECAUSE I DID NOT BELIEVE IT IS A SHOE
IMPRESSION, I DIDN'T PURSUE IT AT THAT POINT.
BUT WHEN THE ISSUE CAME BACK UP AGAIN I REFERRED IT
TO DOUGLAS DEEDRICK.
Q WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ENVELOPE AND THE
PAPER, SIR, DO YOU RECALL SOME TESTIMONY BY DR. LEE CONCERNING A
BLOOD DROP THAT HE CLAIMED WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE JUNE 13TH
PHOTOGRAPHS BUT DID APPEAR IN LATER PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HE EXAMINED?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, COULD YOU REPHRASE THAT QUESTION,
PLEASE.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: ARGUMENTATIVE AS PHRASED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL THE TESTIMONY OF DR. LEE
IN WHICH HE TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A BLOOD DROP HE OBSERVED IN
LATER PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HE DID NOT OBSERVE IN THE JUNE 13TH
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ENVELOPE?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, TO PEOPLE'S 622,
FIRST OF ALL, THE LOWER PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ENVELOPE, DO YOU SEE A
BLOOD DROP THAT I'M POINTING TO THAT HAS INITIALS NEXT TO IT?
A YES, I DO.
Q CAN YOU LOCATE THAT BLOOD DROP IN THE PHOTOGRAPH
TAKEN ON JUNE THE 13TH THAT IS RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE?
A YES. IT IS RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD THE WITNESS HAS POINTED TO A
SPOT ON THE JUNE 13TH PHOTOGRAPH.
MR. SCHECK: COULD I --
MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO ASK THE WITNESS TO CIRCLE IT.
Q WOULD YOU CIRCLE THAT, PLEASE, SIR.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q THANK YOU.
CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, IF YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THE
BLOOD DROP ON THE ENVELOPE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN JUNE 13TH FROM
THE APPEARANCE OF THAT BLOOD DROP ON THE ENVELOPE FROM A LATER
DATED PHOTOGRAPH?
A WELL, OF COURSE THE -- THE COLORING IS DIFFERENT AND
THAT IS JUST A VARIABLE OF PHOTOGRAPHY, OF DIFFERENT FILM AND
PROCESSING, THIS IS A LITTLE REDDER THAN THIS IS.
AND ALSO BLOOD, AS IT DRIES, IF THERE ARE THICK AREAS
OF BLOOD, IT WILL DARKEN IN THE THICK AREAS INITIALLY.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR SPOT HERE, (INDICATING), ALSO HAS
SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS INTERFERING WITH THE ABILITY TO SEE IT IN
ITS ENTIRETY, AND THAT IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS FLASHBACKS.
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SIR, WHAT EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE IN
THE AREA OF PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE INTERPRETATION OF CRIME SCENE
PHOTOGRAPHS?
A I'VE HAD EXTENSIVE TRAINING AT THE FBI LABORATORY IN
THAT AREA, BOTH IN GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY.
I USE PHOTOGRAPHY ON A DAILY BASIS IN MY WORK AND WORK WITH OUR
SPECIALIZED PHOTOGRAPHIC UNIT.
Q AND IS THERE SOME INCLUSION IN YOUR BOOK CONCERNING
CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHY?
A YES. THERE IS A WHOLE CHAPTER ON THAT.
Q IN THAT BOOK DO YOU DESCRIBE VARIOUS METHODS AND
PROCEDURES THAT SHOULD BE USED TO TAKE THE BEST CRIME SCENE
PHOTOGRAPHS?
A YES, I DO.
Q DO YOU YOURSELF, WHEN YOU TO GO CRIME SCENES, TAKE
PHOTOGRAPHS IN ORDER TO CAPTURE THE IMAGE OF SHOEPRINTS?
A IN SOME INSTANCES I DO AND IN SOME INSTANCES THERE
MAY ALREADY BE A PHOTOGRAPHER ASSIGNED.
Q AND FOR HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN DOING THAT, SIR?
A SINCE THE BEGINNING, MAYBE AFTER MY TRAINING ENDED IN
1976.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US, SIR, WHAT YOU MEAN BY
FLASHBACKS?
A FLASHBACKS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR
WITH, BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE PICTURES OF PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS, PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE STANDING -- THEY ARE STANDING
IN FRONT OF A MIRROR, YOU GET THAT BRIGHT REFLECTION OF THE FLASH
AND YOU GET YOUR FILM BACK AND IT KIND OF RUINS THE PICTURE, OR
PERHAPS A PERSON IS WEARING GLASSES, AND IF YOU WERE TO TAKE A
PHOTOGRAPH STRAIGHT ON AT ME AND THE LIGHT WERE TO HIT THE GLASS
PERFECTLY STRAIGHT, IT WOULD REFLECT BACK INTO THE LENS PERFECTLY
STRAIGHT AND THIS WOULD BE WHAT IS KNOWN AS A HOT SPOT AND THAT
IS -- THAT IS CAUSED BY THE LIGHT BOUNCING BACK OFF OF THIS
PARTICULAR GLOVE WHICH IS SOMEWHAT GLOSSY AND COMING BACK INTO
THE CAMERA LENS IN A STRAIGHT ANGLE AND ACTUALLY OVEREXPOSING THE
FILM AT THAT POINT AND CAUSING IT TO WASH OUT AND BECOMING SO
LIGHT THAT IT IS HARD TO SEE.
IN ADDITION, THIS IS ALSO SOMETIMES ENCOUNTERED IF
YOU JUST HAD NATURAL LIGHT HITTING IT AT THE RIGHT ANGLE, WHERE
IT WOULD BOUNCE BACK INTO THE LENS OF THE CAMERA AND DO THE SAME
THING, SUCH AS SUNLIGHT, BRIGHT SUNLIGHT.
Q SO WHEN YOU USE A FLASH, SIR, AND YOU ARE USING IT
OUTSIDE IN MAYBE A DARK AREA, IF YOU DON'T CAPTURE PART OF THE
SKY, CAN YOU TELL WHETHER IT IS NIGHT OR DAY, BASED ON JUST
LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REASK THAT?
Q BY MS. CLARK: YES.
IF YOU ARE STANDING OUTSIDE TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH WITH
A FLASH AND YOU ARE TAKING IT IN AN AREA WHERE IT IS DARK, IF YOU
DO NOT CAPTURE PART OF THE SKY IN YOUR PHOTOGRAPH, ALL YOU
CAPTURE IS THAT DARK AREA THAT YOU ARE TAKING A PICTURE OF WITH A
FLASH, WHEN YOU JUST LOOK AT ONLY THE PHOTOGRAPH, CAN YOU TELL IF
IT IS NIGHT OR DAY?
A IN SOME INSTANCES YOU WOULD BE PROBABLY ABLE TO SHOW
A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY IT WAS NIGHT, AND IN OTHER CASES,
PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE LIKE AT TWILIGHT OR AS THE SUN IS
BEGINNING TO COME UP IN BETWEEN DARK AND LIGHT, OTHER FACTORS
WERE EXISTING, LIGHT, THE APERTURE OF THE CAMERA, THE SPEED OF
THE FILM, THERE IS A LOT OF VARIABLES.
I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO JUDGE THAT ON A CASE BY
CASE BASIS.
Q SO YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TELL IF IT IS DAY OR
NIGHT IF YOU JUST LOOKED AT THE PHOTOGRAPH UNDER THE CONDITIONS I
DESCRIBED?
A YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO, YES, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO
VENTURE A GENERAL ANSWER THAT WOULD HOLD TRUE IN ALL CASES.
THERE WOULDN'T BE ONE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: LET ME MOVE ON TO THE JEANS, SIR.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: I SHOW YOU PEOPLE'S 618.
DID YOU, SIR, EXAMINE PHOTOGRAPHS OF RONALD GOLDMAN'S
JEANS TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU SAW ANY -- ANYTHING THAT LOOKED
LIKE A SHOEPRINT IMPRESSION ON THOSE JEANS?
A YES. I EXAMINED THE ORIGINAL JEANS IN OUR LABORATORY
IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND I CAUSED ALL OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE
TAKEN IN MY PRESENCE AND UNDER MY DIRECTION IN OCTOBER OF '94.
THIS ONE IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS A COPY SHOT, IT IS A
COLOR SHOT WHERE YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO SHOW THE ACTUAL COLOR AND
GENERAL FEATURES OF THE PAIR OF JEANS AND IT IS MORE FOR RECORD
KEEPING PURPOSES JUST TO SEE ITS GENERAL APPEARANCE.
TO THE RIGHT ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, (INDICATING), WHICH
ARE ENLARGED TO A NATURAL NATURAL SIZE. THEY ARE OVERLAPPING.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE TOP OF THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM ACTUALLY
OVERLAPS WITH THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE TOP.
AND THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FRONT SIDE OF THE
RIGHT LEG OF THE JEANS OF RON GOLDMAN.
AND THE REASON THEY DON'T HAVE THE BLUE APPEARANCE IS
BECAUSE A FILTER WAS USED WHEN TAKING THESE AND THAT FILTER WAS
USED SPECIFICALLY TO DROP THE BLUE COLOR, THE BLUE BACKGROUND OF
THE JEANS, AND TO SHOW THE RED COLORING OF THE BLOOD IMPRESSIONS
ON THERE WITH MUCH GREATER DETAIL.
YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THESE SAME MARKINGS ON THE COLOR
COPY, BUT THEY ARE MUCH EASIER IN A NATURAL SIZE ENLARGEMENT WITH
THE FILTER DROPPING THE BLUE COLOR TO LOOK AT FOR PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSION AND EXAMINATION.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU EXAMINED THE AREAS IN THE CIRCLES SHOWN
ON THIS CHART, SIR, DID YOU FORM SOME OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT THEY WERE SHOEPRINTS?
A THERE WERE TWO IMPRESSIONS WHICH I REFERRED TO IN MY
PRIOR REPORTS WHICH STEMMED OUT OF MY EXAMINATION IN OCTOBER OF
1994 THAT REFER TO A HEEL PRINT ON THE LOWER LEFT LEG AND A
PARTIAL FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION ON THE RIGHT LEG, AND THEY WERE
CONSISTENT WITH THE BRUNO MAGLI DESIGN.
BUT THEY REALLY, BECAUSE OF THE ABSORBABILITY OF THE
COTTON FABRIC AND THE FACT THAT THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY -- THIS
WASN'T MADE ON A FLAT SURFACE, BUT WITH A LEG INSIDE OF THE
JEANS, IT WOULDN'T BE AN EVEN STRIKE. BECAUSE OF THOSE FACTORS
THE DETAIL IS VERY LIMITED AND I WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE ANY MORE OF
A DETAILED COMPARISON.
I DID EXAMINE THE JEANS, FRONT AND BACK, BOTH LEGS,
FOR OTHER MARKINGS WHICH MIGHT BE SHOE IMPRESSIONS. I OBSERVED A
NUMBER OF MARKINGS OF ALMOST EVERY DESCRIBABLE SIZE AND SHAPE
ALONG THE FRONT AND BACK OF THESE JEANS, SOME OF THE BEST ONES
WHICH ARE DEPICTED IN THE RIGHT PANTS LEG HERE ON THIS CHART, BUT
NONE OF THEM, IN MY OPINION, WERE FOOTWEAR IMPRESSIONS.
IF THEY WERE, I WOULD HAVE PURSUED LOOKING FOR THAT
DESIGN OF SHOE, AS I DID WITH THE CASE OF THE BRUNO MAGLI.
Q NOW, YOU SAID YOU SAW A PARTIAL SHOEPRINT THAT YOU
TESTIFIED TO EARLIER AND CHARACTERIZED AS A BRUNO MAGLI.
DO YOU SEE THAT AREA OF THE RIGHT LEG DEPICTED IN THE
PHOTOGRAPH IN PEOPLE'S 619?
A YES. IT IS DOWN HERE, (INDICATING), IN THE LOWER
PORTION. IT IS ACTUALLY INTERSECTING THE CIRCLE.
Q FOR THE RECORD THE LOWER CIRCLE?
A IT IS ACTUALLY CROSSING THE LOWER CIRCLE ON THE RIGHT
PANTS LEG AND THEN THE HEEL IMPRESSION IS JUST INTO THE EDGE OF
THE LOWER PORTION OF THE LEFT PANTS LEG.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
FOR THE RECORD THE WITNESS WAS REFERRING TO THE COLOR
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE JEANS OVERALL.
Q NOW, OTHER THAN THOSE TWO AREAS, SIR, WHEN YOU
EXAMINED THESE PANTS, DID YOU EXAMINE THEM WITH THE THOUGHT IN
MIND OF LOOKING FOR ANY SHOEPRINTS; NOT JUST THOSE THAT WOULD BE
BRUNO MAGLI?
A YES, I DID.
Q OTHER THAN THE TWO YOU HAVE INDICATED TO US JUST NOW
ON THE LOWER RIGHT AND LEFT LEG, DID YOU FIND ANY OTHER IMPRINTS
THAT YOU WOULD CHARACTERIZE AS SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q THE AREAS THAT ARE CIRCLED ON THESE OVERALL OF THE
JEANS AND INDICATED ON THE BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS NEXT TO
THE PICTURE -- THE COLOR PICTURE OF THE JEANS, DID YOU EXAMINE
THOSE?
A YES. I EXAMINED -- WELL, THESE CIRCLES WERE MADE BY
AGENT DEEDRICK AND I -- I EXAMINED THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THE
FRONT AND BACK OF THE JEANS, WHICH INCLUDED THE AREAS WITHIN
THESE CIRCLES.
Q AND YOU PASSED THEM ON TO AGENT DEEDRICK, AS YOU HAVE
TESTIFIED, BECAUSE YOU FOUND THEY WERE NOT SHOEPRINTS?
A NO. AT THE TIME, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T SHOEPRINTS AND
I DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE SHOEPRINTS, I DID NOT PURSUE IT BECAUSE
THERE WAS NOTHING MORE RELEVANT TO MY EXAMINATION.
HOWEVER, WHEN THE TESTIMONY OF DR. LEE CAME TO MY
ATTENTION THAT THESE -- AND I BELIEVE HE REFERRED TO THEM AGAIN
AS HE DID EVERYTHING, AS IMPRINTS -- COULD HAVE BEEN SHOE
IMPRESSIONS, THEN I REFERRED THAT AT THAT POINT TO AGENT
DEEDRICK.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHY DID YOU DETERMINE THAT THESE WERE NOT
SHOEPRINTS, SIR?
A WELL, THEY -- THEY DON'T HAVE A BORDER. THAT IS THE
MOST PRIMARY REASON WITH REGARD TO THE ONES ON THE JEANS.
IF -- I DON'T KNOW IF -- IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR ME TO
DEMONSTRATE BY TAKING MY SHOE OFF?
MS. CLARK: YES.
MR. SCHECK: I WILL GIVE HIM A SHOE. DO YOU WANT MY SHOE?
THE WITNESS: TAKING MY LEFT SHOE WHICH HAS A NICE SHARP
HEEL TO IT AND IT IS A RAISED HEEL, AS DID THE BRUNO MAGLI AND AS
DO MANY SHOES, AND EVEN IF IT DIDN'T HAVE A RAISED HEEL, IT
WOULD ALSO HAVE AN EDGE ON THE SOLE, BUT I WILL JUST USE THE HEEL
FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES.
AND USING MY LEFT ARM AS A REPRESENTATIVE, ALTHOUGH
IT IS NOT NEARLY AS BIG, OF THE PANTS LEGS THAT WOULD HAVE A LEG
OR AN ARM IN THEM, IF THIS HEEL WAS COVERED WITH BLOOD AND AS
SHOES WALK THROUGH BLOOD THE BLOOD -- EXCESS BLOOD GETS SQUEEZED
OUT TO THE SIDE, SO THE AREAS ALONG THE EDGE ARE TYPICALLY THE
ONES WHICH HAVE MORE BLOOD THAN THE INTERIOR AREAS, AND THIS SHOE
WAS CONTACTED EVER SO LIGHTLY WITH THIS CLOTH, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
NOT TO GET THE EDGE DESIGN SOMEWHERE, PARTICULARLY IF THERE WERE
WEIGHT WHERE THERE WAS NOW 150, 200 POUNDS ON IT OR THERE WERE
KICKS, THAT EDGE WOULD BE VERY CRISP AND CLEAR, VERY DOMINANT AND
WOULD SHOW UP IN THESE IMPRESSIONS.
IN ADDITION, LOOKING WITHIN THESE IMPRESSIONS, THE
LINES THAT ARE PARALLEL DO NOT ALWAYS RUN PARALLEL TO ONE
ANOTHER.
FOR INSTANCE, IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE HERE THERE IS A
FEW LINES THAT ARE PARALLEL AT THIS POINT, (INDICATING), VERY
SMALL AREA, MAYBE AN INCH AND A HALF SQUARE, AND NOW THERE IS
SOME GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND NOW THERE IS SOME
CROSSING OVER HERE, (INDICATING), GOING BACK IN ANOTHER
DIRECTION. THERE IS SOME GOING THIS WAY, (INDICATING), AND THEY
ARE ALL VERY LITTLE PARTIAL IMPRESSIONS.
HERE IS TWO LINES THAT JUST KIND OF GO OUT FROM ONE
ANOTHER AND THAT IS MORE TYPICAL. THE INDISTINCT NATURE OF THIS
IMPRINT, THE CHANGING OF DIRECTIONS OF THE PARALLEL LINES, THE
VERY PARTIAL NATURE OF THE IMPRESSIONS, THE LACK OF A BORDER,
THESE ARE TYPICAL OF IMPRINTS OF FABRIC OR MATERIAL AND NOT
IMPRINTS OF SHOES.
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD THE WITNESS WAS REFERRING TO THE
UPPER RIGHT-HAND PHOTOGRAPH AS YOU FACE THE BOARD.
THE COURT: YES.
MS. CLARK: THAT WAS THE LOWER CIRCLE AREA.
THE COURT: YES.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
Q BUT, SIR, DOESN'T IT APPEAR THAT THERE IS A SHARP
LINE HERE IN THE LOWER CIRCLE, AND I'M GESTURING TO THE ARC THAT
SEEMS TO BE TOWARD THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT CIRCLE INSIDE IT?
A THERE IS -- THERE IS THAT LINE, THERE IS A LINE HERE,
(INDICATING). THERE IS A LINE OVER HERE, (INDICATING), WITH
ANOTHER ONE NEXT TO IT. THERE IS SOME CURVED LINES OF ALL
DIFFERENT SHAPES AND SIZES AROUND THIS.
IN MY OPINION THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE
PARALLEL LINES AND IS NOT THE EDGE OF A HEEL.
IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN -- IN FACT, THE PARALLEL
LINES WITHIN -- IF THIS WERE HYPOTHETICALLY A HEEL, THE PARALLEL
LINES WITHIN IT ARE NOT RUNNING STRAIGHT ACROSS IT AS ANY SHOE
DESIGN MANUFACTURER WOULD HAVE. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE HEEL WITH
THE LINES RUNNING CROOKED. IT IS JUST NOT ESTHETICALLY SOMETHING
THAT THEY WOULD DO IN THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF THAT SHOE.
AND THESE DO NOT EVEN RUN TRUE TO THIS HYPOTHETICAL
BORDER, BUT WE SEE THIS KIND OF A LINE ALL AROUND THE JEANS. AND
NOT BEING THERE, I CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR WHAT THAT IS, BUT I DO NOT
BELIEVE -- DO NOT RECOGNIZE IT AS A SHOE IMPRESSION OR THE EDGE
OF A HEEL.
Q OKAY.
NOW, THE PARALLEL LINES THAT YOU SEE IN THE CIRCLES
ON THIS EXHIBIT, PEOPLE'S 619, DID YOU COMPARE THOSE TO THE
PARALLEL LINES SHOWN ON THE ENVELOPE AND PAPER?
A YES.
Q DO THEY APPEAR TO BE FROM THE SAME SOURCE?
A NO.
Q AND TELL US WHY.
A THE SIZE OF THESE LANES AND THE BROADNESS OF THEM ARE
JUST TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN SIZE AND FEATURES THAN THE VERY, VERY
SMALL LINES WHICH HAVE ALMOST A ZIGZAG TO THEM THAT WERE ON THE
FINGERPRINT SIZE IMPRESSION ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE WAVY PATTERN
IN THE PIECE OF -- TRIANGULAR PIECE OF PAPER.
Q SO HOWEVER, SIR, WOULD YOU -- WHAT WOULD YOU SAY
ABOUT THE SIMILARITY OF THE PARALLEL LINES IN THE ENVELOPE AND
THE PIECE OF PAPER?
A THEY WERE CONSISTENT WITH ONE OTHER WITHIN THE RANGE
OF DETAIL THAT I COULD SEE, AND THEN IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THEM AS
FAR AS IT GOES TO -- WITH REGARD TO SHOE IMPRESSIONS.
THEY WERE BOTH TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND WITHOUT ANY
DOUBT TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THESE PARALLEL LINES THAT CROP UP ON
VARIOUS PLACES ON THE RIGHT LEG OF RON GOLDMAN'S JEANS.
Q SO THE SOURCE OF THE IMPRINT ON THE JEANS IS
DIFFERENT FROM THE SOURCE OF THE IMPRINT ON THE PAPER AND
ENVELOPE?
A YES, MA'AM.
Q I THINK YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT KICKING. IF
YOU WERE JUST KICKING SOMEONE, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BOTTOM
OF YOUR FOOT, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WOULD STILL LEAVE A BORDER
THAT WOULD BE INDICATIVE OF A SHOEPRINT?
A ABSOLUTELY. MORE SO THAN JUST STANDING ON A PERSON
OR LIGHTLY TOUCHING YOUR FOOT AGAINST THE PERSON.
Q SIR, DID YOU HEAR TESTIMONY THAT DR. LEE, IN FORMING
HIS OPINIONS CONCERNING THE IMPRESSIONS ON THE JEANS AND ON THE
ENVELOPE AND PAPER, DID NOT MAKE ANY TEST IMPRESSIONS OF THE
JEANS OR RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT?
A YES, I DID.
Q DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER IT IS
SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT OR APPROPRIATE TO FORM AN OPINION
CONCERNING THE SOURCE OF AN IMPRINT WITHOUT HAVING MADE ANY TEST
IMPRESSIONS?
A YES. THE -- AND I WROTE ABOUT THIS EXTENSIVELY AND
TEACH ABOUT IT IN THE LECTURES I GIVE.
TO EXAMINERS, WITH REGARD TO SHOE IMPRESSIONS OR SOCK
IMPRESSIONS, THE PRINT THAT IS MADE BY A SHOE OR ANY OBJECT
CANNOT BE PERCEIVED BY LOOKING AT THAT OBJECT ITSELF.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU COULD LOOK AT THE FABRIC ON MY
SLEEVE AND YOU COULD LOOK AT IT WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS, BUT
BECAUSE OF ITS THREE-DIMENSIONAL QUALITIES, YOU COULD NOT
DETERMINE WHAT THE EXACT PATTERN WOULD LOOK LIKE IN A TEST
IMPRESSION, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU GET TO LIGHT FABRICS OR LIGHT
SHOE DESIGNS.
THERE IS NO WAY TO PERCEIVE THAT THREE-DIMENSIONAL
VERY, VERY MINUTE DIFFERENCE AND THE VARIATIONS THAT OCCUR FROM
SHOES OR FABRICS OF SIMILAR DESIGNS.
FOR THAT REASON, EVEN IN THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
STAGES, IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO MAKE TEST IMPRESSIONS OF
SHOES OR FABRIC OR ANY OTHER IMPRESSION MATERIALS FOR COMPARISON
PURPOSES. IT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU CAN MAKE A VALID
COMPARISON.
Q OKAY.
NOW, THE TEST IMPRESSIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
MAKING, ARE THEY MADE WITH THE IDENTICATOR?
A THE IDENTICATOR IS ONE OF MANY MATERIALS THAT I USE
IN MAKING TEST IMPRESSIONS OF KNOWN SHOES.
IT INITIALLY STARTED AS A SOURCE OF INKLESS
FINGERPRINTS AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES IN THE COUNTRY USE
INKLESS FINGERPRINTS, SO IF YOU APPLY FOR A JOB AND HAVE TO BE
FINGERPRINTED, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THROUGH THE MESSY INK THAT
YOU USED TO GO THROUGH.
I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT MANY YEARS AGO. I FOUND OUT
THAT THE AIR FORCE WAS USING IT FOR, IF YOU WILL, BARE FOOTPRINTS
OF THEIR PILOTS, BECAUSE IF THEIR PILOTS WERE KILLED IN AN
ACCIDENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SOMETIMES RESORT TO THE RIDGE DETAIL
ON THEIR FEET BECAUSE SOMETIMES BEING IN BOOTS THEY WERE THE ONLY
PRESERVED PARTS OF THEIR BODY AND THEY WOULD FIND THAT THEY HAD
TO TAKE PRINTS OF THEIR FULL FEET, IN ADDITION TO THEIR HANDS, SO
THEY MADE A MUCH LARGER PAD, BIGGER THAN FINGERPRINT SIZE.
AND WE STARTED ORDERING IT, AND IT IS VERY GOOD FOR
MAKING PRELIMINARY COMPARISONS, AND IN SOME CASES FOR ACTUALLY
THE EXAMINATION QUALITY, THE FINAL PRODUCT. IT ACTUALLY SURFACES
OTHER MATERIALS IN A LOT OF CASES, DEPENDS ON THE SHOE OR THE
MATERIAL.
Q NOW, IMPRINT ANALYSIS, IS THAT A PRETTY OLD SCIENCE,
SIR?
A IT IS JUST -- IT GOES BACK AS FAR AS YOU CAN READ IN
THE FORENSIC LITERATURE.
Q IN ORDER TO MAKE A VALID TEST IMPRESSION TO COMPARE
TO A BLOODY IMPRINT, DO YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT TEST IMPRESSION IN
BLOOD?
A AND I MIGHT ALSO POINT THAT OUT. THAT IS A FALLACY
THAT YOU HAVE TO REPRODUCE THE EXACT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO, WHEN YOU MAKE A TEST
IMPRESSION, IS TO REPRODUCE WITH AS MUCH QUALITY AS YOU CAN ALL
OF THE FEATURES OF THE SHOE OR FABRIC OR WHATEVER YOU ARE TRYING
TO COMPARE, AND THAT IS YOUR STANDARD. THAT IS THE
IDEALISTICALLY BEST DETAIL THAT YOU CAN GET WITH ALL OF THE
FEATURES EXHIBITED IN THAT KNOWN STANDARD THAT YOU ARE COMPARING.
THEN YOU LOOK TO THE CRIME SCENE IMPRESSIONS, AND
WHETHER THEY ARE SHOES OR FABRICS OR WHATEVER, THOSE ALWAYS --
ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE FAR LESS DETAIL AND DO NOT REPRODUCE AS WELL
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING MADE AS TEST IMPRESSIONS; THEY ARE
BEING MADE UNDER ADVERSE CONDITIONS WHERE THE RECEIVING MATERIAL
MAY BE ABSORBENT, LIKE THESE COTTON JEANS OR THE SIDEWALK MAY BE
VERY ROUGH AND COARSE, AND SO YOU DON'T EXPECT TO SEE ALL OF THE
DETAIL IN THOSE KIND OF IMPRESSIONS.
BUT YOU CAN TAKE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DETAIL IN THE
STANDARD TEST IMPRESSION AND THEN COMPARE THE RESPECTIVE PARTS TO
SEE IF THERE IS ANY LIKENESSES OR DIFFERENCES.
IF YOU WENT AND TRIED TO USE BLOOD IN
THE EXACT MATERIALS, YOU WOULD HAVE INFERIOR STANDARDS FOR
COMPARISON. YOU WOULD WIND UP WITH
A WHOLE 'NOTHER SET OF PROBLEMS IN THAT COMPARISON WHICH HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ORIGINAL INTENDED EXAMINATION.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU DETERMINED THAT THESE WERE NOT
SHOEPRINTS, YOU ACTUALLY GAVE THEM TO MR. DEEDRICK FOR
EXAMINATION?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q DO YOU HAVE --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAVE IN THE FBI A BLOOD SPATTER
ANALYST?
A I BELIEVE WE HAD ONE AT ONE TIME, I THINK WE HAD TWO,
AND I THINK ONE OF THEM TRANSFERRED BACK OUT TO THE FIELD.
Q YOU DID NOT GIVE THOSE IMPRESSIONS THAT YOU
ELIMINATED THAT AS BEING SHOEPRINT, YOU -- THE IMPRINTS THAT YOU
DETERMINED WERE NOT SHOEPRINTS, YOU GAVE THEM TO MR. DEEDRICK,
YOU DID NOT GIVE THEM TO THE BLOOD SPATTER ANALYST?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHY NOT?
A I HAD OBSERVED THE PICTURES OF -- I HAD EXAMINED THE
JEANS AND I ALSO HAD PICTURES OF THE JEANS THAT YOU SEE HERE AND
I HAD ALSO SEEN ENLARGED PHOTOGRAPHS OF RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT. IT
WAS VERY BLOODIED AND THE BLOOD IN THE PICTURE CAUSED THE RIBBED
DESIGN ON THE SHIRT TO SHOW UP VERY VIVIDLY.
AND SO WHEN LOOKING AT THAT I NOTICED A STRIKING
SIMILARITY BETWEEN THAT DESIGN, EVEN IN THAT SMALLER PHOTOGRAPH,
WHEN LOOKING AT THIS, AND FOR THAT REASON THOUGHT THE FIRST
PERSON THAT SHOULD LOOK AT IT IS DOUG DEEDRICK FOR DOING A FABRIC
ANALYSIS.
Q IS THE SCIENCE OF IMPRINT COMPARISON DISTINCT FROM
BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS?
A ABSOLUTELY, YEAH.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHY?
A UMM, THEY ARE LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES. IMPRINTS OR
IMPRESSIONS ARE PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN ONE OBJECT AND ANOTHER
AND IN THAT PHYSICAL CONTACT THERE IS A TRANSFER OF BOTH CLASS
CHARACTERISTICS WITH REGARD TO A SHOE, THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT
ALL SHOES OF THAT SIZE AND DESIGN WOULD SHARE, AS WELL AS WEAR
CHARACTERISTICS AND ACCIDENTAL CHARACTERISTICS.
THE SAME WOULD APPLY FOR ANY OTHER IMPRINT, WHETHER
IT BE CLOTHING OR WHATEVER, THOSE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS WOULD
BE CLASS CHARACTERISTICS THAT ALL OF THOSE SHARE.
AND THEY WILL, IF THERE WERE TEARS OR SOMETHING ON A
FABRIC, YOU CAN ALSO HAVE ACCIDENTAL CHARACTERISTICS.
WITH REGARD TO BLOOD SPATTER, THERE IS ACTUALLY --
I'M NOT A -- I WORK WITH BLOOD SPATTER IN THE SENSE THAT I SEE IT
ON EVIDENCE AND THE -- THERE IS -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM MY
TRAINING IN THE AREA, THIS AREA, THERE IS TWO --
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, FOUNDATION.
THE WITNESS: -- THERE IS TWO AREAS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S WIND IT UP.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHY DON'T YOU COMPLETE THIS ANSWER,
SIR.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION. NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: THEN WOULD YOU -- IS IT YOUR OPINION,
SIR, BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE TOLD US THUS FAR, THAT A BLOOD SPATTER
ANALYST WOULD NOT BE THE ONE TO COMPARE A FABRIC IMPRESSION IN
BLOOD TO DETERMINE WHAT THE SOURCE OF THAT IMPRESSION WAS?
A NOT UNLESS THEY HAD HAD TRAINING IN FABRIC
IMPRESSIONS OR SHOEPRINTS OR WHATEVER THEY WERE COMPARING.
Q OKAY.
AND TRAINING IN BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS IS NOT
REQUIRED OR EVEN HELPFUL IN BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE THE SOURCE OF
AN IMPRINT MADE IN BLOOD?
MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, LEADING, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: IT IS LEADING.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WOULD BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS TRAINING
ASSIST SOMEONE IN BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER A -- A
PARTICULAR MECHANISM -- A PARTICULAR ITEM MADE AN IMPRINT IN
BLOOD?
A NOT IF IT WAS AN IMPRESSION OR AN IMPRINT, NO.
MS. CLARK: I WAS GOING TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER AREA. DO YOU
WANT ME TO GO AHEAD AND START?
THE COURT: NO. LET'S TAKE A BREAK.
ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS
FOR THE AFTERNOON.
PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM
ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE
WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS
UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU.
AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, WE WILL STAND IN
RECESS UNTIL NINE O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING.
WE WILL TAKE A BRIEF RECESS TO CLEAR THE JURY AND
THEN I WILL SEE COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS ON THE RECORD, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
(PROCEEDINGS HELD IN CAMERA,
TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER
SEPARATE COVER.)
(AT 5:44 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, FRIDAY,
SEPTEMBER 15, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
)
VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995
VOLUME 223
PAGES 45786 THROUGH 45993, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 45994 THROUGH 46009, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
KENNETH SPAULDING, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 223 PAGES 45786 - 45993
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 A.M. 45786 223
P.M. 45869 223
-----------------------------------------------------
LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. HODGMAN - H MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DARDEN D MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MS. LEWIS - L MR. BAILEY - B
MS. KAHN - K MS. CHAPMAN - SC
MR. GOLDBERG - GB MR. BLASIER - BB
MR. CLARKE - GC MR. UELMEN - U
MR. HARMON - RH MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. GORDON - G MR. NEUFELD - N
MR. KELBERG - BK
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S (REBUTTAL)
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
RAMIREZ, TERESA 223
(RESUMED) 45797N 45804MC 45806N
(FURTHER) 45807MC
DEEDRICK, 45816MC 45871BS 45917MC 45932BS 223
DOUGLAS W.
BODZIAK, 45946MC 223
WILLIAM J.
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
BODZIAK, 45946MC 223
WILLIAM J.
DEEDRICK, 45816MC 45871BS 45917MC 45932BS 223 DOUGLAS
W.
RAMIREZ, TERESA 223
(RESUMED) 45797N 45804MC 45806N
(FURTHER) 45807MC
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
618 - POSTERBAORD 45829 223
ENTITLED "IMPRINT PATTERNS 8X"
619 - POSTERBAORD 45833 223
ENTITLED "RONALD GOLDMAN'S BLUE JEANS"
620 - POSTERBAORD 45854 223
ENTITLED "ENVELOPE, TEST IMPRINTS AND PAPER"
621 - POSTERBAORD 45861 223
ENTITLED "IMPRINT ON BLUE JEANS 4X"
622 - POSTERBAORD 45950 223
ENTITLED "EYEGLASSES, ENVELOPE AND PAPER"
-----------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
1376 - LETTER (NOT MARKED ON THE RECORD)
DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1995, FROM JAMES
MICHAEL MADDOCK
