PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 21, 1996 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1996 9:00 A.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) MR. BAKER: As the Court is aware, Mr. Simpson, my client, has been in Orange County for the custody hearing for his children. As you can imagine, that's been relatively traumatic. The plaintiffs have taken off three or four days during the month of trial. I ask -- request of this Court that we be dark on Friday and let Mr. Simpson put his head on straight before these lawyers start attacking him on cross-examination. I would request that we go over till Monday, and that he be the first witness on the stand on Monday morning. They can have at him Monday and Tuesday. THE COURT: Well, I appreciate his dilemma. However, the Court did have to go out of its way to arrange for his availability and the adjournment of the other proceedings, so the motion is denied. MR. BAKER: Then, Your Honor, I would like to start him at 1:30 this afternoon. If they won't give me any break on this, let's start him at 1:30 this afternoon. I'll call down to Orange County. Let's get Mr. Simpson on the stand. These guys can't give me the same cooperation I've given them, and given this Court's ruling, then let's head -- let's go and let's get this thing over with. THE COURT: Okay. We'll start tomorrow morning. MR. BAKER: Thanks for your consideration, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything? MR. PETROCELLI: We just have to complete Mr. Bodziak's examination this morning. THE COURT: All right. Incidentally, you know, this is sort of an aside: This is not my normal courtroom; this is Judge Light's courtroom. I understand counsel have been bringing in coffee and on occasion, spilling coffee. We'll expect counsel to clean up the courtroom for Judge Light when we complete these proceedings. All right? MR. KELLY: Yes, Your Honor. MR. LEONARD: You're looking at me for good reason. I think I'm the only one who spilled coffee. I will take care of it, okay? Yeah, you were looking right at me. (Pause in proceedings.) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: Morning. JURORS: Morning. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we'd ask -- we want to move in certain exhibits, and we'd ask permission with respect to chart 2211, there's a magnified portion, and I had neglected yesterday -- I wanted to ask permission of the Court to have the jury examine the magnified portion, which is the detailed point that Mr. Bodziak pointed out, where he was able to identify the shoe Mr. Simpson is wearing as identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli shoe. And since the numbers are very small, I want to ask permission of the Court -- Could you pull that off, please. We wanted to be able to show that to the jury, Your Honor, and have the witness show it to the jury. MR. MEDVENE: Because the numbers are so small -- (Mr. Foster displays exhibit to the Court.) THE COURT: Well, they're going to have all the exhibits at the end of the case. I don't see any point in delaying the matter at this time. MR. MEDVENE: All right, Your Honor. Thank you. MR. MEDVENE: We have no further questions. We would move in, Your Honor, 41, 2206, 2207, 2208, and 2209, which -- they're all pictures that were on the shoe prints on the Bundy board. 395, the Bruno Magli shoes. 394, the picture of them. 399, the outsoles. 402, the reverse photograph of the soles. 403, the shoe print comparison. 2210, the comparison of the European size 46 with the U.S. size 12. 401, the lasts, the size 12 Bruno Magli lasts. 408, the walkway. 412-A through F, and L through O, as well as 413, 414, 415, 411, 410, and 416, which are overlays of the various bloody shoe prints at Bundy. 407 and 419, the Bronco carpet. 2062 and 2211, which is the board that's up there now and the pictures on it, which are 1917, which is photo 1; 1929, which is photo 2; 1931, which is photo 3; 1932, which is photo 4; 1934, which is photo 5; 1932, which is photo 6. THE CLERK: Um. MR. MEDVENE: 1437 (sic). THE CLERK: The one before that, 1930? MR. MEDVENE: 1932. THE CLERK: I think you said 1932, 1934, and 1932 again. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, we did. On the two eight-by-tens. THE CLERK: Same photo. MR. MEDVENE: Different photo. And we'll give you that number. THE CLERK: All right; I need it. 1937 is photo number 7; on photo number 8, 1940, and 1939 is a -- MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to reserve, certainly, on photo number 8. MR. MEDVENE: Both those photos are on 1932. And Reeboks, Exhibit 1944 (sic). Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: They're all received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 41 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2206 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2207 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2208 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2209 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 395 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 394 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 399 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 402 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 403 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2210 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 401 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 404 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 408 was received in evidence.) (The instruments previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 412 A-F were received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instruments previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 412 L-O were received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 413 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 414 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 415 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 411 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 410 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 416 was received in evidence by reference to Case No. BA097211.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 407 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 419 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2062 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2211 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1917 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1929 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1932 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1934 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1937 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1940 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1939 was received in evidence.) THE COURT: Any subsequent motions? MR. P. BAKER: Okay. THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Will you state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: William J. Bodziak. WILLIAM J. BODZIAK, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on Wednesday, November 21, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER: Q. Good morning, Mr. Bodziak. A. Good morning. Q. How are you? A. Fine. Q. When did you come down to LA, Mr. Bodziak? A. Monday afternoon. Q. How long did you spend with Mr. Medvene this week? A. Approximately the balance of Monday after I get in, from like three or four o'clock, to maybe eight o'clock at night, and a larger portion of the day on Tuesday. Q. Which means seven hours, eight hours? A. Eight to ten hours, yeah. Q. Spend any time preparing to testify with him on Wednesday? A. Before I testified yesterday morning? Q. Yes. A. Maybe one or two questions in the morning, something like that, before walking over. Q. Okay. And I had the good fortune of meeting you on Tuesday, when Mr. Medvene brought you by to kind of give you a tour of this courtroom, didn't he? A. No. We came over to check some pieces of evidence. And while we were here, we stuck our heads in from outside the hallway. Q. Did he show you the lectern where he was going to be asking you some questions? A. No, he did not. Q. Did he go over with you the questions he was going to ask you by the time you took that chair to testify? A. We reviewed the matters that I would be testifying on, yes. Q. He told you the questions he was going to ask you, didn't he? A. I didn't know the specific wording; I knew generally what he was going to ask, yes. Q. And you told him what your answers would be, didn't you? A. That's normal to review in a pretrial; yes, sir. Q. Answer the question. A. I did. Q. You told him the answers, didn't you? A. That's what I stated; yes. Q. And prior to this week, how much time did you spend with Mr. Medvene? A. On a couple occasions, he traveled back to Washington. I think total, maybe two days. Q. You spent about a day and a half with him in March? A. I know he came on two occasions; one was lesser part of a day, one was a day, plus like another half a day. So I think a total of about two days. Q. About two days. About 16 more hours? A. Yes. Q. You also met Mr. Petrocelli in Washington, D.C., didn't you? A. At the deposition, yes. Q. How many hours did you spend with Mr. Petrocelli prior to the time he took your deposition? A. Five minutes, to get coffee. Q. Okay. Any other time you spent preparing to testify, with any representatives of the plaintiffs' attorneys other than which you've already testified -- other than we've already talked about? A. There may have been a couple two-minute phone calls: I'm sending you something, or something like that, but not -- not what you're asking, not in terms of going over my testimony from the criminal trial. Q. All right. You spent about 38 hours, I'm told, with the plaintiffs' attorneys prior to the time you testified; is that right? A. That's a close estimate, yes. Q. How many civil cases have you ever testified to -- in? A. Federal or nonfederal? Q. Any. A. I've testified in one nonfederal civil case. Q. That was about 15 years ago, wasn't it? A. That was the last time the occasion arose, yes. Q. Okay. And who paid you for the 38 hours that you spent conversing with representatives of the plaintiffs prior to the time you took the stand? A. I was just on my regular salary as an FBI agent. Q. Okay. So the taxpayers paid you for that time, correct? A. That's one interpretation, yes. Q. I paid you? A. I don't know how many taxes you pay or if you pay any. Q. Well -- (Laughter.) A. I'll check into that when I get back. (Laughter.) Q. I'm sure you will. O.J. Simpson paid you? A. If he pays taxes, you could say that, yes. Q. You try to remain as neutral as possible, don't you, when you're going to testify, don't you? A. That's what's expected of me, yes. Q. That's an oath you take as an FBI agent? A. That's correct. Q. You take an oath to tell the truth, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, you were first -- Strike that. How much time did you prepare with representatives for the prosecution prior to the time you testified in the criminal case? A. Well, I've never calculated the hours, but I -- I was in LA prior to the criminal case on four occasions, including going to the scene, reviewing photographs, talking with attorneys; and then on the last occasion, approximately two to two and a half days before my testimony. Q. You conversed with representatives of the prosecution for about two to two and a half days? A. In the criminal matter? Q. Right. A. In the criminal matter, yes. Q. You -- is there any other case where you have spent as much time as you have in the case involving O.J. Simpson? A. Working the case or in talking to -- to attorneys? Q. Talking to attorneys. A. Probably some that come close, but this is probably the most because of the two trials; yes. Q. You were first contacted by the prosecution in about early August of 1994? A. That's correct. Q. And you got to travel to Italy, right? A. I actually canceled the first trip and rescheduled it later. I think it was in February. Q. Okay. I wasn't really interested in your travel plans. You traveled to Italy right? A. That's correct. Q. You visited two factories there? A. That's correct. Q. And you ascertained that the shoe-print impression that appeared at 875 South Bundy was similar to that of the Silga sole on the Bruno Magli -- Bruno Magli line, correct? A. It was made by the Silga Sole, what Silga calls a U-2887 sole, which is a number marked on the back of those rubber soles that were in the court yesterday. Q. Okay. And as I understand it, you ascertained that these type of shoes were sold in 40 stores throughout the United States, correct? A. That's correct. Q. How many of these shoes were sold outside the United States? A. There were some shoes sold in Italy and there was also some that were shipped to Ireland, and the exact number -- there's no way of determining what, in terms of the number of soles, that Silga shipped to those other suppliers. It was a very low number. Probably in all total, based on the figures I got, 120,000 -- Q. Okay. A. -- in all sizes. Q. Now, from what I understand, after you ascertained that this type of shoe was sold in 40 stores, the LAPD and the FBI conducted an investigation, did it not? A. That's correct. Q. And in that investigation, you are aware they went to representatives of -- the FBI and the LAPD went to all 40 of these stores, correct? A. That was the intent. I have no personal knowledge of exactly what came out of that request. Q. You were aware of that, were you not? A. I initiated the request, but I didn't have any follow-up after that. Q. And you are aware, are you not, that not one receipt was ever found identifying that O.J. Simpson purchased a Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe, correct? A. Not to my knowledge, no. Q. And you're also aware that not one salesperson recalled selling a Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe to O.J. Simpson? A. They weren't specifically asked that; but based on the end result, that's my impression, that none did. Q. Well, he's kind of a celebrity, right? A. They did not ask that question, though, in their leads. Q. When they asked whether they recalled that they sold O.J. Simpson a shoe, the salesperson most likely knew who O.J. Simpson was; isn't that true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, let's talk about that -- that imprint you saw on the Bronco. (Referring to Exhibit 416.) MR. P. BAKER: This is Exhibit 416. MR. BAKER: Why don't you put it up to the next notch, Phil. MR. P. BAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. BAKER: Straight up. MR. P. BAKER: Can you see that? JURORS: (Nod affirmatively.) THE COURT: Sir -- MR. P. BAKER: Can you see that? THE COURT: -- I can't see that. Nobody can see that. It's not that; it's this board. MR. P. BAKER: All right. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You see it now? A. Yes. Q. As I understand, you testified to this jury yesterday, that the imprint you observed on the Bronco was in a location where a person would normally first step into a vehicle; is that true? A. I testified that it was my belief that most persons would step somewhere in that area with either the left or right foot, yes. Q. You said first step, didn't you, Mr. Bodziak? A. Yes, I did. Q. In fact, you said this area here (indicating) would be where the first foot strike normally would be, for most people, in the vehicle? A. Normally, that's correct. Q. Okay. And you also kind of implied to this jury that that imprint was similar to a Silga sole, didn't you? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion. Also vague and ambiguous. I'll withdraw it. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You put this overlay on this imprint in front of this jury of a Silga sole, didn't you? A. Not the entire imprint. Q. You put this imprint -- you put this overlay over that imprint, didn't you, Mr. Bodziak? A. Over three separate, specific areas, not the entire imprint. Q. You were trying to imply to this jury that that imprint was a Silga sole, weren't you? A. No. I testified I couldn't determine that. Q. Oh. Okay. You went a little bit farther than what you testified to in the criminal case, didn't you? A. No. I said exactly the same thing that I said in the criminal trial. Q. All right. Let's go to page 32842 of the criminal testimony, lines 12 through 17. 32842. (Reading:) "Q. My understanding is, there was insufficient detail present to call it one way or the other as to those marks, whether they're a footprint or not, in the Bronco? "A. I couldn't associate them with the sole to sole, yes." That was your answer, right? A. Yes. Q. And you weren't trying to imply to this jury that that was a Silga sole when you put the overlay over the board? A. No, I was not. Q. Now, Mr. Bodziak -- THE REPORTER: Does this have a number? MR. MEDVENE: No. MR. FOSTER: The overlay doesn't have a number. MR. BAKER: Let's give it a number. MR. P. BAKER: 2212. (The instrument herein referred to as Overlay of an outsole was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2212.) Q. Mr. Bodziak, will you walk down to the board and turn the board as you did yesterday, in the way that that carpet would have appeared in the Bronco. (Witness adjusts board.) A. Okay. Q. That's the way you think this floor mat appeared in the Bronco, the pedals being here? A. No. The pedals would be along here (indicating). This would be the door (indicating). This would be the side where the console was (indicating). This would be to the rear of the car. Q. So the pedals would be right about here (indicating)? A. Yes. Q. And looking to the left side of this exhibit? A. When it's on its edge, yes. Q. Okay. And how far from the end of this rubber mat to the end of the seat, Mr. Bodziak? A. Part of the seat was actually over this area (indicating); the seat came over part of this area? Q. Part of the seat kind of went over on top of the floor mat? A. Just a little bit. Q. How far from the top of that floor mat to the brake pedal, exactly? A. Well, I have -- there was no need for me to measure it. I can't answer your question. Q. Well, Mr. Bodziak, you testified in the criminal case that this (indicating) is where a person would normally first step, didn't you? A. This is the entrance, yes. Q. Okay. And this is the -- this is the metal side door, right (indicating)? A. That's correct. Q. And the door kind of opens somewhere over here to the left (indicating)? A. It's kind of behind, would be over here (indicating). Q. Right over here, right to the left (indicating)? A. I don't know how far. Q. Certainly at the edge? A. But this (indicating) is the carpeting where the metal threshold plate is when you open the door. Q. You're sure of that? A. Yes, I am. Q. Positive? A. Absolutely positive. Q. You testified in the criminal case, where Mr. Simpson faces life in prison, that's where a person would normally step? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative. Move to strike. Form of the question. THE COURT: I didn't quite hear you. MR. P. BAKER: I will withdraw it. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) How far was the left portion of this (indicating) rubber mat to the side rail, Mr. Bodziak? A. This is a natural size photograph. It's the exact distance you see here, and the metal rail would have come slightly over that carpeting. Q. Okay. So none of this cutting would run underneath the door panel, right? A. Possibly enough to hold it down. Q. Oh, so some of it would? A. Well, quarter inch or whatever it took. Q. Okay. That's not a cut that goes all the way up, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And did you ask the prosecution, before you made that opinion, to look at the photograph of the floor mat in the Bronco before it was removed? A. I have photographs of the floor mat before it -- it was, as it was taken out, but I can't recall -- I've looked at hundreds of photographs -- whether one of those had a picture of this area of the carpet actually in the Bronco. I don't recall. Q. So as you sit here today, you don't recall seeing a photograph of the floor mat already in the Bronco, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And by the way, there was a hat on that floor mat when it was opened; isn't that true? A. A hat? Q. A hat, kind of an Irish hat? A. I have no knowledge of a hat. Q. Never seen that before? A. No. Q. You don't know if there was any blood on that hat, do you? A. That was not my area of examination. Q. Okay. I'm going to show you a photograph, Mr. Bodziak -- MR. P. BAKER: I'll have to mark it next in order. THE CLERK: 2213. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of Ford Bronco with doors open was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2213.) MR. P. BAKER: We'll see if Mr. Leonard is better on the focusing. MR. LEONARD: I don't even know which way is up. MR. P. BAKER: Maybe not. MR. BAKER: I wouldn't say that so loud. MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have a number for the record? MR. P. BAKER: 2213. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You ever see this photograph before, Mr. Bodziak? A. I don't recall seeing it. Q. You don't recall? A. I may have seen it. I don't recall. Q. Earlier, you testified that the chair went over the floor mat? A. I think when it's moved up, it does. Q. When the seat is moved up? A. Yes. Q. You don't wait a second. A. I don't. Q. Let me ask the question. You don't know if that seat was moved up or not when they opened up that door, do you? A. At the time the blood impression was left, or at the time the police opened the door? Q. At the time that photograph was taken, Mr. Bodziak. A. No, I don't. Q. You're guessing whether or not that seat was moved, aren't you? A. No, I'm not. Q. Oh, really? A. No, I'm not. In regard to where this carpet is, whether the seat was moved at the time this was taken, no, I don't know. Q. Okay. You don't know. And that floor mat goes up underneath the parking brake, doesn't it? A. That's correct. Q. It doesn't. And the door sill kind of ends about the middle of the floor mat, doesn't it? A. That's correct. Q. I thought you told the jury that it ended up here a little bit earlier. A. That's the way it was represented to me. Q. Okay. So the photograph is different than what you were represented to, right? A. Not -- not entirely, but in part, it is. It shifted a little more than I thought, yes. Q. By the way, Mr. Bodziak, how much higher is this imprint over that floor mat, exactly? A. I don't understand what you mean by "higher." Q. Inches. How much higher up on the floor mat is that imprint over the rubber mat? A. Well, it -- that actually raises the corner of it, then extends towards the center of the vehicle. Q. It goes five inches above the floor mat, doesn't it, from here (indicating) to the top of the rubber mat? A. If you say so. Q. And that imprint is underneath the parking brake, isn't it, Mr. Bodziak? A. As it appears in this photograph, it would be further up, yes. Q. Further up on the underside? A. That's correct. Q. That's nowhere a person normally steps into a vehicle, is it? A. It's possibly not where I would, with my short legs. Q. Okay. So when you testified to this jury -- You're not a human-factors expert, are you? A. Human factors? Q. You've never heard that term before? A. No. Q. You don't have a Ph.D. in human factors? A. Thank goodness, no. Q. So you were wrong when you said that that imprint is where a person normally steps into a vehicle, weren't you? A. I think they can still put their foot there, but it may not be the first step. Q. Well, you said the first step to this jury. A. That was my impression, based on the way it was represented to me, yes. Q. Do you give all your opinions based on other people's representations, Mr. Bodziak? A. My opinion is regarding this impression. The other was just to orientate the jury as to where that carpet was. Q. Oh, okay. So you were orienting the jury as to where it was, based on someone else's representation, right? A. Well, I think the orientation was pretty clear, except for a couple inches' difference in where the hat was, yes. Q. You also put this impression up in front of the jury yesterday, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. And -- MR. BAKER: 2212. MR. P. BAKER: Which one? MR. BAKER: That's 2212. MR. P. BAKER: 2212. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Would you put it up again. A. Which position? Q. The position you put it up yesterday, where it looks similar to where the imprints were. A. Starting with number 1, I drew the -- taken and drew a circle around it. MR. BAKER: He asked you to put it up, Mr. Bodziak. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. THE COURT: Mr. Baker, let this Mr. Baker handle the examination. (Laughter.) MR. BAKER: That's my boy. THE COURT: I know it. But he's doing quite well, so let him do it himself. THE WITNESS: Number 1 referred to the border around the shoe here (indicating) and placed the overlay over that position. MR. P. BAKER: Let's leave it up there. I want to leave it up there. Okay. THE WITNESS: That's right where it was. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) If you -- A. It was on that exactly. Q. Okay. You do it for me. (Witness places Exhibit 2212 on easel.) THE COURT REPORTER: Which number on that picture on the board? MR. P. BAKER: We're referring to the bottom photograph on the board, correct? Just for the record, we're looking at the bottom of two photographs? THE WITNESS: It's actually to the right of the board. THE COURT: Actually, it's not the bottom. MR. P. BAKER: Yeah, yeah. I'm losing it. THE COURT: It's to the bottom right of the chart -- board. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Is that the left foot or the right foot? A. You gave me the left foot. Q. That's what you put in front of the jury? A. I testified it could be left or right. Q. Well, it could be left or right? A. That's right. Q. And instead, it was the first foot strike -- normally would be for most people -- in the vehicle, right? A. It would be, for most people, the normal foot strike, yes. Q. When you open the door, Mr. Bodziak, and get into a car, you either go like this (indicating) to get in a car; is that how you do it? A. I have cars; I don't have Broncos, so . . . Q. Okay. A. I've never driven one. Yeah, I don't -- I slide in first because it's a car. Q. And you put it -- you put your foot underneath the parking brake first? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. And you certainly wouldn't do it with your right foot, would you? A. In this type of vehicle, I don't. I would have to put a foot up there (indicating) and pull the wheel, and brace myself, and pull myself up. In a passenger vehicle, like I normally do, because I don't have this vehicle, I would slide in, just sit down on the seat, and swing my feet around. Q. You don't open the car, put your right foot in, and jump on the seat, do you? A. I don't know what I'd do in this vehicle; I've never been in it. Q. Okay. All right. Good enough. And you can't tell this jury positively that this imprint is from a Silga sole, can you? A. I testified I could not; that's right. Q. All right. And you are aware, are you not, that Mr. Yamauchi found no results when carpet 33 was first tested, aren't you? A. With regard to the blood? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor, lack -- THE COURT: Overruled. MR. PETROCELLI: Outside the scope. THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled. Goes to his testimony, expertise factors that went into it. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) With regard to the carpet, were you aware of that? A. I'm not sure if you're asking about blood results or shoe-print results. Q. When carpet 33 was first tested by Mr. Yamauchi, you (sic) came up with no results. Were you aware of that, Mr. Bodziak? A. Tested for what? I don't understand your question. Q. Blood. A. Well, you haven't said that yet. Q. Okay. I'm sorry. MR. PETROCELLI: That misstates the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi. THE COURT: Who's going to handle this part of testimony on your side? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry. Mr. Medvene had not -- might not have been there. THE COURT: I know he's not your son. (Laughter.) MR. BAKER: You've got justification, Dan. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You weren't aware of that, were you, Mr. Bodziak? A. Could you restate the question entirely. Q. You weren't aware when Mr. Yamauchi first tested item number 33 for blood, he came up with no results? A. I'm not aware of any blood results, no. Q. Okay. Now, normally, when you testify, Mr. Bodziak, you're comparing shoe prints -- normally, when you testify, you're comparing shoe prints with known shoes of a suspect; isn't that true? A. In most cases, yes. Q. And those shoes -- strike that. When a -- after the crime, you were aware that the LAPD searched the sewers for shoes that matched the shoe prints at the crime scene; were you aware of that? A. I was not aware of that, no. Q. Were you aware they searched all around Mr. Simpson's residence for shoes that matched the impressions? A. I have no personal knowledge what they looked for and whether -- Q. Were you aware of that? A. No. I said I wasn't. Q. And you weren't aware that they looked all around at the Chicago hotel for shoes? A. I have no personal knowledge of what they did, looking for the shoes. Q. Okay. In fact, when you first came onto this case on September 21, 1994, you asked Mr. Lange and you asked Mr. Vannatter for the following. You asked: In order to provide a more complete and accurate assessment of Mr. Simpson's shoe size for comparison with the shoe size of impressions at the crime scene, it would be of value to examine inventory and list the brand names, types, and sizes of all shoes belonging to Mr. Simpson, such as those he was wearing at the time of his arrest, and those which are currently at his residence. That's what you asked for; is that not true? A. That's correct. You're reading a memo I wrote to them. Q. You wrote that on September 21, 1994? A. If that's the date on it, yes. Q. And you never got that, did you? A. No. I believe they had already served their warrant and they weren't able to ever search anymore. Q. You later came to find out that Mr. Simpson had shoes ranging from 10 and a half to 13 in his closet, right? A. I was never provided any information. Q. You wouldn't be surprised by that? A. About what I requested in that -- Q. You wouldn't be surprised that he wore shoes ranging from 10 and a half to size 13? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for speculation, would he be surprised. THE COURT: Sustained as whether he would be surprised or not. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You wear a size 8 to 10, don't you, Mr. Bodziak? A. That's correct. Q. You were given one pair of shoes, some Reeboks? A. That's correct. Q. And those doesn't match the impressions at the crime scene, correct? A. No, they did not. Q. Now, let's talk about the footprints at the crime scene. (Counsel displays Exhibit 408, board entitled Shoe Prints at Bundy, June 13, 1994.) MR. P. BAKER: This the board you talked about. Can you see it, Judge? THE COURT: Yes. MR. P. BAKER: This the board you talked about yesterday? A. That's correct. Q. Exhibit 408? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And from what I understand, the prosecution sent you photographs from the sidewalk up into the driveway; is that true? A. That's correct. Q. And you tried to document every shoe print you observed at the crime scene, from the sidewalk to the driveway, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And the purple ones are right foot, correct? A. Right and the pink are left. Q. The blue dots, what are the blue dots, also? A. Those are ones which do not contain enough detail in them to determine if they are right or left, or if they're Bruno Magli. Q. You can't associate them with Bruno Magli? A. That's correct. Q. How many blue dots are on here? A. I haven't counted them. Q. There are 23 blue dots on there? A. That's past what the -- Q. 23 footprints you couldn't possibly associate with Bruno Magli shoes? A. That's correct. Q. And by the way, did -- in the criminal case, you were asked some questions about your hypothesis of the actions of the assailant, were you not? A. Yes, I was. Q. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. And you testified in the criminal case that you believed the assailant stepped in the blood around Nicole Brown Simpson, right? A. That's correct. Q. Walked up the walkway, right? A. Yes. Q. At some point, turned around, right? A. Yes. Q. Walked back into the crime scene, right? A. Yes. Q. And then eventually walked all the way out to the driveway, correct? A. That was one hypothesis. Q. That was a hypothesis you put in front of the criminal jury, right? A. That was what I stated as a possibility. I made it clear I could not exactly determine the order of the shoe prints. Q. Okay. But you talked about L and M. Do you remember talking about that? That's the left foot, M, the right foot, L, right about -- pretty close to her front doorway. Remember that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And you hypothesized, when Mr. Bailey was asking you some questions, that the assailant most likely stopped at that area and stepped back into the vegetation, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And you don't know how long the assailant possibly could have stood outside the line of sight from any walker by on the sidewalk, do you? A. No, I do not. Q. You can't tell that from the shoe prints? A. No, I cannot. Q. The assailant at L and M could have stood back outside the vegetation for a few minutes, for all you know? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And by the way, the assailant was walking, right? A. Yes. Q. You could determine stride analysis, the gait analysis was that of a person walking, not running, from the shoe prints you could observe on Exhibit 40? A. No. I don't examine stride analysis. Q. Well, the shoe prints are pretty close together, right? A. There's two sets of them. Yes. Q. They're pretty close together, as if the assailant is walking, right? A. If there's two sets, there's going to be -- obviously, they're going to be more close together, because you have ones from one set so close to the ones of the other set. Q. But the patterns are pretty firm; you could ascertain that there was weight put on it, as if the assailant was walking? A. His foot was contacting the surface. Q. That's what you testified to in the criminal case, that you believe the assailant was walking, doesn't you? A. I don't believe I stated anything of that nature. Q. Nothing? A. But there were hypotheses that were offered to me. I was answering questions under those hypotheses. Q. The shoe-print patterns on 408 are consistent with an assailant walking, correct? A. I don't profess to determine if the person was walking or running or walking fast or walking slow. Q. Okay. Well, you testified in the criminal case, blood dries relatively quickly? A. Quickly? It dries very quickly. Q. Within five, ten minutes? A. Depending on how much there is. There's a whole lot of variables there; you can't just answer that question yes or no. Q. You're right. My question is poor. A shoe impression -- a blood drop would be dry in five to ten minutes? A. Just a simple drop of blood? Q. Um-hum, yes. A. I would -- I would think that that would probably be dry in five to ten minutes at the earliest, yes, unless it was raining or very misty or something. Q. Okay. And a shoe impression would dry, I think you testified in the criminal case, similar to that, about five to ten minute? A. If it was in a pool of blood, it wouldn't; but if it was well down the walkway, it would, yes. Q. Okay. And I think you said that a shoe print, the blood would dry in about six to eight steps? A. I didn't say it would dry. I said there would be sufficient blood removed from the raised areas of the sole, that you would fail to get the same representation of the raised area pattern. Q. Okay. A. There would be no blood left on those areas. Q. So significantly dry or significantly come off the sole? A. Removed. Q. Removed from the sole in six to eight steps, right? A. Approximately. Q. Okay. By the way, did you see any footprints going east around the back gate? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. You did see one shoe print going east, and that was up on -- let's see; the one, two, third step -- a faint shoe print which you believe was possibly going east on the third -- A. Yes. Q. All right. And just to be clear, 408 was meant to document every shoe print you observed along this walkway? A. Every one I had a photograph of, yes. Q. You had photographs going from the sidewalk to the driveway? A. Yes. Q. Correct? Okay. Mr. Goldman had pretty distinctive shoes on that night, doesn't he? A. Mr. Who? Q. Mr. Goldman, Ron Goldman. A. Oh, yeah. The make was Patauga, P-A-T-A-U-G-A, I believe. MR. P. BAKER: I think it's Pataqua. P-A-T-A-Q-U-A. Let's take Mr. Bodziak's; he's the shoe expert. MR. BAKER: I think it's Q-U-A? THE WITNESS: I'd have to look it up; it's been a couple years. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) And you didn't observe any Patagua shoe prints in this area around Nicole Brown's body? A. That's correct. Q. And you looked closely to see if there was anything around her body or going down the walkway which was similar in fashion to Mr. Goldman's boots, right? A. That's correct. Q. And the fact that there's no Patagua boot marks on her body or down the walkway is consistent with the fact that Mr. Goldman was already in the caged-in area before Nicole Brown Simpson's carotids were cut, true? A. That's true. Q. And blood dries -- well, blood pools relatively quickly, doesn't it? A. It cools? Q. Pools, pools. A. Pools. Well, if there's a lot of blood and it spills onto the sidewalk, whether it's liquid or blood, it's going to form in pools. It can. Q. How long would you estimate it would take for blood to flow down that walkway from Nicole Brown Simpson to the sidewalk? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Foundation, and outside the scope. MR. P. BAKER: You -- THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You looked at the walkway to determine the blood flow, doesn't you? A. You're referring to the portion between the fenced-in area and the front of the street, Bundy Drive. Q. Between Nicole Brown Simpson's body and the sidewalk. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope. THE COURT: I don't think this witness is qualified as a blood-flow expert. You want to qualify him, you may. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Do you have any experience in ascertaining the lengths of time for blood flow? A. No, I do not. Q. Never done anything like that? A. No. Q. Now, I want to show you some photographs, Mr. Bodziak. Well, first, you never saw any -- you were never made aware that there were any bloody impressions in Mr. Simpson's residence? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No, I have no knowledge of any footwear impressions in Mr. Simpson's residence, no. Q. And he had white carpet along his staircase and into his master bedroom? A. I've never been in his residence; I don't have any idea what it looks like. Q. Anyone ever showed you any pictures of that? A. No. Q. And when you're talking about blood in the Bronco, you testified that carpet can pool blood from the grooves of the shoe, correct? A. If there's some -- Q. Correct? A. If there's some in the grooves, yes. Q. You were not made aware that there were any shoe impressions along the southern walkway of Mr. Simpson's residence? A. I was not provided any, no. Q. And there was no bloody impressions, as far as you are aware, along the leaf -- down the southern walkway of the residence; is that true? A. I'm not aware of any, no. Q. Now, going back to the walkway at Bundy, I'm going to show you a copy of Exhibit 43, of -- this is a copy of Nicole Brown Simpson's back on the sidewalk and a couple stairs. See that photograph, Mr. Bodziak? A. Yes. Q. By the way, do you see a shoe print on the first step up there? A. Yes. Q. That's not on your board, is it? A. Which one are you pointing to? You zoomed in now. Q. I'm talking about the step. A. There was one before you zoomed in. Q. I'm talking about that step on Exhibit 43, the first step on the right side. You see that? A. Are you pointing to the one with the leaf across it? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, I don't. That's not on the board, no. Q. You forgot to put that one on the board, didn't you? A. I don't believe I had received a picture of that, or determined it was a shoe print. Q. I thought you said they -- A. I can't see the board from here. I don't know what you're -- Q. Well, come on down. I feel like Bob Barker. (Laughter.) A. No, that's not -- whatever this is, if you're saying this is a shoe print, no, I did not examine that. Q. You're a shoe-print analyst? Isn't that a shoe print, Mr. Bodziak? A. I can't tell from that photograph. I wasn't supplied that photograph and I doesn't determine it was, so I presume it wouldn't be. But if you have the close-up photograph of that, I'd be happy to look at it. Q. Sure. You can't tell this jury whether or not that's a shoe print, correct? A. Not if that -- no, I wouldn't -- wouldn't want to guess. This -- Q. Shoe-print analysis is kind of subjective, isn't it? A. Not if you prevent it from being that way. Q. Well, it's certainly not as subjective a science as fingerprint analysis, is it? A. Yes, it is. Q. It is as subjective as fingerprint analysis? A. With regard to identification, yes. Q. You testified differently in the criminal case? A. No, I don't believe I was asked that in the criminal case. Q. Okay. While you're looking at that, I'll pull up your criminal testimony. (Referring to a photo given to him by Mr. Phil Baker.) THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Baker, are you going to give that a number? MR. P. BAKER: That's exhibit 43. THE COURT REPORTER: That's what he's looking at? MR. P. BAKER: Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. MR. P. BAKER: In the criminal case, on page 32774, lines 4 through 32774, lines 4 through 14 -- 13. (Reading:) "Q. Mr. Bodziak, in your book, you indicate that in many law enforcement offices (sic), footprint impression identification is often a poor orphan, even in a document examiner's corner, fingerprint guy's corner and so forth. "A. I don't think I used the term 'poor orphan,' but I think I understand what you mean. "Q. No. "A. It takes second or third place to another discipline, yes." That was your answer, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, have you had a chance to look at Exhibit 43? A. Yes. Which question are you asking about, identification or about this? Q. Upon closer scrutiny, Mr. Bodziak, is that a shoe print? A. I can't tell from the photograph. Q. You can't tell? A. No. Q. Okay. What else would it be, Mr. Bodziak? A. I'm not in the habit of guessing. If you can determine it positively is a shoe print because you received close-up photographs and it shows that detail, then you can determine that -- if you can't determine it is, then I wouldn't guess as to what it might be, whether it's a knee print, or if there are some other hand prints or some other marks. I don't know. Q. That could possibly be a knee print; is that right? A. I don't know what it is. Q. You were able to identify that as a shoe print? (Indicating to photo.) A. Yes. Q. Okay. On exhibit 43, to the east of her body, there's another impression, is there not? (Indicating to Exhibit 43.) A. I can't see that from here, no. Do you have the original photograph? Q. Yeah. I'll bring it back. That looks pretty similar to a Bruno Magli impression, doesn't it? A. I can't see it from here. Q. Why don't you get up and look closer at the camera. A. I can see the camera. There's a lot less detail in that than what you're showing on the photograph. I'd like to see the photograph. Q. Here you go. Here you go right here. A. Are you asking me is that a Bruno Magli shoe print? Q. That consistent with a print you identified as a Bruno Magli print? A. I can't tell from this photograph; it's too small. Q. Too small. Okay. You ever try to make a determination whether that was a Bruno Magli print, Mr. Bodziak? A. I never received an enlargement of that photograph. No, I doesn't -- doesn't conclude that that was a Bruno Magli print. Q. You didn't put a blue dot on Exhibit 408, did you, for that -- where that imprint was? A. I wasn't sent a picture of that to make an examination in the criminal trial, sir. Q. Okay. So you weren't sent a picture of that one. Let's throw up exhibit number -- on this -- next in order. This is a little -- MR. BAKER: 2214. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson at crime scene was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2214.) Q. This is kind of a gruesome -- well, let me see if I can mark that next in order. Is that a better photograph of it, Mr. Bodziak? A. I wouldn't call either one of them very good. Q. You can't positively identify that one? A. I haven't examined this, and I was not submitted a shoe print of that, a picture of that. Q. We're going to take a break. Would you like to take a look at it at the break? A. No. That is not the proper place to do an examination. When you need photographic work and you may -- you can see a pattern there. And it could be a Bruno Magli shoe print, from looking at it. That's as far as I could tell you. Whether there was a break or not, you don't have a photograph directly over top with a ruler where you can enlarge it and make a physical comparison. You cannot determine that. Q. You don't -- can't determine whether or not they're Bruno Magli shoe prints or not at a glance of the screen? A. No. Q. Okay. Now, let's go back to the exhibit. How much time had you spent looking at photographs of the crime scene? A. Well, if I were given that photograph and were asked that question in the criminal trial, I would have gotten the original negative; I would have made an attempt, with the triangular shape of the walkway, to rectify that, so I wasn't looking at it out of perspective. Then I would have made a comparison with the overlays like I did and demonstrated yesterday. Q. The prosecution never sent you this photograph, right? A. No. Q. Now, let's look up in the right-hand corner. Is -- does that look like a Bruno Magli foot print to you? A. Yes. Q. Which one are we looking at? MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry. Top right corner. THE COURT: No, no. I mean on the video screen. MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 43. THE COURT: 243? MR. P. BAKER: No. 43. THE CLERK: 43. THE WITNESS: Top right corner of this photograph or what you have? Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Top right corner of the screen at about 2 o'clock. A. That would be -- Q. Here? A. Here on the photograph (indicating). Q. Here (indicating). Is that consistent with the Bruno Magli prints? A. It could be. Again, I didn't examine that one for that purpose. Q. No blue dot on the board as to that print, is there? A. No, there isn't. Q. Prosecution never sent you that photograph, right? A. I was never asked to make a comparison of that area, no. Q. Okay. My question was the prosecution never sent you that photograph, right? A. They -- Q. Yes or no? A. The photograph, initially -- I'm trying to answer your question. Q. At any -- A. Initially they did not, no. Q. You got it at a later date? A. Later, I was given it as a general crime-scene photographs, not to examine the shoe prints. Q. You never used it to examine whether or not there were Bruno Magli prints at the crime scene? A. I'm not sure I understand your question. Q. You were sent this photo as a general crime-scene photo, and you never looked at it to examine whether these prints on Exhibit 43 were Bruno Magli prints there. Yes or no? A. No. Q. Okay. Now, let's go up -- right there, see the upper impression, right there in the -- move it about in the middle of Exhibit 43. See that? A. Could you point to it. Q. Sure, sure. (Counsel points to screen.) A. You're calling that an impression? Q. That doesn't look like an impression to you? A. There's a lot of blood in that area and some pattern, but I don't know if we could say that's a shoe impression. Again, I didn't examine that for that reason. Q. Consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe impression? A. It could be. I didn't examine it. Q. It's consistent with the Bruno Magli impression, is it not? A. I didn't examine it. Q. Those footprints, you'll agree they're shoe prints, are they not? A. They may be. Q. Okay. Those imprints, we can agree on that, are consistent with an assailant standing over the body of Nicole Brown after the carotids were cut, is that true? A. I don't know. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Speculative, outside the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Outside the scope. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Well, Mr. Bodziak, you testified -- you testified in the criminal trial as to the appearance -- or your hypothesis as to how the assailant walked, did you not? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, materiality, outside the scope. THE COURT: I think this witness is offered for shoe prints and shoes, not as to analysis. MR. P. BAKER: Can I approach, quickly? THE COURT: No. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. It goes to his credibility. THE COURT: Sustain the objection. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) I want to show you another photograph, Mr. Bodziak, and this is a photograph -- MR. P. BAKER: Which is exhibit -- we'll get it -- next in line -- Well, we won't give it a number yet. We'll go back and find the exact number. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Seen that picture before, Mr. Bodziak? A. Is this of the same -- Q. No. A. -- area? THE CLERK: Well, 2215. THE COURT: 2215. THE WITNESS: Can you show me the original picture? Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Sure. Have you seen that one? A. Yes, I have. Q. Okay. Did you examine that photograph for shoe prints? A. Yes. Just as a general -- general picture. Q. How much time did you spend examining this photograph, Mr. Bodziak? A. After I was sent the initial 30 photographs, subsequently, when I was in LA, I reviewed hundreds of photographs of the general scene such as you've -- you're showing, me for the purpose of seeing if there were any additional photographs taken with the ruler close up for comparison purposes, and that was one of them that was taken. It was in that book. Q. It was in the first book or the second book? A. There were -- was four or five books. Q. How long did you spend examining this photograph? A. I didn't make an examination of the photograph other than to look at it to see if there was anything I thought might be worthy of asking them about. Q. Did you ask him -- A. Well, there was dog prints. Q. Let me ask the question. Did you ask him about this shoe print, Mr. Bodziak? A. Which shoe print? Q. Immediately to the left of the leaf, Mr. Bodziak. A. Would you show me the picture again? I can't answer it unless you show it to me. Q. Okay. My fault. Right there? A. I certainly couldn't look at this photograph and tell that was a shoe print. Q. Let me put it up on the screen. (Counsel displays Exhibit 2215 on TV screen.) Q. That pattern is similar to a Silga sole, is it not, right? A. I can't -- Q. Right here, Mr. Bodziak. A. I can't tell. Q. You can't tell from that? A. No. Q. Okay. A. That's way out of perspective, what you're looking at. Q. Never asked to get any closer photographs of that impression, did you? A. Yes, I did ask. There weren't any. Q. None closer. Then that photograph shows a pattern similar in design to that photograph, does it not? A. I can't determine that. Q. It's consistent with that photograph? (Referring to Exhibit 49.) A. I can't determine if it's in the -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. What number? MR. P. BAKER: That is 49. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Going back to -- MR. BAKER: 2215. Q. (MR. P. BAKER) -- 2215, how many tiles is that away from the body? A. I have no idea. If you zoom back, you could count them. Q. Five tiles from her neck, right? A. Depending on which one you start counting, five or six, yes. Q. It's a tile 11-1/2 inches long, 12 inches wide? A. Approximately. Q. So that impression, if it was an impression, was approximately five feet away from her neck, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Correct? A. If that's your assertion here, yes. Q. That's not my assertion; that's what the photo shows. THE COURT: Don't argue. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. All right. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You don't know how long a time it would have taken for the blood to go down in that tile? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Want to take -- THE COURT: You want a break? MR. P. BAKER: I would. THE COURT: 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.) MR. FOSTER: That photograph is not 2215; it's 717. THE CLERK: We'll leave it as 2215, though. MR. FOSTER: I think 717 has already been received, as well. THE CLERK: We might have to change it. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE CLERK: For the record, 2215 is Exhibit 717. Right. It's already been received in evidence, so we won't have a 2215. It will be 717. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Mr. Bodziak, you've testified in federal court hundreds of times, haven't you? A. Probably in excess of a hundred, yes. Q. You know -- in federal court, you know you're not to be talking to counsel at breaks? A. I don't know that. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) During the break you had a chance to talk to Mr. Medvene? A. There was some talk between us. Q. During that conversation you had with Mr. Medvene, you discussed questions you wanted him to ask you on the redirect examination, right? A. No, he was asking me questions. Q. All right. You think that was neutral, unbiased to walk over to -- A. I'm his witness. He's asking me questions. Q. You're his witness? A. I could be your witness. Should, too. Q. You didn't come over and talk to me, Mr. Bodziak? A. You didn't ask me. Q. All right. Now, during the criminal case, you testified as to another shoe print that wasn't identified on your board; isn't that true? A. Which are you specifically talking about? Q. Do you recall testifying that there was a shoe print on Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, Item 86? A. That's right. Q. You created an overlay? A. That's correct. Q. And you -- during the 30 some-odd hours you had conversations with Mr. Medvene, he told you, did he not, that the coroner who did the autopsy believes that the bruise on her back was from postmortem settlement, lividity? MR. MEDVENE: Object. Outside the scope; it misstates the record. MR. P. BAKER: I've got his deposition. THE COURT: Sustain it for irrelevance. MR. P. BAKER: Goes to his credibility. THE COURT: His credibility may be attacked on material things. MR. BAKER: On what? THE COURT: I'll sustain my objection. MR. P. BAKER: Can I approach real quickly? THE COURT: No. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) What's a latent footprint, Mr. Bodziak? A. One that is not visible to the naked eye. Q. And as a shoe print analyst, you can use oblique light to pick up latent shoe prints, can you not? A. That's very possible, yes. Q. And -- in other words, you can take high-powered lighting, put it down at a crime scene, and observe shoe prints that are not visible to the naked eye, correct? A. That's correct. Q. The LAPD didn't do that, did they? A. I have no personal knowledge of what they did. Q. You asked the LAPD for soil impressions at the crime scene, didn't you? A. It was my job to ask them for all impressions that were photographed that were shoe impressions, regardless of whether they were sole or otherwise, photographs. Q. And they never provided you any soil impressions, did they? A. No, they did not. Q. Okay. And if Mr. Lange testified in court that a hole at the northeast corner of the caged-in area was from Mr. Goldman struggling, those soil impressions would have been very relevant to your analysis? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. P. BAKER: What board is this? MR. MEDVENE: 2211. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You assisted in making this board, 2211, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And this is a copy of the photograph you received from Harry Scull and his attorney, the upper left photograph? A. It's a photographic enlargement that was submitted to me by Mr. Medvene. Q. Mr. Medvene sent you this photograph? A. Yes. Q. And you made the contact sheets off the photograph Mr. Medvene sent you? A. No, that was made from the negative that Mr. Scull provided. Q. All right. A. As well as other photographs. Q. Okay. And this is kind of -- you zoom in on the shoe print on the photograph of Mr. Scull's, right? A. Number 3 was taken directly from the negative that Mr. Scull provided. Q. Number 6 is a left-handed -- is it enlargements of the left shoe? A. That's correct. Q. Number 7 is a -- is a photograph you did in your laboratory, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you tried to do a similar photograph as to the Harry Scull photograph, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And you met with Mr. Scull and his attorney, right? A. That's correct. Q. That was -- would have been in Washington, D.C.? A. That's correct. Q. You asked Mr. Scull some questions, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you learned that Mr. Scull took the photograph from five feet in height, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. A. He stated to me it was from a monopod that was approximately five feet in height. Q. And I'm not a tall guy, so it's a little bit around my neck? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And Mr. Scull told you that the photograph was taken 25 yards away approximately, 75 feet, right? A. That's correct. Q. Mr. Scull told you it was sunny on that day, correct? A. That's correct. MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, we weren't able to get into this area. We tried to get in. THE COURT: You tried to get into contact prints and how those were made. This is proper cross-examination because this witness is being asked questions on things that this witness used to make his evaluation and form his opinions. MR. MEDVENE: All right, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You gave -- THE COURT: However, if you do persist in asking questions about the photograph, you may open the door with regards to the contact prints. So I just give you fair warning. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) I'm -- just let me be clear, Mr. Bodziak. I'm just asking you questions about the photograph, the similar photograph you took under your direction, that you showed the jury, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And so when you did -- and let me get the exact -- you also skimmed his deposition, right, Mr. Scull's deposition? A. Yes. Q. And you did that to determine if there was anything in there that would be pertinent in modeling the shoe or recreating a picture of the shoe for comparison purposes, that's why you skimmed his deposition, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And when you conducted your similar photograph, you did it outside, didn't you? A. No. Q. When you took that photograph, Mr. Bodziak, did you -- you took the camera 75 feet away? A. No, I did not. Q. You put the camera five feet in height? A. No, I did not. Q. You took it inside, correct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. And you put reflective paper underneath the shoe, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you put artificial lighting around the shoe, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And how high was the camera when you took this similar photograph? A. The camera was close to the ground. Q. How high was it, Mr. Bodziak? A. I didn't measure it. It was approximately two to three inches. Q. Approximately two inches? A. Two to three inches. Q. Did Mr. Medvene -- when you were going to do this similar photograph, to move the height down from five feet to two inches? A. Mr. Medvene had nothing to do with what my decision was on how to take this photograph. Q. And you moved in the distance quite a bit, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. You moved it in from 75 feet to what, 2-1/2? A. It's approximately 2 to 5 feet. Q. Did you reduce the size of the model accordingly? A. I'm not understanding what you're asking, "reduce the size of the model." Q. My question's unclear. MR. P. BAKER: Let me put up a board. I can take this one down. THE COURT: Oh, all right. (Counsel adjusts the exhibit so as not to obstruct the view of the Court.) Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) So, in Harry Scull's photograph, when you talked to him, he was five feet -- the camera was five feet in height, right? A. Approximately. Q. About 60 inches? A. Approximately. Q. Okay. Here we go. (Counsel draws on paper.) Q. 60 inches in height, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And it was approximately 25 yards away. That would be 900 inches, right? A. I'd have to get a calculator. Q. Okay. 45 yards is 75 feet times 12 is 900, right? A. If you say so. Q. And Mr. Simpson -- Mr. Simpson was smiling in that photograph, right? A. I'd have to look at it. I didn't notice his face. Q. All right. Let's assume he was smiling. (Counsel draws stick figure.) Q. He was 6 foot 1; 73 inches, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And when you took your similar photo, you put the camera 2 inches in height? A. 2 to 3, yes. Q. And you put it approximately 30 inches away, right? A. It was more like -- closer to 5 feet. Q. Well, you testified in your deposition it was 30 inches. Would you like me to read it? A. I don't believe I did. If I did I was mistaken. I didn't make the measurement. I said just a while ago it was between 2 and 5 feet. I think it was closer to 5. Q. Around 30 inches, correct? A. I think it was closer to 5 feet, but -- Q. And you never reduced the model, did you? A. Are you speaking of proportion? Q. Yes. A. No, there was no need to. Q. No need. You reduced the angle accordingly, correct? A. You're -- Q. 60 goes into 900 -- A. You're asking me if I did something that I would -- I would not normally do. So the answer is no, I did not do those things. Q. And your model was approximately three and a third percent of the distances in the Scull model, correct? A. I haven't calculated that. It's totally insignificant, in my opinion. Q. Just answer the question, sir. It was approximately three and a third percent, correct? A. I haven't calculated the percentages. Q. About that? A. I haven't calculated them. Q. Nonetheless, if you had reduced Mr. Simpson to the same scale, three and a third percent, Mr. Simpson would have been 2.43 inches tall, correct? A. Again, I haven't made those calculations. Q. If your similar photo was accurate, Mr. Simpson would have been the size of this pen cap, right? A. I haven't calculated that. Q. All right. Let me put Mr. Simpson right over there. So if I understand your testimony, sir -- MR. P. BAKER: Got a camera, no batteries, no film. I promise. All the officers checked it. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You put the camera about two inches in height, right? A. Two to three inches, yes. Q. About the size of that laptop? A. Approximately. Q. Okay. You were about, say, 5 feet away? This was the 15 -- one of those fancy 15-inch rulers. A. Approximately. Q. So you were right about -- right about here? (Indicating to jury box.) A. That's correct. Q. Lo and behold, you could see the bottom of the shoe? A. That's correct. Q. You had reflective paper under this? A. That's right. Q. You had lighting going all around? A. No, there was lighting on top, 45 degree angles. Q. So you could see the bottom of the shoe from that similar photograph? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Bodziak, are you telling this jury when you were asked to do a similar photograph you didn't put a camera outside, 5 feet high and 75 feet away? A. I wasn't asked to make a similar photograph. Q. You weren't asked to make a similar photograph. You tried to make a similar photograph, right? A. No, I did not. Q. Page 45 of your deposition, line 16 through 46, line 2. (Reading.) Question: So, for instance, you didn't ask him the type of camera, the height the camera was at the time of the photo, was it the time the photo was taken, the angle from which the photograph was taken; you didn't ask him those things? Answer: Yes, I did ask him those questions for the purpose of taking a similar photograph of the shoe. Question: You did? Answer: Yes. Is that what you testified to? A. Yes, it is. Q. Well, you reduced the size to three and a third percent of the distance from what Mr. Scull told you, right? A. I determined after I -- Q. Yes or no? A. I can't answer your question yes or no. Q. The only way you could take a similar photograph was to move the distance in from 75 feet to -- in 72 feet, to about 3 feet, right? A. I didn't make those calculations. Q. And the purpose of showing Item 7 of this exhibit was to show this jury that you could see the detail underneath the Bruno Magli shoe in a similar fashion, right? A. Exactly the purpose of taking it. Q. That's all? A. For demonstrative purposes. MR. P. BAKER: That's all I had, Mr. Bodziak. Thank you. I have no further questions. THE COURT: Okay. Anything further? REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Counsel displays Exhibit 2211.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you explain to the jury why you took the picture that Mr. Baker was just discussing with you as you took it in. A. I took the picture, which is large number 7 of the right Bruno Magli shoe, for purposes of demonstrating and recording my results. The examination was made of the original shoe. Q. When you say "for demonstration purposes," would it have aided the demonstration in any way if a height of 5 feet were used, or was shot 25 yards away, or that the model in some way was 6 foot 1 inch? Would that have changed that? A. No, it would not. Q. Could you tell us why not? A. Well, the examination is done from the originals, too. In other words, I would take the photograph, the number 4, and actually have the shoe in my hand and make those comparisons. The only purpose in taking the photograph was for demonstrating those results, and in doing so, I took a series of photographs with a model wearing a shoe; each time they moved their foot a little, and I picked one which I thought was easy to place up there, and for whoever had to look at it, to easily see the comparison that I made. Q. And did it affect your conclusion that it was a Bruno Magli shoe in the detail you gave yesterday, as to why you felt that way, because of where you took the picture from? A. No, the picture had nothing to do with my comparison. The comparison was from the original shoe. The picture is for demonstrative purposes and recording purposes. Q. And when you say demonstrative purposes and recording purposes, you mean what? A. For use in note taking, for use in court display, for use in transmitting your results to someone else. Q. In your opinion, would you tell this jury whether the shoe shown on Mr. Simpson's foot prior to the football game is identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli shoe that's Exhibit 395, that's been introduced in evidence in this case? A. Yes. MR. P. BAKER: Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. A. As I testified yesterday, the right and left Bruno Magli shoes are -- excuse me. The right and left shoes on Mr. Simpson, depicted in photographs number 1 and 2 on this board, are, in fact, Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes, as is the shoes in the photographs, number 7 and 8, which were Exhibit 395. Q. Now, we spoke during the morning break? A. Yes, we did. Q. We spoke in Mr. Baker's presence right here, sitting in the courtroom? A. Yes. Q. During the -- you were asked about talking to folks during the criminal trial. Did you spend hours speaking to Mr. Scheck, one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys? A. Yes. There wasn't a single break down -- and even before I first testified on rebuttal in the criminal trial, I spoke to Scheck, Mr. Scheck, at length on many occasions. Q. Your deposition was taken in this case. Mr. Leonard asked you whatever questions he wanted? A. Yes, he did. Q. Have you ever refused any request by any member of Mr. Simpson's defense team to talk with them and ask any -- answer any questions they wanted? A. No, I have not. Q. Okay. Of all the materials you've testified from? A. I provided them copies of all these photographs, yes. Q. You were questioned during Mr. Baker's examination about identification of footwear and comparing that to fingerprints, and some quote was read to you? A. Yes. Q. Does that quote, in your opinion, have anything to do with your testimony about the objectivity of footwear identification? A. No. The question I was asked, was about the similarity and the potential identification of shoes and identification of fingerprints. And the portion of the transcript was read -- which was read to me, regarded the various disciplines or fields for which those examinations were conducted in various laboratories. Q. And when you spoke about the objectivity of footwear impressions and your ability to determine that the bloody footprints that were identifiable were size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, what did you mean by the fact that this was an objective determination and resembled prints in that regard? A. Yeah. Objectivity is essentially leading and the evidence speaks for itself, where subjectivity is kind of approaching guessing or, you know, saying more than you should say, based on the evidence. And in this case, there were many photographs. Some of these were very closely taken with a ruler and they were very distinct. I could make exact comparisons with the overlays of the shoes and with the shoe soles themselves, and I could give very objective answers. There were many other photographs which were taken, such as were shown to me this morning that were as you could see something that might have been a footwear impression or may have been a pattern similar to the Bruno Magli design, we did not have the proper kind of photographs to make that objective kind of comparison. Q. Are you talking about the photos that were -- Exhibit 43 that you were questioned about earlier? A. Yes, I was. Q. And with respect to that exhibit and the photos that were shown to you, were you able to make the kind of definitive objective analysis you've made with regard to the other footprints? A. No, I was never given the proper type of photographs of those areas that would have enabled me to make the kind of comparisons that are detailed and asked and demonstrated -- excuse me, testified to yesterday. With the overlays with the direct overhead examination quality photographs. In doing this type of comparison, each separate impression or alleged impression must be independently examined. And so any of those photographs, impressions, this morning or imprints or possible shoe prints or whatever you want to label them, each of those would have to be examined independently, not just examining them because there were other Bruno Magli prints at the scene, presuming they were also that same pattern, and that I did not have, nor were there taken adequate photographs to do that. Q. Did you examine every photograph that you understood was -- that you believed was adequate for the purpose of making a definitive objective determination? A. I made every attempt to look at every photograph that the LAPD had taken. For instance, the photograph shown to me this morning with Nicole Brown Simpson's body lying there and being asked about questions of blood appearance on the steps and in front of her body; I asked for the envelope that was in that photograph, I asked for the triangular piece of paper that was in that photograph, I asked for her dress as potentially containing impressions, I asked for everything that I could, including any additional photographs taken in a proper manner, so I could make that type of examination. Q. Now, with respect to your examination of the walkway, all the footprints, all the physical evidence that was photographed, everything you were asked about this morning, do you have an opinion as to whether there is any evidence that more than one pair of Bruno Magli size 12 footprints were at the crime scene that night? MR. P. BAKER: Beyond the scope, Judge. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I can only testify based on the photographs I examined, that were taken with rulers and close up, or showed adequate detail to make that comparison. Out of all of those where I could see a design and where the photograph was taken properly and I could make that type of comparison, I was not able to find any other impression other than the Bruno Magli size 12 design. Q. And counsel asked you a few questions about the direction of certain of the footprints. A. That's correct. Q. From your examination of the bloody footprint photos at the crime scene, do you see any indication that more than one person left the size 12 Bruno Magli footprints? A. Based only on what I -- the examination I was able to make, there's no indication that more than one person left size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints. Q. Now, we've put on the board -- excuse me, put on the easel what's marked 419, the Bronco carpet. And certain questions were asked you about differences in testimony, allegedly, and you were read certain testimony. I'll read you 32751. MR. P. BAKER: I request that he read a question or ask him a question, Judge. MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry, we'll be glad to go back. MR. MEDVENE: Reading to you from 32750. MR. P. BAKER: I'd ask that he be asked a question, not read his testimony. MR. MEDVENE: Let me withdraw and restate. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you previously state -- And you might go over to the board, and if you did state this, point out where you were talking about, if you wouldn't mind. (Reading.) I did notice -- MR. MEDVENE: And I'm reading from 32751, lines 1 through 7. I did notice that there was this area here which is -- could possibly have been a border of the shoe. And there also is some little, what I call squiggles or little S shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear enough or reliable enough to make any kind of positive determination. MR. MR. MEDVENE: I'll read further, at line 1, the area here. MR. BAKER: No, no. Read the questions, don't go to his answer without questions. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: This is improper. THE COURT: What are you doing? Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you -- Did you previously state in substance where you saw the S mark, the S squiggle and what appeared to be a border? A. Yes. My testimony in the criminal trial in that transcript is exactly what I testified to yesterday, that there is an area here that's a possible border area here, that's a possible parallel line border circle which is marked by No. 3, the squiggle or change in direction which could have possibly been from the space between the design elements. Q. A question was asked about Exhibit 408 where you identified left and right footprints and Mr. Baker pointed out a number of blue ovals further down the walkway? A. Yes. Q. Was there sufficient detail for you to make a determination positively that those were Bruno Magli footprints? A. No. The photographs of those footprints, which are marked with a blue oval area on the sidewalk, on the walkway, where you could see blood, you could see it was within the sides of the area of a shoe, but you couldn't see any sufficient detail, you couldn't see the design elements, you couldn't see anything which would enable you to compare that with any particular shoe design. Q. Based on your investigation, did you make a determination that after several years, stores that sold Bruno Magli shoes threw away their receipts or records? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, speculation, no foundation. THE COURT: What is the question? Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Based on your investigation, did you make a determination whether the stores that sold Bruno Magli shoes did not retain receipts after several years. MR. P. BAKER: No foundation, speculation. THE COURT: You may inquire as to what he specifically found. He can't form an opinion as to what the practice was. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What was specifically found in terms of record keeping after several years? A. The investigation wasn't conducted by me. I initiated it but I didn't have any personal knowledge of the results. Q. Based on your investigation could you tell me whether or not it was determined that cash sales are not reflected in the receipts kept by stores? MR. P. BAKER: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect to the carpet and the blood found on the carpet, is it true that that was Nicole Brown Simpson's blood? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, no foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. MR. MEDVENE: Counsel asked you about Mr. Yamaguchi. Did you receive information that a PCR test was done for that particular area and that the Department of Justice matched that blood to Mr. Simpson's? MR. P. BAKER: No foundation. THE COURT: I believe there was a Mr. Yamauchi that testified, but not a Mr. Yamaguchi. They're two different names, you know. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of what Mr. Yama -- I'm confused. Yamauchi -- THE COURT: They're written differently, they mean different things. THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of the examination or examination results. I wasn't part of that. MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further, thank you. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER: Q. Mr. Bodziak, your analysis is only as good as the pictures you were provided, correct? A. It's only as good as the evidence, in that case as the picture. Q. You asked for a triangular piece of paper, you never got it? A. That's correct. Q. You asked for an envelope, you never got it? A. Yes, I examined the envelope. Q. You didn't get the piece of paper, right? A. No, I don't believe that existed. Q. Okay. Now, you said as to this impression it possibly could have come from a Silga sole, right? (Indicating to Exhibit 419.) A. I said there were three areas that possibly could have come from that sole. It was insufficient detail to make that determination. Q. Insufficient detail, could have come from anything? A. If there was another sole that had the capability of leaving those marks, yes. Q. Answer my question, it could have come from anything, right? A. I answered that, yes. Q. Yes or no? A. If it was another sole that had the same -- similar detail I would believe those marks, yes. Q. You talked about the 23 ovals, right, earlier, when Mr. Medvene asked you some questions on redirect? A. That's correct. Q. You couldn't possibly identify these as Bruno Magli designs, correct? A. That's correct. Q. They could have been another design shoe, correct? A. It's unlikely, but if you take each one independently, that's correct. Q. Thank you. MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions. MR. MEDVENE: Leave it up. (Referring to Exhibit 408.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q You're able to identify the variety of footprints that's identified in blood as size 12 Bruno Magli from the cage area, back some 15 tiles, before the blue ovals start. Why do you say it's unlikely? A. Because there's a classic pattern of when you step in blood with shoes and you walk down a walkway. First you're leaving more detailed impressions, then you're leaving ones that have insufficient detail to recognize their design or recognize their size. So I would expect that that is -- that is a classic pattern, based on the work I've done and my experience, where you will see most of them closer to the scene, and the further they get away, first you get one or two that are indistinct and then all of them are indistinct. Q. If there was a second person would he have to jump about 30 feet before he got to the blue area? MR. P. BAKER: Speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) In your opinion, from examining the photos and where the shoe prints were found, what would a person do if he didn't have a Bruno Magli shoe and left this blue imprint, how would he get from the cage area to the area where the first blue imprint is found? MR. P. BAKER: Speculation, beyond his expertise. THE COURT: Overruled. A. That person would have to have left the heavier blood impressions that would be distinctly visible, prior to getting to the point where he left the oval blue impressions. In other words, there would be darker impressions that were recognizable before that person got to the oval blue areas. Q. Why is that? A. Because that person, if he had blood on his feet or shoes, would be depositing that blood as he walked or ran down the walkway, and also only until he got to the point where enough blood had worn off of his shoes would he leave the indistinct impression. Q. Is there any indication of that from your examination of the photos? A. There was no indication from any photographs I examined in connection with the scene, that there was any other set of bloody footprints other than Bruno Magli. Q. Thank you. MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER: Q. One question. You can't give an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the shoes in that photograph are size 12, can you? A. No, I cannot. Q. Thank you. MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further. MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further. THE COURT: Jurors -- you may step down. Thank you. (Witness complies.) THE COURT: You are excused until 9 o'clock tomorrow. Don't talk about this case, don't form or express any opinions. This case is at the stage where there may be intense media pressure on everybody. Please do not allow yourself to be influenced in any way by anyone with regards to this case. If anybody tries to influence you or ask you questions about it, let me know. Don't let anybody in your family, friends, relatives or strangers approach you with regard to anything connected with this case. Don't read anything about it. Don't watch anything on television about it. Don't listen to anything on the radio about it. All right. See you tomorrow at 9 o'clock. A. Thank you. MR. P. BAKER: Can we correct a couple of exhibits? THE CLERK: Want to stay on the record. MR. P. BAKER: Want to move in 2212 which is the overlay, 2213 which is the photograph of the Bronco, 2214 which is a photograph of Ms. Brown's body. Any objection. MR. MEDVENE: No objection. THE COURT: They're received. THE CLERK: Thank you. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2212.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2213.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2214.) (At 10:51 A.M. an adjournment was taken until Friday, November 22, 1996 at 9:00 A.M.)
