Carpet of Simpson Bronco Is Focus at Trial

An FBI shoe print expert in the O.J. Simpson case acknowledged Thursday that he may have been mistaken about the location of bloodstains on the beige carpet of Simpson’s Ford Bronco--a gaffe the defense trumpeted to cast doubt on his credibility.

FBI Special Agent William Bodziak had testified on direct examination that he noticed three bloodstains on the carpet, right in the area where most drivers would step first upon entering the Bronco. But after defense attorney Phil Baker showed him a photo of the Bronco’s interior, Bodziak conceded that the stains were actually under the parking brake.

“I think you could still step there,” Bodziak said, “but it might not be the first step.”

Despite that retraction, Bodziak stood firm by his other testimony about the carpet.

Illustrating his point on a huge poster board, he told jurors that three stains corresponded to the design pattern in the sole of Bruno Magli Size 12 shoes--the same expensive Italian brand that tracked bloody footprints near the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Bodziak emphasized that the carpet stains were not detailed enough for positive identification. But he said they were consistent with blood oozing onto the carpet from grooves in the unique, waffle-pattern soles of Bruno Maglis.

As Baker pointed out on cross-examination, no one has uncovered evidence that Simpson ever purchased a pair of Bruno Maglis, which retail for $160 and are sold in only 40 stores in the United States.

But Bodziak linked the former football star to the killer’s shoes through a photo that surfaced after Simpson was acquitted on criminal murder charges. In that photo, Bodziak said, Simpson is wearing Bruno Magli shoes. The veteran FBI agent stood by that testimony throughout the cross-examination, conceding only that he could not tell whether the shoes in the photo were Size 12s. Simpson has said he wears Size 10 1/2 to Size 13, depending on the brand.

Baker also sought to challenge Bodziak’s analysis of the crime scene by suggesting that he had missed some obvious footprint marks. But Bodziak insisted that he had identified every footprint he could based on a rigorous examination of the photos he received. “I’m not in the habit of guessing,” he said with some disdain.

Bodziak also discounted the defense theory that two assailants might have carried out the gruesome knife attacks. He acknowledged that he found 23 partial footprints that were too fragmented or too faint to positively identify as Bruno Maglis. But he repeated several times that he found no evidence of a second killer.

Cross-examining Bodziak gave Phil Baker, the son of lead defense attorney Robert C. Baker, a rare chance to assert his presence in the courtroom. It also apparently gave his dad some jitters. Robert Baker broke in several times during the direct and cross-examination of Bodziak to voice objections that his son had failed to raise. At one point, the judge admonished him to stop interrupting.

“Mr. Baker,” Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki said, “let this Mr. Baker handle the examination.”

“He’s my boy,” the senior Baker protested.

“He’s doing quite well,” Fujisaki responded. “Let him do it himself.”

Even the jurors broke into laughter at that exchange, as father-son tensions have become a running joke of the trial. Commenting on his son’s inability to focus exhibits on the overhead projector, Robert Baker once remarked: “You should see the family photo album.” A few days later, when the judge ordered him to direct his son to improve the focus, Robert Baker just grinned. “He hasn’t followed my directions for the past 28 years,” he said.