The Bruno Magli Shoe Evidence: Does It Prove that O.J. Simpson Is Guilty?

Transcription

1 The Bruno Magli Shoe Evidence: Does It Prove that O.J. Simpson Is Guilty? Michael T. Griffith Rights Reserved When the legal team representing the Goldman and Brown families presented what seemed to be undeniable proof at the civil trial that O.J. Simpson had owned a pair of rare, Italian-made Bruno Magli casual shoes, most people saw this as damning evidence against him, since an FBI agent said there were Bruno Magli shoeprints near the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, and since the Italian shoes were expensive and rare. At the time, this development seemed devastating to O.J. s claim of innocence. However, subsequent research has raised many doubts about the Bruno Magli evidence. The Shoeprints at the Crime Scene: Were Some of Them Made by Bruno Magli Shoes? When I began to study this issue, I assumed that FBI Special Agent William Bodziak s identification of Bruno Magli shoeprints at the crime scene was beyond dispute. That is why the previous editions of this article were titled Do the Bruno Magli Shoeprints Prove that O.J. Simpson Is Guilty?. However, Brian Heiss, a leading expert on the O.J. Simpson case, brought some important facts to my attention about the nature of the shoeprints that Bodziak used and the way Bodziak presented his identification at the criminal trial. This led me to take a closer look at the crime-scene shoeprints and at Bodziak s claims about them. Until recently, I assumed that at least one of the alleged Bruno Magli shoeprints at the crime scene included the Bruno Magli logo from the arc of the sole. I was surprised to learn that not one of those shoeprints showed the arc area of the sole, much less a logo. The identification was done exclusively on the basis of the patterns seen in the shoeprints. Until recently, I also assumed that at least a few of the alleged Bruno Magli shoeprints showed the entire shoe sole, minus the arc. However, they are all partial impressions. The quality of the crime-scene shoeprints that Bodziak used leaves much to be desired. I make no claim to being a shoeprint expert, but I do have good eyesight. If I were on a jury and the prosecution s evidence included shoeprints that were of the same mediocre quality as the ones that Bodziak used, I would be reluctant to use those prints as part of my basis for reaching a verdict, especially in a murder case. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) gave Bodziak over 30 crime-scene photos of shoeprints. Bodziak identified some of them as Bruno Magli impressions. Of the shoeprints that Bodziak identified as Bruno Magli prints, here are the two prints that he chose to include in his chapter on the O.J. Simpson shoeprint evidence in the second edition of his book Footwear Impression Evidence (New York: CRC Press, 2000, Second Edition, pp ): 1

2 These are the clearest of the shoeprints that Bodziak identified as Bruno Magli impressions. As anyone can see, they are not very clear and are partial in nature. As I said, if I were a juror, I would be reluctant to rely on a shoe identification based on these types of incomplete, mediocre shoeprints. I would be even more reluctant to do so if I learned that the person doing the identification apparently searched only among expensive shoes made by Italian shoe companies and did not consider shoes made by American or other foreign shoemakers who sold less-expensive, copycat versions of expensive Italian shoes or knockoffs of other high-end casual shoes. Bodziak's testimony and his book on footwear impressions indicate that only compared the crime-scene shoe impressions with the soles of high-end Italian-made casual shoes. He said nothing about comparing the crime-scene shoeprints with the soles of any high-end or lessexpensive/knockoff casual shoes made in France or Germany or Canada or Spain or South America or America or China, etc., etc. Were the Bruno Magli Shoe Soles Rare or Unique? Does It Matter? It turns out that the Bruno Magli shoe soles U2887 were not as rare as the prosecution 2

3 claimed they were. Bruno Magli did not make their U2887 shoe soles but bought them from an Italian company named Silga Gomma. Silga Gomma also used the U2887 soles on a shoe branded as LORD, and Silga sold LORD U2887 soles to 19 Italian shoe companies and one Irish shoe company. A Bruno Magli sole and a LORD sole would leave an identical pattern. Bodziak claims in the second edition of his book Footwear Impression Evidence that the 20 shoe companies that used the LORD U2887 sole advised him that they did not sell shoes in the U.S. and sold no shoes equal in size to American size 12. However, he provides no copies of his correspondence with any of those companies, nor does he name any of them. Even if we assume that 20 other companies that used the LORD U2887 sole did not sell shoes in the U.S., we are still left with the fact that Bodziak did not compare the crime-scene shoeprints with the soles of any high-end casual shoes or low-price knockoffs made in France, Germany, Canada, Spain, America, China, or numerous other nations. Moreover, we should keep in mind that Los Angeles was a major travel destination for foreign visitors and that many Los Angeles residents frequently flew to Europe and other parts of the world. So even if we assume that none of the 21 shoe companies that Bodziak contacted sold any shoes in the U.S., and even if we assume that no other shoe company anywhere else in the world used a similar sole pattern, there would still be a reasonable possibility that some Bruno Magli shoes were brought into Los Angeles by foreign visitors or by residents bringing them back from overseas. One example of how the Silga Gomma U2887 soles got around the world is the fact that Japan's National Police Agency reported in 1995 that their evidence inventory included a LORD shoe with the U2887 sole, the same sole used by Bruno Magli. Brian Heiss has pointed out to me that the alleged Bruno Magli shoeprints show no visible signs of wear. There are no wear patterns and no tread loss visible in the shoe impressions. This raises another doubt about the Bruno Magli evidence. Why? Because Bodziak said that the shoeprints that he identified as Bruno Magli impressions were either made by the Lyon or the Lorenzo style of Bruno Magli shoes. But, according to Bodziak, those styles were only sold for barely two years. In his book, Bodziak says they were first distributed in August 1990 and were officially discontinued in August 1992, with some being sold until early 1993 (Footwear Impression Evidence, p. 435). This means that if O.J. bought one of those styles, he would have had to buy them between August 1990 and early 1993, which in turn means that he would have owned them for well over a year before the murders at the very least, and possibly for almost four years before the murders. Another problem with Bodziak's Bruno Magli identification is that the shoeprints from the crime scene do not show any signs of having been made by someone who was bow-legged, but O.J. was bow-legged. Shoeprints made by bow-legged people display a distinctive wear pattern of lateral wear. In his book Sports & Exercise Injuries, Steven Subotnick illustrates the sole-wear pattern found in shoes worn by people who are bow-legged (see p. 39). No such wear pattern appears in any of the crime-scene shoe impressions used by Bodziak. Would the Bruno Magli Shoes Have Fit? Incredibly, although shoeprints were a key part of the prosecution s evidence, neither the 3

4 LAPD nor Bodziak bothered to measure O.J.'s foot to get his exact shoe size. Instead, they based their claim about his shoe size on the pair of tennis shoes that O.J. allowed Detective Tom Lange to remove from his bedroom the day after the murders. As most people know, shoe length and width for a given size can vary between shoe brands, especially between American and foreign brands. Bodziak said that the alleged Bruno Magli shoeprints were made by a size 12 shoe, but police found shoes in O.J.'s closet that ranged in size from 10.5 to 13. When the OMIG investigative team obtained an outline and measurement of O.J.'s foot (a nurse did the measurement), they discovered that his foot is larger than Bruno Magli size 12. His feet would have been uncomfortable and crunched in a pair of size 12 Bruno Magli shoes. Special Agent William Bodziak presenting his shoeprint comparison to the jury during the criminal trial Bodziak's comparison compared a Bruno Magli shoeprint (left) with a Bruno Magli test impression, but neither of these images came from the crime scene. During his presentation, Bodziak rarely showed the jury the crimescene shoeprints but instead used test prints. O.J.'s Denial Why did O.J. deny owning Bruno Magli shoes? Perhaps because he really did not own them? 4

5 This would explain why the LAPD and the FBI were unable to find any evidence that O.J. had ever bought Bruno Magli shoes. But, what if someone gave him a pair of Bruno Magli shoes and he was simply unaware that they were Bruno Magli shoes? Detectives found that O.J. had dozens of pairs of shoes at his house. Companies sometimes gave him shoes as gifts. Is it possible that he was not aware that a pair of Bruno Magli shoes were among his dozens of pairs of shoes? How many of us can name the brand of even half of the shoes we own? However, if we assume that O.J. owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, and if we assume that he knew he owned them, could there be an innocent explanation for his denial? Yes, if one is willing to assume that he is innocent. For example, he could have believed that since the authorities were lying and planting evidence to try to frame him, he was justified in denying he owned the shoes because he knew that admitting he owned them would give the false impression that he was guilty. If he did in fact own a pair of Bruno Maglis but had also known about all the problems with Bodziak's comparison, he might have been willing to admit that he owned them. If the shoeprints analyzed by Bodziak were made by Bruno Magli shoes, we should also consider the possibility that those shoeprints were placed at the crime scene by one of the killers to incriminate O.J., or that the shoeprints were placed there by a detective between the time the first policemen arrived and the time the police photographer took pictures of the shoeprints. Someone broke into O.J. s house shortly before the murders. O.J. had been out of town the previous week and had only flown back to LA three days earlier to attend his daughter s dance recital on the night of the murders. Assuming he still owned the Bruno Magli shoes shortly before the murders, someone could have stolen them during the break-in and then walked on the pavement at the crime scene. Or, a police detective could have taken the shoes from O.J. s house and then gone to the crime scene to leave the shoeprints to be found and photographed later. A similar scenario occurred to author Steven H. Adler, who wrote the book Justice Defeated: Victims: OJ Simpson and the American Legal System (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2008). Adler s book is a detailed response to Daniel Petrocelli s book The Triumph of Justice: The Final Judgment on the Simpson Saga (New York: Crown Books, 1998). Petrocelli was the lead plaintiff attorney in the civil trial. Addressing Petrocelli directly, Adler says, You say in your book that it is absurd to believe that the police would plant any evidence. In my opinion, it is surprising that you would say something so absurd. The police detectives were in O.J. s house. Could someone have put on O.J. s shoes and then gone back to the crime scene? Is this too devious, too clever? Not more than dropping a weapon at the scene to implicate a person. Not more than planting drugs or DNA at a scene. I know you think this only happens in the movies or trashy crime novels. I suggest you do some research in the greater community or the police files for evidence that proves differently. (Justice Defeated, p. 156) Perhaps it should be mentioned that in the 1980s and 1990s, the LAPD was caught in three major scandals involving evidence planting, conspiracy, and/or filing false reports: the Rodney 5

6 King incident, the Rampart scandal, and the Dalton scandal. In the Rampart affair, police officers engaged in conspiracies to thwart misconduct investigations and framed people with planted evidence for crimes they did not commit. The city was forced to pay tens of millions of dollars to settle over 100 lawsuits stemming from the Rampart scandal. In the Rodney King beating, LAPD officers filed false reports. Indeed, to read those reports, one would never have known that police officers had viciously beaten a defenseless man. Moreover, during O.J. s criminal trial, it was discovered that Detective Mark Fuhrman, one of the LAPD detectives who played a key role at the crime scene and at O.J. s house in the initial part of the investigation, had previously boasted on tape that he had planted evidence to frame minorities in previous cases and that he hated the very sight of interracial couples. In any case, it is not necessary to theorize that the shoeprints were planted to argue for O.J. s innocence, since the crime-scene shoeprints were partial prints and were mediocre in quality, since the shoeprints show no signs wear, since the shoeprints show no wear pattern consistent with a bow-legged person, and since Bodziak's comparison was very narrow in scope. A Look at the Evidence that O.J. Owned Some Bruno Magli Shoes Is the evidence that O.J. owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes clear cut and indisputable? Ever since the civil trial, major documentaries and most commentators on the case have argued that O.J. s ownership of the shoes has been proven beyond any doubt, mainly because of the Scull and Flammer photographs, which appear to show O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes. However, as we have seen, it is by no means certain that Bruno Magli shoeprints were even found at the crime scene in the first place. So it might not even matter that O.J. did or did not own Bruno Magli shoes. Furthermore, the supposed Bruno Magli sole impressions do not show wear patterns that would have been left by shoes worn by O.J. Not only do they show no signs of any wear whatsoever, but they show no signs of wear that would appear on shoes worn by a bow-legged person. As for the photos that appear to show O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes, readers might want to take a look at the closing argument that attorney Dan Leonard made on this issue in the civil trial, Leonard questioned the validity of the evidence that O.J. bought Bruno Magli shoes, and he challenged the origin and authenticity of the photos that purport to show O.J. wearing the shoes.. Additionally, readers should consider Phillip Baker's cross-examination of Special Agent Bodziak. Baker elicited answers from Bodziak that made it clear that Bodziak had exaggerated and even misstated the shoeprint evidence. Here are some of the points that Leonard and Baker made: * The LAPD and the FBI were unable to find any evidence that O.J. had purchased a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. Nor were they able to find the salesperson who supposedly sold the Bruno Magli shoes to O.J. The FBI identified every shoe store that sold Bruno Magli shoes in the United States and Puerto Rico but could find no salesperson who remembered selling the shoes to O.J. and no records that he had bought the shoes at any of those stores. 6

7 * The shoeprint in the Bronco was impossible to identify as a Bruno Magli shoeprint, and, contrary to what Agent Bodziak had repeatedly claimed, the print was not located in a spot where a person would naturally put their foot for their first step into the vehicle. (Yet, some pundits still claim that a Bruno Magli shoeprint was also found in the Bronco.) * There were 23 shoeprints at Nicole Simpson s house that could not be matched with the Bruno Magli shoe-sole pattern. * There were several shoeprints that Bodziak did not analyze, including some at O.J.'s house, because he said that the LAPD and the prosecution did not send him photos of them or that they sent the photos later and he only did a general analysis of them. Bodziak also conceded that O.J.'s closet contained shoes that ranged in size from size 10.5 to size 13 and that initially he was unaware of this fact. This is a small sample of Phillip Baker's crossexamination of Bodziak on these issues: 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. All right. And just to be clear, 408 [Bodziak's exhibit board] was meant to document every shoe print you observed along this walkway? A. Every one I had a photograph of, yes.... 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? A. 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. 7

8 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 were 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 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.... 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. 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. 8

9 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. (Civil trial transcript, November 21, 1996) * Harry Scull, the photographer who took the first picture that purports to show O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes, claimed that he originally sent the photograph to Pro Football Weekly about a week after he took it. However, the plaintiffs lawyers could not produce any evidence that the photo was sent to, or received by, that publication. * The Scull photograph first appeared in the tabloid newspaper The National Enquirer in April 1996, seven months after the criminal trial ended and five months before the civil trial began. Before this time, law enforcement and private entities had conducted a prolonged, nationwide search for photos that showed O.J. wearing Bruno Magli shoes, and they found no such photos. * To more fully determine the authenticity of the Scull photograph, the camera that took the photos would have to be examined. However, Scull first claimed he lost the camera, and then he said the camera had been stolen. * The negatives for the Scull photograph had a strange chain of custody, to say the least. Scull obtained them from a photo agent named Rob McElroy only after McElroy had sent the negatives to London, England. McElroy was the one who arranged for the photo to be sold to The National Enquirer. Why were the negatives sent to London before being sent to Scull? * The reflections next to the shoe in the Scull photograph clearly extend beyond the sole, and that should not be. This suggests the photograph is not an unaltered original. * The second set of photographs, 30 pictures taken by a young man named E.J. Flammer, were not supposedly discovered until after questions had been raised about the discovery and authenticity of the Scull photograph. * Flammer would not allow the defense to examine his negatives before he testified. Why not? If his photos were legitimate, why would he not allow the defense to examine the negatives? * The plaintiffs expert who authenticated the Scull and Flammer photographs was Gerald Richards, an FBI agent who had no experience in detecting alteration or fabrication in pictures. Interestingly, Richards admitted during his deposition that he was not 100 percent certain that the pictures were not fakes, and he added that given sufficient time and resources the photos could have been faked ( Testimony ends in Simpson civil trial, The 9

10 Journal Times, January 17, 1997, * The only picture that shows the sole of one of the shoes, the Scull photograph, shows the shoe in a rather unnatural position. The heel is flat on the ground while the toe is unusually high off the ground, and, oddly enough, the toe is also twisted toward the camera, thus exposing the sole to view. Said Leonard, Do you think that, as you're striding along, that with your heel flat on the ground like that, that the shoe is going to be the toe is going to be up in that position, and twisted very conveniently twisted over, "cocked," as Mr. Richards said towards the camera? Think about it. (Civil trial transcript, January 23, 1997, volume 48) * The plaintiffs attorneys placed great importance on the fact that one of the Flammer photos was allegedly used in a Buffalo Bills newsletter. (Many pundits claim this was a newspaper, but it was just a local team newsletter.) However, Richards admitted that he was never shown the original black-and-white print that was used for the newsletter. Instead, he was shown what were purported to be the original negatives. The man who showed him the alleged negatives was Rob McElroy, the same man who arranged for the sale of the Scull picture to The National Enquirer. Richards took McElroy s representation at face value and did not insist on seeing the original black-and-white print of the photo that appeared in the newsletter. * The Flammer picture that was printed in the Bills newsletter does not show any part of the sole of the shoes, only part of the top and side of the shoes. * The Scull and Flammer photos were supposedly taken on the same day at the same event: the September 26, 1993, football game at Rich Stadium in Buffalo between the Buffalo Bills and the Miami Dolphins. In other words, all of these pictures purport to show that O.J. wore Bruno Magli shoes on this one day in Why have no other photos surfaced that show him wearing these shoes on any other day and at any other event or location? * Before and during the criminal trial, the LAPD, the FBI, numerous private investigators, and numerous magazines with considerable resources at their disposal spent months scouring the country for any and all O.J. pictures that showed him wearing shoes. None of these entities could find any photographic evidence that O.J. had ever worn Bruno Magli shoes. Are we to believe that O.J. wore these expensive shoes only once, at a football game in September 1993, and then never wore them again until the night of the murders? Other points need to be made about the shoeprint evidence: * Flammer gave two very different versions of the discovery of his photos, and plaintiff attorney John Kelly's version markedly contradicted Flammer's testimony, as Brian Heiss documents in his new documentary on the Bruno Magli shoes. * Dr. Henry Lee, a world-renowned forensic expert and criminalist, identified impressions at the crime scene that looked like shoeprints and that clearly bore no resemblance to the Bruno Magli sole design. Dr. Lee might have also been able to find latent shoeprints, but the LAPD 10

11 would not allow him to use chemical tests to detect latent impressions. * Naturally, Bodziak asked for pictures of the shoes that were worn at the crime scene by LAPD detectives and police officers in order to compare their soles with the crime-scene shoeprints and rule them out as donors of the shoeprints. However, these photographs were not taken until several days after the crime scene had been processed, and no effort was made to verify that the shoes that the detectives and officers wore for the comparison photos were the same shoes they had worn at the crime scene. Furthermore, for some reason, Detectives Fuhrman, Ron Phillips, and Philip Vannatter were not required to submit their shoes for comparison photos. * Why would O.J. have worn suede shoes in the fall in Buffalo, on a day when rain was expected, and when it in fact rained heavily? The Bruno Magli Lyon and Lorenzo styles were suede shoes. Suede shoes can be ruined if they get much water on them. Most people know not to wear suede shoes or coats if rain is expected. If O.J. had worn Bruno Magli shoes that day, they quite possibly would have been ruined. Unless the fashion-conscious O.J. was unaware that suede shoes can be ruined in rain, it seems odd that he would have worn the suede Bruno Magli shoes that day. In their effort to convince the jury that O.J. had bought some Bruno Magli shoes, the prosecution presented an employee named Sam Poser from Bloomingdale's in New York who said he remembered selling O.J. some shoes in the winter of Poser recalled that O.J. stated that he needed some boots for an upcoming Bills' game in Buffalo. Poser noted that Bloomingdale's was one of the few stores that sold Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes. However, on cross-examination, Poser testified that he did not think the shoes he sold to O.J. were Bruno Maglis. Significantly, he added that he would not have sold Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes to O.J. because they would not have done well in Buffalo's weather. * Finally, why on earth would anyone who was about to murder his ex-wife put on a pair of expensive foreign shoes, especially when the shoes would have been uncomfortable? Curiously, Bodziak made the logical point that if two people had planned on killing Nicole, they would not have worn Bruno Magli shoes but would have worn common shoes: Further, if two individuals were going to obtain footwear for the specific purpose of committing a crime, after which they would dispose of the footwear, it would make more sense for them to purchase a common pair of inexpensive shoes. They could easily obtain two pairs of a common shoe in size 12 without raising any suspicions. (Footwear Impression Evidence, p. 448) Yet Bodziak would have us believe that when O.J. chose the shoes that he would wear to supposedly murder his ex-wife with a knife, he chose a pair of expensive foreign shoes that he had been photographed wearing at a professional football game. SOURCES: Phillip Baker s cross-examination of Bodziak at the civil trial, civil trial transcript, November 21, 1996, available at 11

12 William Bodziak, Footwear Impression Evidence, Second Edition (New York: CRC Press, 2000) Brian Heiss, It's Gotta Be the Shoes, November 2017, see the accompanying article at T.H. Johnson, The People vs. OJ Simpson: The Real Crime (2015) Henry Lee, Cracking Cases: The Science of Solving Crimes (New York: Prometheus Books, 2002), pp Henry Lee's testimony at the criminal trial, August 22-23, 25, 1995, volumes , Dan Leonard's closing argument at the civil trial, civil trial transcript, January 23, 1997, available at Steven Subotnick, Sports & Exercise Injuries (North Atlantic Books, 1991). I am indebted to Brian Heiss for bringing this reference to my attention. Testimony ends in Simpson civil trial, The Journal Times, January 17, 1997, When Facts Collide with Fiction in the OJ Simpson Case (the Bruno Magli shoes, the Rockingham glove, and other issues) This article shows pictures of the sketch that was made of O.J. s foot and an overlay of that sketch onto the Bruno Magli size 12 shoe diagram. About the Author The O.J. Simpson Case 12