Web hosting Custom Email SiteBuilder

e-mail message
Date: 97-09-07 18:54:23 EDT

Written by Bill Elisburg to an OJG on the LawSig Forum regarding a message from Dan about the measurements and *proof* that the shoe prints discovered at Bundy were not a size 12:

OJG: "I understand exactly what you are saying here. It sounds like a quick and dirty way to get an extremely rough estimate. By your own account, there is 3/16" difference between your measurements and the expected result ", a size 10 is 4 1/8" wide, a size 11 is 4 1/4" wide, and a size 12 is 4 3/8" wide. " You come up with some kind of a fudge factor of +or- 1/16. How you get this I don't know, but accepting it for the purposes of argument, we are talking about 2/16 difference. That ain't much and given the totally unscientific methodology employed, unworthy of credence IMO."

Bill: "Let me give you a little help here. The + or - 1/16" is a function of the smallest division on the measuring device he was using. As to the effect on determining the shoe size, you do not quite seem to grasp what that + or - 1/16" would mean. Consider the following table, based on the shoe sizes stated in Dan Silagi's and your own messages:

Nominal Shoe Size	Smallest Width	Nominal Width	Largest Width
10	4-1/16"	4-1/8"	4-3/16"
11	4-3/16"	4-1/4"	4-5/16"
12	4-5/16"	4-3/8"	4-7/16"
13*	4-7/16"	4-1/2"	4-9/16"
* This shoe size added to the table because Bruno Magli shoes run small and the average American will require one size larger than his normal shoe size.

The results of Dan's comparative measurements should now be plain to you. The shoeprint on the walkway at Bundy was in actuality (as opposed to FBI-ity) probably made by a size 10 shoe, but could have been made by a shoe as large as, but no larger than a size 11. O.J. Simpson, if he owned and wore a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes would have probably worn a size 13, but could have worn a shoe as small as, but no smaller than a size 12.

All clear now?"

Sandy

---

While I know from the "published" scaled crime photos, and the scaled demonstration Bruno Magli shoes, that there is a serious problem with the asserted shoe sizes -- there is also an obvious problem with this analysis. That problem is the focus on WIDTH. Width is a varible in shoe sizes -- the second element when an individual size is determined.

Conversely, the width designation is proportionate to the shoe size. Thus we can conclude, if the width of the shoe is smaller than the smallest availble for the size claimed -- the shoe would be too narrow for to be worn.
OJG and Bill have established a secondary method to affirm that the shoes worn by the killer were too small to have been worn by Simpson.
Other sources, using evidence sealed by the court, have reportedly affirmed that the shoe size was misreported by the LADA. It would appear, that a second CIVIL TRIAL would establish the District attorney provided the FBI with a shoe sole photograph which had been SCALED UP (enlarged) to correspond with the size established via Simpson's REEBOK's.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not an appeals issue -- AT THIS TIME. It is however n issue which has allowed Bailey (and his associates) to be exceedingly confident in Simpson's innocence; it will also be a key issue in any civil suit launched by Simpson, or the children, against Los Angeles authorities.

As in the Shappard case, this might be around for decades.

© 1996, 1997  William Schreck   © 1996 Source Interactive Network, LLC. All rights reserved.