Memorandum of Points and Authorities A. Preliminary - Justice Denied

comparison with the crime scene shoeprint photographs and the
photographs of the Pacer shoes. Criminalist Raquel testified that: the
patterned impression behind the right ear was a shoeprint; the shoe
impression behind Dorka Lisker’s right ear is similar in size and
dimension to the herringbone pattern shoeprint labeled ‘G’ (found in
the bathroom) and is dissimilar in size and dimension to the Pacer
shoes Bruce Lisker was wearing at the time of his arrest. (EHT Vol. I:
193-96, Vol. II: 17-18, 38.)
Sandra Wiersema of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, was
called by Respondent. Ms. Wiersema, an expert working exclusively in
shoe prints and tire tread evidence, examined and compared the
photographs of the crime scene footprints and the Pacer shoes Lisker
was wearing on March 10, 1983. (See Exhibit Y (FBI Reports of
Shoeprint Photos and Evidence, July 21, 2005 and Oct. 31, 2005).)
Wiersema testified that the shoe print identified as B-2 and the print
identified as G had characteristics similar to each other, and could not
have been made by the Lisker’s Pacer shoes. (EHT Vol. IV: 567-77,
582-84; Exh Y: 2.)
Criminalist Wiersema also examined and analyzed the autopsy
photographs of the patterned impression behind Dorka Lisker’s right
ear in comparison with the crime scene shoeprint photographs and the
photographs of the Pacer shoes. Wiersema testified that she did not
find anything to suggest the impression was made by a shoe, but she
also acknowledged she could not conclude it was not made by a shoe.
(EHT Vol. IV: 7587-92, 607-09.) Moreover, she acknowledged that in
-34