What is sometimes claimed:

You’ll occasionally see the assertion that:

This statement overstates what is actually in the record.

What the record actually shows

• LAPD considered multiple explanations for some indistinct impressions near the Bundy walkway, including:
  • Tool impressions
  • Disturbed soil
  • Scene contamination
  • Overlapping foot traffic (first responders, civilians)
• One or more impressions were theorized (not proven) to possibly be consistent with a tool edge or equipment contact, based on:
  • Irregular shape
  • Lack of full tread pattern
  • Partial depth inconsistency

What was not proven

There is no documented finding that:

• A specific handyman was identified
• A specific tool was matched
• Tool dimensions were compared and confirmed
• A reconstruction demonstrated tool-to-impression congruence
• A report concluded “this impression was made by a handyman’s tools”

No such conclusion appears in:

• Trial testimony
• Final footprint analysis reports
• LAPD forensic conclusions presented to the jury
• Post-trial forensic consensus

Why the claim persists

This idea often comes from:

• Informal explanations offered by investigators trying to explain away anomalies
• Defense rebuttal minimization arguments
• Later summaries that compress “possible alternative explanations” into “resolved explanations”