The problem I have, your Honor, no. 1, this all calls for speculation from the witness because these photographs, there's only one way these were done, but they did them multiple ways, and so the test impressions that are being shown to Mr. Bodziak are the result of different methods of doing the test impression. This only shows one. He can't possibly know that. So you're asking a witness who has no personal knowledge of how it was done or whether there were a variety of methods used and you're asking him about one method that led to one set of impressions. The problem is that this whole area is speculation on his part. Agent Deedrick did his own impressions and testified to that, indicating that they were the same. He was the appropriate witness to question about the methods of doing the imprints and Mr. Scheck elected not to do that. This is not the witness.
I think I did both. Miss Clark has not looked at her own reports that were turned over to us because the report from LAPD personnel indicate that on August 21st, they placed a yellow pad on top of the jeans, they rolled it, then they placed the paper on it. The pictures that I have at sidebar that were turned over by the Prosecution reflect that process. And then on August 31st, the memo indicates they did the same thing. Agent Deedrick's testimony is that he went back to the lab after he prepared the boards and--
But here's the problem though. Is that if Deedrick was the one who was involved in getting these impressions--excuse me, Mr. Shapiro. If Deedrick is the one who was involved in making these impressions, why are we talking to Bodziak about this?
We talked to Deedrick about it too. But the point is that I want to go into how they were laid flat and what the significance of that is. He testified in this area.
Stretching it out and you are going to maximize the distance between the ridges, and that will become important in terms of comparison of the test imprints to the actual imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper.
Your Honor, what's unfair about it--this is beyond the scope. This witness was not questioned about the jeans matching the impression. This witness was asked specifically whether or not it was a shoeprint. Agent Deedrick was asked and he didn't rely on the test impressions of the jeans in forming his opinion. He was the one who initially said this is not a shoeprint and passed it on to Agent Deedrick. If Mr. Scheck wanted to question the manner in which the impressions were made to attack the foundation for Agent Deedrick's opinion that it was the jeans, that was the person to confront with discrepancies in the manner in which the impressions were made. He would know. He also by the way made his own impressions and failed to bring that up. And by the way, Agent Deedrick's impressions were done in a variety of ways too, and now the jury is not going to be given a correct picture. They're going to be--
I think--I just want to make the record clear. Miss Clark is misstating the testimony a number of ways. Agent Bodziak--
He can't possibly know that. So you're asking a witness who has no personal knowledge of how it was done or whether there were a variety of methods used and you're asking him about one method that led to one set of impressions.
When you roll them out, you are going to be expounding-- stretching it out and you are going to maximize the distance between the ridges, and that will become important in terms of comparison of the test imprints to the actual imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper.
If Deedrick is the one who was involved in making these impressions, why are we talking to Bodziak about this?
Mr. Scheck elected not to do that. This is not the witness.