Groden Goes to Court
Day One At the O.J. Simpson Trial
 2   8:59 A.M.

[Testimony of witnesses preceeding Groden omitted.]

 7    MR. LEONARD:  Call Robert Groden.
10     called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was duly
11     sworn and testified as follows:
12    THE CLERK:  You do solemnly swear that the
13     testimony you may give in the cause now pending before
14     this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
15     nothing but the truth, so help you God?
16    THE WITNESS:  I do.
17    THE BAILIFF:  Please be seated.
18    THE CLERK:  And, sir, if you would please state
19     and spell your name for the record.
20    THE WITNESS:  Robert Groden, G-r-o-d-e-n.
23     BY MR. LEONARD:
24    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Morning, Mr. Groden.
25    A.    Morning.
26    Q.    How are you presently employed?
27    A.    I'm a writer.
28    Q.    Have you had -- how old are you?
 1    A.    51.
 2    Q.    During the course of your life, have you
 3     had experience in the field of photography, and in
 4     particular, in the field of the alteration of
 5     photographic images?
 6    A.    Yes.
 7    Q.    Okay.
 8  Just in general terms right now, let me
 9     ask you this:  Have you also had experience in the
10     analysis of photographic images to determine whether
11     or not they have been altered?
12    A.    Yes.
13    Q.    Have you been engaged by the defense to
14     review a particular photograph or set of photographs?
15    A.    Yes.
16    Q.    Which photograph is that?
17    A.    It's a photograph that purports to show
18     Mr. O.J. Simpson walking across the end zone of a
19     football field.
20    MR. LEONARD:  Can we see that?
21    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Can we have -- can we
22     approach on qualifications?
23    MR. LEONARD:  I'm going to get to that.  I want
24     to get to the purpose for the witness being here.
25    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  I'd like to have the
26     qualifications.
27    MR. LEONARD:  I'm not going to ask for an
28     opinion --
 1    THE COURT:  Approach the bench.
 3 (The following proceedings were
 4 held at the bench with the
 5 reporter:)
 7    THE COURT:  Okay.  What's the objection?
 8    MR. GELBLUM:  The objection is this man's
 9     unqualified.  This man's not qualified to render any
10     expert opinions about alteration of photographs, Your
11     Honor.
12    MR. LEONARD:  I'm going to establish his
13     qualifications.  I just wanted to demonstrate -- I'm
14     not even asking him for a conclusion.
15    MR. GELBLUM:  It's a Kennedy conspiracy not --
16     He works repairing photo processing machines.
17    MR. LEONARD:  I can establish his -- the
18     foundation for his qualifications, and I will.
19    THE COURT:  Give me an offer of proof.
20    MR. LEONARD:  He worked for years in the area
21     of the alteration of negatives and photographic
22     images, both still and motion picture.
23    MR. GELBLUM:  Not true.
24    MR. LEONARD:  It is true.
25  He worked -- he worked in optical
26     effects.  He knows exactly how photographs are altered
27     legitimately and illegitimately.  He was a staff
28     consultant for the Select House Committee on
 1     Assassination.  He's reviewed hundreds and
 2     thousands -- or hundreds, thousands of photographs for
 3     the purpose of determining both for authenticity and
 4     evidentiary value, both for the Assassination
 5     Committee and thereafter for his own research and
 6     writing.
 7    THE COURT:  Has he qualified as an expert
 8     before?
 9    MR. LEONARD:  He has not qualified as an expert
10     other than in the Senate -- the House Select Committee
11     that he was used as an expert.  He has not
12     testified -- he has not testified in a court of law as
13     far as I know.
14    MR. GELBLUM:  He testified in his deposition he
15     never qualified as an expert, in court as an expert.
16    THE COURT:  Ladies and gentlemen, we're going
17     to excuse you for a little while.  Don't talk about
18     the case, don't form or express any opinions.
19 (Pause.)
20    THE CLERK:  For the record, just while the
21     jurors are here, too, mention was made of
22     Exhibit 2036 in the last series and it should have
23     been referred to as 2038.
25 (Jurors exit courtroom.)
 1 (The following proceedings were
 2 held in open court outside the
 3 presence of the jury.)
 5    THE COURT:  The record will show that the
 6     jurors left the courtroom.
 7  We're conducting a hearing under 402 of
 8     the evidence code with regard to the witness's
 9     qualifications.
10  Go ahead.
14  402 HEARING
17     BY MR. LEONARD:
18    Q.    First of all, to lay a foundation, what
19     tests were you asked to accomplish or to undertake for
20     the defense in this case, just in very general terms?
21    A.    To examine the photographs and to render
22     an opinion on whether I found any evidence of
23     falsification.
24    Q.    Now, let's go back.
25  When did you first start your experience
26     in the field of photography, generally?
27    A.    Basically as a child, as about a 10 or
28     12-year old.
 1    Q.    And have you continued to be actively
 2     involved in the field of photography, generally, since
 3     then?
 4    A.    Yes.
 5    Q.    Okay.
 6  When was the first time you were employed
 7     in any respect in the field of photography?
 8    A.    Around 1969.
 9    Q.    What was that employment, sir?
10    A.    I was hired by a motion exhibit picture
11     optical house in New York City and was hired as an
12     optical technician.
13    Q.    And describe in as much detail as you can
14     what you did, and with particular emphasis on the
15     creation of alterated (sic) images of any kind in
16     either motion picture or still photography?
17    THE COURT:  Alterated?
18    MR. LEONARD:  Yeah.
19    MR. GELBLUM:  Altered.
20    MR. LEONARD:  Altered.  Excuse me.  Altered
21     images.  That's like visualization, I guess.
23 (Laughter.)
25    A.    In the motion picture optical field, a
26     large percentage of the work that's done is
27     specifically to alter images, adding titles, doing
28     split screens, inserting images within another image.
 1  I would say that probably between 60 and
 2     75 percent of all the work that's done involves that.
 3    Q.    Okay.
 4  And how long did -- and in order to do
 5     that, just in general terms, what techniques did you
 6     use when you were working in this field?
 7    A.    Well, there are various different ways;
 8     matte insertion, split screens, using masking
 9     techniques either through film or through repositions
10     of shutters, changing sizes, correcting
11     irregularities, things of that nature.  Product shots,
12     inserting, say, a can of furniture spray or something
13     of that nature within a background.
14    Q.    Okay.
15  And how long did you work in the field?
16  You described a job you had when you were
17     working in optical effects in motion pictures.
18  Did you also work in the field of optical
19     effects in still photography?
20    A.    Yes, I did.
21    Q.    Okay.
22  And for how long a period of time did you
23     do that?
24    A.    Well, as I said, I started in the optical
25     field by 1969, and to a degree I'm still doing it
26     today.
27    Q.    And with regard to still photography in
28     particular, where was your first employment where you
 1     were involved in the creation of altered images for
 2     purposes of advertising or any other purpose?
 3    A.    I was employed by a company called 2 by 2
 4     Slides in New York City.
 5    Q.    How long were you employed there?
 6    A.    For a few years.
 7    Q.    Okay.
 8  And what in particular, what types -- you
 9     gave the example of a product shot with a can
10     inserted.
11  Just explain that a little bit more, and
12     explain the process that you would go through with
13     that?
14    A.    Well, the most likely way, the way where
15     it's usually done is you would have your product shot
16     preshot to the sizing and position that you would want
17     it to be on one piece of film, you would have a
18     background on another piece of film.
19  You would photograph the product shot on
20     to a piece of black-and white-high contrast film
21     called Kodalith, K-o-d-a-l-i-t-h, you would then
22     retouch the Kodalith to make sure that you have
23     blacked out everything that you want to mask out of
24     the image.
25  You then do a negative of the original
26     Kodalith in what they call register -- a pin register.
28    THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 1    A.    You then take a piece of unexposed film
 2     or photographic paper, however you want to do it, and
 3     you photograph the product with the clear core matte
 4     which is black all around and clear in the center.
 5  You then go back and take your background
 6     and the negative of the clear core matte which is
 7     called a black core matte.  The purpose of a matte is
 8     to eliminate photographing a double image in the same
 9     space.
10  You then project that down or photograph
11     that down, depending on the technique used, and what
12     you're left with at the end is what's known as a
13     composite image.
14  You would have the insert of your product
15     shot against an existing background.
16    Q.    Now, that's what -- you've just described
17     this process of creating an altered photographic
18     image.
19  I take it that's something that's done in
20     the photographic industry, particularly in
21     advertising, frequently, correct?
22    A.    I would dare say possibly every day.
23    Q.    Okay.
24  And that's the -- was that the type of
25     work that you did for some period of time in New York
26     in the position that you were describing?
27    A.    Yes.
28    Q.    Now, by virtue of your experience both in
 1     the -- in optical effects in film and also these
 2     optical effects in still photography, did you become
 3     knowledgeable about the various methods to alter
 4     photographs, including the one that you just
 5     mentioned?
 6    A.    Yes.
 7    Q.    Are you familiar with the indicia of
 8     those methods to alter photographs?
 9  In other words, looking at a photograph
10     or a negative to determine whether or not such
11     alteration has taken place?
12    A.    Yes.
13    Q.    Okay.
14  Now, there came a time that you became
15     engaged with the House Select Committee on
16     Assassination; is that correct?
17    A.    That is correct.
18    Q.    Can you explain, first of all, what the
19     Committee was, to the Court?
20    A.    The House Assassination Committee or the
21     House Committee on Assassinations, as it was formerly
22     known, was an organization or group formed by Congress
23     to investigate the work of the Warren Commission.
24  They were to study the Warren Report, to
25     question witnesses that may not have been questioned
26     by the Warren Commission, and to determine the
27     accuracy or fallacy of the Warren Commission report.
28    Q.    Now, among the vast amount of evidence
 1     that this committee was investigating was certain
 2     photographic and motion picture evidence; is that
 3     correct?
 4    A.    That is correct.
 5    Q.    Tell us, if you will, what role, if any,
 6     you had for the Committee in the analysis of this
 7     evidence, the gathering of it, the analysis of it, and
 8     in particular, for purposes of authenticity?
 9    A.    I was named as the committee staff
10     photographic consultant.  The work I did included
11     identifying and defining images on film and
12     photographs that were to be analyzed by the Committee,
13     and in some cases analyzing them myself.
14    Q.    Okay.
15  Now, how long did you -- From when to
16     when did you hold that position?
17    A.    The Committee's formal life was 1977 to
18     1978.  I was working for them and elements of the
19     Committee for about six months prior to the official
20     forming of the -- of the Committee itself, and their
21     investigation, and for about another six months after
22     they officially closed down as well.
23    Q.    For a total of how long?
24    A.    For about three years.
25    Q.    Now, was this -- was this a full-time
26     everyday job?
27    A.    No.
28    Q.    Okay.
 1  Describe for the Court, if you will, how
 2     often you would consult, and at least give an estimate
 3     of that, if you will?
 4    A.    It would vary.  There might be times when
 5     there would be several days in a row.  There would be
 6     times when a week would go by where there would be
 7     nothing, and two weeks would go by.  In some cases it
 8     was a couple of hours.  Sometimes it was by telephone.
 9     Sometimes it was in person.  It involved testimony
10     before the House Committee on the first day of the
11     public hearings.
12  It would be impossible to give an exact
13     description of the time involved because it varied.
14     No two weeks were possibly ever the same.
15    Q.    There was a -- just so the Court has an
16     idea of the type of materials we're talking about,
17     there were two photographic or motion picture items
18     that many of us are familiar with, that you had direct
19     contact with or you analyzed; is that correct, with
20     with regard to the House Select Committee?
21    A.    Probably a great many more than two.
22    Q.    Well, the one I'm thinking of is a rather
23     famous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald in the backyard of
24     his -- of his house, purportedly holding a rifle?
25    A.    That's correct.
26    Q.    Did you analyze that photograph for
27     purposes of authenticity?
28    A.    Yes, I did.
 1    Q.    Okay.
 2  And that was in conjunction with your
 3     work on the Committee; is that right?
 4    A.    That's correct.
 5    Q.    Did you -- there was also a motion
 6     picture that many of us have heard about called the
 7     Zapruder film.
 8  Are you familiar with that?
 9    A.    Yes.
10    THE REPORTER:  Could you spell Zapruder,
11     please.
12    MR. LEONARD:  Z-a-p-r-u-d-e-r.
13    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Now, the Zapruder film
14     was filmed -- shot by a bystander just as President
15     Kennedy was shot?
16    A.    That's correct.
17    Q.    Did you have any role in analyzing that
18     piece of film?
19    A.    Yes, I did.
20    Q.    Just in general terms, explain that to
21     the Court.
22    A.    The history that relates to that I had
23     worked on the Zapruder film for some years prior to
24     the creation of the House Committee.  It was my
25     releasing of the film on a TV show called "Good Night
26     America" in 1975 that directly led to the House
27     Committee being formed in the first place.
28  When the Committee was formed, I was
 1     hired as their staff photographic consultant, and I
 2     worked with the formal photographic panel in analyzing
 3     the Zapruder film and others.  And we would have
 4     sessions where we would sit and study individual
 5     frames, where we would analyze motion, reaction time,
 6     possible indication of timing of shots, things of that
 7     nature.
 8    Q.    You mentioned the photographic panel,
 9     were you a -- were you working in conjunction with the
10     photographic panel?
11    A.    Yes, I was.
12    Q.    Okay.
13  Now, you have continued -- you have
14     written several -- you've written books about the
15     Kennedy assassination; is that correct?
16    A.    That is correct.
17    Q.    Is it fair to say that those -- that in
18     preparing those books and in researching that, you had
19     to look at, analyze, and examine, hundreds or
20     thousands of photographs concerning the Kennedy
21     assassination?
22    A.    Yes.
23    Q.    And in the course of that, did you have
24     to make determinations as to whether or not
25     photographs were authentic?
26    A.    Yes.
27    Q.    And you've done that for how many years,
28     sir?
 1    A.    About 30 years.
 2    Q.    Now, you don't have a college education?
 3    A.    No.
 4    Q.    Okay.
 5  Do you have any formal training in
 6     photography?
 7    A.    No.
 8    Q.    Have you been -- have you worked around
 9     photography in areas other than what you've described?
10  In other words, I've talked about optical
11     effects and I've talked about both motion picture and
12     still photography.
13  Have you worked in other fields relating
14     to photography or other businesses?  Let's put it that
15     way.
16    A.    I have.  I have worked in areas where --
17     where I've done work with computers -- computers
18     relating to photography, yes.
19    Q.    Have you had experience actually
20     repairing various types of photographic processing
21     machines?
22    A.    Yes, I have.
23    Q.    Okay.
24  And how long did you do that?
25    A.    Maybe 14 years or so.
26    Q.    Okay.
27  And by virtue of that experience, did you
28     become familiar not only with the indicia of altered
 1     images and photographs and the manner in which
 2     photographs can be altered, but actually some of the
 3     machinery that's used in altering, the actual minutia
 4     of the machinery that's used?
 5    A.    Yes.  Using -- using the -- the machinery
 6     you become familiar with it and the mechanical
 7     processes involved, yes.
 8    Q.    And you actually were involved in the
 9     servicing of these machines?
10    A.    Servicing and photo processing of the
11     machines, yes.
12    Q.    Okay.
13  Now, you're not a professional witness?
14    A.    No.
15    Q.    From time to time have you -- have others
16     consulted with you about the authenticity of
17     photographs or the analysis of photographs?
18    A.    Yes.
19    Q.    Okay.
20  Was there an occasion when the "National
21     Enquirer" actually contacted you to authenticate
22     the -- attempt to authenticate a photograph?
23    A.    Yes.
24    Q.    And when was that, sir, the first time?
25    A.    Approximately 14 years ago.
26    Q.    Okay.
27  Can you describe in general terms what
28     you did, and what the situation was?
 1    A.    The situation was that someone had
 2     apparently come to them and represented a photograph
 3     of -- of voodoo -- a voodoo ritual or something of
 4     that nature, and there was an item within the picture
 5     that a photographer claimed was a photograph of a --
 6     of a spirit or something that he had been able to
 7     conjure up and photograph.
 8  And the "Enquirer" wanted me to
 9     authenticate it and --
10    Q.    Were you able to?
11    A.    No.  As a matter of fact, I discovered
12     that there was a natural explanation for that problem.
13    Q.    And just in general terms, how were you
14     able to determine that, sir, for the "National
15     Enquirer"?
16    A.    I examined contact sheet, as I recall,
17     and noticed that the image that he was talking about
18     extended beyond the edge of the frame itself,
19     indicating that it was a problem with, or a flaw with
20     the film, as opposed to an image being photographed.
21    Q.    Did you tell that to the "National
22     Enquirer"?
23    A.    Yes, I did.
24    Q.    Did they publish the photo anyway?
25    A.    Yes, they did.
26    Q.    Now, were you contacted with regard to
27     the Bruno Magli photo by the "National Enquirer"?
28    A.    Yes, I was.
 1    Q.    Did they ask you if you would analyze it
 2     for them?
 3    A.    That's correct.  They did.
 4    Q.    Did you?
 5    A.    No.
 6    Q.    Did they ever call you back after the
 7     first time?
 8    A.    They called me a second time.  They never
 9     called back after that.
10    MR. LEONARD:  May I have just one minute, Your
11     Honor.
13 (Pause.)
15    MR. LEONARD:  I don't have anything else for
16     the purpose of voir dire.
19     BY MR. GELBLUM:
20    Q.    Mr. Groden, you've had no formal training
21     whatsoever in learning how to determine the
22     authenticity of photographs, correct?
23    A.    That's correct.
24    Q.    Never taught a course in photography?
25    A.    Never.
26    Q.    Never published anything about
27     photography?
28    A.    Techniques of photography?
 1    Q.    Yeah.
 2    A.    No.
 3    Q.    Or techniques of photographic alteration?
 4    A.    No.
 5    Q.    Not a book, not an article, not anything?
 6    A.    I mention the technique of photo
 7     alteration in a book I wrote.
 8    Q.    The book's not about photo alteration?
 9    A.    No.
10    Q.    You talk about the Oswald backyard
11     photograph?
12    A.    Yes.
13    Q.    And you don't belong to any professional
14     organizations?
15    A.    No.
16    Q.    And you're not certified by any
17     professional organizations?
18    A.    No.
19    Q.    And you never testified in court or
20     qualified in court as an expert on photography,
21     correct?
22    A.    No.
23    Q.    Is that correct?
24    A.    Yes.
25    Q.    And these photographic processing
26     equipment that you repair, that's like commercial
27     photos, like one-hour photo kind of places?
28    A.    That's correct, yes.
 1    Q.    You said that you first gained
 2     experience -- your first job of photography was this
 3     optical house in New York?
 4    A.    Yes.
 5    Q.    That was exclusively with motion
 6     pictures?
 7    A.    The first job, yes.
 8    Q.    Yes.
 9  There's no optical effects with motion
10     pictures involved in the analysis of the Bruno Magli
11     picture, is there?
12    A.    Only -- only -- the only way it would be
13     connected is the techniques, some of the techniques
14     might be the same.
15    Q.    We're not talking about a motion picture
16     film here, are we?
17    A.    No.
18    Q.    You did no work with still photography at
19     that first job?
20    A.    No, that's not correct.  I did some work
21     with still photography there, too.
22    Q.    Remember having your deposition taken in
23     this case?
24    A.    Yes.
25    Q.    And we're getting a -- do you remember
26     giving a different answer at that time?
27    MR. LEONARD:  Page and line, please.
28    MR. GELBLUM:  Page 21, line 10 through 22.
 1    Q.    (BY MR. GELBLUM)  (Reading:)
 2 That's --
 3    Q.    (BY MR. GELBLUM)  "That," meaning the
 4     optical effects of the first job.
 5  (Reading:)
 6 Q.    That's done with motion
 7  picture film?
 8 A.     Yes.
 9 Q.     Exclusively with motion
10  picture film?
11 A.     Yes.
12 Q.     Not done with videotape?
13 A.     No.
14 Q.     Or still photography film?
15 A.     You might have a still --
16  specific still photograph, maybe you
17  might want to animate on but you're not.
18    A.    That's correct.
19    MR. LEONARD:  I move to strike there's no
20     inconsistency.
21    MR. GELBLUM:  You plan to testify about the
22     film?
23    THE COURT:  Overruled.
24    A.    I answered now just exactly as I did
25     then.  There were still items involved.
26    Q.    (BY MR. GELBLUM)  But there's nothing
27     involved in creating a fake still photograph?
28    A.    I don't believe that's what you asked me.
 1    Q.    That's what I'm asking you now, sir?
 2    A.    I did not create still images except
 3     possibly mattes for separation or split screens.
 4    Q.    And you said that you worked with still
 5     photography optical effects with 2 by 2 Slides; is
 6     that right?
 7    A.    That's correct.
 8    Q.    That's over 20 years ago?
 9    A.    Yes.
10    Q.    Okay.
11  And in fact, do you recall testifying
12     about 2 by 2 Slides at your deposition?
13    A.    Yes.
14    Q.    And page 18, line 24, to page 19, line
15     18 -- you didn't mention at your deposition anything
16     about doing optical effects on still photography at
17     that job, did you?
18    MR. LEONARD:  If he could show him the actual
19     questions and answers.
20    MR. GELBLUM:  I'll be happy to -- I'll read it
21     to him.
22    Q.    (BY MR. GELBLUM)  Do you recall
23     testifying at your deposition saying anything about
24     working with 2 by 2 Slides, optical effects and still
25     photography?
26    A.    I don't recall that there was a specific
27     question asked in that area.  There may have been.
28    Q.    Let's read it.
 1  Starts with your explaining what you did.
 2  (Reading:)
 3 When I left that field of work,
 4  meaning the first job, optical effects
 5  with motion pictures, I went into slide
 6  duplication, which I worked for the -- a
 7  company called 2 by 2 Slides and I
 8  worked there for a couple of years.
 9 What training did you get there?
10 Well, they already know that
11  basically --
12 I'm asking about training?
13 Oh, well, the boss there had been
14  working in that field for years and he
15  taught me some of his techniques.
16 For duplicating slides?
17 No, duplicating slides,
18  enlarging, things of that nature.
19 Well, what else besides
20  duplicating slides and enlarging?
21 At that job?
22 Yes.
23 That was pretty much it, that's
24  what we did.
25  Do you recall giving that testimony?
26    A.    Sounds familiar.
27    Q.    Nothing about optical effects and still
28     photography, right?
 1    A.    Well, the technical term optical effects
 2     would not apply there.
 3    Q.    I asked you what you did and you gave
 4     those answers?
 5    A.    Yes, making slide duplicates does involve
 6     doing composites in many cases.
 7    Q.    The House Select Committee, that's the
 8     next thing Mr. Leonard asked you about, that was about
 9     18 years ago?
10    A.    Approximately.
11    Q.    And you were not on the expert panel,
12     correct?
13    A.    I was not on the photographic panel.
14    Q.    It was a panel of photographic experts
15     that you were not on?
16    A.    That's correct.
17    Q.    You were "a" consultant, not "the"
18     consultant?
19    A.    That's correct.
20    Q.    You testified for a few days -- I mean --
21     I'm sorry.
22  You worked for a few days here and there
23     over a couple years, right?
24    A.    Well, more than just a couple of days.  I
25     mean it was over a period of three years, yes.
26    Q.    And the testimony you talked about was
27     not about altered photographs, was it, you gave on the
28     first day of the hearings?
 1    A.    I don't recall.  It went on for many
 2     hours.  They may have asked about specific -- they
 3     asked questions relating to matters of photo work that
 4     needed to be done.  This was at the outset of the
 5     hearing.  And I was not allowed to volunteer specific
 6     information; I merely answered their questions.
 7    Q.    But you were not -- you did not give any
 8     testimony about altered photographs at that testimony,
 9     did you?
10    A.    I don't recall.
11    Q.    Okay.
12  Now, the Oswald backyard photograph, you
13     say you were the one who discovered it was fake; is
14     that what you're saying?
15    A.    No.
16    Q.    A bunch of people looked at it and all
17     agreed it was fake?
18    A.    Yes.
19    Q.    And that's a black-and-white photograph?
20    A.    That's correct.
21    Q.    And the picture here that we're talking
22     about today is color?
23    A.    That's correct.
24    Q.    And some of the opinions you intend to
25     give have to do with color, right?
26    A.    That is correct.
27    Q.    Okay.
28  And the Zapruder film, that's also
 1     black-and-white?
 2    A.    No.
 3    Q.    It's color?
 4    A.    Yes.
 5    Q.    Now, you said you also worked on the
 6     Kennedy -- on various photos relating to the
 7     assassination for the last 30 years?
 8    A.    I'm sorry?
 9    Q.    You've worked on various photos relating
10     to the assassination over the last 30 years?
11    A.    That's correct.
12    Q.    Other than the House Committee, that's
13     all been on your own time and for your own purposes,
14     correct?
15    A.    Not all of it.  I did some -- some work
16     for submission to the Rockefeller Commission and the
17     Senate Select Committee on -- on Government.  It was a
18     Church Committee, actually.
19    Q.    And when was that?
20    A.    In the 1970's.
21    Q.    And this "National Enquirer" photo you
22     looked at about 14 years ago --
23    A.    That's correct.
24    Q.    -- did you mention that?
25  And what you said is, you looked at -- as
26     soon as you looked at it, you immediately recognized
27     that it was just a fake -- no, it wasn't a fake, it
28     was a technical problem with the photograph?
 1    A.    I can't say immediately.  Upon studying
 2     it for a short period of time, I realized it.
 3    Q.    You didn't have to do any complicated
 4     analysis to determine whether it had been altered,
 5     correct?
 6    A.    No.
 7    Q.    You just saw it and what -- it was what
 8     you said?
 9    A.    Yes.
10    Q.    Previously, it was immediately apparent?
11    A.    It was apparent, yes.
12    MR. GELBLUM:  I have nothing further on voir
13     dire.
14    MR. LEONARD:  Your Honor, just a couple.
17     BY MR. LEONARD:
18    Q.    The analysis of -- of photographic images
19     to determine whether or not they're altered, tell us
20     what that boils down to, in the most basic terms?
21    A.    The most basic -- most basic and simplest
22     way to start dealing with it is observation, what
23     you're capable of seeing and detecting with your eye,
24     comparing it to experience.
25  Beyond that, you can use techniques of
26     photograph photogrammetry for measurement to -- well,
27     you would check to find out if there are -- are
28     obvious cut lines or paste lines, or for
 1     digitalization, you'd worry about whether you could
 2     find pixels or things of that nature.
 3  There's an endless variety, I would say.
 4  But on this most basic level, it's a
 5     matter of observation.  Sometimes it happens right
 6     away; sometimes it takes time.  You just simply need
 7     to know in that data base, or whatever, if anything
 8     strikes you as being odd or not visually correct.
 9    Q.    And again, throughout your career you
10     have examined thousands of photographs for purposes of
11     determining whether they're authentic, correct?
12    A.    Yes.
13    Q.    And again, you were employed for some
14     number of years actually creating duplicate and
15     altered negatives, correct?
16    A.    That is correct.
17    Q.    You were asked about the panel of
18     photographic experts.
19  Was there a proficiency test that was
20     done of the -- of the panel of photographic experts
21     that you participated in?
22    A.    Not to my knowledge.
23    Q.    Was there a -- was there an occasion when
24     the panel of photographic experts was given some
25     photographs, some of which were altered, some of which
26     weren't, to determine whether or not they could figure
27     out which ones were altered and which ones weren't?
28    A.    Yes.
 1    Q.    Okay.
 2  Did you participate in that exercise?
 3    A.    Yes, I did.
 4    Q.    And were the results graded by other
 5     photographic experts?
 6    A.    Yes.
 7    Q.    Okay.
 8  How did you fare in that test, sir?
 9    A.    I got 100 percent.
10    Q.    Did anyone else on that photographic
11     panel get 100 percent?
12    A.    No.
13    MR. LEONARD:  I don't have anything else.
14    THE COURT:  At this point, Mr. Leonard, I was
15     hopeful that the proceedings will assist the Court and
16     in enlighten the Court about what this witness's
17     expertise has to do with the --
18    MR. LEONARD:  Oh, okay.
19    THE COURT:  -- examination that you wish to
20     proffer him for, and thus far, I am at a loss to see
21     what expertise you have reference to with regards to a
22     particular examination.
23    MR. LEONARD:  What I can do is have him go
24     through in summary fashion what I expect to elicit
25     from him substantively, if that will be helpful.  You
26     can compare his experience with the --
27    THE COURT:  I'd like -- it would be helpful to
28     have an examination of this witness as to his
 1     experience or knowledge in that particular area that
 2     you are going to be inquiring about in this case.
 3    MR. LEONARD:  Okay.
 4    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  You have undertaken an
 5     analysis of the -- the particular photographic image
 6     of Mr. Simpson with the Bruno Magli shoes?
 7    A.    That is correct.
 8    Q.    And explain --
 9    MR. LEONARD:  And, Your Honor, we make this
10     Exhibit 1 for purposes of the hearing.
11    THE COURT:  It's already an exhibit, isn't it?
12    MR. P. BAKER:  It's 1930.
14 (The instrument herein referred to
15 as photograph of Mr. Simpson
16 walking was marked for
17 identification as Plaintiffs'
18 Exhibit No. 1930.)
21(Exhibit 1930 displayed.)
23    MR. LEONARD:  Can you pull that back a little
24     bit (indicating to Elmo).
25    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Can you -- that's the
26     image in question, correct?
27    A.    Yes.
28    Q.    Can you explain for the Court in summary
 1     fashion, what you did to examine the photograph and
 2     the surrounding photographs on the contact sheet and
 3     negative strip for purposes of determining whether or
 4     not you could discern whether this photograph was
 5     altered?
 6    A.    I examined the photograph itself.  I
 7     examined the original that -- purports to be an
 8     original negative.  I examined the surrounding frames,
 9     two contact sheets specifically, the one that this
10     photograph is contained in and another one.  I
11     examined irregularities within the surrounding area on
12     the negative itself, surrounding this particular
13     frame, and made determinations dependent upon my
14     observations of those items.
15    Q.    Now, let's just --
16    MR. LEONARD:  Would you like to see some of the
17     specific exhibits we prepared, Your Honor, for
18     purposes of illustrating this?
19    THE COURT:  Well, I'm trying to understand what
20     his expertise -- what the expertise is with regards to
21     this exhibit.
22    MR. LEONARD:  Well, his expertise, Your Honor,
23     he's done this for years, he's examined photographs,
24     he's created duplicate altered photographs for
25     purposes of -- professionally, and he's familiar with
26     the methods that are used to do that.
27  And we can -- I can illustrate that.  If
28     you want me to go through his testimony, I will, so
 1     that he can demonstrate exactly what he's doing.
 2  And that might make it easier for the
 3     Court to determine whether or not -- the question with
 4     regard to his expertise.
 5  I don't know how else to do it, Your
 6     Honor.
 7  This individual has --
 8    THE COURT:  I presume you know what he's going
 9     to testify to?
10    MR. LEONARD:  I do.
11    THE COURT:  Then you ought to know what the
12     basis of his expertise is on that portion of that
13     testimony.
14    MR. LEONARD:  His expertise is that he was in
15     the business of creating altered images.  The
16     technology is -- is basically the same.  There's some
17     very simple techniques that are used.  There are also
18     some very complicated techniques.
19    THE COURT:  Where -- it might be helpful to
20     examine him as to what the techniques are and what his
21     experience is with regard to his knowledge of it.
22    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Can you describe for
23     the court the general -- in general terms the
24     techniques that are used to create altered
25     photographic images?
26  First of all, let me ask you about motion
27     picture film --
28    THE COURT:  I'm not interested in motion
 1     picture film.  I'm interested in --
 2    MR. LEONARD:  I'm laying this foundation
 3     because motion picture film --
 4    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Describe, just in
 5     general terms what a motion picture film is?
 6    A.    Motion picture film is -- most basic
 7     level, is a string or repetitive series of still
 8     photographs.
 9    Q.    Okay.
10  And there are techniques used to create
11     optical effects that involve creating altered images
12     in some of the individual frames -- still frames; is
13     that correct?
14    A.    That is correct.
15    Q.    Okay.
16  And those techniques -- you utilized
17     those techniques when you worked in optical effects;
18     is that correct?
19    A.    That is correct, yes.
20    Q.    Okay.
21  Are those techniques, at their base,
22     different from the techniques that are used to dup --
23     to create altered still photographs?
24    A.    In many cases the techniques are
25     identical.
26    Q.    In some cases they're not?
27    A.    That is correct.
28    Q.    But when it comes to creating a duplicate
 1     altered image on a piece of film, okay, the techniques
 2     are basically the same as they would be for a still
 3     photographic alteration; is that correct?
 4    A.    That is correct.
 5    Q.    All right.
 6  And you worked in that field, sir?
 7    A.    Yes.
 8    Q.    Okay.
 9  Now, describe for us in general terms the
10     techniques that are used to create altered still
11     photographic images?
12    A.    There are several.
13  I would say the most common would be, as
14     I mentioned before, manual matte insertion, where you
15     create a matte and insert an image photographically.
16  Another technique would be cut and paste,
17     whereby you would physically cut out an item --
18     photographic image and place it on top of another one
19     and rephotograph it.
20  Or you could use an air brush technique,
21     which is very similar to cut and paste, but varies in
22     the fact that you're not just placing one on another
23     but you're retouching it, spraying an additional image
24     to help disguise the cut mark or a difference in grain
25     pattern, things of that nature.
26  Lastly, and relatively new, is
27     digitization, where it's done within the -- an
28     electronic domain as opposed to a photographic or
 1     mechanical domain.  The other techniques that I
 2     described are physically altering something that is a
 3     photographic image either onto film or on -- on
 4     photographic paper.  The digitalization of an image is
 5     done within a computer, and that varies from the
 6     others more than any of the others do against
 7     themselves because you're altering the physical image
 8     electronically and you can regenerate them into a
 9     photographic image after the fact.
10    Q.    Okay.
11  Now, throughout the course of your career
12     as a photographer, during the time that you were with
13     the -- working with the Senate House Select Committee
14     and also during the time you were working in optical
15     effects or duplicating negatives, and up to the
16     present time, including your research and analysis and
17     examination of thousands of photographs relating to
18     the Kennedy assassination, have you become familiar
19     with all of these techniques, sir?
20    A.    Yes.
21    Q.    Okay.
22  Do you -- are you -- do you know and can
23     you testify to the jury with regard to the indicia or
24     the indications of these techniques in a still
25     photograph?
26    A.    Yes.
27    Q.    Okay.
28  Have you undertaken a thorough review of
 1     the photographic image in this case and the
 2     surrounding images to determine whether or not there
 3     are indicia that the photograph has been altered?
 4    A.    Yes.
 5    Q.    Okay.
 6  Now, one of the most basic elements to
 7     altering a photograph is the creation of a duplicate
 8     negative; isn't that correct?
 9  Let's put it this way --
10    A.    If I can --
11    Q.    Okay.
12    A.    I'm sorry.
13  I was going to say a duplicate might be
14     determined as being an exact copy of the original.
15  What you would do is do a copy negative
16     or an altered negative that would -- could conceivably
17     be referred to as a duplicate.  It would not be an
18     original, but it would be -- it would be an altered
19     duplicate.
20    Q.    Let me put it to you this way:  If you
21     were going to alter a photograph such as this one, and
22     you didn't want anybody to find out, what would you --
23     what's the basic -- one of the first things you'd have
24     to do, sir, if you thought they were going to go back
25     and investigate and look at the original source, that
26     is what purports to be the original negative?
27    A.    You would have to create a forgery, you'd
28     have to create something that would purport to be an
 1     original negative.
 2    Q.    But it would actually be a duplicate or
 3     altered negative?
 4    A.    That's correct.
 5    Q.    Are there some very basic indicia that
 6     show you that a photograph -- that a negative is
 7     actually a duplicate negative and not an original
 8     negative?
 9    A.    There are several, yes.
10    Q.    Okay.
11  And can you describe some of those to the
12     Court that you are familiar with by virtue of your
13     experience in duplicating negatives, creating altered
14     negatives, and by virtue of all your experience in
15     analyzing photographs.  Just give some of them to the
16     Court.
17    A.    Color balance, sharpness, grain
18     structure, registration --
19    Q.    Let me stop you there.
20  What do you mean by registration, sir?
21    A.    If you were going to try to insert a
22     photograph into another position, you'd need to
23     position -- you'd need to know where it goes, you need
24     to register it, something could fall out of register,
25     something could create a false line.  It's difficult
26     to do it perfectly.  There are usually some
27     indications of -- of fakery that can be observed.
28    Q.    Now, these indications of fakery, sir,
 1     those are factors or phenomenon that you can -- that
 2     you can often readily identify and that are universal
 3     in photography?  In other words, they're -- when you
 4     talk about out of register, you're talking about, for
 5     instance, a -- a frame in a line of film that's
 6     slightly out of kilter; is that correct?
 7    A.    That is correct.
 8    Q.    Okay.
 9  And that's a simple concept, right?
10    A.    Extremely.
11    Q.    You're also talking about, for instance,
12     when you talk about register, with regard to color,
13     you're talking about if it's -- if there is an item
14     that's a certain color, that you don't see echoes of
15     the color where it shouldn't be on the photograph,
16     correct?
17    A.    That is correct.
18    Q.    Okay.
19  And these are all things that you're
20     familiar with by virtue of your 30 years experience as
21     a photographer, as an analyst, as a researcher, as
22     someone that was involved in optical effects and as
23     one that was involved in the duplication of negatives,
24     isn't that correct, sir?
25    A.    That is correct.
26    Q.    Is there any doubt in your mind, sir -- I
27     know you're not a professional witness.
28  Is there any doubt in your mind that you
 1     can sit in that stand and you're qualified to tell the
 2     jury the things you're going to tell them; is there
 3     any doubt?
 4    A.    Not the slightest doubt in my mind.
 5    MR. LEONARD:  I don't have any more questions.
 9     BY MR. GELBLUM:
10    Q.    Mr. Groden, the only time in your entire
11     51 years anybody has ever paid you a penny to
12     determine the authenticity of a photograph is 14 years
13     ago with the "National Enquirer" with this phony image
14     of the voodoo ritual?
15    A.    No.
16    Q.    Isn't that what you said in your
17     deposition, sir?
18    A.    No.
19    Q.    Okay.
20  What else have you been paid to do?
21    A.    I was asked to pay for -- not asked to
22     pay.
23  I was asked to determine other work --
24     tell you what, before I answer that, will you repeat
25     the question, make sure I'm understanding it the way
26     you're asking.
27    Q.    Other than this "National Enquirer" 14
28     years ago, when you looked at it, you immediately saw
 1     a problem, have you ever been paid by anybody to
 2     determine the authenticity of a photograph?
 3    A.    Yes.
 4    Q.    When?
 5    A.    About four or five years ago.
 6    Q.    What was that?
 7    A.    Someone came to me relating to a -- as I
 8     recall, a Korean political party.  Photographs were
 9     taken, and the claim was being made by this -- this
10     party that spirits were being conjured up for some
11     kind of support.  And the photographs were being
12     published or were -- it was part of some kind of a
13     legal situation in Korea, as I understand it, and they
14     wanted me to determine whether or not the photographs
15     had been physically altered in any way.
16    Q.    And you looked at that and you saw
17     nothing on the print?
18    A.    That's correct.
19    Q.    And that's all you did?
20    A.    That's all.
21    Q.    You never came to court and never gave
22     testimony as an expert?
23    A.    That is correct.
24    Q.    And that's it, that's the only time
25     you've ever been asked by anybody, for money, to
26     determine the authenticity of the photograph?
27    A.    To the best of my knowledge.
28    Q.    Do you remember any others?
 1    A.    No.
 2    Q.    And what you do for a living, sir, is not
 3     determine the authenticity of photographs; you write
 4     books and produce videos about the Kennedy
 5     assassination, right?
 6    A.    I do that, yes.
 7    Q.    That's all you do to make a living -- you
 8     also repair photo machines?
 9    A.    Yeah, that's correct.
10    Q.    And that's it, right?
11    A.    No, I do other things as well.
12    Q.    Do you remember being asked at your
13     deposition what you do?
14    A.    I'm sorry?
15    Q.    Do you remember being asked at your
16     deposition what you do for a living?
17    A.    Yes.
18    Q.    Remember what you said?
19    A.    Yes.
20    MR. LEONARD:  Page and line?
21    MR. GELBLUM:  Page 14, lines 5 to 12.
22    Q.    (BY MR. GELBLUM)  Did you say this:
23  (Reading:)
24 Any other work that you do
25  besides writing books about the Kennedy
26  assassination, producing videos about
27  the Kennedy assassination and consulting
28  on films that have footage of the
 1  Kennedy assassination?
 2 A.     I do repair work on photo
 3  processing machines, I do photo
 4  enlarging work, black-and white-photo
 5  laboratory work.  That's about it.
 6  Is that true?
 7    A.    That's what I said, yes.
 8    Q.    Okay.
 9  And you're not opining -- you talked
10     about digitization for a while with Mr. Leonard.
11  You're are not opining there's any
12     digitization involved here, are you?
13    A.    I can't say that.
14    Q.    You don't know?
15    A.    I can't say that it wasn't done.
16    Q.    You don't know what technique was used
17     here, right?
18    A.    There's some indications of some
19     techniques being used.
20    Q.    You don't know anything about
21     digitization being used?
22    A.    No.
23    Q.    All right.
24  And Mr. Leonard keeps saying that you
25     worked in the field of creating altered photographic
26     images.
27  When did you do that?
28  You didn't tell me about that at your
 1     deposition.
 2  When did you do that?
 3    A.    I don't know that you specifically asked.
 4    Q.    I asked you everything that you did.
 5  When did you do that?
 6    A.    I did that for all the years that I was
 7     involved in motion picture optical affects and -- and
 8     slide work.
 9    Q.    Not color stills, right?
10    A.    How do you mean -- I'm sorry?
11    Q.    You say you did at 2 by 2 Slides?
12    A.    Yes.
13    Q.    That was about 20 years ago?
14    A.    Yes.
15    Q.    At your deposition you didn't mention
16     that; you said all you do is duplicate and enlarge,
17     right?
18    A.    We duplicate slides, but part of the
19     duplication process requires alteration sometimes.
20    Q.    But you didn't mention that at your
21     deposition, did you?
22    A.    I don't believe you specifically asked me
23     that.
24    Q.    I asked you what you do and you said
25     duplicate, right?
26    A.    Yes.
27    Q.    Okay.
28    MR. GELBLUM:  Your Honor, I don't have anything
 1     further.
 2    THE COURT:  Okay.
 3  You may argue.
 4    MR. LEONARD:  Your Honor, I think that the
 5     witness has demonstrated -- look, he's not an
 6     academic, not a professional witness, but I believe
 7     the witness has demonstrated that he has sufficient
 8     knowledge and experience in this field, particularly
 9     in recognizing a duplicate altered photographic image,
10     which is what he's doing here, to be able to testify
11     to this jury.
12  Mr. Gelblum obviously has the right to
13     cross-examine him on his -- on the extent of his
14     qualifications, but I would suggest that that goes to
15     the weight of his testimony as opposed to whether or
16     not he's actually qualified.
17  And I think that, again, we have
18     demonstrated by virtue of his practical experience, by
19     virtue of the experience he's had with the committee,
20     also on his own -- I mean when I -- I guess what I
21     find a little disturbing is that this gentleman is --
22     does -- well, I'm not trying to predict Your Honor's
23     problem or any kind of a ruling but --
24    THE COURT:  I don't have a problem.
25    MR. LEONARD:  To the extent Your Honor might
26     have a concern that part of the experience that he has
27     is when he was doing his own research, I don't know
28     why that shouldn't be taken into account, and so I
 1     would suggest that he has absolute sufficient
 2     experience and knowledge in this field to be able to
 3     testify to this jury.
 4  Again, if Mr. Gelblum chooses to
 5     cross-examine him on his qualifications, that would be
 6     to the weight.
 7  That's all going to be laid out for the
 8     jury.
 9    MR. GELBLUM:  Your Honor, the man clearly isn't
10     qualified to do this -- to testify on this score.
11  Under Evidence Code Section 720(a), he
12     has to show if they were knowledge, skill, training,
13     education or training to qualify him as an expert.
14  He admitted he has no education and no
15     training whatsoever in this field; none.
16  All he's done 20 years ago -- if you
17     look -- he worked 14 years ago, worked for the
18     "National Enquirer," saw some haze five years ago,
19     looked at something for somebody in Korea, saw fog on
20     the picture.  He's never been paid other than those
21     two times to determine authenticity.
22  He's never qualified as an expert because
23     he's not an expert.
24  His work is in the area of the Kennedy
25     assassination.  He knows a lot about the film footage
26     and the photography, the still photos.  That
27     doesn't -- with regard to -- with respect to the
28     Kennedy assassination, simply that he sits around his
 1     house, looks at photos and determines whether they're
 2     fake, and publishes books saying he thinks they're
 3     fake.
 4  That doesn't qualify him as an expert.
 5  What qualifies him is training,
 6     education, experience.
 7  And I submit to you that the indicia of
 8     experience that's relevant is somebody else
 9     recognizing he's an expert and using him for that.
10  He just sits around, literally, and
11     decides whether he thinks a picture is a fake or not,
12     discusses it with other people in the assassination
13     research community and they have their quarrels, and
14     publishes whatever he wants to publish.  Doesn't make
15     an expert.
16  It would be misleading to the jury to
17     allow this man with his feeble qualifications to get
18     up and talk about this picture being a fake.
19    THE COURT:  I see Mr. Petrocelli coiled at your
20     elbow.
21    MR. GELBLUM:  May I have a moment, Your Honor.
22    THE COURT:  Yes.
24(Pause for counsel to converse
25sotto voce.)
27    MR. PETROCELLI:  Submit, Your Honor.
28    MR. GELBLUM:  Submit.
 1    THE COURT:  It would appear to me that this
 2     witness has done a little bit more than what you
 3     describe.
 4  He's indicated that he's done work in a
 5     field that would involve alterations or work with
 6     photographs, negatives.  He states he's age 51, he
 7     states he commenced working in the field of
 8     photography in 1969.
 9  Whether his experience is such, and his
10     testimony is such that his testimony will be credible
11     or not will certainly be subjected to your vigorous
12     cross-examination.
13  But for the purposes of establishing a
14     basis on which to allow a witness to testify as an
15     expert does not require formal training, does not
16     require a degree and does not require prior experience
17     as an expert witness.  It simply requires some degree
18     of knowledge or some degree of training, formal or
19     otherwise, that would enable him to testify beyond
20     that which would be allowed as a lay witness.
21  I think it would be fair to characterize
22     this witness as something more than a lay witness.
23  So the Court will allow him to offer that
24     evidence.
25    MR. LEONARD:  Thank you.
26  Can we start up at 1:30, Your Honor?
27    THE COURT:  All right.
28    MR. GELBLUM:  Before we leave --
 1    THE COURT:  Yes.
 2    MR. GELBLUM:  The witness apparently has
 3     created some additional material since his deposition
 4     that they intend to use.  And I don't think that's
 5     appropriate.
 6    MR. LEONARD:  It's diagrams.
 7    MR. GELBLUM:  It's slides.
 8    MR. LEONARD:  Charts.
 9    MR. GELBLUM:  They're not charts.
10    MR. LEONARD:  They're diagrams that we were all
11     working with for purposes of illustration.
12    MR. GELBLUM:  As the man says, he knows how to
13     fake slides.
14    THE COURT:  Excuse me.  That's not appropriate.
15    MR. GELBLUM:  Well, Your Honor --.
16    MR. LEONARD:  He's seen it.  I've shown it --
17    MR. GELBLUM:  I can't tell from looking at
18     them.
19    MR. PETROCELLI:  I want to remind the Court,
20     they took this position rigorously with regard to our
21     experts, anything they did after their deposition, and
22     the Court would not let us use it or rely on it.
23    MR. LEONARD:  These are audio visual aids.
24     There's nothing new substantively.  It's the same
25     photographs.
26    THE COURT:  Are we going to have another 402
27     motion?
28    MR. GELBLUM:  Can I find out how these slides
 1     were created?
 2    THE COURT:  Why don't you ask Mr. Leonard
 3     whether he can -- he can inquire of that.
 4    MR. LEONARD:  Sure.
 5    MR. GELBLUM:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 6    THE COURT:  You want to do it now?
 7    MR. GELBLUM:  Thought you were about to leave.
 8    MR. LEONARD:  Why doesn't he talk to him at
 9     lunch time?
10    THE COURT:  All right, talk to him with
11     Mr. Leonard.
12    MR. LEONARD:  I don't even have to be here.
14(At 12 P.M. a recess was taken
15until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
 2   1:45 P.M.
 7 (The jurors resumed their
 8 respective seats.)
10    THE COURT:  You may proceed.
11    MR. LEONARD:  Thank you, Your Honor.
13 (The following proceedings were
14 held in open court, in the
15 presence of the jury.)
18     the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon
19     recess, having been previously duly sworn, was
20     examined and testified further as follows:
23     BY MR. LEONARD:
24    Q.    Good afternoon, Mr. Groden.
25    A.    Good afternoon.
26    Q.    We left off, we had just very briefly
27     touched upon your experience with photography and
28     particularly, creation of altered photographic images.
 1  But before we get into a little more
 2     detail about your background, I'd like to show you a
 3     photograph and ask you if that's the photograph that
 4     you focused your analysis on.
 5    MR. P. BAKER:  Exhibit 1930.
 7 (Exhibit No. 1930 displayed on the
 8 Elmo screen.)
10    A.    Yes, it is.
11    MR. LEONARD:  You can take that off.
12(Indicating to Elmo screen.)
13    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  When did you first
14     become involved in any way in photography, sir?
15    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Vague.
16    THE COURT:  Overruled.
17    A.    Around the age of 10 or 12.
18    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  And describe that for
19     us, how did you become involved in photography?
20    A.    I found the process and the concept of
21     photography, the creativity of it, extremely
22     interesting, the mechanics.  I pursued it initially as
23     a hobby.
24    Q.    Did you, throughout your childhood and
25     teen years and into your early adulthood, continue to
26     be involved in photography?
27    A.    Yes.
28    Q.    Can you describe your involvement, at
 1     least in general terms, for us?
 2    A.    Taking photographs, black-and-white
 3     processing, and printing, things of that nature.
 4    Q.    Now, at some point did you become
 5     employed in the photographic industry?
 6    A.    Yes.
 7    Q.    And when was that?
 8    A.    Around 1969.
 9    Q.    And what did you do at -- what was your
10     employment at that time?
11    A.    I was hired and went to work in a photo
12     optics house in New York as a photo optical
13     technician.
14  I created film elements through the use
15     of an Oxberry optical printer, created special
16     effects, inserts, things of that nature.
17    Q.    Okay.  Let me stop you right there.
18  First of all -- by the way, do you have a
19     college degree?
20    A.    No.
21    Q.    Are you a professional witness?
22    A.    No.
23    Q.    Let me stop you right there.
24  You've used some terminology that I'd
25     like you to explain.  You talked about optical effects
26     and so forth.
27  Would you, first of all, just explain to
28     us what optical effects are.
 1    A.    Optical effects are any one or variety of
 2     a number of processes, whereby one would take an
 3     original film and element, and convert it to another,
 4     either positive to negative or negative to positive,
 5     doing dissolves, fades, zooms, inserts of one element
 6     into another, adding titling, things of that nature.
 7    Q.    Now, you were involved in that type of
 8     work beginning in 1969 in the motion-picture field; is
 9     that right?
10    A.    That's correct.
11    Q.    After that, did you continue to work to
12     some extent with optical effects in other areas of
13     photography?
14    A.    Yes.  I -- I worked for a slide
15     duplication house, doing special effects, adding
16     titling, product inserts, things of that nature, in
17     slide form, which is still form.
18    Q.    Now, the type of special effects that
19     we've been talking about, or optical effects with
20     regard to both motion-picture film and still
21     photography.
22  In their basic elements, they are pretty
23     much the same?
24  In other words, the mechanisms that are
25     used with regard to the motion -- motion-picture film
26     and still photography, are they the same in their
27     basic elements?
28    A.    In most cases, yes.
 1  In the instance where you would be
 2     superimposing one image inside the other, you would
 3     use the same technique; except in motion pictures,
 4     you're doing frame after frame, after frame, as
 5     opposed to just a single type.
 6    Q.    Why don't, just so it's a little bit
 7     clear of the type of thing you're talking about, why
 8     don't you give us an illustration, first of all, with
 9     motion-picture film.
10  Can you given us an illustration of what
11     you're talking about, the type of effect?
12    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Relevance, Your
13     Honor.
14    THE COURT:  Overruled.
15    A.    There is a vast variety, but as a
16     for-instance, I would say if you had a TV commercial
17     and you have a background, say a sunset or a -- a
18     desert or a swimming pool or something of that nature,
19     and you wanted to insert a product shot, on
20     motion-picture film, you could have it come in from
21     one side or -- or start very small and get larger.  We
22     see it on TV every day.
23  It's an involved process.  But the main
24     difference between doing it on film for motion
25     pictures and doing it as a still, is the motion
26     itself, the movement.
27  The technique of doing it for a still
28     photograph is basically the same, but there's no
 1     motion involved.
 2    Q.    Okay.  We're going to -- we're going to
 3     get back to some of the details of these methods that
 4     you're talking about.  But I want to continue on a
 5     little bit with your background.
 6  Did you continue after your employment in
 7     still -- doing duplication and still photography --
 8     did you continue on doing that type of work on your
 9     own, working for yourself?
10    A.    Yes.
11    Q.    Okay.
12  Can you describe that, the type of work
13     you did, under what circumstances, and provide us with
14     some illustration and some of the clients that you
15     work for?
16    A.    Well, to give an idea, I work -- one of
17     my clients was Glamour Magazine in New York.  If they
18     had four or five individual photographs of different
19     models wearing a different dress, or something of that
20     nature, and they wanted to combine them all on a
21     single slide, they'd send it to me, and I would do an
22     insert effect, whereby I'd photograph each of the
23     elements separately onto a single piece of film, going
24     back, repositioning, registering, things of that
25     nature, and creating a composite, in effect.
26    Q.    So?
27    A.    Another -- another possible thing that
28     we -- say, for a client like the Quilty Group --
 1    THE COURT REPORTER:  Excuse me, can you spell
 2     Quilty?
 3    A.    Q-u-i-l-t-y.
 4  If they had a client who had a product
 5     and they wanted to show the product against a
 6     particular background for a particular mood, a forest,
 7     or a lake, or something of that nature, what we would
 8     do is, we would create a series of mattes.
 9  Well, let me try to explain that.
10  The final position of where you want your
11     product to be, whether it's straight up and down or at
12     an angle, probably on one side of the screen with
13     maybe some text on the other side, but with a specific
14     background.
15  In the background, each of these things
16     is called an element.  And each of these elements has
17     to be positioned and dealt with in its own way.
18    Q.    Now, let me stop you right there.  I
19     don't want you to get into a detailed explanation at
20     this point.
21  But is what you're saying, that you, when
22     you were working in the motion-picture field, in the
23     still photography field, creating these, as you say,
24     composite photographs of --
25  Basically, what you're saying is, you
26     were creating fake photographs, correct?
27  In other words, photographs that were --
28     would appear to be portraying something, but actually
 1     it was not genuine; is that fair to say?
 2    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Leading.
 3    THE COURT:  Overruled.
 4    A.    That is correct.
 5    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Of course, these were
 6     legitimate fakes, right?  These were for purposes of
 7     advertising in the --
 8    A.    That's correct.  No one would look at a
 9     final picture like that and assume there was a can of
10     hair spray lying in the middle of the air.  It's
11     obvious what it is.  It's not meant to deceive
12     anybody.
13    Q.    Okay.
14  Now, during the time that you were doing
15     this type of work, did you become familiar with the
16     various methods to accomplish these composite
17     photographs?
18    A.    Yes.
19    Q.    Okay.
20  And again, we're going to get back into
21     that in some detail today as we move on.
22  At some point, did you become involved as
23     a consultant or analyst for a governmental committee?
24    A.    Yes.
25    Q.    Okay.  And when was that, sir?
26    A.    That began in 1976.
27    Q.    And what was the committee and what was
28     its function?
 1    A.    It was the House Committee on
 2     Assassinations and U.S. House of Representatives.
 3    Q.    And what was your --
 4  First of all, what was the committee
 5     investigating?
 6    A.    There they were investigating
 7     the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and
 8     Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior.
 9    Q.    Now, this wasn't the original Warren
10     Commission?
11    A.    No, this was an organization that was
12     created to investigate the workings of the Warren
13     Commission and their results.
14    Q.    What role did you have with the
15     committee?
16  What was your function?
17    A.    My title, staff photographic consultant.
18    Q.    And what did you do?
19  What were -- in general terms, what were
20     you doing for the committee as a staff photographic
21     consultant?
22    A.    The duties were several.  One was to
23     analyze photographs; one was to identify issues
24     relating to the photographic images in regard to the
25     assassination of the president; one was as a
26     consultant for the photographic panel; as a consultant
27     for the medical panel; answering questions for the
28     congressmen themselves, if they had specific questions
 1     that related to issues of photography, and as to
 2     whether photographs were genuine or not.
 3  I had input with the actual photo panel,
 4     itself.
 5    Q.    Okay.
 6  How long were you acting as a consultant
 7     for the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
 8    A.    Well, the committee's entire life lasted
 9     two years, from the beginning of 1977, to the end of
10     1978.
11  I had actually started working with them
12     before their actual, formal investigation began, by
13     about six months, and stayed with them for another six
14     months after that.  So I was with them for about three
15     years.
16    Q.    You say "with them."  Was this a
17     full-time job?
18  Were you, for instance, in Washington
19     every day for three years?
20    A.    No.  I was an independent consultant.
21     They called me when they needed me.  I would do things
22     by telephone or in person, depending on what they
23     actually needed.
24    Q.    In the course of your work as a staff
25     photographic consultant to the House Select Committee
26     on Assassinations, did you have occasion to review
27     many photographs and motion pictures?
28    A.    Literally thousands.
 1    Q.    Okay.
 2  And you were reviewing them, in some
 3     cases, to determine what was -- what they depicted,
 4     correct?
 5    A.    That is correct.
 6    Q.    And in other cases, were you reviewing
 7     them to determine their authenticity?
 8    A.    That is correct, as well.
 9    Q.    Now, have you maintained an interest in
10     the -- this issue of the Kennedy assassination?
11    A.    Oh, yes.
12    Q.    Have you published any works on that?
13    A.    Yes.
14    Q.    And in the course -- and you continue to
15     maintain an interest in that until today?
16    A.    That is correct.
17    Q.    Okay.
18  And in the course of your research and
19     your writing on the Kennedy assassination through the
20     years, have you had an opportunity to review and
21     examine hundreds and hundreds and thousands of
22     photographs?
23    A.    I would say thousands, yes.
24    Q.    Again, for what purpose were you
25     reviewing the photographs?
26    A.    In some cases, to determine they're
27     relevance and possible evidentiary value for the
28     investigation itself; in some cases, to determine
 1     whether they're legitimate or forgeries; in other
 2     cases, just simply to determine part of a time line.
 3  There are varied reasons for each
 4     individual photograph.
 5    Q.    Now, as a result of your experience as
 6     you've described it, your actual work experience and
 7     also your work with the committee, and also the
 8     independent work you have done over the years, have
 9     you come to be knowledgeable about the various methods
10     there are to alter photographs?
11    A.    Yes.
12    Q.    Have you come to be knowledgeable about
13     the indications or signs in examining the photograph,
14     as to whether or not it has been altered?
15    A.    Yes.
16    Q.    Do you occasionally consult with entities
17     and individuals with regard to the authenticity of
18     photographs?
19    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Vague,
20     "occasionally."
21    THE COURT:  Overruled.
22    A.    Yes.
23    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Do you -- we had --
24    MR. LEONARD:  Can we put that image back up
25     again, the first photograph.  And this is number 1930.
27 (Exhibit No. 1930 displayed on the
28 Elmo screen.)
 2    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  When did you first see
 3     that photograph?
 4    A.    Standing in line at the checkout counter
 5     of a grocery store, in the National Enquirer.
 6    Q.    Now, have you, in the past, been
 7     consulted by the National Enquirer to authenticate --
 8     attempt to authenticate a photograph?
 9    A.    Yes.
10    Q.    Okay.
11  When was the first time that that
12     happened?
13    A.    First time was approximately 14 years
14     ago.
15    Q.    And just describe in general terms
16     what -- what you did and what you were asked to do.
17    A.    The Enquirer, as they told me, had
18     received a photograph taken by a photographer at what
19     was purported to be some kind of a voodoo ritual.  The
20     photographer was trying to tell them that an image, a
21     light image that appeared on the -- on -- on a
22     photograph was a spirit that had been conjured up.
23     And this was a picture of a -- of some paranormal
24     entity.
25  And the Enquirer contacted me and asked
26     me if I would verify its authenticity.  They sent
27     me -- as I recall, it was a contact sheet of the
28     actual photograph itself and the frame area around it,
 1     showing the sprocket holes on the original film.
 2  I don't know how many frames there were.
 3     I don't remember.  But it clearly showed more than the
 4     actual frame itself.
 5  And I examined it and I noticed that this
 6     entity that they're talking about was not only in the
 7     photographed area, but beyond -- went beyond, into the
 8     photograph area, into the sprocket area, indicating it
 9     was an artifact beyond the photograph image.
10  I gave them a report on that, stating
11     that, in fact, my -- in my opinion, it was simply
12     static electricity that had left a visual imprint on
13     the film.
14    Q.    And did the National Enquirer print that
15     anyway, sir?
16    A.    Yes.  Without my explanation.
17    Q.    You were contacted by lawyers -- the
18     lawyers for Mr. Simpson to examine this photograph,
19     correct?
20    A.    That's correct.
21    Q.    Now, prior to that time, had you been
22     contacted by the National Enquirer to examine this
23     photograph?
24    A.    That's correct.  Yes, we did.
25    Q.    Did you examine it for the National
26     Enquirer?
27    A.    No.
28    Q.    Did they -- did the National Enquirer
 1     contact you again after their first contact, asking if
 2     you would attempt to authenticate the photograph?
 3    A.    Yes.  They called me a second time, and I
 4     agreed.
 5    Q.    Did they call you back after that?
 6    A.    No.
 7    Q.    Now, just in general terms, sir, I would
 8     like you to describe how a photograph is -- can be
 9     altered.
10  I want to start off with -- with the
11     basic processes, when they were begun.  And if you can
12     illustrate using a pad how that's done, I'd appreciate
13     it.
14    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Relevance, unless
15     it's tied to this photograph, Your Honor.
16    MR. LEONARD:  We'll tie it up.
17    THE COURT:  Okay.  Overruled.
18    MR. GELBLUM:  He'd asked him for general.
19    MR. LEONARD:  I'm starting off with the
20     general.
21    THE COURT:  He's entitled to explain to the
22     jury the process by which he does it.
23    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  If you -- if you can
24     step down to the board.  And what I want to direct
25     your attention to first, okay, is -- if you could
26     start off with the basic methods that are used in a
27     particular -- you talked about what a matting method,
28     and you talked about some other methods.
 1  If you could, illustrate how that's done,
 2     with particular emphasis on the reinsertion of the
 3     image onto the original negative.
 4    A.    A matte technique would require,
 5     depending -- again each -- each instance is different;
 6     it's unique.  You would start with an original
 7     photograph, something with a tree and a flower or
 8     whatever, and then you've got a product, can of hair
 9     spray, furniture polish, cookies, doesn't matter.  And
10     that's this element here.  (Indicating.)
11  It's photographed as what's known as a
12     product shot.  You have a positioned photograph taken
13     of whatever that insert item is going to be.  And that
14     ends up being the second element.
15  Now, if you have a blue sky here
16     (indicating), that blue sky is going to wash out the
17     product shot, so you have to eliminate that area on
18     the original picture.
19  And the way you do that is, you
20     photograph your product shot and create something that
21     is called a black-core matte, the core being the
22     center area of it.  And what you're left with --
23  By the way, you use -- these are very
24     high contrast black-and-white film to do this.  This
25     is usually something of the nature called Kodalith.
26     And Kodalith is a piece of high contrast
27     black-and-white film, which eliminates all the gray
28     scale.  It's only black and white, nothing in between.
 1    Q.    The product shot may have individual
 2     things that would turn out as gray.  What you would do
 3     is, take a brush and you would manually brush out the
 4     area completely, so this is what you've got, a piece
 5     of solid black against clear.
 6  Now, all of this is done in pin register.
 7     In other words, take a piece of glass or some kind of
 8     a negative carrier, and you insert two very fine,
 9     exacting pins.  You stamp the all elements of the
10     film, so they all fall into register; that is, they
11     all fall into the same place.
12  Once you've created your --
13    Q.    Let me stop you right there.
14    A.    Yes.
15    Q.    When you say they fall into register, and
16     all fall into the same place, can you be a little more
17     specific about that?
18    A.    It's a matter of positioning.  If you
19     don't have exact register, your -- your shot will fall
20     slightly off center, and either you'll end up with a
21     clear or lighter line on one side, or a black, dense
22     line on the other.
23  Everything has to fall exactly into the
24     same place; otherwise, it's useless and easily
25     detectable.
26    Q.    So, in other words, if -- if in the case
27     of a product shot, you have -- you have a can that is
28     superimposed over a blue sky -- if it's not in
 1     register, somebody looking at the photograph could see
 2     the effect wouldn't be complete; you could see some
 3     space.  You could see a site, the fact that the can
 4     was out of kilter with the background, or something
 5     like that.  Is that what you're saying?
 6    A.    That is correct.
 7    Q.    Okay.
 8    A.    The next step in this process would be to
 9     make what is known as a clear-core matte.
10  The way that's done is in a darkroom,
11     where there's no light, or if you use something called
12     orthochromatic film, which is not red sensitive, where
13     you can use a safety light, which you would do in
14     black-and-white processes a lot.
15  You take this, which again is pin
16     registered, and put on a piece of unexposed film,
17     which is the same type black-and-white Kodalith, and
18     you expose it to light, with the black-core mattes
19     falling between the light source and the new piece of
20     film.
21  And what you're left with is an exact
22     negative of this, which is called a clear-core matte.
23  So everything around that will be black.
24     You have your clear core.
25  Now, we're up to the last step of the --
26     of the creation of the composite right now.
27    Q.    When you say "composite," that's another
28     word for "fake," if you want to use that term, or
 1     altered photograph, right?
 2    A.    Absolutely.  Correct.
 3    Q.    Okay.
 4    A.    What you would do is, you would sandwich
 5     the pin-registered original with the black-core matte
 6     and project that down onto a final piece of paper or
 7     film, whatever carrier for the image that you want.
 8  Once you have done that, without ever
 9     moving this, you go back and you sandwich the product
10     shot and the clear-core matte together, and you then
11     project that down in exactly the same spot on the
12     final carrier for the image, be it film or paper.
13  And what you're left with then, down at
14     the bottom, is a composite image of your tree, your
15     flower, your product shot.  And you can also burn in,
16     which is again another technique like this, where
17     you've got, say, white type.  You would project that
18     down from another piece of Kodalith, and have that fit
19     whatever you want your product copy to be.  And it all
20     falls in and makes a composite image.
21  This has been done in advertising for
22     many, many decades.  It's a standard way of doing
23     this.
24    Q.    Now, what technique -- what is that
25     technique called that you just described?
26    A.    Well, it would be photo compositing or
27     matte inserting.
28    Q.    Okay.
 1  And there are there other subtechniques,
 2     or additional techniques that are sometimes used to
 3     make the composite photograph?
 4    A.    Yes, there are several.
 5  One that's been used, again, for many,
 6     many decades is basically a cut-and-paste situation.
 7     You start with your background photograph, and all you
 8     do is, you take your product shot and have an artist
 9     very carefully take an X-acto knife or a very sharp
10     razor blade, something of that nature, and you cut it
11     out so it physically fits, and you physically paste it
12     on.  That's very simple.  That's the way it's done.
13  You can also insert an area of text, as
14     well.
15    Q.    Now, I've heard the term "air brush," and
16     I usually hear that in terms of fashion photography,
17     where some rather vain celebrities -- but could you
18     describe that for us?
19  What is air brushing, and how is that
20     used, if at all, in creating these alternate
21     photographic -- altered photographic images?
22    A.    Well, if you had two pieces of elements
23     that did not quite aesthetically match each other, an
24     arm that didn't quite hit or something of that nature,
25     or a finger with dirty fingernails, something of that
26     nature, and you wanted to air-brush it out, you wanted
27     to get rid of it, you take a small, precise spray
28     mechanism, and you spray over the area that -- that is
 1     offending to the vision or the eye,
 2     and eliminate it.
 3  If somebody had a scar, let's say, and
 4     they wanted to eliminate the scar, you would -- what
 5     you would do is, match the color background of the
 6     skin or -- however you do it -- either there's a tear
 7     in the jacket or a shirt, and you just air-brush it
 8     out.  You just simply cover it up.
 9  The advantage to air-brushing is that it
10     gives you a tapered edge, as opposed to a very sharply
11     cut one.
12    Q.    What you said, it's -- is it like a small
13     can of -- a really small can of spray paint?  Is that
14     what it is?
15    A.    Yes.
16  Normally, it would be a jar.  They
17     usually use glass jars, which attach to a little
18     sprayer.  It's the reverse of an air compressor; it
19     blows air, instead of sucking it in.
20    Q.    So it's clear, what does the air brush
21     actually -- is it spraying fluid?  Is it moving fluid
22     that's already there?
23    A.    No, it's spraying, it's adding.
24    Q.    So -- and if you're trying to do a really
25     good job of creating a -- a believable composite, I
26     take it that you -- that you try to, for instance,
27     make sure the elements are all in register, right?
28    A.    That's correct.
 1    Q.    And you try to make sure that if there
 2     isn't anything that's not quite in register, that you
 3     air-brush it so that it becomes -- the fact that it's
 4     out of registration, is masked, right?
 5    A.    You can do that or just do it over again.
 6    Q.    Okay.
 7    MR. LEONARD:  Now, you can retake the stand at
 8     this point.
10(The witness complies.)
12    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  If you don't do a
13     perfect job, are there often indicia or indicators of
14     this type of manipulation that are apparent on the
15     original -- on what -- on the photograph of the
16     negative, are they -- are there?
17    A.    If it's not done right, yes.  It's easily
18     detectable.
19    Q.    Okay.
20  Let me direct your attention specifically
21     to this air-brushing method.
22  What would be -- what would you look for,
23     in general terms, to determine whether there has been
24     any air-brushing-type manipulation to a photographic
25     image?
26    A.    The image, instead of being continuous
27     grain -- or, for instance if you look at a hand, it's
28     not just one solid color; they're subtle.  There's
 1     changes; there's shadows.
 2  Normally, in an air-brushing situation,
 3     you're dealing with a flat background.  If you try to
 4     use it in something where there's a great deal of
 5     detail, the detail will simply be there.
 6  If you examine what purports to be an
 7     original photograph, using that technique, what you
 8     would detect is a plain background without the detail,
 9     or an irregular, unnatural edge.
10    Q.    And with that regard to the registration
11     or proper positioning of the various elements in a
12     photograph, what would you look for to determine
13     whether that exists?
14  In other words, when you're looking at a
15     photograph and you want to look for
16     out-of-registration elements, what do look for?
17    A.    Well, you would inspect, again, depending
18     on the method used and the type of indicator that
19     might be there.  You would end up with examining the
20     edges from where one element would come in contact
21     with another element.
22    For instance if we were to use a matte
23     insert technique, if the matte were off slightly from
24     the sizing or were off -- or the positioning were off,
25     even by a fraction of a millimeter, you would end up
26     with an odd-colored edge, meaning that didn't belong,
27     something that would be -- it would look somewhat like
28     a halo, something of that nature.  Either that, or it
 1     would be a dark line.
 2  In other words, if matte were too small,
 3     as opposed to being too large, you'd end up with an
 4     irregular density.
 5    Q.    Now, is there another wholly different
 6     type of method used to utilize to create a composite
 7     or alterated -- excuse me -- altered photographic
 8     images, that involves computer technology?
 9    A.    Yes.  There is --
10  The technique of digitization has been
11     refined again and again and again and again, through
12     the last decade or so.  And it is totally different
13     than everything else we've got here.
14  What we have here are mechanical or
15     photographic or art-type techniques.
16    In a computer, in what they call the
17     digital domain, what you're doing is, you are not
18     manipulating a photographic or physical entity; what
19     you're doing is, you're manipulating elements or
20     picture elements that are known as pixels within the
21     original picture.
22  And --
23    Q.    You know, would it be helpful -- sorry to
24     interrupt you -- would it be helpful if you go down
25     and actually draw what you're talking about with
26     pixels and so forth?
27    MR. GELBLUM:  Your Honor, I object without
28     tying it up.  I'd like an offer of proof --
 1    MR. LEONARD:  Sure.
 2    MR. GELBLUM:  -- at side bar.
 4 (The following proceedings were
 5 held at the bench, with the
 6 reporter.)
 8    THE COURT:  What's your offer of proof on
 9     digitizing?
10    MR. LEONARD:  I want to -- what I want to
11     demonstrate is that, if you use the state-of-the-art
12     digital equipment and you do the proper cover-up, if
13     you will, techniques, you -- it's very difficult to
14     discern.
15    THE COURT:  Is that his opinion that's what was
16     done in this case?
17    MR. LEONARD:  He doesn't know.
18  No -- look --
19    MR. GELBLUM:  I asked him in his deposition.
20     He didn't mention that.
21    THE COURT:  Wait a minute.
22    MR. LEONARD:  Wait a minute.  Okay.
23  You can combine all of these techniques
24     if you want to.  For instance, if you -- if you
25     digitally manipulate a photograph and you don't see
26     something, like you -- like you can air-brush it or
27     use some other technique, the point is, it's extremely
28     difficult to -- to discern digital manipulation.
 1     That's all I'm going to elicit from him.  That -- that
 2     these techniques can be combined.  These --
 3    THE COURT:  Let me ask you.
 4    MR. LEONARD:  No here --
 5    THE COURT:  May I ask you a question --
 6    MR. LEONARD:  Yes, of course.
 7    THE COURT:  -- please.
 8  What is it exactly that this witness is
 9     going to testify to with regards to --
10    MR. LEONARD:  He is going to say --
11    THE COURT:  -- on 1930?
12    MR. LEONARD:  I'm sorry.
13    THE COURT:  Is it 1930.
14    MR. LEONARD:  He's going to say there are
15     several indicators of it, that the picture has been
16     manipulated.  There's a whole list of them.  For
17     instance --
18    THE COURT:  He's not going to be able to
19     testify as to how it was done?
20    MR. LEONARD:  No.  And he can --
21    THE COURT:  Then I'll -- excuse me.  You know,
22     if you let me talk, we'll get through this a lot
23     faster.
24  He is going to say there's something
25     wrong with the picture; is that right?
26    MR. LEONARD:  Um-hum.
27    THE COURT:  All of those techniques are various
28     techniques that he knows of, and can alter the
 1     picture, but he doesn't know which one affected it?
 2    MR. LEONARD:  He sees indications of
 3     air-brushing.  He also sees the fact that the -- that
 4     the -- that the -- as he's described here, that
 5     there's some indication that elements are out of
 6     register which are an indicator of matte technique.
 7    THE COURT:  Is he going to testify that there
 8     are some elements of digitizing?
 9    MR. LEONARD:  No.  He's going to say that you
10     can't -- you can't tell whether it's been digitized,
11     if it's -- it's one point that -- that it's a very
12     sophisticated technique.  All right?  And can I --
13     I'll explain it to you.
14  He's going to say it's a very
15     sophisticated technique, and that you can -- you can
16     rephotograph the digitally created image with, for
17     instance, with a type of film that has a rather large
18     grain, and it masks the pixelization.  The way you can
19     determine whether a photograph has been digitally
20     manipulated is because it has a very distinctive --
21     I'll call it grain structure.  It's really pixels.
22    THE COURT:  Is he going to testify that that
23     exists, too?
24    MR. LEONARD:  What?
25    THE COURT:  Is he testifying that that exists
26     in this photograph?
27    MR. LEONARD:  You can't tell whether it exists.
28    THE COURT:  Then I'll sustain the objection as
 1     to that aspect.
 2    MR. LEONARD:  Can I -- one more.  Can I make
 3     one more point?
 4    THE COURT:  Sure.
 5    MR. LEONARD:  One more point.
 6  There's evidence that this -- that the
 7     photograph -- that what was represented to us as being
 8     an original negative is a duplicate negative, if --
 9     that it's out of register.  There's a couple different
10     points.
11  There's no legitimate reason for what was
12     represented to us in the original negative to be a
13     duplicate negative.  That is, there's very strong
14     circumstantial evidence that it's been -- it's been
15     tampered with.
16  And my point is that, if there -- if
17     there were more than one method -- for instance, if
18     there was masking, if there was air-brushing, and
19     underneath all of that, there had been an original
20     digital manipulation, if it's done right, you wouldn't
21     be able to see the original digital manipulation.
22  It's like, we've got a murder case going
23     here with circumstantial evidence.  There's
24     circumstantial evidence that the photograph has been
25     altered in two of these ways.
26  And the photograph also went -- went to
27     Paris or London and back on a Concord.
28    MR. BAKER:  London.
 1    MR. LEONARD:  That's pretty unusual.  That came
 2     out in Scull's deposition.  There's some -- there's a
 3     lot -- there's a lot of circumstances surrounding the
 4     photograph that are unusual.
 5  The guy claims he lost his camera and his
 6     camera was rebought --
 7    THE COURT:  Just stay --
 8    MR. LEONARD:  All I'm trying to argue is that
 9     there are circumstantial indicators that this --
10     beyond the actual looking at the photograph or where
11     it lines up with the others on the contact sheet,
12     which indicated -- indicate that it was duplicated, or
13     at least there's a suspicious break in the chain of
14     custody.
15    THE COURT:  See if I understand your argument.
16  Your argument is that his testimony is
17     going -- and some other evidence, or some evidence is
18     going to show that these are duplicate negatives.
19    MR. LEONARD:  This is a duplicate negative.
20    THE COURT:  And that -- that is an element that
21     you contend is supportive of an opinion that it's been
22     tampered with?
23    MR. LEONARD:  Yeah.  That's a reason, yes.
24    THE COURT:  If you just let me talk, we'd get
25     through this real fast.
26  And that you'd like to ask him about the
27     digitizing, because that is one of the methods that
28     can be used to alter it.
 1  But this witness could not establish
 2     that, in fact, was the one that was used, only that it
 3     can -- that could have been used, and he would not be
 4     able to know.
 5    MR. LEONARD:  No.  But it's extremely
 6     difficult, if not impossible, as their expert has
 7     admitted, if it's done right, in the proper --
 8    THE COURT:  So your main contention is that, if
 9     you feel there's sufficient evidence in which this
10     witness can say that there are elements to support an
11     argument that it was altered, because there was a
12     duplicate negative, and that part of the altering
13     could be by various methods, including digitizing?
14    MR. LEONARD:  Exactly.
15    THE COURT:  But he can't say that is the case
16     here or not?
17    MR. LEONARD:  He can't with regard to the --
18    THE COURT:  Okay.  Overruled.
19    MR. GELBLUM:  Your Honor, may I be heard?
20    THE COURT:  No.  I think --
22 (The following proceedings were
23 held in open court, in the
24 presence of the jury.)
26    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  If you would, step down
27     there.
28  When we had the time out there, we were
 1     talking about digital manipulation, and you used
 2     pixelization and so forth.
 3  First of all, can you just illustrate for
 4     us, sort of basic elements of a digitalized
 5     photograph?
 6    A.    It's extremely simple.
 7  If these lines weren't so light, it would
 8     be perfect to explain it.
 9  But in its most simple form, the entire
10     screen of a digitized picture contains a series of
11     items known as pixels, or picture elements.
12  Picture elements are exactly rectangular,
13     be they square or elongated, into a rectangular form.
14     And each one of those, although they're considerably
15     smaller than this, represents a single pixel or
16     picture element.
17  The total digital picture is made up
18     exclusively of digital elements known as pixels.
19  Each one of these is assigned a value in
20     color and density, color being, of course, the -- it's
21     very obvious what it is; density being from something
22     known as demin which is very thin or light or clear or
23     white, to demax, which is dark gray, charcoal black,
24     very dense.
25  Each of these elements becomes part of
26     the overall picture.
27  The number of pixels determines the
28     resolution of the overall picture.  A lot of home
 1     computers will use 300 to 600, maybe as many as 800
 2     dots or pixels per inch as its resolution.
 3  Professional machines will go as high as
 4     3,000 per inch or greater, so you get a far more
 5     photographic field to the end result.
 6    So for those of you who may have home
 7     computers, if you deal with -- with programs like
 8     Photo Shop or things of that nature, you know that
 9     when you look at the picture, it seems very choppy;
10     they have things called jaggies.
11  Jaggies is, if you have a diagonal line
12     that interferes and goes through the middle of a
13     pixel, the computer has to arbitrarily decide whether
14     it goes to this side or this side of it.  And instead
15     of getting a straight line, you end up with a slightly
16     lightning shape or jagged line.
17  In ultra-high resolution situations of
18     3,000 lines or pixels per inch or better, you don't
19     get the jaggies for two reasons:  Number one, programs
20     of that nature and sophistication, like computers,
21     have programs that eliminate the jaggies and tend to
22     smooth them out.
23    The other situation, which is the
24     obvious one thing I was trying to get to, is when you
25     have many other things, they become less apparent to
26     the eye, and you need a microscope to detect them.
27    Q.    Now, if you created a digitally
28     manipulated photograph, and you wanted to hide that
 1     fact for whatever reason, is there a method you've
 2     just told us that it can -- it's -- you can discern
 3     these distinctive geometric pixel-like -- or pixels,
 4     rather, by -- under a microscope, correct?
 5    A.    In most cases, yes.
 6    Q.    If you were going to digitally manipulate
 7     a photograph, and you wanted to hide that fact so that
 8     someone looking at the -- what purports to be the
 9     original negative, after the fact, can't tell that you
10     digitally manipulated it, what could you do?
11    A.    There are various steps you could do, one
12     of which would be to throw it slightly out of focus,
13     so that the edges would blur.  There would no longer
14     be sharp edges on the pixels.
15  Of course, if you'd use the maximum
16     resolution, you could get it in the first place.
17    Q.    Well, by that, you mean you'd use that,
18     what you describe as high tech, 3,000
19     pixels-per-inch-type machinery?
20    A.    That's correct.
21  And then you'd throw it slightly out of
22     focus, or you would use what's known as a dithering
23     effect.
24  A dithering effect is part of a program
25     that is included in things like Photo Shop, where they
26     tend to average out edges or elements of each pixel,
27     so it would disappear or be much less apparent.
28  Another way of dealing with it would be
 1     to create a high-resolution print and then
 2     rephotograph it on a piece of film, like 400 ASA film,
 3     or something that's very grainy, and if the grain is
 4     larger than the pixels, they'll disappear, they'll be
 5     covered up.
 6    Q.    Just -- just go over that -- that point
 7     again.  Let me make sure I understand.
 8  You would create a high-resolution
 9     digital print using the more sophisticated machinery,
10     so that you would have 3,000 pixels per inch, let's
11     say.
12    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
13     No reason to go over it again.
14    THE COURT:  Overruled.
15    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  And then at that point,
16     you would then take another photograph of that
17     digitally created image; is that right?
18    A.    That's correct.
19    Q.    And you would take the photograph with
20     a -- what you said was a grainy film.
21  What do you mean by that?
22    A.    Grain is an element of photographic film.
23     The slower the film -- and this is a general rule --
24     the slower the film, 50 ASA, 32 ASA, 75, 100.  Slower
25     films have finer grain, much finer grain.  What you're
26     left with is -- let me demonstrate.
27  This arbitrary shape here is a piece of
28     photographic grain, let's say.  What you've got on
 1     film is a carrier, which is an acetate type of
 2     situation, variety of plastic of sorts.  And what
 3     you've got is a coating on what's known as the
 4     emulsion side.  And the emulsion side of the film has
 5     just a whole bunch like this.
 6  Now, the slower the film, the finer the
 7     grain.  In other words, it's less apparent.  If you
 8     look at an 8 by 10 or 11 by 14 blow-up of a fine-grain
 9     print, it's very hard to see the grain.
10  But if you use a fast film, as you
11     would -- say a sporting event, and you need to freeze
12     the action, you need to be able to use a higher
13     shutter speed, you use a faster film.
14  Well, the down side of the faster film
15     is, it has much larger grain.  And when you blow it
16     up, it appears very grainy.  It's as if you're looking
17     through a screen or a mask.
18    Q.    Well, explain the relationship between
19     the -- the larger grain and the pixels and to the
20     extent, if any, that -- that might mask the underlying
21     pixels.
22    A.    Well, the nature of the grain itself,
23     outside of being larger, also has a granular element
24     to it.  And if you are -- if you're showing a granular
25     element over an already slightly blurred pixel area,
26     it will mask it completely; you won't be able to
27     detect it or see it.
28  Another situation is, if you were to
 1     print it nonphotographically, say in a magazine, using
 2     lithographing dots, the lithographing dots would be
 3     larger than the pixels, and they would totally mask
 4     it, as well.
 5    MR. LEONARD:  Now, you can retake your seat.
 7(Witness complies.)
 9    MR. LEONARD:  Is this a good time to break?
10    THE COURT:  We started at a quarter to.
11    MR. LEONARD:  Okay.
12    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Now, when you're
13     looking for occasions that a photograph is actually a
14     composite or altered photograph, and you suspect that
15     it's possible that the photograph could be digitally
16     altered, how do you do that?
17  Is it sometimes extremely difficult to
18     discern?
19    A.    Sometimes it's very, very difficult to
20     discern.
21  The things that you would look for, the
22     type of indicators would be, the picture would be
23     perhaps slightly out of focus, less clear than others
24     within a series, for instance.
25  Or if digital manipulation is done and
26     one particular picture is returned purporting to be an
27     original as part of the series, you'd look for a lack
28     of color balance, or just an overall feel that it's
 1     different than all the rest.
 2  If you have nothing to compare it to, you
 3     look in other areas.
 4    Q.    What do you mean by color balance?
 5    A.    There is a tinting that becomes apparent
 6     when -- I guess we've all seen it.  I've seen it way
 7     too many times -- when you get your films back from
 8     the lab, they're either all a little bit too blue or
 9     too yellow or too pink, or something of that nature.
10  But, almost invariably, that color shift
11     off of a normal neutral tone will be consistent
12     throughout a row or series of rows, depending if they
13     were all processed at the same time.
14  If a particular image has been reinserted
15     after being manipulated from another source, there is
16     no guarantee that that balance or that shift from
17     what's called neutral, neutral density, ND, there
18     could very well be a discernible color shift for the
19     questioned photograph.
20    Q.    And again, that's because it was
21     processed at a different time; is that right?
22    A.    No.  It could -- the final result would
23     have been processed at the same time, but there would
24     have been elements in the creation that created a
25     shift in another direction that would override the
26     general shift of the roll as it's processed.
27    Q.    Now, if you are creating a composite
28     photograph, and you want to make sure that -- or
 1     attempt to make sure that you mask it -- in other
 2     words, you don't want anybody to find out that it's
 3     actually a composite; you wanted people to believe
 4     it's an original photograph or negative -- what is
 5     a -- what's a very basic thing that you have to do,
 6     keeping in mind that you're assuming that somebody's
 7     going to go back and look at the original negative,
 8     and not just the print?
 9    A.    You'd have to substitute something for
10     the original negative.  You'd have to hide, destroy,
11     get rid of the original negative, so that it wouldn't
12     be seen, and substitute something that would convince
13     most people or everybody that it is the original, in
14     fact.
15    Q.    And so you'd have to actually create a
16     duplicate negative; is that right?
17    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Leading.  He didn't
18     say that.
19    A.    I wouldn't say it, anyway.
20  It wouldn't be a duplicate negative; it
21     would be a copy negative that would be altered.  It
22     would not be a straight duplicate.  Duplicate, using
23     the dictionary term, means a straight copy.  It would
24     be a later generation, creation, and not actually a
25     duplicate, per se.  It would appear to be an original,
26     but it would not be.
27    Q.    Okay.
28  Now, one more area of general testimony
 1     before we get into the subject photograph.
 2  How do you -- can you explain -- if you
 3     need to use the board, you can do that -- how --
 4     what's the process by which you create this copy
 5     negative?
 6  Again, assuming that you have a composite
 7     and that you want to fool people, you want people to
 8     think that it's the -- actually the original negative?
 9    A.    There are a number of ways of doing this.
10  Again, this is hypothetical, because
11     you'd have your choice.  There would be a small menu
12     of ways of dealing with it.
13  One thing you could do is, you could
14     create the phony image that you want.  Theoretically,
15     I'd want it to be at the end of a roll, either the
16     beginning end or the far end, one way or the other, so
17     you don't have to match it within other elements.
18  And --
19    Q.    Well, when you say "match it within other
20     elements," why don't you illustrate what you're
21     talking about on the board?
22    A.    Okay.
24(Witness draws on board.)
26    MR. LEONARD:  You can using a fresh --
27     (indicating to drawing paper).
28    THE WITNESS:  Okay.
 1    A.    Standard rolls of film used to come in
 2     20-exposure rolls and 36-exposure rolls.
 3  We go on vacation, we buy film.  We ask
 4     how many exposures.  We want 24.  Gives you less
 5     pictures, but it's the least expensive way to buy the
 6     film and less expensive to process.  If you have a
 7     limited number of pictures you want to take of an
 8     accident, somebody hits your car, you get a smaller
 9     roll, maybe 12 exposures, something small.
10  That's not relevant for after this, but I
11     thought I'd mention that.
12  On 35-millimeter film, the film comes in
13     a canister, and the film is fed out of a
14     light-safe-type of squeezing or sponge mechanism, and
15     stretches out this way.  (Indicating.)  It's got
16     something called a tongue at the end, and that's
17     basically what you've got.
18  You have what invariably ends up being
19     wasted leader at the beginning, which is light struck.
20     That area which was outside of this in the first place
21     is light by light.  As you load it becomes useless
22     it's called light striking.  That's the technical
23     term.
24  When you load it into a camera, that
25     light-struck area usually gets stretched, so it goes
26     over what is known as the frame aperture, and gets
27     picked up by the pick-up reel on the far side of the
28     camera.
 1  You then close the back of the camera,
 2     advance it by using the cocking mechanism runoff and
 3     exposure, do it again.  Usually, about the third time,
 4     you've cleared all of the light-struck area.  What
 5     you're left with is the first actual frame of
 6     exposure.
 7  Now, the easiest way to deal with a fake
 8     photograph, if you're going to use this particular
 9     type of technique, is to make it either the first or
10     the last one.  The reason that being is, if you're
11     trying to match it to the next item, all you have to
12     do is match it to one instead of two.
13  If it were to fall in the middle, between
14     two other elements, you've got to match it to two
15     of -- you've got to get it to register, to fit.  It's
16     got to fall in from exactly the right spot.
17    Q.    When you say match an element, can you
18     explain that a little bit more?
19  Are you talking about lining up with the
20     other negatives or the other frame?
21  Is that what you're talking about?
22    A.    There are various elements:  Exposure,
23     density, color balance, and most basically, position.
24     More than anything else, position.
25  If you were to use, say, two separate
26     cameras to insert a digital frame, as opposed to the
27     rest of it, which might be photographic frames,
28     arbitrarily, to get it to fit, you've got to get it to
 1     fall in exactly the right spot on the film.
 2  Between the frames, there is a spacing.
 3     On high quality cameras, that spacing should be either
 4     absolutely or very close to uniform in every single
 5     frame.
 6    On cheaper cameras, it may not advance
 7     quite as far.  It might advance a little bit too far,
 8     and you won't get an even frame in between.  What
 9     you'd want is, it to fall in as close to normal to
10     where it should normally fit as if it were a
11     legitimate frame.
12    Q.    You indicated space -- spacing -- sort of
13     vertical spacing.  I'll call it vertical spacing for
14     purposes of this diagram.
15  There's also -- and that would be the
16     spaces in between the two negatives or two frames?
17    A.    That's correct.  This would be the
18     spacing in between.
19    Q.    There is also spacing or positioning of
20     the frame with -- or the image with relation to the
21     outer edge of the film, correct?
22    A.    That is correct.  The position away from
23     the actual edge of the film itself, along the upper
24     and lower edges of the film, are what is called
25     sprocket holes.  Those sprocket holes are the device
26     by which the sprocket advance of the camera advances
27     the film and pulls the next frame up and gets it to
28     fall into the right position.
 1  And it's -- there are, on a standard
 2     roll, standard camera, 35-millimeter camera, eight of
 3     these sprocket holes for every frame.
 4  In motion-picture film, with half-frame
 5     film, it's four sprockets per frame.
 6    Q.    So if you are going to try to create a
 7     false original negative, you would want to make sure
 8     that you have, for instance, the -- the false frame
 9     lined up exactly with the -- with the first of the
10     real frames; is that right?
11    A.    You'd have to -- you'd have to at least
12     try; otherwise, it would be very easily detectable.
13    Q.    Now, you mentioned that you would --
14     there would be other things that would have to be in
15     the register.  I think you said color, exposure,
16     things like that?
17    A.    There are other -- there are other
18     elements that you would need to match.  Color balance,
19     we've discussed.
20  Density is another issue, too.  If you
21     are trying to match your created frame, for want of a
22     better term, to legitimate frames, you'd want the
23     exposure to at least appear about the same as all
24     those around the original, especially with an
25     automatic exposure camera.  Otherwise, the question is
26     raised, why are the other frames off.  You'd -- yours
27     would be either too light or too dark.  If yours is
28     normal, those around it might be too light or too
 1     dark.
 2    Q.    Okay.
 3  You can retain your seat -- retake your
 4     seat, please.
 6(The witness complies.)
 8    Q.    Now, have you examined various materials
 9     in this case relating to the questioned photograph?
10    A.    Yes.
11    Q.    Okay.
12  What materials have you reviewed?
13    A.    I've reviewed two contact sheets, one
14     containing the questioned frame, one that does not.  I
15     have looked at an 8-by-10 frame of the questioned
16     frame, a print of the questioned frame.  A print, an
17     8-by-10 print of the lower half, or approximately half
18     of that questioned frame, and also two other frames
19     from the two contact sheets or negative strips in
20     question that purport to show Mr. Simpson.
21    Q.    Did you travel to Buffalo, New York to
22     examine your -- what was purported to be the original
23     negative of this photograph?
24    A.    Yes, I did.
25    THE COURT:  All right.  Now would be a good
26     time.
27    MR. LEONARD:  Thank you.
28    THE COURT:  Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
 1  Don't talk about the case.  Don't form or
 2     express any opinions.
 6 (The jurors resumed their
 7 respective seats.)
 9    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  When we took the break,
10     we were talking about when you traveled to Buffalo to
11     examine what was represented to you to be the original
12     negative of the subject photograph.
13  Did you examine the original negative of
14     it?
15    A.    I examined what purports to be the
16     original negative.
17    Q.    Okay.
18  And did -- by the way, you also had an
19     opportunity to read Harry Scull's, the photographer's
20     deposition; is that right?
21    A.    That's correct.
22    Q.    And Mr. Scull represented in his
23     deposition that that -- that the negative had never
24     been duplicated, that the negative that you ultimately
25     were shown was the original negative, correct?
26    A.    That's correct.
27    Q.    Okay.
28  And when you were in Buffalo, did you
 1     also examine some other items, other than the
 2     original -- what was purported to be the original
 3     negative of this particular photograph?
 4    A.    Yes.
 5  I viewed what purported to be the Scull
 6     negatives of three separate rolls of film and three
 7     contact sheets made from those negatives, one each,
 8     and a series of individual 8-by-10 photographs, very
 9     similar to what was supplied to me, that being a
10     full-size 8-by-10 of what I'm calling frame 11,
11     meaning sheet one or roll one, frame one.
12    Q.    And the 1-1 is the photograph that
13     purports to show Mr. Simpson walking across the
14     football field?
15    A.    Yes.
16    Q.    That frame 1-1?
17    A.    That's what I'm calling 1-1.
18  Also, a lower portion of the body showing
19     the feet in that photograph, as well.  And as I
20     recall, for two other individual frames, also showing
21     Mr. Simpson, one by himself holding a microphone, and
22     one with a football player.
23    Q.    Now, as a result of your examination and
24     analysis of these items, have you come to any
25     conclusion with regard to the authenticity of the
26     subject photograph?
27    A.    Now or then?
28    Q.    Now.
 1    A.    Now?  Yes I have.
 2    Q.    What is the conclusion?
 3    A.    My conclusion is that there is a high
 4     likelihood of forgery.
 5    Q.    Now, tell us first in general terms what
 6     you base that opinion on.
 7    A.    On initial observation, noticing
 8     problems, discrepancy between what appears actually on
 9     the negative itself and the surrounding area,
10     comparisons of that negative to the others on the
11     roll, and the other roll, measurements, positioning,
12     color balance and endless -- I can't say endless -- a
13     number of problems with it.
14    Q.    Okay.  Now, have you, for purposes of
15     illustration before the jury here, have you prepared
16     some slides that demonstrate some of these problems
17     that you've identified?
18    A.    Yes, I have.
19    MR. LEONARD:  Okay.  Let's put up the -- first
20     of all, let's illustrate the contact sheet that
21     contains frame 1-1.
22    MR. P. BAKER:  This is 1832.
 1 (The instrument herein referred to
 2 as Contact sheet of negatives
 3 which contains photograph of
 4 O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli
 5 shoes was marked for
 6 identification as Defendants'
 7 Exhibit No. 1832.)
 9    MR. LEONARD:  Can you pull back -- first of
10     all, pull back to get a full view of the contact
11     sheet.
12    Q.    Now, what does that represent that's
13     illustrated on the Elmo, sir?
14    A.    This appears to be roll number one of
15     the -- of the two that were supplied to me.
16    Q.    Okay.
17    MR. LEONARD:  Can you focus that a little bit
18     better.
19  Now, you can take that down (indicating
20     to Elmo screen).
21    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Now, first of all,
22     where was -- where is 1.1, the image of Mr. Simpson?
23     Where is that located on the contact sheet?
24    A.    As we view it here, in the extreme lower
25     left.
26    Q.    Okay.
27    A.    This would be exposure 1, exposure 2,
28     exposure 3, and so forth.
 1    Q.    Is that the first frame in the roll?
 2    A.    Yes, it is.
 3    Q.    Okay.
 4    MR. LEONARD:  Now, you can take that down, put
 5     up the next slide, please.
 6    MR. P. BAKER:  This is going to be a set of
 7     slides marked next in order.
 8  This will be slide number one.
 9    THE CLERK:  2282.
10    MR. P. BAKER:  2282?
12 (The instrument herein referred to
13 as A series of slides was marked
14 for identification as Defendants'
15 Exhibit No. 2282.)
16    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Before we go on to the
17     next image, you had indicated earlier when we were
18     talking, in theory, that if you were going to alter a
19     photograph and then attempt to hide the fact that you
20     altered it, and create a copy negative, you would want
21     to insert it either at the first -- as the first or
22     last frame; is that correct?
23    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection.  Argumentative.
24     Leading.
25    THE COURT:  Overruled.
26    A.    That is what I testified to, yes.  If
27     I -- if I were to do this, and I were going to make it
28     as easy as possible, myself, I would use either the
 1     first or the last one.
 2    Q.    Okay.
 3    MR. LEONARD:  The next image up, please.
 4  If you could, pull back a little bit,
 5     please.
 6  Now, what is in the exhibit number,
 7     please?
 8    MR. P. BAKER:  Number 1 of 2282.
 9    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  What does that
10     illustrate?
11    A.    This illustrates frame 1-1 and frame 1-2.
12     That 1-1 and 1-2, the first two frames exposed on --
13     on that roll of film.
14    Q.    Now, is there anything of significance
15     that is indicated on that slide that you -- with
16     regard to your opinion?
17    A.    Specifically in this -- in this case,
18     there's two things that stand out.  Number 1 frame,
19     1-1, is as we view it here, which is at the bottom, is
20     slightly too far to the right.
21    Q.    Okay.  It's difficult to see.
22  Did you create another slide that
23     illustrates that?
24    A.    Yes.  It should be the next one.
25    MR. P. BAKER:  Slide 2 of 2282.
26    A.    (Continuing.)  The difference is the
27     degree of the black line between the edge, the sharp
28     edge of the -- of the paper and the edge of the frames
 1     themselves.
 2    Q.    Well, using the pointer, can you actually
 3     point that out to the jury, please.
 4    A.    Yes.
 5  The edge of -- the right-hand edge of
 6     frame 1-1 comes right up against the paper as a very,
 7     very thin line.
 8  The one for the next frame over is out of
 9     alignment; it's too far over to the left.
10  Actually, the one for 1-2 is where it's
11     supposed to be.  It is in the same positioning as all
12     of the other frames on the contact sheet.  The only
13     one that falls too far to the right is frame 1-1.
14    Q.    Now, why is that significant?
15    A.    We were discussing before the -- the idea
16     and the concept of registration or positioning.
17  On a high quality camera, such as a
18     Canon, Minolta, Nikkon, Pentax, any of those like it,
19     you have what is known as the frame aperture.  The
20     frame aperture is what delineates the border.  It
21     creates the border of the individual frame, and it is
22     fixed; it never changes.
23  You have film guides top and bottom that
24     hold the film in line and parallel to the -- to the --
25     to the frame aperture itself.  And you have a back
26     pressure plate that keeps the film flat.
27  When you make the exposure, a shutter
28     allows light to come in and strike the film.  The
 1     thing that keeps it from spreading out and going into
 2     where the next frame would be is this frame aperture.
 3  All cameras have frame apertures.  The
 4     thing is that it doesn't move; the position never
 5     changes; it is fixed.
 6    Q.    Now, the difference between 1-1, which is
 7     slightly to the right, and 1-2 is minimal, is it not?
 8    A.    Yes.
 9    Q.    But is that nonetheless significant?
10    A.    It's extremely significant.
11  You wouldn't expect to find any change,
12     in fact.  Nowhere else on either of the first two
13     contact sheets do you find a single instance of this
14     happening, except in this one spot.
15    Q.    And again, relating back to what you
16     were -- what you had told us in general terms about
17     creating a copy negative, assuming that this is a
18     composite negative, what does that tell you?
19    A.    Well, it would tell me that in all
20     probability, frame 1-1 did not get onto this film
21     using the same camera as all of the other pictures.
22  All of the other pictures fall exactly
23     where you would expect them to, in exactly the correct
24     position and spacing.  The alignment is -- alignment
25     is the same, side to side, exactly where you would
26     expect it to be.
27  This particular one falls just too far to
28     the right.
 1  In fact, to clarify it, just to be
 2     absolutely correct, we're looking at the film
 3     sideways.  Theoretically, we should be looking at it
 4     horizontally, which means that the --
 5    THE WITNESS:  The other way.  That's it.
 6  Frame 1-1 is actually too close to the
 7     bottom of the film.  The frame numbering is at the
 8     top; the identification, the type of film, et cetera,
 9     et cetera, the film speed, which is G400, indicating
10     400 grain film or speed film.
11  You can see -- in fact, it's easier to
12     see it this way, (indicating) too, that you have the
13     frame itself coming directly to the piece of paper,
14     and then this greater spacing, this black line here.
15  Now, this works, when you do it from the
16     outside of the frame or from the inside.  And it
17     doesn't from -- it does it from either end, either the
18     bottom end or the top end.
19    Q.    All right.  Now, can we -- can you take
20     that back.
21    MR. LEONARD:  Can we see the next slide,
22     please.
23    MR. P. BAKER:  Next slide is No. 3 of 2282.
25 (Frame No. 3 of Exhibit No. 2282
26 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)
28    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Now, you can -- okay.
 1  Now, what does this slide illustrate?
 2    A.    This -- this particular slide shows what
 3     I observed on the contact sheet.
 4  There is a secondary edge here.
 5     (Indicating.)
 6  What I mean by that is, the bottom of the
 7     frame line itself is, of course, where it turns from
 8     light to dark or black.
 9  The edge, the normal edge of the paper
10     itself -- I'm sorry -- of the film itself, is where it
11     goes from this lighter dark area here, to total
12     darkness or black.
13    Q.    For now, you've indicated there seems to
14     be a horizontal line close to the actual bottom line
15     of the frame.
16    A.    That is correct.
17    Q.    Okay.  And?
18    A.    There appears also to be a slight shift
19     of the gray values above and below, that changes
20     exactly at the point where that second edge occurs.
21    Q.    Now, can you explain the significance of
22     that with regard to whether or not this is a copy
23     negative?
24    A.    If this represents -- you see here how
25     it's extremely dark here?
26  Now, with a negative, the more light you
27     get, the darker it gets when you print a negative.  In
28     other words, there is --
 1    THE WITNESS:  Is it possible to sharpen that
 2     just a little bit, please.
 3  Thank you.  That's -- oops.
 4    MR. LEONARD:  Come on, Phil.
 5    MR. P. BAKER:  Here we go.
 6    THE WITNESS:  There you go.
 7    A.    (Continuing.)  This area here has the
 8     least amount of light held back.  It's striking, so it
 9     burns it in; it becomes darker.
10  This area between this horizontal line,
11     as we view it here, and that darker area, has a gray
12     value that appears to be slightly lighter than the
13     area above it, indicating that this might be, in fact,
14     a false edge or some kind of an add-on by relating to
15     that type of phenomenon.
16    Q.    Now, how does that indicate, if it does,
17     that this may be a duplicate or a copy negative?
18    A.    There is no natural situation in
19     photography that would give you that false edge by
20     itself.  Where the film ends it should just end.  We
21     should not see anything of that nature.  It does not
22     occur naturally.
23    Q.    And keeping in mind the process that
24     you've described of creating a copy negative, how can
25     that false edge be explained?
26    A.    If you were going to create a counterfeit
27     of some kind of a fabricated negative, you would need
28     a way of registering it, you'd need it to fall into a
 1     specific place.
 2  If you were going to deal with that sort
 3     of a situation, it might leave you with a false edge.
 4  In other words, if you were to photograph
 5     it against something else, you would end up with a
 6     false edge, which would look something like that.
10    Q.    Okay.
11    MR. LEONARD:  Can we see the next slide,
12     please.
13    MR. P. BAKER:  No. 4 of 2282.
15(No. 4 of Exhibit No. 2282
16 displayed.)
18    MR. LEONARD:  You're going to have to focus.
19    MR. P. BAKER:  I'll try to zoom in.
20    MR. LEONARD:  We want to zoom in on the black
21     line.
22  There you go.
23    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Now, what does this
24     illustrate?
25    A.    One of the strange things that I noticed
26     when this print was supplied to me is that it showed,
27     fortunately, the area around the edge of the print
28     itself, of the frame itself on the sides, although not
 1     on the top or bottom -- it did on the bottom but not
 2     on the top.
 3  What is odd is there is what appears to
 4     be some kind of a line running between the edge of the
 5     frame itself and the sprocket hole area.  There is no
 6     natural phenomenon to allow for it.  This -- the film
 7     itself was not created with a line already on there.
 8  The odd thing about it is that it kicks
 9     back light, and kicking back light, it reflects light
10     back into the paper itself and tends to make it glow a
11     bit.  So that where you've got the perforations on the
12     film, it ignites, visually, the line in that area.
13     Where you don't have the light gathering effect of a
14     sprocket hole, it turns to operate black then, and
15     when you have another sprocket hole, it comes on then.
16     This could be the indication of a false edge.
17  In other words, if you were going to
18     create a composite and mechanically photograph another
19     negative in register against another piece of film,
20     and the light kicked back from the sprocket holes, it
21     would give you exactly that type of effect.
22    MR. LEONARD:  Can we see the next one, please.
23    MR. P. BAKER:  No. 5 of 2282.
25 (No. 5 of Exhibit No. 2282
26  displayed.)
28    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Okay.
 1  Now, explain this slide.
 2    A.    This is one of the most curious things
 3     that I found on there, and the issue is this:  The
 4     frame 1-1 is slightly longer than the adjacent frames,
 5     that is, if you measure it with a compass with a fixed
 6     position, you'll find that the compass actually spans
 7     the exact width, or height, actually, because the way
 8     we're looking at it now, this way, edge to edge,
 9     precisely.  But against the one in question, the
10     compass falls within the boarders.  It's very slight,
11     but it is there.
12    Q.    So that the -- the frame 1-1 is slightly
13     longer than frame 1-2; is that correct?
14    A.    That is correct.
15    Q.    Now, how is that significant in your
16     opinion?
17    A.    Well, as I said before, the frame
18     aperture determines the size and the border of the
19     actual image.  If indeed it's legitimate, and if it
20     comes from the same camera, it should be absolutely
21     identical.  It should never change from frame to
22     frame.
23  Unfortunately, the negative itself has
24     been cut apart.  Everything beyond the first five
25     images is on a second -- second, third, fourth, and
26     what have you, strip of five each.  The first two have
27     been cut away from numbers 3, 4 and 5, so the only two
28     we can accurately determine to measure between the two
 1     are frame 1-1 and frame 1-2.
 2  Since we don't know how this would have
 3     been created, we don't know for a fact that the rest
 4     of them are actually accurate within -- within the
 5     sizing.
 6  However, the frame sizing is smaller on
 7     every other frame except frame 1-1, in any case.
 8    MR. LEONARD:  Now, can we see the next.
 9    MR. P. BAKER:  This is No. 6 of 2282.
10    MR. LEONARD:  And I think we --
11    THE WITNESS:  Phil, can we -- Mr. Baker, can we
12     possibly please use the backlit large one on this one,
13     please.
14    MR. LEONARD:  Use the print.
15    MR. P. BAKER:  1931.
17(Exhibit No. 1931 is displayed.)
19    A.    This one is very difficult to see.  It's
20     a lot easier to see backlit as you actually look at
21     the print itself.
22  What this refers to is the -- can we blow
23     that up a bit.  Can we get in closer just right about
24     in here.  (Indicating to photo.)
25    MR. LEONARD:  Hold it flat and get it in
26     closer, please.
27    MR. BAKER:  Say please.
28    MR. LEONARD:  Please.
 1    MR. P. BAKER:  It's okay.
 2    A.    It really doesn't show up very well here.
 3  But examining the print, the original
 4     print that was sent to me, I discovered that there was
 5     an entity along here that gives what appears to be --
 6     appears to be sort of an elongated S shape that
 7     appears to be retouching, physical retouching, using
 8     perhaps a brush or something of that nature.
 9  It's virtually impossible to see here,
10     but if you can examine it on the actual photograph
11     there it shows up very, very well.  The problem is
12     it's very, very dark, and very difficult to see in
13     this nature, but the positioning is right along in
14     here.
15    Q.    Now, you've --
16    THE COURT:  Why don't you indicate that for the
17     record.  I can't see what he was marking.
18    MR. P. BAKER:  1931.
19    MR. LEONARD:  It's 1931.
20  Can I approach?
21    THE COURT:  Yes.
22    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  If you can, sir, circle
23     the area you're describing.
24    A.    I kind of hate to do that on the original
25     print.  Is there anyway of avoiding doing that?
26    THE COURT:  Verbally describe it then.  He was
27     just pointing up there.
28    MR. P. BAKER:  I've got a laser copy.
 1    MR. LEONARD:  We can do it on that.  You have a
 2     print, right?
 3    MR. P. BAKER:  Here we go.
 4    THE WITNESS:  Would it --
 5    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Why don't use the
 6     print.
 7    A.    Would it be possible to show the jury.
 8    MR. LEONARD:  Can he demonstrate to the jury?
 9    THE COURT:  Why don't you mark it first.
10    MR. LEONARD:  Mark it first, yeah.
11    THE COURT:  You want to mark a copy?
12    MR. LEONARD:  I think it shows up better on the
13     print.
14    THE COURT:  Well, mark it on the copy so you
15     won't mark the original.
16    MR. BAKER:  Don't we have another original?
17    MR. LEONARD:  I think we have another.
18    THE COURT:  You numbered a copy.
19    MR. LEONARD:  May he demonstrate to the jury,
20     Your Honor?
21    MR. P. BAKER:  That would be 2283.
22    MR. LEONARD:  The copy, 2283.
23    THE COURT:  Go ahead.
24 (The instrument herein referred to
25 as copy of plaintiffs' exhibit
26 1932 marked by Mr. Groden was
27 marked for identification as
28 Defendant's Exhibit No. 2283.)
 1    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  I suggest you hold up
 2     both the copy and the print, if you could, and walk
 3     slowly in front of the jury and demonstrate --
 4    A.    Okay.
 5    Q.    You can make your explanation there, and
 6     then with the Court's permission, then you can walk
 7     down slowly and show the jurors.
 8    THE COURT:  Okay.
 9    MR. LEONARD:  Thank you.
10    A.    This is --
11    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  I would suggest that
12     you stand back and give a general explanation.
13    A.    Okay.
14    Q.    And then as you walk along you can point
15     out what you're indicating?
16    A.    Okay.
17  Where I've indicated in red here is the
18     approximate location on the original print of where
19     there is what looks like almost a worm, that is like
20     little lines that appear to be retouching lines that
21     are diagonal, and it's dark against dark, it's very
22     difficult to see.
23  Backlighting it, in other words, using
24     the backlit stand, it shows up much clearer, but --
25     may I just hand it and they can pass it?
26    MR. LEONARD:  I suggest, sir --
27    THE WITNESS:  It's this darker area in here.
 1(Witness approaches juror.)
 3    THE COURT:  Okay.  Don't hold any intimate
 4     conversations with the jurors.  Just hand it to them.
 5    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  You can just pass it
 6     along and let the jurors look at it.
 8 (Photograph and copy with marking
 9 and distributed among the jurors.)
11    A.    Of all the things I found on that film,
12     this is the most difficult to see on that type of
13     viewing situation.
14    MR. GELBLUM:  May I approach the jurors so I
15     can see it myself?
16    THE COURT:  Would you hand that to the jurors
17     in the front.
18    MR. LEONARD:  Can we see the next slide,
19     please.
20    MR. P. BAKER:  No. 7 of 2282.
21    THE COURT:  Excuse me?
22    MR. P. BAKER:  No. 7 of 2282, another slide.
24 (No. 7 of Exhibit No. 2282
25  displayed.)
27    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Can you explain this,
28     please, and the significance?
 1    A.    Yes.
 2  There's a sharp delineation through the
 3     leg that comes down, goes straight across horizontally
 4     at a point in the leg.  This is the right leg.  The
 5     tonal value below that is lighter than it is above
 6     that.  There's a point where that changes, and what
 7     appears to be possible retouching marks at exactly the
 8     point where the tone changes in the leg, it appears
 9     sharper than other things that are within the leg
10     itself.
11    Q.    Okay.
12    MR. LEONARD:  Can we see the next, please.
13    MR. P. BAKER:  No. 8 of 2282.
15(No. 8 of Exhibit 2282 is
16 displayed.)
18    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  What significance does
19     this -- what does this demonstrate, this slide, sir?
20    A.    The bottom of the shoe on the right foot
21     appears to be reflecting light, indicating a sole
22     pattern.  Based on the positioning of that shoe over
23     the line, it's my opinion that should be reflecting
24     white instead of red, as the angle at which the light
25     would travel in a straight line between the camera
26     lens and the shoe should be reflecting, as it would
27     with a mirror coming this way, if it it's reflecting
28     anything legitimately at all, it should be reflecting
 1     off of white below the tip of the sole.  But whoever
 2     did this had it reflect as red instead of white.  And
 3     the angle seems wrong.
 4    Q.    You talked about earlier the registration
 5     of elements in a composite or altered photograph.
 6  In your opinion, is this an example of a
 7     malregistration, if you will?
 8    A.    Yes.
 9  I believe the next slide would show that.
10     I'm not sure.
11    MR. LEONARD:  Let's go to the next slide.
12    MR. P. BAKER:  No. 9 of 2282.
14 (No. 9 of Exhibit No. 2282 is
15  displayed.)
17    MR. LEONARD:  If you could, what I'd like to
18     you do, Mr. Baker, is to focus in on the right shoe.
19    That's the left shoe.
20    MR. P. BAKER:  I know that.  It's a negative.
21     It's backwards.
22    MR. LEONARD:  Oh, okay.
23    MR. P. BAKER:  That's as far as it goes.
24    MR. LEONARD:  It's okay.
25    A.    Although it's easier to see in the actual
26     photographs themselves, could we try to focus it a
27     little bit more, please?
28  Thank you.  Good.
 1  The edge of the shoe comes to this point,
 2     the red reflection, for want of a better term, extends
 3     beyond the edge of the shoe.  In other words, we
 4     should see no red image beyond where the black ends.
 5  If someone had used that matte insert
 6     process to reflect down and insert the sole pattern at
 7     the bottom of the shoe, it should fall in register
 8     where it belongs on the sole of the shoe.  In fact, it
 9     extends beyond the edge of the shoe itself.
10    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  By the way, as you look
11     at that photograph, do you see any indication
12     whatsoever of any moisture or the ground being wet at
13     all?
14    A.    No, none.
15  As a matter of fact, one of the first
16     things I looked for was that kind of indication when I
17     was at Buffalo.
18  The bottom of the -- the bottom of the
19     shoe, the sides of the shoe, you would expect that it
20     would have observed some moisture and appear as darker
21     spots.
22  There is no indication whatsoever,
23     there's no glistening or reflecting of light, of
24     stadium lights or sunlight or anything else, into the
25     camera itself at any point, indicating that the shoe
26     is dry.
27    Q.    And the surrounding ground?
28    A.    The surrounding ground, too, there's no
 1     indication of any puddling, gathering of water
 2     splashing.  One might assume as the heel hit the
 3     ground it might cause water to splash up if it were
 4     wet.
 5    Q.    Okay.
 6  Now, just one other --
 7    MR. GELBLUM:  Objection, move to strike as
 8     speculation.  There's no indication that there was
 9     anything about the weather conditions or the field
10     conditions at the time.
11    MR. LEONARD:  We'll prove that up, Your Honor.
12    THE COURT:  Overruled.
13    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Now, just on one other
14     observation with regard to that photograph, does the
15     heel appear to be flat on the ground, the heel of that
16     shoe?
17    A.    The heel itself appears to be virtually
18     horizontal, yes, flat against the ground with no
19     indication of any spacing above this area at all.
20    Q.    Okay.
21  Thank you.
22    MR. LEONARD:  Can we see the next.
23    MR. P. BAKER:  This is number 10.
25 (No. 10 of Exhibit No. 2282 is
26  displayed.)
 2    MR. LEONARD:  First of all, let's try to focus
 3     it.
 4    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Okay.  Now, did --
 5     we're not going to use this, I can see that it's not
 6     really acceptable, but before we move to the two
 7     different -- the two prints to actually illustrate
 8     this, just tell us -- you can turn it around now.
 9     Tell us what you're trying to illustrate with this
10     slide?
11    A.    Every slide, every frame on both contact
12     sheets has a slightly cyan tint, that is slightly blue
13     to blue-green.  Cyan is a specific color that's a blue
14     to blue-green type of tint.
15  Every single frame on both of the two
16     contact sheets shows that, except the frame in
17     question, which is frame 1-1, which has an overall
18     magenta or pinkish tint to it.  Is the only one that
19     doesn't fit visually.
20    Q.    Okay.
21  Let me see if I can find the original
22     prints.
23    MR. P. BAKER:  First one 1930, the second one
24     1921.
25    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Show you --
26    MR. LEONARD:  1930 and 1921?
27    MR. P. BAKER:  Yes, sir.
 1 (The instrument herein referred to
 2 as photograph of defendant holding
 3 microphone was marked for
 4 identification as Defendant's
 5 Exhibit No. 1921.)
 7   Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Now, once again, due to
 8     the technical problem here, we're going to have to
 9     have you try to illustrate this to the jury by showing
10     you photographs.
11  And if you would just stand up, and first
12     of all show the jury where the best place on the two
13     photographs is to illustrate this point.
14    MR. GELBLUM:  May I see the photographs first,
15     Your Honor?
16    MR. LEONARD:  Sure.
18(Mr. Gelblum reviews photographs.)
20    A.    The two prints in question show a
21     reflective value.  Frame 1-1 shows a magenta or
22     pinkish tint, to the point where just inspecting this
23     photograph I thought it was a pink shirt instead of a
24     white shirt.
25  In the shadow areas, in other words,
26     where the -- where the white becomes darker, or what
27     you'd expect it to be in a neutral situation, gray, it
28     becomes extremely magenta or pinkish in tone.  That's
 1     on this one and only this one.
 3(Indicating to exhibit No. 1930
 4 photograph showing full view of
 5 Mr. Simpson walking.)
 7  On all the other pictures that show
 8     Mr. Simpson or other football players, when you get to
 9     that darker area, it turns sort of greenish or -- or
10     cyan-ish, so they don't match each other between the
11     existing frame.
13       (Indicating to Exhibit No. 1921
14photograph showing upper
15torso of Mr. Simpson with
18  Did you want me to pass these?
19    Q.    Yes, please.
20  Again, if you could illustrate where on
21     the photograph they can best observe this phenomenon?
22    A.    Yes.  Around the area of the collar or
23     where the -- where the jacket tends to cast shadows
24     against the -- against the shirt, anyplace where it
25     gets dark, where it falls into shadow, the overall
26     tint is cyan on every picture except frame 1-1 where
27     it's magenta.
 1   (Witness indicates to frame 1-1.)
 3    MR. GELBLUM:  Are these new exhibits numbers or
 4     is this --
 5    MR. P. BAKER:  First one is 1930, second one is
 6     1921.
 7    THE COURT REPORTER:  1-1 is 1930 and --
 8    MR. P. BAKER:  And the second one is 1921.
 9    THE COURT:  How much longer will you be?
10    MR. LEONARD:  I'll be done by 4.
12(Photographs are passed among
15    MR. LEONARD:  Can we have the final slide,
16     please.
17    MR. P. BAKER:  Number 11 of 2282.
19 (No. 11 of Exhibit No. 2282 is
20  displayed.)
22    MR. LEONARD:  Would you pull back, please.
24(Indicating to Elmo.)
26    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Before we move on to
27     this, what is the significance in the difference in
28     hue the magenta with all the other frames and the
 1     cyan -- excuse me -- the cyan with all the other
 2     frames and the magenta with the questioned frame, what
 3     is the significance of that, sir?
 4    A.    Well, when viewed as the contact sheet
 5     itself, in fact, we see that overall neutral to cyan
 6     tint on every frame except 1-1, which makes 1-1
 7     visually not fit, the balance is off, and the -- and
 8     the problem that I described before with trying to
 9     exactly match a color balance during a recreation
10     would, in fact, be indicated possibly by this, as well
11     as a slightly out of focus attitude of that particular
12     frame.
13    Q.    Could you explain the final slide,
14     please?
17 (No. 12 of Exhibit No. 2282 is
18  displayed.)
20    A.    This slide represents that the adjacent
21     frames to the -- to the frames that show Mr. Simpson
22     are extremely overexposed.  There is a --
23    Q.    Well, let's stop -- let me stop you right
24     there.
25  What do you mean by overexposed?
26    A.    The normal exposure, normal skin tone
27     reflective values of the red, green, whatever, this is
28     a normal reflective green, which is what we expect to
 1     see, and what we do in fact see in every other
 2     negative that appears in number 1 and number 2.
 3  But the ones surrounding -- the ones near
 4     Mr. Simpson are extremely overexposed, and they're the
 5     only ones that are overexposed, indicating that
 6     perhaps someone had tried at some point to balance
 7     frames of him to the mean roll and perhaps did not
 8     bother to make any kind of a correction around the
 9     ones close to him.  It's conjecture, but there is a
10     problem with that, because the exposures are so
11     dead-on for all the rest.
12    Q.    Now --
13    MR. LEONARD:  You can take that down.
14    Q.    (BY MR. LEONARD)  Now, based on -- strike
15     that.
16  Now, the factors that you have discussed
17     and you have illustrated through the slides that you
18     demonstrated to the jury, are those the factors that
19     you relied on in reaching your conclusion that there
20     is a high probability that the frame in question was
21     altered?
22    A.    Yes.
23    MR. LEONARD:  I don't have any other questions
24     at this point.
25    THE COURT:  Ladies and gentlemen, we're going
26     to excuse you until Friday at 9 o'clock.
27  Let me remind you not to talk about this
28     case, not to say anything about this case to anyone,
 1     not to permit anybody to talk to you about this case,
 2     not to form or express any opinions about this case,
 3     and above all, do not conduct any personal research on
 4     any of the subject matters covered in this trial from
 5     the very beginning to the present time, till the end
 6     of the trial, and I say this particularly because the
 7     kind of testimony we received today sometimes lends
 8     itself to curiosity on the part of individuals, and
 9     one may tend to want to go look at photographs and
10     books and things about it.  Okay.  Do not conduct your
11     own research on this material.
12  The evidence on which you must make your
13     decision must come only from the trial process, that
14     is from the witness stand and through the evidence
15     that we receive into this trial as evidence only.
16  Everybody understand that?
18 (The jury panel answered
19 affirmatively.)
21    THE COURT:  Don't go doing any research, don't
22     go comparing any photos, don't do any of that stuff,
23     all right.
24 (The jury panel answered
25 affirmatively.)
26    THE COURT:  And we're going to be dark tomorrow
27     and we will resume at 9 o'clock, Monday.
28  Have a nice day.
 1    MR. BAKER:  Friday.
 2    THE COURT:  I'm sorry, Friday.  Thank you.
 3     Friday.
 4  Meanwhile, we'll wait till the jurors
 5     clear and we'll hear the motion.
 7(Jurors exit courtroom.)
 9(The following proceedings were
10held in open court outside the
11presence of the jury:)
13    THE COURT:  The Court at this time reverses the
14     plaintiffs' motion to preclude testimony of
15     Dr. Fredric Rieders regarding presence of EDTA in the
16     evidence samples.
17  I read the moving papers, the opposition
18     and the -- I guess this is a responsive pleading by
19     the moving party.
20  Either side have anything else they wish
21     to add?
22    MR. LAMBERT:  I'll submit on the motion, Your
23     Honor.
24    MR. BLASIER:  I simply add to our papers, I
25     think it's outrageous they would make this motion on
26     December 9.
27    THE COURT:  Besides your outrage, do you have
28     anything you want to add with regard to the merits?
 1    MR. BLASIER:  There's no testimony offered by
 2     any expert in the case to the effect this is new
 3     technology, that this is not acceptable technology.
 4     All the experts that testified in the criminal case
 5     and by deposition say this is an accepted method.
 6  Submit on that.
 7    THE COURT:  Okay.
 8  The Court having read the transcripts
 9     that have been submitted together with the moving and
10     opposing papers, notes that the plaintiffs' expert,
11     Dr. Terry D. Lee is, as well as the other
12     documentation submitted, tend to support the position
13     that the -- the testing procedure and the experiment
14     itself in terms of science is a valid and accepted
15     science and a valid and accepted technique.
16  So I think from the standpoint of the
17     Kelly Frye requirements, the objection of plaintiff is
18     not well taken.
19  With regards to the remainder of
20     plaintiffs' objection with respect to whether or not
21     the testing done by the FBI agent --
22    MR. BAKER:  Martz, Your Honor.
23    THE COURT:  -- Martz, may or may not support
24     one conclusion or the other, I think each expert has
25     their opinion with regards to what it is capable of or
26     what it does or does not establish.  I think that goes
27     to the weight of the evidence.
28  So the motion to preclude is denied.
 1    MR. BLASIER:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 2    MR. BAKER:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 3    THE COURT:  One thing further.
 4  Can I see counsel at side bar.
 5    THE CLERK:  Off the record.
 6    THE COURT:  Off the record.
 7    THE CLERK:  Off the record side bar.
 8    THE BAILIFF:  We have a brief side bar.  Please
 9     take a seat in the courtroom if you are going to
10     remain.
11  Thank you.

Return to Kennedy Assassination Home Page