DECEMBER 18, 1996





8:59 A.M.



(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)

MR. BAKER: I'd ask to address you Your Honor because Mr. Kelly had indicated to me, they wanted to put Mr. Acosta on, the witness who was a hold-over; they couldn't get him in here for the plaintiffs' portion of the trial.

They want to put him on, on Friday. And I asked him to delay that and put him on sometime when we come back after the Christmas break.

He wouldn't agree to that. I want to address Your Honor on that. We have witnesses lined up for Friday, and we obviously want to put our witnesses on. And after we come back, there should be no problem putting on Mr. Acosta in one of the break times.

MR. PETROCELLI: The issue with regard to Mr. Acosta, Your Honor, you will recall he was served some time ago, and he left on this unexpected trip. And he's now back in town.

And he's a 15-minute witness. And I'm just concerned about not having him back in this courtroom. And we've made contact with his wife; he's back in town. We wanted to call him tomorrow or Friday, just to get him in and out. He's -- tomorrow we're not in session, and we were shooting for Friday. He's a 15-minute witness.

They have two witnesses lined up for Friday. We can get him in and out. My concern is, if we wait until the new year, after the two-week break, I don't know whether we're going to see him.

THE COURT: Where does he reside?

MR. PETROCELLI: I think he resides near Long Beach, that area. I'm guessing.

THE COURT: Well, again, then I think he should be available.

MR. PETROCELLI: Well, you saw what happened with Mr. Kelly.

THE COURT: I don't want to interrupt the defense case.

MR. PETROCELLI: When are we going to be able to put him on?

THE COURT: You didn't ask him when you were supposed to have him. We're doing you a favor by allowing you to put him on at a later time.


THE COURT: You'll put him on when the defense finishes.

MR. PETROCELLI: When they finish their case?


MR. PETROCELLI: When is that going to be?

MR. BAKER: You will know when it occurs.


MR. PETROCELLI: How about a little advance notice?

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Baker, you indicated you think you might finish about the first or second week after we get back.

MR. BAKER: That's correct, yes. I'd like to call Daniel Gonzalez to the stand.

MR. PETROCELLI: We have no jury.

MR. BAKER: Need some jurors.

MR. LEONARD: Waive jury?

THE COURT: That was the only issue?

MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor.

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.


THE CLERK: I want to put something on the record.

Defendants have indicated to me this morning that Defense Exhibit 2250 is the same exhibit as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 228, so they are withdrawing 2250 and using 228.

(The instrument herein referred to as Defendants' Exhibit 2250 was withdrawn.)

DANIEL GONZALEZ, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:


Q. Morning, Officer Gonzalez.

A. Morning, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Morning.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, we were -- when we ended the day yesterday, we had discussed your being at the Rockingham location.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 116.

(Exhibit No. 116 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. And the fact that you were there about 0520 in the morning; is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And by the way, when you, in fact, filled out the statement form that is in your handwriting, that was pursuant to a request of whom?

A. Excuse me.

Detectives Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman.

Q. And those detectives you were familiar with before you ever went to both the Bundy and Rockingham addresses on the night of June 13, 1994, correct?

A. I knew that they were detectives; that is true.

Q. You work West L.A., they work West L.A.?

A. That is true, sir.

Q. Now, you, in arriving there at 0520 in the morning, you say -- you said yesterday that you saw a Westec vehicle, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you say you only saw -- well, strike that.

When you saw the Westec vehicle, did you see any unmarked police car in the area?

A. You know, I'm trying to get the specifics. When I arrived, I did not initially see an unmarked vehicle. There was one eventually parked on -- well, that diagram doesn't show it.

Q. Where was it parked?

A. Oh, no. Excuse me. It does -- it looks a bit different on the -- that would be the southeast corner on Rockingham and Ashford, there was a -- one unmarked vehicle there.

Q. Parked here or here?

On the Ashford --

A. On the second place you were pointing, on Ashford Street, right there. Correct. Yes.

(Mr. Baker indicating to Exhibit 116.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There were detectives at Rockingham before you got there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And all four of the detectives at Rockingham, before you got there, none had gone over the wall?

A. Nobody had gone over the wall.

Q. And you were privy to the conversations about going over the wall, were you not?

A. Oh, absolutely. Yes, sir.

Q. And you heard the conversations, this concern about, perhaps Mr. Simpson was inside his house, bleeding or dying. You heard that conversation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you heard the conversation that somebody else might be in there, the subject of a murder, a kidnapping or some other crime, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You heard all that conversation, and then you heard who tell Fuhrman to go over the wall?

A. That's an interesting point. I don't remember who -- I don't remember who exactly determined who was going over the wall at that point.

Q. After Fuhrman would went over the wall --

Did you see Fuhrman go over the wall?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you see him go inside --

How many times did he go over the wall, come in and outside that gate, before the gate was ultimately opened?

A. I only recall once.

Q. Do you recall him going over the gate and then opening the gate at that time?

A. Correct.

He jumped over that north gate, and then he unlatched -- I believe it was the -- I want to say the left, but the west-east gate, I guess. There's only one gate. I can't remember if it's one or two, actually. But he went to the left side where there was a motor, and he was able to unlatch it and open it.

Q. Astin, your partner, was with you all this time?

A. He was at the scene, but whether he was by my side or not, I don't remember how much he was by my side.

Q. Were there any other --

When you arrived at Rockingham and parked your vehicle over by the Bronco, you didn't see Fuhrman over there then, did you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You then went around by the Ashford side, and that's when you came in contact with Fuhrman, right?

A. Well, actually, they were in front of the Westec car, and that was parked almost to a 90-degree angle, actually, almost perpendicular to the corner there.

And on that -- that southeast corner, this -- we're showing there, he was parked basically perpendicular in the middle of the street.

That's where the detectives were when I arrived; that's when I first came in contact with the detectives.

Q. And then you had a conversation with -- with Fuhrman, didn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Fuhrman was the detective who had told you that there was some evidence on the Bronco, right?

A. He didn't describe it as evidence immediately, but yes.

Q. He was the one who pointed out to you that there was something on the Bronco, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you were of the view, by the way -- strike that.

You then were interviewed by Detective Ron Phillips sometime after September of 1994, and gave another statement in addition to the one in your handwriting, did you not, sir?

A. Geez, I've been interviewed a whole bunch much of times. I'd have to see if there's a written statement with an interview, with his name. I'd have to see that.

I mean, he might have interviewed me. I don't know how many formal interviews I've been to. I recall quite a few.

Q. Well, I want to you look at this typewritten interview again, undated, and ask you if you recall being interviewed by Ron Phillips.

A. Can I take a moment to just peruse this?

Q. Take your time.

A. Okay.

(Pause for Mr. Gonzalez to review document.)

A. (Continuing.) Okay.

This seems to be some notes from an interview that I -- I had with Detective Phillips, but I don't recall the interview.

Q. Well, you just told us before you read that document --

What's that number? Do we know?

THE CLERK: Typewritten notes?


THE CLERK: I believe it's 1810.


MR. P. BAKER: 1800, but I better check.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told us before you wrote the typewritten interview, you had other interviews; you had a lot of them?

A. Yes, I guess so. Well over half a dozen, it seems like, to me.

Q. Where are the documents from those formal interviews?

A. Those are in the District Attorney's office. I don't know. They called me in there a couple -- few times, even once on the phone.

Q. Did they tape-record any of those interviews, to your knowledge?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did you have any interviews with the plaintiffs' lawyers before you were called to the witness stand a week -- or you were called to this courthouse a week and a half ago?

A. On interviews and testimony, no. I think more or less I've had, with the attorneys themselves, is my appearing here and times, and everything else, I've been in contact with them.

Q. You've been in contact with them relative to the statements that you gave, have you not, Officer Gonzalez?

A. Well, somewhat, but not -- not this detailed.

Q. You're not telling this jury that you didn't discuss with Mr. Medvene the issues that we're talking about right now in this courtroom, are you?

A. No. I'm just trying to make it clear that I hadn't had any complete, formal interviews with any attorney that would -- would result in detailed notes such as this.

Q. But you don't --

What do you mean, a complete, formal interview? You talked about the very item that we're talking about here; that is, your presence when Fuhrman goes over the wall. Isn't that true?

A. I don't recall discussing Fuhrman going over the wall with the attorneys, but I've talked to the attorneys. I talked with your office, so. . .

Q. You talked with our office about scheduling only?

A. Correct.

Q. You didn't talk about anything of substance with our office?

A. No. I wasn't asked.

Q. No.

And in terms of this interview that you gave Ron Phillips, that was an interview that you gave Ron Phillips after it came out that additional blood was discovered in the Bronco on August 26, 1994; isn't that true, sir?

A. See, where I have a problem with this --

Q. Look, I'm not asking you about your problem; I'm asking you one specific question; can you answer it?

That interview was given after you knew that the LAPD was being accused of planting blood in the Bronco, and additional blood was found on August 26, 1994. True or untrue?

A. Gosh, I can't -- I can't answer that true or untrue. You're misstating, kind of, what happened.

Let me back up.

You want me to answer?

Q. I'd be --

A. Let me answer the question.

This copy right here, I don't remember when that was taken. I've never -- never seen that document before in my life. That's the first time I have seen it.

I don't know when the interview occurred with Ron Phillips. I don't remember having an interview with -- with me and him taking notes, or he didn't tape-record or anything, as far as I know. I can't tell you when that interview occurred. I couldn't tell you if it was before or after any accusations were ever made.

Q. Let me ask you this --

A. Okay.

Q. You've now read it, taken a little time?

A. Right.

Q. Anything in here untrue?

A. Well, I'd have to take some time to completely -- you want to give me about three or four minutes here? I'll completely read the whole thing.

Q. I want you to read it and tell me if anything in that document is inaccurate.

A. Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, the question is compound.

It's a two-and-a-half-page document. We'd suggest any specific question he can ask the witness, but it's unfair to give him a three-page document to go through and comment on.

It's a compound question.

THE COURT: Read it.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

(Pause for Mr. Gonzalez to read document.)

THE WITNESS: Can I make a note on this if I find something that needs to be addressed?

MR. BAKER: I'll give you one that's not marked.


MR. BAKER: And a pen?

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, sir.

(Pause for Mr. Gonzalez to resume reading document.)

THE WITNESS: Okay. I've read it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right. And have you noted where you believe there are perhaps errors in this document?

A. Correct. There are approximately one, two, three, four errors.

Q. All right. Now, if Detective Phillips testified that that interview was done in January of 1995, after the criminal trial started, you would not dispute that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That is correct.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And certainly, you were aware by January of 1995, the Los Angeles Police Department had, in fact, been accused of planting evidence in the Bronco; isn't that true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right.

And you were aware of that when you gave that interview to Detective Ron Phillips, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right.

Now, let's go down to --

MR. BAKER: Have we got one more of these so that they can have one?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) While he's doing that, let me ask you a preliminary question.

When you did your handwritten interview, Officer Gonzalez, you wanted to include everything that you could recall about your experiences the night of June 13, 1994, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And -- pardon me. That's --

You then put in the document that you hand-wrote, because by the time you hand-wrote that document, some two or three weeks after the incident, you were aware that the Simpson case was exceedingly high profile, true?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. I don't want to mislead you, because I'm talking now about this document.

A. Right.

Q. Your handwritten document.

A. Right.

Q. And I see you turning pages on 1800, the typewritten document.

A. Okay.

Can you rephrase that, or -- not rephrase it, but just say it one more time. I want to make sure I answer that correctly.

Q. When you hand-wrote the document --

A. Um-hum.

Q. -- that is, your statement of what you did on June 3, 1994, you were aware that the Simpson case was exceedingly high profile, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were aware that O.J. Simpson had been arrested and incarcerated, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were aware that there was -- the district attorney had issued press conferences relative to his beliefs concerning Mr. Simpson's guilt or innocence, correct?

A. You mean Garcetti?

Q. That's who I mean.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were aware that it was a daily report in the newspapers, virtually every day and on every television channel, correct?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And you knew the importance of putting everything in your statement that you saw or heard on the night of June 13, 1994 that had any significance whatsoever to the case, true?

A. Correct.

Q. And in your statement, you indicate -- that is the first statement -- let's call them number 1 and number 2 -- you indicate nothing about playing with the Akita dog. You would agree with that?

A. I agree with that.

Q. You included and --

MR. BAKER: Put that up on the typed --

MR. P. BAKER: Handwritten?

MR. BAKER: The typed, please.

THE COURT REPORTER: Which exhibit is that?

MR. P. BAKER: It's 1800.

(Exhibit No. 1800 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)



Gonzalez played with the Akita dog while

it was at the northeast corner of

Dorothy and Bundy. The dog had been

tied up at pole at that location.

Gonzalez noticed that the dog's paws

were soaked in possible blood. The dog

did not appear to be bleeding.

Did you tell Detective Ron Phillips that or words to that effect in January of 1995, sir?

A. Well, like I said, I don't have an independent recollection of -- of that interview. But it's possible I told him something to that effect.

I just want to clarify. This looks more like notes than it does my personal statement.

Q. Would you --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. If the Court please, objection to the document. The document is a hearsay document that the witness said -- that the witness said that he did not review and never saw. We don't think it should be shown.

He can certainly ask him questions about it.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this document was identified by Detective Phillips during his examination, it's my recollection, here in this courtroom.

And I can certainly bring Detective Phillips back and go over it again. But I don't think that that's necessary.

MR. BLASIER: It's authenticated.

MR. BAKER: Can you give us the page that is authenticated?

MR. BLASIER: It's October 29, page 193.

THE COURT: Can I see it?

MR. BAKER: We'll have to show it to you on the computer. We don't bring every volume; we just put the disc in and load it up to the computer.

THE COURT: I just want to see it.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's in evidence?

MR. FOSTER: Not moved in.

THE COURT: The document been moved in?

MR. FOSTER: Not in evidence.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Just referred to.

MR. GELBLUM: What was the page number?

(Pause for the Court to read document.)


(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)

THE COURT: Okay. It's a report that was authenticated by that witness. It's filed as part of the report. The witness is here for examination.

MR. BAKER: And I move that into evidence, Your Honor, Exhibit 1800.

THE COURT: Received as a business record.

(The instrument herein referred to as Officer Gonzalez' handwritten report was received into evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1800.)

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

Now, Phil, would you please put the top of that document so we can see it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This says statement of Daniel H. Gonzalez, number 27592.

That is you, is it not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Interview conducted by Detective 3 Ron Phillips, 12914.

Now, it was an interview conducted by Ron Phillips, and your statement, correct?

A. That's what the document says, then that's what the document says, correct. Correct.

Q. And you have no reason to disbelieve that, true?

A. No. I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Q. You then, in your typewritten document, notice that the dog's paws were soaked in possible blood, correct?

A. Okay.

I want to make it real clear, 'cause I'm listening very carefully to the words that you use. And we went through this yesterday.

And I'm not trying to be nit-picking, but this is -- obviously, we're nit-picking about certain facts. And when you use words like "my document," it kind of goes back to "visualization" yesterday, and I have a problem with that.

This isn't my document. I didn't write this document. He says the interview happened. The interview must have happened. I've talked to him. I've talked to him before; I talked to him at the scene. I've talked to a lot of people.

This is a document about an interview with me. These are his notes. These are what he said I said.

Now, I have some dispute with this, that is true; so you want to go over this, we can go over this. That's not a big deal.

Q. We're going to.

A. Okay.

Q. Did you tell Ron Phillips, in January of 1995, that the dog's paws were soaked in possible blood? Yes or no?

A. No.

Q. Never said that?

A. That's not -- I did not say possible blood; I said they were soaked in blood.

Q. Okay.

And did you also tell him that they appeared -- the dog did not appear to be bleeding?

A. I told him that, also.

Q. And did you play with the dog while it was tied at the northeast corner of Dorothy and Bundy?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You did not tell him words to that effect?

That's totally flat wrong?

A. I did not use the word "play." If he thinks that I said play, then he is mistaken. That's true; that is wrong.

Q. Did you tell him that you played, or words to that effect, with the Akita dog while it was tied up at the northeast corner of Dorothy and Bundy?

A. No, I didn't. He misunderstood.

Q. So that's just wrong?

A. That is.

Q. Correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

Now, you --

MR. BAKER: Put it over to page 2.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You just omitted any reference to the dog whatsoever in your statement form that you gave a couple weeks after the crimes. You have not one word about a dog, about blood, about anything relative to that dog in your statement form, do you?

A. That is true.

Q. Just forgot that when you were trying to put in everything that was important, two weeks after the crimes had occurred, and you knew about the importance of the case, correct, just forgot it?

MR. MEDVENE: Question argumentative. Object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, I didn't -- I might have forgotten to write it. I didn't forget it didn't happen (sic). There were plenty of people who saw the dog. I'm not the only one who saw the dog tied with the rope with blood on his paws.

Q. I didn't ask you if there were plenty of people. I asked, you forgot to put it in because you didn't think it was important.

A. Well, what I -- whether I thought it was important or not, that definitely is an argument. But I did not put it in because I -- I simply forgot. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, let's go to the typewritten report of January '95 at page 2, paragraph 2, or first full paragraph on page 2.

It says: After Gonzalez arrived at the Rockingham location, he was met by Detective Fuhrman, who took Gonzalez to a Bronco parked on Rockingham.

Is that true?

A. That is true.

Q. So the minute you get there, Fuhrman takes -- you meet him, he takes you to the Bronco that is parked on Rockingham, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. That's 5:20 in the morning, right?

A. Yes, sir. I think we agreed on that time, correct.

Q. Well if you look at your typed -- your handwritten report, you arrived there at 5:20. So that's just after you arrived, correct?

Right here, second full paragraph. (Indicating.)

A. That's true; right after we arrived.

Q. And he takes you right down to the Bronco, and he pointed out red stains on the Bronco, right?

A. See, I would never use that term, "red stains." So that's when -- what Detective Phillips -- that's how he interpreted that. But I never would have used those terms, "red stains."

Q. After you just had the opportunity in court to correct this document, that is not a paragraph you corrected at all, is it, sir?

A. That is true.

Q. Did or did not Fuhrman take you to the Bronco and point out what you believe was blood, or did he tell you was blood on the Bronco?

A. He told me it was blood; it looked like blood; and I believed it was blood.

Q. And he pointed out a stain on the Bronco near the driver's door handle, right?

A. Right above the door, driver's door handle. And.

Q. And looked like a fingerprint to you?

A. Correct.

MR. BAKER: Put it up.

MR. P. BAKER: 109.

(Exhibit No. 109 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That looked like a fingerprint to you, right?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. And you thought that that was blood, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And that is what, a quarter of an inch?

A. Appears to be a quarter of an inch, correct.

Q. And what about an eighth of an inch high, or width, rather?

A. Okay. I'll agree.

Q. And it's, of course, dark. It's 5:20 in the morning. The sun hasn't risen?

A. Right.

Q. You conclude, after Fuhrman tells you it's blood, that it's blood?

A. Correct.

Q. You were on the force about how many years at that point in time?

A. I believe it was over four years at that point.

Q. And you thought that that was pretty ominous, huh? Something must be going on in the house. You agreed with Fuhrman that this was a dangerous situation, correct, based on that piece -- based on that piece of evidence?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, goes to state of mind.

THE COURT: Any issue as to probable cause is sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, then you say you saw a stain near the running board, and you used a flashlight because it was between the door and the frame of the car, right?

A. I used --

Q. That's what it says, isn't it?

A. Yes, that's what it says.

Q. And, in fact --

MR. BAKER: You want to put up the picture of the interior of the Bronco?

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.

THE CLERK: 2276.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of inside of Bronco vehicle was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2276.)

(Exhibit No. 2276 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you want to -- you want to show us, sir -- just point to the area on the running board of this vehicle, or of the door and the frame of the car -- show us the area between the door and the frame of the car that -- that Fuhrman pointed blood stains out to you.

A. I'm going to approach.

Q. Sure.

A. The area should have been in -- the picture's not showing it -- right along this area right here, right along the door jam. (Indicating.)

Q. Okay.

MR. BAKER: Now, you want to show a picture, Phil, of the Bronco?

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.

CLERK: 2277.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of exterior of white Bronco was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2277.)

MR. BAKER: You want to kind of zoom in on the door.

You want to zoom in on the door?


Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You couldn't see anything between -- in the area that you say was the running board of the vehicle, unless the door was opened; isn't that true Officer Gonzalez?

A. No. Not true.

MR. BAKER: Let's go back to the other.

(Exhibit No. 2276 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The area you're talking about is an area where I am pointing to a spot; isn't that true, sir?

A. I -- the area I'm pointing to, I don't recall exactly -- how do I phrase this?

That's not true. That's that spot that I was looking at, I thought, was just on the picture.

To tell you the truth, I don't see anything on that running board, absolutely nothing on that running board. I can only tell you what I saw that night. And it was between that door jam. But that, to me, that's a clean running board. I don't see anything. (Indicating to photograph.)

Q. The bottom side of the door of the Bronco has a rubber molding around it, doesn't it, kind of a waterproof rubber molding, so when you wash the vehicle, if you go through a car wash or a puddle or something, water doesn't come into it? You've seen that?

A. Yes. I'm pretty familiar with the car.

Q. And you would disagree if Dennis Fung said there's no way you could see any blood on that door sill unless the door was open? You disagree with that?

A. I disagree.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In fact, you got in the vehicle that night, didn't you?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Is there -- there's no way you could visualize what you put in your report without opening the door to the vehicle; isn't that true, sir?

A. There's no way to get inside a locked vehicle. And what you're saying is, I went inside a locked vehicle that we determined to be evidence and I'm getting offended.

Q. You're getting offended?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are -- you already determined that to be evidence at 5:20, when Fuhrman marches you down there and points out that spot, you determined that to be evidence already; is that right, sir?

A. Sir, we determined that to be evidence after we discovered that nobody was home and they were supposed to be home.

Q. You didn't answer my question.

My question, sir, is: At 5:20, when you went down there with Fuhrman and he gratuitously pointed out to you, Officer Gonzalez, this little bitty piece of blood, and you say you can see blood on the door sill that nobody else can see with -- with the door closed, that you're offended that you already determined it was evidence; is that what you're telling this jury?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor it's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: The question -- Mr. Baker knows it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You also determined, Officer Gonzalez, that the car was parked with the rear tire one to two feet from the curb, and the front tire approximately one to two inches from the curb; is that true?

A. That's true.

MR. BAKER: Show him that picture.

See if you're offended by this.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection to Mr. Baker's comments. Move to strike them.

THE COURT: Stricken. Jury to disregard it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, is that the Bronco as you saw it?

(Pause for Mr. Gonzalez to review document.)

MR. BAKER: Back it off, Phil, please.

MR. P. BAKER: Next --

THE COURT REPORTER: Next in order?

MR. P. BAKER: 2278.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph depicting parked white Bronco was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2278.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's a couple feet from the curb, the rear tire?

A. That's a Bronco on the street, and you're going to have to prove to me that's a picture of the Bronco taken at the scene before I say it is.

Q. You wouldn't believe it because you wouldn't put in your report one to two inches in front and one to two feet in the back. You wouldn't lie in your report, would you, Officer Gonzalez?

A. I wouldn't lie in the report.

MR. BAKER: Show him the view from the front.

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.

THE CLERK: 2279.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of front view of white Bronco was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2279.)

(Exhibit No. 2279 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. That looks about an inch or two from the curb, does it?

Do you see the evidence van over there?

Does that prove to you that the vehicle wasn't parked one to two inches in the front and one to two feet in the back?

A. Hum --

Q. Does it prove that to you, sir?

A. No, it doesn't.

I'm telling you, that thing was parked crooked. It was parked crooked on that street.

Okay? That's what I saw.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's what you saw?

A. That's what you say.

Q. That's four or five inches, not one to two feet, is it?

A. From the curb. You're talking from the rain gutter or from the curb itself?

We measured from the curb.

Q. You measured it?

A. No. That's how -- when I look at something, and you determine -- when you estimate how far something is, we determine by north, south, east, west curbs. But that corner -- and if I approach, right near --

MR. BAKER: Show him the other.

A. (Continuing.) This corner right here is where we start from. I would say something -- so many feet from the curb. This is where we start.

So I don't see a problem saying that's a foot from the curb.

I see a problem saying this is a couple inches. Obviously, I'm mistaken. I did not log any pictures. I have to go off my independent recollection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That was one of the big issues, wasn't it, about -- that Fuhrman was showing you that the car was parked at this crooked angle from the curb?

That was a big issue. You put that in your in both your reports, your handwritten report and your type -- and Phillips' typed report, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That was one of many issues.

And if you want to take all the issues as big, then they're all big.

Q. Now, in addition, you --


MR. BAKER: What number is that?

THE CLERK: 2280. Next in order.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of white Ford Bronco was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2280.)

(Exhibit No. 2280 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

MR. P. BAKER: We're putting 2036 on the board.

(Exhibit No. 2036 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. Instead of a one- to two-feet difference, there's really about four- to five-inches difference, isn't there, Officer Gonzalez?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, the tires on that vehicle are about eight inches wide. One of them's over the concrete apron about three inches, and one is basically adjacent or an inch away from the concrete apron. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And there's absolutely nothing illegal about the way that vehicle is parked, is there, sir?

A. I never said the vehicle was parked illegally.

Q. Just answer the question.

There's nothing illegal about the way that vehicle is parked, is there, sir?

A. No. No, there's nothing illegal about it.

Q. Now, you said in your written report that you were able to see in that door sill, blood drops, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And so you were able to see in the slip that you say that you could visualize blood behind this rubber insulation area of the door blood drops, true?

A. True.

You're making it sound like the -- the insulation meets the door jam at the very edge, and that is not the case on this door.

Q. So let me see if I got this right.

You're in a slit that is what, a thirty-second of an inch opening at the bottom of the door jam?

A. I would say one-quarter to one thirty-second.

I'd have to look at the door to give you an exact measurement.

Q. It's at night, and Fuhrman has already taken you down there. And he shows you these blood drops, right?

A. That's true, sir.

Q. And by the way, is there any code to cover up for other police officers?

Is there any code of ethics like that, that you guys have?

A. I know what you mean. You want to know --

Q. Yeah.

A. Okay.

Q. Yeah, I really do want to know. Is there or is there not a code to cover up for each other?

A. You get promoted for burning each other.

Q. Is there a code you adhere to for covering up?

A. I answered the question.

Q. Have you been promoted?

A. Well, no. I've -- what my --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- my rank right now is not really considered a promotion. Sergeant and above.

Q. Now --

A. You have to work Internal Affairs, because -- before you can even become a captain. That should explain something to you.

Q. I'm getting a lot of things explained to me.

A. Okay.

Q. Now. You then indicated, sir, in your written statement, that you were able to visualize blood in the Bronco, correct?

A. Once again, I saw blood in the Bronco. I did not visualize nothing. I saw.

Q. Well, tell us what blood you saw in the Bronco on the morning of June 13, 1994.

A. Right now, from my independent recollection, I specifically remember the bloody thumb print or fingerprint above the door handle. And I remember two large drops on the center console.

Q. That's it?

A. Right now, from my independent recollection, we're talking about something that happened a couple years ago, so there's some things I'm going to remember pretty well and some things I'm not going to remember so well. Things I --

Q. Now, the door in the Bronco, two drops on the center console. And have you ever indicated that there was any more blood than that, that you believe you observed on June 13, 1994?

A. Correct. Yes, I have.

Q. And when there was the big issue of whether or not the L.A. Police department planted blood in that Bronco subsequent to June 13, 1994, you told Officer Phillips that there was a smear on the inside of the driver's door, right?

A. That is possible.

Q. It's not only possible; it's what you said. It's on page 4 put of his written statement. Page 4.

A. Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: (Complies.)

MR. BAKER: No, Phil, the page 3. I'm sorry; I apologize. Page 3. Yeah.

MR. P. BAKER: Of 1800.

(Exhibit No.1800, page 3 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. You've had an opportunity to review this, you had an opportunity to make any changes that you wanted in it, right?

A. I just pointed out some mistakes I found very obvious.

Q. So, you told Phillips that there was a smear on the upside of the driver's door panel, right?

A. That, I believe, I possibly told him.

Q. You didn't have anything like that in your written statement that was made a couple of weeks after the incident, did you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Then you said to Phillips that you saw blood on the driver's seat as well, and you subsequently found out there is no blood on the driver's seat, right, so now that's a mistake, isn't it?

A. Okay.

Nobody has ever discussed the conclusion of any of the evidence to me since this case has began, ever.

Q. Can you answer my question?

A. I am answering your question.

Q. Did you tell Ron Phillips that there was blood on the driver's seat or not?

A. No.

Q. He just put that in there, and you never said it, right?

A. That's not completely true.

MR. MEDVENE: Question argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told Phillips that there was -- you told Phillips there's a smear on the steering wheel?

A. That's possible.

Q. Well, I didn't ask you if it was possible.

Did you tell him?

It's possible it's raining in here, but it isn't.

A. You're right. And it's possible I had an interview with him and it's possible I didn't. I don't know. I don't remember this interview. I can only tell you -- I can only testify what's on here. I can testify to things that I know I did not tell him. How he read what I was telling him is a whole different thing. That's up to him.

Q. I see.

So you don't know if you even discussed blood with him and you don't know if pages 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit 1800 were totally fabricated by Ron Phillips?

A. No, I don't know if he had concluded this after maybe several times I've talked to him or if he had taken my notes and added to them, but I don't -- this is very detailed. And I would have remembered if he sat down and wrote all this out.

Q. And if he said you had a detailed conversation -- I thought we discussed this earlier -- in January of 1995, after the trial started, and this document, Exhibit 1800, is a result of that interview, you would not disagree with that?

A. I would not disagree. I would only dispute about the things he put in here.

Q. Now, in terms of the smear on the steering wheel, did you tell him that or not, or do you have any recollection of there ever being a smear on the steering wheel?

A. Right now I have no independent recollection of that whatsoever, but it's possible I might have told him there was a smear on the steering wheel.

Q. Did you tell him there was two big drops on the center console?

A. That I vividly remember, I still remember that.

Q. Let me show you a photo that was taken on August 10, 1994 by the Los Angeles Police Department.

MR. P. BAKER: 1420.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And tell us where the two big drops were?

You don't see them in that photo, do you?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Point out on that, if you can -- take the pointer and point out, show us where these two big drops were?

A. Well, here's the center console and this -- the top, this -- that's where they're going to have to be, somewhere around this area.

Q. Well, I thought you just told us, sir, maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought you just told us that you had a specific recollection of these two big drops?

A. That is true.

Q. Well, I take it if you have a specific recollection of these two big drops, you have a specific recollection in your mind's eye, as you sit here now on the witness stand, of the location of those drops, not from one end to the other end of the console?

A. Well, you're only talking about what, 7 inches there, 8 inches, I mean I can't -- I couldn't diagram for you and tell you exactly where they are at.

You understand -- do you understand what I'm trying to tell you?

Q. Well --

A. They're on the same console, the two drops are on the center console there on the top of the center console.

MR. PETROCELLI: Let the witness -- let the record reflect that the witness is pointing to the center console where the door opens.

MR. BAKER: He wouldn't go from one end to the other.

MR. PETROCELLI: No, he pointed to the middle, to the center console.

A. The middle of the center console, right around here. It's not going to be on the side, not on the back, it's going to be someplace on the top.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) A Ford Bronco is a large sport utility vehicle, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the center console in a Ford Bronco is bigger, for example, than the center console in almost every other car, isn't it?

A. Well, every other car that's smaller than a Bronco, sure.

Q. It's wider -- it's about a foot wide, isn't it?

A. I would argue that, and I'd possibly win.

Q. I doubt it.

A. I'd lay some money on that.

Q. How much?

This distance between the -- that's an indent, is it not?

A. Sure.

Q. And the material of that area is vinyl, right, plastic?

A. Plastic, correct.

Q. And you saw -- at least you have suggested here that you saw two large drops, correct?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. And those drops you described as large in your statement that you gave to Ron Phillips, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, you don't describe them as large in your handwritten statement, do you?

A. I might have used big. I don't know what I used.

Q. Let me show you.

A. Okay.

Q. Did you use any descriptive phrase whatsoever in describing these purported blood drops?

(Witness reviews document handed to him by Mr. Baker.)

A. No, I did not.

Q. Didn't say big, didn't say small, didn't say two, either?

A. If it makes you feel better about --

Q. I'm not interested in whether you think I feel better.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, you didn't describe any number, either, did you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. So six months later, you described two big drops on the center console in your discussions with Phillips, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you can't tell us as you sit here today whether those drops --

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I don't want to keep interrupting you, but you've made your point. Move on to the next part, okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You can't tell whether those drops were in the indented area or not, true or untrue?

A. True.

Q. Now, you told Phillips there's a smear on the dashboard near the steering wheel?

A. See, that's possible I told him that.

Q. You never mentioned that in your written statement either, did you?

A. I did not.

Q. Now, you said driver floor area; never mentioned that in your written statement, did you?

A. Well, that I dispute also with Detective Phillips.

Q. Oh, so you didn't tell him about the driver's floor area, right?

A. I think he's misinterpreting what this -- he must have been playing answer question with me, 'cause there's no way I said there's blood on the driver -- you couldn't tell if there's blood on the driver floor area.

Q. Now, I want to --

MR. BAKER: Phil, you can take that down.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want to go back for a moment to where you were located when Arnelle Simpson had come north around the house, then been taken out towards the Rockingham gate and shown the Bronco on Rockingham, okay?

A. Okay.

Q. Do you have a recollection where you were located when you heard the officers inquire about the whereabouts of Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Where were you?

A. I can approach?

Q. Please.

(Witness approaches Exhibit 116.)

A. I was -- I would have been in this general area right around here.

Q. Okay.

A. This -- which is like -- shall I describe it for the record or do you want to describe it?

Q. Go ahead.

A. Which would have been an area just south of Ashford and just south of the Ashford fence and just west of the house on the -- probably in the center portion of the grounds.

Q. Were you on the driveway?

A. I could have been on the grass, on the driveway, I --

Q. Close to that pathway that goes around the north side of the house?

A. Correct, in this general area right here, someplace around there is where I was standing.

Q. As I understand your testimony, sir, your recollection is -- you may resume your seat.

A. Thank you.

Q. Thank you.

You saw the detectives, don't recall which ones, you recall seeing the detectives lead Arnelle out of her room and around the north path down to an area where they could visualize the Bronco, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, this has been asked and answered yesterday.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Foundational.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You heard --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

Is there a ruling on the objection?

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You heard what was said from the time that the detectives and Arnelle got into your view around the pool area, all the way to the driveway, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, same objection, asked and answered yesterday.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never heard any detective have any concern as to whether Mr. Simpson was in the house bleeding to death or not, did you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay, asked and answered yesterday, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. You trying to say the detective didn't care if he was there?

THE COURT: No, it was a simple question. Answer the question yes or no.

A. Geez, one more time. Just -- I'm confused whether you want --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Sure, I'll be --

A. I'm sorry.

Q. I want you to answer the question.

A. All right, I'll answer it yes or no.

Q. You were outside on Ashford when these discussions were taking place about the concern over a possible crime, that Mr. Simpson could be in the house dying, bleeding to death, and that was the reason they went over the wall; you heard that, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'll strike the entire question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You heard the discussions on Ashford that led to Fuhrman going over the wall, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never heard one concern about anybody being in the house when Arnelle Simpson was led from her room, around the north pathway on the driveway, out to Rockingham, and led back into the house, did you, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, asked and answered, state of mind.

THE COURT: You may answer that yes or no.

A. No, I didn't hear them ask, I didn't hear them voice any concern at that point, no.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And in both your written statement and your typewritten statement from the interview you gave to Phillips, you said after Arnelle Simpson broke down, they went to the house, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, asked and answered yesterday, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: That's all I have right now, Your Honor.

THE COURT: 10-minute recess.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions.


(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may resume.

MR. MEDVENE: Morning, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Morning.

JURORS: Morning.


Q. A few moments ago you had mentioned blood that you saw with what appeared to be blood to you on the center console of the Bronco on June the 13th.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you make, to the best of your recollection, if you've now refreshed your recollection, reference to seeing blood on the center console in the handwritten report you prepared shortly after the incident?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you prepare that report -- can you tell us when you prepared that report with respect to the incident, a week or two --

A. Yeah. Probably a couple weeks, a couple of weeks after the incident. And I don't remember the date.

Q. And is it true, sir, that that was before anyone had made any allegation, to your knowledge, of anyone somehow opening this locked Bronco and somehow planting blood inside it?

A. True.

MR. MEDVENE: Now, would you put on the TV monitor, please 170.

(Exhibit 170 displayed.)

Q. Can you see the picture from there?

A. Yes, I can.

Q. Do you see anything that appears to be blood on the center console that you were having reference to in your report that you wrote shortly after June 13?

You can walk up to it.

A. Okay.

MR. BAKER: What number is this, Steve?

MR. FOSTER: 170.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Let me place a photo in front of you.

A. That would be better, much better.

(Witness reviews photograph.)

A. Well, I definitely see blood on the center console. Item No. 30 is obvious.

Item 31, I believe I see what it's referring to, but it's very faint.

Q. To the best of your recollection, is that what you had referenced when you made reference to looking for from outside the vehicle -- did you have -- use a flashlight?

A. Yes, I did, sir.

Q. And was it already dawn?

A. Well, let me back up.

Actually, it wasn't until the sun had come up that it was obvious that there was -- there was some blood inside the Bronco.

But before then, I don't recall -- I recall looking in the Bronco with a flashlight but I don't recall finding blood at that time with just the flashlight.

Q. Let's step back a minute.

When you get there and Detective Fuhrman brings you over to the Bronco and you observe what you observed above the door handle, that was somewhere around 5:20 a.m., correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, your assignment at Rockingham, or one of them, was to help guard the Bronco; is that correct?

A. Well, when I -- after our arrival at -- after some time there, yes, sir, that's true.

Q. And is it true that after the sun came up, you again looked in the Bronco on your own, sometime later?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately what time was that?

A. I have an impound sheet that I was working on at that time. I believe it was at that time. If I had that impound report that would -- that would specify a time. But it would have to be when, obviously, whatever time the sun came up that morning, sometime after that.

Q. And it was light?

A. And it was light.

Q. And it was at that time that you observed what appeared to be blood on the center console?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Could you put it back up, please.

What number is that, Steve?

MR. FOSTER: 170.


(Exhibit 170 displayed.)

Q. Can you see what you observed on that photo?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. Not on -- it's easier to see on the picture than it is on this television screen. It looks kind of blurry.

MR. MEDVENE: You can take it down.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

Q. Now, you made reference also, when you first got there, to the running board and Mr. Baker asked you certain questions.

I don't have a picture I can show you close up of the driver side of the running board, but let me put up next in order which I'll represent to you is the passenger side of the running board, and I'd ask you to approach it and tell the jury whether -- yeah, whether or not you can observe a runner there.

THE CLERK: That will be 2281.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of the running board of the Bronco was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2281.)

MR. MEDVENE: I'm calling it a runner, but --

MR. BAKER: A what?

MR. MEDVENE: I'm calling it a runner. But it's a piece of metal with the door closed, not hidden or covered up by any stripping or covering of any kind.

A. I think I could better describe it this reflects pretty much a mirror image of the other side, and there is a gap in there and between one thirty-second and I think we decided one quarter of an inch, that if you shine a flashlight you can see in there, you can see just a little bit in there.

Q. And did you get down that morning and shine a flashlight in there?

A. Yes, we were on our knees looking.

Q. Again, in the report that you prepared prior to hearing that anybody was claiming that blood was planted or the door was open, did you indicate that there was blood on the driver's side door panel?

A. I can simplify this. I just recently heard that we are being accused of planting blood inside the Bronco, just a few weeks ago. All of that is going to be before I heard about any evidence planting inside the Bronco.

Q. Did you put in this report you prepared of your observations, the report you prepared within several weeks of your observations, that after the sun came up, in effect, you observed blood smeared on the driver's side door panel, the inside panel?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: Putting 169 on the board.

(Exhibit 169 displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of vehicle interior door was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 169.)

Q. I wonder if you could approach that.

MR. MEDVENE: Can you zoom in.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And if you can, where were you standing to observe the blood?

A. From that side I would have been standing on the passenger side looking in, or westward, but --

Q. Does that -- I'm sorry, sir.

A. I was going to say I can tell you that -- everything on the top is the only thing I remember. I didn't even know there was something on No. 23.

Q. Okay.

So when you say at the top, you waved your arm towards the 21 and 22?

A. Correct. 21 and 22.

Q. Okay.

And the best of your recollection is that's what you observed on June 13, early morning hours, after the sun was up?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, reference was made by counsel to certain language in Detective Phillips's report. You had told us, as I remember, that -- about the dog, and you said you don't remember using the word "play."

Do you have any memory of telling him, Detective Phillips, anything you might have done with the dog?

A. I never moved the dog.

Q. Do you remember telling him you touched the dog or petted the dog, that he could have interpreted as played with the dog?

A. When you say possibly, the way I told him, I was looking. The dog -- something was wrong with the dog. I don't know what the heck -- at the time I didn't know what the heck was wrong with the dog. Obviously I own a dog, I know when a dog looks distressed. I'm not a dog psychologist, don't get me wrong. Something was wrong with this dog.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike, no foundation.

THE COURT: Lay person's opinion. Received for that purpose.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) So in discussing your concern about the dog, might you have told him that you touched or petted the dog?

A. That's the only thing I can think of. I know the word "play" never -- I think of play as throwing a ball, having a dog chase it. That's nowhere near what I was doing with the dog.

Q. Okay. And the words "red stain" in the notes, counsel made reference to something about Detective Fuhrman pointing out red stains on the Bronco, both near the driver's door handle and near the running board.

Detective Fuhrman did point those things initially out to you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. But you said you didn't use the words "red stains."

To the best of your recollection, what did you use?

A. I would have used blood.

Q. Okay.

Now, incidentally, Detective Fuhrman never pointed out to you the other blood that you described in your report as seeing inside the vehicle; isn't that correct?

A. Correct. All the blood he pointed out was visible, was only on the -- excuse me, the driver's door area.

Q. And it was on your own, some period of time later when it became light, that you looked inside the car and observed what you've told us about?

A. Correct.

Q. Yesterday, there was some talk of your arrival at Rockingham.

And is it correct, sir, that after you went inside, you returned to the driveway and were in the driveway area for a while, doing whatever you were doing; watching the Bronco, whatever you were doing?

A. Okay. I'm confused as to where you're placing me at the time.

Q. Well, confused because my question wasn't very good.

You told us yesterday about entering into the Rockingham property?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you said after -- after a period of time you returned to the driveway?

A. Correct.

Q. And you don't know -- Strike that.

Prior to sometime later seeing an officer or officers with Ms. Simpson, you don't know what the detectives were doing and whether they had entered the rear of the house or not, do you?

MR. BAKER: That's leading, Your Honor.

MR. MEDVENE: We're entitled to lead.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. It's possible they may have entered the house. I don't believe so, at the time, but it's possible.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You don't know one way or another what they were doing in the rear of the house 'cause you were in the driveway; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. BAKER: Asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you.

I have nothing further.

MR. BAKER: You want to put up 170 please, Phil.

(Exhibit 170 displayed.)

MR. BAKER: Now, can you zoom in or make it a little more visible.


Q. That's a blood smear, that isn't blood drops, correct?

A. Correct. Actually, I -- like I said in the first statement when the other counsel was talking to me, I can't say I had an independent recollection of that.

Q. And if some blood drops were smeared, that certainly could be done with a bloody glove couldn't it?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for conclusion, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said in your testimony earlier this morning, that the blood drops were on the top of the console, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. They weren't on the side of the console, they weren't on the back of the console, correct?

A. I said I don't recall seeing them on the side or the back.

Q. You said they weren't on the side and they weren't on the back; isn't that what you said, Officer Gonzalez?

A. I said that the blood drops I saw were on the top of the counsel -- of the console.

Q. And you -- to inspect this vehicle, after -- after you were requested to guard the vehicle, that's when you took your flashlight, shined the flashlight in, shined it all the way across, and you say you saw blood spots on the driver's door from the passenger side up by the window sill, correct?

A. That's not -- That's not correct.

MR. BAKER: You want to put the other photo up that they just had up.

(Exhibit 169 displayed)

THE COURT REPORTER: That number, please.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you just told Mr. Medvene that -- that you --

THE COURT REPORTER: -- I apologize --

MR. BAKER: You got the number?

MR. P. BAKER: Not yet. I'll find it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You just told Mr. Medvene since we've been back from the break that you saw blood in the area where No. 21 is, correct, sir?

A. That is where I previously stated, obviously. I want to get back to my other statement here. Yes, that is true.

Q. Just asking you what you told Mr. Medvene within the last 15 minutes. You said that you saw blood in the area of No. 21 up by the door sill; is that not correct, sir?

A. That is true.

Q. And you said that you visualized that from your position on the passenger side of the vehicle, which would be on the grass there at Rockingham, correct?

A. That is not true. I didn't visualize anything.

Q. Well, you saw it?

A. Thank you.

Q. I use words that -- never mind.

A. All right.

Q. Now, so you were across the vehicle and looking in from the -- from the driver's door, from the passenger door, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you obviously have testified here you never got in the vehicle, so you had to be shining your flashlight and looking in from the passenger side, all the way across to the driver's side, right?

A. Okay.

This is where we get into specifics again. I never said I used my flashlight to illuminate the blood.

Q. So you didn't use your flashlight to illuminate any blood; is that true?

A. True.

Q. Okay. So you --

A. Oh, well, gosh. See, you're leading me on again and you're confusing me. I did illuminate -- I used my flashlight to see blood from the outside of the Bronco. The blood inside the Bronco did not become obvious until the sun came up.

I know we have to play this question and answer game thing.

Q. This is not a game. And quit playing. We're not playing.

A. You're playing with me.

Q. Oh, no.

A. You've been playing with me since we started this whole thing.

Q. You can argue all you want, sir.

But I want you to answer this question and tell this jury, you were on the passenger side, you saw the blood; is that what you're telling this jury, on the driver's door?

A. Absolutely. No. 21 and No. 22 is what I saw. Absolutely.

Q. And you have no doubt about that whatsoever, and you wouldn't lie in this courtroom, right?

A. I would never lie.

Q. Never?

A. Never.

Q. And you, obviously, to see that, had scanned with your eyes, and in your field of vision, the entire front seat on the passenger side, the console, as well as the driver's door, it was all in your field of vision when you made this all important discovery, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative, compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, I don't know if I discovered it first, but I did see the blood there.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you didn't see any blood on the side of the console at all, did you?

A. On the side of the console, no, I don't remember seeing blood there.

MR. BAKER: Put that photo up.

(Exhibit 170 displayed.)

A. Right, No. 30, that's the one I was talking about. I don't remember seeing that there.

Q. You were sure looking for blood after you made this discovery on the passenger door that you say you made. You were looking for blood.

You didn't see one bit of blood on the console, did you, sir?

A. I don't remember seeing that blood.

Q. You certainly would have seen it if it had been there because you were certainly looking for blood; isn't that true?

A. That's not true.

I think I missed a lot of things in that Bronco, to tell you the truth.

Q. So you only remember seeing the blood on the door.

You don't remember seeing blood on the console, correct?

A. I think it's realistic to explain to --

Q. Can you answer my question?

A. I'm answering your question.

Q. Then answer it.

You don't remember seeing blood on the console.

You do remember seeing two separate areas of blood on the door, right?

A. There are some things I remember and some things I don't.

Q. And the reason you don't remember the blood on the console is because it was subsequently planted in that Bronco after June 14, 1994; isn't that true?

A. No.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative.

Mr. Baker knows --

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker knows it, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now --

MR. MEDVENE: We'd ask that Mr. Baker's question be stricken from the record.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were told to guard the Bronco, were you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you didn't guard the Bronco, you let people get on the Bronco, put coffee cups on the Bronco while you were there at the scene, did you not, sir?

A. That is completely false.

Q. And so if we've got a picture with a coffee cup on the Bronco, that picture is an erroneous image, correct?

A. No. But I think you should show it 'cause it can easily be explained.

Q. Okay. Now, one other thing.

You didn't put in your handwritten statement one word about Fuhrman finding a glove and showing it to you, did you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope.

MR. BAKER: I'd like to reopen this subject.

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't put one single sentence in your handwritten report about Fuhrman showing you the glove, did you?

A. Correct. I did not put anything in my statement whatsoever about that glove.

Q. You were there from 5:20 in the morning until 7:30; isn't that true?

A. That's true.

Q. And then January of 1995, after the criminal trial has started, you then, in your interview with Phillips, suggest that Fuhrman came up to you and seemed a little excited, he found a bloody glove, and that this was now a crime scene.

And you added that in January of 1995, did you not, sir?

A. I don't like your word added 'cause it sounds like I just decided to put it in there. But that is a fact, that he explained to me that he had found something.

Q. Well, we discussed a little bit earlier this morning --

A. Sure.

Q. -- that you wanted to put in everything that was important in your handwritten statement 'cause you knew how important the case was, correct?

A. True.

Q. And you knew when you did your handwritten statement that if Fuhrman had ever come up to you at all and talked to you about discovering a glove, how important it was because you say in January of '95, that's what turned Rockingham into a crime scene; isn't that true, sir?

A. At the time I discovered -- I made that statement, the glove wasn't an issue, the fact it had been found was not even an issue. It had been found, and it was found there in Rockingham.

Q. The most -- single most important thing, not blood on the door sill, not blood on the center console --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. I apologize, Mr. Baker. This is obviously an argumentative question, Your Honor. We move to strike it.

THE COURT: Strike it and ask counsel to rephrase the question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The single most important discovery that occurred between 0520, if it in fact ever occurred, and 7:30 in the morning was the discovery of a glove on the south side of Mr. Simpson's home on Rockingham.

You would agree with that, would you not, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, question is argumentative, calls for conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I would agree with that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And in your statement you didn't put one word about it, correct?

A. I never saw the glove.

You have to read it again. You'll be surprised.

Q. You know --

A. I'm not making a joke.

Q. You know, I'm not surprised about much of anything anymore.

MR. MEDVENE: We move to strike Mr. Baker's comments.

MR. BAKER: Well, then, strike his little comments about he'd be surprised.

THE COURT: That's also stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you telling this jury, sir, that it was of no importance, if in fact Fuhrman came up to you and seemed a little excited and Fuhrman stated he had found a bloody glove and this was now a crime scene?

A. The fact he told me it was a crime scene is important. He was the senior over there, why he determined it a crime scene is mildly interesting to me. If he tells me it's a crime scene, it's a crime scene.

I don't care what he found. I don't care what he saw. He's the boss, I take his word for it.

Q. So it's your testimony in this courtroom that Fuhrman was in charge of the Rockingham crime scene between the time that you got there at 0520 and you left at 0730, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, misstates the record, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: That's what the witness said.


A. No, that's not my statement. My statement is I have -- I was a subordinate, I was probably the most junior officer there. I think most of those guys had more time as police officers than I have on this earth.

Q. Let me just ask you the question:

Is it your testimony that Fuhrman was in charge of the crime scene or not?

A. It is not my testimony he was in charge of the crime scene.

Q. Who was it charge of the crime scene?

A. It would have to be either Lange or Phillips. I don't know which one is a more senior officer.

MR. BAKER: Nothing further.

THE CLERK: For the record, that exhibit number is 169, the one that they didn't have a number for.

THE COURT REPORTER: Which exhibit number?

THE CLERK: The one they didn't have a number for.


Q. Did Detective Fuhrman, on June 13, mention the glove to you, or did you make that up?

A. No, I didn't make that up.

Q. Did he tell you on the 13th that he had found the glove?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Was there anything that you were trying to hide or mislead anyone about by not putting in your report that Detective Fuhrman said he found the glove?

A. No.

I don't have anything to gain by even -- I don't know. No.

I mean --

Q. Detective Fuhrman, to your knowledge, was at the crime scene with Detectives Lange, Vannatter and Phillips, was he not?

A. That's true.

Q. To the best of your knowledge, Detective Fuhrman would have told Detectives Lange, Vannatter and Phillips about the glove; isn't that true?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is leading, without foundation, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) As far as you know, others had knowledge that Detective -- Strike that.

Were you trying to hide from anybody, the fact that Detective Fuhrman first saw a glove at Rockingham?

A. No, no.

Q. Is there any reason why, other than it might have been of no moment at the time to put it in your report, why you didn't put it in your report but you later told Detective Phillips?

A. It's irrelevant, actually. There's even more little stupid things that happened that's not in the report.

Q. Okay.

But you weren't trying to hide it from anybody?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. And any reason to hide it from anybody?

A. Absolutely not.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

Nothing further.


Q. Stupid things -- never mind.


THE COURT: Your're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Call Robert Groden.

ROBERT GRODEN, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?


THE BAILIFF: Please be seated.

THE CLERK: And, sir, if you would please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Robert Groden, G-r-o-d-e-n.


Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Morning, Mr. Groden.

A. Morning.

Q. How are you presently employed?

A. I'm a writer.

Q. Have you had -- how old are you?

A. 51.

Q. During the course of your life, have you had experience in the field of photography, and in particular, in the field of the alteration of photographic images?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Just in general terms right now, let me ask you this: Have you also had experience in the analysis of photographic images to determine whether or not they have been altered?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you been engaged by the defense to review a particular photograph or set of photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. Which photograph is that?

A. It's a photograph that purports to show Mr. O.J. Simpson walking across the end zone of a football field.

MR. LEONARD: Can we see that?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Can we have -- can we approach on qualifications?

MR. LEONARD: I'm going to get to that. I want to get to the purpose for the witness being here.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. I'd like to have the qualifications.

MR. LEONARD: I'm not going to ask for an opinion --

THE COURT: Approach the bench.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:)

THE COURT: Okay. What's the objection?

MR. GELBLUM: The objection is this man's unqualified. This man's not qualified to render any expert opinions about alteration of photographs, Your Honor.

MR. LEONARD: I'm going to establish his qualifications. I just wanted to demonstrate -- I'm not even asking him for a conclusion.

MR. GELBLUM: It's a Kennedy conspiracy not -- He works repairing photo processing machines.

MR. LEONARD: I can establish his -- the foundation for his qualifications, and I will.

THE COURT: Give me an offer of proof.

MR. LEONARD: He worked for years in the area of the alteration of negatives and photographic images, both still and motion picture.

MR. GELBLUM: Not true.

MR. LEONARD: It is true.

He worked -- he worked in optical effects. He knows exactly how photographs are altered legitimately and illegitimately. He was a staff consultant for the Select House Committee on Assassination. He's reviewed hundreds and thousands -- or hundreds, thousands of photographs for the purpose of determining both for authenticity and evidentiary value, both for the Assassination Committee and thereafter for his own research and writing.

THE COURT: Has he qualified as an expert before?

MR. LEONARD: He has not qualified as an expert other than in the Senate -- the House Select Committee that he was used as an expert. He has not testified -- he has not testified in a court of law as far as I know.

MR. GELBLUM: He testified in his deposition he never qualified as an expert, in court as an expert.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to excuse you for a little while. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions.


THE CLERK: For the record, just while the jurors are here, too, mention was made of Exhibit 2036 in the last series and it should have been referred to as 2038.

(Jurors exit courtroom.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: The record will show that the jurors left the courtroom.

We're conducting a hearing under 402 of the evidence code with regard to the witness's qualifications.

Go ahead.



Q. First of all, to lay a foundation, what tests were you asked to accomplish or to undertake for the defense in this case, just in very general terms?

A. To examine the photographs and to render an opinion on whether I found any evidence of falsification.

Q. Now, let's go back.

When did you first start your experience in the field of photography, generally?

A. Basically as a child, as about a 10 or 12-year old.

Q. And have you continued to be actively involved in the field of photography, generally, since then?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

When was the first time you were employed in any respect in the field of photography?

A. Around 1969.

Q. What was that employment, sir?

A. I was hired by a motion exhibit picture optical house in New York City and was hired as an optical technician.

Q. And describe in as much detail as you can what you did, and with particular emphasis on the creation of alterated (sic) images of any kind in either motion picture or still photography?

THE COURT: Alterated?


MR. GELBLUM: Altered.

MR. LEONARD: Altered. Excuse me. Altered images. That's like visualization, I guess.


A. In the motion picture optical field, a large percentage of the work that's done is specifically to alter images, adding titles, doing split screens, inserting images within another image.

I would say that probably between 60 and 75 percent of all the work that's done involves that.

Q. Okay.

And how long did -- and in order to do that, just in general terms, what techniques did you use when you were working in this field?

A. Well, there are various different ways; matte insertion, split screens, using masking techniques either through film or through repositions of shutters, changing sizes, correcting irregularities, things of that nature. Product shots, inserting, say, a can of furniture spray or something of that nature within a background.

Q. Okay.

And how long did you work in the field?

You described a job you had when you were working in optical effects in motion pictures.

Did you also work in the field of optical effects in still photography?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay.

And for how long a period of time did you do that?

A. Well, as I said, I started in the optical field by 1969, and to a degree I'm still doing it today.

Q. And with regard to still photography in particular, where was your first employment where you were involved in the creation of altered images for purposes of advertising or any other purpose?

A. I was employed by a company called 2 by 2 Slides in New York City.

Q. How long were you employed there?

A. For a few years.

Q. Okay.

And what in particular, what types -- you gave the example of a product shot with a can inserted.

Just explain that a little bit more, and explain the process that you would go through with that?

A. Well, the most likely way, the way where it's usually done is you would have your product shot preshot to the sizing and position that you would want it to be on one piece of film, you would have a background on another piece of film.

You would photograph the product shot on to a piece of black-and white-high contrast film called Kodalith, K-o-d-a-l-i-t-h, you would then retouch the Kodalith to make sure that you have blacked out everything that you want to mask out of the image.

You then do a negative of the original Kodalith in what they call register -- a pin register.



A. You then take a piece of unexposed film or photographic paper, however you want to do it, and you photograph the product with the clear core matte which is black all around and clear in the center.

You then go back and take your background and the negative of the clear core matte which is called a black core matte. The purpose of a matte is to eliminate photographing a double image in the same space.

You then project that down or photograph that down, depending on the technique used, and what you're left with at the end is what's known as a composite image.

You would have the insert of your product shot against an existing background.

Q. Now, that's what -- you've just described this process of creating an altered photographic image.

I take it that's something that's done in the photographic industry, particularly in advertising, frequently, correct?

A. I would dare say possibly every day.

Q. Okay.

And that's the -- was that the type of work that you did for some period of time in New York in the position that you were describing?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, by virtue of your experience both in the -- in optical effects in film and also these optical effects in still photography, did you become knowledgeable about the various methods to alter photographs, including the one that you just mentioned?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the indicia of those methods to alter photographs?

In other words, looking at a photograph or a negative to determine whether or not such alteration has taken place?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, there came a time that you became engaged with the House Select Committee on Assassination; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Can you explain, first of all, what the Committee was, to the Court?

A. The House Assassination Committee or the House Committee on Assassinations, as it was formerly known, was an organization or group formed by Congress to investigate the work of the Warren Commission.

They were to study the Warren Report, to question witnesses that may not have been questioned by the Warren Commission, and to determine the accuracy or fallacy of the Warren Commission report.

Q. Now, among the vast amount of evidence that this committee was investigating was certain photographic and motion picture evidence; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Tell us, if you will, what role, if any, you had for the Committee in the analysis of this evidence, the gathering of it, the analysis of it, and in particular, for purposes of authenticity?

A. I was named as the committee staff photographic consultant. The work I did included identifying and defining images on film and photographs that were to be analyzed by the Committee, and in some cases analyzing them myself.

Q. Okay.

Now, how long did you -- From when to when did you hold that position?

A. The Committee's formal life was 1977 to 1978. I was working for them and elements of the Committee for about six months prior to the official forming of the -- of the Committee itself, and their investigation, and for about another six months after they officially closed down as well.

Q. For a total of how long?

A. For about three years.

Q. Now, was this -- was this a full-time everyday job?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Describe for the Court, if you will, how often you would consult, and at least give an estimate of that, if you will?

A. It would vary. There might be times when there would be several days in a row. There would be times when a week would go by where there would be nothing, and two weeks would go by. In some cases it was a couple of hours. Sometimes it was by telephone. Sometimes it was in person. It involved testimony before the House Committee on the first day of the public hearings.

It would be impossible to give an exact description of the time involved because it varied. No two weeks were possibly ever the same.

Q. There was a -- just so the Court has an idea of the type of materials we're talking about, there were two photographic or motion picture items that many of us are familiar with, that you had direct contact with or you analyzed; is that correct, with with regard to the House Select Committee?

A. Probably a great many more than two.

Q. Well, the one I'm thinking of is a rather famous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald in the backyard of his -- of his house, purportedly holding a rifle?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you analyze that photograph for purposes of authenticity?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay.

And that was in conjunction with your work on the Committee; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you -- there was also a motion picture that many of us have heard about called the Zapruder film.

Are you familiar with that?

A. Yes.

THE REPORTER: Could you spell Zapruder, please.

MR. LEONARD: Z-a-p-r-u-d-e-r.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, the Zapruder film was filmed -- shot by a bystander just as President Kennedy was shot?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you have any role in analyzing that piece of film?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Just in general terms, explain that to the Court.

A. The history that relates to that I had worked on the Zapruder film for some years prior to the creation of the House Committee. It was my releasing of the film on a TV show called "Good Night America" in 1975 that directly led to the House Committee being formed in the first place.

When the Committee was formed, I was hired as their staff photographic consultant, and I worked with the formal photographic panel in analyzing the Zapruder film and others. And we would have sessions where we would sit and study individual frames, where we would analyze motion, reaction time, possible indication of timing of shots, things of that nature.

Q. You mentioned the photographic panel, were you a -- were you working in conjunction with the photographic panel?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Okay.

Now, you have continued -- you have written several -- you've written books about the Kennedy assassination; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Is it fair to say that those -- that in preparing those books and in researching that, you had to look at, analyze, and examine, hundreds or thousands of photographs concerning the Kennedy assassination?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the course of that, did you have to make determinations as to whether or not photographs were authentic?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've done that for how many years, sir?

A. About 30 years.

Q. Now, you don't have a college education?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Do you have any formal training in photography?

A. No.

Q. Have you been -- have you worked around photography in areas other than what you've described?

In other words, I've talked about optical effects and I've talked about both motion picture and still photography.

Have you worked in other fields relating to photography or other businesses? Let's put it that way.

A. I have. I have worked in areas where -- where I've done work with computers -- computers relating to photography, yes.

Q. Have you had experience actually repairing various types of photographic processing machines?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Okay.

And how long did you do that?

A. Maybe 14 years or so.

Q. Okay.

And by virtue of that experience, did you become familiar not only with the indicia of altered images and photographs and the manner in which photographs can be altered, but actually some of the machinery that's used in altering, the actual minutia of the machinery that's used?

A. Yes. Using -- using the -- the machinery you become familiar with it and the mechanical processes involved, yes.

Q. And you actually were involved in the servicing of these machines?

A. Servicing and photo processing of the machines, yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, you're not a professional witness?

A. No.

Q. From time to time have you -- have others consulted with you about the authenticity of photographs or the analysis of photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Was there an occasion when the "National Enquirer" actually contacted you to authenticate the -- attempt to authenticate a photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. And when was that, sir, the first time?

A. Approximately 14 years ago.

Q. Okay.

Can you describe in general terms what you did, and what the situation was?

A. The situation was that someone had apparently come to them and represented a photograph of -- of voodoo -- a voodoo ritual or something of that nature, and there was an item within the picture that a photographer claimed was a photograph of a -- of a spirit or something that he had been able to conjure up and photograph.

And the "Enquirer" wanted me to authenticate it and --

Q. Were you able to?

A. No. As a matter of fact, I discovered that there was a natural explanation for that problem.

Q. And just in general terms, how were you able to determine that, sir, for the "National Enquirer"?

A. I examined contact sheet, as I recall, and noticed that the image that he was talking about extended beyond the edge of the frame itself, indicating that it was a problem with, or a flaw with the film, as opposed to an image being photographed.

Q. Did you tell that to the "National Enquirer"?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did they publish the photo anyway?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Now, were you contacted with regard to the Bruno Magli photo by the "National Enquirer"?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Did they ask you if you would analyze it for them?

A. That's correct. They did.

Q. Did you?

A. No.

Q. Did they ever call you back after the first time?

A. They called me a second time. They never called back after that.

MR. LEONARD: May I have just one minute, Your Honor.


MR. LEONARD: I don't have anything else for the purpose of voir dire.


Q. Mr. Groden, you've had no formal training whatsoever in learning how to determine the authenticity of photographs, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Never taught a course in photography?

A. Never.

Q. Never published anything about photography?

A. Techniques of photography?

Q. Yeah.

A. No.

Q. Or techniques of photographic alteration?

A. No.

Q. Not a book, not an article, not anything?

A. I mention the technique of photo alteration in a book I wrote.

Q. The book's not about photo alteration?

A. No.

Q. You talk about the Oswald backyard photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. And you don't belong to any professional organizations?

A. No.

Q. And you're not certified by any professional organizations?

A. No.

Q. And you never testified in court or qualified in court as an expert on photography, correct?

A. No.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And these photographic processing equipment that you repair, that's like commercial photos, like one-hour photo kind of places?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. You said that you first gained experience -- your first job of photography was this optical house in New York?

A. Yes.

Q. That was exclusively with motion pictures?

A. The first job, yes.

Q. Yes.

There's no optical effects with motion pictures involved in the analysis of the Bruno Magli picture, is there?

A. Only -- only -- the only way it would be connected is the techniques, some of the techniques might be the same.

Q. We're not talking about a motion picture film here, are we?

A. No.

Q. You did no work with still photography at that first job?

A. No, that's not correct. I did some work with still photography there, too.

Q. Remember having your deposition taken in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And we're getting a -- do you remember giving a different answer at that time?

MR. LEONARD: Page and line, please.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 21, line 10 through 22.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) (Reading:) That's --

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) "That," meaning the optical effects of the first job.

(Reading:) Q. That's done with motion

picture film? A. Yes. Q. Exclusively with motion

picture film? A. Yes. Q. Not done with videotape? A. No. Q. Or still photography film? A. You might have a still --

specific still photograph, maybe you

might want to animate on but you're not.

A. That's correct.

MR. LEONARD: I move to strike there's no inconsistency.

MR. GELBLUM: You plan to testify about the film?

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I answered now just exactly as I did then. There were still items involved.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) But there's nothing involved in creating a fake still photograph?

A. I don't believe that's what you asked me.

Q. That's what I'm asking you now, sir?

A. I did not create still images except possibly mattes for separation or split screens.

Q. And you said that you worked with still photography optical effects with 2 by 2 Slides; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's over 20 years ago?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And in fact, do you recall testifying about 2 by 2 Slides at your deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. And page 18, line 24, to page 19, line 18 -- you didn't mention at your deposition anything about doing optical effects on still photography at that job, did you?

MR. LEONARD: If he could show him the actual questions and answers.

MR. GELBLUM: I'll be happy to -- I'll read it to him.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall testifying at your deposition saying anything about working with 2 by 2 Slides, optical effects and still photography?

A. I don't recall that there was a specific question asked in that area. There may have been.

Q. Let's read it.

Starts with your explaining what you did.


When I left that field of work, meaning the first job, optical effects with motion pictures, I went into slide duplication, which I worked for the -- a company called 2 by 2 Slides and I worked there for a couple of years.

What training did you get there?

Well, they already know that basically --

I'm asking about training?

Oh, well, the boss there had been working in that field for years and he taught me some of his techniques.

For duplicating slides?

No, duplicating slides, enlarging, things of that nature.

Well, what else besides duplicating slides and enlarging?

At that job?


That was pretty much it, that's what we did.

Do you recall giving that testimony?

A. Sounds familiar.

Q. Nothing about optical effects and still photography, right?

A. Well, the technical term optical effects would not apply there.

Q. I asked you what you did and you gave those answers?

A. Yes, making slide duplicates does involve doing composites in many cases.

Q. The House Select Committee, that's the next thing Mr. Leonard asked you about, that was about 18 years ago?

A. Approximately.

Q. And you were not on the expert panel, correct?

A. I was not on the photographic panel.

Q. It was a panel of photographic experts that you were not on?

A. That's correct.

Q. You were "a" consultant, not "the" consultant?

A. That's correct.

Q. You testified for a few days -- I mean -- I'm sorry.

You worked for a few days here and there over a couple years, right?

A. Well, more than just a couple of days. I mean it was over a period of three years, yes.

Q. And the testimony you talked about was not about altered photographs, was it, you gave on the first day of the hearings?

A. I don't recall. It went on for many hours. They may have asked about specific -- they asked questions relating to matters of photo work that needed to be done. This was at the outset of the hearing. And I was not allowed to volunteer specific information; I merely answered their questions.

Q. But you were not -- you did not give any testimony about altered photographs at that testimony, did you?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay.

Now, the Oswald backyard photograph, you say you were the one who discovered it was fake; is that what you're saying?

A. No.

Q. A bunch of people looked at it and all agreed it was fake?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's a black-and-white photograph?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the picture here that we're talking about today is color?

A. That's correct.

Q. And some of the opinions you intend to give have to do with color, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And the Zapruder film, that's also black-and-white?

A. No.

Q. It's color?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you said you also worked on the Kennedy -- on various photos relating to the assassination for the last 30 years?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. You've worked on various photos relating to the assassination over the last 30 years?

A. That's correct.

Q. Other than the House Committee, that's all been on your own time and for your own purposes, correct?

A. Not all of it. I did some -- some work for submission to the Rockefeller Commission and the Senate Select Committee on -- on Government. It was a Church Committee, actually.

Q. And when was that?

A. In the 1970's.

Q. And this "National Enquirer" photo you looked at about 14 years ago --

A. That's correct.

Q. -- did you mention that?

And what you said is, you looked at -- as soon as you looked at it, you immediately recognized that it was just a fake -- no, it wasn't a fake, it was a technical problem with the photograph?

A. I can't say immediately. Upon studying it for a short period of time, I realized it.

Q. You didn't have to do any complicated analysis to determine whether it had been altered, correct?

A. No.

Q. You just saw it and what -- it was what you said?

A. Yes.

Q. Previously, it was immediately apparent?

A. It was apparent, yes.

MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further on voir dire.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just a couple.


Q. The analysis of -- of photographic images to determine whether or not they're altered, tell us what that boils down to, in the most basic terms?

A. The most basic -- most basic and simplest way to start dealing with it is observation, what you're capable of seeing and detecting with your eye, comparing it to experience.

Beyond that, you can use techniques of photograph photogrammetry for measurement to -- well, you would check to find out if there are -- are obvious cut lines or paste lines, or for digitalization, you'd worry about whether you could find pixels or things of that nature.

There's an endless variety, I would say.

But on this most basic level, it's a matter of observation. Sometimes it happens right away; sometimes it takes time. You just simply need to know in that data base, or whatever, if anything strikes you as being odd or not visually correct.

Q. And again, throughout your career you have examined thousands of photographs for purposes of determining whether they're authentic, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, you were employed for some number of years actually creating duplicate and altered negatives, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. You were asked about the panel of photographic experts.

Was there a proficiency test that was done of the -- of the panel of photographic experts that you participated in?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Was there a -- was there an occasion when the panel of photographic experts was given some photographs, some of which were altered, some of which weren't, to determine whether or not they could figure out which ones were altered and which ones weren't?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Did you participate in that exercise?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And were the results graded by other photographic experts?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

How did you fare in that test, sir?

A. I got 100 percent.

Q. Did anyone else on that photographic panel get 100 percent?

A. No.

MR. LEONARD: I don't have anything else.

THE COURT: At this point, Mr. Leonard, I was hopeful that the proceedings will assist the Court and in enlighten the Court about what this witness's expertise has to do with the --

MR. LEONARD: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: -- examination that you wish to proffer him for, and thus far, I am at a loss to see what expertise you have reference to with regards to a particular examination.

MR. LEONARD: What I can do is have him go through in summary fashion what I expect to elicit from him substantively, if that will be helpful. You can compare his experience with the --

THE COURT: I'd like -- it would be helpful to have an examination of this witness as to his experience or knowledge in that particular area that you are going to be inquiring about in this case.


Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You have undertaken an analysis of the -- the particular photographic image of Mr. Simpson with the Bruno Magli shoes?

A. That is correct.

Q. And explain --

MR. LEONARD: And, Your Honor, we make this Exhibit 1 for purposes of the hearing.

THE COURT: It's already an exhibit, isn't it?

MR. P. BAKER: It's 1930.

(The instrument herein referred to as photograph of Mr. Simpson walking was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1930.)

(Exhibit 1930 displayed.)

MR. LEONARD: Can you pull that back a little bit (indicating to Elmo).

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you -- that's the image in question, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain for the Court in summary fashion, what you did to examine the photograph and the surrounding photographs on the contact sheet and negative strip for purposes of determining whether or not you could discern whether this photograph was altered?

A. I examined the photograph itself. I examined the original that -- purports to be an original negative. I examined the surrounding frames, two contact sheets specifically, the one that this photograph is contained in and another one. I examined irregularities within the surrounding area on the negative itself, surrounding this particular frame, and made determinations dependent upon my observations of those items.

Q. Now, let's just --

MR. LEONARD: Would you like to see some of the specific exhibits we prepared, Your Honor, for purposes of illustrating this?

THE COURT: Well, I'm trying to understand what his expertise -- what the expertise is with regards to this exhibit.

MR. LEONARD: Well, his expertise, Your Honor, he's done this for years, he's examined photographs, he's created duplicate altered photographs for purposes of -- professionally, and he's familiar with the methods that are used to do that.

And we can -- I can illustrate that. If you want me to go through his testimony, I will, so that he can demonstrate exactly what he's doing.

And that might make it easier for the Court to determine whether or not -- the question with regard to his expertise.

I don't know how else to do it, Your Honor.

This individual has --

THE COURT: I presume you know what he's going to testify to?


THE COURT: Then you ought to know what the basis of his expertise is on that portion of that testimony.

MR. LEONARD: His expertise is that he was in the business of creating altered images. The technology is -- is basically the same. There's some very simple techniques that are used. There are also some very complicated techniques.

THE COURT: Where -- it might be helpful to examine him as to what the techniques are and what his experience is with regard to his knowledge of it.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you describe for the court the general -- in general terms the techniques that are used to create altered photographic images?

First of all, let me ask you about motion picture film --

THE COURT: I'm not interested in motion picture film. I'm interested in --

MR. LEONARD: I'm laying this foundation because motion picture film --

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Describe, just in general terms what a motion picture film is?

A. Motion picture film is -- most basic level, is a string or repetitive series of still photographs.

Q. Okay.

And there are techniques used to create optical effects that involve creating altered images in some of the individual frames -- still frames; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And those techniques -- you utilized those techniques when you worked in optical effects; is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. Okay.

Are those techniques, at their base, different from the techniques that are used to dup -- to create altered still photographs?

A. In many cases the techniques are identical.

Q. In some cases they're not?

A. That is correct.

Q. But when it comes to creating a duplicate altered image on a piece of film, okay, the techniques are basically the same as they would be for a still photographic alteration; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right.

And you worked in that field, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, describe for us in general terms the techniques that are used to create altered still photographic images?

A. There are several.

I would say the most common would be, as I mentioned before, manual matte insertion, where you create a matte and insert an image photographically.

Another technique would be cut and paste, whereby you would physically cut out an item -- photographic image and place it on top of another one and rephotograph it.

Or you could use an air brush technique, which is very similar to cut and paste, but varies in the fact that you're not just placing one on another but you're retouching it, spraying an additional image to help disguise the cut mark or a difference in grain pattern, things of that nature.

Lastly, and relatively new, is digitization, where it's done within the -- an electronic domain as opposed to a photographic or mechanical domain. The other techniques that I described are physically altering something that is a photographic image either onto film or on -- on photographic paper. The digitalization of an image is done within a computer, and that varies from the others more than any of the others do against themselves because you're altering the physical image electronically and you can regenerate them into a photographic image after the fact.

Q. Okay.

Now, throughout the course of your career as a photographer, during the time that you were with the -- working with the Senate House Select Committee and also during the time you were working in optical effects or duplicating negatives, and up to the present time, including your research and analysis and examination of thousands of photographs relating to the Kennedy assassination, have you become familiar with all of these techniques, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Do you -- are you -- do you know and can you testify to the jury with regard to the indicia or the indications of these techniques in a still photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Have you undertaken a thorough review of the photographic image in this case and the surrounding images to determine whether or not there are indicia that the photograph has been altered?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, one of the most basic elements to altering a photograph is the creation of a duplicate negative; isn't that correct?

Let's put it this way --

A. If I can --

Q. Okay.

A. I'm sorry.

I was going to say a duplicate might be determined as being an exact copy of the original.

What you would do is do a copy negative or an altered negative that would -- could conceivably be referred to as a duplicate. It would not be an original, but it would be -- it would be an altered duplicate.

Q. Let me put it to you this way: If you were going to alter a photograph such as this one, and you didn't want anybody to find out, what would you -- what's the basic -- one of the first things you'd have to do, sir, if you thought they were going to go back and investigate and look at the original source, that is what purports to be the original negative?

A. You would have to create a forgery, you'd have to create something that would purport to be an original negative.

Q. But it would actually be a duplicate or altered negative?

A. That's correct.

Q. Are there some very basic indicia that show you that a photograph -- that a negative is actually a duplicate negative and not an original negative?

A. There are several, yes.

Q. Okay.

And can you describe some of those to the Court that you are familiar with by virtue of your experience in duplicating negatives, creating altered negatives, and by virtue of all your experience in analyzing photographs. Just give some of them to the Court.

A. Color balance, sharpness, grain structure, registration --

Q. Let me stop you there.

What do you mean by registration, sir?

A. If you were going to try to insert a photograph into another position, you'd need to position -- you'd need to know where it goes, you need to register it, something could fall out of register, something could create a false line. It's difficult to do it perfectly. There are usually some indications of -- of fakery that can be observed.

Q. Now, these indications of fakery, sir, those are factors or phenomenon that you can -- that you can often readily identify and that are universal in photography? In other words, they're -- when you talk about out of register, you're talking about, for instance, a -- a frame in a line of film that's slightly out of kilter; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And that's a simple concept, right?

A. Extremely.

Q. You're also talking about, for instance, when you talk about register, with regard to color, you're talking about if it's -- if there is an item that's a certain color, that you don't see echoes of the color where it shouldn't be on the photograph, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And these are all things that you're familiar with by virtue of your 30 years experience as a photographer, as an analyst, as a researcher, as someone that was involved in optical effects and as one that was involved in the duplication of negatives, isn't that correct, sir?

A. That is correct.

Q. Is there any doubt in your mind, sir -- I know you're not a professional witness.

Is there any doubt in your mind that you can sit in that stand and you're qualified to tell the jury the things you're going to tell them; is there any doubt?

A. Not the slightest doubt in my mind.

MR. LEONARD: I don't have any more questions.


Q. Mr. Groden, the only time in your entire 51 years anybody has ever paid you a penny to determine the authenticity of a photograph is 14 years ago with the "National Enquirer" with this phony image of the voodoo ritual?

A. No.

Q. Isn't that what you said in your deposition, sir?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

What else have you been paid to do?

A. I was asked to pay for -- not asked to pay.

I was asked to determine other work -- tell you what, before I answer that, will you repeat the question, make sure I'm understanding it the way you're asking.

Q. Other than this "National Enquirer" 14 years ago, when you looked at it, you immediately saw a problem, have you ever been paid by anybody to determine the authenticity of a photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. About four or five years ago.

Q. What was that?

A. Someone came to me relating to a -- as I recall, a Korean political party. Photographs were taken, and the claim was being made by this -- this party that spirits were being conjured up for some kind of support. And the photographs were being published or were -- it was part of some kind of a legal situation in Korea, as I understand it, and they wanted me to determine whether or not the photographs had been physically altered in any way.

Q. And you looked at that and you saw nothing on the print?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's all you did?

A. That's all.

Q. You never came to court and never gave testimony as an expert?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that's it, that's the only time you've ever been asked by anybody, for money, to determine the authenticity of the photograph?

A. To the best of my knowledge.

Q. Do you remember any others?

A. No.

Q. And what you do for a living, sir, is not determine the authenticity of photographs; you write books and produce videos about the Kennedy assassination, right?

A. I do that, yes.

Q. That's all you do to make a living -- you also repair photo machines?

A. Yeah, that's correct.

Q. And that's it, right?

A. No, I do other things as well.

Q. Do you remember being asked at your deposition what you do?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Do you remember being asked at your deposition what you do for a living?

A. Yes.

Q. Remember what you said?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Page and line?

MR. GELBLUM: Page 14, lines 5 to 12.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you say this:


Any other work that you do besides writing books about the Kennedy assassination, producing videos about the Kennedy assassination and consulting on films that have footage of the Kennedy assassination?

A. I do repair work on photo processing machines, I do photo enlarging work, black-and white-photo laboratory work. That's about it.

Is that true?

A. That's what I said, yes.

Q. Okay.

And you're not opining -- you talked about digitization for a while with Mr. Leonard.

You're are not opining there's any digitization involved here, are you?

A. I can't say that.

Q. You don't know?

A. I can't say that it wasn't done.

Q. You don't know what technique was used here, right?

A. There's some indications of some techniques being used.

Q. You don't know anything about digitization being used?

A. No.

Q. All right.

And Mr. Leonard keeps saying that you worked in the field of creating altered photographic images.

When did you do that?

You didn't tell me about that at your deposition.

When did you do that?

A. I don't know that you specifically asked.

Q. I asked you everything that you did.

When did you do that?

A. I did that for all the years that I was involved in motion picture optical affects and -- and slide work.

Q. Not color stills, right?

A. How do you mean -- I'm sorry?

Q. You say you did at 2 by 2 Slides?

A. Yes.

Q. That was about 20 years ago?

A. Yes.

Q. At your deposition you didn't mention that; you said all you do is duplicate and enlarge, right?

A. We duplicate slides, but part of the duplication process requires alteration sometimes.

Q. But you didn't mention that at your deposition, did you?

A. I don't believe you specifically asked me that.

Q. I asked you what you do and you said duplicate, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I don't have anything further.


You may argue.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I think that the witness has demonstrated -- look, he's not an academic, not a professional witness, but I believe the witness has demonstrated that he has sufficient knowledge and experience in this field, particularly in recognizing a duplicate altered photographic image, which is what he's doing here, to be able to testify to this jury.

Mr. Gelblum obviously has the right to cross-examine him on his -- on the extent of his qualifications, but I would suggest that that goes to the weight of his testimony as opposed to whether or not he's actually qualified.

And I think that, again, we have demonstrated by virtue of his practical experience, by virtue of the experience he's had with the committee, also on his own -- I mean when I -- I guess what I find a little disturbing is that this gentleman is -- does -- well, I'm not trying to predict Your Honor's problem or any kind of a ruling but --

THE COURT: I don't have a problem.

MR. LEONARD: To the extent Your Honor might have a concern that part of the experience that he has is when he was doing his own research, I don't know why that shouldn't be taken into account, and so I would suggest that he has absolute sufficient experience and knowledge in this field to be able to testify to this jury.

Again, if Mr. Gelblum chooses to cross-examine him on his qualifications, that would be to the weight.

That's all going to be laid out for the jury.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the man clearly isn't qualified to do this -- to testify on this score.

Under Evidence Code Section 720(a), he has to show if they were knowledge, skill, training, education or training to qualify him as an expert.

He admitted he has no education and no training whatsoever in this field; none.

All he's done 20 years ago -- if you look -- he worked 14 years ago, worked for the "National Enquirer," saw some haze five years ago, looked at something for somebody in Korea, saw fog on the picture. He's never been paid other than those two times to determine authenticity.

He's never qualified as an expert because he's not an expert.

His work is in the area of the Kennedy assassination. He knows a lot about the film footage and the photography, the still photos. That doesn't -- with regard to -- with respect to the Kennedy assassination, simply that he sits around his house, looks at photos and determines whether they're fake, and publishes books saying he thinks they're fake.

That doesn't qualify him as an expert.

What qualifies him is training, education, experience.

And I submit to you that the indicia of experience that's relevant is somebody else recognizing he's an expert and using him for that.

He just sits around, literally, and decides whether he thinks a picture is a fake or not, discusses it with other people in the assassination research community and they have their quarrels, and publishes whatever he wants to publish. Doesn't make an expert.

It would be misleading to the jury to allow this man with his feeble qualifications to get up and talk about this picture being a fake.

THE COURT: I see Mr. Petrocelli coiled at your elbow.

MR. GELBLUM: May I have a moment, Your Honor.


(Pause for counsel to converse sotto voce.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Submit, Your Honor.

MR. GELBLUM: Submit.

THE COURT: It would appear to me that this witness has done a little bit more than what you describe.

He's indicated that he's done work in a field that would involve alterations or work with photographs, negatives. He states he's age 51, he states he commenced working in the field of photography in 1969.

Whether his experience is such, and his testimony is such that his testimony will be credible or not will certainly be subjected to your vigorous cross-examination.

But for the purposes of establishing a basis on which to allow a witness to testify as an expert does not require formal training, does not require a degree and does not require prior experience as an expert witness. It simply requires some degree of knowledge or some degree of training, formal or otherwise, that would enable him to testify beyond that which would be allowed as a lay witness.

I think it would be fair to characterize this witness as something more than a lay witness.

So the Court will allow him to offer that evidence.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

Can we start up at 1:30, Your Honor?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GELBLUM: Before we leave --


MR. GELBLUM: The witness apparently has created some additional material since his deposition that they intend to use. And I don't think that's appropriate.

MR. LEONARD: It's diagrams.

MR. GELBLUM: It's slides.

MR. LEONARD: Charts.

MR. GELBLUM: They're not charts.

MR. LEONARD: They're diagrams that we were all working with for purposes of illustration.

MR. GELBLUM: As the man says, he knows how to fake slides.

THE COURT: Excuse me. That's not appropriate.

MR. GELBLUM: Well, Your Honor --.

MR. LEONARD: He's seen it. I've shown it --

MR. GELBLUM: I can't tell from looking at them.

MR. PETROCELLI: I want to remind the Court, they took this position rigorously with regard to our experts, anything they did after their deposition, and the Court would not let us use it or rely on it.

MR. LEONARD: These are audio visual aids. There's nothing new substantively. It's the same photographs.

THE COURT: Are we going to have another 402 motion?

MR. GELBLUM: Can I find out how these slides were created?

THE COURT: Why don't you ask Mr. Leonard whether he can -- he can inquire of that.


MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You want to do it now?

MR. GELBLUM: Thought you were about to leave.

MR. LEONARD: Why doesn't he talk to him at lunch time?

THE COURT: All right, talk to him with Mr. Leonard.

MR. LEONARD: I don't even have to be here.

(At 12 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

1:45 P.M.



(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

ROBERT GRODEN, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:


Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Groden.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. We left off, we had just very briefly touched upon your experience with photography and particularly, creation of altered photographic images.

But before we get into a little more detail about your background, I'd like to show you a photograph and ask you if that's the photograph that you focused your analysis on.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 1930.

(Exhibit No. 1930 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

A. Yes, it is.

MR. LEONARD: You can take that off.

(Indicating to Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When did you first become involved in any way in photography, sir?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Around the age of 10 or 12.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And describe that for us, how did you become involved in photography?

A. I found the process and the concept of photography, the creativity of it, extremely interesting, the mechanics. I pursued it initially as a hobby.

Q. Did you, throughout your childhood and teen years and into your early adulthood, continue to be involved in photography?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe your involvement, at least in general terms, for us?

A. Taking photographs, black-and-white processing, and printing, things of that nature.

Q. Now, at some point did you become employed in the photographic industry?

A. Yes.

Q. And when was that?

A. Around 1969.

Q. And what did you do at -- what was your employment at that time?

A. I was hired and went to work in a photo optics house in New York as a photo optical technician.

I created film elements through the use of an Oxberry optical printer, created special effects, inserts, things of that nature.

Q. Okay. Let me stop you right there.

First of all -- by the way, do you have a college degree?

A. No.

Q. Are you a professional witness?

A. No.

Q. Let me stop you right there.

You've used some terminology that I'd like you to explain. You talked about optical effects and so forth.

Would you, first of all, just explain to us what optical effects are.

A. Optical effects are any one or variety of a number of processes, whereby one would take an original film and element, and convert it to another, either positive to negative or negative to positive, doing dissolves, fades, zooms, inserts of one element into another, adding titling, things of that nature.

Q. Now, you were involved in that type of work beginning in 1969 in the motion-picture field; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. After that, did you continue to work to some extent with optical effects in other areas of photography?

A. Yes. I -- I worked for a slide duplication house, doing special effects, adding titling, product inserts, things of that nature, in slide form, which is still form.

Q. Now, the type of special effects that we've been talking about, or optical effects with regard to both motion-picture film and still photography.

In their basic elements, they are pretty much the same?

In other words, the mechanisms that are used with regard to the motion -- motion-picture film and still photography, are they the same in their basic elements?

A. In most cases, yes.

In the instance where you would be superimposing one image inside the other, you would use the same technique; except in motion pictures, you're doing frame after frame, after frame, as opposed to just a single type.

Q. Why don't, just so it's a little bit clear of the type of thing you're talking about, why don't you give us an illustration, first of all, with motion-picture film.

Can you given us an illustration of what you're talking about, the type of effect?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. There is a vast variety, but as a for-instance, I would say if you had a TV commercial and you have a background, say a sunset or a -- a desert or a swimming pool or something of that nature, and you wanted to insert a product shot, on motion-picture film, you could have it come in from one side or -- or start very small and get larger. We see it on TV every day.

It's an involved process. But the main difference between doing it on film for motion pictures and doing it as a still, is the motion itself, the movement.

The technique of doing it for a still photograph is basically the same, but there's no motion involved.

Q. Okay. We're going to -- we're going to get back to some of the details of these methods that you're talking about. But I want to continue on a little bit with your background.

Did you continue after your employment in still -- doing duplication and still photography -- did you continue on doing that type of work on your own, working for yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Can you describe that, the type of work you did, under what circumstances, and provide us with some illustration and some of the clients that you work for?

A. Well, to give an idea, I work -- one of my clients was Glamour Magazine in New York. If they had four or five individual photographs of different models wearing a different dress, or something of that nature, and they wanted to combine them all on a single slide, they'd send it to me, and I would do an insert effect, whereby I'd photograph each of the elements separately onto a single piece of film, going back, repositioning, registering, things of that nature, and creating a composite, in effect.

Q. So?

A. Another -- another possible thing that we -- say, for a client like the Quilty Group --

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, can you spell Quilty?

A. Q-u-i-l-t-y.

If they had a client who had a product and they wanted to show the product against a particular background for a particular mood, a forest, or a lake, or something of that nature, what we would do is, we would create a series of mattes.

Well, let me try to explain that.

The final position of where you want your product to be, whether it's straight up and down or at an angle, probably on one side of the screen with maybe some text on the other side, but with a specific background.

In the background, each of these things is called an element. And each of these elements has to be positioned and dealt with in its own way.

Q. Now, let me stop you right there. I don't want you to get into a detailed explanation at this point.

But is what you're saying, that you, when you were working in the motion-picture field, in the still photography field, creating these, as you say, composite photographs of --

Basically, what you're saying is, you were creating fake photographs, correct?

In other words, photographs that were -- would appear to be portraying something, but actually it was not genuine; is that fair to say?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That is correct.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Of course, these were legitimate fakes, right? These were for purposes of advertising in the --

A. That's correct. No one would look at a final picture like that and assume there was a can of hair spray lying in the middle of the air. It's obvious what it is. It's not meant to deceive anybody.

Q. Okay.

Now, during the time that you were doing this type of work, did you become familiar with the various methods to accomplish these composite photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And again, we're going to get back into that in some detail today as we move on.

At some point, did you become involved as a consultant or analyst for a governmental committee?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And when was that, sir?

A. That began in 1976.

Q. And what was the committee and what was its function?

A. It was the House Committee on Assassinations and U.S. House of Representatives.

Q. And what was your --

First of all, what was the committee investigating?

A. There they were investigating the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior.

Q. Now, this wasn't the original Warren Commission?

A. No, this was an organization that was created to investigate the workings of the Warren Commission and their results.

Q. What role did you have with the committee?

What was your function?

A. My title, staff photographic consultant.

Q. And what did you do?

What were -- in general terms, what were you doing for the committee as a staff photographic consultant?

A. The duties were several. One was to analyze photographs; one was to identify issues relating to the photographic images in regard to the assassination of the president; one was as a consultant for the photographic panel; as a consultant for the medical panel; answering questions for the congressmen themselves, if they had specific questions that related to issues of photography, and as to whether photographs were genuine or not.

I had input with the actual photo panel, itself.

Q. Okay.

How long were you acting as a consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations?

A. Well, the committee's entire life lasted two years, from the beginning of 1977, to the end of 1978.

I had actually started working with them before their actual, formal investigation began, by about six months, and stayed with them for another six months after that. So I was with them for about three years.

Q. You say "with them." Was this a full-time job?

Were you, for instance, in Washington every day for three years?

A. No. I was an independent consultant. They called me when they needed me. I would do things by telephone or in person, depending on what they actually needed.

Q. In the course of your work as a staff photographic consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, did you have occasion to review many photographs and motion pictures?

A. Literally thousands.

Q. Okay.

And you were reviewing them, in some cases, to determine what was -- what they depicted, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And in other cases, were you reviewing them to determine their authenticity?

A. That is correct, as well.

Q. Now, have you maintained an interest in the -- this issue of the Kennedy assassination?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Have you published any works on that?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the course -- and you continue to maintain an interest in that until today?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And in the course of your research and your writing on the Kennedy assassination through the years, have you had an opportunity to review and examine hundreds and hundreds and thousands of photographs?

A. I would say thousands, yes.

Q. Again, for what purpose were you reviewing the photographs?

A. In some cases, to determine they're relevance and possible evidentiary value for the investigation itself; in some cases, to determine whether they're legitimate or forgeries; in other cases, just simply to determine part of a time line.

There are varied reasons for each individual photograph.

Q. Now, as a result of your experience as you've described it, your actual work experience and also your work with the committee, and also the independent work you have done over the years, have you come to be knowledgeable about the various methods there are to alter photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you come to be knowledgeable about the indications or signs in examining the photograph, as to whether or not it has been altered?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you occasionally consult with entities and individuals with regard to the authenticity of photographs?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague, "occasionally."

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you -- we had --

MR. LEONARD: Can we put that image back up again, the first photograph. And this is number 1930.

(Exhibit No. 1930 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When did you first see that photograph?

A. Standing in line at the checkout counter of a grocery store, in the National Enquirer.

Q. Now, have you, in the past, been consulted by the National Enquirer to authenticate -- attempt to authenticate a photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

When was the first time that that happened?

A. First time was approximately 14 years ago.

Q. And just describe in general terms what -- what you did and what you were asked to do.

A. The Enquirer, as they told me, had received a photograph taken by a photographer at what was purported to be some kind of a voodoo ritual. The photographer was trying to tell them that an image, a light image that appeared on the -- on -- on a photograph was a spirit that had been conjured up. And this was a picture of a -- of some paranormal entity.

And the Enquirer contacted me and asked me if I would verify its authenticity. They sent me -- as I recall, it was a contact sheet of the actual photograph itself and the frame area around it, showing the sprocket holes on the original film.

I don't know how many frames there were. I don't remember. But it clearly showed more than the actual frame itself.

And I examined it and I noticed that this entity that they're talking about was not only in the photographed area, but beyond -- went beyond, into the photograph area, into the sprocket area, indicating it was an artifact beyond the photograph image.

I gave them a report on that, stating that, in fact, my -- in my opinion, it was simply static electricity that had left a visual imprint on the film.

Q. And did the National Enquirer print that anyway, sir?

A. Yes. Without my explanation.

Q. You were contacted by lawyers -- the lawyers for Mr. Simpson to examine this photograph, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, prior to that time, had you been contacted by the National Enquirer to examine this photograph?

A. That's correct. Yes, we did.

Q. Did you examine it for the National Enquirer?

A. No.

Q. Did they -- did the National Enquirer contact you again after their first contact, asking if you would attempt to authenticate the photograph?

A. Yes. They called me a second time, and I agreed.

Q. Did they call you back after that?

A. No.

Q. Now, just in general terms, sir, I would like you to describe how a photograph is -- can be altered.

I want to start off with -- with the basic processes, when they were begun. And if you can illustrate using a pad how that's done, I'd appreciate it.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, unless it's tied to this photograph, Your Honor.

MR. LEONARD: We'll tie it up.

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

MR. GELBLUM: He'd asked him for general.

MR. LEONARD: I'm starting off with the general.

THE COURT: He's entitled to explain to the jury the process by which he does it.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you -- if you can step down to the board. And what I want to direct your attention to first, okay, is -- if you could start off with the basic methods that are used in a particular -- you talked about what a matting method, and you talked about some other methods.

If you could, illustrate how that's done, with particular emphasis on the reinsertion of the image onto the original negative.

A. A matte technique would require, depending -- again each -- each instance is different; it's unique. You would start with an original photograph, something with a tree and a flower or whatever, and then you've got a product, can of hair spray, furniture polish, cookies, doesn't matter. And that's this element here. (Indicating.)

It's photographed as what's known as a product shot. You have a positioned photograph taken of whatever that insert item is going to be. And that ends up being the second element.

Now, if you have a blue sky here (indicating), that blue sky is going to wash out the product shot, so you have to eliminate that area on the original picture.

And the way you do that is, you photograph your product shot and create something that is called a black-core matte, the core being the center area of it. And what you're left with --

By the way, you use -- these are very high contrast black-and-white film to do this. This is usually something of the nature called Kodalith. And Kodalith is a piece of high contrast black-and-white film, which eliminates all the gray scale. It's only black and white, nothing in between.

Q. The product shot may have individual things that would turn out as gray. What you would do is, take a brush and you would manually brush out the area completely, so this is what you've got, a piece of solid black against clear.

Now, all of this is done in pin register. In other words, take a piece of glass or some kind of a negative carrier, and you insert two very fine, exacting pins. You stamp the all elements of the film, so they all fall into register; that is, they all fall into the same place.

Once you've created your --

Q. Let me stop you right there.

A. Yes.

Q. When you say they fall into register, and all fall into the same place, can you be a little more specific about that?

A. It's a matter of positioning. If you don't have exact register, your -- your shot will fall slightly off center, and either you'll end up with a clear or lighter line on one side, or a black, dense line on the other.

Everything has to fall exactly into the same place; otherwise, it's useless and easily detectable.

Q. So, in other words, if -- if in the case of a product shot, you have -- you have a can that is superimposed over a blue sky -- if it's not in register, somebody looking at the photograph could see the effect wouldn't be complete; you could see some space. You could see a site, the fact that the can was out of kilter with the background, or something like that. Is that what you're saying?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

A. The next step in this process would be to make what is known as a clear-core matte.

The way that's done is in a darkroom, where there's no light, or if you use something called orthochromatic film, which is not red sensitive, where you can use a safety light, which you would do in black-and-white processes a lot.

You take this, which again is pin registered, and put on a piece of unexposed film, which is the same type black-and-white Kodalith, and you expose it to light, with the black-core mattes falling between the light source and the new piece of film.

And what you're left with is an exact negative of this, which is called a clear-core matte.

So everything around that will be black. You have your clear core.

Now, we're up to the last step of the -- of the creation of the composite right now.

Q. When you say "composite," that's another word for "fake," if you want to use that term, or altered photograph, right?

A. Absolutely. Correct.

Q. Okay.

A. What you would do is, you would sandwich the pin-registered original with the black-core matte and project that down onto a final piece of paper or film, whatever carrier for the image that you want.

Once you have done that, without ever moving this, you go back and you sandwich the product shot and the clear-core matte together, and you then project that down in exactly the same spot on the final carrier for the image, be it film or paper.

And what you're left with then, down at the bottom, is a composite image of your tree, your flower, your product shot. And you can also burn in, which is again another technique like this, where you've got, say, white type. You would project that down from another piece of Kodalith, and have that fit whatever you want your product copy to be. And it all falls in and makes a composite image.

This has been done in advertising for many, many decades. It's a standard way of doing this.

Q. Now, what technique -- what is that technique called that you just described?

A. Well, it would be photo compositing or matte inserting.

Q. Okay.

And there are there other subtechniques, or additional techniques that are sometimes used to make the composite photograph?

A. Yes, there are several.

One that's been used, again, for many, many decades is basically a cut-and-paste situation. You start with your background photograph, and all you do is, you take your product shot and have an artist very carefully take an X-acto knife or a very sharp razor blade, something of that nature, and you cut it out so it physically fits, and you physically paste it on. That's very simple. That's the way it's done.

You can also insert an area of text, as well.

Q. Now, I've heard the term "air brush," and I usually hear that in terms of fashion photography, where some rather vain celebrities -- but could you describe that for us?

What is air brushing, and how is that used, if at all, in creating these alternate photographic -- altered photographic images?

A. Well, if you had two pieces of elements that did not quite aesthetically match each other, an arm that didn't quite hit or something of that nature, or a finger with dirty fingernails, something of that nature, and you wanted to air-brush it out, you wanted to get rid of it, you take a small, precise spray mechanism, and you spray over the area that -- that is offending to the vision or the eye, and eliminate it.

If somebody had a scar, let's say, and they wanted to eliminate the scar, you would -- what you would do is, match the color background of the skin or -- however you do it -- either there's a tear in the jacket or a shirt, and you just air-brush it out. You just simply cover it up.

The advantage to air-brushing is that it gives you a tapered edge, as opposed to a very sharply cut one.

Q. What you said, it's -- is it like a small can of -- a really small can of spray paint? Is that what it is?

A. Yes.

Normally, it would be a jar. They usually use glass jars, which attach to a little sprayer. It's the reverse of an air compressor; it blows air, instead of sucking it in.

Q. So it's clear, what does the air brush actually -- is it spraying fluid? Is it moving fluid that's already there?

A. No, it's spraying, it's adding.

Q. So -- and if you're trying to do a really good job of creating a -- a believable composite, I take it that you -- that you try to, for instance, make sure the elements are all in register, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you try to make sure that if there isn't anything that's not quite in register, that you air-brush it so that it becomes -- the fact that it's out of registration, is masked, right?

A. You can do that or just do it over again.

Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Now, you can retake the stand at this point.

(The witness complies.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you don't do a perfect job, are there often indicia or indicators of this type of manipulation that are apparent on the original -- on what -- on the photograph of the negative, are they -- are there?

A. If it's not done right, yes. It's easily detectable.

Q. Okay.

Let me direct your attention specifically to this air-brushing method.

What would be -- what would you look for, in general terms, to determine whether there has been any air-brushing-type manipulation to a photographic image?

A. The image, instead of being continuous grain -- or, for instance if you look at a hand, it's not just one solid color; they're subtle. There's changes; there's shadows.

Normally, in an air-brushing situation, you're dealing with a flat background. If you try to use it in something where there's a great deal of detail, the detail will simply be there.

If you examine what purports to be an original photograph, using that technique, what you would detect is a plain background without the detail, or an irregular, unnatural edge.

Q. And with that regard to the registration or proper positioning of the various elements in a photograph, what would you look for to determine whether that exists?

In other words, when you're looking at a photograph and you want to look for out-of-registration elements, what do look for?

A. Well, you would inspect, again, depending on the method used and the type of indicator that might be there. You would end up with examining the edges from where one element would come in contact with another element. For instance if we were to use a matte insert technique, if the matte were off slightly from the sizing or were off -- or the positioning were off, even by a fraction of a millimeter, you would end up with an odd-colored edge, meaning that didn't belong, something that would be -- it would look somewhat like a halo, something of that nature. Either that, or it would be a dark line.

In other words, if matte were too small, as opposed to being too large, you'd end up with an irregular density.

Q. Now, is there another wholly different type of method used to utilize to create a composite or alterated -- excuse me -- altered photographic images, that involves computer technology?

A. Yes. There is --

The technique of digitization has been refined again and again and again and again, through the last decade or so. And it is totally different than everything else we've got here.

What we have here are mechanical or photographic or art-type techniques. In a computer, in what they call the digital domain, what you're doing is, you are not manipulating a photographic or physical entity; what you're doing is, you're manipulating elements or picture elements that are known as pixels within the original picture.

And --

Q. You know, would it be helpful -- sorry to interrupt you -- would it be helpful if you go down and actually draw what you're talking about with pixels and so forth?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I object without tying it up. I'd like an offer of proof --


MR. GELBLUM: -- at side bar.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

THE COURT: What's your offer of proof on digitizing?

MR. LEONARD: I want to -- what I want to demonstrate is that, if you use the state-of-the-art digital equipment and you do the proper cover-up, if you will, techniques, you -- it's very difficult to discern.

THE COURT: Is that his opinion that's what was done in this case?

MR. LEONARD: He doesn't know.

No -- look --

MR. GELBLUM: I asked him in his deposition. He didn't mention that.

THE COURT: Wait a minute.

MR. LEONARD: Wait a minute. Okay.

You can combine all of these techniques if you want to. For instance, if you -- if you digitally manipulate a photograph and you don't see something, like you -- like you can air-brush it or use some other technique, the point is, it's extremely difficult to -- to discern digital manipulation. That's all I'm going to elicit from him. That -- that these techniques can be combined. These --

THE COURT: Let me ask you.

MR. LEONARD: No here --

THE COURT: May I ask you a question --

MR. LEONARD: Yes, of course.

THE COURT: -- please.

What is it exactly that this witness is going to testify to with regards to --

MR. LEONARD: He is going to say --

THE COURT: -- on 1930?

MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Is it 1930.

MR. LEONARD: He's going to say there are several indicators of it, that the picture has been manipulated. There's a whole list of them. For instance --

THE COURT: He's not going to be able to testify as to how it was done?

MR. LEONARD: No. And he can --

THE COURT: Then I'll -- excuse me. You know, if you let me talk, we'll get through this a lot faster.

He is going to say there's something wrong with the picture; is that right?

MR. LEONARD: Um-hum.

THE COURT: All of those techniques are various techniques that he knows of, and can alter the picture, but he doesn't know which one affected it?

MR. LEONARD: He sees indications of air-brushing. He also sees the fact that the -- that the -- that the -- as he's described here, that there's some indication that elements are out of register which are an indicator of matte technique.

THE COURT: Is he going to testify that there are some elements of digitizing?

MR. LEONARD: No. He's going to say that you can't -- you can't tell whether it's been digitized, if it's -- it's one point that -- that it's a very sophisticated technique. All right? And can I -- I'll explain it to you.

He's going to say it's a very sophisticated technique, and that you can -- you can rephotograph the digitally created image with, for instance, with a type of film that has a rather large grain, and it masks the pixelization. The way you can determine whether a photograph has been digitally manipulated is because it has a very distinctive -- I'll call it grain structure. It's really pixels.

THE COURT: Is he going to testify that that exists, too?


THE COURT: Is he testifying that that exists in this photograph?

MR. LEONARD: You can't tell whether it exists.

THE COURT: Then I'll sustain the objection as to that aspect.

MR. LEONARD: Can I -- one more. Can I make one more point?


MR. LEONARD: One more point.

There's evidence that this -- that the photograph -- that what was represented to us as being an original negative is a duplicate negative, if -- that it's out of register. There's a couple different points.

There's no legitimate reason for what was represented to us in the original negative to be a duplicate negative. That is, there's very strong circumstantial evidence that it's been -- it's been tampered with.

And my point is that, if there -- if there were more than one method -- for instance, if there was masking, if there was air-brushing, and underneath all of that, there had been an original digital manipulation, if it's done right, you wouldn't be able to see the original digital manipulation.

It's like, we've got a murder case going here with circumstantial evidence. There's circumstantial evidence that the photograph has been altered in two of these ways.

And the photograph also went -- went to Paris or London and back on a Concord.

MR. BAKER: London.

MR. LEONARD: That's pretty unusual. That came out in Scull's deposition. There's some -- there's a lot -- there's a lot of circumstances surrounding the photograph that are unusual.

The guy claims he lost his camera and his camera was rebought --

THE COURT: Just stay --

MR. LEONARD: All I'm trying to argue is that there are circumstantial indicators that this -- beyond the actual looking at the photograph or where it lines up with the others on the contact sheet, which indicated -- indicate that it was duplicated, or at least there's a suspicious break in the chain of custody.

THE COURT: See if I understand your argument.

Your argument is that his testimony is going -- and some other evidence, or some evidence is going to show that these are duplicate negatives.

MR. LEONARD: This is a duplicate negative.

THE COURT: And that -- that is an element that you contend is supportive of an opinion that it's been tampered with?

MR. LEONARD: Yeah. That's a reason, yes.

THE COURT: If you just let me talk, we'd get through this real fast.

And that you'd like to ask him about the digitizing, because that is one of the methods that can be used to alter it.

But this witness could not establish that, in fact, was the one that was used, only that it can -- that could have been used, and he would not be able to know.

MR. LEONARD: No. But it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, as their expert has admitted, if it's done right, in the proper --

THE COURT: So your main contention is that, if you feel there's sufficient evidence in which this witness can say that there are elements to support an argument that it was altered, because there was a duplicate negative, and that part of the altering could be by various methods, including digitizing?

MR. LEONARD: Exactly.

THE COURT: But he can't say that is the case here or not?

MR. LEONARD: He can't with regard to the --

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, may I be heard?

THE COURT: No. I think --

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you would, step down there.

When we had the time out there, we were talking about digital manipulation, and you used pixelization and so forth.

First of all, can you just illustrate for us, sort of basic elements of a digitalized photograph?

A. It's extremely simple.

If these lines weren't so light, it would be perfect to explain it.

But in its most simple form, the entire screen of a digitized picture contains a series of items known as pixels, or picture elements.

Picture elements are exactly rectangular, be they square or elongated, into a rectangular form. And each one of those, although they're considerably smaller than this, represents a single pixel or picture element.

The total digital picture is made up exclusively of digital elements known as pixels.

Each one of these is assigned a value in color and density, color being, of course, the -- it's very obvious what it is; density being from something known as demin which is very thin or light or clear or white, to demax, which is dark gray, charcoal black, very dense.

Each of these elements becomes part of the overall picture.

The number of pixels determines the resolution of the overall picture. A lot of home computers will use 300 to 600, maybe as many as 800 dots or pixels per inch as its resolution.

Professional machines will go as high as 3,000 per inch or greater, so you get a far more photographic field to the end result. So for those of you who may have home computers, if you deal with -- with programs like Photo Shop or things of that nature, you know that when you look at the picture, it seems very choppy; they have things called jaggies.

Jaggies is, if you have a diagonal line that interferes and goes through the middle of a pixel, the computer has to arbitrarily decide whether it goes to this side or this side of it. And instead of getting a straight line, you end up with a slightly lightning shape or jagged line.

In ultra-high resolution situations of 3,000 lines or pixels per inch or better, you don't get the jaggies for two reasons: Number one, programs of that nature and sophistication, like computers, have programs that eliminate the jaggies and tend to smooth them out. The other situation, which is the obvious one thing I was trying to get to, is when you have many other things, they become less apparent to the eye, and you need a microscope to detect them.

Q. Now, if you created a digitally manipulated photograph, and you wanted to hide that fact for whatever reason, is there a method you've just told us that it can -- it's -- you can discern these distinctive geometric pixel-like -- or pixels, rather, by -- under a microscope, correct?

A. In most cases, yes.

Q. If you were going to digitally manipulate a photograph, and you wanted to hide that fact so that someone looking at the -- what purports to be the original negative, after the fact, can't tell that you digitally manipulated it, what could you do?

A. There are various steps you could do, one of which would be to throw it slightly out of focus, so that the edges would blur. There would no longer be sharp edges on the pixels.

Of course, if you'd use the maximum resolution, you could get it in the first place.

Q. Well, by that, you mean you'd use that, what you describe as high tech, 3,000 pixels-per-inch-type machinery?

A. That's correct.

And then you'd throw it slightly out of focus, or you would use what's known as a dithering effect.

A dithering effect is part of a program that is included in things like Photo Shop, where they tend to average out edges or elements of each pixel, so it would disappear or be much less apparent.

Another way of dealing with it would be to create a high-resolution print and then rephotograph it on a piece of film, like 400 ASA film, or something that's very grainy, and if the grain is larger than the pixels, they'll disappear, they'll be covered up.

Q. Just -- just go over that -- that point again. Let me make sure I understand.

You would create a high-resolution digital print using the more sophisticated machinery, so that you would have 3,000 pixels per inch, let's say.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Asked and answered. No reason to go over it again.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And then at that point, you would then take another photograph of that digitally created image; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you would take the photograph with a -- what you said was a grainy film.

What do you mean by that?

A. Grain is an element of photographic film. The slower the film -- and this is a general rule -- the slower the film, 50 ASA, 32 ASA, 75, 100. Slower films have finer grain, much finer grain. What you're left with is -- let me demonstrate.

This arbitrary shape here is a piece of photographic grain, let's say. What you've got on film is a carrier, which is an acetate type of situation, variety of plastic of sorts. And what you've got is a coating on what's known as the emulsion side. And the emulsion side of the film has just a whole bunch like this.

Now, the slower the film, the finer the grain. In other words, it's less apparent. If you look at an 8 by 10 or 11 by 14 blow-up of a fine-grain print, it's very hard to see the grain.

But if you use a fast film, as you would -- say a sporting event, and you need to freeze the action, you need to be able to use a higher shutter speed, you use a faster film.

Well, the down side of the faster film is, it has much larger grain. And when you blow it up, it appears very grainy. It's as if you're looking through a screen or a mask.

Q. Well, explain the relationship between the -- the larger grain and the pixels and to the extent, if any, that -- that might mask the underlying pixels.

A. Well, the nature of the grain itself, outside of being larger, also has a granular element to it. And if you are -- if you're showing a granular element over an already slightly blurred pixel area, it will mask it completely; you won't be able to detect it or see it.

Another situation is, if you were to print it nonphotographically, say in a magazine, using lithographing dots, the lithographing dots would be larger than the pixels, and they would totally mask it, as well.

MR. LEONARD: Now, you can retake your seat.

(Witness complies.)

MR. LEONARD: Is this a good time to break?

THE COURT: We started at a quarter to.


Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, when you're looking for occasions that a photograph is actually a composite or altered photograph, and you suspect that it's possible that the photograph could be digitally altered, how do you do that?

Is it sometimes extremely difficult to discern?

A. Sometimes it's very, very difficult to discern.

The things that you would look for, the type of indicators would be, the picture would be perhaps slightly out of focus, less clear than others within a series, for instance.

Or if digital manipulation is done and one particular picture is returned purporting to be an original as part of the series, you'd look for a lack of color balance, or just an overall feel that it's different than all the rest.

If you have nothing to compare it to, you look in other areas.

Q. What do you mean by color balance?

A. There is a tinting that becomes apparent when -- I guess we've all seen it. I've seen it way too many times -- when you get your films back from the lab, they're either all a little bit too blue or too yellow or too pink, or something of that nature.

But, almost invariably, that color shift off of a normal neutral tone will be consistent throughout a row or series of rows, depending if they were all processed at the same time.

If a particular image has been reinserted after being manipulated from another source, there is no guarantee that that balance or that shift from what's called neutral, neutral density, ND, there could very well be a discernible color shift for the questioned photograph.

Q. And again, that's because it was processed at a different time; is that right?

A. No. It could -- the final result would have been processed at the same time, but there would have been elements in the creation that created a shift in another direction that would override the general shift of the roll as it's processed.

Q. Now, if you are creating a composite photograph, and you want to make sure that -- or attempt to make sure that you mask it -- in other words, you don't want anybody to find out that it's actually a composite; you wanted people to believe it's an original photograph or negative -- what is a -- what's a very basic thing that you have to do, keeping in mind that you're assuming that somebody's going to go back and look at the original negative, and not just the print?

A. You'd have to substitute something for the original negative. You'd have to hide, destroy, get rid of the original negative, so that it wouldn't be seen, and substitute something that would convince most people or everybody that it is the original, in fact.

Q. And so you'd have to actually create a duplicate negative; is that right?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Leading. He didn't say that.

A. I wouldn't say it, anyway.

It wouldn't be a duplicate negative; it would be a copy negative that would be altered. It would not be a straight duplicate. Duplicate, using the dictionary term, means a straight copy. It would be a later generation, creation, and not actually a duplicate, per se. It would appear to be an original, but it would not be.

Q. Okay.

Now, one more area of general testimony before we get into the subject photograph.

How do you -- can you explain -- if you need to use the board, you can do that -- how -- what's the process by which you create this copy negative?

Again, assuming that you have a composite and that you want to fool people, you want people to think that it's the -- actually the original negative?

A. There are a number of ways of doing this.

Again, this is hypothetical, because you'd have your choice. There would be a small menu of ways of dealing with it.

One thing you could do is, you could create the phony image that you want. Theoretically, I'd want it to be at the end of a roll, either the beginning end or the far end, one way or the other, so you don't have to match it within other elements.

And --

Q. Well, when you say "match it within other elements," why don't you illustrate what you're talking about on the board?

A. Okay.

(Witness draws on board.)

MR. LEONARD: You can using a fresh -- (indicating to drawing paper).


A. Standard rolls of film used to come in 20-exposure rolls and 36-exposure rolls.

We go on vacation, we buy film. We ask how many exposures. We want 24. Gives you less pictures, but it's the least expensive way to buy the film and less expensive to process. If you have a limited number of pictures you want to take of an accident, somebody hits your car, you get a smaller roll, maybe 12 exposures, something small.

That's not relevant for after this, but I thought I'd mention that.

On 35-millimeter film, the film comes in a canister, and the film is fed out of a light-safe-type of squeezing or sponge mechanism, and stretches out this way. (Indicating.) It's got something called a tongue at the end, and that's basically what you've got.

You have what invariably ends up being wasted leader at the beginning, which is light struck. That area which was outside of this in the first place is light by light. As you load it becomes useless it's called light striking. That's the technical term.

When you load it into a camera, that light-struck area usually gets stretched, so it goes over what is known as the frame aperture, and gets picked up by the pick-up reel on the far side of the camera.

You then close the back of the camera, advance it by using the cocking mechanism runoff and exposure, do it again. Usually, about the third time, you've cleared all of the light-struck area. What you're left with is the first actual frame of exposure.

Now, the easiest way to deal with a fake photograph, if you're going to use this particular type of technique, is to make it either the first or the last one. The reason that being is, if you're trying to match it to the next item, all you have to do is match it to one instead of two.

If it were to fall in the middle, between two other elements, you've got to match it to two of -- you've got to get it to register, to fit. It's got to fall in from exactly the right spot.

Q. When you say match an element, can you explain that a little bit more?

Are you talking about lining up with the other negatives or the other frame?

Is that what you're talking about?

A. There are various elements: Exposure, density, color balance, and most basically, position. More than anything else, position.

If you were to use, say, two separate cameras to insert a digital frame, as opposed to the rest of it, which might be photographic frames, arbitrarily, to get it to fit, you've got to get it to fall in exactly the right spot on the film.

Between the frames, there is a spacing. On high quality cameras, that spacing should be either absolutely or very close to uniform in every single frame. On cheaper cameras, it may not advance quite as far. It might advance a little bit too far, and you won't get an even frame in between. What you'd want is, it to fall in as close to normal to where it should normally fit as if it were a legitimate frame.

Q. You indicated space -- spacing -- sort of vertical spacing. I'll call it vertical spacing for purposes of this diagram.

There's also -- and that would be the spaces in between the two negatives or two frames?

A. That's correct. This would be the spacing in between.

Q. There is also spacing or positioning of the frame with -- or the image with relation to the outer edge of the film, correct?

A. That is correct. The position away from the actual edge of the film itself, along the upper and lower edges of the film, are what is called sprocket holes. Those sprocket holes are the device by which the sprocket advance of the camera advances the film and pulls the next frame up and gets it to fall into the right position.

And it's -- there are, on a standard roll, standard camera, 35-millimeter camera, eight of these sprocket holes for every frame.

In motion-picture film, with half-frame film, it's four sprockets per frame.

Q. So if you are going to try to create a false original negative, you would want to make sure that you have, for instance, the -- the false frame lined up exactly with the -- with the first of the real frames; is that right?

A. You'd have to -- you'd have to at least try; otherwise, it would be very easily detectable.

Q. Now, you mentioned that you would -- there would be other things that would have to be in the register. I think you said color, exposure, things like that?

A. There are other -- there are other elements that you would need to match. Color balance, we've discussed.

Density is another issue, too. If you are trying to match your created frame, for want of a better term, to legitimate frames, you'd want the exposure to at least appear about the same as all those around the original, especially with an automatic exposure camera. Otherwise, the question is raised, why are the other frames off. You'd -- yours would be either too light or too dark. If yours is normal, those around it might be too light or too dark.

Q. Okay.

You can retain your seat -- retake your seat, please.

(The witness complies.)

Q. Now, have you examined various materials in this case relating to the questioned photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

What materials have you reviewed?

A. I've reviewed two contact sheets, one containing the questioned frame, one that does not. I have looked at an 8-by-10 frame of the questioned frame, a print of the questioned frame. A print, an 8-by-10 print of the lower half, or approximately half of that questioned frame, and also two other frames from the two contact sheets or negative strips in question that purport to show Mr. Simpson.

Q. Did you travel to Buffalo, New York to examine your -- what was purported to be the original negative of this photograph?

A. Yes, I did.

THE COURT: All right. Now would be a good time.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

THE COURT: Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.


(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When we took the break, we were talking about when you traveled to Buffalo to examine what was represented to you to be the original negative of the subject photograph.

Did you examine the original negative of it?

A. I examined what purports to be the original negative.

Q. Okay.

And did -- by the way, you also had an opportunity to read Harry Scull's, the photographer's deposition; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Mr. Scull represented in his deposition that that -- that the negative had never been duplicated, that the negative that you ultimately were shown was the original negative, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

And when you were in Buffalo, did you also examine some other items, other than the original -- what was purported to be the original negative of this particular photograph?

A. Yes.

I viewed what purported to be the Scull negatives of three separate rolls of film and three contact sheets made from those negatives, one each, and a series of individual 8-by-10 photographs, very similar to what was supplied to me, that being a full-size 8-by-10 of what I'm calling frame 11, meaning sheet one or roll one, frame one.

Q. And the 1-1 is the photograph that purports to show Mr. Simpson walking across the football field?

A. Yes.

Q. That frame 1-1?

A. That's what I'm calling 1-1.

Also, a lower portion of the body showing the feet in that photograph, as well. And as I recall, for two other individual frames, also showing Mr. Simpson, one by himself holding a microphone, and one with a football player.

Q. Now, as a result of your examination and analysis of these items, have you come to any conclusion with regard to the authenticity of the subject photograph?

A. Now or then?

Q. Now.

A. Now? Yes I have.

Q. What is the conclusion?

A. My conclusion is that there is a high likelihood of forgery.

Q. Now, tell us first in general terms what you base that opinion on.

A. On initial observation, noticing problems, discrepancy between what appears actually on the negative itself and the surrounding area, comparisons of that negative to the others on the roll, and the other roll, measurements, positioning, color balance and endless -- I can't say endless -- a number of problems with it.

Q. Okay. Now, have you, for purposes of illustration before the jury here, have you prepared some slides that demonstrate some of these problems that you've identified?

A. Yes, I have.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. Let's put up the -- first of all, let's illustrate the contact sheet that contains frame 1-1.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1832.

(The instrument herein referred to as Contact sheet of negatives which contains photograph of O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1832.)

MR. LEONARD: Can you pull back -- first of all, pull back to get a full view of the contact sheet.

Q. Now, what does that represent that's illustrated on the Elmo, sir?

A. This appears to be roll number one of the -- of the two that were supplied to me.

Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Can you focus that a little bit better.

Now, you can take that down (indicating to Elmo screen).

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, first of all, where was -- where is 1.1, the image of Mr. Simpson? Where is that located on the contact sheet?

A. As we view it here, in the extreme lower left.

Q. Okay.

A. This would be exposure 1, exposure 2, exposure 3, and so forth.

Q. Is that the first frame in the roll?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Now, you can take that down, put up the next slide, please.

MR. P. BAKER: This is going to be a set of slides marked next in order.

This will be slide number one.

THE CLERK: 2282.

MR. P. BAKER: 2282?

(The instrument herein referred to as A series of slides was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2282.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Before we go on to the next image, you had indicated earlier when we were talking, in theory, that if you were going to alter a photograph and then attempt to hide the fact that you altered it, and create a copy negative, you would want to insert it either at the first -- as the first or last frame; is that correct?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Argumentative. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That is what I testified to, yes. If I -- if I were to do this, and I were going to make it as easy as possible, myself, I would use either the first or the last one.

Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: The next image up, please.

If you could, pull back a little bit, please.

Now, what is in the exhibit number, please?

MR. P. BAKER: Number 1 of 2282.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What does that illustrate?

A. This illustrates frame 1-1 and frame 1-2. That 1-1 and 1-2, the first two frames exposed on -- on that roll of film.

Q. Now, is there anything of significance that is indicated on that slide that you -- with regard to your opinion?

A. Specifically in this -- in this case, there's two things that stand out. Number 1 frame, 1-1, is as we view it here, which is at the bottom, is slightly too far to the right.

Q. Okay. It's difficult to see.

Did you create another slide that illustrates that?

A. Yes. It should be the next one.

MR. P. BAKER: Slide 2 of 2282.

A. (Continuing.) The difference is the degree of the black line between the edge, the sharp edge of the -- of the paper and the edge of the frames themselves.

Q. Well, using the pointer, can you actually point that out to the jury, please.

A. Yes.

The edge of -- the right-hand edge of frame 1-1 comes right up against the paper as a very, very thin line.

The one for the next frame over is out of alignment; it's too far over to the left.

Actually, the one for 1-2 is where it's supposed to be. It is in the same positioning as all of the other frames on the contact sheet. The only one that falls too far to the right is frame 1-1.

Q. Now, why is that significant?

A. We were discussing before the -- the idea and the concept of registration or positioning.

On a high quality camera, such as a Canon, Minolta, Nikkon, Pentax, any of those like it, you have what is known as the frame aperture. The frame aperture is what delineates the border. It creates the border of the individual frame, and it is fixed; it never changes.

You have film guides top and bottom that hold the film in line and parallel to the -- to the -- to the frame aperture itself. And you have a back pressure plate that keeps the film flat.

When you make the exposure, a shutter allows light to come in and strike the film. The thing that keeps it from spreading out and going into where the next frame would be is this frame aperture.

All cameras have frame apertures. The thing is that it doesn't move; the position never changes; it is fixed.

Q. Now, the difference between 1-1, which is slightly to the right, and 1-2 is minimal, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. But is that nonetheless significant?

A. It's extremely significant.

You wouldn't expect to find any change, in fact. Nowhere else on either of the first two contact sheets do you find a single instance of this happening, except in this one spot.

Q. And again, relating back to what you were -- what you had told us in general terms about creating a copy negative, assuming that this is a composite negative, what does that tell you?

A. Well, it would tell me that in all probability, frame 1-1 did not get onto this film using the same camera as all of the other pictures.

All of the other pictures fall exactly where you would expect them to, in exactly the correct position and spacing. The alignment is -- alignment is the same, side to side, exactly where you would expect it to be.

This particular one falls just too far to the right.

In fact, to clarify it, just to be absolutely correct, we're looking at the film sideways. Theoretically, we should be looking at it horizontally, which means that the --

THE WITNESS: The other way. That's it.

Frame 1-1 is actually too close to the bottom of the film. The frame numbering is at the top; the identification, the type of film, et cetera, et cetera, the film speed, which is G400, indicating 400 grain film or speed film.

You can see -- in fact, it's easier to see it this way, (indicating) too, that you have the frame itself coming directly to the piece of paper, and then this greater spacing, this black line here.

Now, this works, when you do it from the outside of the frame or from the inside. And it doesn't from -- it does it from either end, either the bottom end or the top end.

Q. All right. Now, can we -- can you take that back.

MR. LEONARD: Can we see the next slide, please.

MR. P. BAKER: Next slide is No. 3 of 2282.

(Frame No. 3 of Exhibit No. 2282 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you can -- okay.

Now, what does this slide illustrate?

A. This -- this particular slide shows what I observed on the contact sheet.

There is a secondary edge here. (Indicating.)

What I mean by that is, the bottom of the frame line itself is, of course, where it turns from light to dark or black.

The edge, the normal edge of the paper itself -- I'm sorry -- of the film itself, is where it goes from this lighter dark area here, to total darkness or black.

Q. For now, you've indicated there seems to be a horizontal line close to the actual bottom line of the frame.

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. And?

A. There appears also to be a slight shift of the gray values above and below, that changes exactly at the point where that second edge occurs.

Q. Now, can you explain the significance of that with regard to whether or not this is a copy negative?

A. If this represents -- you see here how it's extremely dark here?

Now, with a negative, the more light you get, the darker it gets when you print a negative. In other words, there is --

THE WITNESS: Is it possible to sharpen that just a little bit, please.

Thank you. That's -- oops.

MR. LEONARD: Come on, Phil.

MR. P. BAKER: Here we go.

THE WITNESS: There you go.

A. (Continuing.) This area here has the least amount of light held back. It's striking, so it burns it in; it becomes darker.

This area between this horizontal line, as we view it here, and that darker area, has a gray value that appears to be slightly lighter than the area above it, indicating that this might be, in fact, a false edge or some kind of an add-on by relating to that type of phenomenon.

Q. Now, how does that indicate, if it does, that this may be a duplicate or a copy negative?

A. There is no natural situation in photography that would give you that false edge by itself. Where the film ends it should just end. We should not see anything of that nature. It does not occur naturally.

Q. And keeping in mind the process that you've described of creating a copy negative, how can that false edge be explained?

A. If you were going to create a counterfeit of some kind of a fabricated negative, you would need a way of registering it, you'd need it to fall into a specific place.

If you were going to deal with that sort of a situation, it might leave you with a false edge.

In other words, if you were to photograph it against something else, you would end up with a false edge, which would look something like that.


Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Can we see the next slide, please.

MR. P. BAKER: No. 4 of 2282.

(No. 4 of Exhibit No. 2282 displayed.)

MR. LEONARD: You're going to have to focus.

MR. P. BAKER: I'll try to zoom in.

MR. LEONARD: We want to zoom in on the black line.

There you go.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, what does this illustrate?

A. One of the strange things that I noticed when this print was supplied to me is that it showed, fortunately, the area around the edge of the print itself, of the frame itself on the sides, although not on the top or bottom -- it did on the bottom but not on the top.

What is odd is there is what appears to be some kind of a line running between the edge of the frame itself and the sprocket hole area. There is no natural phenomenon to allow for it. This -- the film itself was not created with a line already on there.

The odd thing about it is that it kicks back light, and kicking back light, it reflects light back into the paper itself and tends to make it glow a bit. So that where you've got the perforations on the film, it ignites, visually, the line in that area. Where you don't have the light gathering effect of a sprocket hole, it turns to operate black then, and when you have another sprocket hole, it comes on then. This could be the indication of a false edge.

In other words, if you were going to create a composite and mechanically photograph another negative in register against another piece of film, and the light kicked back from the sprocket holes, it would give you exactly that type of effect.

MR. LEONARD: Can we see the next one, please.

MR. P. BAKER: No. 5 of 2282.

(No. 5 of Exhibit No. 2282 displayed.)


Now, explain this slide.

A. This is one of the most curious things that I found on there, and the issue is this: The frame 1-1 is slightly longer than the adjacent frames, that is, if you measure it with a compass with a fixed position, you'll find that the compass actually spans the exact width, or height, actually, because the way we're looking at it now, this way, edge to edge, precisely. But against the one in question, the compass falls within the boarders. It's very slight, but it is there.

Q. So that the -- the frame 1-1 is slightly longer than frame 1-2; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, how is that significant in your opinion?

A. Well, as I said before, the frame aperture determines the size and the border of the actual image. If indeed it's legitimate, and if it comes from the same camera, it should be absolutely identical. It should never change from frame to frame.

Unfortunately, the negative itself has been cut apart. Everything beyond the first five images is on a second -- second, third, fourth, and what have you, strip of five each. The first two have been cut away from numbers 3, 4 and 5, so the only two we can accurately determine to measure between the two are frame 1-1 and frame 1-2.

Since we don't know how this would have been created, we don't know for a fact that the rest of them are actually accurate within -- within the sizing.

However, the frame sizing is smaller on every other frame except frame 1-1, in any case.

MR. LEONARD: Now, can we see the next.

MR. P. BAKER: This is No. 6 of 2282.

MR. LEONARD: And I think we --

THE WITNESS: Phil, can we -- Mr. Baker, can we possibly please use the backlit large one on this one, please.

MR. LEONARD: Use the print.

MR. P. BAKER: 1931.

(Exhibit No. 1931 is displayed.)

A. This one is very difficult to see. It's a lot easier to see backlit as you actually look at the print itself.

What this refers to is the -- can we blow that up a bit. Can we get in closer just right about in here. (Indicating to photo.)

MR. LEONARD: Hold it flat and get it in closer, please.

MR. BAKER: Say please.

MR. LEONARD: Please.

MR. P. BAKER: It's okay.

A. It really doesn't show up very well here.

But examining the print, the original print that was sent to me, I discovered that there was an entity along here that gives what appears to be -- appears to be sort of an elongated S shape that appears to be retouching, physical retouching, using perhaps a brush or something of that nature.

It's virtually impossible to see here, but if you can examine it on the actual photograph there it shows up very, very well. The problem is it's very, very dark, and very difficult to see in this nature, but the positioning is right along in here.

Q. Now, you've --

THE COURT: Why don't you indicate that for the record. I can't see what he was marking.

MR. P. BAKER: 1931.

MR. LEONARD: It's 1931.

Can I approach?


Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you can, sir, circle the area you're describing.

A. I kind of hate to do that on the original print. Is there anyway of avoiding doing that?

THE COURT: Verbally describe it then. He was just pointing up there.

MR. P. BAKER: I've got a laser copy.

MR. LEONARD: We can do it on that. You have a print, right?

MR. P. BAKER: Here we go.

THE WITNESS: Would it --

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Why don't use the print.

A. Would it be possible to show the jury.

MR. LEONARD: Can he demonstrate to the jury?

THE COURT: Why don't you mark it first.

MR. LEONARD: Mark it first, yeah.

THE COURT: You want to mark a copy?

MR. LEONARD: I think it shows up better on the print.

THE COURT: Well, mark it on the copy so you won't mark the original.

MR. BAKER: Don't we have another original?

MR. LEONARD: I think we have another.

THE COURT: You numbered a copy.

MR. LEONARD: May he demonstrate to the jury, Your Honor?

MR. P. BAKER: That would be 2283.

MR. LEONARD: The copy, 2283.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

(The instrument herein referred to as copy of plaintiffs' exhibit 1932 marked by Mr. Groden was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2283.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I suggest you hold up both the copy and the print, if you could, and walk slowly in front of the jury and demonstrate --

A. Okay.

Q. You can make your explanation there, and then with the Court's permission, then you can walk down slowly and show the jurors.


MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

A. This is --

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I would suggest that you stand back and give a general explanation.

A. Okay.

Q. And then as you walk along you can point out what you're indicating?

A. Okay.

Where I've indicated in red here is the approximate location on the original print of where there is what looks like almost a worm, that is like little lines that appear to be retouching lines that are diagonal, and it's dark against dark, it's very difficult to see.

Backlighting it, in other words, using the backlit stand, it shows up much clearer, but -- may I just hand it and they can pass it?

MR. LEONARD: I suggest, sir --

THE WITNESS: It's this darker area in here.

(Witness approaches juror.)

THE COURT: Okay. Don't hold any intimate conversations with the jurors. Just hand it to them.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You can just pass it along and let the jurors look at it.

(Photograph and copy with marking and distributed among the jurors.)

A. Of all the things I found on that film, this is the most difficult to see on that type of viewing situation.

MR. GELBLUM: May I approach the jurors so I can see it myself?

THE COURT: Would you hand that to the jurors in the front.

MR. LEONARD: Can we see the next slide, please.

MR. P. BAKER: No. 7 of 2282.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. P. BAKER: No. 7 of 2282, another slide.

(No. 7 of Exhibit No. 2282 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you explain this, please, and the significance?

A. Yes.

There's a sharp delineation through the leg that comes down, goes straight across horizontally at a point in the leg. This is the right leg. The tonal value below that is lighter than it is above that. There's a point where that changes, and what appears to be possible retouching marks at exactly the point where the tone changes in the leg, it appears sharper than other things that are within the leg itself.

Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Can we see the next, please.

MR. P. BAKER: No. 8 of 2282.

(No. 8 of Exhibit 2282 is displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What significance does this -- what does this demonstrate, this slide, sir?

A. The bottom of the shoe on the right foot appears to be reflecting light, indicating a sole pattern. Based on the positioning of that shoe over the line, it's my opinion that should be reflecting white instead of red, as the angle at which the light would travel in a straight line between the camera lens and the shoe should be reflecting, as it would with a mirror coming this way, if it it's reflecting anything legitimately at all, it should be reflecting off of white below the tip of the sole. But whoever did this had it reflect as red instead of white. And the angle seems wrong.

Q. You talked about earlier the registration of elements in a composite or altered photograph.

In your opinion, is this an example of a malregistration, if you will?

A. Yes.

I believe the next slide would show that. I'm not sure.

MR. LEONARD: Let's go to the next slide.

MR. P. BAKER: No. 9 of 2282.

(No. 9 of Exhibit No. 2282 is displayed.)

MR. LEONARD: If you could, what I'd like to you do, Mr. Baker, is to focus in on the right shoe.

That's the left shoe.

MR. P. BAKER: I know that. It's a negative. It's backwards.

MR. LEONARD: Oh, okay.

MR. P. BAKER: That's as far as it goes.

MR. LEONARD: It's okay.

A. Although it's easier to see in the actual photographs themselves, could we try to focus it a little bit more, please?

Thank you. Good.

The edge of the shoe comes to this point, the red reflection, for want of a better term, extends beyond the edge of the shoe. In other words, we should see no red image beyond where the black ends.

If someone had used that matte insert process to reflect down and insert the sole pattern at the bottom of the shoe, it should fall in register where it belongs on the sole of the shoe. In fact, it extends beyond the edge of the shoe itself.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) By the way, as you look at that photograph, do you see any indication whatsoever of any moisture or the ground being wet at all?

A. No, none.

As a matter of fact, one of the first things I looked for was that kind of indication when I was at Buffalo.

The bottom of the -- the bottom of the shoe, the sides of the shoe, you would expect that it would have observed some moisture and appear as darker spots.

There is no indication whatsoever, there's no glistening or reflecting of light, of stadium lights or sunlight or anything else, into the camera itself at any point, indicating that the shoe is dry.

Q. And the surrounding ground?

A. The surrounding ground, too, there's no indication of any puddling, gathering of water splashing. One might assume as the heel hit the ground it might cause water to splash up if it were wet.

Q. Okay.

Now, just one other --

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, move to strike as speculation. There's no indication that there was anything about the weather conditions or the field conditions at the time.

MR. LEONARD: We'll prove that up, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, just on one other observation with regard to that photograph, does the heel appear to be flat on the ground, the heel of that shoe?

A. The heel itself appears to be virtually horizontal, yes, flat against the ground with no indication of any spacing above this area at all.

Q. Okay.

Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Can we see the next.

MR. P. BAKER: This is number 10.

(No. 10 of Exhibit No. 2282 is displayed.)

MR. LEONARD: First of all, let's try to focus it.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Now, did -- we're not going to use this, I can see that it's not really acceptable, but before we move to the two different -- the two prints to actually illustrate this, just tell us -- you can turn it around now. Tell us what you're trying to illustrate with this slide?

A. Every slide, every frame on both contact sheets has a slightly cyan tint, that is slightly blue to blue-green. Cyan is a specific color that's a blue to blue-green type of tint.

Every single frame on both of the two contact sheets shows that, except the frame in question, which is frame 1-1, which has an overall magenta or pinkish tint to it. Is the only one that doesn't fit visually.

Q. Okay.

Let me see if I can find the original prints.

MR. P. BAKER: First one 1930, the second one 1921.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Show you --

MR. LEONARD: 1930 and 1921?

MR. P. BAKER: Yes, sir.

(The instrument herein referred to as photograph of defendant holding microphone was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1921.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, once again, due to the technical problem here, we're going to have to have you try to illustrate this to the jury by showing you photographs.

And if you would just stand up, and first of all show the jury where the best place on the two photographs is to illustrate this point.

MR. GELBLUM: May I see the photographs first, Your Honor?


(Mr. Gelblum reviews photographs.)

A. The two prints in question show a reflective value. Frame 1-1 shows a magenta or pinkish tint, to the point where just inspecting this photograph I thought it was a pink shirt instead of a white shirt.

In the shadow areas, in other words, where the -- where the white becomes darker, or what you'd expect it to be in a neutral situation, gray, it becomes extremely magenta or pinkish in tone. That's on this one and only this one.

(Indicating to exhibit No. 1930 photograph showing full view of Mr. Simpson walking.)

On all the other pictures that show Mr. Simpson or other football players, when you get to that darker area, it turns sort of greenish or -- or cyan-ish, so they don't match each other between the existing frame.

(Indicating to Exhibit No. 1921 photograph showing upper torso of Mr. Simpson with microphone.)

Did you want me to pass these?

Q. Yes, please.

Again, if you could illustrate where on the photograph they can best observe this phenomenon?

A. Yes. Around the area of the collar or where the -- where the jacket tends to cast shadows against the -- against the shirt, anyplace where it gets dark, where it falls into shadow, the overall tint is cyan on every picture except frame 1-1 where it's magenta.

(Witness indicates to frame 1-1.)

MR. GELBLUM: Are these new exhibits numbers or is this --

MR. P. BAKER: First one is 1930, second one is 1921.

THE COURT REPORTER: 1-1 is 1930 and --

MR. P. BAKER: And the second one is 1921.

THE COURT: How much longer will you be?

MR. LEONARD: I'll be done by 4.

(Photographs are passed among jurors.)

MR. LEONARD: Can we have the final slide, please.

MR. P. BAKER: Number 11 of 2282.

(No. 11 of Exhibit No. 2282 is displayed.)

MR. LEONARD: Would you pull back, please.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Before we move on to this, what is the significance in the difference in hue the magenta with all the other frames and the cyan -- excuse me -- the cyan with all the other frames and the magenta with the questioned frame, what is the significance of that, sir?

A. Well, when viewed as the contact sheet itself, in fact, we see that overall neutral to cyan tint on every frame except 1-1, which makes 1-1 visually not fit, the balance is off, and the -- and the problem that I described before with trying to exactly match a color balance during a recreation would, in fact, be indicated possibly by this, as well as a slightly out of focus attitude of that particular frame.

Q. Could you explain the final slide, please?

(No. 12 of Exhibit No. 2282 is displayed.)

A. This slide represents that the adjacent frames to the -- to the frames that show Mr. Simpson are extremely overexposed. There is a --

Q. Well, let's stop -- let me stop you right there.

What do you mean by overexposed?

A. The normal exposure, normal skin tone reflective values of the red, green, whatever, this is a normal reflective green, which is what we expect to see, and what we do in fact see in every other negative that appears in number 1 and number 2.

But the ones surrounding -- the ones near Mr. Simpson are extremely overexposed, and they're the only ones that are overexposed, indicating that perhaps someone had tried at some point to balance frames of him to the mean roll and perhaps did not bother to make any kind of a correction around the ones close to him. It's conjecture, but there is a problem with that, because the exposures are so dead-on for all the rest.

Q. Now --

MR. LEONARD: You can take that down.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, based on -- strike that.

Now, the factors that you have discussed and you have illustrated through the slides that you demonstrated to the jury, are those the factors that you relied on in reaching your conclusion that there is a high probability that the frame in question was altered?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: I don't have any other questions at this point.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to excuse you until Friday at 9 o'clock.

Let me remind you not to talk about this case, not to say anything about this case to anyone, not to permit anybody to talk to you about this case, not to form or express any opinions about this case, and above all, do not conduct any personal research on any of the subject matters covered in this trial from the very beginning to the present time, till the end of the trial, and I say this particularly because the kind of testimony we received today sometimes lends itself to curiosity on the part of individuals, and one may tend to want to go look at photographs and books and things about it. Okay. Do not conduct your own research on this material.

The evidence on which you must make your decision must come only from the trial process, that is from the witness stand and through the evidence that we receive into this trial as evidence only.

Everybody understand that?

(The jury panel answered affirmatively.)

THE COURT: Don't go doing any research, don't go comparing any photos, don't do any of that stuff, all right.

(The jury panel answered affirmatively.)

THE COURT: And we're going to be dark tomorrow and we will resume at 9 o'clock, Monday.

Have a nice day.

MR. BAKER: Friday.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Friday. Thank you. Friday.

Meanwhile, we'll wait till the jurors clear and we'll hear the motion.

(Jurors exit courtroom.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: The Court at this time reverses the plaintiffs' motion to preclude testimony of Dr. Fredric Rieders regarding presence of EDTA in the evidence samples.

I read the moving papers, the opposition and the -- I guess this is a responsive pleading by the moving party.

Either side have anything else they wish to add?

MR. LAMBERT: I'll submit on the motion, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: I simply add to our papers, I think it's outrageous they would make this motion on December 9.

THE COURT: Besides your outrage, do you have anything you want to add with regard to the merits?

MR. BLASIER: There's no testimony offered by any expert in the case to the effect this is new technology, that this is not acceptable technology. All the experts that testified in the criminal case and by deposition say this is an accepted method.

Submit on that.


The Court having read the transcripts that have been submitted together with the moving and opposing papers, notes that the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Terry D. Lee is, as well as the other documentation submitted, tend to support the position that the -- the testing procedure and the experiment itself in terms of science is a valid and accepted science and a valid and accepted technique.

So I think from the standpoint of the Kelly Frye requirements, the objection of plaintiff is not well taken.

With regards to the remainder of plaintiffs' objection with respect to whether or not the testing done by the FBI agent --

MR. BAKER: Martz, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- Martz, may or may not support one conclusion or the other, I think each expert has their opinion with regards to what it is capable of or what it does or does not establish. I think that goes to the weight of the evidence.

So the motion to preclude is denied.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: One thing further.

Can I see counsel at side bar.

THE CLERK: Off the record.

THE COURT: Off the record.

THE CLERK: Off the record side bar.

THE BAILIFF: We have a brief side bar. Please take a seat in the courtroom if you are going to remain.

Thank you.

(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)

(At 4:05 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Friday, December 21, 1996 at 9:00 A.M.)