DECEMBER 20, 1996

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning.


JURORS: Morning.

MR. GELBLUM: Based on Mr. Leonard's representation that he has only three or four minutes left, he's asked to reopen, and we've agreed. It's three or four minutes.

THE COURT: All right.

THE CLERK: Sir, you are still understand oath. Would you state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: Robert Groden.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Morning, Mr. Groden.


ROBERT GRODEN the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment on Wedensday, Decmeber 18, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. LEONARD: Mr. Groden, did we have an opportunity yesterday to come to the courtroom and work a little more with the Elmo machine?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. As a result of that, were you able to illustrate a couple of these points a little bit better?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I'd ask that Mr. Groden be permitted to walk down, and I can examine him from the Elmo, so he can manipulate it. And what I'd like to—what I'd like to do is, display one image that you—but he's going to point out some of these elements again. We really need to turn all the lights out in the courtroom, if that's acceptable, just for 30 seconds.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

MR. P. BAKER: The photograph on the machine is 1931.

(The instrument herein referred to as Blow-up from the 1-1 photograph purported to be Mr. Simpson's left leg, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1931.)

MR. LEONARD: As soon as you're set up, turn the lights out.



JUROR: I just need to ask the deputy something real quickly, if you don't mind. Pardon me.

THE BAILIFF: May I approach?

(Bailiff and court converse sotto voce.)

THE COURT: (The Court indicates to candy.)

JUROR: Thank you. My fellow juror has saved me. (One juror hands another juror a cough drop.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you have the—do you have the image in the position you want it, sir?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: You're going to have to speak loudly, because we can't hear you.

THE WITNESS: All right. (Lights are switched off.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, can you—first of all, just so the record is clear, this is a— would you describe what this is?

A. This is a close-up of the left leg from the 1-1 photograph or a blow-up of the 1-1 photograph purported to be Mr. Simpson's leg.

Q. Okay. Now, why don't you show again, the anomaly that you discovered in this portion of the photograph.

A. Yes. What we were describing the other day is this area along here (indicating), this darker area with the vertical stripes on it, that looks very much like a worm, or a retouching mark. It alternates back light and so on, and so on, which—what appears to be brush strokes or digital domain, could be interpreted as being cleaning, which is a way of duplicating one specific area within the photograph and putting it to another point. This is an anomaly that is not common. This is not graphic grain; it does not appear in any way to be photographic grain, but does appear to be retouching.

Q. There another elements on the other leg that you wanted to illustrate a little more clearly?

A. Yes, there is. (Witness adjusts Elmo.) The horizontal line I discussed is this (indicating), where it is lighter, below that point and darker above. And at the point where the horizontal line goes through the line there, is what appears to be obvious retouching or some anomaly that does not belong. This is not part of the actual, original photograph. That pretty much displays it as much as we can with this.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. We can turn the lights back on. (Bailiffs comply.)

MR. LEONARD: You may retake the stand. (Witness complies.)

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, with that, I don't have any further questions on direct.

THE COURT: Okay. You may cross-examine.


Q. Morning, Mr. Groden.

A. Morning.

Q. You're aware, sir, aren't you, that you're not the first person the defense hired to examine this photograph?

MR. LEONARD: Misstates the evidence, Your Honor.

Q. You're not aware what your—that the defense retained a man named Pat Clark, who took the photographs—Buffalo, New York—

THE COURT REPORTER: Your Honor, I didn't get that question. I'm sorry.

MR. BAKER: Since it was stricken, we ask it not be repeated.

THE COURT: No, you will not repeat it. You will approach the bench.

MR. GELBLUM: I will, Your Honor.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: I was present at the Scull deposition with Mr. Baker in Buffalo, New York, and he had a man by the name of Pat Clark, from Hy Zazula Associates present at the deposition. A break was taken, and Mr. Clark, with a magnifying glass and some lights, looked at the negatives and looked at all the subject photos while we're at the Scull deposition, over a period of time in the course of the deposition. And his name is identified right here (indicating) on the record.

THE COURT: What is the relevance of that—

MR. PETROCELLI: Now, because—

THE COURT: -- with regards to this witness?

MR. PETROCELLI: We're entitled to know whether this witness is aware of the fact that there has been another examination of that photo by the defense, and what that expert's opinion was—that expert opined that it was an authentic photograph, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may ask him whether or not he's aware of an opinion by somebody else in forming his own opinion, but that's it.

MR. GELBLUM: Whether he's aware—

THE COURT: You can't get into the fact that some other expert examined it through this witness.

MR. PETROCELLI: If he's aware of it—

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor—

MR. PETROCELLI: He relied on this deposition. He read this deposition. That was brought out on direct examination, that this is one of the pieces of information that he relied on in rendering his opinion.

MR. GELBLUM: In the transcript, it says that—it refers to the fact that he examined the photographs, Mr. Clark, and he's read this deposition.


MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we're entitled—and we had, because we had never seen this photo, and we were entitled to, and had a consultant there. That consultant was never named as an expert in the case; he was simply a consultant and to help me—I'm not a photo expert—to ask questions. And he did certainly look the at the photo. They're not entitled to any—ask any questions about consultants that we had.

THE COURT: Did this consultant testify?

MR. PETROCELLI: No, he never testified, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Then what's the relevance?

MR. PETROCELLI: Whether he relied on anything that person said or did, which is part of the deposition on which this witness relied upon in giving his distinct opinion.

MR. BAKER: He did not. There's nothing in this deposition about Mr. Pat Clark's opinion. It's just a cheap shot.

THE COURT: Just a minute. Show me where he stated an opinion.

MR. PETROCELLI: Whose opinion?

MR. GELBLUM: He didn't.

THE COURT: Their expert.

MR. PETROCELLI: He did not state an opinion. This fellow, on direct, stated as part of his testimony, that he relied on this deposition transcript.

THE COURT: Excuse me. What is it that he relied on with respect to the other expert?

MR. PETROCELLI: That's what we're trying to find out, when he talked to him.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. PETROCELLI: When he talked to—

THE COURT: Did the expert say anything about those photographs?

MR. PETROCELLI: Did this fellow—


MR. PETROCELLI: -- talk on the record? No.

THE COURT: Then it's sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: On what theory?

THE COURT: On the theory there's nothing in here which he relied upon with regards to his opinion.

MR. PETROCELLI: Suppose this fellow had a conversation with Mr. Clark?

THE COURT: Why don't you ask him that.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's what we want to ask him; that's what we're trying to do.

MR. BAKER: I'll represent to the Court they've never spoken.

THE COURT: You can ask whether they spoke, period.

MR. PETROCELLI: Fair enough.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, why didn't they ask him that at his deposition? He never spoke to him.

THE COURT: Beats the hell out of me. And it doesn't matter.

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

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, you ever spoken with a gentleman named Pat Clark at Hy Zazula and Associates in New York City?

A. No.

Q. Before you took this assignment, Mr. Groden, you knew that the defendant and his lawyers were trying to prove the picture was a fake, right?

A. I knew there was an issue relating to that, yes.

Q. You knew the defendant and his lawyers were trying to prove the picture was a fake?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Objection. That's argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The answer is yes, you did know that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew you wouldn't be asked to come to court to testify unless you said it was a fake, right?

MR. LEONARD: Argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I would assume I would not have been called if I'd have not found that.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) How much time did you spend with Mr. Leonard preparing for your testimony, on Wednesday?

A. Two or three hours.

Q. You went over your opinion you would be—

A. Basically, we went over photographs that morning, nothing else.

Q. And you went over what you—what you were going to say when you got on the stand, correct?

A. We discussed, yes, things relating to the photographs.

Q. You looked at photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Leonard looked at the photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. And you and he both had the contact sheets that we have today, so you had all the pictures in front of you?

A. We had the two contact sheets and the enlargements that we discussed, yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Leonard asked you whether you were a professional witness, and you said you were not; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you're also not a professional photo analyst, are you?

A. Well, I've been paid.

Q. Yes-or-no question, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. You are?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you ever had any formal training in analyzing photographs?

A. I have my own experience, yes.

Q. The question was asked, have you ever had any formal training in learning how to determine whether a photograph is authentic?

A. No.

Q. You've never taught a course in photography, right?

A. No.

Q. Never published anything in the field of questioned photographs, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GELBLUM: I can ask again:

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You never published anything in the field of questioned photographs, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn.

A. That's not true.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Remember having your deposition taken in this case—

A. Yes.

Q. -- just couple months ago?

A. Yes.

Q. Page 43, line 24, Mr. Leonard. Remember being asked this question: (Reading:)

Q. And you've never published anything in the area—in the field of questioned photographs?

A. Like a textbook?

Q. Anything.

A. No. Remember giving that testimony?

A. Relating to a textbook situation, yes; but I have spoken about—

Q. Mr. Groden—

A. -- photographs.

Q. Mr. Groden, you don't have to make an argument.

A. I'm not trying to.

Q. Remember giving that testimony that you had never published anything in the field of questioned photographs?

A. We've clarified it as a textbook. In that case, yes; that is true.

Q. Would you like to see it? Let me put the testimony up on the Elmo. There was a second question, sir, page 43, line 24. See that, sir? (Reading:)

Q. And you never published anything in the area of the in the field of questioned photographs.

A. Like a textbook?

Q. Anything.

A. No. You see that?

A. Yes, I see that.

MR. GELBLUM: Okay. You can take it off. (Mr. Foster complies.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Would you tell the jury which professional organizations you belong to in the field of questioned photographs?

A. None.

Q. How about in the—the field of photography with a professional organization?

A. None.

Q. Do you know the names of any professional organizations that deal with questioned photographs?

A. No.

Q. Are you certified by any professional organization in the area of authenticating photographs?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever received any awards for photo analysis work?

A. Directly, no.

Q. And before this case, you've never qualified to testify as an expert in court, have you?

A. That's correct.

Q. This is your first time in court as an expert, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Pretty exited about doing this?

A. Not particularly.

Q. New way for you to make some money?

A. Strange question.

Q. Can you answer it?

A. Would you repeat the question.

Q. Yeah. You see this as a new way for you to make some money in your career, sir, testifying as an expert in court?

A. No.

Q. How much you being paid, by the way?

A. About $8,000.

Q. That's how much you've been paid so far?

A. Yes.

Q. What's your daily rate?

A. $2,000.

Q. Per day?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you been paid everything you've billed?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you done some work you haven't billed for yet?

A. I'm here today. Yes.

Q. Okay. You already got paid for Wednesday—

A. No.

Q. -- did you?

A. That's not true. Yes, I have been, yes.

Q. That's pretty serious money for you, isn't it, Mr. Groden, $8,000?

A. Not really, no.

Q. Well, as recently as a few months ago, weren't you spending some of your time out on the street in Dealey Plaza, hawking videotapes?

A. I was selling my videotapes, yes.

Q. Out on the street in Dallas?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, why don't you tell the jury what you do for a living?

A. I'm a writer.

Q. What do you write about?

A. The assassination of President Kennedy.

Q. Mr. Leonard asked you something about if you retained an interest in the Kennedy assassination since the late '70s. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Little more than an interest in it, isn't it, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. It's your life, isn't it?

A. It's my life's work.

Q. Okay. How many books have you written about the Kennedy assassination?

A. I've been involved in writing five books on the case.

Q. You haven't written a book about any other subject, have you?

A. No.

Q. And how many videotapes did you produce about the Kennedy assassination?

A. Two.

Q. Was one of them reedited, and—two forms of one of them?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. Which one is that?

A. It's called JFK, The Case for Conspiracy.

Q. And you also have consulted on some movies about the Kennedy assassination?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there anything else you do for a living?

A. Right now, no.

Q. Can you tell the jury what the JFK Presidential Limo Tour is, sir?

A. The JFK Limo Tour is a recreation of the motorcade route for students of history, people who are concerned with the issues of the assassination. And it—it started, I believe, last August in Dallas.

Q. And what's your role in that?

A. Now?

Q. Yeah.

A. None.

Q. You had some role in August?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would write, and what happens is, they take—is it a mock-up of the actual presidential limo that President Kennedy was shot in?

A. That's correct.

Q. You drive that from Love Field, where he landed that day, and take that route, and end up at Parkland Hospital?

A. That's correct.

Q. You have speakers in the car that have the gunshots and things like that—

A. Yes.

Q. And you sit in the car and narrate?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you not repair photo-processing machines anymore?

A. I haven't in many, many months.

Q. Are you doing any photo processing these days?

A. Not these days, no.

Q. When did you stop doing that work?

A. Possibly, last summer. I would say a year ago this past summer.

Q. Before your deposition on September 27?

A. Of this year?

Q. Yes.

A. Yeah.

Q. Don't you recall telling me on September 27, that you repair photo-processing machines?

A. I do. You just asked me whether I was still doing it now, and I said I haven't done it in several months.

Q. You said you stopped before your deposition, right?

A. Well, I would still do it if the opportunity came up. I'm not doing it now.

Q. Okay. But you weren't doing it at the time of the deposition, even though you told me you were, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Leonard asked you some questions on Wednesday about the House Select Committee on Assassination. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the only one congressional committee you've been a consultant to?

A. As a formal consultant, yes.

Q. Now, in terms of your education, you dropped out of high school after the 11th grade; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Then you spent a year in the Army?

A. That's correct.

Q. And a year of college in the Army?

A. Yes.

Q. No photographic courses during that year?

A. No.

Q. Am I correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you leave the Army after one year?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Not relevant.

THE COURT: I don't know if it is or not.

MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?

THE COURT: You may.

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

MR. GELBLUM: What our argument, Your Honor, is going to be, is that this man is not playing with a full deck and was discharged from the Army; it is related to that.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. GELBLUM: His discharge from the Army is related to instability.


THE COURT: You have to be a little more specific than that.

MR. GELBLUM: Medical reasons relating to his inability to cope with military life.

MR. LEONARD: What does that have to do with anything?

MR. GELBLUM: Our contention is that this man is not a particularly stable person. He doesn't have any business testifying in court at all, much less as an expert.

MR. LEONARD: Number one is, why wasn't this raised during the voir dire, if you felt he was unstable. You were making an argument that he wasn't an expert. Number two, how can you—the guy's 51 years old—you're trying to connect up a problem which he may or may not have had when he was 18 years old to now. Is that what you're trying to do, based on—on a—on perceived problems he had in the Army? How is that relevant?

MR. GELBLUM: Remember, Dan, you went back to when he was 12 or 13 years old when his interest in photography—

MR. LEONARD: I remember, yeah.

MR. GELBLUM: This is more recent.

THE COURT: I'll allow you reasonable—

MR. GELBLUM: It's just one question. I'm just going to ask him the reason. Whatever he says—

THE COURT: All right.

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

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Sir, you left the Army after only one year because of some health problem; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. What was the problem?

A. Sinus problems.

Q. Sinus?

A. Sinus problems. There are actually two—two separate issues. One was a sinus problem that they were not able to resolve, and the second was the fact that I was—I was beaten up by a sergeant. And to sweep it under the rug, they gave me a discharge instead.

Q. Did you have some inability to cope with military life, sir?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Did I?


A. I coped with it for a year until the discharge.

Q. Didn't you testify before the Rockefeller Commission, sir, in the 1970s sometime?

A. Yes.

Q. Didn't you tell them the reason you left the Army was you had an inability to cope with military life, having something to do with a medical problem?

A. I don't recall what I said to them back then.

Q. Would you like to see your testimony?

A. Sure.

(Mr. Gelblum hands document to witness.)

MR. LEONARD: Can I see it, Counsel?

MR. GELBLUM: Before he gives the answer.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Wait. Before you give this answer, do you recognize this as your Rockefeller Commission testimony?

A. No, I don't, but it might well be.

MR. GELBLUM: Want to look it over?

MR. LEONARD: May we have a date?

MR. GELBLUM: I don't—I have just an excerpt.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach?

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) When did you testify before the Rockefeller Commission?

A. I believe 1975.

Q. Does that look like your testimony?

A. I can't say that it is; I can't say it isn't. I don't recognize this as my testimony.

Q. You don't?

A. No.

Q. You sure you testified before the Rockefeller Commission?

A. Yes. Oh, yes.

Q. What did you testify about?

A. About the Kennedy assassination.

Q. Remember being questioned at length about your credentials?

A. No, I don't have any—

Q. Why don't you read that over. (Witness reviews document.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You recognize that now as your Rockefeller Commission testimony?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Is this a fake?

A. I don't know. I have not seen my Rockefeller Commission testimony since I gave it.

Q. You don't remember being questioned about your credentials by the Rockefeller Commission?

MR. LEONARD: Asked and answered.

A. It was more than 20 years ago.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) That's when your experience with altered photographs is, 20 years ago?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Misstates his testimony. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, speaking about that experience, Mr. Leonard had you talk about your experience creating fake photographs on Wednesday. Remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. That was mostly what you talked about, was creating advertisements with a can of hair spray in the air. Remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when that's created, what elements—is that created from that fake advertising?

A. It—it can vary. Depends on what's submitted. It could be flat art; it could be slides; it could be negatives; it could be photographic prints. It could be any number of things.

Q. Those are things that are submitted and created for the purpose of creating that composite photograph, correct?

A. Um-hum, yes.

Q. It's not taking a photograph as to be taken for some other purpose and altering it, correct?

A. That could happen if somebody wanted a background that was taken for some other reason.

Q. Is—you just said, generally speaking, you're taking pictures or other elements that are made for the purpose of creating this composite, and then you create the composite, correct?

A. That's a fair assessment, yes.

Q. Now, you also testified on Wednesday that you—this is a quote—"I believe I occasionally consult with others regarding the authenticity of photographs." Is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. "Occasionally" means that, in your entire life, there have been two times where somebody has paid you to try to determine the authenticity of a photograph, correct?

A. I can't say that's accurate, no.

Q. Do you remember testifying Wednesday morning, outside the presence of the jury, sir, in this courtroom?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And do you remember we talked about this, and you identified two times where you had done that? You going to change your testimony now?

A. I don't want to change anything. What you asked me then, I do not believe is what you asked me now.

Q. Isn't it true, sir, that in your entire life, that you have been paid to determine whether a photograph is authentic exactly twice?

A. That is not true.

Q. Okay. How many times, sir?

A. I can't tell you how many times. I can tell you several occasions, more than two.

Q. Okay. Did you forget to mention those at your deposition two months ago, sir, three months ago?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you remember having your deposition taken?

A. Yes.

Q. Remember I asked you about all the times you had been paid to determine the authenticity of photographs? Remember that question? And you remember how many you listed?

A. I don't remember exactly how many. I don't remember the terms of the question.

Q. In fact, at the time of the deposition, you actually identified once, didn't you?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Do you have a problem with your memory?

A. You've just asked me a question.

Q. Answer my question. Do you have a problem—

MR. LEONARD: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This is a real question, sir. Do you have a problem with your memory?

A. My memory is not always the greatest.

Q. You've had some strokes, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And did it affect your memory?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. I'd like to you look at—

MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Leonard, this is on pages 30 to 31 of the deposition.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) If you can review this, sir, starting at page 30, line—line 2 -- I'm sorry. Up here, page 29, line 21, down to page 31 line 17. (Witness reviews transcript.)

A. Okay.

Q. Okay. Remember I asked you about jobs you had, where somebody had paid you for determining the authenticity of a photograph?

A. That's correct.

Q. You said the National Enquirer, 14 years ago?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you said—I asked you if there were any others, and you said, "none I can think of right at the moment"?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you thought of another one?

A. How do you mean?

Q. Did you think of another one because you told me at deposition there was the one?

A. No. During the deposition, you asked me, except for the House Assassinations Committee.

Q. You weren't a paid consultant?

A. For the House Committee?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And your job there was what?

A. Many things, such as determining the authenticity of photographs.

Q. Let me put aside the House Committee for a second. We'll deal with that in quite a bit of detail later on. Putting that aside, how many times have you been paid to determine the authenticity of a photograph?

A. Not counting the House Assassinations Committee, as I recall, twice.

Q. Twice. So, a minute ago, when I asked you how many times, you said you couldn't remember. It's three, right? Two plus the house? That's 3?

A. I did it several times for the House Committee. It wasn't just once.

Q. That's one job, right? The House and then two other jobs?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And let's talk about those two jobs. One was the National Enquirer, 14 years ago?

A. Approximately.

Q. That was something about a voodoo ritual?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, you didn't have to examine that closely; you looked at it and saw there was static electricity that was causing the problem?

A. Yes.

Q. That wasn't an altered photograph, right?

A. No.

Q. How much were you paid for that, by the way?

A. I don't recall at all.

Q. You sure you got paid?

A. Pretty much so, yes.

Q. Now, the second one was—was what? What was your second job that you had where somebody paid you to determine the authenticity of a photograph?

MR. LEONARD: I assume we're still setting aside the House—

MR. GELBLUM: We are indeed.


A. Someone came to me about—about four years ago, and had a series of photographs that purported to show what was claimed to be spiritual entities within a photograph. And I was asked to see if I could find any evidence of tampering with the photographs.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And again, it was pretty easy to look at. You looked at it and saw there was fogging on the print, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Well, not a big, detailed analysis of altered photographs, right?

A. Not to determine that, no.

Q. All right. And again, putting aside the House Committee for a minute, in addition to those two, there's only one other time in your life when somebody has asked to you determine the authenticity of a photograph, where you didn't get paid, correct?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. Well— Reading from your deposition, starting at page 31, line 18.

Q. Now, tell me about any time that you've worked for somebody else, without getting paid, where the job involved determining the authenticity of a negative or a print.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That is—there's—that's a different question than he just asked. He asked if he had ever been asked by anyone. Now's he asked him if he ever worked for anyone. That's a different question. I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer it.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. Let me ask you this one, sir, since we're apparently splitting hairs up there.

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Move to strike that statement.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Other than the National Enquirer and this other photo with the nothing gone, and the—and the spirits, how many times have you worked for somebody without getting paid, determining the authenticity of a photograph?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. How would you define "worked?" Looking at a photograph, studying it? What do you mean by that?

Q. Well, did you just phase out for a second? Didn't you hear your counsel use the word "work" and you nodded?

A. No. I nodded that you were misrepresenting the question.

Q. I see. Let's read the deposition now. Now, tell me about any time that you've worked for somebody else without getting paid, where the job involved determining the authenticity of a negative or a print. You didn't say anything about not understanding the word "worked."

A. About a month ago, a new photograph turned up in Dallas that shows the road sign that's blocking the view from Abraham (phonetic) section up—standpoint from where the president was in this photograph, which had never been seen before, seemed to show what appeared to be a bullet hole in the sign. Now, if there had been a bullet hole there, it would have been very interesting, because it would have proven other than what was found. What it actually was, it was just a printing mistake. The way I determined that was the so-called bullet hole was about 300 percent sharper than the rest of the picture, which is a physical impossibility with photographic signs.

Q. Did you get the negative?

A. No, but I can get the negative.

Q. What?

A. Just from the print itself, I could determine that—I could determine that if it had been a closer situation, if it hadn't been so incredibly obvious to me, if it had looked genuine, I would have had to—I would have to examine the negative to determine one way or the other.

Q. Did you determine that was a printing error or a deliberate forgery?

A. No; it seemed to be an error. It didn't seem to be a forgery.

Q. And that's the same thing with the National Enquirer photo of the spirit; it was static electricity in the negative?

A. In that particular case, yes.

MR. LEONARD: I'm going to object at this point.

MR. GELBLUM: It's the next couple of questions.

Q. Any other time where somebody else has asked to you determine whether a photograph was authentic?

A. None that I can think of at the moment. But if I do, I'll let you know.

Q. Now is the time?

A. No. I can't think of any right now. Remember that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you have a resume, don't you, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Leonard didn't use this yesterday, but I want to show it to you.

MR. GELBLUM: If we could have this marked next in order.

THE CLERK: 2284.

(The instrument herein referred to as Copy of Mr. Groden's resume was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2284.)

MR. LEONARD: Peter, can I see a copy of that, please.

MR. GELBLUM: Yes. (Mr. Gelblum hands Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2284 to the witness.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Take a look at that and confirm if that's your resume—actually, three pages of a resume and another five pages of what you call a profile?

A. Okay.

Q. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you created this document, these documents?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, this resume starts out on the first page, work history, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the first entry is videotape production and editing?

A. Yes.

Q. Let the jury see what are you're looking at here. (Document displayed on Elmo.)

Q. First entry is videotape production and editing, next entry is photographic optical affects experience, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you say in the second sentence there that you've worked on many major motion pictures including one called "Executive Action." What did you do on that movie, sir?

A. I was a consultant, not hired by the production company itself, but had made suggestions to deal with the creation of motorcade footage relating to the assassination. In other words, finding relevant footage and connecting between the production company as liaison and the optical house where it was produced.

Q. Who did you make those suggestions to?

A. Well, among others, there were probably a couple of researchers involved, I did, from the optical house itself.

Q. You didn't get a credit on the film, did you?

A. No.

Q. And on the second page—I'm sorry, the bottom of the first page, Steve, I apologize— there's another heading down there, photographic laboratory technician?

A. Yes.

Q. And on the second page you say you're familiar with all portions of black-and-white lab work; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then we get some management experience, and there's your repair work, and then now we get your photographic consultant work, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, the first sentence says: (Reading:) Robert Groden has been a photographic consultant for the United States House of Representatives since 1975.

Q. That's just not true, is it, sir?

A. It certainly is true.

Q. You just told us that you worked for the House Select Committee in the late '70s and that's the only committee you've been a consultant for, right?

A. That's true.

Q. Okay. And that sentence goes on to say: (Reading:) And was staff photographic consultant with the initial capital letters to the House Select Committee on assassination from 1975 to 1979.

Q. That's not true either, is it, sir?

A. It is true.

Q. Well, remember testifying here on Wednesday? Was your memory that bad?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Remember testifying Wednesday, sir? Do you remember testifying in this court on Wednesday?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Two days ago?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the dates you gave the jury then?

A. From the middle of 1976 until the middle of 1979.

Q. Right. And this says 1975, right?

A. I was working with the people who were creating the committee. I was helping raise support for it.

Q. Oh, okay. But you weren't, in fact, called a consultant in 1975, were you?

A. No. 1

Q. Okay. You then say that you authored the dissenting opinion report for the Committee. That's also not true, is it, sir?

A. It is true.

Q. Well, in fact what you wrote was something called "comments" on the panel's report, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the Committee printed a page before your little comments saying that they disagreed with you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this was a panel of photographic experts that you were a consultant to, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You disagreed with the panel of photographic experts, right?

A. In many issues, yes.

Q. Okay. And they did not adopt your conclusions at all. In fact, they rejected them, right?

A. They adopted some, they rejected some.

Q. This was not a dissenting report for the Committee, this was just your little add-on that they agreed to publish for you, right?

A. No, they asked me to publish my opinions.

Q. No. You asked them if you could publish—if they would publish it, right?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Okay. Let's take a look. I'm going to show you portions of the appendix to the hearings, it's Volume 6 from the Senate—from the House Select Committee on Assassinations, page 295.

MR. LEONARD: May I look, so I see that before it's published in any way.

MR. GELBLUM: Yeah. (Witness reviews document.)

Q. Is this your—sorry, wrong side of the pen. Is this the letter you wrote to the chairman of the Committee in January 3, 1979?

A. Yes.

Q. And you asked them to publish it, right?

A. I was told by Jane Downey (phonetic) that this is the form it should take.

Q. Somebody told you to ask them?

A. Yes, um-hum.

Q. Do you agree now that you did ask them?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Well, here's the preface that the Committee wrote.

THE COURT: Why don't you show it to Mr. Leonard if you're going to use it.


THE COURT: Mr. Gelblum. (Mr. Gelblum shows document to Mr. Leonard.)

MR. GELBLUM: I think I may have an extra copy.

MR. LEONARD: Is this mine?


MR. LEONARD: I'd love to keep it. Okay, thanks.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) See the last sentence of the first paragraph. It says: (Reading:) As a consultant to the Committee, Groden was given access to the work of the photographic evidence panel and asked that the Committee publish his comments on the panel's report.

Q. Is that a true statement?

A. Yes, it's true.

Q. Okay.

A. But only in the respect that's what I was told I had—the way I had to represent the question, the issue.

MR. LEONARD: You going to read the rest of it now or do I have to?

MR. GELBLUM: I'll read the rest of it later or more of it later.

MR. BAKER: Can we have that identified by number.

THE CLERK: Next in order. 2285.

(The instrument herein described as a Curriculum Vitae of Robert Groden was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2285.)


THE CLERK: 2285.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, you know a man named Robert Blakey?

A. Yes.

Q. Who's that?

A. G. Robert Blakey is the—or was the director of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Q. Say it again?

A. He was the director and chief counsel, as I recall, of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning. May we approach briefly?

THE COURT: You may.

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

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to this. I thought we were talking about the photographs in this case. If he wants to go back and relitigate the assassination, the conspiracy theory, we're willing to do that. I mean he's prepared to justify his opinions in this case. I didn't ask him any of his opinions in that case. I simply asked him if he was a photographic consultant. He was. The rest of that report says he made an important contribution to the Committee.

MR. GELBLUM: That's one line.

MR. LEONARD: Yeah, it's an important line.

MR. GELBLUM: The rest of it says that they disagree with him, he made lots of mistakes.

THE COURT: How much longer are you going to go through this?

MR. GELBLUM: Not much further.

MR. LEONARD: I want an offer of proof.

MR. GELBLUM: You don't get it. Your Honor, he's relying on this Committee as his sole claim to fame for any credibility of any kind of expertise.

MR. LEONARD: No, that's not true.

THE COURT: I'm not prepared to litigate the contents of that report.

MR. GELBLUM: I'm not going to ask my more questions about his report.

MR. LEONARD: That's an absolute misstatement. His primary expertise is the fact that he did this—

THE COURT: Mr. Leonard, you submitted that as part of his qualifications. He has a right to cross-examine.

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

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Blakey was the director of the Committee?

A. As I recall, the director and chief counsel.

Q. Okay. You've heard him say that.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You think Mr. Blakey would vouch for your—

MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Argumentative.

MR. LEONARD: Argumentative. Ask the jury be admonished.

THE COURT: Jury is admonished that anything Mr. Blakey has said has not been received into evidence. You're to disregard any reference thereto.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, your resume goes on to say that he was called upon to testify about the photographic evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy before four governmental investigative bodies; the Rockefeller Commission— that's the one you couldn't recognize in your testimony, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. That's argumentative.

MR. GELBLUM: I showed him the transcript.

MR. LEONARD: That assumes the transcript is authentic.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) When you did the Rockefeller Commission, you were you showed the Zapruder film?

A. Yes, among other things.

Q. You didn't testify about altered photographs, did you?

A. I said it was 21 years ago. I don't recall exactly what I testified to, but I know the Zapruder film was one of the issues.

Q. Altered photographs was not one of the issues, right?

A. I can't say that. I don't know that.

Q. You don't remember whether it was?

A. Over 20 years ago, no, I don't—

Q. The Senate Intelligence Committee, showed them the Zapruder film?

A. No.

Q. What did you do with them?

A. Spoke about various issues relating to the assassination questions that were raised by the photographic evidence and the Zapruder film.

Q. What year was that?

A. As I recall, that was 19 -- probably— probably around 1977 or so.

Q. You didn't testify about altered photographs there, did you?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay. And then we have the House Select Committee, which we've talked about. Then you say: (Reading:) I've been called upon to testify before the Assassination Record Review Board.

A. Yes.

Q. What is the Assassination Record Review Board?

A. The Assassination Record Review Board does—an investigation is going on now to try to determine what issues relating to the assassination, photographic and documentary, should be released to the public.

Q. You didn't testify, you didn't give expert testimony before them about altered photographs, did you?

A. I believe I did.

Q. Well, in fact, sir, you were deposed twice by the Assassination Records Review Board relating to your theft of photos from the government when you worked in the House Select Committee, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. That—There's a lack of foundation. It's argumentative. I'd asked to approach at this point.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Isn't that correct?

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer yes or no.

A. No, that is not. If you're asking if I stole photographs from the government, the answer is absolutely no.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I'm asking you the subject of what you put on your resume is your testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board, it was not expert testimony, it was depositions that you were required to submit to about the subject of your theft of government documents, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, first of all, there's no inconsistency. It's also argumentative. It's—

MR. GELBLUM: This is a speaking objection.

MR. LEONARD: It's a lack of foundation. I'd ask to approach. This is character assassination. It has nothing to do with the photographs in this case.

THE COURT: Bring your proof.


MR. LEONARD: Ask some questions about the photographs.

THE COURT: Mr. Leonard.

MR. GELBLUM: I'd ask the jury be admonished and Mr. Leonard be admonished in front of the jury about these improper remarks.

THE COURT: I think I'd admonish both of you to stop your outbursts.

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

MR. BAKER: I'll stand in between them.

THE COURT: Good idea. Where's the proof?

MR. GELBLUM: I spoke with the man who took the deposition. I don't have the documents. I don't have depositions. I have to subpoena him. I have a subpoena I can serve—

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. GELBLUM: I don't have the depositions, Your Honor. I spoke with the man who took the depositions for the Assassination Records Review Board and he told me that this is what happened.

MR. LEONARD: What happened?

MR. GELBLUM: The man was deposed twice. He knows full well it's absolutely true, and he took—a man named Jeremy Gunn (phonetic) from the Assassination Review Board took his deposition twice in June of this year and a little later.

THE COURT: Why don't you have the depositions?

MR. GELBLUM: Because I just found out about it last week, Your Honor. I just found this man.

THE COURT: I'm not going to permit you to admit these inflammatory accusations without some proof.

MR. LEONARD: He said—

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor—

MR. PETROCELLI: He admits he was in a deposition.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You just got somebody that I don't know anything about telling you—

MR. GELBLUM: I'll give you his phone number.

THE COURT: I don't want his phone number.

MR. GELBLUM: He is the man who took the deposition.

THE COURT: I'm not letting you shoot from the hip.

MR. GELBLUM: I'm not shooting from the hip.

THE COURT: Don't do it.

MR. GELBLUM: I have documents.

THE COURT: Don't do it.

MR. LEONARD: I move for mistrial.


MR. LEONARD: Yes. He put before the jury— he said you were deposed because you did steal, that's outrageous. They cleared him.


MR. LEONARD: I move for a mistrial.

THE COURT: You're request for a mistrial is denied.

MR. GELBLUM: Can I ask him if he was deposed?

THE COURT: No. I don't like the way you asked him based on what you know.

MR. LEONARD: Ask the jury be admonished there is no evidence that he stole anything.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, what better evidence—

THE COURT: You don't have any evidence at this point.

MR. GELBLUM: The person who took the deposition—

THE COURT: Where is he?

MR. GELBLUM: He's in Washington, D.C.

THE COURT: Exactly.

MR. GELBLUM: If you want—

THE COURT: Exactly.

MR. GELBLUM: I'll bring him in. We'll subpoena the records and bring him in.

THE COURT: You bring him in. But you're not going to do it now.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, he's on the stand, I have to ask him the question. It's absolutely true, Your Honor. It is absolutely true.

MR. LEONARD: What's true?

THE COURT: You're not going to ask it in that fashion.

MR. GELBLUM: Let me ask it—

THE COURT: You've already done your damage.

MR. GELBLUM: Let me ask him whether he's been deposed.

THE COURT: You've already done the damage. And you can ask him whether he's been deposed, period.

MR. GELBLUM: On the subject—

MR. PETROCELLI: Can we ask him about the subject matter?


MR. LEONARD: He already did that and misrepresented to the jury—

MR. GELBLUM: I did not.

MR. LEONARD: You did.

MR. GELBLUM: I did not. Knock it off.

THE COURT: I'm not going to permit this.

MR. LEONARD: Ask the—

MR. GELBLUM: I ask him if he's been deposed—

THE COURT: You already asked him—

MR. GELBLUM: I thought you could ask him that, but he didn't answer that question. If you go back in the record, he doesn't answer.

THE COURT: You can ask him if he's been deposed, period.

MR. GELBLUM: Okay, fine.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I ask that the jury be—he made a representation in his question—

THE COURT: I'm not going to—I have already admonished them.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: I ask that they be admonished.

THE COURT: You've already asked me. I said I would. Why do you have to ask me again?

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

THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, the Court is instructing you to disregard Mr. Gelblum's question to the effect that the question accuses this witness of having stole anything. This is a case in which the law requires that evidence be produced to show a fact. The plaintiff or any counsel, even defense counsel, cannot establish evidence by innuendo. That was a question that had innuendo in it. There is no evidence whatsoever before you to show that this witness stole anything at any time. Everybody understand that?


MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

THE COURT: Now, let's cut out that type of question.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, isn't it true you've been deposed by the Assassination Report Review Board twice this year?

A. That is correct.

Q. On the next page of your resume you say Mr. Groden has been called to present photographic evidence as an expert consultant in the Manning case, international bombing incidents, and several other court cases. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you never testified in court as an expert on photographic evidence before this case, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. But you have appeared on—what does it say, 2,000 television and radio shows?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. That includes nine times on "Inside Edition"? You want to look at page three of your profile?

A. Yes.

Q. "Oprah Winfrey" and "Geraldo," right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, turn to the last page of the profile, please. It talks about your videotape you produced?

A. Yes.

Q. And I think you told us before that the "Case for Conspiracy" you re-edited and are selling a second version; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's because somebody asked you to take some footage out?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay, irrelevant. Ask to approach.

(The Court reviewed real-time computer screen.)

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Your request to approach is denied.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Okay. Are you using footage in that videotape from somebody named Haskel (phonetic)?

A. Yes.

Q. And somebody else named Tower (phonetic)?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have their authorization to use that?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I had permission from the agent, for Steve Haskel prior to it's use. And I had not had permission from Tina Tower. I tried to get it but could not locate her, she had changed her name and moved to a different town.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) So you used the footage anyway?

A. Yes. I had done a lot of work for her that I had not been paid for and I didn't think that she would mind.

Q. And is she suing you now because of that?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, she has filed suit.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, turning to the photograph in this case—

THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a 10-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.


(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may examine.

MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) On Wednesday, sir, you and Mr. Leonard had an exchange about a couple times you've had deals with "National Enquirer." You recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. The one we talked about this morning already, 14 years ago with the voodoo ritual?

A. Yes.

Q. The second is with the photo at issue in this case?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were contacted by the "National Enquirer" and asked to look at this photograph; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you agreed to do it?

A. Yes.

Q. And then they didn't call you back?

A. No. They called me back once after that to try to set up an appointment, and they never called me back after that.

Q. They didn't hire you to do it, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, were you trying to suggest, sir, with that testimony that you—the "Enquirer" didn't ask you to render an opinion about this photograph because you would have said that it was not authentic?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. What I told the gentleman who contacted me was that I would tell them whatever it was that I found no matter which way it went. I never heard from them again.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Okay. You hadn't seen the photo at that point?

A. No.

Q. Are you telling—trying to suggest, sir, that the reason—I'm sorry—that one reason that you think this photo may not be genuine is because it was first published in the "Enquirer"?

A. I never said that.

Q. You're not trying to suggest that, are you?

A. No.

Q. Because you yourself have sold photos to tabloids, correct?

A. That's a misrepresentation.

Q. Okay. In December 1991, sir, didn't you sell autopsy photographs of John F. Kennedy to the "Globe" tabloid?

A. I did not.

Q. Okay. Did you enter into a contract with the "Globe" to sell autopsy photos of John F. Kennedy for $50,000, sir?

A. I did not.

Q. Do you recognize what I'm putting in front of you now?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object, not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. (Witness is handed magazine.)

A. Yes, I recognize it.

Q. What is it?

A. It a copy of the "Globe" dated December 31, 1991.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And the cover story is about autopsy photos of John F. Kennedy, correct?

A. That is correct.

MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to mark next in order, a contract between you and the "Globe" for the sale of those photographs.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is that what that is, sir? (Witness reviews document.)

A. Would you repeat the question.

Q. Yes, sir.

MR. GELBLUM: What's the number on that?

THE CLERK: 2286.

(The instrument herein described as a copy of appendix to hearings was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2286.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Exhibit 2286, that's a contract between you and the "Globe" bearing your signature on page 2, for $50,000 to sell autopsy photographs of John F. Kennedy to the "Globe," isn't it, sir?

A. No, it is not.

Q. Okay. Is your name on it?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Okay. And you're agreeing to sell some photographs for $50,000?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. What are you agreeing to do, sir?

A. To give them exclusive rights to a story about autopsy photographs being faked and to consult with them for the writing of such a story.

Q. Okay. And you gave them the photographs to use in the story?

A. I allowed them to use the photographs in the story.

Q. You were paid $50,000 for that, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So you didn't sell them the photos, you just sold them the right to publish the photos?

A. I sold them the rights to the story and allowed them to use the photographs in the story to prove a point.

Q. Those are some of the photos you obtained from the House Select Committee when you were there?

A. That's correct. 1

Q. Those are autopsy photos of John F. Kennedy, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you certainly don't have any problem with Harry Scull selling the photograph of Mr. Simpson to the "Enquirer," do you?

MR. LEONARD: Objection argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, you read Mr. Scull's deposition, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you saw he testified that he had the original negative of the photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes at the Buffalo Bills game, right?

A. That's what he testified to, yes.

Q. Are you're saying he's lying, right.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You're saying he's lying when he says he has the original negative because you think it's a copy negative, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Why don't you ask a question instead of a—why don't you ask a question as a question instead of an accusation.

MR. GELBLUM: I'm entitled to ask leading questions.

THE COURT: Now, you may ask a question so it sounds like a question.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, isn't it true that you're contending that Mr. Scull was lying at his deposition when he said he had the original negative?

MR. LEONARD: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: Vague. Had the negative when?

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't know whether he has the original negative or not. What I testified to in my deposition is what was shown to me, and purports to be the original negative, is not.

Q. Well, and that's what was shown to you by Mr. Scull's attorney, right, Michael O'Connor?

A. In Buffalo?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. As the purported original negative, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So if it's another negative and Mr. Scull says he still has the original negative, then your position is he's lying about that, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative, asked and answered.

THE COURT: That's argumentative. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You also read the deposition of Gerry Richards (phonetic), didn't you?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object, at this point. Ask to approach.

THE COURT: Are we going to spend our time up here?

MR. LEONARD: No, Your Honor, but—

THE COURT: Okay, approach.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you. Very briefly.

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

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, Gerald Richards is the ex—photographic expert that the plaintiffs retained and did not call in their case.

MR. GELBLUM: So what?

MR. LEONARD: I'm objecting to any publishing of his opinion through this expert. This expert did not rely on his opinion in any way. I think that's improper hearsay.

MR. BAKER: This is their second attempt to get this in.

MR. LEONARD: They tried to do this through Bodziak.

THE COURT: Was his deposition taken?


THE COURT: Did their witness take this—read this deposition?

MR. LEONARD: Yes. But he's not relying on his opinion. I think it's improper.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection. Lay foundation that he relied on it. If not, then you can't use it.

MR. GELBLUM: He reviewed it.

THE COURT: I don't care whether he reviewed it or not. If he didn't rely on it, you can't use it. You got it?

MR. GELBLUM: He also opined about Mr. Richards' credentials. Can I ask him about his credentials?

THE COURT: If you don't lay foundation that he relied on it, you can't use it. Period. Okay. Let's get going. Get to the subject matter.

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

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You read Mr. Richard's deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you rely on that in any way in forming your opinion in this case?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague what portions.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I'm not sure that I did. I noted what he said.

Q. Did you rely on any portion of it in forming your opinions in this case?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't specifically remember whether I did or I didn't.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Well, you recall that he said that?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: The witness says he may have, he may not have. You may inquire.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall Mr. Richards opined that he made no—found no indication of forgery whatsoever in this photograph?

A. I read his—that he found no indication.

Q. Do you recall that he opined that he did not find any indication of forgery of this photograph?

A. I do not specifically recall that he said that.

Q. Okay. He didn't say it was a fake, did he?

A. I don't believe he did, no.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I move to strike. No evidence he relied on that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Said he may have.

THE COURT: He said he may have, may not have. It's vague.

MR. LEONARD: Now he's refreshed his recollection to a specific portion. I ask that it be stricken.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: Without a foundation being laid.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, you recall from reading the deposition of Mr. Richards an expert witness being retained by the plaintiffs in the case?

A. Yes.

Q. You found, as you said, his deposition, that he had incredible credentials?

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.

MR. LEONARD: Move to strike.

THE COURT: Stricken.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor—

THE COURT: You already tested me.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Are you also—in preparation for this—in connection with this photograph, you read the article in the "Enquirer" where this photograph is printed, didn't you?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Did you look at it?

A. I glanced at it for a moment in a supermarket, while standing in the checkout line.

Q. And you recall that in the article—

MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for—this is going to call for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LEONARD: I'm trying to—okay.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you rely on anything in the article in forming your opinion that you've given in this case?

A. No.

Q. You also recall Mr. Scull's deposition that he said he—he testified at his deposition that about a week after he took the picture, he sent a print of this very photograph that we're talking about to Pro Football Weekly?

A. I don't remember the specific timing. I remember that he said he sent a copy of it. But I don't recall that—

Q. Do you recall he said he sent it shortly after he took it?

A. He said that he took it—

MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I remember that he said he sent it, but I don't—I don't recall exactly when he said he did it.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Just want to show you Mr. Scull's deposition—

MR. LEONARD: I have an objection to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE COURT: Witness has indicated he relied on portions of Scull's deposition.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I withdraw the objection.

THE COURT: As there is no opinion?

MR. LEONARD: I assumed he was going to publish it. I withdraw the objection.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) On page 84 of Mr. Scull's deposition, the question from Mr. Baker: Why is it that you sent an image of Mr. Simpson to Pro Football Weekly?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, he's publishing to the jury.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GELBLUM: Would you read that to yourself.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I move to strike what he just said.

MR. GELBLUM: The witness said he didn't recall.

THE COURT: Well, let him read it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, for the record, this entire deposition was played to the jury in our case in chief, this entire deposition, on videotape.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Does that refresh your recollection, sir, that Mr. Scull testified that he sent the picture to Pro Football Weekly about a week after he took the picture?

A. That appears to be what he said.

Q. That was about nine months before the murders here?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Well, if the murders were in June of '94, the picture was taken September 1993, about nine months, right.

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Would be about nine months, yes.

Q. Obviously long before any issue arose in this case—or in the criminal case, rather, about the shoes that were worn by the killer, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GELBLUM: Now, Steve, could you put the contact sheet up. 1832. (Exhibit 1832 displayed.)

THE CLERK: 1832.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, there's two photographs of Mr. Simpson on this roll, right? And then one on the other roll; is that right?

A. Technically no, technically it appears that there are three in this one.

Q. There are three photographs of Mr. Simpson?

A. Technically, the back of somebody, second from the top, second from the left, that may be the back of Mr. Simpson, I don't know.

Q. There's two that you can recognize Mr. Simpson, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And one on the other roll?

A. That's correct.

Q. I want to be clear before we get deeply into that photograph. Your opinion is that just the one photograph of Mr. Simpson walking, where you can see his shoes, that's the only one that you say is fake?

THE COURT: Just a minute. Did you guys screw this thing up. (Referring to focusing Elmo screen.)

MR. P. BAKER: I didn't touch it.


MR. PETROCELLI: The witness was working with it and can't get it back to its original shape, Your Honor.

MR. LEONARD: He can correct it in a second. You want to have him come down?

THE COURT: It was working perfectly before yesterday.

MR. LEONARD: Because there was a manual override. I can actually adjust the focus.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you fix it the way it was?

MR. LEONARD: Can you come down and fix it?


MR. LEONARD: With the Court's permission. (Witness adjusts Elmo.)

THE COURT: That used to be a thousand percent better than that.

THE WITNESS: If they had this top light it would possibly be better. They have this bottom light. (Witness adjusts Elmo.)

THE WITNESS: There you go.

MR. GELBLUM: You have the slides, Mr. Groden, from yesterday—from Wednesday?


MR. GELBLUM: May I? (Witness produces slides from brief case and hands them to Mr. Gelblum.)

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The question is, so everybody's clear about what you're saying, you're opining only that the one photo of Mr. Simpson walking, where you can see his shoes, that's the one—only one that's fake, right?

A. That's the only one that I've determined is fake.

Q. Right. Well, part of your determination is that there's things there you don't see on any other of the photographs, right?

A. That's part of it, yes.

Q. Now, one of the things you mentioned was something about a blue line on the bottom of the photograph, right?

A. That's correct—well, no, that's not correct. It's outside the bottom of the photograph.

Q. Right between the image and the sprocket holes, right?

A. Well, would you clarify that?

MR. GELBLUM: Well, let's put the slide up. Steve, would you put this up.

THE COURT REPORTER: Does that have a number?

MR. P. BAKER: It's number 4 of 2282, I believe.

THE CLERK: Yeah. (Number 4 of Exhibit No. 2282 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You're saying the fact there's a blue line in the blackness there or the— or a cyan line is, and it's only on this photograph on all the images on the contact sheet is evidence that it's fake, right?

A. Well, may I—maybe it's not my position to do so. I'd like to clarify. You asked me about the bottom of the photograph. This is the side.

Q. As you told us yesterday, it was the bottom of the strip of negatives?

A. Oh, that's true, yes.

Q. You know the film goes in horizontally?

A. Yes, of course I know.

Q. Can you point where the blue line is? (Witness indicates to Elmo TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You've got an enlargement here. It might be a little easier to see. This is an enlargement of that photograph.

MR. LEONARD: Can I see it before it's published to the jury? (Mr. Gelblum displays enlargement to Mr. Leonard.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) It's this blue line here that you're talking about?

A. Yes, it's the series of short blue lines by the sprocket holes.

MR. GELBLUM: May I exhibit this to the jury, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may. (Blow-up of number 4 of 2282 displayed by counsel.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And you're saying this indicates—this is one indication that this photograph is a fake, because that's not on any of the other pictures, right?

A. What I'm saying is that we're seeing an anomaly there that I cannot detect on any of the other negatives in the contact sheet.

THE COURT: Is that particular board you held up, was that marked as something or other?

MR. FOSTER: Enlarged of 2071.

MR. GELBLUM: Enlarged version of 2071. Do you want to call it a new number or 2071X?

THE COURT: You want to use it?

MR. GELBLUM: Next in order.

THE CLERK: 2287.

(The instrument herein referred to as copy of a photograph with markings was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2071.)

(The instrument herein referred to as copy of a photograph with markings was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2072.)

(The instrument herein referred to as copy of a photograph with markings was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2076.)

(The instrument herein described as a blow-up of Exhibit 2071 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2287.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Let me show you an enlarged version of 2076 (sic). It's another photograph of Mr. Simpson taken by Mr. Scull that day. You see the same blue lines, Mr. Groden? 1 2 (Witness reviews blow-up.)

A. I see blue lines, but it did not appear to be the same.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) They're in the same position, aren't they, sir?

A. I would think not. Can I compare the two?

Q. Absolutely.

MR. GELBLUM: This would be next in order. This is the enlargement of 20 -- what does the back say? 2076.

THE CLERK: 2288.

(The instrument herein described as a blow-up of Exhibit 2076 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2288.)

A. They do not appear to be the same.

Q. They're in the same location, aren't they, sir?

A. No, they're not. They're close but they're not in the same location.

Q. They're between the sprocket holes and the image, right?

A. That's correct.

MR. GELBLUM: Show these to the jury?

THE COURT: You may. (Counsel displays Exhibit 2288 to jury.)

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just for the record—

MR. GELBLUM: A juror has asked that we hold them up together, if that's okay with you.

THE COURT: You'll be able to examine the photographs when you go into the jury room, ladies and gentlemen. Right now you're just looking at the exhibits.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Also want to show you an enlargement of 2072.

MR. GELBLUM: Next in order.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Another blow-up of Mr. Simpson. This one is horizontal so relatively to the others we're looking at this side, right, the bottom of a negative, sir, this would be the bottom of the negative—

A. That's correct.

Q. -- over here? See a blue line on that one, too, sir? (Witness reviews blow-up.)

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Also between the sprocket holes and the image?

A. Yes, but not the same as either of the other two.

THE CLERK: That's Exhibit 2289.

(The instrument herein described as a blow-up of Exhibit 2072 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2289.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Same color, same position?

A. No, different position.

MR. LEONARD: Object.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Different position?

A. Yes.

Q. Between the sprocket holes and image?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

MR. GELBLUM: May I show this to the jury as well?

THE COURT: You may. (Counsel displays Exhibit 2289 to jury.)

MR. GELBLUM: Steve, could you put up the— the enlargement of the two negatives.

MR. FOSTER: 1929. (Exhibit 1929 displayed.)

MR. GELBLUM: Can you enlarge—zoom in on the top one.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) See the same blue line here, Mr. Groden?

A. I see a blue line. I can't determine that it's the same.

Q. It's between the image and a sprocket, and it's the same color, right?

A. I can't tell. This appears white.

Q. Are you color-blind?

A. No.

Q. That appears white to you?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Like Mr. Simpson's shirt appeared pink to you?

A. Mr. Simpson's shirt is pink.

Q. It is?

A. In this photograph it is.

Q. You sure you're not color-blind?

A. I'm positive.

Q. Okay. How did you miss all these lines, Mr. Groden?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I didn't hear the question.

MR. GELBLUM: I'll withdraw it.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) How did you simply not see these lines when you were doing your examination? Are you trying to deliberately mislead the jury?

MR. LEONARD: Argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. They don't appear on what I was furnished with.


A. They're not there.

Q. Okay. You looked at the original negatives, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Why didn't you show the jury these other frames, Mr. Groden?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Groden, these lines are caused by scratches and caused by the camera, right, Mr. Groden?

A. I have no way of knowing that.

Q. Right.

MR. GELBLUM: Can you put up, please, the photograph of the back of the camera.

Q. So that for all unique these lines are caused by the scratch caused by the camera than on the film?

A. It can be a negative transport.

Q. It can be a scratch?

A. It could be.

Q. Okay. You can recognize this, Mr. Groden?

A. Do I recognize it?

Q. Yeah. You know what kind of camera it is?

A. There's no indication as to what kind it is.

Q. You're an expert. You don't recognize it?

A. It's a 35 millimeter SLR camera, appears to be an SLR camera.

Q. That's all you can say about it?

A. From what I'm seeing here.

Q. Okay. Take as close a look as you want.

A. It's a 35 millimeter SLR camera with the back open and has a motor drive attached at the bottom.

Q. You recognize this as a Canon F1, the same kind of camera used by Mr. Scull to take these pictures?

A. It may very well be.

Q. But you don't know?

A. No.

Q. And the way that the film works—you know what these are called, Mr. Groden?

A. Film guides.

Q. You ever heard them called rails?

A. Could be called rails.

Q. Okay. When the film comes across here, it's loaded on the—what's on the left side of the screen, and it's pulled across into—it's called the take up reel—

A. Yes.

Q. -- on the right side of the screen, and it rides on these rails in between—I'm sorry, it rides on the two center rails in between the outer rails which are guides, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And on a Canon F1, sir, you have these rollers here, right?

A. It's a sprocket drive.

Q. Okay. You don't have those on all cameras, do you?

A. You have it on most.

Q. Okay. And when the film comes over this edge of the inside rails, there can be spurs or deformities on the edge of the metal that cause scratches, right?

A. Absolutely.

Q. That's what caused the scratches here, nothing about fakery, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

A. That's an absurd thing to say. I have no idea that they came from the camera. They could have—they could have come from when they were printed.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Exactly. You have no idea.

A. There's no way to determine that if you don't have the original camera.

Q. Well, you're willing to sit here and tell the jury what it is. On Wednesday you sat here and told the jury there was—that was evidence of fakery or something being overlaid on top of the negative, didn't you?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You have no way of knowing what it is. But I'll tell the jury—you told the jury what it was, you told the jury it was evidence of something being laid over the negative, didn't you?

A. I said it could be.

Q. But you have no idea.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, argumentative, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. You asked me now if I could determine that these scratches came specifically from the camera and I said, no, I could not.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) By the way, can you tell the jury what the structure of color film is?

A. The structure of color film?

Q. The structure of color film?

A. Color film basically is an acetate base with an emulsion made up of grain with three separate layers; yellow, cyan, and magenta.

Q. You forgot the yellow block in between the first and third layers, didn't you?

A. There are other aspects to it as well. There are binders, things of that nature, certainly.

Q. Okay. Now, another point that you talked to the jury about on Wednesday with Mr. Leonard, was that the photographs weren't properly—that this frame was not properly aligned with the others, right? 1

A. That's correct.

MR. GELBLUM: Can you put up the slide?

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Did he have a number for this?

THE CLERK: 2290.

THE COURT: Back of a camera.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph back of a camera was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2290.)

MR. GELBLUM: Put up the frame which was 2 of 2282. (Frame No. 2 of Exhibit 2282 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Remember that testimony on Wednesday, you said that wasn't aligned?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you also said that's the only frame in the whole roll that's not aligned, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's false?

A. What do you mean it's false?

Q. I mean it's false, isn't it?

A. What are you talking about?

Q. There are other frames that are misaligned, aren't there?

A. No, there are not.


Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I show you frames—I show you and the jury the alignment of No.'s 12 and 13, same contact sheet, the picture of Mr. Simpson. (No. 12 and No. 13 displayed.)

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. That's a different contact sheet.

A. It is a different contact sheet.

MR. GELBLUM: You want to use their contact sheet.

MR. P. BAKER: We need—

MR. GELBLUM: If you give it to us we'll use it.

MR. P. BAKER: Mr. Groden. (Mr. Groden removes contact sheet from brief case.)

MR. GELBLUM: If these are the Court exhibits, if they are, I'd like to have them all.

THE COURT: Why does he have the exhibits?

MR. P. BAKER: We—I just—

MR. PETROCELLI: Are those the original copies?

MR. P. BAKER: We laser copied—

THE COURT: Where are the ones we used?

MR. P. BAKER: We used prints in Court.

THE CLERK: I need a number. I don't know—

MR. P. BAKER: I believe—

MR. PETROCELLI: Where are the slides he used on Wednesday?

MR. LEONARD: The slides—

MR. PETROCELLI: What does he have in his brief case?

MR. GELBLUM: Is this the rest of the exhibits?



THE COURT: What exhibit are we using?

MR. P. BAKER: We're using 1924. (The clerk reviewed exhibit book.)

THE CLERK: That's a new exhibit.

(The instrument herein referred to as contact sheet was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.1924.)

MR. LEONARD: Is Mr. Foster using a post-it to do this? I object.

THE COURT: What are you objecting to?

MR. LEONARD: His using a post-it as a straight edge.

THE COURT: So he's using a post-it. What's the problem? Is it a wrong exhibit? If it's a wrong exhibit, tell me it's a wrong exhibit.

MR. LEONARD: No. I'm objecting to this demonstration with a post-it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Served me well, Your Honor.


MR. PETROCELLI: These post-its. (Pause for counsel to review exhibits.)

MR. GELBLUM: Can you put up on the Elmo, please, the contact sheet showing frames 12 and 13. (Contact sheet displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, you didn't use a square when you showed us, you just lined something up on the side?

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Is there a number for this?

MR. GELBLUM: What number is this?

MR. P. BAKER: 1929.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, you see, Mr. Groden, how this is lined up along the top of this frame?

A. That's crooked. It's diagonal. There's nothing here in this space over here. This is not accurate.

MR. GELBLUM: Exactly. Move it up. I'm sorry. I see what you're saying.


MR. LEONARD: I'm going to object. This is not a valid—

MR. GELBLUM: We didn't have the right contact sheet because Mr. Groden had it in his brief case.

MR. LEONARD: That was the original contact sheet.

THE COURT: Will you stop that, Mr. Leonard?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, but I object—

THE COURT: Mr. Leonard, will you stop that?


THE CLERK: For the record, that's not exhibit 1929. I don't know what number that is.

MR. GELBLUM: We'll come back to it and deal with it.

MR. GELBLUM: We'll come back to that when we handle the contact sheet properly.

MR. FOSTER: 1932 -- (Indicating to the clerk.) 1 2

THE COURT: Let's take a 10-minute recess. Why don't you get your act together.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, Mr. Groden took the Court exhibits with him.

MR. FOSTER: 1832.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, that was not the exhibit. Your Honor—

THE BAILIFF: We're in recess.


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

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) We were talking about the alignment of the pictures, remember that, Mr. Groden?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: Steve, could you put up Exhibit 1832, please. (Exhibit 1832 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, when you measured on your slide, you didn't square it off at the top, you just put a straight edge along the side, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Wouldn't you agree squaring it off is a more accurate way of measuring it?

A. No, not necessarily.

Q. It's crooked if you don't square it off?

A. It depends what you're comparing it to.

Q. Yeah, okay. Do you agree—focus up here, please, the top. This is 12 and 13. That's square across the top. (Indicating to individual slide on the exhibit.)

A. No, it's not.

Q. All right.

MR. GELBLUM: I guess— 25

A. There's a greater space on this side than there is here.

MR. GELBLUM: Move it up, Steve. (Elmo adjusted.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is it straight along the side?

A. I can't tell.

Q. All right.

A. It's because it's part of the picture.

MR. GELBLUM: Move it up, Steve.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This is the next frame down, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You see a gap in the space here, a gap, much more showing on that than the one above it?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Okay. Just like the picture of Mr. Simpson where you showed the gap between the straight edge and the side, right?

A. No.

Q. You viewed from the outside, this is the inside?

A. No. This appears thinner on top and wider on the bottom, it's diagonal, it's not a straight edge.

Q. The post-it is not straight?

A. That's what I'm saying. That's what I said before. 1

Q. We'll let the jury decide.

MR. GELBLUM: Can you show me 33 and 34, please. (Slide No. 33 displayed.)

A. This is 33. (Indicating to slide 33.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is it straight along the bottom, covers up the side? Agree with me on that?

A. Again, I can't tell because you have part of the picture covered up.

Q. They're all covered up.

MR. GELBLUM: Go ahead up to 34. (Slide 34 displayed.)

Q. Do you see that there's a space showing that is not showing in 33?

A. Again, it's diagonal, it's not flush to the edge.

Q. It's because it's misaligned, right?

A. No. No.

Q. Do—

A. No, wait, you asked me a question.

Q. Do you know how film—

MR. LEONARD: I object and ask that he be allowed to answer the question.

THE COURT: Ask another question.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you have any idea how film moves through a camera?

A. Of course.

Q. This is a camera?

A. It's a camera. Of course.

MR. GELBLUM: Let the record reflect I'm holding up a 35 millimeter single lens reflex camera?

A. Yes.

Q. Pentax?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, load the film in the camera like this, right, pull it over, across the—what do you call that?

THE COURT: I'm sure the jury has a nice view of your back.

MR. GELBLUM: I'm trying to coordinate and the witness—

THE COURT: Why don't you stand over here.

MR. GELBLUM: All right. Good idea. Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Pull the lens across— what do you call this opening?

A. It's frame aperture.

Q. And then you stick it in the take-up reel, right?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Okay. And to get it flat you have to advance the film; is that right?

A. You have to put the film in the right place.

Q. Right. Okay. Now, as we looked at it before, it rides on top of two rails and inside the metal guides; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And there's a little bit of play up and down, isn't there?

A. May I examine it?

MR. BAKER: With the camera open or closed?

MR. GELBLUM: With the camera open. You can't see it if it's closed.

MR. LEONARD: The question is is there play?

MR. GELBLUM: Little bit of play up and down with the film, right?

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) That's how cameras work, right?

A. On this particular camera there appears to be an extreme—

Q. On all cameras there's some play so that the film can move through, right?

A. I can't say on all cameras.

Q. And even with the camera closed, with the pressure plate, there's still some play because the film has to be able to advance, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. May I pass this to the jury so they can see the play in here, Your Honor.

MR. LEONARD: Objection. That is not the camera that was used for this shot. I think it's an improper demonstration. I don't think—I think it's not relevant.

THE COURT: It's not the same camera. Sustained.

MR. GELBLUM: It's a typical camera.

THE COURT: Excuse me, are you an expert on cameras? You haven't been sworn.

MR. PETROCELLI: I object to the Court's comment.

THE COURT: Well, it's overruled.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, it is typical in 35 millimeter single lens reflex cameras for there to be some play up and down so the film can move through the camera, correct.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I would say that it would vary from camera to camera it that there is no specific instance, for instance, an Icon camera perhaps would have less.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) But some play because it has to move through, right?

A. They can't bind it, they can't seize it, yeah.

Q. Okay. It has to have some play?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered.

MR. GELBLUM: I think that what the witness said—can I pass the camera around?


Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And because the film moves up and down a little bit because there's some play, it is absolutely typical on every contact sheet in the world for adjoining frames to not be perfectly in line with each other, true or false?

A. False.

Q. Now, another of your points, sir, you said that the questioned frame was too long, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that simply is false, isn't it?

A. Of course, it's not false.

Q. Of course, it is false.

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.


THE COURT: Jury to disregard that last comment.

MR. GELBLUM: I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You said you used a compass like this to measure it?

A. Not like that.

Q. This type of compass?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: Steve, would you put the contact sheet up, please. (Mr. Foster complies.)

MR. GELBLUM: Would you put the compass point around the edge of frame— How do you want to do it, frame 2 versus frame 1 or frame 1 versus frame 2, Mr. Groden?

THE WITNESS: Doesn't matter.

MR. GELBLUM: Do it on frame 2.

THE COURT REPORTER: And this exhibit, please?

MR. FOSTER: 1832. (Exhibit 1832 displayed.)

MR. GELBLUM: Compass point right at the edges, top and bottom.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we ask the witness to be able to do it.

MR. GELBLUM: No, I don't want the witness to do it.

MR. LEONARD: Not Mr. Foster.

THE COURT: It is sustained. Let the witness do it.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the jury can see— it's for—this is not expert—this is holding a compass next to a photograph. The jury can see whether they're aligned or not.

MR. LEONARD: Object, and ask the witness be permitted—

THE COURT: Witness, you do it.

THE WITNESS: He's damaging the original. I'm sorry. (Indicating to Mr. Foster placing compass on contact sheet.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Let him do it.

MR. LEONARD: We got a couple of holes.

THE COURT: Do it on the copy.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we have to do it on the original.

THE COURT: I don't want the original damaged.

MR. GELBLUM: This witness testified that he did this with this frame. It's a very important point. We have to demonstrate it's exactly the same size. We have to do it on the original. We have other copies of 1832, we have other copies of that one. 1 2 (Witness approaches Elmo.)

MR. GELBLUM: Not with an enlarged one that you made, sir, with the actual size.

THE COURT: Use the—use a laser copy from that original.

MR. GELBLUM: No, Your Honor, use the compass that has the fixed compass, not the one that can be adjusted with your fingers with pressure.

MR. BAKER: Adjusted what? (Compass is placed on copy.)

MR. GELBLUM: The record should reflect that the compass points are around the top and bottom of frame 2.

THE COURT: Well, it appears that the bottom part of the compass is within the frame.

MR. GELBLUM: It does indeed. That's why I wanted my person to do it.

THE WITNESS: Mine has an easier to see point than this. This is—has a somewhat strange 2-stage point. Your Honor, if I may, the one that I've been using uses a straight fixed point. These are adjustable and have a 2-stage taper to it, this would not be as accurate.

THE COURT: A point is a point.

MR. GELBLUM: Another suggestion.

THE COURT: No, use the fixed compass so that it cannot be moved.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I might suggest it might take less time to let the jurors have the compass and contact sheet and pass it around, they can see for themselves.

MR. LEONARD: I would object to that.

THE COURT: I would sustain the objection.

MR. GELBLUM: Just a suggestion. You're still inside. Top one's inside.

THE WITNESS: You said the bottom.

MR. GELBLUM: Now they're both inside, sir.

THE WITNESS: Now they're both outside. That's outside.

MR. GELBLUM: Let the record reflect those are at least pretty close to on the line.

THE WITNESS: The bottom is still outside.

MR. GELBLUM: I don't think so. (Witness continues to place compass on slide.)

THE WITNESS: All right.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. GELBLUM: Go ahead, put it on frame 1. Don't push the edge out there, sir.

THE WITNESS: On the other one we would make adjustments. This one I'm not.

MR. GELBLUM: No adjustments.

THE WITNESS: That's what I said. Can't lay it flat.

THE COURT: Okay, counsel, this is ridiculous.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor—

THE COURT: You put your own expert on and you can give measurements. This—

MR. GELBLUM: There you go, Your Honor, it's done.

THE WITNESS: It's on the inside.

MR. GELBLUM: That's why I wanted the jury to pass it around, so they can see for themselves.

MR. LEONARD: Object, he's arguing at this point.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GELBLUM: All right.

THE COURT: Go off of measurements—off your own expert to make measurements.

MR. GELBLUM: We will, Your Honor. (Witness resumes seat at witness stand.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, you said at your deposition something you didn't say yesterday about the measurements, which is you actually measured the difference?

A. I measured it by examining it with a compass.

Q. At your deposition you said you measured it and it was a quarter of a millimeter difference at 8 times enlargement, remember that?

A. Approximately.

Q. Okay. So actual size, that would mean a 32nd of a millimeter, right, one-eighth times one-fourth, one-thirty-second?

A. Where, on the contact sheet?

Q. Yes, one-eighth of a millimeter?

A. It's an arbitrary figure.

Q. Your measure is arbitrary?

A. As I've said time and again, the measurement is so small that it would be virtually impossible to do an accurate measurement. You can only compare one to another.

Q. Exactly. Because one-thirty-second of a millimeter is about 10, 12 thousandths of an inch, and you can't possibly measure that?

A. I can't with this.

Q. With any measuring tools when you measured it, right?

A. That's correct. That's why I blew it up 400 percent and measured one to the other.

Q. Exactly. When you made that enlargement, did you make any adjustment to your enlarger?

A. No, I didn't make it, it was a xerox copy directly, no changes, nothing, no alterations.

Q. With the enlargement?

A. Sorry?

Q. With the enlargement?

A. Yes.

Q. That's why you got a quarter millimeter at 8 X?

A. No, it was much greater than a quarter of a millimeter.

Q. Like to show you what was marked as Exhibit 4 at your deposition, sir.

MR. GELBLUM: Mark that next in order.

THE CLERK: 2291.

(The instrument herein described as copy of notes of Mr. Groden was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2291.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Point number 9: The negative is too long, one-quarter millimeter at 800 percent?

A. That's an approximation. This was a rough note to myself. That was not a report.

Q. That's what you provided to me at your deposition, the record of your observations, right?

A. You asked me—

Q. Isn't that right?

A. You asked me—

Q. Isn't that right? Please answer the question.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. You made a written report?

A. No.

Q. Now, another of your points was this, what you call a second edge or something like that, a false edge; is that right?

A. At the bottom of frame 1, below frame 1?

Q. Right, yes.

MR. GELBLUM: Remember which slide number that was, Phil? I think you had it.

MR. P. BAKER: Slide 3, I think this is.

MR. GELBLUM: Slide 3.

MR. P. BAKER: Is that the correct slide?

THE WITNESS: It appears to be.

MR. P. BAKER: Slide 3 of 2282. (Slide 3 of Exhibit 2282 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And just to refresh the jury's recollection, you're talking about this space down here where it gets lighter than the black, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it has some of those vertical lines in it that appear to get closer together over here—

A. That's correct.

Q. -- is that right? And you said there is no natural phenomenon in photography whatsoever that could possibly account for that, right?

A. It didn't appear by itself.

Q. You said there's no—I'm going to quote you, "no natural situation in photography that would give you that false edge by itself"; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

MR. GELBLUM: Can I have the camera, please? (Mr. Petrocelli hands camera to Mr. Gelblum.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) As we saw before with the camera, you put the film in and you shoot off a few frames and you advance it, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. When you first load the film?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you're aware, sir, that when people use long lenses like the 500 millimeter lens, they don't have a lens cap on them, you're familiar with that, that's a practice of professional photographers?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you've got the film in, and you're loading it up and you're clicking away a few clicks, there's going to be some film (sic) that comes in through the camera lens, right?

THE COURT: Some what?

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Light, I call it some light that comes in through the lens?

A. I'm not sure that you're representing that exactly—what do you mean by "comes in"?

Q. Light enters through the lens.

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And hits the film?

A. Not if it's a good camera it won't.

Q. Not if you're clicking like that, it won't come in, it won't enter through the lens and hit the film?

A. As you're advancing it?

Q. Yes, as you're advancing it.

A. Um-hum.

Q. Frame 1 isn't the first numbered frame on a roll?

A. There should be a zero.

Q. And a zero zero and a zero zero zero?

A. No.

Q. Haven't seen that?

A. Not a zero zero zero.

Q. But there is a zero?

A. Yes.

Q. And this picture would be just below frame 1, right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And that frame as you're clicking through to advance the film could get exposed a little bit, right, through the lens, 'cause there's no lens cap on, 'cause there's a long lens?

A. It would be exposed a lot.

Q. Not if the camera is stopped down to a small aperture, right, then it could be underexposed?

MR. LEONARD: I object to this. There's no— there's a lack of foundation, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. He's asking him a question.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) If the camera is stopped down to a small aperture, could be underexposed, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And so you could get an image on frame 0, it could be very underexposed, correct?

A. Theoretically.

Q. Okay. When you take the film—when the photographer takes the film out of the camera—in this case Mr. Scull developed it himself; you read that, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he takes it out—and he takes it out of the—the little cartridge and he just cuts it off, right, because—he cuts off the first couple ones because they're over—'cause they're exposed from the back of the camera?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, that assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LEONARD: Scull never testified to that. Never sustained to that.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You're familiar how you process film?

A. Of course.

Q. And you clip off the end?

A. You cut the tongue off at one end.

Q. Right at this end, right (indicating), the front of it?

A. Much farther down.

Q. Right. But you don't want to cut too far— close to the image, the film, and on frame 1, because you don't want to cut into the image?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

MR. GELBLUM: Now, can you put up—leave that up and put up frame 12 from the contact sheet

THE COURT REPORTER: Again, this exhibit, please?

MR. GELBLUM: Zoom in on frame 12.

MR. FOSTER: 1924. (Exhibit 1924 displayed.)

MR. FOSTER: They both won't fit.

MR. GELBLUM: That's all right. Just leave this one up, then. Can you focus?

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) See a series of parallel lines that get closer together as they go back, sir?

A. You mean on the field?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: You want to put the other one back up, please.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) A lot like these parallel lines getting closer together only turned the other way, don't they?

A. No, of course not.

Q. Well, in fact, say that's what that is, isn't it? That's a very underexposed image of the field caught when Mr. Scull was loading his film in the camera and clicking off the film to get to frame 1?

A. No way in the world.

Q. No way in the world?

A. No.

Q. Are you sure of that?

A. Not that I can see photographically. First of all, they're too sharp.

Q. You're just as sure as you were that there were no blue lines on any of the pictures except frame 11?

MR. LEONARD: Argue—objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: Can you make that lighter? (Indicating to Elmo). (Elmo screen adjusted.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Okay. Let's go to—let's talk about your retouching mark.

MR. LEONARD: I object to that. It's not his mark.

MR. GELBLUM: There is no mark. Let's go to the mark we talked about.

MR. FOSTER: 1931. 1 2 (Exhibit 1931 displayed.)

MR. GELBLUM: On the—let's start with the left, left pant, left leg. This one. Can you zoom in on this area. (Elmo adjusted.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And you're saying the mark is where, sir, right along here?

A. (Witness indicates.)

MR. LEONARD: Might be helpful to get a back light.

MR. FOSTER: It is back lit.

MR. LEONARD: And adjust it like we had on direct.

MR. GELBLUM: They saw it this morning.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Just point the area out?

A. Right along here.

Q. Right along the crease in his pants, right? You see a crease in his pants there?

A. I don't see a crease. Do you see a crease?

Q. You don't see a crease in his pants there?

A. I see a bend in the material. I don't see a crease.

Q. A fold in the material?

A. Okay. Yeah.

Q. Okay. What are you saying here—by the way, are you saying that how this was this done—were false pants put on, a false shirt on, false shoes? What happened with this picture?

A. I didn't create the picture. I have no idea what was done to it.

Q. You have—

A. There are many ways it could have been done. I have no personal knowledge of how it was done.

Q. You have an opinion about how it was done, given all your expertise?

A. In this particular place, in this particular place, the issue that we're talking about now, looks like somebody took either a retouching brush and attempted to hide something, either a crop line or something of that nature, or if it was done digitally, it could be a process known as cloning.

Q. Now I'm talking about the whole photograph. You're saying this a photograph of Mr. Simpson that somebody put new pants and shoes on, or is it a photograph of somebody else entirely that somebody put Mr. Simpson's head on? What are you saying was done here?

A. What I'm saying is there are anomalies in the photograph that are not typical, that you would not find in an unretouched photograph or that you would not expect to find in an unretouched photograph, and there are indications of more than one process possibly being used.

Q. In fact, sir, you're not sure whether this is a fake, are you?

A. I'm sure, to my satisfaction I'm sure it's a fake.

Q. Okay. Do you remember at your deposition—

MR. GELBLUM: 14, Mr. Leonard.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You're sure it's a fake?

A. I'm convinced to a great deal of certainty that it's a fake.

Q. Let's look at your deposition testimony—but you're not sure?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague, Your Honor.

MR. GELBLUM: Put it up.

MR. LEONARD: Asked and answered.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) (Reading:) Your bottom line opinion here is that you observed what you perceived are some problems with the negative? Yes. That leads you to believe on balance it's probably not genuine, it's probably a fake, but you're not sure; is that fair? I'd say that's accurate, yeah. Remember giving that testimony?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. 1:30. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions.

(At 12 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)




(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. PETROCELLI: To accommodate Mr. Blasier we're going to suspend our examination of Mr. Groden for now, but we're not finished.


MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Defense calls Dr. Frederic Rieders.

THE CLERK: Just step up behind the court reporter. FREDERIC RIEDERS, 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 CLERK: Please be seated on the witness stand.

THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

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

THE WITNESS: My first name is Frederic, F-r-e-d-e-r-i-c, Rieders, R-i-e-d-e-r-s. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Dr. Rieders, you are a forensic toxicologist?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell the jury what that means?

A. A toxicologist—a toxicologist is a professional in the field of—you might say poisons, except that everything is a poison when it's too much. So the toxicologist concerns himself with the analysis of foreign compounds, usually in biological materials, but also inanimate materials, with the effect of chemical substances that are harmful for man and, with the way that man handles those chemical substances; what the chemicals do to the body and what the body does to the chemicals. I said "man." Men of course, it is also applied to other areas, such as veterinary toxicology, ecological toxicology, et cetera. But the science arose from the study of the interaction between chemicals and man, along the line of harm. "Forensic" refers to the application of toxicology to things that have to do with the open court—in Latin, it's call the forensic arena—and so it does deal with the application to legal proceedings, to various other things which may not involve legal proceedings, but making of law from a legislature. And in many cases, the evaluation of substances as to their safety and potential harmfulness, which then may become legal issues, although they're not always—some are medical, but they can be come legal because they are man-made things or man intervention things. So, really, what forensic toxicology is, in simple words, the application of chemical-harm study to legal matters.

Q. Have you been retained by the defense in this case to examine the question of whether or not there is a chemical called EDTA frequently present in some of the blood stains in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you briefly tell the jury what your educational background is.

A. I'm a graduate of New York University's Washington Square College, where, after World War II, I completed my education, which I had done here and there in the country prior to that. I immigrated here in 1939. My—following military service, I returned to finish my education under the GI Bill. I received a bachelor's—bachelor of arts degree from New York University in 1948. No. I'm sorry. 19 -- Yes, in '48. In 1940 -- My major subject was chemistry and my minor subject was biology. In 1949, I received a master's of science degree from New York University in chemistry, primarily in—well, in analytical chemistry—that was my specialization—and in particular, toxicological chemistry. I was at the same time a trainee in forensic toxicology in the medical examiner's office in New York. Following that, I received a special fellowship to the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, its division of graduate studies, not towards a medical degree, but a doctor of philosophy degree, which was in the graduate division of the school. And in 1951, I completed the requirements. And in early I received the degree in 1952, doctor of philosophy. My major subject was pharmacology and toxicology. Pharmacology is the study of the interaction between chemicals and man. In the medical school, it is mostly centered on the interaction of medicinal substances. In man, only, in a very general plane, how to prescribe and how to use. Toxicology is that part of pharmacology which deals specifically with the harmful effects of chemicals. And then, of course, that, of course, is broader than just medicine; it includes nonmedicine substances. That was my major subject. And my minor subject was pathology, the study of disease, and physiology, the study of the functions of the human body. That I wrote a—did research and wrote a doctoral thesis on toxicology, and in 1952, was awarded the degree of doctor of philosophy.

Q. Dr. Rieders, you are currently the founder and director of a laboratory called National Medical Services; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell the jury very briefly what your employment experience prior to start of that laboratory.

A. My employment was quite varied. Of course, when I came here as an immigrant, I was anything from a steam blower to a glass blower, to a dish washer. You know what I mean; in 1939 that was a different time as far as relevance to this field is concerned. And experience—the experiences I had in the area, not particularly just toxicology, but of the medical sciences. I was a surgical technician and as a— as a company aid man in World War II in Europe, which gave me some background. I—during my last year working for a bachelor's degree in New York, I obtained a position with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of New York as a trainee. And as a junior toxicologist, actually being trained in the methods and procedures of autopsy tissue analysis in the toxicology division. I left there after two years to complete my—to work for my doctorate in Philadelphia. That was a special fellowship in which I did perform some service work for the hospital of Jefferson—Thomas Jefferson Hospital, along the lines of toxicology because I had some training in it. Also as a teaching assistant and mainly in toxicology, although some pharmacology. After completing the doctoral degree, I became a teacher at Jefferson and an instructor the department of pharmacology and industrial medicine, with the emphasis on industry, a pharmacologist, and I taught medical students, graduate students. Conducted research and published research on that I did, in addition to continuing some of the service work until I trained some other people to take over in the hospital laboratory. In 1956, the City of Philadelphia changed from coroner to medical examiner. And the first medical examiner of the city required the services of a full-time toxicologist, whose responsibility was to—to actually develop a toxicology service which didn't exist there before. And there were several candidates. I was among them. We were examined and I was selected for the position as chief toxicologist in the office of the medical examiner of the City of Philadelphia, which there, was in the health department. In addition to that, I also became responsible for organizing the center and operating a poison information center. I conducted my work for the City Medical Examiner's Office, servicing some of the hospitals in emergency toxicology and in other areas in the poison information center, but mainly in developing and carrying out, and then supervising the analyses of autopsy specimens for foreign substances, which helped them to delineate cause of death, manner of death, circumstances, et cetera. At the same time, I retained my affiliation with Jefferson and am still a full professor, although now I'm an adjunct until I have a teaching loan, 'cause most of my time is spent there. And I continue to teach and train at Jefferson. I still do that. This went from 1956, when I became chief, until 1970, when I founded and started an independent toxicological laboratory and consulting company, National Medical Services. I no longer own the company; it is owned by my family. I turned over my share of ownership and direction of the company over to them. I am laboratory director, and of course, since it's a family business, I'm also Chairman of the Board, whatever that means. And so I continue to, except for administrative duties, to be active in the field of toxicology, both professionally and as a teacher.

Q. Dr. Rieders, have you testified as an expert in courts across the country on the subject of toxicology?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how many times?

A. Well over 100 times. I really don't know how many times.

Q. Have some of those times been for the prosecution in criminal cases and sometimes for the defense?

A. Predominantly prosecution.

Q. And National Medical Services, approximately how many employees do you have now?

A. It now has 120 employees.

Q. And do you do a lot of work—or what's called reference work for other labs, do various law enforcement agencies send you work to do?

A. Yes. That's our major source of work, is reference work for other large clinical laboratories. We do the toxicology for them, as specialists.

Q. Now, in the past, have you been consulted by Special Agent Roger Martz of the FBI?

A. Yes. We have known each other for some years. We've worked together, and still do.

Q. He performed some testing in this particular case on certain blood stains?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have—still have a professional relationship with Special Agent Martz?

A. Very much. Still working on cases together.

Q. Now, could you tell the jury which blood stains were analyzed in this case by the FBI?

A. The blood stains that were analyzed by the FBI that I became concerned with—they may have analyzed others, which I don't know—are stains which I was told originated from the back gate at Mr. Simpson's home, and stains that came from a sock that was Mr. Simpson's sock, and blood stains— 25

Q. Now, by "back gate," do you mean back gate of 875 South Bundy?

A. At his residence, yes; Bundy.

Q. Where the murder scene was?

A. Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. That's—

Q. Now, what technique did Special Agent Martz use to examine those stains for the presence of EDTA?

A. He used a technique which is a so-called hyphenated technique. It consists of essentially three—four separate steps that are combined into a unit. They are not retrofitted like an instrument is to design—to perform all four steps. The first step is called liquid chromatography. This consists of placing a sample into a tube which has some material in it. That helps to separate compounds from each other, and then pushing the materials through the tube with a liquid. In the course of that, the mixture—a mixture of compounds becomes separated either into individual, truly individual compounds, totally separated from each other, but at least also into groups of compounds. But you get separation in that fashion. The effluent which comes out the other end when these substances march out in an orderly fashion, one after the other, is then transferring the substances or the liquid as it marches out to a connecting device, to another instrument. And that is called an electro spray interface. When material enters the electro spray interface—this is a heated, very fine tube—it is heated to a high enough temperature, and all of those things that can vaporize and—vaporize and become a vapor and march out partly as a vapor, partly either as a gas, if the material is actually made into gas, into—or else is a very, very fine particulate spray, that is accomplished by putting a very high electric voltage charge on that tube. And that's why it's called electro spray. At the same time, there are two gases pass through: One of them is around that tube, and it carries away the vapors of water and other highly volatile materials. The other one goes through the tube and drives the vapors that stay in that path of the tube, and the very fine particles, into a piece of equipment called a mass spectrometer. The best way that I can explain to you a mass spectrometer is that, it is a device which, as a molecule, or as molecules comes into—into that device, it weighs them and it sorts them into molecules that weigh a certain amount and other molecules that weigh a different amount. And that is fairly characteristic of a substance; it's essentially—it's molecular weight, whether—whatever number it is. And there are several substances with the same number, but anyways, it's certainly a characteristic. What it then does, though, it applies energy to the molecules, and particularly—well, to the molecules to such an extent that they actually break into pieces. A molecule breaks into pieces. It doesn't break like a beer bottle, you know, into all kinds of various bits and pieces, but more like a diamond that is being cut by a jeweler. It breaks along certain energy planes and gives predictable parts of the molecule appearing in there.

Q. Doctor, can you push the microphone away from you just a little bit?

A. From my— Then it goes ahead and weighs the pieces. To some of these pieces, we'll add up to the sum, to the total molecule, and it displays the pieces and how many of each piece there are present. So that you get what is called a mass spectrum, which one sees usually is lines along an axis and of certain height. This is a picture of the molecule with whatever else was broken off at that point in time, and had appeared at the particular time at the end of the tube. That is characteristic for a compound that we look for. Different compounds have different times at which it takes them to march through the tube, appear, and be put into the mass spectrometer. So by then, we have a characterization of a compound. That—how did we get in to it. It was extracted, for example, with water from something, either from tissue or from a swatch or from anything. So it's water soluble. We know that. It goes through the liquid chromatograph. That means the liquid is able to push it through, and it doesn't hang up front a lot. A lot of things hang up. Not only that, but it takes it a certain time to get through. That's called a retention time. So that is another characteristic. It's water soluble; it goes through the column; it has a given retention time; it is capable of being ionized in that—in that electro spectrometer tube and brought into the mass spectrometer.

Q. Doctor, is there a shortcut way to describe what's going on here?

A. The rest of it, yes. (Laughter.)

A. The—one of these molecules that— well, the main molecule itself is weighed and displayed. So you now have the weight of the molecule. Actually, it's a little bit more than that, because it's also electrically charged. But you know what the weight is. Then it is broken up, and one of the pieces usually—or two pieces, the larger pieces are filtered into another mass spectrometer, which now breaks them up further, and goes into a third mass spectrometer, if necessary. In this case, it only went two ways. The first one, the molecule that came through and was filtered out is called the parent ion. It is the parent for the next two break-up ions. The ions which are call the daughter ion, each of these has a specified weight. Each of these appears at the same retention time as the molecular ion, the parent ion did. And so it's characterized as—each one of these characterizes the substance that you're looking for. In this case, EDT

A. So we have the characteristic of EDTA; that it was water soluble; it went through the system; it came out at a certain point in time at the end of the tube; and its molecular size at that point was weighed, was the right size to be EDTA or not; and that the break-ups, the daughter ion, also had appeared at the same retention time and weighed like characteristic pieces of EDT

A. That is how you characterize or exclude a substance. And that is called—the long name is liquid high performance liquid chromatograph electro spray tandem mass spectrometry tandem, but it's two mass spectrometers—actually, three that we're dealing with here.

Q. The shortcut for that is LCESMSMS (sic)?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And is it accurate that what you're looking for if you're trying to identify whether EDTA is present in something, you're looking for the retention time; you're looking for whether it's water soluble; you're looking for whether it has the right molecular weight; and you're looking for whether the pieces are the right size. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Q. Let me show you a couple of charts that have been marked for identification 1216 and 1215.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chromatogram of Q206 No. 4088 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1215.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Chromatogram of Q206 No. 4094 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1216.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do those purport to be charts resulting from this type of—kind of analysis for the stain from the sock? (Witness reviews Denfendants' Exhibits 1215 and 1216.)

A. Yes, these are the—the characteristic type of results that you get in a tandem mass spectrometry. All the other things went on before to get us to this point, finally, from the—

Q. Now, can we—

A. And this is sample O2 -- Q206.

Q. What I'd like to do is show you a drawing

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Are you identifying separately 1215 and 16?

MR. BLASIER: Yes, I am. And it will tie into his charts, as well.


MR. BLASIER: We'll show these charts in a second.

THE COURT: No. My question is, the witness was describing something, and it's not clear which exhibit he's referring to.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1215 and 1216 are two charts. Are those two separate testings of the blood stain from the sock?

A. If this is from the sock, these are the stains from the sock, yes.

Q. Okay. And—

A. Q 206, that number refers to the stain from the sock.

Q. That's another number that the FBI assigned—

A. Yes.

Q. -- to that stain?

A. The number that they gave it, yeah.

THE COURT: Is that tied to some other exhibit number that we have with which sock it is?

MR. BLASIER: Yes. That's what this chart will tie to.

MR. P. BAKER: Next chart is going to be next in order.

THE CLERK: 2292.

MR. LAMBERT: No. This is marked.

MR. P. BAKER: Marked?


MR. BLASIER: That is 1208.

(The instrument herein referred to as EDTA chart with six charts collectively, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1208.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now Doctor, the sock we're talking about is the sock that was purportedly found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, and there was a large cut-out made where there was a blood stain on the ankle of one of those socks, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this isn't to scale, certainly, but Q206 is the stain that was tested by the FBI, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did that come from in relation to the ankle stain itself?

A. It came from a large area.

Q. That came from a large area adjacent to the cut-out in the ankle of the socks?

A. Yes, where Q206 is, that is a tiny area that was cut out and transferred to a swatch, or was a swatch.

Q. Now, let me put Exhibit 1215 on the Elmo. (Exhibit No. 1215 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you tell us just briefly what this chart depicts?

A. This chart depicts on the 3-6 scan along the long axis, down—these are the number of scans. It's like somebody with a pair of binoculars going like this (indicating) and looking along the line, and they detect a peak, which is in the right position for EDT

A. And the instrument that's used to scan it is set to look only at things that have a weight of 160. And the weight of 160 appears as a prominent peak at—is it 36 scan? I can't quite make it out from here -- 37, where EDTA standard was located. So this is another characteristic of EDTA here. (Indicating.)

Q. What do we see?

A. What we see is, when the spyglass is set to look at all ions, combined and find—it finds one peak for all the ions in the same position, so that is the original broken-up molecule. All of them. They all come together at that one position 36, again, characteristic for EDT

A. So that this, in conjunction with all the other things we have talked about, is evidence for the actual presence of EDTA in that particular sample and in that particular analytical run.

Q. And looking at Exhibit 1216, this was a second run of the same blood stain?

A. Yes, it was. At a different time I believe.

Q. And does that also indicate the presence of EDTA?

A. Yes. It does the same thing the RIC, the rate the combined pieces show up at the retention. In this case, again, I can't see the number for certain, but it's around 37, 38 again! Also, the 160 daughter ion. That means the split ion also at the same retention, and it appears as a defined peak. So that is a repetition. There are two analytical runs, each showing the presence of EDT


Q. Did FBI or Agent Marx indicate a negligence test, a negative control?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that a piece of the sock from someplace other than where the blood stain was?

A. It was a piece of the sock where no blood was seen, and presumably none was present.

Q. And did that reveal any EDTA?

A. No, it did not.

Q. And what can you tell from the fact that two runs of the the stain show EDTA and the negative control doesn't?

A. Well, it shows that the sock itself didn't have EDTA in it, because it only had the EDTA where the swatch came from, where the blood stain was. It did not have EDTA where there wasn't any blood.

Q. Now, did Special Agent Marx also test stain Q204 for—the back gate?

A. Yes, he did

Q. Let me show you what's been marked Exhibits 1218 and 1219. And can you tell the jury what those two charts are?

(The instrument herein referred to as Chromatogram of Q204 No. 4084 was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1218.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Chromatogram of Q204 No. 4049 was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1219.)

(Exhibits 1218 and 1219 displayed on Elmo.)

A. Those two charts are the same type of charts as we just saw for the sock. These are two analyses which were made on extract from swatches of what appear to be blood taken from the back gate. And they show the same kind of pattern as we saw before for the sock, from the back gate. They show that the total of combined ions have a retention of 39, and that the 160 molecular weight piece—break-up piece from the parent. The daughter ion, 160 molecular weight daughter ion, also has a peak at the 39 retention. So again, this is a run that is positive for EDT


Q. Now, were there also runs for negative controls for the back gate?

A. Yes, there were.

Q. How many were there?

A. As I recall, there were four runs that were labeled as—as controls.

Q. Now, the back gate was just a swatch that was taken from the blood stain known as number 117; is that correct?

A. Yes. And the other one from where there was no blood stain, or none was seen, anyway.

Q. Now, what did the four negative controls indicate?

A. One of the negative controls showed the presence that supposedly came from another place on there, and it showed the presence of EDT

A. Even though it was considered a negative control, it came from where there wasn't supposed to be any blood. The other three did not show any EDTA, so they came from other areas on the back gate, and showed none of these characteristics that we have been discussing—didn't show any EDT


Q. Three of the negative controls didn't show any EDTA, one showed possible presence of EDTA?

A. One that—one that was labeled negative control did show it, yes.

Q. Was there actually a third test that was labeled as coming from the back-gate stain that showed no EDTA?

A. Yes, there was. There were—there was one other area.

MR. BLASIER: I need two new numbers, please.

A. (Continuing.) There's one other one, Q204, that is negative for EDTA, does not have the requisite peaks, as we call them, in that area. And then there's one which is—well, this is called Q204 control. No. I'm sorry. The Q204 control shows it; that's the one I mentioned before. The repeat of Q204, which was actually the blood, supposedly blood, is stained, doesn't show it. So there is one that supposedly comes from the bloody stain, but doesn't show any EDT


MR. BLASIER: Could we have two numbers?

THE CLERK: 2292 and 2293.

(The instrument herein referred to as chart labeled repeat of Q204 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2292.)

(The instrument herein referred to as chart labled control from Q204 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2293.)

MR. BLASIER: I'll make 2292 the repeat of Q204, and 2293 the control from Q204. Let me put these both on the Elmo.

(Exhibit Nos. 2292 and 2293 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, Dr. Rieders, I've indicated that of the two sock stains that were tested, came up positive for EDTA and the negative control came up negative, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And for the back gate, there were two tests for the presence of EDTA from the blood stain that—that came back above, and there were three negative controls that came back negative, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you have an opinion on why this negative control here showed presence of EDTA and the actual stain doesn't?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what's that opinion?

A. I believe that there was an accidental switch made somewhere along the line, between what was supposed to be the negative control and what was supposed to be the bloody stain control.

Q. Is it accurate to say that all of the— The charts that were run in this run are consistent with there being EDTA present on the back gate and the sock, with the exception of these two?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, did Special Agent Martz attempt to quantify the amount of EDTA that was located on the back gate and on the sock?

A. No. He, according to everything that I saw in the record—all that he told me, he did not attempt to quantify it; he merely wanted to see is there some there or isn't there any.

Q. Now, you have seen some charts that Agent Martz produced showing differences in known quantities of EDTA blood and the stains in this case?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And do you have an opinion as to whether the analysis that was done with respect to the quantity of EDTA that was found is a valid analysis?

A. You mean on the stains and the controls that we are talking about here?

Q. Yes. The stains and the known EDT


A. It's only valid qualitatively. Let me tell you why. There are two measures of amount. One of them is just the amount you know how much is on that picture here. In order to have an idea of what that is, you have to have standards. And the standards, as well as the sample, have to contain one additional thing. And that is called an internal standard. That means, in another chemical substance which is very close to the substance that you're looking for, but is sufficiently different so that it will separate from it and have a different retention time. And the reason for that is that, particularly electro spray gives you variable amounts every time you run it. There are slight variations and sometimes very substantial ones. If you have an internal standard, then that is affected the same way as the chemical that you're looking for; so if there's only a low peak in one, then the other one's lower, too. The ratio between the two remains unaffected. So if you know how much the internal standard represents and what the ratio is, you can go back to your curve and determine what the amount is. If you do not have that internal standard, you can—you can guess, you know. It's there; it's more than an amount that couldn't detect. It's less than a lot. So it's a tiny bit of the EDTA that is there. Now, that is amount. The important thing is to know concentration. And that simply means amount perfect what. If you take a drop of blood, a measured drop of blood, which is usually around 50 microliters, and you analyze it, and you find and use an internal standard and you calculate an amount, then you can say this is the concentration, so many nanograms, let us say, per microgram of blood. But if you don't measure how much blood you have, that you started with, then you have no way of knowing what the concentration is. It's like saying, you know, I've got— I've got some alcohol here; I've got a half an ounce of alcohol. So is this from beer or is it from whiskey, or is it from wine? You have to know how much wine or how much liquid you analyzed. If you know how much liquid, then you know that this amount is 6 percent of the liquid. It's probably beer if it's 50 percent of the liquid; it's probably 100-proof spirits. But if you don't know how much of the total you had, you can't get to a concentration. And there was no—I saw no measurements of the amount of blood that was used in the analysis from the—from the—from the gate or from the socks or in the controls. Controls, it would be zero. You know, that's the amount that you find, which is not in the—nothing. Which, in the case of blood, you have to know what's in the lower part of the equation. The denominator, so many milligrams of micrograms per milliliter of blood or whatever you want, but you have to know how much you use to calculate that.

Q. Now, Dr. Rieders, do you have an opinion as to the source of the EDTA in the back gate stain and the sock stain?

A. To the source? Other than the blood from a living person who has not been—from a living person who has not received EDTA intravenously—it is given intravenously as a treatment in lead poisoning and in other poisonings—but normal blood, there's—not come from someone who's had it injected into them does not contain any by this means at that level of sensitivity, detectable amount of EDT


Q. All right. Do you know what a purple-top tube is?

A. Well, if you're referring to a medical laboratory purple-top tube, yes. When you draw blood from a patient for testing, you have to draw it into a tube. If you want to test a whole blood where it doesn't coagulate, so you put an anticoagulant in it. There are various anticoagulants. Of the purple tube, or sometimes called lavender-top tube is one which has EDTA, which dries up all the calcium in the blood, and the blood won't coagulate. So that's called EDTA blood. That's what you do when you draw blood for various measurement purposes.

Q. Do you have an opinion whether or not the EDTA that was detected by Special Agent Martz could have come from a purple-top tube?

A. I do have an opinion.

Q. What is your opinion?

A. And that is in terms of finding in blood the most common source, unless, of course, there's some outside contamination introduced otherwise. But the most common reasonable source is that it has to be purple-top-tube blood.

Q. Now, EDTA is used in a lot of different things, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And are there studies that examine the question of how much EDTA a person might have in their blood just normally, from eating food that has it in it?

A. Yes. There have been studies very early, as a matter of fact, and with a technique that you can't even use anymore. They won't allow you to.

Q. And do those studies indicate that the source of EDTA in this case could have come from normal ingestion of food?

A. No, not even from abnormal ingestion. The amount that is found—that was found by this radioactive label technique—that's really what it was—was absolutely minuscule of a measure after measured amounts even greater than what we get in food today were given to people. The reason I say it's not done now is, you can't give radioactive—that kind of radioactive material to people to find out whether they're absorbing something.

Q. In your opinion, is there any source of EDTA other than a purple-top tube, that could account for the findings of the FBI in this case?

A. Well, contamination, of course, can— accidental, other contamination of those that were positive.

Q. And was there any indication of that in this case?

A. I really don't know where it came from, but those are the two things that I can tell you where it may come from, either from EDTA blood or from some contamination that was introduced at some point in time into the material.

Q. Now, contamination, could that have been something in the laboratory—let me rephrase that. There were other blank samples that were run along the stains in this case, were there not?

A. Yes.

Q. And other than the one control that we talked about, did any of those show the presence of EDTA?

A. No.

Q. Is that consistent with the source of EDTA in this case being something other than contamination?

A. No, it really isn't. Contamination is usually a random thing. You know, accidental contamination, and this is not random. You have a set of positives and a set of negatives. With the exception of the two samples that you mentioned, and as I mentioned, my opinion is that these are switched samples, you know, one is supposed to be the other.

Q. So is there—Is there any indication of contamination as being a source to the positive results that the FBI found in this case?

A. No.

Q. Is there a phenomenon that's known as ghosting, ghosting?

A. Ghosting.

Q. Let me ask it this way. Is it possible to have EDTA or any other compound left over in the column that you use for the chromatography stage?

A. I'm sorry, you mean ghosting, like—you mean like spirit.

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, there is. There is such a phenomenon.

Q. Describe briefly what that is?

A. Well, if you—let's say you inject into this equipment a lot—relatively large amount of EDTA, let's say it comes out with a reading of 20 and then you make—right after that, you make another injection or what should be a negative, a blank, for instance, and there you see a peak, but instead of being 20 it's between one and two. That is very much likely or—Well it's sufficiently likely to be a ghost, that what happened in the first one that some of the EDTA got stuck on the injection side or somewhere along the line and the second injection that came with it cleared it off, pushed it out and showed it up. But I have never seen ghosting that is more than ten percent, it's almost always less than ten percent of the previous injection. So unless there is an injection before that which is at least ten times as high as a little bit that shows up, I don't believe that this could be a ghost. There's no way in here anything that— looks like it was just injected before and was very high.

Q. So is it your opinion that the two sock stains and the three gate stains that tested positive for EDTA, were not due to ghosting?

A. That is my opinion, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, that's all I have.

THE COURT: Take a ten-minute recess ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't express any opinions.


(The following proceedings were held in the Court's chambers, outside the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay. Let the record show we're in chambers with Mr. Blasier, Mrs. Blasier, Mr. Baker, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Petrocelli, our court staff. And state your name. DEPUTY TYKO: Deputy Tyko T-I-K-O.

THE COURT: Mrs. Tyko, can you relate to me again what occurred? DEPUTY TYKO: This morning, at the morning— Mrs. Blasier—I don't know the lady's name with you—came into the Court with a mike, Mrs. Blasier's mike. I asked—I don't know her name—I keep saying—I asked her if she was recording. She said no. Vickie went up and asked her if she was recording. She said no. We found out this is obviously not a recording device, well here's another one, but they are—they are wireless mikes, and they can broadcast up to a quarter of a mile away. And when I—Mrs. Blasier, this afternoon when I asked her—I told them both that it was a problem to have them in the courtroom. I took them. I said, we'll keep them for you, when we leave, because the other news media have noticed them. Okay. And I took—and I asked you for yours, and the red light was on, which meant it was on. MRS. BLASIER: I could have done that in trying to get it out of my pocket, because it was in kind of tight, (indicating to pants pocket) and I could have flipped it when I was simply taking it out. Because we've been turning them off.

THE COURT: Why do you have them, ma'am? MRS. BLASIER: My agency is Missing Persons and Sensitive Crime Investigations. Lena came out from New York to interview me. She works with America's Most Wanted. I have a lot of my clients on the show, plus I've done some things for it. I do a lot of missing-person cases, especially children, and Lena is doing a segment on me and my work.

THE COURT: So why do you have to have it in this courtroom? MRS. BLASIER: Well, I didn't. It just saved us having to go out to the car when we were talking, like at lunchtime and that.

THE COURT: What's the purpose of this equipment? MRS. BLASIER: Because we are very short in time on her interviewing me on my work.

THE COURT: This is a remote transmitter. Where are you transmitting to? MRS. BLASIER: We did a minute of it, I believe, in the parking lot this morning, and then during lunch, so we could do a few minutes; that was all. And I think that I possibly pushed the button in getting it out of my pocket when I was sitting down. I handed it to her, that's all.

THE COURT: Who receives the transmissions? MRS. BLASIER: The news crew that's with Lena. They were going to do some taping, so that—

THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Where is the news crew located? MRS. BLASIER: Someplace where—wherever they parked. I don't know. And then they met with us at lunchtime for about one minute.

THE COURT: Where—bring the other woman in.

THE CLERK: What is her name? MRS. BLASIER: Lena Nozizwe.

THE COURT REPORTER: Can you spell that? MRS. BLASIER: N-o-z-i-w-e.

THE CLERK: She's not in the courtroom, so Vickie is going to look for her. MRS. BLASIER: I think she may be in the bathroom. I'm not sure.

THE CLERK: Vickie's out looking for her. She's checking the bathroom.

(Pause in proceedings.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, Charlotte just told me security was aware, she said these— MRS. BLASIER: This morning when we first got here. When we went through the metal detector, it was beeping. I said oh, it's this, and I took it out, and I said these are hers. She wanted to know if we had—I basically asked him if I needed to leave it out. And he said no, it was okay to take them in, so . . . I didn't think anything of it. And I'm not positive, I think Lena may have even told him what it was.

THE BAILIFF: This is Judge Fujisaki.

THE COURT: What is your name? MS. NOZIZWE: Lena Nozizwe.

THE COURT: You're with? MS. NOZIZWE: America's Most Wanted.

THE CLERK: Spell your name please. MS. NOZIZWE: N-o-z-i-z-w-e.

THE COURT: And you work with Mrs. Blasier? MS. NOZIZWE: I don't work with her. I mean, we're not—we don't work together. I work—I work for Fox Television, America's Most Wanted.

THE COURT: And what is your relationship with her? MS. NOZIZWE: She's somebody who I know and somebody that I'm doing a story about.

THE COURT: You had a piece of electronic equipment on you? MS. NOZIZWE: Yes.

THE COURT: And she had one on also? MS. NOZIZWE: Correct.

THE COURT: Why do you both have them on? MS. NOZIZWE: They're wireless microphones. We were getting recordings of our conversation— conversation as—as we came up to the courtroom, as we came through security, the bailiff—or the deputy did see them. I mean, he saw that I had it and they were turned off. And also, it's not possible for it to have been transmitted because the receiver is outside. And, I mean, nothing was being broadcast inside the courtroom. Nothing was being broadcast, I guess, is what I'm trying to say, or transmitted.

THE COURT: Do both of those belong to you, your firm? MS. NOZIZWE: Yes. Well, not my firm, but the photographer who I'm working with. They belong to him.

THE COURT: Both of them? MS. NOZIZWE: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, one of them was on. MS. NOZIZWE: Right. It was the one that Charlotte had on. We were in earlier and turned them off. When we came in, we came back from lunch, I turned mine off. I don't know that Charlotte—she's not used to necessarily turning on and off, the switch, remembered to turn her's off. But in order for any sound to be recorded, the camera has to be turned on, and it was not turned on, because the audio and video was only taken when we were outside, you know, walking up to the courthouse.

THE COURT: Well, you know the Court can only go on the objective manifestations of what I've been shown. And what I've been shown is that there's two remote transmitters brought into the courtroom, one of which was on when it was observed by the sheriffs. So, regretfully, I'm going to have to exclude you from the proceedings. MS. NOZIZWE: Okay Your Honor.

THE COURT: And I'm going to have to exclude Mrs. Blasier from the proceedings, as well. Okay. That will be the order.

THE CLERK: Is this sealed, Your Honor?


(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may resume.

MR. BAKER: May we approach?


MR. BAKER: On the record.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. BAKER: Two things, one is that we suggest that the other side—Groden is going to have to come back. We would like to adjourn after this witness, number one. Number 2, and perhaps much more importantly, I've been informed by one of the spectators that this morning when the two jurors who are elderly come up the elevator, there's one or more demonstrators, and this morning—and I didn't see this, I'm just reporting it; that there's a fellow that he called Julius. I don't know who Julius is, but when I asked him, I got the impression it's the fellow that's in the courtroom now that has "Veggie Power" on his chest and he held up a photograph, a composite photograph of O.J. behind Nicole slitting her throat as the jurors were walking from the elevator towards—whenever they entered back here. Obviously, it's terribly inappropriate. I didn't visualize it, I don't know that it occurred. But I think it would be—the whole sheriffs and the security people are on the inside of the magnetometer. This occurred on the outside of the magnetometer as they came up the elevator on the second floor.

THE COURT: Sitting right here?

MR. BAKER: Right here as they came out of elevator, those two jurors don't walk up the stairs as you're probably aware, so they walk—come up the elevator and walk into whatever entrance, they both get into here.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll take care of that.

MR. BAKER: Thank you. I'm led to believe it's the guy down in the corner that has "Veggie Power," I'm not sure.


MR. BAKER: May we quit after this witness. The other one reason is—

THE COURT: Okay. Off the record.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. GELBLUM: I asked him to produce, voluntarily, the transcript from the deposition that I was asking about earlier from the Assassination Records Review Board and they said no. I'd like you to order the witness, while he's here, to bring those, to produce those for us.

MR. BAKER: Discovery is over in this case.

MR. GELBLUM: We may be calling—you ordered one of our witnesses to produce a record, Your Honor, the next day in court.

THE COURT: Mr. Gelblum, I think you're getting very collateral on that issue and under 352 I am not going to—that's not even an accusation just because he was deposed on an issue, you cannot use that as an accusation of -- or proof that he stole anything. And I have—I will not allow you to use any innuendo.

MR. GELBLUM: I understand. I don't want to use innuendo.

THE COURT: That was innuendo. I call it as innuendo.

MR. GELBLUM: I know you did. I'm asking you to, as you said, you asked for the evidence. This is the evidence and so the point is clear. Okay. It is not simply—it is not to assassinate his character. He puts on his resume, he has testified that his great—his claim to his credibility is that he's testified before these various governmental agencies, okay? Mr. Leonard brought that out on his resume.

MR. LEONARD: I didn't bring that out.

MR. GELBLUM: You brought out the House Select Committee.

THE COURT: I said I am not going to order it.

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

THE COURT: Who was examining?

MR. LAMBERT: My turn Your Honor.


Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Rieders?

A. Good afternoon, sir.

Q. Now, just so we're clear on this, in regard to the test for whether the stains from the sock and the back gate could have come from a purple top test tube, you didn't do any tests at all in that regard yourself, did you?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you didn't run any experiment, at all, yourself, did you, Doctor?

A. Not this time, no.

Q. All right. So everything that was done here was done by Agent Martz of the FBI?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. So you're relying entirely upon the work that was done by Agent Martz of the FBI.

A. And submitted to me, that I'm aware of.

Q. Yes.

A. This your—

Q. Sure. Whatever you've looked at is entirely work results of Agent Martz, correct?

A. As far as I know, yes.

Q. Now, Agent Martz did three different types of tests to determine whether or not the blood on the socks and the back gate could have come from a purple-top-test tube; isn't that true?

A. I thought one type, but tell me what that is.

Q. Let's go through that. He did, and as Mr. Blasier pointed out, we can use shorthand like LCMSMS, can't we, as one of the kinds of—


Q. The electro spray is the E?

A. Yes. Part of—

Q. He did an LCEMSMS test in the positive ion mode, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And he also did an LCESMSMS test in the negative ion mode correct?

A. I honestly don't recall.

Q. You don't recall?

A. Yeah. But I—

Q. We'll get to it.

A. It was positive ion.

Q. He also did it in the negative-ion mode. Do you remember that?

A. No, I don't. But it's not unlikely.

Q. Okay. And he also did something called an HPLC test, didn't he?

A. I didn't think he did an HPLC test to rule in or rule out EDTA, just to check the LC, that it would work, because it's part of the—you know, first you have to establish that the compound has a retention and LC; then you can go ahead with the other thing. I wasn't aware that he was doing actually analysis for EDTA in the materials—

Q. All right.

A. -- by LC.

Q. You don't remember that, but I'll show you.

MR. LAMBERT: Why don't we put this up on the Elmo, please.

(The instrument herein referred to as chart dated 2/19/95 RE: EDTA analysis was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.561.)

(Exhibit 561 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

MR. LAMBERT: This is a chart done by Agent Martz; it's Exhibit 561.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Perhaps this will help you remember this, Doctor. This is a chart that's out of focus right now.

MR. FOSTER: It's getting there.

MR. LAMBERT: Getting there. A little more. See if you can get me these numbers down here, Steve. (Indicating to Elmo screen.) That's good. We can do it a part at a time.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This is a chart, Doctor, of—that you've seen before, which is a bar graph done by Roger Martz to show his test results of these evidence samples and the known samples in the negative ion mode of the LCESMSMS test. And you remember, Doctor, that he tested for both back gate and the socks known samples; that is, samples of blood that contain EDTA as if they came from a purple-top tube, correct?

A. Yeah. I don't recall that it was negative ion, but fine.

Q. Okay?

A. Fine. That's all right.

Q. Trust me, it is.

A. Yeah.

Q. So on this negative ion test, he got these very large results showing the presence of EDTA in the two known samples. Do you recollect that, Doctor?

A. Yeah. He had known amounts of blood that he processed, and that's what he got from it.

Q. And he used that to establish how EDTA in—in blood from a purple-top-test tube would look on his system, correct?

A. If he took that amount of blood that he used in the analysis, yes. If you take less, you see less; if you take more, you take more.

Q. Now, move the chart over a little bit.

A. Um-hum.

Q. And then these are the two charts for the evidence samples that he tested in the negative ion mode. And you'll recall now, won't you, Doctor, that he found no evidence that of EDTA at all in a negative ion mode, correct?

A. No, I don't recall that.

Q. You don't remember that?

A. I mean, you know.

Q. You've just forgotten that part of it?

A. I—it's been a year and a half since I looked at all of these, and—

Q. All right. Well, Agent Martz will come out and tell us about that later. Let's now go to the next one. This is another chart that Agent Martz put together, and this is from that second test that he did the—which I—maybe we'll remember now— the AHPLC test. And again, Agent Martz had got the same kind of results when he did the HPLC test; that is, very clear, distinct EDTA results from the known samples; no EDTA in the two evidence samples. Do you remember that, Doctor?

MR. BLASIER: What's the number on that?

MR. LAMBERT: That number is 566.

THE REPORTER: the previous one.

MR. FOSTER: 561.

A. That isn't quite how I remember. May I tell you how I remember?

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) You answer my questions, and you can have Mr. Blasier ask the questions later.

A. That's not how I remember.

Q. So you don't remember Roger Martz saying that he tested for EDTA in the HPLC test and got completely negative for EDTA? You don't remember that?

A. I remember it differently.

Q. Okay. We'll have Agent Martz testify about that.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike the commentary.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, you do recall the third kind of test was the so-called positive ion test in the LCESMSMS mode, right?

A. Yes. That's one that I was asked to review for this occasion.

Q. So that's the only one that you recollect, sitting right here, now?

A. I reviewed it, so naturally, I recollect it.

Q. Say again?

A. I reviewed it for this occasion, and so I recollect that, but. . .

Q. Okay. You don't remember the other stuff as well because it's been a long time?

A. I didn't review it, so I can't tell you I don't remember.

Q. All right. Now, and again when he ran his test in the positive ion mode, he ran both known samples containing EDTA and these two evidence samples, correct?

A. Yeah. He did them differently, though. He ran them, but differently.

Q. Well, he ran known samples and he ran evidence samples. True?

A. But differently.

Q. Okay. Well, we'll get to that. And when he ran them, it produced some of those little grafts like you were shown by Mr. Blasier?

(BY MR. LAMBERT) This is 562.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. What was this?

MR. LAMBERT: That one was 566.

(The instrument herein referred to as six test charts collectively was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 562.)

(The instrument herein referred to as chart dated 2/23/95 RE: EDTA analysis was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 566.)

MR. LAMBERT: These look familiar.

MR. FOSTER: 566 on the monitor now.

MR. GELBLUM: The first one is 561. The second read paragraph is 566.

THE COURT: This is not a third one, it's the second.

MR. FOSTER: This is the second.

MR. GELBLUM: The witness has the third.

MR. BLASIER: May I see that?

MR. LAMBERT: I'm going to put them on the—

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) These are a couple of the graphs. These happen to be for Q206 and the control for Q206, K67, right, Doctor?

A. Yeah, the positive control.

Q. The positive control. Let me show them to Mr. Blasier so he knows which one I'm talking about. Let's put up first the test result for the evidence item. Now, this is one of the test results that you have pointed to, to establish that your you believe EDTA could be in this particular evidence sample. Correct, Doctor?

A. Not quite. I said I believe it was in the particular evidence sample. It could be. And it actually was.

Q. Okay. So you believe that this actually establishes that EDTA is present?

A. In my opinion, yes.

Q. And this is where they were testing at for the 160 ion, correct?

A. The daughter ion, yes.

Q. The daughter ion?

A. This is the total ion.

Q. And this is the—is this one of the critical tests, from your perspective, to determine EDTA is present in this evidence sample?

A. It's one of them, both of them are, really. They're equally important.

Q. And all of this stuff that we see right here, that's noise, isn't it?

A. That's correct.

Q. So this particular peak that you're seeing for the evidence sample is very close to the noise in this test?

A. No. Heavens, no.

Q. It's—well, there are many scientists who will say the peak should be at least three times the height of the noise, true?

A. For what purpose?

Q. For determining whether a peak should even be called a peak, Doctor.

A. Well, not anymore, that's not the standard way of measuring noise, by comparing noise with signals as such. But you use a statistical approach.

Q. Um-hum. What's your statistical approach?

A. That you average this noise. And when you do that, you get an average and variations around it. And the unit of variations is called a standard deviation. And what you're—what you look for— at least what I look for, and my colleagues look for, is three standard deviations above noise is an acceptable detection limit. In some cases, two standard units.

Q. In case—did you actually do the calculations and running all that out?

A. Huh?

Q. Did you actually do the calculations of the standard deviation in this case?

A. Well, only roughly, because I have no numbers. I had to measure those peaks. But Yes, I did.

Q. And what were they? You calculated them?

A. Yeah. I don't know. But this was much more than three times the standard deviation.

Q. We'll get to that. Let's take a look—

THE COURT REPORTER: What was that number first?

MR. LAMBERT: These are both 562.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This is the same test run on the unknown sample. True, Doctor?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. This a test run on the known sample?

A. This a positive control—

Q. Right.

A. -- with a known amount of blood and a known amount of EDT


Q. Right. And here there's reason for noise on this chart, right, Doctor?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's because this peak is really way, way larger than the peak to—for the evidence sample, isn't it?

A. Yeah. What he put on there is just totally beyond—beyond that. Certainly, I mean, the amount that he put on is so much more than the evidence sample that it swamps all the noise.

Q. You weren't there at all 'cause—you weren't there?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. You don't—you weren't there; you don't know whether he put on more or not?

A. Yes, he did. He said how much he put on.

Q. How much—what he put on?

A. He put how much EDTA actually went on that sample to make it a positive control.

Q. He put the amount of EDTA on that sample that would be found in blood from a purple-top-test tube?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, this is—

A. But he put—

Q. -- now?

A. -- no, no.

Q. I want you to answer my question.

A. No. The answer is no.

Q. The answer is no. Fine. All right. Let it be no, then. Now, this peak is way higher than the peak in the evidence sample; isn't that right?

A. Of course.

Q. And the machine automatically calibrates itself to take into account the difference in peak height, doesn't it?

A. It ratios itself, yeah, yes. This is 100 percent. Whatever that is, and it's a lot. So any small amount can just disappear below it. It would be less than 1 percent or something like that.

Q. So let me show you another chart.

MR. LAMBERT: This will be the next in order.

THE CLERK: 2294.

(The instrument herein described as a comparative chart was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2294.)

(Exhibit 2294 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this is a chart, where we have now placed on this chart both the information from the known sample that we know contains EDTA, and the information from the evidence sample, okay?

MR. BLASIER: May I look at this just a second? (Pause.)

A. Yeah, that's an artificial on the— okay.

MR. BLASIER: Could I have him look at it directly because it's difficult to see the numbers.

MR. LAMBERT: Yeah. Maybe you have a copy. I'll put it back on this chart that's been prepared by Detective Terry Lee from the City of Hope who the jury will be hearing from shortly.

MR. BLASIER: Move to strike the comment.


MR. BAKER: Could we get a ruling instead of dialogue?

THE COURT: Just a minute. Are you representing that you're going to lay foundation on that?

MR. LAMBERT: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: You may inquire as to that but you may not describe who did it or why.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) What this is, Doctor, is a chart that contains all of the information from those that we just saw, that is the evidence sample, Q206, and the control, all charted on one graph, okay, rather than on separate graphs.

A. But it's not because in the other ones there are numbers attached to this, both as to retention and to peak height and to area.

Q. We have numbers right over here and numbers right up here. (Indicating.)

A. Well, yeah, I don't see any numbers for this.

Q. Right here?

A. Or for this.

Q. Well, this is the one I'm going to ask you about, this Q206.

A. May I see it again?

Q. Okay.

A. Okay.

Q. Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: Let me put this back up on the Elmo.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an extra copy of that?

MR. LAMBERT: I don't.

A. I'd like to have it while you ask questions.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, we have not seen it.

THE COURT: Well, go stand over there so you can see it, Mr. Blasier. (Indicating to go to the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The truth of the matter is, Doctor, that the evidence sample tested by Roger Martz is showing this level of a peak compared to the control sample; isn't that true?

A. Yes.

Q. It's a huge difference?

A. Compared to EDTA blood from a tube.

Q. Right. There's a very dramatic difference between the two?

A. About 15 fold, 15 times less blood found here than up there, so you expect—

Q. 15 times?

A. Less.


A. No, less blood.

Q. Well, you don't know that, Doctor, do you Doctor?

A. Yes. I mean it if it's EDTA blood it has to be 15 times less. In one case it's half a cc. In another case it's 15 times less.

Q. Well, Doctor, you're just guessing at that, aren't you, there's nothing at all in Roger Martz's test results that lead you to that conclusion at all, is there, Doctor?

A. He didn't have any idea of how much blood he used, but if this is supposed to be EDTA blood, then it is merely 15 times less of the blood than the other one. If you take less blood, you get a smaller peak.

Q. Or this could be not blood from a purple top test tube, correct, Doctor?

A. It could be mixed blood, yeah. It could be anything.

Q. Exactly. And this we know is blood from a purple top test tube?

A. So I'm assuming, certainly.

Q. It could be there's a lot of explanations for it. One explanation you're trying to give is that the quantification wasn't done properly? I'm asking you.

A. No.

Q. You're not giving us an answer.

A. That is not the explanation for this.

Q. When Roger Martz says that's what he did—

MR. BLASIER: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. When Roger Martz says that what he did to be sure that the amount of blood that he used in the evidence sample was actually greater than the amount of blood he used in the control sample, you're saying that he must have been wrong?

A. He didn't know what he was doing. He never measured the evidence sample blood so he doesn't know how much he put on there, whether that is 1100 drops or 150.

Q. So you're saying he is wrong?

A. He is wrong.

Q. And he's got to be wrong at least 10 fold?

A. 15.

Q. 15 fold?

A. If this is EDTA blood.

Q. You're assuming it is. It might not be, this might not be, right?

A. Well, this is blood with EDTA in it. He didn't know how much blood he analyzed here, he knows how much he analyzed there, so he can't say anything—

Q. But it might not be blood from a purple top test tube because it isn't a mountain, it's a molehill, isn't it, Doctor?

A. Look, this might not be blood from a purple top test tube.

Q. What might this one?

A. The other one but you tell me it is, so I accept that.

Q. Good. Accept that.

A. I don't know where this came from. All I'm saying is that most commonly, EDTA blood comes from an EDTA test tube.

Q. Right. And if it is blood from an EDTA test tube, and if Roger Martz is correct as to the quantities that he used, then this molehill should be a mountain, and it's not?

A. Well, I can't make two assumptions based on each other, but if permitted to, then if both these things are true, then that is true.

Q. Okay. Thank you. And you don't know yourself, of your own personal knowledge, whether Roger Martz is correct or incorrect in his statement that he used less blood here than he did there? You don't know that of your own personal knowledge?

A. That he used less blood?

Q. Less blood for the evidence sample than he did for the control, you don't know?

A. Less blood?

Q. Yes, sir. You don't know of your own—no, I'm sorry, more blood from the evidence sample than the control sample, you don't know of your own personal knowledge whether he's right or wrong about that?

A. Yes, I know from my own personal knowledge, from studying what he has done, that he's absolutely wrong, he has no idea how much blood he used there, he can't have any, he never measured it.

Q. Well, he didn't measure it the way you would measure it, right?

A. He didn't measure it, period.

Q. Well, he—no, he did measure it, and in the sense—sense that he took swatches of different sizes making sure he used a smaller swatch for the control, true?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That's—I believe what he did is he took swatches of different sizes.

Q. Right?

A. No, actually, he made lots of different sizes. That's what he—what I remember, blood dots of different sizes.

Q. Right. And then he also testified and, you will recollect this, I'm sure, sir, 'cause you heard him say it, that he looked at this blood and determined that this blood had a consistency that was sufficiently strong, it was dark red blood, it wasn't diluted blood, that he felt comfortable that this— the evidence sample had more blood in it than the control.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. This is not a question.

A. That's not what I recall.

THE COURT: Excuse me. It's overruled. If that's testimony that this witness has been knowledgeable about in forming his opinion, I think it's permissible examination.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, you will agree, Doctor, that what you are seeing for the evidence samples on these runs—

A. Um-hum.

Q. -- that could be something other than EDTA all together, it could be another compound, true?

A. Well, it can always—it's possible.

Q. True or false?

A. 15 million compounds.

Q. True is the answer?

A. It's possible.

Q. True?

A. Yes.

Q. It could be something else?

A. But unlikely.

Q. In your opinion. Secondly, it could be that this evidence sample contained trace amounts of EDTA not from a purple top test tube, but from some other source all together, true?

A. I can't think of any other source, but if you name one I can tell you whether I consider it possible.

Q. What about contamination in the laboratory; that's possible?

A. With what? With EDTA?

Q. Yes?

A. Yeah, it—

Q. Okay.

A. That's what I mean as one possibility. I think it's unlikely for a variety of reasons.

Q. Well, let me ask you this, Doctor, is it true that Agent Martz tested his own unpreserved blood?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes. And he—

A. That's what I mean—that's what he showed me, yes.

Q. And when he tested his own unpreserved blood—

A. Um-hum.

Q. -- he got a result just like the evidence sample, didn't he?

A. Not only just like it, but if you measure it, it's exactly the same. You couldn't tell the difference by shape, form or noise. That's what puzzles me about it. It looks exactly like the evidence sample. It doesn't look like any blood that I've ever seen and that I know of that was normal blood from a normal person.

Q. And he tested more than one time, his own blood, true?

A. Yes. I don't know how often.

Q. Yeah, and he got—he got results very much like this evidence sample?

A. Exactly like it. If you look at it, you can't tell the difference.

Q. And you—your testimony, Doctor, is that that is an impossible result, correct?

A. In my opinion, yes.

Q. He—

A. God willing, anything is possible, but, you know, totally improbable.

Q. He could not have the amount of EDTA in his own blood that you say that test shows; isn't that right?

A. Not if he hasn't injected himself with EDTA or somehow or other contaminated it because that's about—according to both some recent work and this, that would be the amount there, you couldn't see that unless you had a ton of blood and extracted it, because the amount that's here is—is several micrograms. The amount that you would find in a normal person is somewhere in the parts per billion. This—whatever it was, had to be parts per billion because you can't detect it at parts per billion.

Q. So Agent Martz got the very same kind of results that he got from the evidence sample out of his own blood and you say that couldn't possibly really show EDTA in his own blood, true?

A. I'm as reasonably certain as I can be, scientifically, and on the basis of everything that's been published and presented, that it is virtually impossible for him, if he has normal blood, to have EDTA in it, but you can see by this method— 8

Q. Right. And isn't it true, Doctor, that a very likely explanation for the test results showing this level of what would be EDTA in Roger Martz's own blood is that there was some EDTA left in his instrument when he tested his own blood, that's what's creating this ghosting effect; isn't that true, Doctor?

A. No, it is absolutely not true, because if you look at the sequence prior to this, that the run prior to it didn't show if you're running this blank, after that you might get it. Not much more because I said up to 10 percent, and this is actually 15 percent of what you have here.

Q. Well, Doctor, let me—

A. I'm sorry 15.

Q. In your personal experience, you using the electro spray equipment?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Can't you have contamination that appears sometimes and doesn't appear other times; isn't that a common phenomenon with the electro spray equipment?

A. Only after you had a strong positive you get a weak positive sometimes in the next injection. You don't get it somewhere the next day or something.

Q. Well, let me ask you this, Doctor. How many hundreds of times have you used the electro spray equipment with tandem mass spectrometry?

A. Did I say I used it tons of times?

Q. How many times have you used it?

A. I've used it outside of our facility maybe half a dozen times.

Q. Since when?

A. And—excuse me. And we obtained this instrument and after it was set up I've gone to maybe 20, 30 runs.

Q. 20 or 30 runs?

A. Yes, that's about right. But I also have studied the literature on it.

Q. And that's with LCESMSMS, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You have that in your lab now?

A. I have two—well, I have one LCMSMSMSMS and one LCMS.

Q. And you've just gotten those since the criminal trial?

A. Oh, yes, relatively recently.

Q. And you had all these opinions before you even got those in your lab, true?

A. Yeah, well, that's the literature, experience, this is not something new.

Q. Well, the whole question of this issue of ghosting during the process is something that people that operate the machine day in and day out are going to know a lot about; isn't that true?

A. What are they going to know a lot about?

Q. The phenomenon of ghosting that takes place in this process is something that experienced operators of the machine are going to know a lot about, true?

A. They certainly should, yes.

Q. And you're not an experienced operator of the machine, are you?

A. Well, I'm not, but I know a lot about it, too.

Q. Well, you're somebody that's testified in court a lot; isn't that right, Doctor?

A. No, not because of that. I've done an awful lot of LCM gas chromatography and ghosting occurs in all molds. It's nothing special about this.

Q. And going back to the graph we have here with the mountain and the molehill, if Roger Martz is correct that he was using more blood in the evidence system than in the control sample, then you cannot tell this jury that this molehill is blood containing EDTA from a purple top test tube, can you, Doctor?

A. Well, I'm telling you he didn't—he couldn't have had any idea of how much blood he used in—

Q. Just follow—just answer my question with my hypothetical. If he's right—

A. If you bring it into the question. Could you put that in there.

Q. Sure. If Roger Martz is correct that he was using more blood in the evidence sample than he was in this control sample, is—that is more in the molehill than in the mountain?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Then that molehill cannot represent blood from a purple top test tube, can it?

A. He can still do that if the EDTA degraded over the period of time since it was placed wherever it was.

Q. But you've done no experiment to determine how fast EDTA degrades, have you, Doctor?

A. Not how fast it degrades, but it does degrade. It's a well known fact.

Q. You don't know at what rate it degrades at?

A. Well, in strong ultraviolet light like sunlight, pretty rapidly, but I haven't got any—how fast I can tell you that.

Q. There's no literature in the forensic field showing how fast EDTA degrades in blood, is there, Doctor?

A. It's not in the forensic field. This is what is done in the environmental chemistry field, which really is forensic, but not like this, no.

Q. Isn't it the case, Dr. Rieders, that Agent Martz testified that—excuse me, Agent Martz tested some other blood containing EDTA that was two years old, and he still obtained this mountain kind of result from that two-year old blood, true?

A. Oh, yeah, sure.

Q. So we know that it still shows up a couple years later, right?

A. If it's frozen in the dark, yes.

Q. So you're saying maybe environmental conditions might somehow explain how this mountain turned out to be a molehill; is that what you're saying?

A. No, no, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if Roger Martz is correct that the amount of blood that he used to get that little molehill down there was less than the amount of blood that he used, if he's correct in that, where he got the mountain then that blood, the little molehill blood, came from an area that was outdoors, dry, wet when it rained, exposed to the sun, exposed to the elements, and then it was collected, and it is during that period that it meets the condition of the degradation that has been tested in EPA world.

Q. You're saying it may be another explanation for how the mountain gets down to the molehill?

A. No, I don't think so. I think my explanation is much more correct.

Q. This one you're looking at right here, these are the socks, Doctor, these socks were collected the day after the murders, they were in a laboratory freezer in the serology department at LAPD, weren't they?

A. I understand they were not in the laboratory freezer, but that's beside the point.

Q. They were. They weren't out laying around getting rained on, were they?

A. No, not the socks, as far as I know.

Q. Yeah?

A. Certainly not.

Q. And, in fact, the results that Roger Martz got from both the socks and the blood on the back gate were just about the same, weren't they?

A. No, if you look at the chromatogram, they differ.

Q. Not much, though, right?

A. Well, we don't know how much blood was used.

Q. But the chromatograms don't differ much, do they, they're pretty similar?

A. Yes, they are. They are—

Q. Right?

A. -- pretty similar in the noise level, too.

Q. And those two items, the blood from the back gate, blood from the socks, they were subject to very different environmental conditions, weren't they, Doctor, yes or no?

A. I expect, yes.

Q. Okay. So doesn't sound like the environment is the explanation for how that mountain got into that molehill, does it, Doctor?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I didn't say that.


A. It could well be, nevertheless.

Q. Well, a lot of things could be, right, doctor?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, reasonably could be.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, one of your complaints about the work done by Roger Martz, apparently is that he did not specifically quantify the way you would have done it, the amount of blood that he's testing; is that right?

A. It's not a complaint. What it is, is it leads me to my conclusions about what was done and that nobody knows how much blood was used, and therefore you don't know what the concentration was.

Q. And because you don't know what the concentration is, you can't really determine whether this little molehill really is a mountain or just a molehill; is that right?

A. On here it's a molehill. The amount of blood it represents, I don't know, and it could be such a smidgen, that indeed, that's why it's a molehill.

Q. Or it could be, as Agent Martz said, more blood than the control and that means it's not blood from a purple top tube, true?

A. Probably.

Q. Right?

A. But very unlikely.

Q. Okay. That's—we'll get to that. Isn't it true that since the time of the criminal trial, that Dr. Kevin Ballard has developed a specific methodology for testing for EDTA in blood, and quantifying the amount of EDTA in blood?

A. He had that before. I know Ballard.

Q. Yes.

A. He presented it since then at the meeting.

Q. Yeah. And Dr. Ballard is another expert retained by Mr. Simpson, true?

A. Yes, he was.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object.

A. At least as far as I know.

THE COURT: Just a minute.

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object and ask to approach, please.


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

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I expect Mr. Lambert is going to be asking questions about testing that Mr.—Dr. Ballard may or may not have done. I have no knowledge of that. It would be inappropriate for Mr. Lambert to make any kind of argument to that effect, that we were going to do testing, we didn't or we did testing. Dr. Ballard is one of our consultants. He's not going to testify. So I would object to this line of questioning.

MR. LAMBERT: What I did ask, Your Honor, is if Dr. Ballard has developed the methodology for doing these tests different methodology, employed a valid methodology that he could do the test to make a specific determination as to whether this blood came from a purple top test tube or not, that he has the capacity to do that. I will then argue to the jury, as I'm entitled to do, that they have an expert in their employ who could do these tests, who they could have had do the specific test, and he can do this. The jury can make whatever inference they want from that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Specific instruction on best evidence available.

THE COURT: A little bit familiar with best evidence instruction.

MR. PETROCELLI: I bet you are.

THE COURT: Objection overruled. You may approach to that extent. You may not go beyond.

MR. LAMBERT: I won't ask him about tests he did.


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

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Before we go back to Dr. Ballard, let me ask you a couple of clarification questions, Doctor. The only evidence items that you are aware of that ever got tested for EDTA were the ankle area of the sock and the back gate, true?

A. I think there was also some pieces of clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson tested.

Q. All right. They tested her dress; is that right?

A. Dress, right.

Q. They actually found a little bit of EDTA in the material of the dress?

A. Yes. That wasn't surprising.

Q. 'Cause EDTA is a very common chemical that is used in a lot of different ways in our society, right?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And aren't there something like 50 million pounds of EDTA manufactured a year?

A. I don't know.

Q. Huge amount. It's in paint, it's in food, it's in all kinds of things?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, so the only evidence items you know of are this one from the sock, the one from the back gate, and her dress; is that right?

A. Yes, I think that's all.

Q. And no other area on the sock other than this center cut-out that Mr. Blasier showed you in his little graph?

A. As far as I know, yes. 1

Q. Okay. Now, let's go back to Dr. Ballard. Dr. Ballard was present in court when you testified at the criminal trial?

A. Some of the time I believe.

Q. Present when Roger Martz testified, true?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I—I don't recall that. It may have been. I really didn't pay that much attention.

Q. He was an expert retained by Mr. Simpson at that time, true?

A. I—as far as I know, yes, he was retained by—whether Mr. Simpson or one of the lawyers, I don't know.

Q. And Dr. Ballard has published his own methodology for testing for EDTA in blood and specifically quantifying the amount of EDTA, true?

A. Well, for testing for it and also measuring it certainly.

Q. It's a different method than Roger Martz used, isn't it?

A. It's gas chromatography instead of liquid chromatography. In gas chromatography you don't use electro spray.

Q. He has developed—synthesized in his own laboratory, an internal control that aids in quantifying the levels of the EDTA that he finds in blood?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

A. A radioactive carbon label.

Q. So he now, in his laboratory, is perfectly capable of making a precise determination whether this molehill is just a molehill or a mountain; isn't that right?

A. If he has the information about how much blood it came from, yes. Otherwise he's no better off than Roger was.

Q. Well, he can take evidence samples that still exist from the back gate and the socks and run the tests himself, can't he, Doctor?

A. I don't know that. I see no reason why not, but I can't tell you that. You have to ask him.

Q. Well, he's certainly done tests on other evidence items that you've seen published, haven't you?

A. Not on evidence items.

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

A. Whatever I've seen published is researched.

Q. Okay. But based on that research, you certainly believe he would be capable of performing such a test, correct, Doctor?

A. Yes, I think so. 1

Q. All right. Well, since he's capable of performing such a test, and since he also is an expert for Mr. Simpson, why isn't he here in court instead of you speculating about these things?

THE COURT: Sustain the objection.

MR. BLASIER: Move to strike.

THE COURT: Stricken. Mr. Lambert, you knew you weren't supposed to go into that.

MR. LAMBERT: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Let me ask you about something else then, Doctor. And we're almost finished. Let me ask you—before we get to my last area, let me ask this: How much have you been paid by Mr. Simpson so far?

A. Total?

Q. Yeah.

A. For the criminal trial, I really don't know, I think we got about $5,000 from the bill. I'm not sure. It's done by our CFO. This one we received a retainer check, I think it was $10,000.

Q. Wasn't the criminal trial more like 20,000, Doctor?

A. I don't think we received that. I don't know. I mean, to tell you the truth, I know it was a fraction of the total bill that has been settled so far.

Q. Okay. There's still some owed?

A. I think the total bill was 46. I don't know. Don't ask me. I don't do the billing.

Q. Let me ask you just this one final area then, Doctor. I want you to assume that the blood on the socks is Q206, we see up here?

A. I'm sorry, is what?

Q. I want you to assume that this blood from the socks, Q206, the evidence sample we're talking about, right, I want you to assume that that blood could only have come from being splashed on the socks while they were being worn by the killer during the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, or was later placed on the socks out of the reference vial of Nicole's blood removed from her body at autopsy. Okay?

A. I understand.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, compound, two different hypotheticals.

MR. LAMBERT: I'm not done.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) I want you to assume that fact, that the blood could only have come from one of two places; it was splashed on the socks while the killer was wearing them or it was later placed on the socks out of the reference vial taken at her autopsy, that that is an EDTA reference vial, okay?

A. Okay.

Q. Could only have come from one of those two places. I want you to further assume that Dr. Robin Cotton—

A. Let me make a note because I'll—

Q. Okay.

A. -- want to keep it straight.

Q. Go right ahead. (Witness writes on piece of paper at witness stand.)

A. That's assumption one. Now the next assumption.

Q. Okay. You got that? The blood only came from one of those two places?

A. Yes.

Q. Next, I want you to further assume that Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark Diagnostics, a forensic microbiologist and DNA expert, studied the DNA in the socks and the DNA in the reference vial from the autopsy and concluded that the blood on the socks could not have come from the blood in the reference vial because the DNA in the blood in the reference vial was substantially more degraded than the DNA in the blood in the socks.

MR. BLASIER: I'll object to that. That misstates—

A. There are too many—there is more than one question in here. I won't be able to answer you.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) I want you to assume that set of facts, that Dr. Cotton has done that study and made that conclusion.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, that misstates her testimony.

MR. LAMBERT: It doesn't, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Irrelevant, hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.


A. Let me make sure I understand what you said. You said that it has been testified that the blood in the tube was more degraded than the blood on the sock?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay.

Q. You got that?

A. Yes. Let me note that down. Okay.

Q. So you—in making the opinions that you gave here today, Dr. Rieders, you did not take into account the conclusions of Dr. Cotton in regard to the DNA levels in the blood and the reference vial, did you?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, misstates her testimony, it's argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Of course not. Why should I? It has nothing to do with it.

MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions, Your Honor.


Q. Dr. Rieders, isn't it accurate that the negative ion mode, which is the charts that you examined and testified to, is by far the most sensitive test between positive ion mode and just straight HPLC?

A. In most cases, yes. Not always, but in most cases.

Q. Is it also accurate that it was the Los Angeles District Attorney's office that decided which two stains to test for EDTA?

A. That what?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection.

Q. It was the Los Angeles District Attorney's office that decided which stains to test for EDTA and which to not test.

THE COURT: Overruled. If you knew.

A. That's what I was given to understand but I certainly have no contact with them to know that.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it also accurate that Roger Martz never had testified in the criminal trial that his results were the results of the ghosting?

A. Of ghosting?

Q. Yes.

A. No, that—that he said afterwards.

Q. Okay. And did he also make a statement of trying to substantiate that experimentally and not being able to do it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: You may inquire as to what he did that would establish that.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let me ask you this: Do you have any personal knowledge that he was ever able to substantiate that explanation?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, I have no such knowledge, never said.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, in fact, did Dr. Ballard—that Mr. Lambert asked you questions about, since the criminal trial, did he do a study to determine whether or not a human being would have levels of EDTA in their blood of the same amount as found in these evidence stains?

A. Yes. Essentially, yes, he reported that at the mass spectrometer meeting.

Q. What—did his study conclude whether a person would have naturally occurring EDTA in their blood at this level?

MR. LAMBERT: Hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. He testified that in, I think it was 20 --

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is still—there's no explanation as to what he's testifying—

MR. BLASIER: I'm going—asking about a study.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of a study that he did?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And one of the questions he was looking at was to try and find out whether or not a human being just picked at random would have levels of EDTA in their blood naturally occurring equivalent to the levels found in this case?

A. That's what he put his method to the test to, on some 20 people I believe.

Q. And what was the conclusion?

A. Not a trace found. That means way below his detection limit, which is in the parts per billion, by the way, so that it's exact. Pretty much the same that they found in the 50's with their radioactive label material.

Q. Now, when Mr. Lambert asked you whether there could be another compound that had the same characteristics of this, how many organic compounds are there that we know of?

A. I said presently registered about 15 million compounds with the American Chemical Society.

Q. And did Roger Martz attempt to locate a compound that might have the same characteristics as EDTA?

A. He said yes, he did, he did look through various data bases for something that's like it.

Q. And are you aware of any compound other than EDTA that has the characteristics that were revealed in Agent Martz's test?

A. I looked and—I don't. And I looked too.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.

MR. LAMBERT: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. LAMBERT: I'd like to move, if I could, 561 --

THE CLERK: Wait, wait, wait.


THE COURT: You may step down.

THE CLERK: Go ahead.

MR. LAMBERT: 561, 566 and 2294.

MR. BLASIER: I would move in 1208, 1215, 1216, 1218, 1219, 2292 and 2293.

THE COURT: All received.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 561.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 566.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2294.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1208.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1215.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1216.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1218.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1219.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2292.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2293.)

THE COURT: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to be adjourning until January the 6th. I want to restate the admonition that I gave to you earlier. That you not allow yourself to be influenced by anything that you may hear outside of this courtroom, or see outside of this courtroom with regard to this case. You must only be relying upon the evidence as you will learn it through the trial process and the law that the Court will give to you at the end of the case. You must not conduct any research on your own. You must not permit others to address you about anything connected with this case. On occasion, the Court is aware that there may be people around the courthouse that may make an effort to display themselves or somehow convey something to those persons who are involved in this trial that may possibly include you. You're not to permit yourself to be influenced by anything like that that you may occasionally come across. In this case, we are trying specific aspects of what occurred underlying the circumstances of this case. We have heard at one stage or another that there was another proceeding ongoing in another county, Orange County, that has to do not with our case specifically, but with regard to Mr. Simpson and the children. And I am bringing this to your attention because in the two weeks or so that you will be away from the court, it is entirely possible that you will be inadvertently exposed to some accidental or inadvertent exposure to news casts or broadcasts or whatever. You are instructed that whatever happens in any other case involving Mr. Simpson and/or the children has nothing to do with this case. The issue involved in that matter has nothing to do with our case. Our case is fact specific and is dependent only upon the evidence that we receive in our case, and you must not be influenced by whatever anybody says, whatever anybody does with regard to any other matter outside of this trial. This is a very important point. Everybody understand that?

(The jury panel nodded affirmatively.)

THE COURT: Don't allow yourself to be exposed to any such information. If you see a headline in the newspaper or you inadvertently see it on television, switch it off. Do not permit yourself to be influenced by those things. Okay. And over this long course of the holiday, I hope that it refreshes you, but at the same time, I am making every effort to make sure that you not allow yourself to be subtly or inadvertently or otherwise influenced by what friends or relatives or others may say to you during your period of absence in connection with your service on this case. Okay. It's very important that you—while people may know you're on this case, I don't know if they do or not, but you are instructed that you're not even to tell them that you are on this case, confirm it or anything. You have absolutely no comment with regard to this case. Everybody understand that?

(The jury panel nodded affirmatively.)

THE COURT: I appreciate your patience and hard work and being here every day. We get late starts often because we have matters that we have to address outside of your presence. These are legal matters oftentimes that should not ever be a matter of concern for the jury. Okay. You are only concerned with what you actually get through the trial process. Whatever else occurs outside of your presence, that is not before you in the case. Everybody understand that?

(The jury panel answered affirmatively.)

THE COURT: Okay. I hope to see all 16 of you back January 6. Stay in good health. Enjoy the holidays. And every day bear in mind the admonition I have given you, okay. Thank you very much, and you're excused until January 6, 8:30.

JURORS: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Jurors exit courtroom.)

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

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, with regards to what you were concerned about, Julius—Vicki, my regular bailiff, informs me that the two deputies who escort the two elevator jurors are the two bailiffs right behind you. And they indicated to her that the incident that you were concerned with did not happen.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

THE COURT: So I've also reinforced—

MR. BAKER: You have.

THE COURT: -- their attentiveness to the potential of such a problem so—

MR. BAKER: That's—

THE COURT: I want to reassure you of that.

MR. BAKER: Thank you. I appreciate that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, have a happy holiday.

MR. BAKER: Have a good holiday.

MR. PETROCELLI: We'll see you on January 6. You too, Gina.


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

THE COURT: One announcement I'd like to make. Ladies and gentlemen in the media, you are ordered not to bring in any audio or other broadcast equipment into this courtroom. You're not—you're allowed to be here. You don't have the right to broadcast out of this courtroom. Everybody understand that? Okay. Thank you.

(At 4:03 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Monday, January 6, 1997 at 8:30 a.m.)