SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 6, 1997
VOLUME 37

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning.
MR. GELBLUM: Good morning.
MR. KELLY: Morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Somebody wanted to do something out of the presence
of the jury.
MR. LEONARD: Yes, Your Honor, we have two matters. First of all, I'd
like to bring -- I don't have a written motion, but I will file one
by the close of business today. We'd like to bring to the Court's
attention that the attacks on Robert Groden that commenced in the
courtroom were continued by an agent of the plaintiff outside the
courtroom by way of a news conference that was broadcast on a local
television station, and also by an appearance or at least a
videotape on a national television program on MSNBC; that person's
name is David Lifton. He represented himself to be a photographic
consultant for the plaintiffs. He's in the courtroom today, sitting
in the second row, back there, the gentleman with glasses on the
right-hand side there. We'd ask that the plaintiffs be sanctioned,
that Mr. Lifton be excluded from the courtroom, and additional
sanction be levied against the plaintiffs; and that would be that we
bring before the jury that the plaintiffs have violated the gag
order in particular by attempting to attack Mr. Groden through this
agent of theirs. He made very derogatory remarks about Mr. Groden.
We have taken -- we had a full-blown hearing on this. We have the
tape-recordings we can present to Your Honor.
MR. GELBLUM: Morning, Your Honor. Mr. Groden is not an agent of the
plaintiffs, he's --
MR. PETROCELLI: Not Mr. Groden.
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Lifton is not employed, is not the Mr. Lifton, is
not a photographic agent, not a consultant to the plaintiff's, he's
a member of the public who has known Mr. Groden for over 20 years
and has provided us with information regarding Mr. Groden's
background, and that is it. He's not our agent, he's not under our
control, never paid him a dime. We don't intend to pay him a dime
he's somebody just like, I'm sure defendants have a person, who
provides us with information. He's not an agent, not under our
control.
MR. LEONARD: I would like to put point out that during the
examination and cross-examination of Mr. Groden, I saw Mr. Gelblum
and Mr. Petrocelli consulting with Mr. Lifton, that Mr. Lifton came
into the building this morning with the plaintiffs party, he's
sitting in the plaintiffs' seats, it was accepted on national
television that he was a consultant, a photographic consultant for
the plaintiffs. It seems to me that if this gag order is to have any
teeth in it or have any affect, that they can't use a shill like
Lifton to make their point to the press, and in the press and
national television that's exactly what's going on, so I think that
-- that Mr. Lifton should be removed from the courtroom at a
minimum.
MR. GELBLUM: He's not a shill, he's not under our control. I can't
tell him what to say or not to say. I didn't tell him what to say or
not to say. I didn't know what he was going to say or not say. I
didn't know he was going to go on the television.
THE COURT: Has he conferred?
MR. GELBLUM: He has provided us information about Mr. Groden's
historical background, yes, Your Honor. He's not consulted with us.
He's not a photographic consultant.
THE COURT: What's his name?
MR. LEONARD: David Lifton.
THE COURT: Okay, sir, you're excluded. Step out.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: The other matter is a -- we filed by way of a written
motion, and I'm not sure whether -- whether it's ripe at this point
because we have gotten no indication whatsoever in written form or
even orally that the plaintiffs intend to utilize these newly
emerged photographs. I think if you -- if you had an opportunity to
read the motion, I think it speaks for itself. It's a total -- it's
a 23 and a half hour situation. We obviously are going to -- if
these photographs come into this case at all, we are going to
vigorously fight their -- their admission, we are going to attack
their authenticity naturally, and we would need -- we would need
time to do discovery on this. We need to go back and do the
deposition of the -- of the photographer who purported to take the
photographs. Interestingly enough, the middle-man or the agent who's
either attempting to or has already sold the photographs to a
tabloid is the same one who sold the Scull photograph that we're
dealing with here. We want to take his deposition. We want to take
the deposition of whoever was involved in the discovery of this
photograph including Mr. Kelly and Mr. O'Connor, another attorney
who was involved in this effort with Mr. Kelly. We think it's highly
suspicious that the photograph has emerged at this time,
particularly in view of the fact that there was -- there was an
investigation done, there were attempts at the beginning of the
criminal case to locate photographs of Mr. Simpson, particularly
among photographers at football games. So we would vigorously object
to any mention of this photograph at this juncture -- at any point
in this trial. I can tell you one thing, that if -- if they attempt
to get this in, we're going to ask for at least a two-week recess in
order to investigate and to do the appropriate discovery we need to
do to prove that this photograph is either irrelevant or faked. So
that's one thing that we'd be looking for. And I think in the
interest of fairness and in the interest of judicial efficiency and
under the laws of the State of California, particularly the
discovery statutes, this photograph has no business being in this
case at this point. We haven't even seen it yet, by the way.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, there's absolutely no basis for this
position at all. Mr. Simpson took that stand, under oath, and said
he was not wearing the shoes in that photograph, he said the
photograph was a fake. Mr. Baker told the jury the same thing. They
put this would-be expert on the stand to say that this photo is a
fake. This is about as pure impeachment as you can find, Your Honor.
You want to get on the stand and tell those kind of -- make those
kind of representations, you have to suffer the risk that you may
get caught red-handed. That is what has happened. These photos
emerged this weekend. I just got them on Saturday, Your Honor. They
were just handed --
MR. LEONARD: You haven't --
THE COURT: Excuse me. He didn't interrupt you when you were talking,
Mr. Leonard.
MR. PETROCELLI: I just got them this weekend. There are photos,
eight or nine of them, contact sheets, and everything from the same
game, Your Honor, the September 26, 1993, game, taken by a
completely different photographer unrelated to -- to Mr. Scull. In
addition, one of the photographs appeared in a Buffalo Bills
newsletter of sorts, that was printed and circulated to the public.
Mr. Simpson and his defense lawyers obviously had full access to
this. This is classical impeachment material, Your Honor, and they
don't have any right to advance disclosure of it, even if we had
obtained it in advance, which we did not. We fully intend to
confront the witnesses with the photographs that directly destroy
the representations they made to this jury, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I order you to make them available to the defense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Give them copies, Steve.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: We have had no opportunity to look at these photographs
to determine whether they're authentic. There's no chain of custody
that's been developed on these. I think it's highly improper for
them to be put in at this point. Your Honor, we've had no
opportunity to look at them. It would seem after the first time --
is it -- are you going to permit them to confront this witness with
these photographs when they haven't been able to establish any kind
of a chain with them, where they were taken, how they were taken,
whether they're authentic at all? I think that's highly unfair to us
at this point, Your Honor, and I would object.
MR. PETROCELLI: First of all, we will right now make copies of
everything available to you. Secondly, you have indicated a number
of times to the Court how you were going to tie things up later
on. We can authenticate these pictures through the defendant
himself, no less, Your Honor, when we question him about the
photographs and to allay any possible concern, I have produced a
sworn affidavit of the photographer who has indicated that, if
necessary, he will come to testify in this court and authenticate
the photographs.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LEONARD: File it.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we would like a hearing.
THE COURT: File it.
MR. LEONARD: This is something, again, I haven't seen, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is my only copy.
(Mr. Petrocelli hands document to clerk.)
MR. LEONARD: It's a total sandbag.
THE COURT: That's usually what impeachment amounts to, counsel.
(Court reviews document.)
THE COURT: When is this witness going to be available?
MR. PETROCELLI: We can make him available on 24-hour's notice. We
were planning to call him in our rebuttal case. I'm told the defense
is resting probably by the end of this week or early next week, and
he will probably be our first witness.
THE COURT: Okay. Serve a copy on the defense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: We'd like an opportunity to depose this witness.
THE COURT: You can do whatever you can to assist you in your case.
This is rebuttal evidence.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else? What about the declarations
that also were filed with respect to Ferrara and Siglar.
MR. PETROCELLI: It seems like this fellow can't serve many people,
Your Honor, but the bottom line is I don't have any objection to Ms.
Ferrara being read in by her criminal trial testimony. We'll read in
our portions.
THE COURT: There's no objection, then I will allow it.
MR. PETROCELLI: And --
THE COURT: It appears that the declaration with regards to Siglar is
sufficient on its face.
MR. PETROCELLI: As to the one regarding Mr. Siglar, I haven't yet
seen the designations. Once I see the designations, I'd be happy to
confer about our position on that.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in. Who are we starting with?
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Groden.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: He still resumes the stand.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JUROR: Morning, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you please state your
name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Robert -- Robert Groden.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: You may proceed. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
(continued)
Q. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Morning, Mr. Groden.
A. Morning.
Q. Because it's been quite a while since We've been here, I thought
we'd start by summarizing where we were, about the point you were
making about the photograph in question. Try to write on the easel
here. The first problem that we discussed -- the first issue we
discussed on the cross-examination was the blue lining that you saw
on the picture of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes, between the
image and the sprocket holes, correct?
A. I believe that was the first one.
Q. The blue line?
A. Yeah.
Q. I'm just going to write blue line up here.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to going through the
cross-examination again. This has been asked and answered.
MR. GELBLUM: Very quickly.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And you acknowledged, at one point, that that
could be a scratch, correct?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Okay. And we also looked at some of the other photographs, and
again we saw blue lines between the image and the sprocket holes,
but you said those were different than the ones on this picture; is
that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. The next -- next point we talked about was the alignment
of the -- of the photographs, correct, the alignment of the frames?
A. Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, could you put up 1832, please, on the monitor.
(Exhibit 1832 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And your point was that No. 1 and No. 2, No. 1
being the picture of Mr. Simpson with the Bruno Magli shoes, were
not aligned, right?
A. 1 and 2 were not aligned.
Q. You're saying that those are the only adjoining frames on the
contact sheet that were not aligned?
A. That's correct.
Q. We looked at some others and you disagreed about -- with -- about
them being misaligned?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Did you look at other contact sheets, too, to see if there were
any out of alignment?
A. Yes.
Q. You found none of those were out of alignment either?
A. That's correct.
Q. On this point, I think you did agree with me that there is
some?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object. He's now back on this
point of asking specific questions. This has all been asked and
answered.
MR. GELBLUM: This is going to take less than five minutes to bring
it up to speed. There are points to be made later that have to do
with the totality of his evidence. I have to get it in before the
jury. It's fair.
THE COURT: Ask it in the form of a question, not in the form of an
argument.
MR. GELBLUM: That's fine, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall that we discussed that there is
some play in the back of a camera that allows the film to move
through?
A. You made that representation.
Q. And you agree with me that there is normally some play?
A. I don't believe that I agreed with that. I said that -- that it
would vary from camera to camera.
Q. Right. And -- but you -- in any event, you said that that play
that varies from camera to camera would not account for the
misalignment, in your opinion?
A. Not by this amount, no.
Q. And then the next point we discussed was the -- the issue of the
length. Your opinion is that the photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing
the Bruno Magli shoes is longer than the other frames, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I want to make sure, did you compare it only to the one next
to it or did you compare it to every other frame on the contact
sheet?
A. Well, to be fair, since the first two are disconnected from all
the others, the only one we can rely on as being together are the
first two, I would think that to be fair in the argument we can only
compare the first two.
Q. Is that all you compared?
A. No, I compared the rest as well.
Q. And your testimony was that this frame of Mr. Simpson is longer
than all the other frames?
A. Yes.
Q. And we talked about that at your deposition, and you had said
that you had enlarged the contact sheet eight times, to make it
eight times bigger, and at that measurement, at this size, you
measured it, the measurement was approximately a quarter of a
millimeter longer, right?
A. As I pointed out, that was a rough approximation, it wasn't
accurate.
Q. I think you said it was an arbitrary figure?
A. Yes. The way it was actually stated was it wasn't a quarter of
a millimeter, a quarter of a millimeter, give or take.
Q. Anyway that was an arbitrary figure?
A. Yes.
Q. And you made that eight times enlargement on a photocopying
machine, not a photographic enlarger, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you believe that the photocopy image is an absolutely 100
percent accurate, precise reproduction of the size of what it's
coping?
A. My opinion is that a photocopying machine does not give the
option for -- for photographic manipulation. It's just a straight
scan copy, rather than a photographic copy.
Q. But do you believe that the copy does not distort or stretch the
image in any way whatsoever, the photocopy?
A. It's my opinion that it probably doesn't. I have no personal
knowledge whether it does or doesn't. I'm not a photocopying machine
expert.
Q. So if the photocopy does distort or stretch the image, the image
would not necessarily be valid?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Court reviews real time screen.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You don't know whether it's an accurate
reproduction?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, lack of foundation, called for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. This man works on copy machines.
MR. LEONARD: No, I don't think that's represented.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is it true you don't know whether the photocopy
accurately and precisely reproduces the size of the image?
A. I have no way of knowing whether any particular machine might be
different than another.
Q. Where did you have your copies made, the eight times
enlargements?
A. I have them made in Dallas at -- I believe it was either Kinko's
or something of that nature.
Q. Okay. The next point we discussed was the point about the edge.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, can you put up -- do you have the slides? I
think it's 2282, exhibit slide No. 3.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. And we discussed -- you said that
there was an extra edge down here at the bottom, is that right,
that has some parallel lines in it?
A. Yes, there is a horizontal and several vertical lines.
Q. And your opinion was that there was no natural process in
photography that could possibly account for that?
A. That's correct. There's no photographic reason I can find for
that.
Q. You agreed though, that frame zero which comes just before the
frame we're looking at here could, in theory, as the photographer's
loading the camera and clicking the film through, be underexposed
through the length of the camera and produce underexposed images,
correct?
A. In theory.
Q. Right. And I asked you whether those parallel lines can be an
underexposed image of the lines in the football field that we see in
other frames, and you said there's no way in the world?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. He's going back through cross-examination.
He's going point by point.
THE COURT: I'm about to sustain that objection
MR. GELBLUM: I'm about done.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The last point that we went through last time
was something about the left leg.
MR. GELBLUM: You can take this off, Steve Steve, do you have the
exhibit number for these enlargements.
MR. FOSTER: Yes, 2287.
(Exhibit 2287 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Putting up 2287, this was the enlargement of Mr.
Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes. You said that there is a
retouching mark, what you perceive to be a retouching mark on the
left leg right above a fold in the pants, right?
A. Near a fold in the pants, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, another point that you mentioned with Mr. Leonard was
a problem with the right leg as well.
MR. GELBLUM: Can everyone see this? You said -- Do you have the
slide for that one? I apologize. It's No. 7. 2282 and No. 7.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You said that you observed some kind of linear
tonal change across the leg; is that right?
A. That's correct, with retouching marks attached to it.
Q. Now, you remember at your deposition, we went through -- you gave
me a list of the observations you had made at that time that you
said led you to the conclusion that the photograph is probably a
fake, remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't mention this, did you?
A. I had interpreted that as being wind effect, that's the way I had
spoken about at the deposition.
Q. You didn't mention a linear tonal change across the right leg at
all at your deposition, did you?
A. Not with that -- not with that phraseology, no.
Q. Well, you didn't.
MR. GELBLUM: Put up 2291, please.
(Exhibit 2291 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This was the list of your observations that you
gave me at the deposition, that you said were all the observations
you made regarding the photograph being a fake, right?
A. Yes.
Q. I'll hand you a copy of it so you can see it better. There's
nothing at all on there about a linear tonal change in the right
leg, is there?
A. It's not on this, but we did discuss it.
Q. We didn't discuss linear tonal change in the right leg, did we,
sir?
A. Three -- we discussed three differences in the two lengths that
appear to be different responses to wind; one being affected, the
other one not. That was the same issue I was talking about.
Q. There's nothing on the piece of paper you gave me at your
deposition that you said was the complete list of your observations
about anything about wind difference; is there, sir?
A. No, there's nothing on that.
Q. Okay. When did you come up with that one, sir?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. We had discussed it at the deposition and I had told you at that
time it was a complete list. Before we left we had more issues than
are on that list. You know that.
Q. I know you did not discuss that. Your lawyer can point it out in
his examination.
MR. LEONARD: I object to this argument in front of the jury.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GELBLUM: You can take that down, Steve. Put up 1832 again,
please.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Another point you made with Mr. Leonard on
direct examination was about the tint of the photograph of Mr.
Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that all the other frames have a slightly blue or blue
to green tint, and this frame alone has a pinkish tint or magenta
tint, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: Is that the whole sheet, Steve?
(Elmo adjusted.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you know, Mr. Groden, that of all the other
frames on the contact sheet, other than this one, there's a green
field evident, and in this one Mr. Simpson is walking on a red and
white end zone?
A. Of course, yes.
Q. Did you notice that? Okay. But you don't think that could account
for the different tint?
A. No.
Q. There are different kinds of reflections that photographers deal
with, right?
A. Yes.
Q. There something called spectral reflection. You heard of spectral
reflection?
A. Yes.
Q. Spectral reflection is what happens when light hits a shiny
surface and bounces off something like a mirror, it comes right in
and goes out, right, out the same angle?
A. Doesn't necessarily have to be the same angle.
Q. It's a pretty clean reflection?
A. Yes.
Q. And diffused reflection, on the other hand, is when light hits on
a non-shiny surface like a football field, and light diffuses out in
all directions, correct?
A. Theoretically.
Q. Okay. Now, I think -- as an example of this difference in tint,
other than this green and red you pointed to --
MR. GELBLUM: You can take that down, Steve. Mr. Simpson's shirt,
again, I'm putting up 2287.
MR. FOSTER: Yeah.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And we'll put it here, if you don't mind, and
I'll show it to you first, and then show it to the jury. The light's
not good here. You said that the pinkish tint was so pronounced you
thought Mr. Simpson was wearing a pink shirt in this picture?
A. I said I had to find out whether it was pink or not because it
does appear so pink, especially in the shadow areas.
Q. You said you thought he was wearing a pink shirt rather than a
white?
A. I said I had to find out -- it appears to me that, possibly, he
was wearing a pink shirt.
Q. In this picture?
A. Yes.
Q. I'll show this to the jury. Your eyes tell you that that is a
pink shirt?
A. Can I see it again?
(Witness reviews photograph.)
A. Yeah. Look in the shadow areas, you can definitely see that. See.

(Indicating.)
Q. I'm not talking about shadows. I'm talking about a pink shirt.
You said it was a pink shirt, right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The shirt itself in the photograph.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, you said you thought it was a pink
shirt, right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, that's asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That's not what I said.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. Turn to your testimony on December
18, direct examination, page 190, trial testimony, lines 20 to 24,
this is on your examination by Mr. Leonard.
MR. LEONARD: What page?
MR. GELBLUM: Page 190.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The two prints in question show a reflective
value. Frame 1-1 shows a magenta and pinkish tint to a point of
where just inspected this photograph, I thought it was a pink shirt
instead of a white shirt.
A. I stand corrected. What I meant was --
Q. Thank you.
A. I had to find out whether it was.
Q. I didn't ask you what you meant. I just asked you what you said.
Are you saying that shirt in that picture is a fake?
A. No, of course not.
Q. You know Mr. Simpson sat where you sat and admitted it was his
shirt, don't you? end oj01061a BEGIN SECTION OJ0106-2.TRF
A. I have no way of knowing that.
Q. You didn't know that?
A. No. I don't doubt that it's his shirt.
Q. Now, another point you made with Mr. Leonard had to do with the
right shoe.
MR. GELBLUM: Can you put up the slides, Steve, that show the
reflection on the bottom of the shoe.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You said that the red reflection on the sole of
the right shoe should be white, correct?
A. From my analysis of it, it appears that it should be white,
that's correct.
Q. That's based entirely on your perception that his foot is over
the white area, correct?
A. No.
Q. All right.
A. No, it's based on the angle of the bottom of the shoe as well.
Q. It's your opinion, based on your perception, that the shoe is
over the white area on the field, correct?
A. I didn't say that. I just said -- I just said it's not true.
Q. Look at your -- look at your trial testimony.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 185, Mr. Leonard, lines 20 to 23. I can read the
whole sentence if you want. Got it? December 18, page 185.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM)
(Reading:). The bottom of the shoe on the right foot appears to be
reflecting light, indicating a sole pattern based on the positioning
of that shoe over the line. It's my opinion that should be
reflecting white instead of red. Is that what you said?
A. The position of the shoe, yes.
Q. You weren't saying it's over the -- onto the white?
A. No, I said the positioning of the -- of the shoe over the line,
the shoe is over the line.
Q. So you're saying the shoe is over the line. Okay.
A. It's above the line.
Q. Where is the tip of the shoe in your perception, sir?
A. In this particular case it's very difficult to tell because you
don't have a side view. However, the angle of the bottom of the shoe
would reflect off the white rather than the red.
Q. Well, Mr. Groden, the red reflection goes all the way back down
here, doesn't it? This is your slide, sir.
A. Yeah.
Q. The reflection goes --
A. It could be lightened up to show it better.
Q. There you go.
(Elmo readjusted.)
Q. The red reflection goes how far back?
A. The red reflection goes on the outside extending beyond the edge
of the shoe back to the bottom back into the shadowy area.
Q. Almost to the heel?
A. Yes.
Q. You're saying that that entire shoe is -- entire part of the shoe
is over the line?
A. No, the -- no, the entire part we're talking about the reflection
of the edge here.
Q. You're mathematics tells you that shoe and that position should
be reflecting white?
A. It's my opinion it should be, yes.
Q. Now, the lens that was used by Mr. Scull was a long lens, right?
A. Yes.
Q. One of those long lenses that you see photographers use at
football games?
A. Yes.
Q. 500 millimeter lens. And that kind of lens when you use it
compresses space, right?
A. Yes, it's called foreshortening.
Q. Right. The distance between objects seems much smaller than they
actually are?
A. Depending on the distance from the camera, yes.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that if -- even if that foot is
entirely over the red, it should still be reflecting white?
A. Based on the angle, I believe it should be reflecting white.
Q. Okay. And what do you mean by based on the angle?
A. Well, we're not talking about a ricochet effect where we're going
this way and bouncing off to the far end. We're talking about a
reflective situation that you see through a mirror, the mirror
bounces off at a specific angle, as with the bottom of the shoe, if
in fact there is any legitimate reflection at all.
Q. Do you think there should be some reflection?
A. On the bottom of a shoe of that color, I would doubt it. I
certainly doubt that it would, though, the way it does in this
photograph.
Q. Okay. I just want to be clear what you're saying. Now, you agree,
sir, the shadow of the shoe in that picture is entirely in the red,
right?
A. The shadow that -- which we see a shadow is, yes, but the shadow
is much shorter than the actual shoe. And considering the lighting,
I think that if it were a direct single point of light, it would
extend farther and into the light.
Q. Whatever shadow there is is entirely on the red, there's no
shadow on the white?
A. Right.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, would you put up the next slide, the next one
for him, but on the left shoe, showing the red extending beyond the
sole.
MR. FOSTER: Number 6.
MR. GELBLUM: This is 2282, number --
MR. FOSTER: 6.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And so you also have a problem with the left
shoe, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Correct. And your problem here is that --
MR. GELBLUM: That's not -- that's not the right one. Sorry. Number
9. Number 9.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The problem here is you say that the red extends
beyond both the right sole and the left heel?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that could just be a printing issue, couldn't it, sir?
A. Can you restate that.
Q. Yeah. You're aware that colors can be changed very easily in a
printing process, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You can make this whole photo green if you wanted to?
A. Sure.
Q. Okay. And if there's too much red in the printing, that could
cause this kind of effect, couldn't it?
A. No, I wouldn't think so, not based on the rest of the photograph.

Q. And diffused reflection that we discussed before could also cause
this effect, right?
A. But it doesn't anywhere else on the shoes.
Q. But it could cause it on the shoes -- well, the shoes are closest
to the reflective surface?
A. If you got the reflective surface itself which has no such
effect --
Q. Sir, try to answer my question.
A. I think I just did.
Q. No, I don't think you did.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to Mr. Gelblum --
MR. GELBLUM: I object to the witness not answering the questions.
THE COURT: Okay. Answer the question.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The shoes are closest to the reflective surface,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And couldn't the red that you see be a result of the reflection
from the surrounding surfaces?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I think not.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You don't think it's possible?
A. I don't think that's what we're seeing. It extends beyond the
physical surface itself.
Q. Okay. Would you agree that the general lighting in this
photograph is from the back -- roughly from the back?
MR. GELBLUM: I'll put up the whole photograph. You can take that
down.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The light seems to be coming from his right and
behind a little bit?
A. No, I can't agree with that at all.
Q. Okay. In any event, sir, are you aware that the kind of red aura
that you claim to see in that picture is something that happens with
back-lit objects?
A. Under certain lighting and atmospheric circumstances, I guess it
could.
Q. Okay.
A. Why only one picture? Why not all the rest?
Q. We've already discussed, sir, that this is the only picture on
the whole roll where somebody is walking and on a red surface,
haven't we?
A. No, I don't believe we have.
Q. You do have memory problems?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled. He testified to that at the last session he
was a witness at.
A. Yes, I have problems with memory.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Quite severe sometimes, right?
A. It happens.
Q. Let me go on to the next point. You said something about you had
a problem with the exposure, right, exposure between various
photographs?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, exposure in a photograph depends on, oh, a whole host of
factors, right?
A. Yes.
Q. The size of the opening of the shutter when it's open is one
factor?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And amount of time the shutter is open?
A. When you say shutter, you mean aperture?
Q. Aperture.
A. Okay.
Q. The time that the shutter is open?
A. That's correct.
Q. The film speed?
A. Yes.
Q. The amount of light at the moment the photo is clicked?
A. That's correct.
Q. All sorts of things?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Now, you've taken lots of pictures in your life, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've had pictures where some of the pictures on the roll
are exposed properly and some are not exposed properly?
A. That's correct.
Q. You've even had situations where you got a good exposure followed
by bad exposure followed by good exposure, right?
A. Depending on the camera, yes.
Q. Now, what you said about this on direct examination -- I'm going
to read it. I want to make sure we get it exactly right.
MR. GELBLUM: It's page 194, Mr. Leonard, from December 18.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object unless there can be a foundation
laid with this inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: Are you there?
MR. LEONARD: 194?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes, lines 3 to 11.
MR. LEONARD: Of the trial testimony?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes. It says, "The ones near Mr. Simpson" -- I'm sorry,
could you put up 1832 again.
MR. FOSTER: The same?
MR. GELBLUM: 1832, the contact sheet, yes.
(Exhibit 1832 is displayed.)
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM)
(Reading:). The ones near Mr. Simpson are extremely overexposed and
they're the only ones that are overexposed, indicating that perhaps
someone had tried, at some point, to balance frames of him to the
mean roll and perhaps did not bother to make any kind of a
correction around the ones close to him. It's conjecture, but there
is a problem with that because the exposures are so dead on for all
the rest. Do you recall that testimony?
A. Pretty much, yes.
Q. And the one from Mr. Simpson is dead on, too, right?
A. Can -- can we focus that and top light it.
(Elmo is adjusted.)
Q. Okay. Mr. Groden, the exposure from Mr. Simpson is dead on as
well? That was the point of your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, sir, isn't it true that, unless you're looking for
conspiracies everywhere you go in life, to the extent there's any
problem with the exposures in this, the problem is that the two that
are overexposed -- are overexposed, that's the only problem, isn't
it?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Yeah. The only problem with the exposures on
this contact sheet is that these two, numbers 2 and 3, are
overexposed, that's the only problem, right? The other exposures,
including the one of Mr. Simpson, are perfectly exposed, right?
A. Yes, they're all normal except those two.
Q. Now, when Mr. Simpson was -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Leonard was
examining you, you added another point that you didn't make at your
deposition having to do with moisture. Do you recall that?
A. In response to a question?
Q. Yes, from Mr. Leonard.
A. I believe, if I remember correctly, I was asked whether I noticed
any moisture on the shoe or on the field, and I answered as I
recall.
Q. No, no, you answered more than that. You answered you would have
expected to see some moisture on the side or sole of the shoe or
even some splashing where the heel hit the ground. Do you recall
that?
A. Based on the representation that it had been raining that
morning, yes.
Q. Yeah. Who made that representation to you?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, did you talk to any defense lawyer besides Mr. Leonard?
A. I've spoken with several of them.
Q. Which one told you it was raining that morning, sir?
A. I don't recall. As I remember, it was -- I was told it -- or it
was in the deposition somewhere along the line.
Q. Well, I'll tell you it wasn't in the deposition. Okay. Who told
you?
A. I don't recall.
Q. When did they tell you?
A. I don't recall that either.
Q. After the deposition, right?
A. Again, I don't recall.
MR. GELBLUM: Want to put up 2291 again, please.
(Exhibit 2291 is displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You didn't mention this point at the deposition,
did you?
A. Wasn't a major point for me.
Q. Well, please answer -- listen to my question and the answers will
go much faster. You didn't mention it in the deposition, did you?
A. The answer is no.
Q. Yet you said in court, on that stand that it was one of the first
things you looked for when you went to Buffalo, right? Do you recall
that?
A. I don't recall saying that, no.
Q. You went to Buffalo before the deposition, didn't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. You never mentioned this at the deposition, did you?
A. About moisture?
Q. Yeah.
A. No.
Q. In fact, Mr. Leonard is the one who told you to mention it on the
stand?
A. I don't know.
Q. That's a point he told you to make?
A. I was asked during the testimony if I saw any moisture. I said
no.
Q. You were prepared for that, sir, weren't you? You didn't hear
that for the first time on the stand?
A. I told you I heard that it had been wet on the field.
Q. Mr. Leonard, before you testified, told you to make a point of
saying that there was no evidence of moisture, right?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: The answer may remain.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This is a whole kind of different point. Your
other points have to do with photographic anomalies?
A. That's correct.
Q. This isn't a photographic anomaly, is it?
A. No.
Q. You don't expect to see moisture if the field was in fact wet?
A. That's correct.
Q. You have no personal information whatsoever about the field was
wet at the time that picture was taken, do you?
A. No.
Q. You weren't there, right?
A. Of course not.
Q. You never physically observed, visually observed anything
yourself -- anything yourself to show you that the field was wet,
have you?
A. No.
Q. You looked at the whole contact sheet, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Nobody else's shoes are wet, are they?
A. No.
Q. Nobody else splashing around there?
A. No.
Q. So why would you expect to see Mr. Simpson's shoes wet?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. This is argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) So why would you expect Mr. Simpson's shoes to
be wet, sir?
A. I heard that it had been raining, I don't remember from where,
but I would have expected that if it had been raining, his shoes
would have been wet. It's not --
Q. Sir, when you looked at other contact sheets, nobody else's shoes
are wet, are they?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object, argumentative, asked and
answered.
THE COURT: You've gone through that twice.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you talk to a single person that was at the
game?
A. No.
Q. You talk to Mr. Simpson?
A. No.
Q. So obviously, if the field was not wet, you wouldn't expect to
see moisture, would you?
A. No.
Q. Now, I want to try and figure out exactly what you're saying
about this picture, sir. By the way, have I listed all the points
you made about the picture that make you think that it's probably a
fake?
A. All the points that we discussed, yes, I believe so.
Q. I want you to tell the jury what you think was faked on this
picture. Are you telling the jury, sir -- I'll withdraw that
question. Are you telling the jury that somebody went in and put new
shoes on a picture of Mr. Simpson?
A. That's a possibility, yes.
Q. Is that what you're telling the jury?
A. I'm saying it's a possibility, yes.
Q. Are you saying that's what happened?
A. I'm saying it's a possibility.
Q. Are you saying somebody put new pants on Mr. Simpson?
A. Partial. It is possible. Partial. I don't think that somebody put
a whole new set of pants.
Q. You are aware Mr. Simpson admitted, when he was sitting in the
same chair you're sitting in, the top part of the picture is, in
fact, a picture of him, his head, his upper torso, his hands, his
tie, his shirt, his jacket?
A. I was not present for his testimony.
Q. Assume that's true.
A. If you want me to assume it --
Q. Assuming that's true, what you're saying is that you think
there's a possibility that somebody went in and took an existing
picture of Mr. Simpson at that game, on that field, and put new
pants and new shoes on his body? Is that what you're saying?
A. That's a possibility.
Q. A one percent possibility?
A. I'd say a very large possibility. I can't -- I can't quantify
that.
Q. What? What quantity?
A. I can't. I just told you.
Q. More than 50?
A. I'd say much more than 50.
Q. More than 60?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 65?
A. You're playing games, aren't you? I'm sorry --
Q. Mr. Groden, you're up here in a very important trial.
THE COURT: Just a minute. You don't need that.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, more than 65 percent?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 70 percent?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 75 percent?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 80 percent?
A. Would you give me the question one more time, exactly as you
phrased it.
Q. If somebody went and took a picture of Mr. Simpson --
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- that had been taken on September 26, 1993, in that location,
the end zone of Rich Stadium in Buffalo, and put on new pants and
new shoes.
A. I'm saying it's an extremely high possibility. I would say, to
stop this, I would say greater than a 90 percent probability either
the pants and/or the shoes were -- or the shoes alone were
changed. If indeed that was a legitimate picture of Mr. Simpson in
the first place.
Q. Well, let's -- we'll find out what your opinion is. Was it a
legitimate picture of Mr. Simpson in the first place? Bear in mind,
sir, Mr. Simpson has admitted that the top part of the picture is in
fact a picture of him wearing those clothes at that game.
A. I have no way of knowing whether there was a legitimate picture
like this prior to this or not.
Q. What do you mean?
A. If this picture is a composite, as I believe it to be, the whole
thing could have been manufactured. I don't know that -- there could
have been a whole separate picture of Mr. Simpson that I'm not even
aware of. I don't know.
Q. Taken where, on Mars?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Taken where?
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Taken where?
A. I don't know.
Q. Mr. Simpson -- we have a videotape that we showed of Mr. Simpson
at the game. Would you like to see it?
A. I don't care.
Q. At the game -- did you see the videotape?
A. Yes.
Q. You've seen the videotape. He's wearing the same tie and the same
shirt and the same jacket and the same pants. Have you seen that
videotape?
A. Yes. The tonal values of the tie are different, but I would
probably say it's probably the same outfit.
Q. Well, Mr. Simpson said it's the same, so he ought to know.
A. I don't doubt it.
Q. Okay. Given all that, you still think that this was not a picture
taken at this game on this day?
A. I have no way of knowing. I didn't take the picture. You want me
to assume that I know for a fact that it was taken that day, I don't
know that.
Q. You're being passed off to this jury as a photo expert. We're
entitled to your opinion about what's going on with this picture.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. This witness was qualified by you
as an expert in a hearing. I object to passed off. I think it's
argumentative; it also misstates the state of the record.
THE COURT: The record is that I am not vouching for this or any
other expert put on by anybody, and I don't think that's an
appropriate comment for you to leave with the jury. I'm not vouching
for any expert, whether it's the plaintiff expert or defense expert.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to this remark, passed off. I
object to that.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, in your expert --
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'd like a ruling.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) In your expert opinion, sir, was this a
photograph taken of Mr. Simpson at this football game on this day in
this end zone and somebody went back and put new shoes and pants on
him?
A. And/or pants, yes. It's my opinion --
Q. And --
A. It's my opinion that it could very well have been a legitimate
photograph initially; in other words, there may have been a
photograph of him that has in some way been altered.
Q. And in some way -- is it greater than 90 percent chance that the
way it was altered -- that new pants and new shoes were put on him?
A. New pants and/or --
Q. Well --
A. -- certainly --
Q. Is there --
A. I would say certainly shoes, yes, or -- or if, in fact, they're
the shoes, have not been changed, that they have been altered in
some way.
Q. It's a very important point, sir. I want to be specific. Are you
saying there's a greater than 90 percent chance that somebody put
new shoes on this picture of Mr. Simpson?
A. Based on my analysis of the photograph, I would say yes.
Q. And what were the original shoes?
A. I have no idea.
Q. But they weren't these, right, wouldn't make any sense to replace
the same shoes, right?
A. No.
Q. And one of the points you made and missed, but I will, that this
is the first frame on the roll, remember mentioning that with Mr.
Leonard?
A. Um-hum. Yes.
Q. And you found that significant 'cause that's the easiest to
alter, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So by pointing out that this is the first frame on the roll, sir,
are you trying to tell this jury that what happened was, on
September 26, 1993, Mr. Scull took a photograph of Mr. Simpson,
making sure it was head to toe, making sure it was the first one on
the roll, the prime position for alteration, 'cause he knew that
nine months later somebody would kill Mr. Simpson's former wife and
Ronald Lyle Goldman and leave bloody shoe prints in Mr. Simpson's
size 12 in an extraordinarily rare shoe type to this, so that Mr.
Scull would have a picture that was in prime position to go in and
put those Bruno Magli shoes on Mr. Simpson? Is that what you're
saying?
A. Of course not.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GELBLUM: Excuse me one minute, Your Honor.
(Pause.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, when we were here last time, you talked a
little bit in the course of reading the deposition excerpt that one
of the things you had done recently in looking at whether a
photograph was altered or not in another situation was you saw a
picture of a road sign in Dealey Plaza where Mr. Kennedy was shot
purported to show a bullet hole in it?
A. That's correct.
Q. One of the reasons you were suspicious about that, you had seen
other photographs of that road sign taken on that day and had never
seen a bullet hole before?
A. I don't know that they testified to that, but it is accurate,
yes.
Q. So one thing that you do when you're determining authenticity of
a photograph is to see whether you can find other photographs of the
same object, the same scene, the same day, to see whether what
you're looking at is in those photographs as well?
A. That would be part of it, yes.
Q. So if there were other photographs of Mr. Simpson taken on this
same day, at this same game, in this same stadium, and he's wearing
the same outfit, and they're taken by a different photographer, with
a different camera, and he's wearing the same pants and same shoes,
that would affect your opinion, wouldn't it, sir?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object. There's a lack of
foundation basis. Same basis for the objection I made prior as well.

MR. GELBLUM: We'll tie it up.
THE COURT: Based on the affidavit or declaration filed on this -- in
support of plaintiffs' position, motion overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you answer the question, please.
A. Will you finish -- will you repeat the question or finish it.
Q. Sir, if there were other photographs of Mr. Simpson taken on
the same day, September 26, 1993, in the same stadium, same football
game, different camera, different photographer, and Mr. Simpson has
the same clothes on, same jacket, same tie, same shirt, same belt,
same pants, same shoes, wouldn't that compel you to conclude that
your testimony that these shoes have been put on is wrong?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) It wouldn't?
A. It would not change what I found in the photograph.
Q. You've answered the question.
A. I did.
Q. Let me show you some photographs, sir.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, this is outside the scope. Also, based on
the previous answer, these are irrelevant at this point.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) See a photograph here of Mr. Simpson with five
other gentlemen standing on a football field?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And here's an enlargement of the bottom half of that
photograph. Do you see that? Do you see the shoes Mr. Simpson is
wearing?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Show you some more.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, these are our only prints. If I may, I'd
like to pass them around to the jury once Mr. Groden has looked at
them.
THE COURT: If you want to. Mark them.
MR. GELBLUM: I'll mark the first one, the group photo --
MR. FOSTER: 2295.
MR. GELBLUM: 2295.
(The instrument herein described as a group photo was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2295.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Does 2295 change your opinion, sir?
A. About what I found?
Q. About whether -- about your opinion that somebody added shoes to
Mr. Scull's photograph.
A. Doesn't change my opinion at all.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: Mark the next one, which is an enlargement of the
bottom half of 2295. That's 2296.
(The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of
Exhibit 2295 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2296.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I ask you if that one changes your opinion, sir?

A. Does not.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: Mark next in order a photograph of Mr. Simpson signing
an autograph for the white-haired gentleman with the blue jacket
with a camera in his hand. It's 2297. That shows Mr. Simpson's
shoes.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with
a white-haired gentleman in a blue jacket with a camera in his hand
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2297.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2297 --
MR. GELBLUM: Which we'll mark as 2298.
(The instrument herein described as enlargement of bottom half of
Exhibit 2297 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2298.)
Q. I ask you if 2298 changes your opinion?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. Show you another photograph of Mr. Simpson with another one of
the gentlemen who were in 2295, this gentleman is wearing a blue
shirt, blue pants and a dark blue jacket and brown shoes.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark that next in order.
THE CLERK: 2299.
MR. GELBLUM: 2299.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with
a gentleman wearing a blue shirt, blue pants and a dark blue jacket
and brown shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2299.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. It does not.
Q. And I'll show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2299.
MR. GELBLUM: Which will be 2300.
(The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of
Exhibit 2299 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2300.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion, your
opinion being that somebody went in and added Bruno Magli shoes to
Mr. Scull's photograph?
A. Does not change my opinion at all.
Q. Show you another photograph of another gentlemen who's in the
overall picture.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark this as 2301. This gentleman has his jacket
buttoned, he's wearing tan slacks and a brown plaid jacket.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with
a gentleman wearing a brown plaid jacket and tan slacks was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2301.)
Q. I ask you if 2301 changes your opinion?
A. Does not.
Q. And I'll show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2301.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark that 2302.
(The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of
Exhibit 2301 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2302.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. Does not.
Q. Finally, sir, I'll show you two contact sheets.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark the first one as 2303, the contact sheet on
which these enlargements appear, and on this contact sheet, 2303,
there are a total of 27 images of Mr. Simpson with these various
gentlemen, all of which show Mr. Simpson's feet and shoes.
(The instrument herein described as a contact sheet containing 27
images of Mr. Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2303.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. Nope.
MR. GELBLUM: And finally, it's -- 2304, another contact sheet, in
the same game as the first three photographs, making a total of 30
photographs of Mr. Simpson with shoes on.
(The instrument herein described as a contact sheet containing 30
photographs of Mr. Simpson was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2304.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. Does not.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: May I pass these to the jury, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: I'm going to put the contact sheets on top because
they're smaller.
(Jurors review exhibits.)
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, these photographs haven't been admitted
into evidence.
THE COURT: I'll let the jury review them --
MR. GELBLUM: We'll tie them up.
THE COURT: -- On the representation and declaration filed by
plaintiff.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Groden, you noticed, I assume, that in
these photographs Mr. Simpson has a handkerchief in his pocket?
A. That's correct.
Q. He doesn't have one in the photograph of him wearing the shoes
that Mr. Scull took?
A. That's correct.
Q. You know he does have the handkerchief in the videotape?
A. I don't recall the videotape.
Q. Did you see any sign of moisture on any of these photographs I
just showed you?
A. Yes.
Q. You did. Where was that, sir?
A. The --
Q. Which one would you like?
A. I'm not sure which one it was. This one. 2302.
(Witness indicates to Exhibit 2302.)
Q. You're pointing to darker spots on the leather?
A. Yes, which could well be moisture. It's a possibility.
Q. You see any moisture on the field?
A. Nope.
Q. And you don't know what those dark spots are?
A. No.
Q. Could this be a difference in the brush of the leather, could be
a number of things, right, sir?
A. Could be any number of things. On 2300 it shows it as well.
Q. It being the darker spots on the shoes?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you knew about these photos before you took the stand
today, right?
A. I heard about them, yes.
Q. And you discussed them with Mr. Leonard before you took the
stand, didn't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. You discussed what you're going to say about them?
A. No.
Q. You discussed the pictures?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, your bottom line opinion, sir, on the photograph of Mr.
Scull -- by Mr. Scull showing Mr. Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli
shoes, is that you think on balance it's probably not genuine, it's
probably a fake, but you're not sure; isn't that correct?
A. No one could be 100 percent sure.
Q. Please answer my question.
A. On balance, yes.
Q. But you're not sure, correct?
A. No.
Q. Am I correct that you're not sure?
A. If you're asking yes or no, the answer is yes, I, to a massive
degree of certainty, am sure that they are faked.
MR. GELBLUM: Would you put up the deposition, please. This is page
14, lines 5 to 12.
A. Massive is the wrong word. I would say overwhelming.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Say whatever you want. Right now, sir, I'm going
to look at your deposition.
(Reading:)
Q. Your bottom line opinion here is that you observed what you
perceive are some problems with the negative?
A. Yes.
Q. That leads you to think that on balance it's probably not
genuine, it's probably a fake, But you're not sure. Is that fair?
A. I'd say that that's accurate, yeah. Now, particularly after
seeing these new photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing the same shoes,
isn't it particularly clear that you're not sure about these, about
Mr. Scull's photos?
A. It doesn't change my opinion, no.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case, don't form or express an opinion.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Groden?
A. Good morning.
Q. Before we get into some of the substance here I want to go
through, based on some of Mr. Gelblum's questions in
cross-examination, some of your background again. Mr. Gelblum asked
you on cross-examination about your experience in the military and
particularly the reason for and the basis for your leaving the
military. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the jury -- can you explain to the jury why you left
the military?
A. A sergeant in my company was drunk and beat me up and to keep it
under the rug, they gave me a discharge because of an existing sinus
problem that I had that they weren't able to deal with. That was the
excuse, but the real reason was, in fact, I had been beaten up by
the sergeant.
Q. Why did this sergeant beat you up, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, speculation, relevance.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Overruled. You opened it.
A. The sergeant was anti-Semitic and I'm Jewish.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, do you think that the fact that you were
beaten up -- by the way, how old were you, sir?
A. 18.
Q. Do you think the fact that you were beaten up when you were 18
years old by an anti-Semitic sergeant has anything to do with your
ability to observe the phenomena that you observed and also to
explain them to the jury?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Mr. Gelblum asked you about strokes that you had had. How did you
happen to have strokes, can you explain that to the jury?
A. About two years ago I was walking in a parking lot and slipped on
a patch of ice and hit my head, which precipitated a series of
strokes.
Q. And from time to time have you some memory problems as a result
of that; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you think that has affected your ability whatsoever to analyze
the photograph and to explain your analysis to the jury?
A. Not at all.
Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum got into some extent your experience with the
House Assassination Committee. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. I asked you in some detail what your role was, correct, do you
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And in particular he was asking you if you had done any actual
analysis of photographs on behalf of, or in conjunction with your
work with the Kennedys, do you remember those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in fact, did you do a photo analysis?
A. Yes.
Q. At some point, there was a panel of photographic experts,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you were working in conjunction -- you weren't a member
of the panel, you were working in conjunction with the panel; is
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And was there -- did there come a time when a proficiency test
was undertaken of the panel and that you participated in that? In
other words, a test to determine the proficiency of the experts and
also yourself in analyzing and determining whether the photographs
are fake or real?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Describe just in very general terms that proficiency test
that was done?
A. A few members of the photo panel were assigned to create four
sets of photographs, genuine photographs that look genuine, genuine
photographs that appear to be fake, fake photographs that appear
genuine, and fake photographs that were obviously fake. And the set
of all four of those were placed as a package, they were numbered
and packaged, and a written test was given to the entire photo panel
and myself to determine the ability to detect phonies and to detect
fake phonies, in fact.
Q. How did you do on that test?
A. I got 100 percent.
Q. Did anyone else get 100 percent?
A. No, none of them did.
Q. Mr. Gelblum asked you if you had dropped out of high school. Did
you drop out of high school, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Why was that?
A. We didn't have very much money and my going to school and
remaining there was a strain on my mother. My mother and father had
just separated and it was my sister, myself and my mother, and it
was a real financial drain on her.
Q. When you dropped out of high school is that when you went into
the military?
A. That's correct.
Q. By the way, you have a high school degree, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you get that?
A. When I was in the army I took the general equivalency diploma,
GED test and passed it with flying colors, and also got a year's
college credit the same way.
Q. Does the fact that you had to drop out of high school, you think
that affects your ability to do the analysis you did here and to
explain your results to the jury; you think that affects it at all,
sir?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Gelblum asked you about a situation where you had contributed
to a story to the Globe newspaper. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum, in his questioning, was trying to suggest that
you were --
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Explain to the jury, No. 1, what that -- what
the story was, in general terms, and whether or not it was your
purpose to sell photographs as opposed to the story itself, sir?
A. When I was a staff photographic consultant to the House
Assassinations Committee I had made the discovery that the autopsy
photographs of President Kennedy, at least some of them, were
questionable as to their authenticity based on physical anomalies
within the photograph itself, and my knowledge of the statements of
Dallas doctors who had worked on President Kennedy in the lifesaving
efforts on November 22nd of '63, and also of medical personnel who
had worked on the -- on the president after that time and in
Bethesda Naval Hospital. The photographs did not show what was
described by every one of the doctors. I had gone to the Chief
Counsel of the House Committee which was Professor Blakey and
suggested, very strongly, perhaps it would be a good idea to show
those questionable photographs to the Dallas doctors to determine
their authenticity. For two solid years Professor Blakey refused to
do it. When the committee broke up and didn't exist anymore I was
very disturbed by the fact that this had not been resolved, so I
took copies of autopsy photographs and went to the Dallas doctors
and other witnesses who dealt with the body, including Dealey Plaza
witnesses, and I showed them the photographs, and every single one
of them without exception said that the photographs were indeed
fake, and I then knew that I was correct. And I felt that the public
needed to know this, I thought it was a major issue, and an issue of
the Kennedy assassination.
Q. Now, was -- was the Globe, the Globe newspaper your first choice
of a medium to get this out to the public, sir?
A. No.
Q. Did you -- had you attempted to go to other publications to try
to get this story out to people?
A. Yes.
Q. Were your efforts unsuccessful?
A. They were unsuccessful, yes.
Q. Did you prepare a documentary on this issue of the autopsy
photographs?
A. Yes, a videotape documentary.
Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum also asked you about the backyard photograph of
Oswald; do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You did an analysis of that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. And you came to the opinion that the photograph was fake; is that
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, there was -- there were some people in the committee that
agreed and some that disagreed with regard to that; is that true,
sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. Subsequent to your analysis -- by the way, there are others who
agreed with you in that respect; is that correct?
A. Yes, within the committee. Also photographic experts for the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Scotland Yard have also agreed.
Q. Now, when you were on cross-examination today, you were shown
some photographs of the court to show Mr. Simpson wearing particular
shoes and particular clothing. When was the first time you've ever
seen those photographs?
A. Right here in this courtroom a few minutes ago.
Q. Mr. Gelblum asked you if we had spoken about the photographs. Did
we speak about the photographs?
A. We did.
Q. When was our discussion with regard to the photographs, sir?
A. I believe he asked me if I had seen them, and I had not.
Q. Was it your understanding, sir, that those photographs have just
been miraculously discovered since you testified here last?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is it your understanding, sir, that those
photographs have just arisen for the first time since you testified
here?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
A. That's correct.
MR. GELBLUM: His understanding is irrelevant. Move that his answer
be stricken.
THE COURT: Overruled. State of mind of this witness.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you have any idea, sir, whether those
photographs are authentic or not?
A. None at all.
Q. Do you have any idea who created the photograph, when the
photograph was taken, whether or not the photograph was sold to a
tabloid or anything like that, sir?
A. None at all.
Q. Now, you said to this jury that seeing those photographs for a
short period of time, just glimpsing them does not change your
opinion about your analysis of this photograph. Tell the jury why,
sir.
A. The anomalies, the problems that I found within that photograph
are still there. Existence of other photographs that have not been
verified, which I haven't had a chance to examine, don't change the
fact that the problems of that photograph are there, they certainly
are, and 100 more pictures are not going to change that.
Q. Now, let's get -- let's talk a little bit about a couple of other
points that Mr. Gelblum raised on cross-examination about the
photograph itself.
MR. LEONARD: I'd like to put up the first image, please. I don't
believe this has been marked. Has it? Oh, it has.
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1835.
(Exhibit 1835 displayed.)
MR. LEONARD: Zoom in on the right upper corner.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) First of all, I'd like to --
MR. LEONARD: Pull back, Mr. Baker, if you will.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. LEONARD: Can you give me the number again.
MR. P. BAKER: 1835.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What does 1835 represent, sir?
A. Its a blowup of the frame we've been referring to as 1-1, contact
sheet 1, frame No. 1.
Q. Is there also a portion of the -- very small portion of the
bottom edge or the side edge depending on how you look at it, of
1.2?
A. That's correct. Right at the very top which is almost off the
frame here.
Q. Okay. Now --
A. Yes.
MR. LEONARD: If we can focus in.
(Elmo adjusted.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) All right. Now, you see the vertical line -- and
actually there appears to be two lines; there's one vertical line
that runs -- it appears to run across from 1-1, to 1-2; do you see
that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum suggested in his questioning --
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor, mischaracterizes my question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Have you had a chance to -- you've had a chance
to look at this image, have you not, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. First of all, is there anything about this image that
supports your opinion that this first, that 1.1 is -- is out of
register? That is, that 1.1 is not aligned with 1.2?
A. Yes, definitely.
Q. Can you demonstrate that to us. You can step down with the
Court's permission.
MR. LEONARD: Can the witness step down?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
A. It's extremely obvious here without -- without even measuring it,
though I guess we could measure it if we want to, that the
difference between -- the space between the scratch itself and the
edge of frame 1-1 is much closer than it is on 1-2. 1-2 is, I'd say,
probably twice as far away from the scratch, indicating even better
than a straight edge that it's out of alignment.
Q. Okay. Now, of course, that assumes that that scratch is straight,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, if this is -- if this is supposed to be a mechanical
scratch from a camera, okay, would you assume that it would be
straight?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: If you can pull the photograph back, please, all the
way back, please.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, utilizing this same image, sir, is there
another way that you can demonstrate the fact that this negative or
this frame is out of line, out of register?
A. Yes. It's kind of difficult here because you can't see the
sprocket holes, but by measuring the sprocket holes to the edge of
the frame the picture is measurably closer to the sprocket holes on
the right side as we view it than it is on the left.
MR. LEONARD: If you can focus in on the --
A. There we go. Now you can see it.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, if you point out the outline of the
sprocket hole, sir, in particular the left edge of the sprocket
hole.
A. Can we try to focus a little more. Great. Okay. This is the left
edge of the sprocket hole here and this is the edge of the frame.
Q. Okay. Now, can you go down to the left-hand corner. Now --
A. Okay.
Q. Directing your attention to the edge of the sprocket hole there.
A. It's right here. Right here.
(Indicating.)
Q. And the edge of the frame?
A. Right here.
(Indicating.)
Q. Now, the distance between the -- that distance is larger than the
distance on the right-hand side, that is the same measurement that
is from the edge of the sprocket hole to the edge of the frame; is
that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: You can pull back.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
Q. Now, you were asked questions about whether or not the negative
could be out of line or out of register by virtue or as a result of
some play or movement in the film; is that correct? Do you remember
that?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. And you expressed an opinion that it wouldn't be possible for it
to be that out of line; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Again, I want you to assume now that for purposes of my question
that, in fact, the line along the right-hand side between the
sprocket hole and the edge of the film is a mechanical scratch from
the camera. Are you with me?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Does -- Would you expect the -- if there was movement in
the film would you expect that line, that scratch to be straight,
sir?
A. Yes. You'd expect it to run -- well, the length of the film.
Q. Okay. If there was movement, if there was play in the film and
the film was jiggling, would you expect that line to be straight or
would you expect that there would be indicia of the movement within
the scratch, sir?
A. If the film were shifting from a -- running horizontally, it's
shifting top to bottom, would you expect the scratch to be diagonal
by the degree that the frames would be out, and that's not the case.

Q. In other words, what we have here is --
MR. LEONARD: If you can focus in on the right-hand side of the
image, please.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You see the -- what appears to be a blue lining
there, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. What you're saying is that if the camera was moving you'd expect
to see a shift in the line; is that correct?
A. That's correct. In order for the -- in order for the frame to
have been off because of film movement, you would expect that that
line would be diagonal in the same direction as the shift of the
frame.
Q. So if it was shifting to the right you'd expect some shifting in
the line; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you see any there, sir?
A. No.
Q. Now, if -- let's assume that that is a scratch from the camera in
question, all right, the camera that was actually used to take
whatever image was there before. If you were going to create a copy
negative, a composite negative, and you wanted to hide your tracks
would you use the same camera, sir?
A. Well, you'd have to if you expected that it would be
investigated, yes.
Q. Why?
A. Well, scratches from a camera could be I guess compared to
fingerprints; they should be unique or unique to some degree to each
camera. In other words, if there's a manufacturing flaw in one
particular camera, a burr, for instance, that could cause a scratch
and you wouldn't expect to find that on every camera.
Q. So you -- and so what would be the purpose again for using the
same camera, sir?
A. Again, and we saw this happen in the investigation of the
backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, scratches were determined
to be linked to that particular camera. And in this particular case,
if indeed these are scratches, that could be linked to that camera,
you would want to have those scratches on the -- on the film.
Q. Now, assuming that you're making a copy, composite negative, and
you want to cover your tracks, what do you do with the camera once
you -- what would you do with the camera once you created the copy
negative?
A. You get rid of it.
Q. What did Scull say happened to the camera in this case in his
deposition, sir?
A. He claimed it was stolen.
Q. Okay. You didn't have a chance to look at the original camera,
did you?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: You can put up the -- take that down. Yeah.
MR. P. BAKER: No. 3 of 2282.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, can you tell us what this depicts, sir?
A. This is frame 1-1 from the contact sheet showing the edge of the
film against the edge of the contact sheet itself.
Q. Okay.
A. And --
Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A. I would just say it has one horizontal line and several vertical
lines.
Q. Now, you were asked on -- on cross-examination if that could be
actually a photographic image on -- on what would be I guess 00, and
in particular the photographic image of the football field. Can you
explain to the jury how that is impossible, sir?
A. Well, for several reasons.
Q. If you need to focus why don't you direct Mr. Baker's attention.
A. Okay. Mr. Baker, if you could just kind of come in and make this
as large as possible, side to side, I'd appreciate it.
MR. P. BAKER: That's as high as it goes.
MR. LEONARD: Just focus in. That's the highest focus. All right.
Okay. That's fine.
A. Can I come down?
Q. Sure.
A. Upon the suggestion of Mr. Gelblum that this might be the
football field, I have spent a little more time checking this out
because it sounds so ridiculous and I found out that in fact it
could not be that. No. 1, if this is the edge of an incoming frame
line as he's suggesting, how is it that the so-called lines of the
football field extend beyond the edge of the frame where no light
could possibly hit. No. 1.
Q. Okay.
A. No. 2, these lines are random.
Q. What do you mean by that, sir?
A. They are not an equal distance from each other.
Q. What do you know about a football field that makes that point
relevant, sir?
A. Well, how would you know how far the ball had traveled if you
didn't have an accurate measurement between the lines. They would
have to be an equal distance from each other. They'd have to have a
vanishing point. If these were parallel lines and if the
photographer were shooting away, either on purpose or by accident,
there would be a vanishing point which is --
MR. LEONARD: Why don't you -- let's put -- we can illustrate that.
Why don't you put up -- with the Court's permission, I can put up
the drawing pad.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) There's a marker.
A. There's one right there.
Q. Okay.
A. No matter what the focal lengths of the lens is, whether it's a
wide angle lens like a 28 or 35 millimeter or a normal lens like a
50 to 85 millimeter or a wide angle lens -- I'm sorry, a telephoto
lens like a 500, 1500, something of that nature, I end up with
something called a vanishing point. That's something used in art as
well as photography, and that is at some point away from the lens
you're going to have a point where parallel lines run together. If
you stand on a railroad track and look towards the distance they
tend to run together, and the point where they disappear and become
one line is call the vanishing point. If the camera lens is here and
aiming this way, and there are lines on a football field they would
appear like this, and depending on the focal length of the lens they
would still all run together. These are absolutely parallel. So
that's another problem with it. The third problem is that they are
far too sharp and they're too narrow. Lines on the football field
would be much wider than this. The other problem is that these are
blue and lines on the football field would be white. There's
probably other problems too, but I think the major problem is that
this image falls outside of where the frame line would be. That's a
photographic impossibility.
Q. You can resume the stand.
A. Thank you.
Q. Is there anything, sir, that has been discussed on your
cross-examination including the photographs that you were shown for
the first time that changes your opinion at all with regard to this
photograph?
A. None at all, no.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
MR. GELBLUM: Just a few, Your Honor. Put 1832 up, please.
(Exhibit 1832 displayed.) RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
A. Last point. We were just talking about, Mr. Groden, would be a
what you call the disappearing point.
MR. PETROCELLI: Vanishing.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The vanishing point?
A. Yes.
Q. If you're looking at lines from the sideline, if you're looking
at the lines as they're going around from you?
A. Yes.
Q. If you're looking at the lines so you're perpendicular to the
lines --
MR. GELBLUM: Can you focus on line -- on No. 12, please.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) If you're looking at the lines across the field,
rather on the field, looking down the field --
MR. GELBLUM: Can you sharpen the lines in here, please, Steve, if
you can.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) There's no vanishing point, is there?
A. There's the equivalent of a vanishing point.
Q. What happens -- you said the lines get closer together as you go
back, right?
A. Equal distance, closer together, right.
MR. GELBLUM: Take that down, Steve.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, by the way, on that same point, we talked
before the -- before the break we were talking about that image, we
were talking about what could happen on the frame numbered 0,
remember that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And I asked you if there was a zero zero and you said no,
that's silly, just a 0?
A. No, I said -- you said zero zero zero.
Q. There is a zero zero?
A. There is a zero, there is a zero zero.
Q. You saw that on these contact sheets?
A. No, I didn't look.
Q. You want to look?
A. If you like.
Q. Your see a zero zero?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Leonard asked you a whole bunch of questions about the
scratches. Are you now conceding that that blue line is in fact a
scratch, sir?
A. I'm not conceding it. I'm saying if it is a scratch then there
are certain issues that relate to it.
Q. If it is a scratch that supports your point about alignment,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. But if it's not a scratch it doesn't support your point about
alignment, right, at least that mark doesn't, right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, Your Honor, lack of foundation, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. My point as to the alignment doesn't rely on that scratch, it's
just a point. You said it was a scratch, you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Well, you just went through a whole series of
questions with Mr. Leonard about the scratch. Remember that he
called it a scratch. If this is a scratch, if it is a scratch,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Remember that?
A. Oh, sure.
Q. Is it a scratch?
A. I don't think that it's a scratch. It appears there's more than
one.
Q. If it's not a scratch, then everything you just did with Mr.
Leonard -- we can do this outright. Everything you did with Mr.
Leonard about the scratch being equal distance or not equal distance
from the frame?
A. No matter what, it is a parallel line to the sprocket holes.
Therefore, it still proves the point whether there's a scratch or
not.
Q. You just don't know whether it's a scratch or not?
A. No.
Q. Now, you talked about the strokes you had which were caused by a
fall?
A. That's correct.
Q. At a Toyota dealership?
A. That's correct.
Q. That also affected your vision, didn't it?
A. It affected my -- Yes.
Q. Blurriness in your right eye?
A. Yes. Actually, a slightly detached retina.
Q. Now, you said that the -- I think you said something about if you
saw 100 new photos of Mr. Simpson wearing the same shoes, that it
wouldn't make a difference to you in your analysis of the Scull
photo?
A. Doesn't change my mind.
Q. Doesn't change that you say you saw a retouching mark, you say
you saw a problem with the length, and all those things we went
through, right?
A. Yes.
Q. On at least some of them you said there could be an innocent
explanation like exposures, this could be a scratch as opposed to
some other problem, right?
A. Theoretically.
Q. Okay. So if you see 100 other photos or 30 other photos of Mr.
Simpson wearing this same exact outfit including the same exact
shoes, doesn't that have some bearing on your opinion -- on your
conclusion that you draw from these observations that somebody added
shoes to the Scull photo?
A. I don't know that those are the same shoes. I don't know.
Q. Assume for a second they're the same shoes, okay. Please assume
they're the same shoes.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I --
MR. GELBLUM: I want to ask a hypothetical to this.
MR. LEONARD: There's no basis for that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll tie it up.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Assume they're the same shoes, Mr. Groden,
assume we've seen 30 other photographs with those shoes. Doesn't
that affect your opinion that the Scull photo -- somebody put new
shoes on the Scull photo?
A. It doesn't affect at all what I found in the photographs; the
anomalies are there.
Q. You're not answering my question. I'm asking about the conclusion
that you draw from the anomalies. Let's assume for a second that you
really saw everything that you say you saw, retouching marks, blue
lines, length issues, all that stuff, let's say you saw all that,
If, however, you see 30 other photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing
those shoes, doesn't that cause you to pause a little bit and say
wait, maybe there's some other explanation for those observations
I saw, other than somebody putting new shoes on him, because here's
30 other pictures of him with those same shoes; yes or no?
A. If I were able to authenticate the other photographs as genuine
then it probably would.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Leonard also referred to this -- let me
use the word "miraculous" discovery of those pictures. Do you
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. You're aware, sir, that one of those photographs was published in
November 1993?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) If you were --
MR. LEONARD: I move to strike, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. Did you do any searching of any publications, sir, to see if
there had been any published photos of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno
Magli shoes prior to the murders?
A. No.
Q. Wouldn't that make a difference to you if there were, in fact,
photos of him published prior to any issue arising, what kind of
shoes Mr. Simpson owned before these murders occurred and Bruno
Magli footprints were found at the scene?
A. Again, to answer your question as accurately as I can, it
wouldn't change what I found in that photograph.
Q. Again, Mr. Groden, we're talking about your conclusion that you
have -- you're drawing from what you found in the photograph. Just
as you said, if you found that there were other photographs, if they
were found to be authentic, of Mr. Simpson wearing those shoes, that
might indeed change your conclusion that you draw from your
observations about the shoes being added, if, in fact, you found
that a photograph had been published prior to the murders --
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
Q. -- of Mr. Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli shoes as he's seen
wearing in the Scull photograph, wouldn't that affect the conclusion
you draw from your observations?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, improper, hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. If the photographers -- if I could confirm -- if I confirm that
the photographs are legitimate, and if they can be proven that those
were, in fact, Bruno Magli shoes in the photographs, I would say
that it would affect my -- my overall conclusion.
MR. GELBLUM: No further questions.
THE WITNESS: But --
MR. LEONARD: Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I'd like to move into evidence the
following exhibits: 1832, 1921, 1924, 1930, 2071, 2072, 2076, 2284,
2286 through 2291, and 2295 through 2304.
(The instrument herein described as Photograph of defendant was
Marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1832.)
(The instrument herein described as Photograph was marked for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2072.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1921)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1924)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 1930)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2282.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2284.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2286.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2291.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2295.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2304.)
THE COURT: I'm not going to receive those until --
MR. GELBLUM: Those last ones, okay. Also, there was one I used and I
did not mark when we were here before, which is the article from the
Globe Magazine.
THE COURT: I won't receive that until you authenticate that.
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Groden authenticated that's what he said it was. I
didn't give it a number, what the next -- not Globe article.
MR. LEONARD: We don't have any objection to that.
THE COURT: All right it's received.
THE CLERK: That will be marked as 2305.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
(The instrument herein referred to as Globe publication was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2305.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No 2305.)
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we move in 1832, 1833, 1835, and 2282.
THE COURT: Okay. Received.
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1832 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1833 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1835 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2282 was
received in evidence.)
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Next.
MR. P. BAKER: We're going to read the deposition of Rothcar Rolf.
MR. LEONARD: We need to retrieve an exhibit from the back room. I
get to be the witness this time, Your Honor.
(Selected portions of the deposition of Rothcar Rolf were read by
Defendants' Counsel, Mr. P. Baker reading the questions, and Mr.
Leonard reading the answers.) ROKAHR ROLF, was called as a witness
on behalf of the Defendants, was duly sworn, and testified as
follows:
MR. P. BAKER: Page 5, line 7.
(Reading:)
Q. Can you please state your name for the record.
A. My name is Rokahr, R-o-k-a-h-r, my last name. middle initial.
First name is Rolf, R-o-l-f.
Q. Mr. Rokahr, we're taking this deposition in your home today?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's my understanding that you are going to be moving fairly
soon?
A. I'll be moving in what, two days.
Q. Out of the Los Angeles area?
A. Yes. I will be living up in the Bay area.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 11, line 14.
(Reading:)
Q. As of June of 1994, by whom were you employed?
A. LAPD.
Q. And in what capacity?
A. As a photographer.
Q. And were you called to the O.J. Simpson, or 875 South Bundy crime
scene?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. About what time?
A. I would have to look at some paperwork to see what time the call
came in. But I know I arrived sometime after -- or I left the office
sometime after 2 o'clock in the morning.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 15, line 6.
(Reading:)
Q. Now, can you give me your best estimate as to what time you
arrived at 875 South Bundy?
A. Well, I would say as an estimate, considering the distance,
considering the driving location, which is nothing but freeway all
the way out to West L.
A., I would say about 15 minutes after receiving the call.
Q. If the call was received at 2:48, that would be a little after 3
o'clock?
A. I would say so.
Q. Do you remember where you parked when you got there?
A. I parked right on the corner of -- I'm not sure what it is --
possibly Dorothy and Bundy.
Q. Now, did you begin taking pictures at some point?
A. Thereafter, after arriving and after talking to some people,
trying to find out where the log-on man is, after talking to the
log-on man, I started taking photographs.
Q. Now, prior to the time you took photographs, were you given a
walk-through of the crime scene?
A. Yeah, I was.
Q. Do you remember who gave you the walk-through?
A. I don't know the officer's name.
Q. Was it a uniformed officer or a plain-clothes officer?
A. It was a uniformed officer.
Q. Describe where that officer took you.
A. He took me through the back door, where the cars are parked, up a
flight of stairs, coming through the kitchen and then part of the
living room, to the outside of the house, which at this point is the
front door, now, and he walked me about three, four feet out onto
the sidewalk in front of the front door. Usually we don't go any
farther than that because of possible evidence laying there.
Q. Are you saying that you went out the front door but you went six
or seven feet?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. You went out the front door about six or seven feet, or did you
go all the way to the --
A. Might have been four or five. I never hit the staircase.
Q. You did not go down any stairs?
A. No.
Q. Where did you go from there?
A. From there, I went back and -- basically waiting for whoever the
investigating detective would be, which turned out to be Mark
Fuhrman, for him to arrive. And since whoever was going to be the
detective in charge, he had no idea where I would be, so I decided
I'd better go up front and find him there.
Q. At some point, did Detective Fuhrman arrive?
A. He arrived shortly thereafter.
Q. Shortly after what?
A. After I left the location, going back the same way I came in, and
I waited by my car for a while.
Q. What are overall shots?
A. Overall shots consist of primarily street signs, to give us a
location as to what the street is, then a view up and down the
street from both directions.
Q. And did you take such pictures at Bundy?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you take those pictures in relation to Detective Fuhrman
arriving before or after?
A. I would say shortly before he arrived.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 18, skipping to line 8.
(Reading:)
Q. Approximately how long did it take you to do the overall shots?
A. I'm guessing at this point. I would say maybe 15, 20 minutes.
Q. How long did you think it took you for the walk-through?
A. I would say probably the same amount of time.
Q. Ten or 15 minutes?
A. Ten or 15 minutes.
Q. Now, this is a trial exhibit. I don't think we marked it yet,
because we have to return it to the court. Now, for the record, it
is the criminal exhibits 1366, which is the laying on the screen,
which is civil 20. Let me check. 2051
(referring to Exhibit 2051) for -- while reading this. Let me show

A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that?
A. I recognize this as my first roll of film taken that morning.
Q. That's what's called a contact print?
A. No, it is not.
Q. What would you call it?
A. This is a slide enlargement of a contact. The contact one would
be 24 by 36 millimeters.
Q. Now, the pictures that are depicted on that board, are they the
same order in which they were taken?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. How can you tell that?
A. By the numbering system that's built into the camera. Excuse me.
Each photograph gets a number.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 20, line 23.
(Reading:)
Q. Now, why don't you put that down to your side so we can get a
good -- I'm going to look -- he asked him to look at the contact
sheet. Can you tell us which of the shots are the overall shots?
A. It would be the very first one in the upper left-hand corner.
Then, of course, come the street signs, which give us the street
location. What we try to do is be as precise as we can be by getting
the street numbers, which I have here, 900 South Bundy, 1200 West
Dorothy. So this determines and tell us where the location is. And
then, I have several shots. The first one -- first one being, I
believe, looking east from that corner. Then the next one is looking
north at an angle.
Q. I don't need you to go over each one individually.
A. Okay.
Q. Can you tell me how many photographs on that board are overall
shots?
A. Including the street scene, so we've got two, four, five, eight,
nine -- there are nine.
Q. Now, about how long did it take you to shoot those nine shots?
A. I would say maybe five minutes, ten minutes, because it requires
some walking through the outside scene.
Q. Now, the photographs after the first nine shots, what do those
represent?
A. They're looking at the location from -- from the alley, looking
at the back of the house from the alley. And there are five of
those.
Q. What do the pictures after that -- we're up to 14, now, I think?
A. The first one is what looks like a Bronco to me, a vehicle parked
in front of the garage door.
Q. Now, which numbered photograph are you talking about, using the
contact numbers?
A. It is -- is that -- can you turn that around a little bit so I
can see it? Oh, excuse me. Now, which number it is.
MR. GELBLUM: Line 14.
A. Using the contact numbers, numbers 15 or 15
A.
Q. Can you turn that around a little bit so I can see it?
A. This one here
(indicating).
Q. Is that a vehicle in the back of 875 South Bundy?
A. That's a vehicle sitting outside of the garage or outside the
overhang.
Q. Could that be a jeep?
A. It could be a jeep; it could be a Bronco, something.
Q. What are the photographs after that one?
A. After that one is a total overview of where this vehicle is
located an overview of the alley looking north from the location.
Then a view of the -- looking east from my location -- of the second
garage door involved. Then a close-up of that location. Then a view
looking slightly southeast of that location, again showing the same
vehicle in there.
Q. Which picture are you up to now?
A. Using the contact numbers, 14.
Q. Now, I want you to skip ahead to the last two pictures on the
roll. Do you have that in mind?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Tell me how long it took you to take all the pictures up to, but
not including, those last two. Your best estimate.
A. I'm not sure. If you were to say 30 minutes, I would say that's
right. If you were to say 45 minutes, I would say that's right. It's
very difficult for me to say.
Q. Now, up until the time until the last two pictures were taken,
had Mark Fuhrman arrived?
A. He had arrived prior to those two pictures being taken.
Q. How long before those two pictures taken did he arrive?
A. Again, I wouldn't know, because I saw him walk from his car over
to the scene, at which time I had no more interest in him or who he
was.
Q. When you saw him walking from his car to the scene, did you
recognize him?
A. Close up, I recognized him, because I had worked with him before.

Q. You have any knowledge at that point as to his role in the
investigation?
A. No. I just knew he was an investigator.
Q. When you saw him walk in, you said you had no reason to pay
attention to him after that. What did you mean by that?
A. Well, there was quite a bit of brass out on the street corner,
LAPD brass. So if somebody had said he was a captain, I would have
said yes. I really had no idea who he was.
Q. At some point, did you become aware he was in charge of the
investigation?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Turning to page 25, your answer on line 6.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. Shortly before those last two pictures were taken.
Q. How did you discover what his role was?
A. He said hello to me; I'm Detective Fuhrman. I said I know,
because by this time, I recognized him. And he said, let me show
you what we have in back here.
Q. How did you know he was in charge of the investigation?
A. Well, usually the directing investigator is the one who tells me
what pictures to take.
Q. Now, when you saw him arrive, can you tell us where you were in
your sequence of the first 34 pictures or so?
A. Well, the last picture before the two at the scene was looking
west toward the scene from the street.
Q. Which contact number is that?
A. That's contact number 33.
Q. So is what you are saying, 33 is around the time when you were
taking -- 33 is around the time Mark Fuhrman arrived? Tell us what
you meant by 33 in relationship to Mark Fuhrman.
A. 33 is the last pictures I took before Mark Fuhrman said to me,
let's go back -- let's go in back of the house.
Q. You -- had you seen him arrive prior to that time that you took
33?
A. Yes, I had.
Q. Approximately where in the sequence? Give me your best estimate
as where you recall him arriving, which pictures were you taking?
A. I was still doing the overall on the outside of the house. I saw
him getting out of his vehicle, not knowing who he is, just somebody
arriving. That's about as clear as I am on that.
Q. Now, I want to try and get, as best we can, a time estimate of
what happened. You indicated that you arrived a little after 3
o'clock?
A. Yes.
Q. And it took you about 10, 15 minutes to get logged in?
A. That's correct.
Q. We're up to about roughly 3:20?
A. That could be the time.
Q. And then you estimated the overall shots 25 minutes to 30 minutes
to 45 minutes?
A. For all of these, yes.
Q. We're up to 3:50 or 4:05, roughly. Does that take us up to the
time you took the last two shots?
A. No. That takes us to before that time.
Q. Okay. Then what time does that take us up to. Or what pictures
are we up to now?
A. I would say any one of the pictures from 26 contact numbers to
33.
MR. P. BAKER: Going to line 24.
Q. Now, tell me what Mark Fuhrman said to you prior to the time that
you took those last two pictures on that roll.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Can the witness -- may I make an argument, Your Honor,
as counsel? I believe that goes to his subsequent conduct, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
MR. P. BAKER: Going to line 28.
(Reading:)
Q. And after he said that to you, what did you do? Going to line 11
-- I'm sorry -- page 28. Your answer at line 12?
A. Well, I finish my outdoor overall shots with number 33, which is
looking westbound from the outside of the house. That was the last
one. And then him and I walked to the back of the house, which takes
you all the way up to -- I believe it's Dorothy. Is that the first
street? I think it's Dorothy.
Q. And you can go ahead and put that board down. To get up to where
those last two pictures were taken on that roll, you -- we had
worked our way up to 3:50, to 4:05. Is that the range we're talking
about up to the point where you took the last two?
A. I would say so.
MR. GELBLUM: Finish the answer.
MR. LEONARD: We're not in the habit of looking at the time -- at
which time we take a picture.
Q. Was there any kind of lengthy delay between the first 30 pictures
and those last two?
A. No, not any -- not any extra waiting period or delay. It was just
a matter of my overall shot.
Q. Describe to me the last pictures, who said what to who. This was
taken. Who said what to who?
A. Well, Mark --
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
MR. LEONARD: Same admission.
THE COURT: With regards to the photographs offered.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you. Read the question.
Q. Describe to me the setup as to those last two pictures: Who said
what to who when those pictures were taken, what directions were
given.
A. Mark Fuhrman said, we have something that looks like a cap and a
glove back here. And I said yes, I know, because these had been
pointed out to me before by whoever the police officer was that took
me in back of the house. And I said to him that I wanted him to
point at both items because it was very dark out there.
Q. When you say very dark, it was still nightime, was it not?
A. It was still nightime.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 78, line 17.
MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry?
MR. P. BAKER: Page 78.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Reading:)
Q. Now, can you tell the difference between a photograph taken an
hour before sun rises and an hour after sunrise?
A. Yes, I usually can.
Q. Can you look at, again quickly, the two last pictures on 1366,
civil 251, trial exhibit and tell us, was it still dark when those
photographs were taken?
A. The last two on here?
Q. Yes.
A. Both of them, it was still dark.
Q. Was the sun up at all?
A. No.
Q. Now, do you --
A. I use a flash with every photo I take, even if the sun shines.
Q. Your statement that those two pictures were taken while it was
still dark, is that based on your memory?
A. Not only my memory, but also looking at photographs, it's
extremely well exposed picture, if I might use that kind of
terminology, which you will get from the flash picture taken from a
close distance.
Q. How long have you been a professional photographer?
A. Probably in excess of 40 years.
Q. Do you have an opinion, as a professional photographer, looking
at the last two pictures on that roll, 1366, whether they were taken
at nighttime?
A. I would say definitely they were.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, at this point, we would like to publish,
just pass the board.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you. I guess I can just hold it up, if that's
acceptable. Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: That was it for their reading.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: On page 9, line 12:
(Reading:)
Q. Now, Mr. Rokahr, let me ask you some questions about medication.
MR. GELBLUM: This is Mr. Blasier asking questions.
(Reading:)
Q. Are you on some medication today?
A. About 13 different ones.
Q. Can you list those medications for me?
A. My daughter can. We have them written down.
Q. Okay. Can your daughter provide a list? Will you ask her to
provide us with a list of the medication you're taking?
A. Yes, we can.
Q. Are any of the medications you're taking today affecting you
mentally in any way that you're aware of?
A. My daughter probably has more of an idea as to what they do to
me, because she said, I'll give you your pills after this is
finished. Maybe it did something to me. I'm not sure.
Q. Do you remember what day it is today?
A. I know it's a Monday, but I don't know the date.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to go a little out of sequence, jump ahead to
the end, where he talks about the medications. This is page 71, line
19. And it is now Mr. Medvene asking the questions.
(Reading:)
Q. Let me ask you this and then we'll be finished, I have to do this
for the record and not for embarrassing you in any way. You have
certain health problems?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Because of those problems you have to take certain --
A. Medication?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And some of them you take on a daily basis?
A. Some I take on an hourly basis.
Q. I wonder if we go through this, with Mr. Blasier's permission,
just to take some stress off Mr. Rokahr, that we can have read in
the medication that the witness takes and the attorneys agree that
that can be done.
MR. GELBLUM: And down at the bottom of 73, line 10 -- page 73, line
10, if would you read the name and the quantity. And then the
witness's daughter read into the record the medications.
A. Okay. Adapin. He takes --
MR. P. BAKER: Objection. This is irrelevant. It says earlier that he
didn't take the medications.
THE COURT: Overruled. He may read it in.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. Adapin. He takes 1 milligram tablet as needed. Takes -- you're
going to embarrass me here, now. Digoxin, .25 milligram. He takes
Ecotrin. Lacix -- I'm sorry. Ecotrin is 325 milligram. Lacix is 40
milligram. Mevacor is 10 milligram. Micronase is 5 milligram, Motrin
is 600 milligram. Potassium is 10 milligram. Prozac is a 20
milligram. Tegretol is 200 milligram. Testaval
(phonetic) is a 10 milligram. And MS Contin is a 15 milligram.
MR. GELBLUM: Go ahead. Read the next --
A. I take these at various times of the day.
Q. So the rest that your daughter read, it's your memory that these
are the medications you take at various time of the day?
A. I know I take those and I take them at various times of day.
Q. Have you been taking those medications, taking them at various
times of day for some period of time?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. For approximately how long a period of time?
A. It depends what the medication is for. I have something called
what's the nerve pain.
MR. GELBLUM: The daughter says neuralgia.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. Which is a neck pain if you've ever had shingles, it may come
back. It does come back with an extreme fury. I've had this over a
year and a half now on the right side of my body. It becomes
extremely painful. According to various M.D.s, there's no known cure
for it. The only thing they have is to make the pain a little less
painful. I guess you might say it's not a very good cure.
Q. Unfortunately, there is a need and has been a need for some
period of time to take certain pain medications?
A. That is correct.
MR. GELBLUM: Now, Mr. Leonard, can we go back up, please, to page
33, line 8.
Q. As I understand it, you finished what you describe as the overall
sometime around 4 o'clock a.m.; is that correct?
A. Are we talking about the overall on Bundy or Rockingham?
Q. Bundy.
A. Yes, I would say so.
Q. And did Detective Phillips then ask you to wait before you took
any more pictures until Detective Fuhrman arrived or came back?
MR. GELBLUM: We jump to 22 for the answer.
MR. P. BAKER: Hearsay.
MR. GELBLUM: Subsequent conduct, Your Honor. Just like they
explained to us what they took.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. I think that question came -- let me back up when I do a crime
scene, having done as many --
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Leonard, can you slow down?
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. When I do a crime scene, having done as many as I've done, I
usually go ahead and do my overall after I know where the actual
place is where we have a body. So I started doing my overall, and
Detective Phillips, at one point, said, why don't you wait until --
I think it was Fuhrman -- that he said until Fuhrman arrives.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. Down to line 9.
(Reading:)
Q. Do you remember speaking to Peter Neufeld, one of Mr. Simpson's
attorneys, and him taking a statement from you?
A. I think I spoke to him more than once. I know I spoke to him in
my CO office at LAPD.
Q. Was that on, if you can remember, September 14, September 4?
A. Sorry, I don't know what the date was.
MR. BAKER: I'll object. This is outside the scope.
MR. GELBLUM: This has to do when he took the pictures. That's
exactly what the discussion with Neufeld was about.
MR. BAKER: Doesn't matter. He talked about the picture, talked --
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
THE COURT: What is the question?
MR. GELBLUM: The question is about his speaking --
THE COURT: What is the question?
MR. GELBLUM: Do you remember speaking to Mr. Neufeld -- well the
question objection was that on September 4.
THE COURT: And what was the answer?
MR. GELBLUM: I don't know what the date was.
THE COURT: What was the preceding question?
MR. GELBLUM: Do you remember speaking to Peter Neufeld, one of Mr.
Simpson's attorneys, and him taking a statement from you. The answer
was, I think I spoke to him once. I know I spoke to him in my VCO
office at LAPD.
THE COURT: What's the relevance of that?
MR. GELBLUM: The relevance is, we get to the other page, he told Mr.
Neufeld something different about sequence of taking the pictures
that he testified to in the reading that they just did entirely
different. It's a prior inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: Has he testified to that in his deposition?
MR. GELBLUM: In his deposition, yes.
THE COURT: What did he say?
MR. GELBLUM: Is it correct that you told Mr. Neufeld -- page 33 --
that you told Mr. Neufeld, that, after you finished the overall,
that Detective Phillips said in effect, will you please wait until
Fuhrman arrives. The answer: I'm not sure the time. I thought the
question was that he asked me to hold my photographs at a point
shortly after arriving, and we don't remember they may be reached in
from the statement from Neufeld.
THE COURT: Which is?
MR. GELBLUM: Then what's next thing that happened when you finished
your overall? You said Phillips said something to you. And then
you're quoted as saying who Phillips mentioned that. I don't know
whether he used Fuhrman's name. But he says, why don't you wait now
until, I think he said Fuhrman arrives.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BAKER: Then he goes on: You don't recall one way or the other if
you said that to Mr. Neufeld? I really don't. And he has no
recollection. And it goes on.
MR. GELBLUM: If he said -- if you said that to Mr. Neufeld point in
time closer to the occurrence than now, do you believe your
recollection would be better at this time? Yes, I do.
MR. BAKER: I don't know if any recollection would be better. None of
this imposed a very -- scene to you not knowing what would be coming
on. He reads part of it. He says I don't know if my memory would be
any better. This is all irrelevant.
MR. GELBLUM: It has exactly to do with the sequence he did at the
time the picture was taken, which is the only subject -- the only
purpose for this witness, was to establish when this photograph was
taken. And Mr. Neufeld, on direct examination --
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. GELBLUM: Back where we were at page 34, line 14.
Q. Was that on, if you can remember, September 4?
A. I'm sorry; I don't know what the date was.
Q. Do you remember at the trial there were certain questions asked
you about your meeting with Mr. Neufeld?
A. I remember the question was, do you remember me asking your
permission to put this on audio. And I said that's fine.
Q. On the occasion that was being talked about and when Mr. Neufeld
asked your permission to put the interview on audio, when was that
conversation, if you can remember?
A. I don't know. It may have been in the very beginning; it may have
been five or ten minutes into it.
Q. Well, what I'm asking is, when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld and he
wanted to record his conversation with you, when was that meeting?
A. You're asking me for the date and/or day. I have no idea. But
you probably have that on record somewhere.
Q. Was that meeting approximately September 4 of 1995, to the best
of your recollection?
A. It would -- could have been, yes.
Q. Other than that meeting with Mr. Neufeld on September 4, did you
have any other meetings with him, private meetings, just you and him
or other members of Mr. Simpson's group?
A. I think he came out to the hallway in the courthouse, where I
spoke to two of his attorneys, number 1 attorney -- trying to think
of his name.
MR. BAKER: Object to the -- to the first phase of that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 38, line 6.
(Reading:)
Q. Now, isn't it correct that you told Mr. Neufeld that it was after
you finished the overall, that Detective Phillips said, in effect,
that you please wait until Fuhrman arrives?
A. I'm not sure of the time frame. I thought that this question
was that he asked me to hold my photographs at a point shortly after
arriving.
MR. GELBLUM: Go ahead, continue at line 15.
A. I really don't remember.
Q. And I'll just read you this again to see if it refreshes you. I'm
reading from page 2 of the transcript that we were supplied. Peter
Neufeld: And then what's the next thing that happened when you
finished your overalls? You said something -- you said Phillips said
something to you and then you're quoted as saying, hum, Phillips
mentioned that -- I don't know whether he used Fuhrman's name, but
he says why don't you wait now until I think he said Fuhrman
arrives. Do you recall one way or another if you said that to Mr.
Neufeld?
A. I really don't.
Q. And if you said that to Mr. Neufeld in 1995, at a closer time to
the occurrence than now, would you believe your recollection would
more likely be correct at that time?
A. Yes, I do. I don't know if my recollection would have been better
at some time in '95. None of this imposed a very important scene to
me, not knowing what would be coming -- coming up after I take those
photographs.
Q. You weren't paying that much attention to it at the tame?
A. Not really.
Q. Or that much attention to the sequence?
A. The only time I pay attention to time is when I leave the scene.
Q. Okay. Over to page 43, line 1. Now, let me read you one other --
one other question and answer with Mr. Neufeld again to refresh your
recollection on this point. I read to you from page 4. Peter
Neufeld, about 6 lines down, quote, and then after you shot the
overalls, just after you finished shooting them, Detective Phillips
said to you, quote, wait till Fuhrman arrives, unquote, or, quote,
wait until Fuhrman comes back, unquote, you're not sure which
words he used. Mr. Rokahr this is on the transcript that Mr. Medvene
is reading from Mr. Neufeld conversation Mr. Rokahr says some were,
yeah. Mr. Neufeld: So that is about 4 a.m. that Phillips is telling
you that, is that right, within about 10 or 15 minutes? Mr. Rokahr
says, I would say so. Back to the deposition itself.
Q. Do you remember in substance being asked those questions by Mr.
Neufeld and giving those answers?
A. I really don't -- I really don't remember what Mr. Neufeld asked
me.
Q. Do you remember, if you were asked those questions and gave those
answers, would those have been, to the best of your knowledge,
correct answers?
MR. GELBLUM: And the answer is on the next page, line 1.
A. I tend to be extremely honest, so that would have been the best
of my recollection at least at that point.
MR. GELBLUM: Down to page 45, please, line 14.
Q. Do you remember going to your car after your conversation with
Detective Phillips and waiting there at the car for a period of time
until Detective Fuhrman arrived?
A. I remember going to my car and waiting. I could not tell you how
long or for that matter at what time that occurred rather. It was --
when I say what time it occurred, whether that was five minutes
before he arrived, a half an hour before he arrived, um, I'm not
sure.
Q. Down to the page 46, line 14. Let me, for purposes of refreshing
you, refer to page 44,077 of the criminal trial transcript at line
13. Question by Mr. Darden: After you took the overall photograph,
did you wait in your car for detectives? Answer at lines 15 and 16:
I waited. Not sure whether it was sitting in my car or just leaning
up against it. Do you remember being asked that question by Mr.
Darden and giving that answer?
A. I remember a question like that.
Q. Was that an accurate answer, to the best of your knowledge?
A. It is an accurate answer, yes.
Q. And what you're referring to there -- what you were -- I'm sorry.
And what you were referring to there was sitting in your car or
leaning up against it waiting for Mr. Fuhrman to arrive or Detective
Fuhrman to arrive; is that correct?
A. That is correct, waiting for someone to arrive who would give me
directions.
Q. Okay. Down to page 48, line 3. But at any rate, at some time
before you took pictures 34 and 35 is when Detective Phillips asked
you to wait for Detective Fuhrman, you went over to the car and you
waited for some period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the car, do you remember just sitting in the car to
relax for a few minutes?
A. I'm not sure whether I was sitting in the car or just leaning up
against it for a few minutes.
Q. You weren't paying attention to exactly how much time or how long
you were in the car or by the car, were you?
A. No, I was not.
Q. In fact, at one time at the trial, in answer to Mr. Neufeld's
questions, you thought the time period would have been an hour or so
that you were waiting; isn't that true?
A. It could have been for all I know at this point.
Q. It was some period of time and you just don't recall at this
stage how long it was; is that it?
A. I really don't know. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. Page 51, line 8. If you would take a look at, or possibly
you'll remember, and if not, I'll place in front of you pages 34 and
35.
A. I would not remember.
Q. Let me place that in front of you. That's what's on the screen
up there. Line 14, sir.
A. Are we talking about Kodak numbers?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Okay, I do remember now, yes.
Q. There appears to be someone pointing at something. Who is that
pointing?
A. That's Mark Fuhrman.
Q. What's he pointing at?
A. He's pointing at, I think, the cap and/or the glove or both of
them because they're in very close proximity to each other.
Q. How did he come to be pointing at them, if you know?
A. I asked him to.
Q. Page 52, line 14. Is it fair to say, Mr. Rokahr, that when Mr.
Neufeld interviewed you in what we think was September of 1995, that
at that time you hadn't remembered that you had sat in your car for
a period of time before seeing Mr. Fuhrman?
A. I don't know if I stayed in my car or just leaned up against it
outside.
Q. What I was asking was did you forget that initially when you
spoke to Mr. Neufeld in September?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know whether or not you forgot that when you were first
talking to Mr. Neufeld in September?
A. I would say so, because none of it seemed to be very important at
that point.
Q. I understand. And on reflection, after it became more important,
you realized that you had first spoken to Mr. Neufeld that there was
-- there was a period of time that you were in your car -- by your
car or in your car prior to seeing Mr. Fuhrman; is that correct?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading and vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yeah, I would say so.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 54, line 18.
Q. Am I to understand you started your counter at -- was it 0000?
A. In the very beginning, yes, and I do not change if I leave one
scene and go to the next.
Q. The counter numbers would be, then, regardless of the scene, they
would be the order in which you took the pictures?
A. That is correct.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 57, line 16, Mr. Blasier. I'm just going to place
before the witness what you and I looked at before. Starts with
frame number 00 and I'm going to take them up to 118 and 119 and ask
where these were taken and ask where 120 was taken when you're
ready, Mr. Rokahr, just let me know, and come over with the
pictures.
A. Okay.
Q. The picture I'm pointing to that has the counter 000000, what is
that?
A. That would be the very first exposure on that particular roll of
film after I arrived at the Bundy scene. That's my slate picture.
Q. The counter -- the 6 zeroes in the right-hand corner, is that
what we refer to as the counter?
A. That's the counter imprinted on every negative.
Q. What you're saying is that the counter would click by one, each
picture you take?
A. That is correct.
Q. Regardless of the location you take it?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it reflects the order in which you take them?
A. That is correct.
Q. Page 70, line 2.
MR. GELBLUM: And I think that's it on this, Your Honor. Just a few
more questions, Mr. Rokahr. Under LAPD policy, you're not required
to record the exact time of each and every photograph you take, are
you?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. And you don't keep any detailed photo log, or you didn't in this
case, indicating the exact time in which you took each photo?
A. No, I am not required to, nor have I ever taken a certain time
down in writing as to when a photograph was taken.
Q. At the time you were taking these pictures, it wa