SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 15, 1997
VOLUME 43

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor. I have just one brief procedural
matter. I spoke to brother counsel this morning, and I would like
the opportunity to reserve cross-examination until Mr. Richards is
returned tomorrow, pending the Court of Appeals' decision, if we get
one today. We filed a writ this morning, and the tact that I take on
cross-examination, strategy and so forth, will depend on whether or
not he's allowed to testify as to the Flammer photographs. There's
also another area that I think they want to get into which involves
the analysis of a totally different photograph, the Bundy glove, and
I would object to any testimony about that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Morning, Your Honor. I don't think he has a right to
reserve his cross-examination until tomorrow for tactical reasons.
They insisted on bifurcating, so it was at their insistence that the
Court ordered that Mr. Richards' examination be split up. We're
doing the Groden rebuttal and they need to do the cross-examination
on that. Tomorrow we're coming back to do the Flammer issue, and
then they can do the cross-examination on that. For tactical
reasons, they can't break it up -- they can't make us break up our
direct, and yet they can do a single integrated cross-examination
for purely tactical reasons, as he just said. I don't think there's
any basis for that.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, my cross-examination is going to be brief,
45 minutes.
THE COURT: That's brief?
MR. LEONARD: Well, what's a three-hour examination?
MR. PETROCELLI: It's not the length of time.
MR. LEONARD: There is no breaking up.
MR. PETROCELLI: You made us break it up.
THE COURT: What did the other --
MR. PETROCELLI: The other photo, Your Honor, this -- this photo --
Mr. Richards will testify that this is not a hole; this is debris
lying on the top of the glove. We let him testify about this at his
deposition after court yesterday, so they've examined him on this.
I will point out that, in interrogatories, we asked for all facts
and evidence that they had in support of a planting theory. They
told us nothing about this Bundy glove being planted, in regard to a
hole and debris. This is all brand new, Your Honor. We had no
opportunity at all to prepare for this new claim, which to this day,
I do not understand. But apparently, they want to make it, as you
heard Mr. Leonard so boisterously argue earlier in the week. We
asked Mr. Richards to take a look at these photos just the other
day. He did and he testified about them yesterday. We would like him
to testify about that as well, since this is a new claim that they
have put into the case after -- after orders of preclusion, as well,
that they weren't able to get into any matters outside of what was
in the interrogatories. And they did. This is brand new. We had no
time, opportunity or ability to prepare. They never made this claim.
Despite a year of hotly contested discovery, we learned about it
last week. So we would like an opportunity to address it so the jury
is not in any way, shape or form misled.
MR. BAKER: Comes ill from the mouth of the plaintiffs to say that it
was sprung on them, when they sprang 30 photos on us, and then
have their experts fly to Buffalo, and we have no opportunity to
review the photos at all; to come in here and say it was sprung on
us, and now we should have an opportunity to have an expert testify
to that. 2034, specifically, code sections
(k) and
(l), require them -- what they have to do if they want to amend and
enlarge the designation of their expert. They have never done that
on either the 30 photos, or this photo, or anything else. We think
they ought to be precluded.
THE COURT: When was this photograph, this one with the glove,
discovered?
MR. BAKER: Well, they've had it as long as we've had it. Since June
14. It was taken on -- on, I think, June 14, 1994. So they've had it
since the inception of the case.
MR. PETROCELLI: The glove photos have been around. But we've asked
them for every fact known to mankind on which they intend to assert
planting of evidence, in voluminous discovery. We had to go to court
three or four times to get orders. In fact, we got the last order
from this court on what they could argue and not argue in opening
statement. At no time did they tell us that they were going to
contend that the Bundy glove was planted. At no time did they say
that one glove had a hole in it and the other doesn't. They didn't
say any of that, Your Honor. They talked about the Rockingham glove.
This is brand new. We learned about this claim when Mr. Leonard
stood up in court the other day and said now we have proof. That's
what we're.
MR. LEONARD: Submitted.
THE COURT: Okay. You may do that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, with regard to the reservation of
cross-examination?
THE COURT: You can cross-examine on what he's said so far.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
(Chart displayed on easel.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:
(continued)
Q. Morning, Mr. Richards?
A. Good morning.
Q. When we left off yesterday, we were talking about the point that
Mr. Groden made about the photograph of Mr. Simpson in the end zone.
On the list that we have up on the easel, the next point had to do
with the shoes, the right shoe in particular, where Mr. Groden said
that there was -- the red reflection that appears on the sole of the
right shoe should be white rather than red. Do you agree with that?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay. Let me show you a photograph.
MR. GELBLUM: Can we mark that next in order.
THE CLERK: 2369.
MR. GELBLUM: 2369.
(The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of O.J. Simpson
in the end zone was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2369.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Does 2369 show the reflection on the sole of
the right shoe, sir?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And what color is it?
A. It has a red tint to it.
Q. And do you agree that -- or do you think that red is the color it
should be?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Can you explain, please.
A. Yes. If I may show this to the jury? Basically, the right foot is
slightly angled up and over the red area of the field itself. This
pretty well is exemplified by the placement of the heel and the
shadow directly under it, it hasn't quite crossed that small blue
line there into the white area. The light shining down onto the
field is going to reflect back whatever area or color it is. If the
foot was over the white area, it would reflect back white. If it's
over the red area, it's going to reflect back red. This is a
diffused light. In other words, the light will be fairly soft but
diffused in all directions up under -- up under the foot itself. You
would expect that that would be natural, that any color that's being
-- the light shining on it will reflect that same color. The general
position of the foot is pretty evident even though there is some
foreshortening because of the long lens. It's pretty well evident
that it's back far enough that the majority of the shoe is over the
red area as opposed to the white.
Q. Can you explain that foreshortening?
A. Yes. When photographs are taken, depending on where the
photographer is with his camera, the position, it will create
anomalies that we call in some cases, foreshortening, or wide angle
distortion. They really aren't distortions; they are a function of
where the observer is or the camera is in comparison to other
objects out in front. If the object -- all of the objects are far
away and they're fairly close together by themselves, the farther
away they get, you will have a foreshortening effect which will make
them appear to shorten -- to become shorter than they are.
Inversely, if you use a very wide-angle lens, or you see things in a
very wide-angle state, things will tend to elongate. Some of you may
have seen wide-angle pictures that are taken very closely to
people's faces which makes their nose look three times bigger than
their head, and their ears six inches behind the back of their head.
That's the inverse of foreshortening. In this case, there was a long
lens used so the foot and the shoe would be somewhat
foreshortened.
Q. Mr. Groden also opined that there may not -- it may -- that there
shouldn't be any reflection at all on the sole of that shoe. Do you
agree with that?
A. No, not necessarily. There -- you may not be able to detect in a
photograph a reflection, there may not be enough light. But if the
bottom of the shoe has enough sheen or reflection to it, it very
well may record as the -- actually, the sole pattern records on the
bottom of there.
Q. Do you consider the reflection on the bottom of the sole of the
right shoe evidence of alteration of this photograph?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Next point Mr. Groden made on the list, we discussed what he
called, I think, sort of a halo effect on both the left and the
right shoe. Do you know what he's talking about there?
A. On both the left and right shoe?
Q. I believe so, yes. Do you see what he's referring to on the
soles?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it this picture?
A. Yes.
Q. Showing you Exhibit 2287.
MR. GELBLUM: Can the jurors see that? Can he come down to the jury?
You want to come down to the jury because we're talking about small
parts on the shoes there.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. GELBLUM: If that's okay, Your Honor?
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) First, sir, if you can point out the area where
this halo effect is.
A. Basically, there's actually a halo effect which appears around
most of the image. I think the one in question, though, is around
the edges -- the edges of the shoes, on the bottom, by the soles, by
the tip of the right shoe, and then the back here, it's very, very
-- it's difficult to see, but right at the sole level of the left
shoe, back by the heel again.
MR. GELBLUM: For the record, we're looking at Exhibit 2287.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you have an opinion as to the cause of that
halo effect?
A. Yes. It's quite common and can actually be seen in a number of
other portions of this picture and in other pictures also. Any time
you have something that is backlit -- slightly backlit, and this
picture is backlit, meaning that the light -- the main body of the
light is coming a little bit in back and to the right of Mr.
Simpson.
Q. How can you tell that?
A. I can tell by the highlights on the pants, the shoulders, the
forehead, the back lighting on the hand, on the right hand, and the
way the shadows are falling here. In this particular case, that
highlighting effect leaves a very light area anyplace there is a
distinct edge. This is a fraction of the light actually around the
edge slightly, and it takes on the color of whatever the background
or the closest edge to it is. It can take on the color. Our eyes
kind of -- kind of force us into seeing that color. As a matter of
fact, that can be seen, the same halo effect that goes up the side
of the leg here, as it transverses from red to white, the little
halo effect along the side of the pants, you'll see red to white,
red to white, red to white, as it goes up the side of the pants.
Q. What would that be from?
A. Again, it's just a transition of the light from the dark area to
the light area of the background of the field, and just where the
light is, right at the edge from -- it's being backlit, that very
bright spot is taking on the color of whatever is nearest to it.
Q. You said you could see that on other photographs?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me take a look at the photograph of Mr. Simpson with Keith
Byars. I think he's been identified as -- that's Exhibit 2289. Do
you see that effect in that photograph?
A. Actually, the effect can probably be shown a little bit better in
this photograph because the left arm -- see this white line along
the left arm; this is the halo effect we were talking about. That's
also on the shoes, but since the shoes are so small, it's a little
indistinction to it. We can see that it picks up a grayish bluish
effect as it goes up or grayish bluish. Then it picks up a yellow
tint when it met the background. Again, it's a common phenomenon
when something is backlit. It will have a very slight halo effect to
it when it's backlit, and that halo effect will take on a color of
the background or sometimes the color of the object, depending on
what the color is. But it is basically a natural phenomenon.
Q. Do you consider that halo effect on the shoes that Mr. Groden
described as evidence of alteration of this photograph?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Mr. Groden also said that he had some kind of problem, although
he -- I think he said it was conjecture about the two photographs
adjoining the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone
on the contact sheet, being different exposures than the rest of
the roll. First of all, do you agree they are different exposures?
A. They're slightly overexposed, maybe a stop, stop and a half,
something like that.
Q. And do you see any problem with that in terms of the authenticity
of the photo of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone?
A. No, not particularly. This is not a fully automatic camera like
the new modern cameras of today; it's a semi-automatic camera. So
you have to set one of the controls one way or another and
physically adjust the other control. It's very common to be a stop
or two off as you're moving from subject to subject. And here he was
moving from a fairly dark scene -- Mr. Simpson -- where we have dark
red -- dark pants, dark jacket, to a fairly bright scene, and he
just may have miscompensated a stop for it. To be very candid, the
entire roll is very well exposed, for the most part.
Q. Is the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone
properly exposed?
A. It appears to be, yes.
Q. Do you consider the exposure evidence -- an indication of --
evidence of an alteration?
A. No, I do not.
Q. The next point that Mr. Groden made had to do with it wasn't an
analysis of the photos. You didn't see any evidence of moisture in
this photograph? Do you see any evidence of moisture in the
photograph?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen any evidence of moisture on any of the other frames
or on any -- either of the contact sheets Mr. Scull shot?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. You consider the lack of evidence of moisture in the
photograph evidence of alteration?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And the last point Mr. Groden made was that the photograph of Mr.
Simpson is the first frame on the roll. In your opinion, and in your
experience, does that have anything whatsoever to do with alteration
of a photograph?
A. No, not any, not to any technique that I'm aware of would the
first frame make any difference whatsoever. It could have been any
frame in a roll, if it was to be altered, the first one has no
significance whatsoever.
Q. So then, do you consider any of the points that Mr. Groden made
regarding the photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes
walking to the end zone to be evidence of alteration of that
photograph, whatsoever?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And did you, in your own examination, determine any evidence of
alteration in that photograph?
A. I could find no characteristics in those photographs, whatsoever,
that led me to the conclusion that any alteration had been made on
the photograph or, in particular, the shoe or pants area.
Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to turn to another issue entirely, sir. Have
you had an opportunity to look at the photographs of the -- a glove
--
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. -- at issue in this case? Let me show you --
MR. LEONARD: For the record, objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) We place before you, sir --
MR. GELBLUM: Can I mark the chart we were talking about for
identification next in order.
THE CLERK: That would be 2370.
MR. GELBLUM: That's the chart with the list of Groden's issues.
(The instrument herein referred to as a chart listing Mr. Groden's
points was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2370.)
MR. GELBLUM: I ask Mr. Foster to put on the Elmo what was previously
marked as 2309.
MR. FOSTER: 2311.
MR. GELBLUM: 2311, sorry.
(Exhibit 2311 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This has been represented to be the glove that
was found at the crime scene at Bundy. Did you have an opportunity
to look at this photograph, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you look at an enlargement of the photograph?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is what I'm handing you the enlargement that you looked at?
A. This appears to be the same enlargement that I originally looked
at, and this also appears to be a slightly reduced enlargement of
the -- of the glove.
Q. Did you look at that as well?
A. It appears to be the same one, yes.
Q. And did you also look at another photograph that I'm handing you
-- I'll mark these in a minute -- showing the label on the glove.
A. Yes, I did.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. I'd like to mark this enlargement, the closest
enlargement, as next in order.
THE CLERK: 2371.
(The instrument herein referred to as anenlargementt of a photograph
of a glove was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2371.)
MR. GELBLUM: And one slightly more distant as 2372.
(The instrument herein referred to as an enlargement of a photograph
of a glove was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2372.)
MR. GELBLUM: And the small one showing a label as 2373.
(The instrument herein referred to as an enlargement of a photograph
of a glove showing a label was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2373.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) How did you examine those photographs, sir?
A. Basically, I examined it using a head loupe, the same head loupe
that I used here yesterday in court, in addition to a small second
eye loupe that is a little more powerful than that particular
device.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, can you focus -- zoom in on the white spot.
(Elmo adjusted.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Could you come to a conclusion, sir, about what
that white spot is?
A. I was asked to examine that particular white spot to see if I
could determine what it was and how it was orientated to the glove.
In this particular case, it was my determination that that was a
piece of debris sitting on top of the glove itself. However, the
exact material that it was, I was not able to determine from the
photographic examination.
Q. And what was the basis for your conclusion that it is a piece
of debris sitting on top of the glove?
A. Well, basically, the positioning, the material that it's composed
of in the back -- back portion -- if I might, Your Honor, might I
step down?
THE COURT:
(Nods affirmative.)
A. It's debris back in the -- for the sake of this particular image,
on the upper portion of it, there appears to be dirt or soil similar
to the dirt and soil up in this particular area. And also, on the
smaller reduction -- reduced portion of the photograph, there's dirt
and debris very similar to that soil. It could also be seen on the
left side of the -- the white piece of debris. And in further
examining it, it appears there are like little hair-like fibers in
the debris itself. Those hair-like fibers can be seen dipping down
under in the base -- on the right-hand side into the shadow area. If
we look very closely into the shadow area, you can just see the
weave or the texture of the glove going into the shadow area. In
addition to that, in examining the shadow itself, it was totally
consistent with the shadow of the rest of the debris as to the
direction and angle, making it consistent with the flash that took
this picture producing a shadow in the lower half of that portion,
which indicates that it is above the surface of the glove itself.
Q. Can you explain that -- why the fact -- why there's a shadow
indicating there is debris above the surface of the glove?
A. Well, in this particular case, if a light source which is coming
from the upper left-hand corner here is shining down in this
direction on all of the other material, and you can see it here on
the back, how the shadow falls in this direction, if this in fact --
let's say it was a hole, this portion would be lit and the top
portion would be in shadow, and it's the inverse of that, indicating
that the material's on top of the surface, producing a shadow
directly underneath.
Q. Okay. Did you make a determination whether that white material
could be the lining of the glove?
A. Well, I asked to look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2373 --
MR. GELBLUM: Let me put that on the Elmo.
A. -- to determine what the lining of the glove is to see, if
perhaps, it was a piece of lining itself that had got lodged or
possibly come from the inside of the glove onto the surface of it.
However, the lining of the glove appears to be a brown color as
opposed to a white and doesn't have the same texture around the top
and -- or textured material around the top and left edge, which,
as I said, appears to be a soil of some sort.
Q. Well --
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, for the jury's benefit, may I pass around
2371, this enlargement that we had made?
THE COURT: You may.
(Jurors examine Exhibit 2371.)
MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions for the witness, Your
Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Put that back up, if you will, please. Thank you.
Actually, the exhibit before.
MR. FOSTER: 2311.
(Exhibit 2311 is displayed.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Mr. Richards.
A. Morning, sir.
Q. Let me ask you something before we get started on some background
questions and so forth. Let's get right to this issue -- to this
issue of the glove. You've made a determination that there's a
piece of debris on the top of the glove, correct?
A. That's my opinion, yes, sir.
Q. You're aware of the fact, are you not, that Mr. Fung testified
before this jury that there was a cut underneath the piece of
debris? Are you aware of that?
MR. GELBLUM: Object, Your Honor, no foundation, misstates the
testimony.
MR. LEONARD: Exactly what he testified.
MR. GELBLUM: Not what he testified.
MR. BAKER: Page 63, January 8, bottom of 62, top of 63.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Are you aware of the fact --
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's also argumentative.
MR. GELBLUM: It's not what it says at all.
THE COURT: Approach the bench with the reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. GELBLUM: They're saying top of -- bottom of 62 to 63.
(Court reviews transcript.)
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. But Mr. Leonard could read
that portion to the witness.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Reading from page 62, line -- page 62, line 16.
(Reading:) And you're telling me that's not a cut, Mr. -- Question
by Mr. Baker. -- Mr. Fung? Well, there's an area of damage on there;
I don't know if it's a cut or if it was caused by a rip.
Q. Now, are you telling this jury that there was a rock in that
exact area and you have a recollection of that when you collected
the Bundy glove on June 13, 1994? Yes.
Q. And you didn't see the damaged area because a rock was on it;
is that what you're telling this jury? I'm telling you that damaged
area was where a rock was.
Q. And you couldn't see the damaged area because there was a rock on
top of it; is that your testimony, sir?
A. I'm saying it was embedded in that damaged area.
Q. So it was embedded in the damaged area?
A. Yes. Now, you were -- sir, let me put this question to you: You
have no idea from your examination of this photograph whether
there's a damaged area underneath that piece of debris, do you?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you have any reason to doubt Mr. Fung's testimony that he saw
a damaged area?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, I do not.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, let's talk a little bit about you. Mr.
Gelblum spent some considerable amount of time going through your
qualifications. He asked you a lot of questions about your
experience in questioned documents -- examination of questioned
documents and photographic examination. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when you were testifying about your experience, were you
trying to leave the impression with the jury that you spent a great
majority of your time examining questioned photographs? Were you
trying to leave that impression, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. You may ask him how much time he did it.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You have testified in how many cases, total,
sir, in your career?
A. Over 100.
Q. Would you say 200?
A. Over 100. I don't -- I don't keep track of how many cases I
testified to, but I would definitely -- I would be certain it would
be over a hundred.
Q. Now, is it fair to say, sir, that in less than ten of those cases
were you called upon to render an opinion about whether or not a
photograph was faked or not? Is that fair to say?
A. That's fair to say.
Q. In fact, it would be less than five?
A. That's fair to say.
Q. Would it be less than three, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this the first case you've ever testified in which there was
an issue of whether or not there was a photograph faked or not?
A. I have testified in a deposition regarding a faked photograph but
not in a trial court.
Q. You've never testified before a jury on that issue, have you,
sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. And in your career at the FBI, sir, you spent the vast majority
of your time when you were examining photographs doing analysis of
the photograph to determine what images were on the photograph,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For instance, to determine the height of a bank robber from a
surveillance video, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You spent very little time at all examining photographs to
determine whether or not they were real or fake; isn't that right,
sir?
A. I spent just exactly the amount of time that was necessary on
each case.
Q. You spent, sir -- the percent of your cases that involved the
question of whether or not a photograph was faked was very small,
wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Less than one percent, wouldn't you say, sir?
A. Probably.
Q. Did you tell that to Mr. Gelblum when he was interviewing you
before your testimony?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you ever work in the field of creating
composite negatives, sir?
A. In the field itself?
Q. Yeah. Did you ever work making composite negatives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't do that for a living at any time, did you, sir?
A. Well, it was part of my duties as what I was doing, yes.
Q. By the way, when is the last time that you testified with regard
to the allegation that a photograph was faked?
A. As I mentioned, I only testified in a deposition. That was about
two years ago -- or, excuse me -- it was two and a half years ago.
Q. Now, the examination of a photograph to determine whether or not
it's altered, that's not an exact science, is it?
A. No, sir.
Q. In fact, it involves a lot of subjective determinations on the
part of the examiner, doesn't it?
A. Yes, sir, based on experience and education.
Q. Can you answer my question yes or no? You can explain all you
want.
MR. GELBLUM: He did. I object to the comment.
THE COURT: Question may remain.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) There are no standards, are there, with regard
to the examination of questioned photographs?
A. Would you define for me what you mean by standards.
Q. Yeah. Are there any guidelines you can look to, standards that
say you should look for X, Y and Z if you see any indicia of a fake
that allows you to call a photograph a fake? Is there anything like
that that you rely on?
A. No, sir.
Q. It's up to each individual examiner to make a subjective decision
about whether or not the photograph is a fake, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you make a judgment as to whether or not a particular
phenomenon or indication on a photograph is innocent, that is it
doesn't lead to a conclusion of fakery, as opposed to culpatory,
leading to a conclusion that a photograph is a fake, you take into
account all of your past experience, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any biases that you may bring into the case, right?
A. I take into account any of my biases.
Q. You would agree if there is any bias you have, that could very
well influence you? Do you agree with that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you would also agree that in order to make the ultimate
determination of whether or not a photograph is fake, you have to
take into account not just what you see within the four corners of
the photograph but all of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the photograph, the conditions under which it was taken and the
history of the negative and so forth? Would you agree with that,
sir?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Not necessarily?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Sir, you were -- you were an FBI investigator, Mr. -- you were
actually a specialist, you were a special agent, you were actually a
field investigator for some period of time, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is it your testimony before this jury, if you were going to
make a determination whether or not a photograph is a fake or not,
that you could disregard these other external factors, that is
factors that you don't see within the four corners of the
photograph?
A. One, what are the factors that we're talking about?
Q. Whether or not there was a motivation on the part of a
photographer or his agent, for instance, to fake the photograph, do
you think that's something that should be taken into account, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, any such
motivation in this case.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. No, sir.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) That's not something that should be taken into
account?
A. Not by me.
Q. Do you think it should be taken into account by the jury or
someone who should be --
MR. GELBLUM: That's really improper; ask that it be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Your job was to look at these photographs with
tunnel vision, looking at just the four corners of the
photographs, the negatives and the contact sheets, to see whether
you could see any indicia of fakery, correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Was that your job?
THE COURT: He may answer.
A. As stated, no.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When you were told -- were you told by the
plaintiffs to disregard anything other than what you saw in the
actual photographs, negatives and contact sheet?
A. No.
Q. Did you disregard that?
A. What do you mean by disregard?
Q. Any other information you received other than what you saw
through the microscope, through the loupe, and measured.
A. Not anything that had significance to my exam, no.
Q. Did it have significance to your exam, sir, that this photograph
was to be sold? Did that have -- that it was sold? Did that have any
significance, sir?
A. No.
Q. Did it have significance to you, sir, that the photograph got
into the hands of a fellow named McElroy, as testified by Mr. Scull,
was flown to London and came back on the Concord? Did that have
any significance to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever talked to McElroy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ask him about the history of the photograph?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ask him why he had the negative flown to London? Did you
ask him that, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't think that was important?
A. I didn't know it was flown to London.
Q. You didn't?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you read Harry Scull's deposition?
A. I finally read Harry Scull's deposition yesterday.
Q. Well, that's in there, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You just told the jury you didn't know that?
A. I didn't know when I talked to Mr. McElroy.
Q. Oh, I see. Did you think that was important when you read it in
Scull's deposition?
A. No.
Q. Did you wonder why McElroy had the photograph flown to London and
back on the Concord?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you know how much Scull got for the
photograph?
A. No, sir.
Q. That wasn't important to you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, goes to motive.
MR. GELBLUM: Not this witness.
THE COURT: This is not his expertise.
MR. GELBLUM: It's argument.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, is it true, sir, that you can't always tell
whether a photograph is fake? Is that true?
A. That I can't always tell?
Q. Yeah.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, the technology and techniques that exist today can be
fairly sophisticated and very good, can't they?
A. They can be, yes, sir.
Q. To the extent to where even a seasoned examiner like you can't
see any indicia of a fake?
A. Under some circumstances, yes.
Q. And by the way, you're not telling this jury that you're 100
percent certain that this photograph isn't a fake, are you, sir?
A. In my mind?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You're saying 100 percent?
A. I'm saying that around the area that is in question, the feet and
shoes and leg areas, my opinion is 100 percent certain it is not a
fake.
Q. Despite the fact, sir, that you testified in your deposition, did
you not, that there are techniques out there and technology
available that could make it literally impossible under certain
circumstances -- in fact, in many cases, for photographs to be faked
with no indicia of fakery, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what you do when you look to see if there's any fakery in a
photograph is you basically look to see if there are any clues left
behind, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Clues that the photograph has been faked, correct. And would you
agree with me, sir, that the areas that Mr. Gelblum had up on that
board, in general terms, would be areas of clues or indicators
that a photograph would be fake? Would you agree with that?
A. I would say the great majority would not be.
Q. But there were some up there that were, weren't there, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, you would agree with me that the existence of an edge
that shouldn't be there is an indicator of a faked photograph,
right, that can be?
A. An edge that shouldn't be there?
Q. Yeah.
A. Be where?
Q. An edge along the side of a negative that shouldn't be there,
that -- wouldn't that be an indication that there's been a cutout,
sir?
A. In the picture area or outside of the picture area?
Q. Outside the picture area, sir.
A. Probably not.
Q. It could be, though, isn't that right, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It could be.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, one -- one of the areas, also, that Mr.
Groden testified to was whether or not there was an edge along the
bottom of the first photograph, the subject photograph, that
shouldn't be there. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. And you had taken the position with this jury that that is
actually some kind of an image of a football field; is that correct?

A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Can we put that up. Hold on, I got it right here. Would
you mind stepping down, holding this up for the jury.
THE COURT REPORTER: What number is that, please?
MR. LEONARD: That's 2368.
(Exhibit 2368 is displayed for jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Can everyone see that?
(Jury panel nods affirmatively.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, is it your testimony, sir, that that --
that these lines represent the lines of the football field?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. And you testified yesterday that the camera was facing down
when that photograph was -- when that image was taken. Do you
remember that, sir?
A. Facing slightly down, yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember saying yesterday that it was facing down? Do you
remember that?
A. Facing in a down direction, relative to the other image that I
was showing on frame 12, yes, sir.
Q. With the lens down, correct?
A. Not down. Slightly down, as I said yesterday, pointing in a
slightly down direction.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that you're opining that that
photograph was taken from the end zone; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would you agree with me, sir, that if the photograph is taken
from the end zone, that the person taking the photograph had to be
about 60 or 70 feet off the ground? Would you agree with me about
that, sir?
A. No, I would not.
MR. LEONARD: Show that to the jury again, please.
THE COURT: You want him to still stand there?
MR. LEONARD: No, he can resume.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(Witness resumes witness stand.)
(Jurors pass around Exhibit 2368 among themselves.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Sir, did you compare that photograph with any of
the other images -- any of the other images -- that image which you
say is a -- is a partial photograph of the football field, with any
of the other images on the contact sheet?
A. Yes, I believe I used my frame 12 here as an illustration to
compare it with that. We passed it around to the jury yesterday.
Q. Did you see, sir, that when -- when a photograph was taken with
the lines of the football field, that the lines, as -- as they -- as
they move away from the position of the photographer, they got
closer and closer together? Did you see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you see that they got -- at the end, the last couple lines
were virtually right next to each other? Did you see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't see that in this photograph, do you?
A. And you wouldn't, either. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, the last two lines are almost equal distance from each
other -- the last three lines, isn't that right, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, we also talked about the issue of the reflection on the
bottom of the shoe purported to be worn by Mr. Simpson in that
photograph. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you told this jury that there you'd expect reflection no
matter what the surface was, whether -- what the color, whether it
was red, white or green for that matter, correct?
A. I would expect that color to be reflected onto whatever surface
is directly above it, yes.
Q. Including green --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- right? Did you have an opportunity to look at any of the other
-- there were other images there where the foot is slightly raised,
other images where the foot of the individual in the photograph is
slightly raised. Did you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have a chance to look at those, sir?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you notice that you can't see any detail on the sole --
underside of the soles of any of those photographs? Did you notice
that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you think that was a little strange?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you notice that there's no reflection underneath the soles on
any of those photographs, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And some of those were over green and some of those are over
other colors, aren't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No reflection?
A. None that I could see, no, sir.
MR. LEONARD: I'll put up some photographs. Start with contact sheet
2 at frame 17
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1833.
(The instrument herein referred to as contact sheet was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1925.)
(Exhibit 1925 displayed on Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You're looking at frame 17, which is a
photograph of --
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry; it's 1925.
MR. LEONARD: If you could zoom in -- there you go.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) That's a photograph of Marv Levi, correct? Do
you know who that is, by the way?
A. Do I?
Q. Yeah.
A. I believe he's the Buffalo Bills coach.
Q. Fine. Take a look at the underside of the sole, there.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You can't see any -- you can't see any detail on the bottom of
that sole, can you?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you can't see any reflection of any green, can you, sir?
A. No, I cannot.
MR. LEONARD: The next photograph would be C2F -- frame 15, contact
sheet 2, frame 15. Can you zoom in on the feet?
MR. P. BAKER: That's as far as that goes.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You examined that?
A. Yes, from --
MR. P. BAKER: I'm going to -- the pro has told me how to work this
thing.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I'm glad you learned by the end of the trial.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Couldn't see any detail whatsoever on the
underside of the sole?
A. That's correct.
Q. No reflection, correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Can we go to contact sheet 1, frame 26.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, that's coach Don Schula, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Same question, sir: Do you see any detail on the bottom of the
sole?
A. Yes. In that particular picture, you can see detail.
Q. Do you see any reflection, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Show the jury where the detail is.
A. Could -- would you enlarge that to the maximum capability?
Q. That's it.
A. Well, it isn't evident. But on -- I'll explain it from here.
That's the left shoe. On the right-hand side of the shoe, you can
see the serration of the sole itself. In other words, the design is
somewhat of a serrated design, and you can see the detail of it on
the right-hand portion of it when you look at it under
magnification.
Q. Sir, would you agree with me that the amount of detail that you
can see in that sole is nowhere near the amount of detail you can
see in the sole of the shoe depicted in the subject photograph? You
agree with that, wouldn't you, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. You'd also agree there's no reflection there, wouldn't you?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. There's no halo effect around that shoe, is there, sir?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Well, look at it, if you don't recall. There's no halo on that,
is there, sir?
A. Well, from that particular image, I would not be able to
determine. I would have to go back and look.
Q. Your best recollection is, there was none?
A. Not --
MR. PETROCELLI: He was in the middle of an answer, Your Honor, and
he interrupted him.
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE CLERK: For the record, this is Exhibit 1924.
Q. Now, you also testified, I believe --
MR. LEONARD: Can we put the photograph that has the close-up. Yeah.
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1830 going on the screen.
(Exhibit 1830 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. LEONARD: If you go down to the area of the foot, particularly
the right foot, and focus as best you can.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You testified just now on direct examination,
that the majority of that shoe was over the red. Do you remember
saying that on direct examination, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Some of it's over the white. Would you agree with that, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that there should be some white
reflection, if that is a valid photograph, on the very tip of that
shoe?
A. No, sir.
MR. LEONARD: Now, let's move -- let's pull back on this particular
image. Do we have a number on this --
MR. P. BAKER: 1830.
MR. LEONARD: -- so the record is clear? And if you could, try to
focus on the scratch along the right-hand side.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: Not that close. Pull back a little.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: And up a little bit, please.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: There we go.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you spent a lot of time on your direct
examination talking about this -- what you described as a scratch
made by the camera.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Never got a chance to examine the camera, correct?
A. I didn't hear.
Q. You never got a chance to examine Scull's camera, correct?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Scull told you that it had been stolen, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, before we get into the specifics here, would you agree
that if you were going to fake a photograph, and that you wanted to
do a thorough job of covering your tracks, that you would attempt to
create a duplicate negative and fit it back into the original roll
that you were claiming the photograph was taken on? Would you agree
with that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Never heard of that happening; is that right?
A. Not in that -- not that technique as you've just described it.
Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that if you were going to do that,
that you would try to use the same camera to recreate the fake roll
of film?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. He just said he never heard of
anybody doing that.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you were going to use that technique that you
haven't heard of?
(Laughter.)
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
MR. PETROCELLI: Now we're in Never Never Land, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: No, we're not.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, we've been there.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: Well, it calls for speculation. It's close, so I'll allow
it.
A. No, sir.
(Laughter.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, when you -- I take it you examined this
rather closely, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And one of the things you were looking for was to see if there
was a continuous scratch, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And, first of all, this -- this illustrates quite nicely
how the first slide is out of line with the second. Would you agree
with that?
A.
(No verbal response.)
Q. Do you follow that scratch up there, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And, of course, your explanation for that is an innocent
one; that it has something to do with the movement of the camera,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It can also be that that was inserted into -- that was a fake
negative inserted into this film, correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. When you see a fake negative inserted into a -- into a strip, if
you don't insert it exactly correct, it can be out of line, correct?

A. I would never -- I've never heard of, nor would I understand, any
reason to do it in that manner.
Q. Now, if -- You are telling the jury that -- that this scratch was
caused by the camera, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you're saying that the scratch occurs as the film is pulled
through the camera, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that if the film was moving, you
wouldn't see any change in that scratch whatsoever? Is that what
you're saying?
A. You're going to have to wind the film. If the film was moving,
you wouldn't see any change -- that kind of change.
Q. You said that the fact that this negative is out of alignment has
something to do with the fact that the film was moving in the
camera, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Wouldn't you expect to see some change in that scratch, sir, that
the scratch would move?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't see any between these frames, do you, sir?
A. I wouldn't expect to, necessarily.
Q. You don't see any, do you?
A. No, sir, I do not.
MR. LEONARD: Can you put up -- yeah, put that photograph up again.
The one that's on the Elmo, just pull it back. Focus on that right
foot again, please.
(Mr. P. Baker adjusts Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I want you to take a look carefully, sir, at the
positioning of that foot on the ground, and in particular, at the
position of the heel. You see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That heel is flat on the ground, is it not, sir?
A. From that photograph, I cannot tell.
MR. LEONARD: Now what are we putting up?
MR. P. BAKER: This is a zoomed 1931.
(Exhibit 1931 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. LEONARD: Just zoom back first.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me ask you a couple foundational questions.
You testified in your deposition that -- that the shoe was in the
position where the toe is up and it's cocked to the left, correct?
A. I said to the left. It should be -- it should have been to the
left.
Q. Cocked to the right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I want to you take a look at that heel. Is that heel not
flat on the ground, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. With no portion above the surface?
A. No, sir.
Q. How much is above the surface, sir?
A. A small portion in the front of the heel.
Q. Extremely small portion, right?
MR. LEONARD: Zoom in.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
A. It depends on how you define "extremely." I say a small portion
of it is above the ground.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Measure it. Can you measure it? Did you attempt
to measure it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you've discussed in your direct testimony a lot of
experiments. You did demonstrations; you put those in front of the
jury. Let me ask you something. Did you ever try to replicate this
photograph? In other words, did you ever attempt to try to take a
similar photograph, sir, with -- with someone walking in the manner
that Mr. Simpson is, with the same stride pattern? Did you ever try
to do that?
A. No, sir. That would be extremely difficult.
Q. You didn't do that, right?
A. No, sir, I did not.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. LEONARD: Maybe I do. Hold on.
MR. BAKER: We can take a ten-minute recess.
THE COURT: Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any
opinions.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR.
GELBLUM: (continued)
Q. You said this is the first time -- I think the first time you
testified in court on the subject of an altered photographed; is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir, that's true.
Q. How many cases have you worked on involving alteration of
photographs?
A. Probably somewhere between 50 and 60.
Q. In all the professional organizations that you belong to and the
agencies you've worked with, do you know anybody in the country who
has worked on more cases involving altered photographs than you?
A. Not that I'm aware of no, sir.
Q. On those 50 or 60 cases, do you know why those didn't come to
court?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: You may explain.
A. I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Go ahead.
A. In about half of them, they were not criminal matters, they were
cases involving alterations made such as in MIA cases, prisoner of
war cases, where photographs had been put forth as being individuals
who were in the military being held by Vietnamese; those type of
examinations. The other half, approximately, were criminal
matters. However, most of them just did not go to trial. I was
called a number of times for testimony, but the cases settled before
that particular time.
Q. I think you testified over 100 times in court?
A. Somewhere between 100 and 200, yes, sir.
Q. And some of those involved forensic photography issues?
A. Yes, sir, a great many of them.
Q. Do you use the same, or some of the same, skills examining a
photo for alteration as you do in examining a photo for comparison
purposes?
A. First of all, you have to have a good understanding of the
photographic process, from the camera, to the film, to the
processing techniques, pretty well across the board. You to have a
basic knowledge through training, education, and also just pure
experience looking at a lot of -- lot of film, lot of negatives, lot
of prints, over the years, to understand the many characteristics in
photography that you may run across in doing an examination. And all
of these relate one way or another, eventually, to doing an
examination of alterations.
Q. Okay. Does the FBI, when you were working with the FBI, get
many alteration cases?
A. The FBI itself will accept cases from all 56 of the field
divisions and 11,000 police departments throughout the United States
and the unit was the special photographic unit, we would get
somewhere between three or possibly four a year of this type of
case.
Q. Did you work on those?
A. I worked on the grand majority of them. Other agents there also
worked on them, but not as many as normally I would.
Q. So you just don't see many claims about photographs that have
been altered?
A. You just don't see many claims, yes.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you when determining whether a photograph had
been altered is an exact science. You said it is not, sir?
A. It is not.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. An exact science. I don't think any science is exact. Even in
mathematics there's idiosyncrasies that don't make it exact, like
pi; you can't get an exact number for pi. But most sciences are not
exact, most sciences require a -- a methodology and an analysis,
evaluations, and a conclusion, as a rule, and this science follows
just like most others. Some sciences, you have to use more
experience than others, and this is one of them.
Q. In this field, training and experience is important?
A. Very important.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you questions about bias. Do you have any bias
in this case?
A. I feel I do not.
Q. Have you ever had a case where you were hired to determine some
issue with respect to a photograph and you gave your employer an
answer they didn't want?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LEONARD: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. Yes. Particularly since I have been in private practice, I would
say probably one-third of cases I receive, I provide the answer to
my client, and they would rather not talk to me again after that.
When I was in the FBI, I would also, even though those were all
criminal cases, and mostly all prosecution cases that were coming
in, many times I would issue a report that was contrary to the -- to
the beliefs of the prosecution, and henceforth, the case may or may
not go to court.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Leonard also asked you if you had
looked at anything outside the four corners of this particular
photograph in reaching your conclusion that it has not been altered.
Did you look at any other photographs?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What photographs did you look at?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
MR. GELBLUM: He opened the door.
MR. LEONARD: Based on your prior ruling --
MR. GELBLUM: He opened the door, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Approach the bench and tell me which door he opened.
(Laughter.)
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Leonard asked did he look at anything else. In
fact, he looked at the Flammer photographs. And those re-enforce his
opinion -- supports his conclusion about the authenticity of the
Scull photographs and these other photographs showing the same shoes
-- just not going to go into detail of authenticity itself or
anything else. He did ask him whether he looked at anything else
and the fact is he did.
MR. LEONARD: That was specifically in the context of questions about
motive and such things as that. I did not intend to, nor did I
communicate to this jury anything that would open the door to the
Flammer photos. That's a subject of a writ at this point and this --

THE COURT: All right. Save it for tomorrow.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. GELBLUM: We may try to talk about that later.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Leonard asked you whether a -- if you could
see a false edge outside the image, whether that could be evidence
of alterations. Is there any doubt in your mind about this false
edge issue in this case?
A. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind about the false edge issue
in this case. There's no doubt in my mind that it is the frame
previous to it that's underexposed that's taken during the initial
loading of the camera.
Q. Is there a false edge in this case?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you whether the photographer would have to be
60 or 70 feet above ground to get this image, and you said no?
A. No, sir, it would not.
Q. Would you explain?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I?
THE COURT:
(Nods affirmatively.)
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
A. I'll go through the process of loading the camera. Let's assume
this is the end zone of the football field, and the football field
is -- looking down here, all the lines are parallel to my particular
camera. Where I'm standing, I'm just looking down the football
field, and loading the camera. Normally, the position would be to
hold it -- pick it up, as I'm doing here, take the film out of my,
possibly, bag, and place it into the camera, and once I get it into
the camera, close the back -- close the back, look at where No. 1 is
on the top of my camera here, and click off two or three shots. Now,
if I were to hold the camera exactly at 90 degrees to the ground,
pointing straightforward, we would see -- and if we have the
photographs here -- we would see the horizon line. And the horizon
line being the image in back of here, we would see the ground
portion as we see them in Exhibit -- I mean in frame No. 12, 13, 14,
the great majority of these.
(Indicating to Exhibit 2366.)
A. As we tip the camera down, even a few degrees, this much -- let's
say 15 degrees down, the top of the camera is no longer going to see
the end of the field, it's going to see what's in front of me to
this point on, out to a certain distance, depending on what the tilt
is. If I were to hold it directly down, it would see none of the
field, of course. But somewhere between 90 degrees and looking
straight down, the camera would pick up the first few lines, and
they would tend to diminish, as they did, until it was out of the
field of view any longer.
Q. Is that the normal position for loading a camera?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do the lines in frame 0 diminish as you would expect them to
diminish?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. I think you told Mr. Leonard that you would not expect to see the
last couple of lines in frame 0 right next to each other?
A. No, because basically, we're not seeing far enough down the
field. If we were seeing farther down the field, they would continue
to get closer and closer until either we ran out of lines or
eventually they would appear all to be touching as one big line at
the end of the field, very similar to when I showed the image of the
railroad ties yesterday; we could see the first couple ties in front
of us very plainly, but as they continued on down the track, they
were no longer distinct, they all kind of merged into one.
Q. Can you hold up the exhibit in front of you. What's the number on
the back?
A. Yes, Exhibit 2365.
Q. And that shows the lines there?
A. Yes. This would be the closest line to the camera. There very
well may be a line closer than that we can't see, it's out of the
frame, and then continuing up at least six lines here until we no
longer see them, but the lines will continue on down the field to
the end zone.
Q. If you say you see more lines, they would in fact get closer and
closer together?
A. Yes. If we tipped the camera up to the horizon, we would see
images very, very similar to what we see in the other frames.
However, when you're loading the camera, as I said, you're pointing
the camera slightly down, you're not intending to take a picture.
And if you remember the example I used yesterday, many times when
amateurs take pictures, they get pictures of their feet or the
kitchen tiles or what have you, because they're pointing the camera
basically down.
Q. Now, Mr. Leonard showed you some photographs of some other shoes
on the field, some other people's shoes, and the soles of those
shoes, and you said, I think, you saw less detail in the soles of
those shoes than you do in the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking
across the end zone.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That misstates his testimony. He said he
didn't see any detail except for one. When he says soles --
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) He talked about the detail and the soles. Do you
recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And why would you -- do you have an opinion as to why you don't
see the detail in those shoes, or as much detail as the one in the
photographs?
A. Well, there may be numerous reasons: One of them is the different
types of shoes, different types of materials on the bottom.
Different lighting conditions very well may cause it. And when we
actually look at the shoe of -- Mr. Simpson's shoe, here at the
bottom we can see -- we only see a very small portion of the sole
where the light is reflecting off of it on the far right-hand side.
All the rest of it is black and has no detail, just like the other
shoes in the other photographs.
Q. Okay. Mr. Leonard also showed you some of the other shoes, and I
think you said there was no reflection visible, at least in the ones
he showed you on the other soles?
A. Yes.
Q. What could the reason for that be?
A. Well, again, because the material may not reflect very well, the
lighting may not -- there may not be enough light to reflect that
green back on up to -- up to the black sole. There's a number of
reasons. I can't explain why it wouldn't be there because of the
numerous reasons or possibilities of it. In this one particular
case, we do have just enough light at just the right angle, and it
is backlit where it is reflecting up, to show just a portion of the
sole, just the edge of the sole.
Q. Okay. And finally, Mr. Leonard asked you some questions about the
position of Mr. Simpson's foot, his right foot, in the photograph.
In your 25 years of work in forensic photography, is one of the
things you do when you're comparing photographs, when you're
determining whether a photograph has been altered, to look at the
position of different body parts?
A. Well, I always look to see if they're unusual. Obviously, if the
body part isn't in correct anatomical position, in other words, if
the foot isn't facing forward, it would concern me greatly. But in
most cases, it is a natural part of viewing the picture. I look at
the body parts to make sure that they are not completely out of
sync. Perhaps, if a person is falling, they may be in a very
contorted position which would be natural for a person falling. But
in a contorted position, if they are normally walking, there would
have to be some other explanation for it.
Q. And did you look at the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking across
the end zone to determine whether his feet seemed to be in a natural
and proper position?
A. Yes. It appears to me they are.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further, Your Honor. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR.
LEONARD:
Q. When you made this determination about the natural and
appropriate position of Mr. Simpson's feet, did you actually try to
walk like that and see if your heel would be flat on the ground,
sir, and your foot was up like that? Did you try to do that?
A. No, sir.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, misstates the evidence about flat on the
ground. This witness said it wasn't.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you went through this demonstration here
about how Harry Scull loaded the film that day, where he was
pointing the camera. You have no idea where he loaded the film or
how he was pointing the camera, do you, sir?
A. Based on my analysis of the photograph, yes.
Q. Did you -- you actually interviewed Harry Scull? You talked to
him, didn't you?
A. I did not interview him. I talked to him, yes.
Q. You never asked him that, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, you know, sir, don't you, that there's an issue in this case
regarding some footprints that were left behind at the Bundy crime
scene? Do you know that, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
MR. LEONARD: I'll make it up.
MR. PETROCELLI: No. I want to know now.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Let's go.
MR. GELBLUM: I want an offer of proof.
MR. LEONARD: Let's go.
MR. PETROCELLI: I guess we're going, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Well, you want to know.
MR. KELLY: So we'll go.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. LEONARD: I guess it's my turn. I just want to ask him if he
knows that that's an issue in this case with regard to the
footprints, and the fact that it just so happens there's a portion
of the -- of the sole that's visible on the shoe that's not visible
on the other shoes. That's all I want to ask him.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to that.
(Laughter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, at this point I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further until tomorrow, if that comes to pass.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to move in various exhibits, if I can find my
list. 2369 through 2373, is the list I have. That's from today.
MR. FOSTER: Yesterday, starting at 2357 through 23 --
MR. GELBLUM: It's 2357 through 2373.
THE REPORTER: Those are all consecutive, right?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2357 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2358 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2359 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2360 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2361 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2362 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2363 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2364 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2365 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2366 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2367 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2368 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2369 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2370 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2371 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2372 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2373 was
received in evidence.)
MR. GELBLUM: I'm just going to take these away from the stand.
(Indicating to exhibits.)
MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiffs' call Gregory Matheson, Your Honor.
THE BAILIFF: You can retake the stand.
THE CLERK: You've been sworn previously and you are still under
oath. Would you please state your name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Gregory Matheson.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to go to sidebar real quickly on
this issue.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. P. BAKER: I want to object. I'm sorry. You here? I want to
object to this. I asked what Mr. Matheson was going to testify to,
and he was going to testify about the glove. Now, they're bringing
out a Bronco board.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, no, no, no. I said many, many times to him, and
on the record here when you asked me to lay out the witnesses, that
Matheson and the photographers were talking about the second Bronco
collection and the gloves. I never --
MR. P. BAKER: That was -- you never said that. I want an offer of
proof.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not capable of making that mistake. Go ahead.
MR. LAMBERT: They've done -- Your Honor, they've shown the jury a
photograph that was taken on August the 10th that they claim -- this
photograph is in evidence, which they claim shows there's no blood
in the Bronco on August the 10. We're going to have Matheson point
out the blood that he collected, that he can see in this photograph,
and four other photographs also taken on August the 10th.
MR. P. BAKER: What date did he collect them?
MR. LAMBERT: September the 1st.
MR. P. BAKER: That's not relevant.
MR. LAMBERT: They put the photograph in.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: We'll be dismissing the three photographers that
were on the list; Carmaney, Taggert and Wilson. We've stipulated as
to the photos.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: So we only have a couple of witnesses after today. I
don't think we're going to be here very long.
THE COURT: Good.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Morning, Mr. Matheson.
A. Morning.
Q. Would you please tell the jury once again what your occupation
is, sir?
A. I'm assistant director of the Los Angeles Police Department Crime
Laboratory.
Q. Up in front of you here, or off to the side, is Exhibit 211 which
is the Bronco evidence collection board. You've testified briefly
about this when you were here last time. You personally did some
collection of evidence from the Bronco, sir?
A. Well, not from the Bronco itself, from parts of the Bronco that
were brought into the laboratory.
Q. When was that done?
A. September 1, 1994.
Q. And which parts of the Bronco were brought into the laboratory?
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. There's no foundation
as to the offer of proof.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The left door of the driver's door, both front seats, the center
console of the vehicle, and the steering wheel, plus there was a
couple of little trim pieces.
MR. LAMBERT: Let's put the next exhibit in order up on the Elmo.
(Exhibit 2374 displayed on Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you identify for the jury what it is a
photograph of, sir?
A. What this photograph shows is the driver's door, the interior of
the driver's door. This is a photograph that was taken in the
laboratory. I believe at this point, the door is actually laying on
the ground. That's one reason why the mirror is turned flat. You'll
see in the picture three numbers, I believe, 296, 297, 298 and 299.
Those numbers are placed as evidence item numbers next to blood
items that I collected, along with scales, to show the size of it.

THE CLERK: That's Exhibit 2374.
MR. LAMBERT: 283 --
THE CLERK: 2374.
MR. LAMBERT: 2374.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) These were items that you collected on September
the 1st; is that what you're saying?
A. That's correct.
Q. Would you please compare for the jury the items that you
collected from the door on September the 1st to the items collected
by Dennis Fung, depicted in this photograph on June 14, from the
door.
MR. LAMBERT: Indicating to Exhibit 211.
Q. Starting with the lowest number, No. 296, in the photograph on
the TV screen.
A. That would be stain Item 223, on the other exhibit from the
original evidence collection,
(indicating to Exhibit 211), taken from the Bronco. Item No. 298 on
the television
(2374), corresponds with what is No. 22, which is kind of a swipe or
a light smear-type of blood-stain area above the armrest
(indicating to Exhibit 211).
Q. And number 299 on the TV screen here
(indicating to Exhibit 2374) refers to a stain that's up on the trim
area. This does not -- the number is not depicted but it corresponds
with the stain that is kind of above the 22 -- number 22 stain, up
kind of towards the front of the car a little bit up on this trim
(indicating to Exhibit 211.)
Q. So those three items that you collected on September the 1st were
re-collections of items that Dennis Fung had already done on June
14?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And when you were here last time, Mr. Matheson,
you also mentioned that of the items that you collected off the
console on September the 1st, that some of those were items that Mr.
Fung had collected on the earlier occasion, too. Which items are
those?
A. Can I step down?
(Indicating to Exhibit 211.) Referring to this display here, the
lower right-hand photograph is a photograph of the console that's
actually taken in the laboratory. The numbers that appear on it are
numbers that I placed there during my collection on that day. To
compare it to a collection that was done by Mr. Fung earlier,
there's a kind of a continuous stain here that is actually item
number 303 on the console which would correspond with item number 30
from the original collection, and item number 304 from my collection
corresponds with the right rear of the console, item number 31.
Q. And when you collected items 303 and 304, were you able to
determine if they had previously been the subject of a collection
effort by Mr. Fung?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. You could tell there had already been some blood removed from
that area.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, sir, I'd like to show you some photographs
taken on August the 10th by two different LAPD photographers. And
what I'd like you to do is to examine each of the photographs in the
order in which I give them to you, and on this copy of the
photographs, I'd like you to mark whether you see any of the blood
that you collected on September the 1st in these photographs.
MR. LAMBERT: The first one, Your Honor, is Exhibit 1420, already in
evidence.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And if you could -- we've put the same
photograph up on the Elmo here. If you could point out to the jury
any of the blood evidence that you see in Exhibit 1420?
A. Okay. In this particular exhibit, looking at the photograph
that's in front of me, I can make out -- doesn't show up quite as
clearly on the screen, but in the recessed area of the driver's door
handle, there is a -- a dark stain area that would coincide with a
stain that was collected both by Mr. Fung and by myself. In this
exhibit that's the only, you know, clear stain that I could make
out. There are some kind of hazy areas that, you know, may or may
not be blood. I know where they're at so it makes it maybe a little
easier to see it so -- I'm not totally sure it's obvious in the
picture that's what they are. That one stain is clear down in the
recess, and when you look with a magnifying glass --
Q. Would you take this copy of that exhibit and mark the blood area
that you can see in the photograph?
A. It's not as clear in this copy as it is on the original
photograph. But I'm circling an area down in the recess of the
driver's door handle.
MR. LAMBERT: And, Your Honor, could we mark this as the next in
order. Which would be what?
MR. FOSTER: 2375.
MR. LAMBERT: 2375.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2375.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, I'll show you the exhibit -- next exhibit
--
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2376.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This is another photograph taken on August the
10th.
MR. LAMBERT: Steve, if you could put that up.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2376.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you point out to the -- on the television
screen, to the jury, where you see any of the blood evidence that
you collected on September 1 in this August 10 photograph?
A. Okay. The most apparent stain in this photograph is the one that
was collected above the arm rest on the driver's door. In this area
right here, you can make out, you know, on the video screen, a
little bit of a darkened area that corresponds to where that red
stain was collected.
Q. Okay. Thank you. And on Exhibit 2377, would you please mark where
it is you could see the blood on that particular photograph?
A. Okay. I'm circling on 2377 the stained area that corresponds with
blood that I collected at a later date.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2377.)
Q. Thank you. Now, I'll show you the next photograph --
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 23 --
THE COURT: What is on the Elmo?
MR. LAMBERT: Pardon me?
THE COURT: What do you have on the video screen?
MR. LAMBERT: That's the next one. He beat me to the punch.
THE COURT: Let's not confuse the jury.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm confused, if you can imagine that.
THE COURT: I can't imagine. Would you take that off.
MR. LAMBERT: Don't beat me to the punch, Steve. The next one now is
going to be 23 -- 23 what? 2378. Which is another photograph taken
on September 1. And could you please put that up now, Steve.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2378.)
MR. GELBLUM: Which one? Steve doesn't know which one.
MR. LAMBERT: Put it up and I'll tell you if it's the right one. No.
The one you had up before.
MR. FOSTER: Okay.
MR. LAMBERT: Okay. Put it up a little higher. There you go.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, would you point out to the jury where you
see blood that was collected by you on September the 1st in this
August 10 photograph?
A. Okay. The area that I'm concerned with here that shows a stained
area is on that right rear area of the console, would be right down
in this area here
(indicating). You can see the darkened area. That corresponds with
the stains that were collected by Mr. Fung and by myself on that
upper corner.
Q. Would you on 23 --
MR. LAMBERT: What's the number on that? 78.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) 2379, would you mark the area that you're
describing to the jury.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2379.)
A. On 2379 I'm circling with a red pen the right rear corner of the
console showing the stained area.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay. Now, on the next exhibit --
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2380.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2380.)
MR. LAMBERT: Okay, Steve, the one with the three numbers, 2380.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you please take a look at that one and
tell the jury if you can see any of the blood that you collected on
September the 1st in that photograph?
A. This photograph actually shows two faint areas of staining that
was later collected. One that was depicted earlier in a previous
photograph, the smear or swipe stained area that's above the left
arm rest on the side. And there also is another area which is on the
inner side of -- of this console, appears right where I'm pointing
to the picture, right there.
Q. Now, I also would ask you whether this appears to be one of the
stains that you collected in that photograph as well?
A. Yes, that's correct, that's a third area that we talked about
previously up on the trim piece up here
(indicating).
Q. Can you please mark those, then, on the next one -- exhibit in
order -- which is 2381?
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2381.)
A. Okay. On 2381, I am circling with the red pen the stained area
above the arm rest, the stained area on that control module edge,
and the stained area on the trim piece.
Q. And finally, on Exhibit 2382, the final photograph we have taken
on August 10, could you point out if you see any of the blood you
collected on September 1 in that photograph and then point it out
to the jury?
(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2382.)
A. Okay. This photograph -- actually the photograph shows it better
than up on the video screen. But it's very evident. The red staining
on the right rear of the console back in this area right here which
is a lower part of it. Little bit of staining on the upper right
corner where the blood was collected from. And it does show a little
bit of staining that's on the lower right side of the console,
obviously -- or previously collected in the -- and collected by
myself at a later time.
Q. Would you, on Exhibit 2383, please mark the spots that you just
pointed out to the jury where you see blood evidence?
A. Okay. I'm going to put one red circle around the combined stains
on the right rear of the console area and one red circle around the
stain that appears farther forward on the right-hand side of the
console.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LAMBERT: Now, Your Honor, with your permission, I'd ask that I
pass these photographs with the magnifying glass to the jury so they
have an opportunity to look at them themselves close up.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Photographs and magnifying glass passed around among jurors.).
THE COURT: Turn the light on.
(Bailiff complies.)
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, for one minute I'm going to run back for
an exhibit. Are you taking a quick -- are you --
MR. LAMBERT: I'll wait.
MR. LEONARD: Are you waiting?
MR. LAMBERT:
(Nods affirmatively.)
(Pause.)
MR. PETROCELLI: May I approach without the reporter with Mr. Baker?
(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)
(Counsel resume their seats.)
MR. BAKER: Why don't we go back up there.
(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Matheson, the photographs from August 10
showing the blood that you collected on September the 1st that we
just passed around, those were taken outdoors at Viertel's. Have you
ever been to the indoor Viertel's facility where cars are stored?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you ever attempted to do a search of any of the vehicles
indoors at Viertel's?
A. Yes, I've been sent over to do a few car searches in my career.
Q. Are you able to do a search for something like these blood traces
that we've been looking at in a car indoors at Viertel's without
special lighting equipment?
MR. BAKER: Objection, outside the scope, Your Honor. This is not
rebuttal.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, may I approach on that?
THE COURT: Oh, no.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Blasini, they put --
MR. P. BAKER: No speaking --
MR. PETROCELLI: It's directly rebuttal to Mr. Blasini's testimony.
THE COURT: You may have him testify to what he did.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) When you did car searches at Viertel's inside
the lot, did you use a flashlight?
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, Your Honor, it doesn't have to do with
this case.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, I use flashlights.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And would you have been able to see the evidence
without a flashlight?
MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It would be very difficult.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now let's turn to another subject. Before you is
exhibit number -- what is this exhibit number -- 2312, the Bundy
glove. Do you recognize that glove, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. The glove has some writing on it. Would you please tell the jury
what that writing is?
A. Yes. Appearing on the lower palm area of the glove are my
initials, GBM, along with the letter A and an arrow pointing to an
area I sampled for testing, a D and a line pointing to an area that
was sampled for testing. On the back of the palm is a white B with
an arrow pointing to an area where I -- I did some testing. There
should also be a C which may appear under the -- under the tag.
Q. And the marks that are on there, were those put by you on that
glove?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. And you tested this glove in what fashion, Mr. Matheson?
A. I removed portions of the stains on there to do serological or
blood typing, type of testing.
Q. And was that conventional serology?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what were the results that you got from that conventional
serology test?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, outside -- that's not rebuttal.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The results that I obtained from all four of the stained areas
that I tested off of this glove was in an enzyme system called PGM
subtyping. The results were a 2 plus 1 plus.
Q. And is that result consistent with any of Mr. Simpson, Nicole
Brown or Ronald Goldman?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. P. BAKER: This is not rebuttal.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
A. Yes, it is.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Who is it consistent with?
A. Of the three, that type is consistent with Ron Goldman.
Q. After obtaining those conventional serology tests, was any
further testing done with regard -- in regard to this glove?
A. Not as far as serology goes, no.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, the indication of who's blood it was was Mr. Goldman, the
glove was found at the scene in proximity to Mr. Goldman's body, did
not seem necessary at that point to do any further testing on this
item.
Q. Is that glove that's in front of you the same glove that you did
that testing on?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, I'd like to show you some photographs of the glove, the
first one of which is Exhibit 40, which is from the crime scene, and
then in addition, I'd like to show you Exhibits 2309 -- put the
number on the back.
THE COURT REPORTER: Have those been previously marked?
MR. LAMBERT: They've been previously marked. Yeah. 2309, 2310.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2309.)
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2310.)
MR. LAMBERT: I have six new -- what's the next number?
MR. FOSTER: 2384.
THE CLERK: Correct.
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2384.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2384.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2385.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2385.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2386.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2386.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2387.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2387.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2388.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2388.)
MR. LAMBERT: And 2389.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2389.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) I would ask you, Mr. Matheson, if you could
compare first the glove to the crime scene photograph, Exhibit 40,
and tell me if the glove depicted in the crime scene is the same as
the glove in front of you?
MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Witness examines glove and photo with magnifying glass.)
A. Yes it is.
Q. And could you point out to the jury --
MR. LAMBERT: Do we have this up on the screen, please, Steve,
Exhibit Number 40.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you point out to the jury on the Elmo up
here, the stains on the crime scene photograph that appear on the
glove here in court?
A. Again, some of it is a little more difficult to see up on the
video screen, but I was making the comparison, just both a general
appearance of the glove, but in particular there are a number of --
of stained areas or stains on the glove that appear in the
photograph. There's two in this vicinity, and then along kind of
drooling kind of stain on this side along with a larger pooled area
of blood along this area of the glove and a stain up towards the
kind of palm area. From looking at the location of those stains, and
looking at the glove itself, even though you no longer have the
chips of blood or the chunks of blood that are visible in this
picture, on the glove, you can make out stained areas that are the
same in appearance. There's -- in the lower portion of the glove
itself, as a matter of fact, one of the stains sampled for testing
is D. There's the -- two kind of roundish stains that appear here
and here. There's the elongated kind of what I call a drooling type
of stain that appears across here. An area of staining here near
this notch in the glove where I -- it appears there was a larger
amount of blood that would coincide with this stained area here,
which also is, you know, the label is in a similar location to the
label. And then in the palm area, there was a -- a chip or a stain,
and that coincides with the stained area that I actually sampled
and did some testing as point A on the glove.
Q. Now, have you also compared the glove here in court to the other
photographs I showed you which were taken on June 14 of the glove,
and are there additional similarities between those photographs and
the glove that you could point out to the jury?
(Witness reviews photographs.)
MR. LAMBERT: I can put it up on the Elmo, if that will work.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Are these them?
A. That, that
(indicating to photographs.) Several of the photographs are kind of
wide shots or overall shots of the glove. The pictures that show the
palm area have a similar type of staining as the crime scene
photograph showing that they are the same glove. There are also some
closeup pictures that are taken of the label on the glove itself.
MR. LAMBERT: Let's put that up.
MR. FOSTER: 2373.
(Exhibit 2373 is displayed on Elmo.)
A. This picture depicts the -- the label that's on the inside of the
glove which has some red staining on it, particularly heaviest down
in the area where it attaches to the glove itself. If you compare
that to the exhibit that's here in court, the red stain has faded
considerably over what it appears there. However, this is a --
excuse me
(indicating to Elmo) -- a pattern that has, you know, some unique
features to it. It is not just a circle or something. It has a
couple of little protrusions that go across the printed line that if
you look you can compare -- those same protrusions appear on the
label itself just past the printed line, this staining here that
extends between the stitch and the printed line also appears on the
label on the glove here in court.
Q. Looking at -- after looking at those photographs, Mr. Matheson,
do you believe that this glove here in court is the same glove
depicted in the crime scene photographs and in the June 14
photographs?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, a few days ago Mr. Baker showed Mr. Fung a photograph taken
on June 14, the same time that these other ones, which is -- this is
a blown-up version of Exhibit 2372. Have you seen that photograph
before, sir?
MR. P. BAKER: I object to the question, Judge, it misstates the
evidence, what transpired with Mr. Fung.
THE COURT: I didn't hear you.
MR. P. BAKER: What transpired with Mr. Fung, the examination of Mr.
Fung. Move to strike the preface. If he wants to ask him a question,
he can ask the question.
THE COURT: What was the question?
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The question is, a few days ago this photograph
was shown to Mr. Fung. Have you seen the photograph before?
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, I have.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Have you seen this close-up photograph of that
same area on the glove?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What do those photographs depict?
A. The first photograph you handed me, which I believe is marked
2372, is more a close-up picture of the glove than some of the ones
I was looking at before. It shows the back left or -- excuse me --
the back side of the glove, in particular the ring finger and the
middle finger. On the ring finger you can see a small amount of
debris that's adhering to the surface of the leather.
Q. Do you have any question as to whether this thing that we see
on the glove is debris as opposed to a cut in the glove or a tear in
the glove?
A. No, on examining particularly the close-up photograph, it's
clearly a piece of debris that's sitting on the surface, kind of
crusted in or caked in with what appears to be a little dirt and a
hair that -- or a fiber that kind of wraps around it.
MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) How are you, Mr. Matheson?
A. Fine.
Q. I got a chance to talk with you in the hallway; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I asked you what the substance of your testimony was going to
be, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you told me it was going to be about the glove, right?
A. I said it was going to be about some blood and the glove.
Q. Didn't mention the Bronco, right?
A. Well, when I was talking about the blood, that's what I was
referring to.
Q. Kind of sprung that one on me.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You're in the plaintiffs' camp, aren't you?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
MR. P. BAKER: Goes to bias.
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know what it means.
THE COURT: You may ask that a little more up-front.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Are you here by subpoena?
A. I was subpoenaed originally in the case. For today I was called
and requested to come back in to testify.
Q. Who called you?
A. The plaintiffs did.
Q. Which one?
A. I believe it was Mr. Lambert.
Q. He didn't serve you with another subpoena?
A. No.
Q. Do you know why, when the defense tries to call a police officer,
they have to resubpoena them?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. P. BAKER: Goes to bias.
THE COURT: It's the wrong person you're directing that question to.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did they call you after Mr. Fung testified?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. They called you the day after Mr. Fung testified, didn't they?
A. Yes. As a matter of fact, it was the morning following.
Q. They said we have a problem, didn't they? That's what they said?
A. I don't know if those terms were used. We talked about the debris
on the glove.
Q. Did they tell you that Mr. Fung testified it was a cut or a rip?
A. Well, actually, I heard on the news, on my drive home, that there
was some indication of that.
Q. Did the plaintiffs tell you that? That was my question. Did they
tell you that Mr. Fung sat in that seat and told the jury there was
a cut or a rip on the Bundy glove?
A. I don't know if I -- if they specifically said it to me or if,
during the course of our conversation, I pointed out that it wasn't.

Q. Just answer my question.
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did they tell you that?
A. I don't remember the exact words of the conversation. We
discussed it, discussed a cut or tear.
Q. Did they read any portions of his testimony?
A. I don't believe I was read any. I was supplied with a copy of the
transcript.
Q. Did you read it?
A. I skimmed it; read parts, yes.
Q. By the way, how much have you charged the plaintiffs for your
work on the civil case?
A. I am not charging anything; that's being left to the city and our
discovery unit.
Q. How much has the discovery charged the plaintiffs, as far as you
know?
A. I don't have a clue.
Q. Have you submitted a bill?
A. That's not the arrangement. I'm just --
Q. You just wait until they call you and then you come running down
here, right?
A. Just --
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A.
(Continuing.) I call or I respond to court anytime that I'm called,
both for the plaintiff and the defense.
Q. But we have to subpoena you, right?
A. I believe that -- the last time that I was requested by the
defense to appear, it was a telephone call, and I said, sure, I will
respond.
Q. You weren't served with a subpoena; is that what you're telling
this jury?
A. No. I was served with a subpoena.
Q. Okay. Now, did they read to you where Mr. Fung told this jury,
when talking about the gloves, "I did note, when I got back to the
laboratory, some -- some cuts on them." Did they read that to you?
A. I don't believe they read it. It sounds familiar from what I read
in the transcript.
Q. They never told you he said that, right?
A. I don't remember, like I said, the exact content of the
conversation.
Q. Did they tell you that he also testified that he saw a rock or a
piece of stucco embedded in the glove where a cut was? Did they tell
you that?
A. Again, I remember reading something to the effect of a rock
present on the glove from the transcripts, or from the conversation.

Q. I'm just asking you, Mr. Matheson, if they told you that. Did
they tell you that?
A. I don't remember if they specifically told me that.
Q. You examined the glove on June 14, right?
A. I was present when the gloves were examined; that's correct.
Q. You examined it pretty closely, right?
A. Like I said, I was present. I was not the primary criminalist
dealing with it.
MR. P. BAKER: I'd ask the Court to have this witness answer my
question.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You examined it pretty closely, didn't you, Mr.
Matheson?
A. No.
Q. You didn't?
A. I was not the criminalist that was doing the examination. I was
present to assist them with some decision-making on tests.
Q. So you're not here to tell this jury there wasn't cuts on the
glove you examined on the 14th, are you?
A. I didn't examine a glove. I saw this glove there.
Q. Did you see any cuts on it?
A. I didn't make any notation of any, no.
Q. You didn't look at it very closely, did you?
A. That's correct.
Q. You looked at it in the same manner you looked at socks, when you
saw no blood on the socks, right?

Q. You didn't see any debris on the Bundy glove when you looked at
it on June 14, did you?
A. I don't specifically remember.
Q. Remember me asking you that question right on the bench, right
outside that door? Remember me just asking you that?
A. You asked me if I had seen debris on it before. I have seen these
photographs prior to this court.
Q. And you said you didn't see any debris on the glove, didn't you,
Mr. Matheson?
A. I'm trying to keep -- keep the times separate, exactly what we
were talking about. I did not do an examination of the glove on the
14th. I was present when they were looked at. I don't specifically
remember any debris.
Q. You saw no debris on it on June 14, as far as you know, correct?
A. I don't remember; that's correct.
Q. You didn't see any stucco on it, as far as you know, on June 14,
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you've worked with Dennis Fung for quite a while, haven't
you?
A. Actually, I have never worked along with him as a criminalist. I
currently manage the section in which he works.
Q. How long have you known Dennis Fung?
A. Well, I started with the laboratory before him, so it would be
the length of his career with the lab. I don't remember how long
that is.
Q. Over five years?
A. Oh, definitely.
Q. Over ten years?
A. I believe he's been there longer than ten.
Q. Is he an honest guy?
A. I've never run into a situation where he lied to me; that, I
know.
Q. You don't have any reason to believe he'd lie to this jury, do
you?
A. No.
Q. You didn't see the glove on June 13, right?
A. June 13, no, I did not.
Q. So if Dennis Fung told the jury he saw a cut or a rip on it on
June 13, you would have no way to dispute that, would you?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll read it.. If Dennis Fung testified in the
following manner --
MR. PETROCELLI: And give us a line.
MR. P. BAKER: Sure. Page 62, lines 13 through 19.
Q. Well, that's exactly the same area I pointed to on the other two
exhibits, isn't it, sir?
A. Yes it is.
Q. And you're telling me that's not a cut?
A. Well, there's an area of damage on there. I don't know if it's a
cut or if it was caused by a rip. You didn't see the glove on the
13th, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You have no reason whatsoever to believe that Mr. Fung was lying
when he testified on January 8, 1996
(sic), do you?
A. I have no reason to believe he would lie in court at all.
Q. And when Mr. Fung testified that he wasn't sure that glove right
here was the glove he collected at the scene, you have no way of
disagreeing with that, do you Mr. Matheson?
A. I don't disagree with it, that's what he thought.
Q. Have you no idea? You didn't see the glove on June 13, did you?
A. Like I said, no, I did not.
Q. So the first time you saw it was on June 14, when you didn't even
really look at it, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And when was the next time you saw it?
A. I don't specifically remember. We -- the inventory that we did on
June 29, I'm assuming it was pulled out at that point.
Q. When did you examine it closely?
A. I have never done a close examination of this glove until I did
my blood removal.
Q. So that -- were you in this courtroom two days ago?
A. No.
Q. Did they ask to you look at the glove in the past days?
A. I'm sorry. I wasn't in during court. Monday morning, prior to the
Court's session, yes, we did come over and take a look at the glove.

Q. Who's "we?"
A. It was myself, Mr. Fung, and Mr. Lambert.
Q. Did they pay you for that?
A. It was being paid by the city.
Q. The taxpayers paid you to come over here and look at the glove;
is that right?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Were you served with a subpoena to come over
here and look at the glove?
A. No, I was not.
Q. They just called you up and you came over and you looked at the
glove?
A. That's right.
Q. It's really the first time you looked at it closely, right?
A. No. Actually, when I removed my blood samples off of it, I looked
at it. At that point, I was looking for blood.
Q. When did you lift the blood samples?
A. Can I refer to my notes?
Q. Sure.
A. That would be on September 18, 1994.
Q. That's the first time you looked at it closely, just so the
record's clear, Mr. Matheson?
A. That's the first time I did an examination of it; that's correct.

Q. And you did the sero -- how do you pronounce it? You're better at
this than I am.
A. I did a ser --
(Laughter.)
MR. LEONARD: No, he's not.
A. The testing was serological. I was removing blood samples from it
to do serology tests.
Q. All right. And not one drop of blood on the Bundy glove matched
O.J. Simpson, did it?
A. Of the four I tested, that's correct.
Q. You never tested any more, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And no one ever asked you to test it anymore, right?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. And you have no knowledge of who handled the glove between the
time Mr. Fung saw it, collected it on June 13, until you saw it on
the morning of the 14th, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And on the 14th, you didn't look at it very closely, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then you didn't -- you don't know who handled the glove from
the 14th through the 29th, when you looked at it more closely,
right? Or, no. September 1. I'm sorry.
A. That's correct. It was within our control, but I don't know
everybody that looked at it.
Q. When was O.J. Simpson's reference vial taken?
MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
MR. P. BAKER: Goes to the blood --
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) When were the victim reference vials taken?
MR. LAMBERT: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, you were asked some questions about your
inspection of the Bronco on September 1; is that right? I'm sorry.
You didn't inspect the Bronco, right?
A. That's correct. Just the parts that were brought to the
laboratory.
Q. You just got what they brought to you?
A. That's correct.
Q. What you are talking about on September 1 are the swatches that
were collected on August 26, right?
A. No.
Q. When were they collected?
A. September 1.
Q. Swatches were collected on September the 1st?
A. That's correct. That's when I collected the swatches off the
stains.
Q. Okay. The stains were collected on August 26, right?
A. No. The items that were brought to the laboratory were collected
on the 26th. The blood was not removed until September 1.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Lambert showed you some photographs of the Bronco
taken on August 10, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Show you that Monday or today?
A. I looked at them both today and some on Monday.
Q. How much time have you spent with Mr. Lambert to prepare yourself
for this testimony today?
A. Probably a total of about two and a half hours.
Q. Did you do that over at the Doubletree?
A. Some was done over there this morning. A little bit was done
there Monday morning, along with here. A little bit -- it was done
in the laboratory.
Q. Mr. Lambert came down to the laboratory?
A. Yes.
Q. And they let you into the Doubletree suite?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: They won't let me in.
MR. PETROCELLI: Anybody can go there, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, did he show you all the photos Mr.
Carmaney took on August 10?
A. There was a pretty good stack. He did not indicate to me that
this was every one of them.
Q. Were the photos taken indoors or out of doors?
A. Out of doors.
Q. Was it cloudy, rainy, or bright sunshine?
A. Appears that it was bright.
Q. Is this a photograph -- are these a couple of the photographs he
showed you?
MR. P. BAKER: I'll mark these two --
MR. LAMBERT: Let's see them first.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry.
(Mr. Lambert reviews photos.)
MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to mark these next in order.
THE CLERK: 2390 and 2391.
(The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2390.)
(The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2391.)
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) 2390 and 2391, are those the photographs he
showed you?
A. These look familiar.
Q. By the way, going back to the glove, did Mr. Lambert ever ask to
you compare the wear of the glove in the photograph you observed,
and the glove you saw in court on Monday?
A. No, he didn't.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 2390.
(Defendants' Exhibit 2390 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Pretty sunny?
A. I'm sorry. What?
Q. Pretty sunny when that photograph was taken?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Pretty sunny when that photograph was taken?
A. It -- I see shadows. It looks like the sun was out.
Q. 2391, pretty bright?
A. Same thing. That's correct.
Q. Now, did Mr. Lambert describe the lighting conditions to you
when he showed you those photos?
A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Q. Did Mr. Lambert describe the lighting conditions to you when he
showed you those photos?
A. I believe we discussed whether or not it was outdoors. And you
could see from the photos that it was bright.
Q. Now, did you talk to Mr. Carmaney about the photos he took?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ask him if he saw any blood when he took that photograph
on the console?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Now, I want to look at 14 -- show you 1420, before I throw it up
on the Elmo.
(Witness reviews Exhibit 1420 with a magnifying glass.)
A. Okay.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) See any blood on the front of that console,
where item No. 303 was collected, sir?
A. No, I do not.
Q. When was item 303 collected?
A. That would have been on September 1, 1994.
Q. About three weeks after this photograph was taken?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. Now, I want to show you -- it's actually page 2 of 1420.
MR. LAMBERT: What is it, Phil?
MR. P. BAKER: You want me to show it to you, too?
MR. LAMBERT: What is it?
MR. P. BAKER: It's a photo I showed to the jury, page 2 of 1420.
MR. LEONARD: For the record, can we make sure we've got the right
exhibit?
MR. P. BAKER: He is presently looking at page 2 of 1420. 1420, page
1, is on the screen.
MR. BAKER: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
MR. LEONARD: It was a test.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You got it in mind, Mr. Matheson?
A. Yes.
Q. See the blood stain where item 380 -- strike that -- where 303
was collected?
A. Can I refer to my notes?
Q. Sure.
MR. BAKER: Sure.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry?
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
A. 303 was collected from this stain on the console lid, on the
right-hand side.
Q. Okay. And that's about where 306 was collected?
A. 306 actually, I believe, was either a hair or fiber that was down
in the lower part here.
(Indicating.)
Q. 303 is the blood stain, for the record, referring to the mid
portion of the console. Am I right, Mr. Matheson?
A. That is correct.
Q. That photograph -- was that photograph shown to you?
A. I believe I've seen it. I don't know if it was shown to me
recently or if it was during my many times looking at photographs of
this case.
Q. This photograph was taken on August 26. You're aware of that,
right?
A. Not specifically, no. But I have no reason to dispute it.
Q. That's about two weeks after the other photograph I just showed
you, 1420 page 1?
A. That's correct, if that's the right date on it.
Q. Just one final area. You are going to be on the stand longer than
Kato. I show you that photo.
(Witness reviews a photograph.)
MR. P. BAKER: Actually, this one is better. Let me show you this
one. What number is this, 2380?
MR. LAMBERT: It's on the back of it.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Referring to 2380.
A. Okay.
Q. You're aware that blood was collected from the door sill of the
'94 Ford Bronco?
A. I'm aware of it, yes.
Q. You're also aware that you could not -- and the blood was
collected in this area; is that correct?
A. Actually, I don't know the specific spot. If we have some
documentation, I can refer to that. I was not involved --
Q. Do you have documentation?
A. Not as far as that stain goes, no.
Q. Are you aware that you couldn't see that area when the door is
closed?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
(The Court reviews realtime screen.)
MR. P. BAKER: Sure.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's beyond the scope of this witness's
examination of the exhibit.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I've got one more brief area. I'd like to
take the lunch recess now, if that's possible.
THE COURT: You may. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case.
Don't form or express any opinions. 1:30.
(At 11:59
A.M., luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1997 1:30 PM.
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES:
(PER COVER PAGE)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions for Mr. Matheson. I'm
sorry.
(Laughter.)
MR. LAMBERT: Just a couple questions, Your Honor. It's no surprise,
Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. Mr. Matheson, you were asked on cross-examination in some of the
photographs, some of which you could see the blood, some of which
you couldn't see the blood. Is it common in your experience to not
always be able to see blood in these photographs
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation. He's not an expert in this.
THE COURT: Lay some foundation.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Matheson, how often have you seen
photographs of blood evidence as part of your duties as a
criminalist?
A. I can't give you an exact number. It's easily in excess of 100
times.
Q. Are photographs taken whenever blood evidence is collected?
A. Yes. Photos are taken whenever evidence is collected of anything.

Q. And you then sometimes called upon to review those photographs?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is that part of your duties as a criminalist?
A. When I was a supervisor criminalist. It isn't as much now.
Q. Now that you're a supervisor?
A. Now that I'm the assistant director I don't get as directly
involved in the case work, but I do occasionally still review
photos.
Q. When photographs were taken of blood evidence at -- when it's
being collected, do the photographs always depict the evidence?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Not always, no.
Q. Can you explain to the jury why the blood shows up in some
photographs and not other in others?
MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) In this case, Mr. Matheson, you can see the
blood in some of the photographs, you can see it real clearly in
other photographs, and there are some photographs where you can't
see the blood where you know it was there because you later checked
them?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, that's true.
Q. Now, you were also asked some questions about why you're here
today. Would you explain to the jury whether I contacted you or you
contacted me after Mr. Fung's testimony last week?
A. Yes. After leaving work, I believe it was on Wednesday, driving
home I was listening to the news, and through the media, heard some
of the comments, or their opinion of some of the comments that were
made in court, and I believed that I knew exactly what Mr. Fung was
testifying to; the stain -- the debris or -- excuse me, not the
stain, but the debris or the possible hole that was there, because
it was an issue that I dealt with during investigation of the
criminal case back in, I think, late October of 1994. When I got
home --
MR. P. BAKER: This is nonresponsive, Judge. He's speculating as to
Mr. Fung.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Upon arriving home I called your office and left a message on
your machine to contact me the next day regarding this issue.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And the work that you had done back in October
of 1994, did you say it was?
A. Yes.
Q. Yeah. Was that in regard to this same photograph that we've been
talking about here today?
A. Some of the same photographs, yes. It was the same issue of a
possible hole in one of the gloves that appears in the photograph.
Q. And what determination did you make back in October of 1994?
A. That it was not a hole, that it was in fact some debris sitting
on the surface of the glove.
Q. Was Mr. Fung involved at all in those discussions back in October
of '94.
MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Not at all.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LAMBERT: No further questions. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P.
BAKER:
Q. Mr. Fung wasn't involved in that at all?
A. Not regarding that issue, that's correct.
Q. He collected the glove, didn't he?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. You never asked him?
A. No.
Q. Not at all?
A. Not that I remember, that I recall, no. It was -- he wasn't
involved.
Q. I got it. Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: I got it should be stricken.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll agree to that.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Mr. Lambert asked you some questions about the
console and how you'd seen blood missing in some photographs when
you knew it was there, right?
A. I don't think he specifically said console. I think he mentioned
in the case.
Q. You never got in the Bronco, did you, Mr. Matheson?
A. No, I never got --
MR. LAMBERT: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) On September 1st, you got the swatches; you
didn't go look in the Bronco?
MR. LAMBERT: Misstates the evidence. He didn't say anything about
getting swatches.
THE COURT: Lay some foundation.
MR. P. BAKER: You got the stains?
A. Actually, I received in the laboratory, the parts of the car, the
door, the console, the chairs -- seats, and I collected the stains
myself, that's correct.
Q. You never got in the Bronco.
A. That's correct. I've never seen the Bronco.
Q. You didn't get the console until three weeks after this picture
was taken?
MR. P. BAKER: The first page of 1420.
A. Correct. The first time I saw it was September 1.
Q. You have no idea that there was blood on that console on August
10, 1994, right?
A. I do believe that I know there's blood there, I have seen
photographs that show it.
Q. You've seen photographs that show the exact location of where
Item 30 was collected that shows blood on that console on August 10;
is that what you're telling this jury?
A. I've seen --
Q. Answer that question, sir.
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Item 30 -- you've seen a picture where it shows blood on the
console where Item 30 was collected on August 10; is that what
you're telling this jury?
MR. LAMBERT: Misstates the testimony. Item 30 was checked on August
14th.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Where Item 30 was collected. Where Item 303 was
collected. You understand what I'm asking you, don't you, Mr.
Matheson?
A. I'd like you to repeat it so it's clear.
Q. Are you telling this jury that you've seen a photograph that was
taken on August 10, 1994, which shows blood in the console where
Items 30 and 303 were collected; is that what you're telling this
jury, yes or no?
A. Trying to think back on all the pictures we looked at. My memory
at the moment is no.
MR. P. BAKER: I've got nothing further.
MR. LAMBERT: Nothing further. I'd like to move in Exhibits 2374
through 2389, inclusive.
THE COURT: You may step down. *
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2374 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2375 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2376 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2377 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2378 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2379 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2380 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2381 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2382 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2383 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2384 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2385 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2386 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2387 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2388 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2389 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to move in 2390 and 2391.
THE COURT: Okay.
(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2390 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2391 for
identification, was received in evidence.)
MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiffs call Dennis Fung, Your Honor. DENNIS FUNG,
was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was previously
duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You have been sworn previously. Would you please state
your name again for the record, you are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Dennis Fung.
MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR.
LAMBERT:
Q. Mr. Fung, when you were here last week, Mr. Baker showed you
Exhibit 2311, a photograph of the Bundy glove. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. And had you ever seen that photograph before you testified here
last week?
A. I don't recall seeing it, no.
Q. After you collected the evidence in this case and booked it into
evidence, did you have any further involvement with that evidence
after that?
A. Not until the criminal trial.
Q. So you didn't -- you weren't involved in any of the testing, any
of the manipulation or handling of this glove after it was booked?

A. That is correct.
Q. So other than testifying in court, your involvement was done a
couple days after the murders?
MR. BAKER: Argumentative, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) After a couple -- Start with a couple of days
after the murders, when you booked the evidence, two or three days
afterwards?
A. I had no involvement after I booked the glove. I did not analyze
it or anything like that.
Q. Okay. And you certainly hadn't been involved in studying
photographs any time, other than in connection with the criminal
case?
MR. BAKER: That's leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If you'd ask a question as a question, it wouldn't be
leading, would it?
MR. LAMBERT: All right. Let me try it this way.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Were you involved in studying any photographs
other than in connection with testifying at the trial in this case?
A. No.
Q. And other than this -- Strike that. After you testified last week
in this case, have you had an opportunity to look at some other
photographs of that glove taken on the same day?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Including these blown-up photographs that are now 2371 and 2372?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you also had an opportunity to look at the -- the glove
that's here in evidence itself?
A. Yes.
Q. Having done that, do you now believe that those photographs
depict a cut or a tear in the glove?
A. No, I do not.
Q. So are you saying that you were mistaken in your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you believe is on that glove now, Mr. Fung?
A. The white area here appears to be some kind of debris.
Q. And let me show you an exhibit. This is --
THE CLERK: That would be next in order, 2392, marked by reference.
(The instrument herein referred to as a Plastic bag and paper bag
collectively was marked by reference for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2392.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Can you please identify for the jury what this
is.
MR. LAMBERT: I'm sorry. Do you want to take a look?
(Mr. Baker reviewed exhibit.)
MR. BAKER: I want to make sure you guys haven't put the debris in
there.
Q. Would you please identify what this is, Mr. Fung?
A. This is the bag that the glove was originally put into. It has
writing on it by Ms. Mazzola where it says 102, it has my initials,
and the Item No. 37 on it, and my initials.
Q. So is this the bag that the glove at Bundy was placed into when
it was first collected on June 13?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And is this the bag that's been with that glove ever since?
MR. BAKER: There's no foundation for that