PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 18, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1996
8:59 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Where does he reside?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Exactly.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: When they finish their case?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PETROCELLI: When is that going to be?

MR. BAKER: You will know when it occurs.

(Laughter.)

MR. PETROCELLI: How about a little advance notice?

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

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

MR. PETROCELLI: We have no jury.

MR. BAKER: Need some jurors.

MR. LEONARD: Waive jury?

THE COURT: That was the only issue?

MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor.

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

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

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Morning, Officer Gonzalez.

A. Morning, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Morning.

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

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 116.

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

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

A. That is correct.

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

A. Excuse me.

Detectives Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman.

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

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

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

A. That is true, sir.

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

A. Yes, I did.

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

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

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

Q. Where was it parked?

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

Q. Parked here or here?

On the Ashford --

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

(Mr. Baker indicating to Exhibit 116.)

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. Nobody had gone over the wall.

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

A. Oh, absolutely. Yes, sir.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

Q. After Fuhrman would went over the wall --

Did you see Fuhrman go over the wall?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you see him go inside --

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

A. I only recall once.

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

Q. Were there any other --

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

A. No, I did not.

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Take your time.

A. Okay.

(Pause for Mr. Gonzalez to review document.)

A. (Continuing.) Okay.

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

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

What's that number? Do we know?

THE CLERK: Typewritten notes?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

THE CLERK: I believe it's 1810.

THE COURT REPORTER: 1810?

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

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

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

Q. Where are the documents from those formal interviews?

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

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

A. Not to my knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. But you don't --

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

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

Q. You talked with our office about scheduling only?

A. Correct.

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

A. No. I wasn't asked.

Q. No.

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

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

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

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

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

Let me back up.

You want me to answer?

Q. I'd be --

A. Let me answer the question.

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

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

Q. Let me ask you this --

A. Okay.

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

A. Right.

Q. Anything in here untrue?

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

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

A. Okay.

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

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

It's a compound question.

THE COURT: Read it.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

(Pause for Mr. Gonzalez to read document.)

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

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

THE WITNESS: Great.

MR. BAKER: And a pen?

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, sir.

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

THE WITNESS: Okay. I've read it.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That is correct.

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

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right.

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

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right.

Now, let's go down to --

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

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

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

A. That is correct.

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

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

A. (No verbal response.)

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

A. Right.

Q. Your handwritten document.

A. Right.

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

A. Okay.

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

Q. When you hand-wrote the document --

A. Um-hum.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. You mean Garcetti?

Q. That's who I mean.

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. Yes, I was.

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

A. Correct.

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

A. I agree with that.

Q. You included and --

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

MR. P. BAKER: Handwritten?

MR. BAKER: The typed, please.

THE COURT REPORTER: Which exhibit is that?

MR. P. BAKER: It's 1800.

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

Q. (BY MR. BAKER)

(Reading:)

Gonzalez played with the Akita dog while

it was at the northeast corner of

Dorothy and Bundy. The dog had been

tied up at pole at that location.

Gonzalez noticed that the dog's paws

were soaked in possible blood. The dog

did not appear to be bleeding.

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

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

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

Q. Would you --

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

He can certainly ask him questions about it.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

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

MR. BLASIER: It's authenticated.

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

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

THE COURT: Can I see it?

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

THE COURT: I just want to see it.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's in evidence?

MR. FOSTER: Not moved in.

THE COURT: The document been moved in?

MR. FOSTER: Not in evidence.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Just referred to.

MR. GELBLUM: What was the page number?

(Pause for the Court to read document.)

MR. BLASIER: 193.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Received as a business record.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

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

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

That is you, is it not?

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

Q. We're going to.

A. Okay.

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

A. No.

Q. Never said that?

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

Q. Okay.

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

A. I told him that, also.

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

A. No, I did not.

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

That's totally flat wrong?

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

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

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

Q. So that's just wrong?

A. That is.

Q. Correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

Now, you --

MR. BAKER: Put it over to page 2.

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

A. That is true.

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

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

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

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

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

Is that true?

A. That is true.

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

A. That is correct.

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

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

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

Right here, second full paragraph. (Indicating.)

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

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

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

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

A. That is true.

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

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

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

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

Q. And looked like a fingerprint to you?

A. Correct.

MR. BAKER: Put it up.

MR. P. BAKER: 109.

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

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

A. Yes, it did.

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

A. Okay. I'll agree.

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

A. Right.

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. I used --

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

A. Yes, that's what it says.

Q. And, in fact --

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

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.

THE CLERK: 2276.

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

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

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

A. I'm going to approach.

Q. Sure.

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

Q. Okay.

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

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.

CLERK: 2277.

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

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

You want to zoom in on the door?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

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

A. No. Not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. I disagree.

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

A. Absolutely not.

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

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

Q. You're getting offended?

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

Q. You didn't answer my question.

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

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

A. That's true.

MR. BAKER: Show him that picture.

See if you're offended by this.

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

THE COURT: Stricken. Jury to disregard it.

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

(Pause for Mr. Gonzalez to review document.)

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

MR. P. BAKER: Next --

THE COURT REPORTER: Next in order?

MR. P. BAKER: 2278.

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

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

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

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

A. I wouldn't lie in the report.

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

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.

THE CLERK: 2279.

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

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

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

Do you see the evidence van over there?

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

A. Hum --

Q. Does it prove that to you, sir?

A. No, it doesn't.

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

Okay? That's what I saw.

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

A. That's what you say.

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

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

We measured from the curb.

Q. You measured it?

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

MR. BAKER: Show him the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That was one of many issues.

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

Q. Now, in addition, you --

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me --

MR. BAKER: What number is that?

THE CLERK: 2280. Next in order.

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

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

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

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

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

A. No, sir.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. I never said the vehicle was parked illegally.

Q. Just answer the question.

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

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

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

A. Correct.

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

A. True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. That's true, sir.

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

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

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

Q. Yeah.

A. Okay.

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

A. You get promoted for burning each other.

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

A. I answered the question.

Q. Have you been promoted?

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

Q. Thank you.

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

Q. Now --

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

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

A. Okay.

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

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

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

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

Q. That's it?

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

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

A. Correct. Yes, I have.

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

A. That is possible.

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

A. Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: (Complies.)

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

MR. P. BAKER: Of 1800.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. No, I did not.

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

A. Okay.

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

Q. Can you answer my question?

A. I am answering your question.

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

A. No.

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

A. That's not completely true.

MR. MEDVENE: Question argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

A. That's possible.

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

Did you tell him?

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

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

Q. I see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. P. BAKER: 1420.

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

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

A. No, I do not.

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

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

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

A. That is true.

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

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

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

Q. Well --

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

Q. I doubt it.

A. I'd lay some money on that.

Q. How much?

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

A. Sure.

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

A. Plastic, correct.

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

A. Correct, sir.

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

A. Correct.

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

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

Q. Let me show you.

A. Okay.

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

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

A. No, I did not.

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

A. If it makes you feel better about --

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

A. Okay.

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

A. No, I did not.

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

A. True.

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

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

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

A. I did not.

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

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

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

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

Q. Now, I want to --

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

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

A. Okay.

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

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Where were you?

A. I can approach?

Q. Please.

(Witness approaches Exhibit 116.)

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

Q. Okay.

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

Q. Go ahead.

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

Q. Were you on the driveway?

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

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

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

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

A. Thank you.

Q. Thank you.

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Foundational.

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

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

Is there a ruling on the objection?

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

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

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

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

A. I'm sorry.

Q. I want you to answer the question.

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

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

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

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

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

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

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

THE COURT: You may answer that yes or no.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

THE COURT: 10-minute recess.

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

(Recess.)

(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may resume.

MR. MEDVENE: Morning, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Morning.

JURORS: Morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

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

Do you recall that?

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. Yes.

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

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

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

A. True.

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

(Exhibit 170 displayed.)

Q. Can you see the picture from there?

A. Yes, I can.

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

You can walk up to it.

A. Okay.

MR. BAKER: What number is this, Steve?

MR. FOSTER: 170.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

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

A. That would be better, much better.

(Witness reviews photograph.)

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

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

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

A. Yes, I did, sir.

Q. And was it already dawn?

A. Well, let me back up.

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

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

Q. Let's step back a minute.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately what time was that?

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

Q. And it was light?

A. And it was light.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

What number is that, Steve?

MR. FOSTER: 170.

MR. MEDVENE: 170.

(Exhibit 170 displayed.)

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

A. No.

Q. Okay.

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

MR. MEDVENE: You can take it down.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

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

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

THE CLERK: That will be 2281.

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

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

MR. BAKER: A what?

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

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

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

A. Yes, we were on our knees looking.

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

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

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

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: Putting 169 on the board.

(Exhibit 169 displayed.)

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

Q. I wonder if you could approach that.

MR. MEDVENE: Can you zoom in.

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

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

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

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

Q. Okay.

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

A. Correct. 21 and 22.

Q. Okay.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

A. I never moved the dog.

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

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

MR. BAKER: Move to strike, no foundation.

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

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

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

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

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

A. Correct.

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

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

A. I would have used blood.

Q. Okay.

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

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

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

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

You told us yesterday about entering into the Rockingham property?

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

MR. MEDVENE: We're entitled to lead.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

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

A. That's correct.

MR. BAKER: Asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you.

I have nothing further.

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

(Exhibit 170 displayed.)

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

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

A. That's correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Exhibit 169 displayed)

THE COURT REPORTER: That number, please.

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

THE COURT REPORTER: -- I apologize --

MR. BAKER: You got the number?

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

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

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

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

A. That is true.

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

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

Q. Well, you saw it?

A. Thank you.

Q. I use words that -- never mind.

A. All right.

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

A. Correct.

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

A. Okay.

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

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

A. True.

Q. Okay. So you --

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

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

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

A. You're playing with me.

Q. Oh, no.

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

Q. You can argue all you want, sir.

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

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

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

A. I would never lie.

Q. Never?

A. Never.

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

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative, compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

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

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

MR. BAKER: Put that photo up.

(Exhibit 170 displayed.)

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

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

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

A. I don't remember seeing that blood.

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

A. That's not true.

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

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

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

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

Q. Can you answer my question?

A. I'm answering your question.

Q. Then answer it.

You don't remember seeing blood on the console.

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

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

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

A. No.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative.

Mr. Baker knows --

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now --

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

THE COURT: Stricken.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. That is completely false.

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

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

Q. Okay. Now, one other thing.

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

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope.

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

THE COURT: You may.

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

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

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

A. That's true.

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

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

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

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

A. Sure.

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

A. True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I would agree with that.

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

A. I never saw the glove.

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

Q. You know --

A. I'm not making a joke.

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

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

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

THE COURT: That's also stricken.

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: That's what the witness said.

Overruled?

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

Q. Let me just ask you the question:

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

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

Q. Who was it charge of the crime scene?

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

MR. BAKER: Nothing further.

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

THE COURT REPORTER: Which exhibit number?

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

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

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

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

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

A. Yes, he did.

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

A. No.

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

I mean --

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

A. That's true.

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

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

A. No, no.

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

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

Q. Okay.

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

A. Absolutely not.

Q. And any reason to hide it from anybody?

A. Absolutely not.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

Nothing further.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Stupid things -- never mind.

Withdrawn.

THE COURT: Your're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Call Robert Groden.

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

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE BAILIFF: Please be seated.

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

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

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

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

A. Morning.

Q. How are you presently employed?

A. I'm a writer.

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

A. 51.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Which photograph is that?

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

MR. LEONARD: Can we see that?

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Approach the bench.

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

THE COURT: Okay. What's the objection?

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Give me an offer of proof.

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

MR. GELBLUM: Not true.

MR. LEONARD: It is true.

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

THE COURT: Has he qualified as an expert before?

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

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

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

(Pause.)

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

(Jurors exit courtroom.)

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

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

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

Go ahead.

402 HEARING

VOIR DIRE DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

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

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

Q. Now, let's go back.

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

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

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. Around 1969.

Q. What was that employment, sir?

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

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

THE COURT: Alterated?

MR. LEONARD: Yeah.

MR. GELBLUM: Altered.

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

(Laughter.)

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

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

Q. Okay.

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

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

Q. Okay.

And how long did you work in the field?

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

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

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay.

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

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

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

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

Q. How long were you employed there?

A. For a few years.

Q. Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT REPORTER: P-i-n?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. I would dare say possibly every day.

Q. Okay.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Yes.

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

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. That is correct.

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

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

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

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

A. That is correct.

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

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

Q. Okay.

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

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

Q. For a total of how long?

A. For about three years.

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

A. No.

Q. Okay.

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

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

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

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

A. Probably a great many more than two.

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

A. That's correct.

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

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay.

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

A. That's correct.

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

Are you familiar with that?

A. Yes.

THE REPORTER: Could you spell Zapruder, please.

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

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

A. That's correct.

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

A. Yes, I did.

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

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

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

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

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Okay.

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

A. That is correct.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. About 30 years.

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

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Do you have any formal training in photography?

A. No.

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Okay.

And how long did you do that?

A. Maybe 14 years or so.

Q. Okay.

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

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

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

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

Q. Okay.

Now, you're not a professional witness?

A. No.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Approximately 14 years ago.

Q. Okay.

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

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

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

Q. Were you able to?

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

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

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

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

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did they publish the photo anyway?

A. Yes, they did.

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

A. Yes, I was.

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

A. That's correct. They did.

Q. Did you?

A. No.

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

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

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

(Pause.)

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

VOIR DIRE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

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

A. That's correct.

Q. Never taught a course in photography?

A. Never.

Q. Never published anything about photography?

A. Techniques of photography?

Q. Yeah.

A. No.

Q. Or techniques of photographic alteration?

A. No.

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

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

Q. The book's not about photo alteration?

A. No.

Q. You talk about the Oswald backyard photograph?

A. Yes.

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

A. No.

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

A. No.

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

A. No.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

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

A. That's correct, yes.

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

A. Yes.

Q. That was exclusively with motion pictures?

A. The first job, yes.

Q. Yes.

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

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

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

A. No.

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

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

Q. Remember having your deposition taken in this case?

A. Yes.

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

MR. LEONARD: Page and line, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

specific still photograph, maybe you

might want to animate on but you're not.

A. That's correct.

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. That's correct.

Q. That's over 20 years ago?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Let's read it.

Starts with your explaining what you did.

(Reading:)

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

What training did you get there?

Well, they already know that basically --

I'm asking about training?

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

For duplicating slides?

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

Well, what else besides duplicating slides and enlarging?

At that job?

Yes.

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

Do you recall giving that testimony?

A. Sounds familiar.

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

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

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

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

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

A. Approximately.

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

A. I was not on the photographic panel.

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

A. That's correct.

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

A. That's correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay.

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

A. No.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. That's correct.

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

A. That's correct.

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

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

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

A. No.

Q. It's color?

A. Yes.

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

A. I'm sorry?

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

A. That's correct.

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

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

Q. And when was that?

A. In the 1970's.

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

A. That's correct.

Q. -- did you mention that?

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

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

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

A. No.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Previously, it was immediately apparent?

A. It was apparent, yes.

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

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just a couple.

VOIR DIRE REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

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

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

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

There's an endless variety, I would say.

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

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

A. Yes.

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

A. That is correct.

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

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

A. Not to my knowledge.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Did you participate in that exercise?

A. Yes, I did.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

How did you fare in that test, sir?

A. I got 100 percent.

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

A. No.

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

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

MR. LEONARD: Oh, okay.

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

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

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

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

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

A. That is correct.

Q. And explain --

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

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

MR. P. BAKER: It's 1930.

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

(Exhibit 1930 displayed.)

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

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

A. Yes.

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

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

Q. Now, let's just --

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

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

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

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

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

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

This individual has --

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

MR. LEONARD: I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Okay.

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

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

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

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. In many cases the techniques are identical.

Q. In some cases they're not?

A. That is correct.

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

A. That is correct.

Q. All right.

And you worked in that field, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. There are several.

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

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

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

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

Q. Okay.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

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

Let's put it this way --

A. If I can --

Q. Okay.

A. I'm sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

A. That's correct.

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

A. There are several, yes.

Q. Okay.

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

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

Q. Let me stop you there.

What do you mean by registration, sir?

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

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

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And that's a simple concept, right?

A. Extremely.

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

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

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

A. That is correct.

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

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

A. Not the slightest doubt in my mind.

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

VOIR DIRE RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

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

A. No.

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

A. No.

Q. Okay.

What else have you been paid to do?

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

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

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

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. About four or five years ago.

Q. What was that?

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

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

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's all you did?

A. That's all.

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

A. That is correct.

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

A. To the best of my knowledge.

Q. Do you remember any others?

A. No.

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

A. I do that, yes.

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

A. Yeah, that's correct.

Q. And that's it, right?

A. No, I do other things as well.

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

A. I'm sorry?

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

A. Yes.

Q. Remember what you said?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Page and line?

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

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

(Reading:)

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

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

Is that true?

A. That's what I said, yes.

Q. Okay.

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

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

A. I can't say that.

Q. You don't know?

A. I can't say that it wasn't done.

Q. You don't know what technique was used here, right?

A. There's some indications of some techniques being used.

Q. You don't know anything about digitization being used?

A. No.

Q. All right.

And Mr. Leonard keeps saying that you worked in the field of creating
altered photographic images.

When did you do that?

You didn't tell me about that at your deposition.

When did you do that?

A. I don't know that you specifically asked.

Q. I asked you everything that you did.

When did you do that?

A. I did that for all the years that I was involved in motion picture
optical affects and -- and slide work.

Q. Not color stills, right?

A. How do you mean -- I'm sorry?

Q. You say you did at 2 by 2 Slides?

A. Yes.

Q. That was about 20 years ago?

A. Yes.

Q. At your deposition you didn't mention that; you said all you do is
duplicate and enlarge, right?

A. We duplicate slides, but part of the duplication process requires
alteration sometimes.

Q. But you didn't mention that at your deposition, did you?

A. I don't believe you specifically asked me that.

Q. I asked you what you do and you said duplicate, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I don't have anything further.

THE COURT: Okay.

You may argue.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I think that the witness has demonstrated --
look, he's not an academic, not a professional witness, but I believe
the witness has demonstrated that he has sufficient knowledge and
experience in this field, particularly in recognizing a duplicate
altered photographic image, which is what he's doing here, to be able
to testify to this jury.

Mr. Gelblum obviously has the right to cross-examine him on his -- on
the extent of his qualifications, but I would suggest that that goes
to the weight of his testimony as opposed to whether or not he's
actually qualified.

And I think that, again, we have demonstrated by virtue of his
practical experience, by virtue of the experience he's had with the
committee, also on his own -- I mean when I -- I guess what I find a
little disturbing is that this gentleman is -- does -- well, I'm not
trying to predict Your Honor's problem or any kind of a ruling but --

THE COURT: I don't have a problem.

MR. LEONARD: To the extent Your Honor might have a concern that part
of the experience that he has is when he was doing his own research, I
don't know why that shouldn't be taken into account, and so I would
suggest that he has absolute sufficient experience and knowledge in
this field to be able to testify to this jury.

Again, if Mr. Gelblum chooses to cross-examine him on his
qualifications, that would be to the weight.

That's all going to be laid out for the jury.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the man clearly isn't qualified to do this --
to testify on this score.

Under Evidence Code Section 720(a), he has to show if they were
knowledge, skill, training, education or training to qualify him as an
expert.

He admitted he has no education and no training whatsoever in this
field; none.

All he's done 20 years ago -- if you look -- he worked 14 years ago,
worked for the "National Enquirer," saw some haze five years ago,
looked at something for somebody in Korea, saw fog on the picture.
He's never been paid other than those two times to determine
authenticity.

He's never qualified as an expert because he's not an expert.

His work is in the area of the Kennedy assassination. He knows a lot
about the film footage and the photography, the still photos. That
doesn't -- with regard to -- with respect to the Kennedy
assassination, simply that he sits around his house, looks at photos
and determines whether they're fake, and publishes books saying he
thinks they're fake.

That doesn't qualify him as an expert.

What qualifies him is training, education, experience.

And I submit to you that the indicia of experience that's relevant is
somebody else recognizing he's an expert and using him for that.

He just sits around, literally, and decides whether he thinks a
picture is a fake or not, discusses it with other people in the
assassination research community and they have their quarrels, and
publishes whatever he wants to publish. Doesn't make an expert.

It would be misleading to the jury to allow this man with his feeble
qualifications to get up and talk about this picture being a fake.

THE COURT: I see Mr. Petrocelli coiled at your elbow.

MR. GELBLUM: May I have a moment, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Pause for counsel to converse sotto voce.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Submit, Your Honor.

MR. GELBLUM: Submit.

THE COURT: It would appear to me that this witness has done a little
bit more than what you describe.

He's indicated that he's done work in a field that would involve
alterations or work with photographs, negatives. He states he's age
51, he states he commenced working in the field of photography in
1969.

Whether his experience is such, and his testimony is such that his
testimony will be credible or not will certainly be subjected to your
vigorous cross-examination.

But for the purposes of establishing a basis on which to allow a
witness to testify as an expert does not require formal training, does
not require a degree and does not require prior experience as an
expert witness. It simply requires some degree of knowledge or some
degree of training, formal or otherwise, that would enable him to
testify beyond that which would be allowed as a lay witness.

I think it would be fair to characterize this witness as something
more than a lay witness.

So the Court will allow him to offer that evidence.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

Can we start up at 1:30, Your Honor?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GELBLUM: Before we leave --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: The witness apparently has created some additional
material since his deposition that they intend to use. And I don't
think that's appropriate.

MR. LEONARD: It's diagrams.

MR. GELBLUM: It's slides.

MR. LEONARD: Charts.

MR. GELBLUM: They're not charts.

MR. LEONARD: They're diagrams that we were all working with for
purposes of illustration.

MR. GELBLUM: As the man says, he knows how to fake slides.

THE COURT: Excuse me. That's not appropriate.

MR. GELBLUM: Well, Your Honor --.

MR. LEONARD: He's seen it. I've shown it --

MR. GELBLUM: I can't tell from looking at them.

MR. PETROCELLI: I want to remind the Court, they took this position
rigorously with regard to our experts, anything they did after their
deposition, and the Court would not let us use it or rely on it.

MR. LEONARD: These are audio visual aids. There's nothing new
substantively. It's the same photographs.

THE COURT: Are we going to have another 402 motion?

MR. GELBLUM: Can I find out how these slides were created?

THE COURT: Why don't you ask Mr. Leonard whether he can -- he can
inquire of that.

MR. LEONARD: Sure.

MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You want to do it now?

MR. GELBLUM: Thought you were about to leave.

MR. LEONARD: Why doesn't he talk to him at lunch time?

THE COURT: All right, talk to him with Mr. Leonard.

MR. LEONARD: I don't even have to be here.

(At 12 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1996
1:45 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

ROBERT GRODEN, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon
recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified
further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Groden.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. We left off, we had just very briefly touched upon your experience
with photography and particularly, creation of altered photographic
images.

But before we get into a little more detail about your background, I'd
like to show you a photograph and ask you if that's the photograph
that you focused your analysis on.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 1930.

(Exhibit No. 1930 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

A. Yes, it is.

MR. LEONARD: You can take that off.

(Indicating to Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When did you first become involved in any way in
photography, sir?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Around the age of 10 or 12.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And describe that for us, how did you become
involved in photography?

A. I found the process and the concept of photography, the creativity
of it, extremely interesting, the mechanics. I pursued it initially as
a hobby.

Q. Did you, throughout your childhood and teen years and into your
early adulthood, continue to be involved in photography?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe your involvement, at least in general terms, for
us?

A. Taking photographs, black-and-white processing, and printing,
things of that nature.

Q. Now, at some point did you become employed in the photographic
industry?

A. Yes.

Q. And when was that?

A. Around 1969.

Q. And what did you do at -- what was your employment at that time?

A. I was hired and went to work in a photo optics house in New York as
a photo optical technician.

I created film elements through the use of an Oxberry optical printer,
created special effects, inserts, things of that nature.

Q. Okay. Let me stop you right there.

First of all -- by the way, do you have a college degree?

A. No.

Q. Are you a professional witness?

A. No.

Q. Let me stop you right there.

You've used some terminology that I'd like you to explain. You talked
about optical effects and so forth.

Would you, first of all, just explain to us what optical effects are.

A. Optical effects are any one or variety of a number of processes,
whereby one would take an original film and element, and convert it to
another, either positive to negative or negative to positive, doing
dissolves, fades, zooms, inserts of one element into another, adding
titling, things of that nature.

Q. Now, you were involved in that type of work beginning in 1969 in
the motion-picture field; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. After that, did you continue to work to some extent with optical
effects in other areas of photography?

A. Yes. I -- I worked for a slide duplication house, doing special
effects, adding titling, product inserts, things of that nature, in
slide form, which is still form.

Q. Now, the type of special effects that we've been talking about, or
optical effects with regard to both motion-picture film and still
photography.

In their basic elements, they are pretty much the same?

In other words, the mechanisms that are used with regard to the motion
-- motion-picture film and still photography, are they the same in
their basic elements?

A. In most cases, yes.

In the instance where you would be superimposing one image inside the
other, you would use the same technique; except in motion pictures,
you're doing frame after frame, after frame, as opposed to just a
single type.

Q. Why don't, just so it's a little bit clear of the type of thing
you're talking about, why don't you give us an illustration, first of
all, with motion-picture film.

Can you given us an illustration of what you're talking about, the
type of effect?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. There is a vast variety, but as a for-instance, I would say if you
had a TV commercial and you have a background, say a sunset or a -- a
desert or a swimming pool or something of that nature, and you wanted
to insert a product shot, on motion-picture film, you could have it
come in from one side or -- or start very small and get larger. We see
it on TV every day.

It's an involved process. But the main difference between doing it on
film for motion pictures and doing it as a still, is the motion
itself, the movement.

The technique of doing it for a still photograph is basically the
same, but there's no motion involved.

Q. Okay. We're going to -- we're going to get back to some of the
details of these methods that you're talking about. But I want to
continue on a little bit with your background.

Did you continue after your employment in still -- doing duplication
and still photography -- did you continue on doing that type of work
on your own, working for yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Can you describe that, the type of work you did, under what
circumstances, and provide us with some illustration and some of the
clients that you work for?

A. Well, to give an idea, I work -- one of my clients was Glamour
Magazine in New York. If they had four or five individual photographs
of different models wearing a different dress, or something of that
nature, and they wanted to combine them all on a single slide, they'd
send it to me, and I would do an insert effect, whereby I'd photograph
each of the elements separately onto a single piece of film, going
back, repositioning, registering, things of that nature, and creating
a composite, in effect.

Q. So?

A. Another -- another possible thing that we -- say, for a client like
the Quilty Group --

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, can you spell Quilty?

A. Q-u-i-l-t-y.

If they had a client who had a product and they wanted to show the
product against a particular background for a particular mood, a
forest, or a lake, or something of that nature, what we would do is,
we would create a series of mattes.

Well, let me try to explain that.

The final position of where you want your product to be, whether it's
straight up and down or at an angle, probably on one side of the
screen with maybe some text on the other side, but with a specific
background.

In the background, each of these things is called an element. And each
of these elements has to be positioned and dealt with in its own way.

Q. Now, let me stop you right there. I don't want you to get into a
detailed explanation at this point.

But is what you're saying, that you, when you were working in the
motion-picture field, in the still photography field, creating these,
as you say, composite photographs of --

Basically, what you're saying is, you were creating fake photographs,
correct?

In other words, photographs that were -- would appear to be portraying
something, but actually it was not genuine; is that fair to say?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That is correct.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Of course, these were legitimate fakes, right?
These were for purposes of advertising in the --

A. That's correct. No one would look at a final picture like that and
assume there was a can of hair spray lying in the middle of the air.
It's obvious what it is. It's not meant to deceive anybody.

Q. Okay.

Now, during the time that you were doing this type of work, did you
become familiar with the various methods to accomplish these composite
photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And again, we're going to get back into that in some detail today as
we move on.

At some point, did you become involved as a consultant or analyst for
a governmental committee?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And when was that, sir?

A. That began in 1976.

Q. And what was the committee and what was its function?

A. It was the House Committee on Assassinations and U.S. House of
Representatives.

Q. And what was your --

First of all, what was the committee investigating?

A. There they were investigating the assassinations of president John
F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior.

Q. Now, this wasn't the original Warren Commission?

A. No, this was an organization that was created to investigate the
workings of the Warren Commission and their results.

Q. What role did you have with the committee?

What was your function?

A. My title, staff photographic consultant.

Q. And what did you do?

What were -- in general terms, what were you doing for the committee
as a staff photographic consultant?

A. The duties were several. One was to analyze photographs; one was to
identify issues relating to the photographic images in regard to the
assassination of the president; one was as a consultant for the
photographic panel; as a consultant for the medical panel; answering
questions for the congressmen themselves, if they had specific
questions that related to issues of photography, and as to whether
photographs were genuine or not.

I had input with the actual photo panel, itself.

Q. Okay.

How long were you acting as a consultant for the House Select
Committee on Assassinations?

A. Well, the committee's entire life lasted two years, from the
beginning of 1977, to the end of 1978.

I had actually started working with them before their actual, formal
investigation began, by about six months, and stayed with them for
another six months after that. So I was with them for about three
years.

Q. You say "with them." Was this a full-time job?

Were you, for instance, in Washington every day for three years?

A. No. I was an independent consultant. They called me when they
needed me. I would do things by telephone or in person, depending on
what they actually needed.

Q. In the course of your work as a staff photographic consultant to
the House Select Committee on Assassinations, did you have occasion to
review many photographs and motion pictures?

A. Literally thousands.

Q. Okay.

And you were reviewing them, in some cases, to determine what was --
what they depicted, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And in other cases, were you reviewing them to determine their
authenticity?

A. That is correct, as well.

Q. Now, have you maintained an interest in the -- this issue of the
Kennedy assassination?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Have you published any works on that?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the course -- and you continue to maintain an interest in
that until today?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And in the course of your research and your writing on the Kennedy
assassination through the years, have you had an opportunity to review
and examine hundreds and hundreds and thousands of photographs?

A. I would say thousands, yes.

Q. Again, for what purpose were you reviewing the photographs?

A. In some cases, to determine they're relevance and possible
evidentiary value for the investigation itself; in some cases, to
determine whether they're legitimate or forgeries; in other cases,
just simply to determine part of a time line.

There are varied reasons for each individual photograph.

Q. Now, as a result of your experience as you've described it, your
actual work experience and also your work with the committee, and also
the independent work you have done over the years, have you come to be
knowledgeable about the various methods there are to alter
photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you come to be knowledgeable about the indications or signs in
examining the photograph, as to whether or not it has been altered?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you occasionally consult with entities and individuals with
regard to the authe